Learning Communities in Practice (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Learning Communities In Practice EXPLORATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE Volume 4 Series Editors Joe L. Kincheloe, Canada...

Author: Anastasia P. Samaras | Anne R. Freese | Clare Kosnik | Clive Beck

67 downloads 1745 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Learning Communities In Practice

EXPLORATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE Volume 4 Series Editors Joe L. Kincheloe, Canada Research Chair of Critical Pedagogy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Shirley R. Steinberg, Montreal, Canada Editorial Board Barrie Barrell, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada Rochelle Brock, University of Indiana, Gary, USA Stephen Petrina, University of British Columbia, Canada Christine Quail, State University of New York, Oneonta, USA Nelson Rodriguez, College of New Jersey, USA Leila Villaverde, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA John Willinsky, Stanford University, USA

Series Scope

In today’s dominant modes of pedagogy, questions about issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, colonialism, religion, and other social dynamics are rarely asked. Questions about the social spaces where pedagogy takes place - in schools, media, and corporate think tanks - are not raised. And they need to be. The Explorations of Educational Purpose book series can help establish a renewed interest in such questions and their centrality in the larger study of education and the preparation of teachers and other educational professionals. The editors of this series feel that education matters and that the world is in need of a rethinking of education and educational purpose. Coming from a critical pedagogical orientation, Explorations of Educational Purpose aims to have the study of education transcend the trivialization that often degrades it. Rather than be content with the frivolous, scholarly lax forms of teacher education and weak teaching prevailing in the world today, we should work towards education that truly takes the unattained potential of human beings as its starting point. The series will present studies of all dimensions of education and offer alternatives. The ultimate aim of the series is to create new possibilities for people around the world who suffer under the current design of socio-political and educational institutions.

For other titles published in this series, go to http://www.springer.com/series/7472

Anastasia P. Samaras • Anne R. Freese Clare Kosnik • Clive Beck Editors

Learning Communities In Practice

Editors Anastasia P. Samaras George Mason University Fairfax, VA USA

Clare Kosnik Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto, ON Canada

Anne R. Freese University of Hawai’i Honolulu, HI USA

Clive Beck Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto, ON Canada

ISBN: 978-1-4020-8787-5

e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-8788-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008932852 © 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com

To Costa, Gabriella, Lucas, Amelia, Athena, Rohan, and Lucia To Ralph, Jim, Julie, Jason, Amanda, and Alexis To Bertha and Tony To David, Neil, and Trixie

“This is an extraordinary collection of theoretically sound and practical ideas for teachers and teacher educators. The authors present fascinating accounts of down-to-earth practices tested in experience. Priceless!” Nel Noddings Lee Jacks Professor of Education Emerita, Stanford University “This book provides a wealth of information on how learning communities function in practice and, more importantly, how they are sustained over time. The chapter authors document a wide array of international programs located in different institutional settings, including cross-institutional and crossnational programs. I recommend this book for both university-based and school or district-based educators who are serious about improving instruction based on locally available data.” Renée T. Clift Professor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign “As the title announces, this wide-ranging collection of chapters shows learning communities actually at work, as their members– in schools, universities, and professional networks – describe what got them started and what keeps them going, despite the wider educational community’s general lack of support. Common to all chapters is a strong awareness of the benefits of learning communities not only for the teachers and researchers who share, critique and improve their own professional activities, but also for the students they teach; indeed, in several cases, the authors’ classrooms also metamorphosed into powerful communities of student coresearchers. Thus, for those who have been involved in a learning community such as those described here, the answer to the question the editors pose, “Are learning communities essential in education?” the answer is an unequivocal “Yes.” Hopefully, this book will enable others to see why this is so; it will certainly provide guidance for those who decide to embark on the kinds of journey that are so eloquently and persuasively presented in all the different sections of this book.” Gordon Wells Professor of Education University of California, Santa Cruz

vii

Acknowledgments

Our many thanks to Joe L. Kincheloe, Series Editor, for his brilliant conception of the need for this book and his generous invitation to us to serve as editors. His professional leadership and advice, informed by his many years of innovative writing and publishing experience, along with his good sense of humor, are very much appreciated. A book of this magnitude and scope would not be possible without the contributions and support of many individuals working collaboratively. Marianna Pascale, Assistant to Senior Publishing Editor Education, and Harmen van Paradijs, Senior Publishing Editor Education, Springer, have kindly and patiently responded to our many questions as they guided us through the publishing process with excellent efficiency. Our gratitude is extended to each of the book authors for taking the time to write about and share their work so others might benefit from its application in their educational setting. We appreciate their cooperation and professionalism – from their early manuscripts to their final chapters. We would like to also acknowledge the participants in the schools, universities, and professional networks included in these chapters whose dedicated and innovative work in building learning communities made these stories possible.

ix

Contents

Acknowledgments .........................................................................................

ix

An Invitation To Learning Communities In Practice ................................ Anastasia P. Samaras, Anne R. Freese, Clare Kosnik, and Clive Beck

xv

Part I Learning Communities in School Settings Introduction .................................................................................................... Anne R. Freese 1

2

3

4

5

The Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL): 22 Years of Praxis .................................................................................... Ian Mitchell and Judie Mitchell DICEP: Promoting Collaborative Inquiry in Diverse Educational Settings ................................................................................ Barbara Bell-Angus, Greta Davis, Zoe Donoahue, Maria Kowal, and Monica McGlynn-Stewart Pre-Service Teachers and Sixth Graders Explore Social Justice as a Community of Inquiry ....................................................... Monica Taylor and Gennifer Otinsky Lights, Camera, Action! Using Slowmation as a Common Teaching Approach to Promote a School Learning Community .............................................................................................. Garry F. Hoban Growing Our Own: A Learning Community Partnership between a University and a Public Middle School ............................... Cristy Kessler and Caroline S. Wong

3

7

19

31

45

59

xi

xii

Contents

6 A Whole-School Approach to Urban Educational Renewal: Community, Collaboration, and Leadership ...................................... Clive Beck, Clare Kosnik, and Yiola Cleovoulou

73

Part II Learning Communities in University Settings Introduction .................................................................................................... Anastasia P. Samaras 7

8

9

10

Fellow Travelers: New Teachers and Their Graduate School Faculty Take a Journey to the Land of Peer Discussion Groups.................................................................................. Barbara Stern Establishing a Learning Community as a Site to Explore Our Multicultural Selves ....................................................................... Anne R. Freese and Amber P. Strong Dissertation Support Groups: Building a Community of Practice Using Noddings’ Ethic of Care ......................................... Emily J. Klein, Megan Riordan, Amanda Schwartz, and Stacey Sotirhos Collective Creativity: A Learning Community of Self-Study Scholars............................................................................ Anastasia P. Samaras, Mary Adams-Legge, Deanna Breslin, Kavita Mittapalli, Jennifer Magaha O’Looney, and Dawn Renee Wilcox

87

89

103

117

133

Part III Learning Communities in Professional Networks Introduction .................................................................................................... Clare Kosnik and Clive Beck

151

11 A Learning Community for Teacher Induction .................................. Ellen Moir and Susan Hanson

155

12

13

Creating an International Learning Community for Teacher Education Scholars ........................................................... Melissa L. Heston, Deborah L. Tidwell, and Linda M. Fitzgerald Role of Teacher Research Communities and Cross-Culture Collaboration in the Context of Curriculum Reform in China..................................................................................... Gaalen Erickson, Chanyung Kang, Ian Mitchell, and Janette Ryan

165

179

Contents

14

15

16

Creating Stages for Development: A Learning Community with Many Tasks and No Goal ............................................................. Lois Holzman Supervisors of Teacher Interns: Building a Learning Community Through Inquiry-Based Practices................................... Patricia S. Tate, Marian H. Jarrett, Ann C. Lawlor, Lois M. Page, and Anita S. Ramsey

xiii

193

205

Funny, This Does Not Look Like a Community: Working Collaboratively Across Borders and Institutions ............... Clare Kosnik

219

About the Authors..........................................................................................

231

Author Index ..................................................................................................

241

Subject Index ..................................................................................................

245

An Invitation To Learning Communities In Practice Anastasia P. Samaras, Anne R. Freese, Clare Kosnik, and Clive Beck

We invite you to explore the very questions we asked ourselves when we decided to write this book. “Are learning communities essential in education?” “How are learning communities designed and developed?” “What difference do learning communities make in learning?” Most would agree that a learning community of practice cultivates social and intellectual development, but what are the other benefits and what does a learning community actually look like in practice? In this book, we invite you to read the contributions of authors who describe how they designed and implemented learning communities in their professional settings. Although there have been multiple theories generated by educators about the importance of learning communities of practice, there is limited information about the impact they are making in various educational contexts and on national and international levels. More specifically, this book addresses some key questions we have ourselves regarding learning communities: • • • •

How can community support learning? What are attributes of effective learning communities? Must all communities have the same attributes? How does a learning community affect the teachers, students, and/or facilitator and its participants? • What is the place of community in schools, in teacher education, and in academia? • What are the barriers to forming communities? • How are successful learning communities developed and sustained? A range of writers have advocated community. Paley (1992), in her work with young children, stresses the need for structures and practices which make a class an inclusive, supportive community for all. What do those structures and practices look like in school and university settings? In their work in school settings, Meier (1995) and Wasley (1994) argue that we need to create a common school culture with smaller schools so teachers can work together and so teachers and students can get to know each other. How does one build and share a common school culture? Wells (1994, p. ix), in his work in university settings, advocates the creation of communities of inquiry in which “knowledge is co-constructed through action, reflection, and collaborative talk.” In studies of higher education, Lenning and xv

xvi

A.P. Samaras et al.

Ebbers (1999) note that both students and faculty benefit from their work in learning communities. Their research supports the view that learning communities can be effective for impacting students’ academic achievement and satisfaction with college life, improving cooperation and curricular integration among faculty colleagues, and renewing learning and teaching in university settings. And yet, a walk through many school and university hallways will verify that learning communities are still not commonplace in schooling. Graves (1992, p. 60) notes: “When I first sought to introduce the concept [of community], many teachers I worked with considered such efforts a diversion from the real purpose of the school, or assumed that community feelings would develop automatically as students studied together in small groups.” Most recently, a video appeared on youtube depicting complaints of how college students felt anonymous and disconnected to their learning and were not a part of a learning community (Wesch and Students, Kansas State University, 2007). This disparity between theory and practice was the very impetus for writing this book – to share with you the work of practitioners and scholars who have used theories to inform their practice in designing and implementing learning communities and have also generated theories from their practice. The authors openly share the challenges they faced and the lessons they learned along the way, on a conceptual and practical level. The notion of community is a conceptually appealing one because it suggests a comfortable, socially supportive context. Yet community can do much more than create a friendly environment. It can support learning. Community is not simply an add-on. Rather, it can be an integral and powerful force in learning. Educational trends come and go, however, one that continues to be discussed, questioned, supported, and examined is the notion of learning communities. In their book on a social constructivist approach to building learning communities in teacher education, Beck and Kosnik (2006, p. 74) state: “We wish to stress at the outset that, in a social constructivist view, community is not just a frill: it is fundamental to effective learning.” Dewey expressed this belief in the early 1900s when he said, “We never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment” (1916, p. 32); and when he stated “education is essentially a social process. This quality is realized in the degree in which individuals form a community group” (1938, p. 58). Perhaps the question of “What is community?” is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Defining learning communities, especially given the range of educational settings, can be challenging. In examining this complex question about community and learning, we considered the writing of Grossman et al. (2001, p. 942) who argued that “the word community has lost its meaning. From the prevalence of terms such as ‘communities of learners,’ ‘discourse communities,’ and ‘epistemic communities’ to ‘school community,’ ‘teacher community,’ or ‘communities of practice,’ it is clear that community has become an obligatory appendage to every educational innovation.” We believe there is truth to their position: the term is often used as a “buzzword” where, in fact, community may not actually exist. However, educators who strive to form genuine learning communities in their programs do so because they feel the

An Invitation To Learning Communities In Practice

xvii

community will support students’ often-difficult transitions in learning. These educators are not interested in a fad because building community is very labor-intensive requiring a real commitment of time and effort. We also believe that there is much promise for educational reform through incorporating learning with community. Regardless of the setting – in schools, universities, and professional networks – community has a place and is the place where learning occurs. In order to make the broad topic of learning community both accessible and applicable, we have structured the book into three sections: • Learning Communities in School Settings • Learning Communities in University Settings • Learning Communities in Professional Networks Our decades of collaborative scholarship have inspired us to share the work of our colleagues with you. Each of us has taught in various educational contexts and we have had the privilege of working in professional learning communities. During our decades of work, we have thought deeply about the complexity of learning communities. We have worked to co-construct learning communities in teacher education programs and have conducted action research and self-study to assess our impact (Kosnik & Beck, 2006; Freese, 1999; Samaras et al., 2006). We have experienced a learning community first hand as long-time participants in The Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) Special Interest Group (SIG) of the American Education Research Association which you will read about in this book. In earlier work, we wrote: For self-study teacher educators, the self-study of teaching community might be characterized as a communitas or a professional community where there are strong feelings of social togetherness and belongingness, often with rituals of practice. The S-STEP SIG has fostered a sense of intellectual safety in a non-competitive and highly supportive culture; much like what we encourage teachers to do in their classrooms. It is a culture that professes that individuals can make a larger impact on advancing teacher education when they work together in a trusting, supportive, and inclusive environment. (Samaras & Freese, 2006, p. 18)

We have witnessed individuals working valiantly to build community in their specific contexts and now share their stories and insights with you. In the chapters that follow, the authors describe their very innovative approaches for establishing learning communities and provide specific examples of learning communities to show what they may look like in practice. The contributing authors have been instrumental in building a learning community and impacting learning. They share with you the “what,” “how,” and “why” of learning communities. You will find rich descriptions of their learning communities including their goals, design, implementation, and the impact of their efforts. The actual work in building a learning community in practice, and not just of practice, gives them lived experience and knowledge which they willingly share with you. We asked the authors to consider the following questions: • What was your learning community and what did it involve? Can you describe its context, goals, and design?

xviii

A.P. Samaras et al.

• How does your learning community actually work? What is the theory and the practice behind it? • What difference did it make? What has been its impact for students, programs, the university, and/or the community? • Discuss the challenges you faced and your suggestions for implementation. This book, which combines both scholarly research and practical information, will be useful to teachers, student teachers, school and university administrators, and teacher and community educators. Descriptions of how the communities were formed and the benefits of this work will assist others interested in both understanding and developing learning communities in their own settings. We wish you the best in your work in building learning communities and join with you in continuing that collective and very important endeavor of supporting learning through community.

References Beck, C. & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in preservice teacher education: A social constructivist approach. Albany, NY: SUNY. Boyer, E. L. (1987). College. The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row. Costa, A., Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, J. (Eds.). (1992). If minds matter: A forward to the future. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier-Macmillan. Freese, A. R. (1999). The role of reflection on preservice teachers’ development in the context of a professional development school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 895–910. Graves, L. N. (1992). Cooperative learning communities: Context for a new vision of education and society. Journal of Education, 174(2), 57–78. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012. Kosnik, C. & Beck, C. (2006). The impact of a preservice teacher education program on language arts teaching practices: A study of second-year teachers. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal (pp. 243–259). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Lenning, O. T. & Ebbers, L. H. (Eds.). (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and The George Washington University. Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Paley, V. (1992). You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. NY: Peter Lang. Samaras, A. P., DeMulder, E. K., Kayler, M. A., Newton, L., Rigsby, L. C., Weller, K. L., & Wilcox, D. R. (2006). Spheres of learning in teacher collaboration. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. R. Freese, & A. P., Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through selfstudy: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal (pp. 147–163). The Netherlands: Springer.

An Invitation To Learning Communities In Practice

xix

Wasley, P. (1994). Stirring the chalkdust: Tales of teachers changing classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Wells, G. (1994). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto/ Portsmouth, NH: OISE Press/Heinemann. Wesch, M. and Students, Kansas State University. (2007, Spring). A vision of students today. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

Part I

Learning Communities in School Settings

Introduction Anne R. Freese

Wenger (1998) offers the following three important elements of a “community of practice”: “1) mutual engagement, 2) a joint enterprise, and 3) a shared repertoire” (p. 73). Barth (1990) envisioned a school where the teachers talked with one another about their practice, observed one another, engaged in teaching and learning activities, and shared their teaching and instructional strategies with one another in order to become more skillful teachers. Wenger and Barth’s descriptions nicely frame the characteristics of the learning communities included in this section. The six chapters focus on learning communities in elementary and secondary schools in a wide variety of contexts, including schools in Australia, Canada, and the USA. In this section, the authors provide examples that compare and contrast different types of learning communities. They discuss learning communities that have been in existence for a long time, as contrasted with learning communities that are in their early stages of development. In spite of the great diversity of contexts and longevity, there are a number of common themes that are found across the chapters. We see teacher educators sharing their knowledge and skills, working with strong principals and teacher leaders, and developing and implementing learning communities within and across the schools. We see examples of learning communities in which teacher educators and teachers engage in research with a focus on how students are learning and thinking in the classroom. The chapters describe the essential elements that contribute to the various learning communities, such as a shared vision and goals, and a shared commitment to accomplish these goals. The chapters document how the learning communities were formed, how they were designed and implemented, and discuss the impact of the community on student learning. And finally, the chapters provide useful examples and practical suggestions for implementing learning communities in very diverse settings. Chapter 1, by Ian and Judie Mitchell, explains how a learning community that began as a “bottom up” initiative in an Australian high school in 1985 has developed into a network of over 600 teachers from nearly 200 schools. The chapter provides examples of how teachers in this learning community have become “interdependent innovators,” problematizing and reflecting on their practice, sharing concerns and new ideas, as well as successes and failures. The chapter highlights A.P. Samaras et al. (eds.) Learning Communities In Practice, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

3

4

A.R. Freese

the importance of collaborative action research and the importance of establishing a sense of ownership among the teachers. Chapter 2, by Bell-Angus et al., describes the development and growth of a learning community comprised of teacher researchers who collaboratively promote inquiry as a key mode of learning among themselves, and with their students in a variety of educational contexts. The evolution of the group is examined through a self-study in which members discuss how the community has been transformative for both the teachers and their students. In the chapter, the authors include six key goals for establishing and sustaining a learning community of teacher researchers. The authors also share key findings regarding the development, and the challenges and benefits, of sustaining a learning community over an extended period of time. Chapter 3, by Taylor and Otinsky, documents a 6-year professional development partnership between a university and middle school. The authors share how a university professor and social studies teacher worked collaboratively to develop a community of inquiry in which pre-service teachers and sixth graders learned side by side about issues of social justice. The authors include suggestions for educators who hope to develop a community of inquiry involving pre-service teachers and middle school students. They provide insight into the importance of teacher/learner reciprocity whereby the participants share the role of teachers and learners as they negotiate activities and collaboratively engage in their community of inquiry. Chapter 4, by Hoban, describes how a school learning community was initiated and developed when the teachers at an elementary school in Australia were introduced to a novel teaching approach based on digital animation. The author shares how the teachers embarked on a 9-month professional learning program with the goal of interacting as a community and supporting each other in using the innovative teaching approach called “Slowmation.” The conditions for teacher learning and the process and outcomes of forming the community of teacher learners are documented. Chapter 5, by Kessler and Wong, documents the collaboration between a middle school and university and discusses how the partnership supports site-based teacher preparation and quality professional development. The authors discuss the importance of several key elements that contributed to the success of their learning community. The elements include: a shared vision, continuous dialogue between the principal and university professor, a sense of community among faculty, collaborative research, and an emphasis on research-based best practices. Chapter 6, by Beck et al., offers a case study of an educational reform effort that focused on a “whole school approach” in an urban elementary school in Toronto. The chapter provides a snapshot of how a principal and teachers in a multicultural school developed and implemented a shared vision of teaching and learning together to promote success for all. Working closely together, they shared strategies, resources, and engaged in joint teaching and projects. The approach emphasized building a professional community among the staff with a focus on a shared vision for the school and collaboration among the staff as a means of promoting school renewal.

Introduction

5

References Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: University Press.

Chapter 1

The Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL): 22 Years of Praxis Ian Mitchell and Judie Mitchell

Background and Description The learning community that constitutes PEEL was founded at one working-class high school in Melbourne, Australia, in 1985 by a group of teachers and academics who shared concerns about the prevalence of passive, unreflective, dependent student learning, even in apparently successful lessons. The project was not funded or driven by any system or institution-level initiative. In our first book (Baird & Mitchell, 1986, p. 12), we listed four goals for the project: 1. To foster effective, independent learning through training for enhanced metacognition 2. To change teacher attitudes and behaviours to ones that promote such learning 3. To investigate processes of teacher and student change as participants engage in action research 4. To identify factors that influence successful implementation of a programme that aims to improve the quality of students’ learning It was unusual at that time both for teachers to be engaged in research and to be focusing on how students were learning and thinking in the classroom. The ideas for PEEL had come from several sources. Ian’s research in conceptual change in science had strengthened his views on constructivism as an important construct for understanding learning. The concept of metacognition (Flavell, 1976) was becoming more widely recognised as a necessary skill for the learners of the future. Barnes’ (1976) work on student talk and classroom communication, and his frame of transmissive versus interpretive teaching, had also informed Ian’s thinking. Ian then attended a conference session in which John Baird reported on his doctoral research (Baird, 1984, 1986). He argued first that most learners exhibit what he called ‘poor learning tendencies’ that inhibit their learning. The list of teacher concerns in Table 1.1 reflects what Baird has identified as poor learning tendencies. His second argument was that it seemed likely that these could be countered by the I. Mitchell and J. Mitchell Monash University

A.P. Samaras et al. (eds.) Learning Communities In Practice, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

7

8

I. Mitchell, J. Mitchell Table 1.1 A list of teacher concerns 1. Students rarely contribute ideas 2. Students do not think about the meaning of what they read or hear 3. Students do not link different lessons 4. Students do not think about why or how they are doing a task 5. Teachers find negotiations difficult 6. Students keep making the same mistakes 7. Students do not read instructions carefully 8. Students do not learn from mistakes in assessment tasks 9. Students will not take responsibility for their learning 10. Students dive into tasks without planning 11. Students have no strategies when stuck 12. Students do not link school work with outside life 13. Students have difficulty dealing with mixed ability classes 14. Students do not believe that their own beliefs are relevant 15. Students are reluctant to take risks in creative tasks 16. Students are reluctant to edit or check their work

learners becoming more metacognitive. John’s poor learning tendencies collectively describe different aspects of unreflective, dependent learning. He regarded these as habits, developed during a student’s school experience. John believed that, because these habits had been learned, they could be unlearned – students could learn how to learn better. In his doctoral work, he had tested this belief in a project where he worked with only one teacher for one year and he wanted to continue with a bigger group of teachers for two years. Ian realised that John’s ideas were an interesting extension of his work, volunteered to ask a group of teachers at his school to work with the two of them, and PEEL was born. Although the project came primarily from Baird’s research, it was established as a collaborative action research project where ownership of all aspects, including research design, was shared by all participants. The teachers were entirely in charge of what they did in their classrooms. In his initial presentation to teachers, Ian made no effort to argue that they should be concerned about passive, dependent learning. Rather he designed what he said to reach teachers who already held concerns such as those in Table 1.1. This has remained a recurring theme as PEEL has spread. During the first two years, the teachers and academics met on a weekly basis, in their own time (but during the school day), to share and analyse experiences, ideas and new practices. The project also obtained a little funding that allowed a few fullday meetings. These meetings were crucial to the initial survival of the project. Ian and John both understood that for the project to work the teachers would need to take ownership and that this would need a supportive and safe environment in which to share. Although the teachers accepted that they would be in charge of their teaching interventions, they did ask for an initial suggestion from John. This reflective journal task failed badly, but the trusting environment meant that the group was able to focus on what were critical insights into student change that were revealed by these failures (Baird & Mitchell, 1986). This learning meant that our initial failures were able to be turned into a positive; moreover, it encouraged the teachers

1 The Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL)

9

to take the initiative in designing new teaching approaches and to set off on their own journey. (We have since learned a great deal about how to use reflective journals more successfully.) After three months of painful failure, the teachers started to report successes and they became what Baird termed ‘interdependent innovators,’ problematising and reflecting on their practice, sharing concerns, creating new teaching ideas, and sharing failures and successes. The academic collaborators maintained a role of providing minimal, just-in-time input which the teachers were free to accept or reject. More importantly the academics mirrored back to the teachers what they were doing, affirming, prodding, and promoting reflection about progress in terms of the original goals. The initial PEEL community began in one working-class high school and was intended to run for two years at only this school. However, the teachers found the process of collaborative action research so rewarding and the outcomes so beneficial for both them and their students that they refused to let the project end after the two years. A year later it began to spread to other schools (both secondary and primary) in Australia and then to other countries. This spread occurred because teachers in those schools had similar concerns about learning, and realised the potential of collaborative reflection. We responded by building a network and structures for communication between different school groups: a newsletter (now a teacher journal PEEL SEEDS), an annual conference, collective meetings, short courses about different aspects of the project, and a database, currently containing over 1,400 articles by teachers (Mitchell, 2007; Mitchell et al., 2007). This means that we established a second, cross-school community with many teachers, some who have moved into other educational settings, having been members for over 10 years. The PEEL process has resonated in many countries – Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and, most recently, China and there are links between teachers in those countries.

Why Was It Important To Have a Community? One initial reason flowed from a desire to have students experience more than one of their teachers promoting metacognition. Other reasons related to the teachers’ needs. One was stimulation. In 1985, there was little knowledge amongst teachers of what constituted quality learning. Most teachers had never heard the word metacognition. Because this focus was so new, it was important to have a group who could navigate the journey together. John Baird had tried working with one teacher in one school and found that little progress was made in terms of student learning. Teachers had no opportunity to discuss their ideas or share their practice. It was important to John and Ian that the research involve teachers of different age groups and subject areas who could bounce ideas off each other. A second reason was support. Changing practice is hard work and the teachers needed the support of the group. This proved so effective that, after what had been ten weeks of failure, when Ian (privately) asked each teacher whether they were thinking of quitting, all said no. They were frustrated with the failure but they loved

10

I. Mitchell, J. Mitchell

the stimulation of the meetings and the sharing. It was the first time any of the teachers had ever sat down and talked about their classroom teaching in the light of ideas of learning. As teachers began to share successes, a different, important form of support flowed from the affirmation that they received from others who were to take up this idea themselves. Finally the depth and breadth of the insights that emerged, as well as the richness of the new practical wisdom, were immeasurably enhanced by having a collective mind and multiple classrooms to extend and refine ideas.

What Difference Did the Learning Community Make to the Participants? The PEEL teachers set out to make students more metacognitive. What we did not realise was the extent to which this would make the teachers more metacognitive about their teaching and their own learning. They became empowered as they began to see ways of intervening in their practice to address the poor learning tendencies. These were an initially powerful frame because they broke up the nebulous and somewhat daunting concept of ‘learning’ into bits that could be tackled in the classroom. The academics listened to the teachers. This should not be underestimated as it was the first time the teachers had ever felt that academics wanted to listen to them! Their practice was affirmed, their ideas valued, and they grew to feel much more like professionals who were in charge of their practice. One marker of impact is that over 600 teachers from nearly 200 schools have chosen to take the time to write an article describing changes to their practice for PEEL SEEDS. The students became co-researchers, in that the teachers began to talk to them about learning, share their (teacher) purposes, listen to their ideas, and eventually share intellectual control. Their learning and ideas were affirmed and placed at the centre of the classroom agenda. We include here two classroom vignettes to build meaning for the sorts of changes that occurred over time. The first comes from the first edition of PEEL SEEDS and captures a teacher and his students early in the process of change. In the past I would have conducted this class by first showing a series of slides with different types of coastlines. During the slides I would have given the students information about the different types of coastlines. For this lesson however I stood aside a little and simply wrote the heading ‘Coastlines’ on the board. I then asked students to describe different coastlines and put their ideas on the board. The students’ early response was fairly typical; ‘What do you want us to say, sir?’ After fifteen minutes waiting and thinking time however, I filled the board with their responses. When this was finished, I showed the slides and was pleased with the lively discussion during and after. In fact I was thrilled when, at the end of the lesson, I was talking to the class about estuaries and fjords and the students, not me, had taken the class there. The lesson ended where I would normally want but not necessarily be. (Rod Greer)

The teacher here took a considerable risk. He did not know if his students would have anything to say, what they might say, and whether or not he could make


11

use of what they said. The students also were taking risks in offering ideas with little idea of what the teacher wanted or would do with what they said. This vignette is typical of thousands that have been reported verbally and in print as PEEL has encouraged teachers to step out of their comfort zone. What is crucial is how this is discussed in PEEL meetings and how the teacher builds on this in what has turned out to be a multi-year journey of change. The second vignette was written (10 years later) by Ian after visiting the class of Jill Flack, a teacher with many years of experience in PEEL. The class was a grade 2/3 (composite classes are common on Victorian elementary schools). It reflects the effect on the teacher with several years of involvement in PEEL as well as a huge impact on students. I have just had my understandings shifted in terms of the level of metacognitive awareness and control that young students can display. Jill began by commenting – once – that the theme for the morning was ‘What’s important’ and that they would discuss this before they went out to lunch. She then described a sequence of teaching procedures based around a story, ‘The Tortoises’ Picnic’; as tortoises are slow this picnic went on for a very long time, and one task was to turn the story into a timeline. The students were given all the directions for the morning’s work, Jill made no further procedural comment and the students had to decide when it was appropriate to move to the next task. Part of this decision included, as I found out later, reflecting on what was important in each task in terms of the overall goals of the day. After they started working, I sat down with one girl and asked her what she was doing: ‘A semantic map,’ she replied. ‘Why are you doing this,’ I asked. ‘Well, a semantic map helps me bring up what I already know about tortoises [in this case], I learn better when I can make connections to what I already know,’ she replied. There had been no conversation between Jill and her students on this in the lesson. The girl was drawing on her understandings of the learning purposes of semantic maps. Ten minutes before lunch, Jill brought the students together on the mat, asked them to recall the morning’s theme, and then called for any comment on it – a very open question! One girl put up her hand: ‘Well I think that when we were turning the story into a timeline, what was important was to get the things that happened sorted out on the timeline. I don’t think it was important to carefully colour in the pictures we drew on the timeline and I think that some of us spent too long on this.’ I found both the fact that Jill could envisage asking Grade 2/3 students to engage in this kind of thinking, and the extent to which they could, to be revelatory. It shows how much we underestimate what students are capable of if the teacher has the confidence to persist with a coherent strategy for enhancing metacognition. (Ian Mitchell)

Findings from the Research and Practice The Value of Academic/Teacher Interactions The project brought together academics, teachers and students in an ongoing learning collaboration. Teachers and academics have traditionally been seen to have different kinds of knowledge and skills and often teachers are suspicious of academics. In this project, the academics regarded the teachers as the driving force of the

12


research. They regarded themselves as having an open-ended role, responsive to the teachers’ needs. The kinds of knowledge the academics brought, richly complemented the teachers’ knowledge and vice versa. One important role of the academics was to keep the group in touch with the goals. John would regularly ask the teachers to explore how what they were doing was linked with the goals of metacognition and quality learning. Another role of the academics, as mentioned, was to mirror back their practice to the teachers. Much of teacher knowledge is tacit – it becomes part of the routine of teaching and important insights get buried. With skillful probing the academics could elicit ideas the teachers did not initially present, helping them to clarify, articulate, and codify their knowledge. Teachers normally do not have the luxury of the time to reflect in this way, but over time they became skilled at this form of thinking and the academic role here lessened. As the project extended over many years, a new role for academics was to help identify new challenges that stimulated further teacher innovation.

The Value of Teacher/Teacher Interactions Collaborative action research helped the group develop synergy. They became innovators who fed off each other’s ideas and built up creative practice. PEEL began as a cross-faculty community, with teachers of five different subjects in the initial group. This meant that teachers could not share ideas in any subject or topicspecific way. We had to learn to identify the generic features of any particular activity and this led to the development of the construct of ‘generic teaching procedures.’ We did not anticipate the extent to which the teachers would transfer ideas from one subject context to another. The framing of teaching ideas in terms of teaching procedures and the development of new procedures has been an important aspect of the internal literature of the project. A major outcome of the project has been a pool of over 200 generic teaching procedures (Mitchell, 2007); some, such as concept maps, were not original to PEEL, but the majority were.

Understandings of Student Change Initially we imagined that helping students to become metacognitive would simply be a matter of changing their behaviours, according to the poor learning tendencies. What we did not expect was that students would have definite and strong attitudes towards what constitutes learning in school, and equally strong conceptions about learning in general. Their ideas about learning were not what we wanted them to be. We’re doing too much thinking and not enough learning. All this thinking is interfering with my learning. (Mitchell, 1997)

They were suspicious of discussion. They believed learning meant writing or copying notes, and they did not believe they could learn from each other. This last con-


13

cern led us to realise that we needed to develop a classroom climate in which the students trusted each other and the teacher. Among many other lessons relating to student change, we have realised the importance of a language for learning. Teachers need to articulate their own understandings of learning and talk with students about how and why they are learning. This means a shared vocabulary in which terms like ‘making a link’ and ‘what’s important’ are part of everyday classroom interactions with shared meanings. Students have repeatedly shown us that they can take ownership of their own learning, if only we let them. We gradually started to relinquish control, first by encouraging them to ask questions. Once we had their questions, they set the agenda. We had to allow them to pursue their own pathways. This is not to say that we sat back and reverted to the inquiry-based model of the 1970s. This was inquiry with a purpose, understanding of the big ideas, and lots of teacher participation. After this success, we moved on to find many other ways of allowing students to share control. Offering more choice and promoting a wider range of student decisions were just two ways.

Understandings of Teacher Change The original PEEL teachers and academics completely underestimated the extent to which the teachers would need to change their practice. As already discussed, the poor learning tendencies offered the teachers a way of tackling issues of learning they could easily recognise. They could devise or find teaching procedures to help students. During the first year of PEEL, the teachers took the poor learning tendencies list and turned it into a list of good learning behaviours, such as: plans a general strategy before starting; offers or seeks links between different activities and ideas; suggests new activities and alternative procedures; and offers ideas, new insights and alternative explanations. This gave another menu of options for tackling the big idea of quality learning. These lists gave teachers choices about how and when they could make changes to their practice, and gave them ownership over the extent and rate to which they wanted to change. One teacher could begin with quite small changes involving, for example, having students write questions, while another might instigate a major change in how they negotiated a unit of work with students, allowing them to share intellectual control.

Discussion and Suggestions What Is Different About PEEL? PEEL’s unexpected longevity has enabled us to learn a great deal about what works and what does not work in terms of a teacher community. PEEL began as a group of volunteer teachers and academics with a focus on learning. This was

14


radically different in 1985. It was more usual for teacher professional development to focus on teaching. Indeed, little about learning that was of practical use to teachers was known at that time. With hindsight, this focus on how students are learning has turned out to allow for a so far indefinite development of the project as each new finding or idea raises stimulating new challenges for teachers. Promoting ‘good’ questions, for example, raises issues of what is a good question, and when and why. This leads to issues of how to broaden students’ conceptions in this area and how to weave these questions into the coverage of the curriculum. The project began as, and remains, a ‘bottom up’ initiative. There was no direction from any system-level initiative. This enabled the teachers to feel true ownership and hence a greater sense of professionalism. Later, many came to see themselves as valued change agents. The involvement of the academics made the teachers feel special. While the academics brought different sorts of wisdom to the research, the ways in which they did this depended on what the teachers wanted – there was no sense of the teachers ‘doing a course.’ This resulted in a partnership that was seen as more equal than was common at the time. In recent years, systems in Australia have begun to focus much more on how students learn, and current government agendas in our state map quite closely onto the original goals of PEEL. This convergence of (some) goals caused Ian to review everything written about PEEL with the aim of generating a list of features that distinguished it from other worthy initiatives with similar goals. The resultant list, shared at a keynote address at the 2007 PEEL conference, summarises much of what has gone before as well as articulating how PEEL has developed from the early, much less-informed explorations. You are using a PEEL approach if you are, or are moving towards: 1. Having a strategic, long-term learning agenda focusing on multiple aspects of quality learning and metacognition 2. Making consistent, persistent and purposeful use of teaching procedures, appropriate teaching behaviours, and the principles of teaching for quality learning 3. Trusting students and sharing responsibilities and intellectual control with students 4. Problematising and purposefully interrogating and developing your practice; becoming more metacognitive about your teaching and developing new dimensions of sense-making 5. Being supportive of, and are supported by, others in a process of collaborative action research A school is adopting a PEEL approach if it: 6. Positions teachers as generators of new knowledge and in control of their professional learning and development The longevity of the project can be attributed to the new challenges that continue to arise as teachers identify new challenges and trial new and exciting agendas. There is no end for PEEL teachers – the journey is the destination.


15

Challenges 1. One challenge, common in many education systems, is what Australians call the ‘tall poppy syndrome.’ Tall poppies are those in the workplace who dare to try to be different (and so run the danger of being ‘lopped off’). The workplace in schools is characterised by egalitarianism and teachers are reluctant to promote themselves as being in some ways better (even if it is just better than they were). Some PEEL groups have experienced resentment – especially if members are seen to be getting ‘special treatment.’ The most successful way to deal with this phenomenon has been for the teachers, and especially the group’s convener(s), to be totally transparent and informative by publishing and sharing the group’s work. 2. Another problem is that, after several years, a PEEL group might consist of teachers with several years’ experience, who have changed their practice in sometimes radical ways, as well as teachers who are new to the project and just starting to trial new ideas. This latter group is obviously much more tentative, and often experience failures; moreover, the issues that are exciting challenges to them may be established practice for others. It is important that the ‘experienced’ PEEL members not dominate the meetings with success stories; but it is equally important that the meetings deal with challenges that cover the full range of interests in the group. The role of the convener is crucial in making sure all members who wish to contribute are able to do so, as well as being especially sensitive to the ‘shy’ members who might be reluctant to interrupt more confident speakers. We have found that such members often come in clutching student work or other papers, and this is a sign that they need to be drawn in! 3. PEEL teachers have always been volunteers. When it was odd to be focusing on learning, this was easy to do. Over recent years in Victoria, many schools have required teachers to work in teams, sometimes called professional learning teams. Some schools have made these teams compulsory, and tied participation to the performance and development reviews that each teacher must undertake. Weaving PEEL into this structure is not simple; PEEL always has been voluntary because it is impossible to force teachers to admit to concerns about their practice or their students’ learning. If they are not prepared to do this, then they are not going to ever benefit from a teacher group like a PEEL group. Principals in the past have been known to refer struggling (or simply underperforming) teachers to PEEL groups and the result has always been disastrous.

Lessons Learned 1. As various curriculum reforms have come and gone over the 22 years, we have learned to ‘go with the flow.’ We focus on what matters, which is the core business of helping students understand their learning and improve it. The lat-

16


est reform in Victoria has some important elements that align perfectly with what PEEL represents, such as incorporating thinking processes, including metacognition much more explicitly into the subject disciplines. PEEL has been doing this for 22 years, so we have a lot to offer. There are other parts of the reform that are less interesting to us. One outcome that we did not expect is that PEEL builds teachers’ confidence in what they are doing and makes them much less anxious about meeting the minutiae of system curriculum statements. The core business will remain the same, no matter what systems choose to place on top of it. 2. We have learned the value of teachers writing and sharing. Both the process and the product are valuable; the act of sitting down to write a short vignette of what worked in their class and why is a valuable reflection that often brings out hitherto tacit wisdom. The publication of the writing provides valuable affirmation all too rare in teaching. There is a different aspect to the value of sharing these contextually rich stories. Teachers write about 100 articles a year for our journal PEEL SEEDS and every year these articles are transferred to our electronic database. After 22 years, in hundreds of different classrooms, this database, which can be interrogated by any combination of over 300 search fields, contains an immense body of teaching knowledge. However, there is another benefit of pooling so many contextually specific stories: an examination of these reveals recurring and generalisable themes that can be used both to make sense of classroom events and to provide new challenges and directions for innovation. 3. One feature of this knowledge is an increased understanding of student and teacher change, together with an appreciation of the complex, multifaceted, interconnected nature of teaching. PEEL has deliberately not developed a fixed programme – ‘x steps to promoting quality learning.’ There are two reasons for this. First, we do not believe there could ever be anything resembling a single programme that could be applicable in all subjects, topics, and year levels with all students. The second is that advice such as, for example, how to teach Food and Nutrition in Year 9 would be disempowering for teachers and contrary to all of the process aspects of how PEEL operates. To illustrate how ideas are transmitted, we present below a generic description of one of the 215 procedures on the current edition of the PEEL database. Teaching procedures provide teachers with concrete tools for improving learning. Importantly, the descriptions of these procedures are not presented as ‘black line masters’ that can be copied and used intact. Rather they require teachers to develop their own specific applications. This is a very empowering process. B51 Taking notes from a jumbled summary This procedure requires students to actively follow and then reconstruct the points made in a discussion or a brainstorming activity. Like B4 (Summarising a discussion with diagrams), it is a way of drawing together and keeping a record of the thinking that went on 1 The labels B5 and B4 refer to the (eight) groups that we use to cluster the many teaching procedures, both the articles referred to are in Group B: procedures for retrieving, restructuring and extending students’ ideas.


17

in a vigorous discussion or brainstorm without the teacher just putting up a set of notes that she or he has constructed. It shows the students that their ideas were important and useful. As the discussion proceeds, the teacher (or a student) records the points made on the board. However, these are deliberately placed in a random arrangement. At the end of the discussion, the students have to construct a logically ordered set of notes from this jumbled summary of brief points. This procedure is particularly useful when a teacher wants to introduce a topic where she or he knows that the students already possesses a lot of relevant knowledge and experience. The procedure was invented by Sue Cannard, a Commerce teacher discussing the structure of Australian Government. Here there was a discussion about different levels of government and their roles, and she put appropriate words and phrases all over the board as records of what had been raised. Rosemary Dusting, teaching year 7 maths (Taking Notes From a Jumbled Summary in Year 7 Maths), began a unit on Measurement with a brainstorm of all the words the students could think of that related in any way to measurement. The students, while sorting them, came up with three groups: (1) things we measure (e.g., distance, time); (2) things we use to take measurements (e.g., rulers, clocks); and (3) units of measurement. Rosemary has since reported (see Why PEEL) an apparently opposite variation of this, but one that still leaves the intellectual activity in the minds of the students. In this variation, the students brainstorm words relevant to a new topic and the teacher records them on the board, but does group them; however she does not tell the students what her groupings are – the students have to work this out and insert appropriate sub-headings.

4. Teaching procedures can be described as tactical in that most take less than one lesson to implement. PEEL teachers, over time, weave more of these into their classroom practice in ways that are not random selections of another new idea, but are informed by considerations of promoting different aspects of learning. These are what we would call long-term strategies. After 13 years of PEEL, we were able to codify (Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997) 12 strategic features (see Table 1.2) of what the teachers report as successful in promoting quality learning. These statements are the sorts of generalisations that emerge as teachers make sense of a pile of superficially disparate experiences. Each of these principles can be enacted in many ways, but we describe them as strategic in that all of them can be applied in all subjects at all year levels at all (at least most) times. Both Rod Greer and Jill Flack were enacting principles 1 and 6, but in very different ways. 5. The sharing of this communally developed wisdom and knowledge, via faceto-face meetings and sessions as well as the internal literature of the project, has been crucial to PEEL sustaining growth over such a long period of time. A challenge for us was to work out how to represent and then re-present this knowledge to other teachers. What we have attempted is to share wisdom about how to improve learning in ways that, as far as possible, replicate the way ideas bounce around in PEEL groups, becoming richer in the process. As stated above, this means sharing ideas in ways that require users to (at least on most occasions) design original applications to their own practice and encourage extension and development. It has also meant keeping the teacher’s voice and providing a mix of a rich range of possible classroom tactics that are cohered by some general strategic principles that allow teachers to identify big picture issues.

18


Table 1.2 Principles of teaching for quality learning 1. Share intellectual control with students 2. Create occasions when students can work out part (or all) of the content or instructions 3. Provide opportunities for choice and independent decision-making 4. Provide a diverse range of ways of experiencing success 5. Promote talk that is exploratory, tentative, and hypothetical 6. Encourage students to learn from other students’ questions and comments 7. Build a classroom environment that supports risk-taking 8. Use a wide variety of intellectually challenging teaching procedures 9. Use teaching procedures that are designed to promote specific aspects of quality learning 10. Develop students’ awareness of the big picture: how the various activities fit together and link to the big ideas 11. Regularly raise students’ awareness of the nature of different aspects of quality learning 12. Promote assessment as part of the learning process

6. Perhaps the most important lesson we have learned is not to underestimate what both students and teachers are capable of when provided with sustained support and stimulation for developing their learning and their independence.

References Baird, J. R. (1984). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, Melbourne. Baird, J. R. (1986). Improved learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263–282. Baird, J. R. & Mitchell, I. J. (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning. Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Flavell, J. H. (ed.) (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving: The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mitchell, I. J. (1997). Theory into practice: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. In J. R. Baird & I. J. Mitchell (Eds.), Improving the quality of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing. Mitchell, I. J. (ed.) (2007). Teaching for effective learning: The complete book of PEEL teaching procedures (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing. Mitchell, I. J. & Mitchell, J. A. (eds.) (1997). Stories of reflective teaching: A book of PEEL cases. Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing. Mitchell, I. J., Mitchell, J. A., et al. (2007). PEEL in practice: 1400 ideas for quality teaching (8th ed.). Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing.

Chapter 3

Pre-Service Teachers and Sixth Graders Explore Social Justice as a Community of Inquiry Monica Taylor and Gennifer Otinsky

Description of Our Learning Community We are educators working in two different learning contexts: a university and middle school. Our chapter describes how we worked together to bring those two learning communities together. We share our efforts in developing a community of inquiry which explored issues of social justice. Monica is a teacher educator at a large public university in New Jersey. Gennifer is a sixth grade language arts/social studies teacher at a suburban middle school. Through our work in schools we have observed that, like many pre-service teachers across the country, our pre-service teachers have little first-hand knowledge and experience with issues of social justice and social justice teaching. Similarly, we have observed that middle schoolers do not view the world through a critical lens. In this chapter, we discuss the ways in which we developed a community of inquiry made up of pre-service teachers and sixth graders. Our goal for the community of inquiry was to provide a scaffolded social justice exploration for our students. This chapter explains the background and structure of our community of inquiry. Additionally we share the insights of our pre-service teachers from learning alongside middle schoolers, as well as our own reflections about establishing a community of inquiry. Over the last six years, we have grown to know one another while our schools have established a professional development school (PDS) partnership. During the summer of our first year as a PDS, we participated in a two week Summer Leadership Associates program sponsored by the university’s agenda for Education in a Democracy, where we grappled with issues of democracy together. Engaging in difficult discussions around issues of social justice was scary, challenging, and at times gut-wrenching, and often having one another to talk to and reflect with made all of the difference. We realized how powerful our own small community

M. Taylor Montclair State University G. Otinsky Grover Cleveland Middle


31

32

M. Taylor, G. Otinsky

of inquiry of two was and we wondered how we could replicate this type of experience for our students. Building upon the tenets that have developed organically through the PDS partnership (NCATE, 2001) for the past six years, we have offered a series of pre-service teaching courses on-site at the middle school. The community built in these courses exemplifies three traits of a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998, p. 73): “1) mutual engagement, 2) a joint enterprise, and 3) a shared repertoire.” The courses are designed to provide pre-service teachers the opportunity to learn from and alongside middle schoolers. Since our pre-service teachers, as well as sixth graders, are primarily white and from suburban communities, they have little to no experience with people who are different from them and take their positions of privilege for granted. They are unaccustomed to examining their world critically and view racism as isolated incidents rather than institutionalized or societal norms. We feel it is important that they develop a “social justice lens” because they have had mixed experiences with social justice and constructivist teaching in school, and view these paradigms as a significant leap of faith.

Rationale Community of Practice Working in a PDS provides a tangible learning community for pre-service teachers. A PDS is defined as “a learning-centered community that supports the integrated learning and development of P-12 students, candidates, and PDS partners through inquiry-based practice” (NCATE, 2001, p. 11). These partnerships, often striving to be a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998), encourage site-based learning that centers on extensive observation, small group tutorials, and student teaching (Sutherland et al., 2005). They do not necessarily disrupt the pre-service teachers’ traditional notions of teaching, learning, and curriculum or help pre-service teachers understand the potential of constructivist principles of teaching and learning. In order to do this, they must first participate in a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998) in which they share reciprocal authority with students (Taylor & Coia, 2006) and view themselves as facilitators rather than depositors of knowledge. Although our teacher education program emphasizes constructivist principles, the pre-service teachers have a difficult time incorporating these principles into practice. This challenge is augmented by their experiences both within their individualized content areas as well as in field experiences. Too often, feeling isolated and pressured, they fall back into the direct instruction model with which they feel comfortable. They are unsure of the ways to diverge from transmission teaching, and with little power and community, are fearful of veering from the norm. We understand how high the stakes are, but we strive to use

3 Pre-Service Teachers and Sixth Graders Explore Social Justice

33

practices that open up conversations about social justice and encourage support through a learning community. Our community of inquiry develops “knowledge of practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) for our pre-service teachers. “The knowledge,” as Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999, p. 274) write, “teachers need to teach well emanates from systematic inquiries about teaching, learners and learning, curriculum, schools, and schooling. This knowledge is constructed collectively within local and broader communities.” We believe that participation in our social justice community of inquiry guides preservice teachers to think about their knowledge of practice – the connections between the theories of learning, curriculum, and social justice teaching that they have studied in their teacher education courses, and the application of these theories into practice.

Social Justice Teaching For the purposes of our community of inquiry, social justice teaching involves critical, pro-justice, and democratic instruction (Lee et al., 1998). In a social justice classroom, “inquiry is not simply finding right answers to old and familiar questions,” but also entails interrogating the questions and resources investigated (Boran & Comber, 2001, pp. vii–ix). In our social justice classrooms, students ask the following essential questions: “Who makes decisions and who is left out? Who benefits and who suffers? Why is a given practice fair or unfair? What are its origins? What alternatives can we imagine? What is required to create change?” (Bigelow et al., 2001). We strive to uncover the ways in which some people are privileged and have access to wealth and power and others live as objects of discrimination and injustice. Inquiry promotes social justice because it “begins with voice, inviting all learners to name their world. It ends in reflexivity and action, inviting all learners to interrogate the very constructs they are using to make sense of their world” (Harste, 2001, p. 15).

Defining a Community of Inquiry Pre-service teachers and middle school students become inquirers when they are invited to authentically investigate questions or problems that arise during their interactions in the world. Our inquiry operates from the understanding that knowledge is dynamic, ever-changing, and multiple, and is not static, does not reside in textbooks or with experts, and cannot be simply transmitted to students. We do not encourage our students to simply accept information as truth or make unsubstantiated claims. We ask our students to question, investigate, and justify. Our students become researchers who are immersed in a topic, “wondering and wandering” (Short et al., 1996, p. 265), designing and redesigning a question, and then

34


articulating “understandings” (p. 260). Questions are defined and explored in an environment of uncertainty, and they are invited to resist their human desire to confirm knowledge. Rather they look for shades of grey instead of viewing the world in black and white. We believe that our inquirers cannot be engaged in inquiry alone. Inquiry is a relational process: it relies on the give and take of questions, ideas, perspectives, and even explanations to draw conclusions about the world and raise new questions and ideas. So inquiry flourishes when the student/teacher relationship reflects the authority and expertise of both parties. Inquiry requires a dialogical community of students and teachers where ideas are shared, discussed, examined, and reformulated (Stock, 1995), and where learners construct new understandings and questions of the world. In our community of inquiry, both students and teachers share reciprocal authority and alternate roles as knowers and learners, depending upon the question, the expertise, the prior knowledge, and the mode of exploration (Taylor & Coia, 2006). Ultimately, “knowledge building takes place between people doing things together, and at least part of this doing involves dialogue” (Wells, 2001, p. 186). Below we discuss the mechanics of our social justice community of inquiry.

Our Social Justice Community of Inquiry The social justice community of inquiry takes place each day over the course of a three week intensive teaching and learning class for the pre-service teachers. This course involves the final preparation before student teaching. Their student teaching experience, which lasts 14 weeks, follows this three-week inquiry and is accompanied by a biweekly evening seminar. During the course, Monica encourages the pre-service teachers to move from theory into practice, building their knowledge of practice. They write lesson plans, plan ways to differentiate instruction, discuss classroom management and assessment strategies, develop a philosophy statement, and attempt to prepare for their student teaching experience. They are required to maintain a reflective journal throughout the inquiry experience, and as a final reflection they write a teaching for social justice philosophy statement. Several of the readings address issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and teaching for social justice. Monica and the pre-service teachers meet for two hours of the course and then work with the sixth graders for an hour. This course setup fosters knowledge of practice, giving them the opportunity to discuss strategies or concepts and then try them out alongside sixth graders. The community of inquiry is developed around the sixth graders’ social studies theme of civil rights. At the beginning of the community of inquiry, groups are formed with two pre-service teachers and four sixth graders. The community of inquiry incorporates a variety of strategies including brainstorming; poetry writing; reader response to texts, films, and visual images; role-playing; and


35

inquiry projects. Specifically it covers the following topics: building community; identity sharing; explorations of race, class, and gender; examination of stereotypes in the media; introduction and discussion of the term social justice; models of young social justice activists; and social justice inquiry projects. After introducing the inquiry cycle and some large group brainstorming of possible social justice questions, individual groups develop a shared open-ended authentic question. Narrowing a group question involves negotiation and collaborative decision-making within the community of inquiry. Then, in the media center, students plan their methodology and carry out their research. They must use at least one periodical, book, Internet site, and interview for their investigation, and synthesize different perspectives and draw conclusions. After searching the literature, they create a poster board that presents their findings visually. The board shows the original open-ended question, their methodology and bibliographic information, their results and findings, a social action plan (something that they can do themselves to raise awareness or make change) and finally, any new questions that they have. The inquiry topics are very diverse. One sixth grader’s uncle ran for a seat in the US Senate and lost to a millionaire, who prompted her group to ask the question: If a person cannot run for office because he/she does not have money, then is it a democratic society? Another group, comprised of five females and only one male, asked the question: Why hasn’t a woman ever been elected president in the USA? Other groups wondered about the following: How does Title IX affect sports? Are athletes more important than teachers? How can we protect ourselves from stereotypes often portrayed by the media? Why are there more African-Americans than whites in jail? Why is there world hunger? Why do some school districts have more money to spend on education than others? The students share their findings along with their proposed action plans. For example, one team organized student-run after school events designed to raise awareness about homelessness, racism, or bullying. Another distributed collection boxes to raise money for the Sudan, and still another wrote letters to local papers to express their concerns. Their work often leads them to new questions and actions.

Who Are Our Pre-service Teachers and Sixth Graders? Our pre-service teachers are enrolled in either the undergraduate teacher education program or the Master’s of teaching program at our suburban state university. Each spring semester we usually have between 25 and 30 pre-service teachers. The data for this particular study primarily involve the pre-service teachers who were enrolled in the spring of 2004 and 2005. In that cohort, 95% of the pre-service teachers were white, 5% were African-American and Latino. Two thirds of the preservice teachers were female. Economically their backgrounds ranged from lower, middle to upper incomes and for many, they were the first in their families to be

36


college educated. They were working to complete their teaching certifications in K-12 settings in a specific content area, e.g., English, social studies, sciences, mathematics, art, music, foreign language, physical education, or speech. Our sixth graders attend a small public middle school in a suburban community. Ninety-five percent of the students are white and come from middle- to upperincome families. Five percent of the students are Asian, African-American, and Latino. The classes are evenly divided in terms of gender. Approximately 15% of the students are classified with recommended modifications in an Individualized Educational Plan. Each semester we work with two sections of Genn’s social studies class. Each section has approximately 25 students.

Methods Throughout these projects, we collected multiple and various forms of data to understand the impact of participating in the social justice community of inquiry. (1) We gathered and photocopied reflections that were written after each session from all student participants. (2) We conducted a series of three 45-minute open-ended interviews (Seidman, 1991) with a small representational group of students. (3) We digitally videotaped and photographed the students during the inquiry cycle, while they presented their findings, and also after their presentations. (4) We photocopied the pre-service teachers’ philosophical statements on social justice teaching. (5) The pre-service teachers also discussed their reflections on Blackboard, the university’s digital discussion community. (6) Additionally, we recorded our own observations and reflections as field notes. Interviews were tape-recorded and then transcribed. Our data analysis was recursive and generative. We attempted to analyze data as they were collected as well as after. We met once a week to discuss the progress of the project and to read and reflect about the data. Using constant-comparative methods, we continually looked for emerging themes, categories, or patterns that spanned across the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We attempted to triangulate data (Gordon, 1980) by seeking themes that were represented in multiple forms of data. We share what we discovered in the following section.

Impact We Are Doing What with the Sixth Graders? The pre-service teachers enter into this community of inquiry with great apprehension. They display disbelief at the sixth graders being interested and motivated to think about social justice issues. They state: “We are doing what with the sixth graders? A social justice project? Why would we ever do that? What do they know


37

or care about stereotypes and social justice? Why should they know about these things? They are so young and immature.” They believe that sixth graders cannot think critically because of their age and lack of maturity. We wonder how there can be such a great disconnect between our courses and the pre-service teachers’ responses. We worry about how they will teach for social justice in their own classrooms. At what age or level will they deem their students old enough to critically examine texts or the world? Interestingly, this disbelief quickly vanishes once they begin working with the sixth graders. As Anna illustrates, the pre-service teachers begin to value the critical potential of children almost immediately. She writes: “I learned that we don’t give enough credit to students. Kids are never given a chance because they are seen as too young to learn about things like this.”

Sixth Graders Can Wrap Their Brains Around Complex Issues It is relatively easy for us to emphasize the potential of students as learners and thinkers, but it is much more powerful to provide pre-service teachers with opportunities to experience the seriousness of a sixth grade discussion or critique of a text through a community of inquiry. We believe that these principles of believing in your learners and understanding that they come to the classroom with prior knowledge and critical dispositions to examine texts and the world are essential. The theme of surprise and amazement at the level of sixth grade engagement pervaded the pre-service teachers’ reflections. Claudia admits that she did not know what to expect when she first heard about the community of inquiry: “Initially I underestimated the abilities of the students. I didn’t realize how knowledgeable, sensitive and perceptive they were to understanding social justice issues.” As the experience progressed, Marcie writes: “They continue to amaze me with their ability to wrap their brains around these complex issues.” Robert echoes: “So far I’ve been impressed and fascinated with how insightful the kids are. Their awareness of issues like stereotyping and identity is amazing.” After the inquiry presentations, Janice writes: “I was very surprised that they had so many questions for the groups and that their minds work much more critically than I expected.” Engaging in a social justice community of inquiry clearly helps the pre-service teachers think about their students differently. They realize that their students are equipped to discuss difficult and complex issues of social justice. They begin to recognize the legitimacy of a curriculum that moves beyond factual recall.

Ownership Opens Possibilities Through the community of inquiry, the pre-service teachers have hands-on experiences that strengthen their understanding of the need for learners to have ownership

38


of the learning process. Susan demonstrates this trust: “Students will come up with a lot of ideas on their own. You don’t always have to push them towards a certain conclusion.” Julie writes: “This is a very important project to do because by these students discovering the information for themselves, they can see the proper information from some of the misconceptions that they have.” The pre-service teachers realize that the students become mutually engaged and committed to the joint enterprise of the community (Wenger, 1998) through their participation. Melanie reflects: “I learned that when students take ownership of what they learn, they will get more out of it.” Felicia also addresses the issue of ownership: “Students can direct their own learning. They took charge of what they wanted to do and how they wanted to go about it.” Wenger (1998, p. 77) explains that the enterprise that keeps a community of practice together “is defined by the participants in the very process of pursuing it. It is their negotiated response to their situation and thus belongs to them in a profound sense.” The pre-service teachers move from teacher as provider of information to the role of “facilitator and coach,” where they have to “step back” and let the students come to know. This is another example of the development of knowledge of practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Teacher/Learner Reciprocity We model our community of inquiry blending Freire’s (1994) notion that “[t]he teacher is no longer merely the one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach” (p. 67) with the characteristics of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Sharing the roles of teachers and learners and negotiating purposes and means seems natural to the pre-service teachers as they learn collaboratively with the sixth graders. Jack discusses his surprise at learning research strategies from the sixth graders: “It was interesting seeing how students half my age do things. They were so savvy about the Internet. It showed me that my process is also a little one-sided and that I need to re-evaluate my research methods.” “Working with the students reinforced the idea that our students will teach us as much as we teach them,” reiterates Debbie. Laura concludes: “The children really teach you to see things from a different perspective.” Debbie continues: “Working alongside the students was a great experience because they helped me to think about the inquiry process and question things that I would never have thought of.” Luisa concludes, in her philosophy statement: “Contrary to traditional methods of education where the teacher provides the information and asks students to ‘get it,’ when students construct their own meaning based on what they may already know, they have potential to move beyond the conventional student role and become a teacher.” As they shift their perceptions of learners, the pre-service teachers begin to rethink the ways in which they will approach curriculum. As they move to value


39

their learners in the teaching equation, they realize that curriculum is not fixed but rather evolves with the students. Lesley notes: “I will use my curriculum as a guide but it can and will be changed if I see that something else has intrigued my students but doesn’t follow exactly what I had planned. Textbooks should be a resource not a lesson plan or guideline.” The pre-service teachers demonstrate a move from understanding curriculum theory to envisioning curriculum through theory (CochranSmith & Lytle, 1999). Pre-service teachers also discuss the importance of teaching and learning in collaboration with other adults. John writes: “Besides learning from and about the kids and their thoughts and ideas, I also learned from my colleagues. For example, I thought it was quite insightful of Dave to realize early on we had to narrow our question’s focus.” Katie echoes: “Working with university students was interesting because it was nice to bounce ideas off of other soon to be teachers.” Recognizing their value, we hope that our pre-service teachers will attempt to develop communities of practice of their own in the future.

Social Justice Teaching: “Truth Tellers and Change Makers” Our pre-service teachers demonstrate that social justice teaching involves two interrelated dimensions: providing content knowledge that represents multiple perspectives through the filtering of curriculum and materials, and developing critical lenses through their content areas that expand students as thinkers and moral citizens. Dana believes that social justice teaching “includes helping students learn how to recognize injustices within society, not just those on the surface; how to think critically about how those injustices affect the subordinate groups, themselves, and society as a whole, and finally how to find their voice as part of society to help them become ‘truth tellers and change makers.’” Sam, a future social studies teacher, begins to think about valuing alternative historical perspectives. He gives the example of World War II and the Japanese American perspective: “Japanese Americans were put in prison camps because of the war with Japan. For Japanese Americans this may be the biggest event of the war. It is important to look at social studies from a variety of perspectives so that all people’s pasts are included as part of the vital issues of history.” Justin realizes that his students may have little exposure to oppressed people. He reflects: “It is important for students to understand social justice through the eyes of people who may not be represented in their student population. A different way to introduce students to other cultures is learning about the struggles that other groups of people had to face in order to obtain better equality.” Lily believes that studying art naturally lends itself to talking back to texts. Thinking about art as literacy, she reflects: “By decoding messages in our visual surroundings my students gain an understanding of contexts such as institutionalized, interpersonal, and internalized racism and sexism. This practice of visual literacy will enable my students to ‘talk back’ to their surroundings by critiquing and

40


evaluating visual messages that constantly bombard them.” She hopes that in recognizing these messages, her students will be able to resist maintaining the status quo and perpetuating stereotypes. Jennifer, a future art teacher, moves beyond the curricular content and reflects on her moral responsibility to promote informed and engaged citizens. She hopes to push students to “value more than just the familiar.” She does not want to change their opinions, rather she hopes that they will come to know on their own. This idea of opening up spaces for her students to discover for themselves their moral voices is a more complicated teaching objective, but one that clearly values the authority of the learner. She eloquently explains: I believe that we are not just teaching our students facts and how to combine them but how to live. We live in a country where our laws are written so that we have the ability to change if it is needed and we need to teach our students to take advantage of this. If students are confident and capable of inquiry they will keep exploring the world around them. I see a student who comes to my classroom with negative stereotypes imprinted in their thinking as a challenge but not bad or someone I try to keep quiet. Allowing students to have their opinions but insisting they know why they think the way they do forces them to look beyond the “it’s right because my Dad said so” or “my friends said.”

Nurturing Activists Inquiry connects learners to the pressing problems of the world and leads to action both inside and outside of the classroom. In a community of inquiry we acknowledge that action is a fundamental part of thinking and learning, or as Dewey (1997, pp. 156–157) argues: “The material of thinking is not thoughts, but actions, facts, events, and the relations of things.” This expanded notion of learning is inherently democratic and reflects the principles of a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998) in that it values the unique and infinite actions and experiences of all learners. Both Sam and Justin conclude that raising awareness about injustice is just the first step of a social justice community of inquiry. Students need avenues by which to take action once they understand about injustices, otherwise they become hopeless. Sam reflects: “We did not only raise a question, we were also required to create an action plan. This is important in regards to social justice because not only are we drawing on the past but we are creating ways to change injustices in the future.” We agree that action is a vital part of a social justice community of inquiry because participation in a “community of practice” is active and as Wenger (1998, pp. 56–57) writes: “Participation in social communities shapes our experience, and it also shapes those communities; the transformational potential goes both ways.” Diana, as she thinks about her future language arts classroom, identifies promoting social justice as a way to unearth “truths about the world.” She feels responsible to investigate the issue of power with her students and help them to devise ways to become agents of change. She hopes her students “ask questions about decision making and the repercussions of negative choices, fairness, and most importantly power dynamics.” She continues: “I want to make them understand how and why some dif-


41

ferences will ‘translate into wealth and power and others will be a source of discrimination and injustice.’ By creating situations where students can think critically about ways to apply the tools to real life, there is still a chance that students will try to make change beyond the classroom.” In a community of inquiry, the participants develop a shared repertoire of tools and discourses that help them to critique and analyze the world.

Discussion Our Views on a Social Justice Community of Inquiry A community of inquiry is a risky and uncomfortable endeavor, for there is no predicting what twists and turns the process takes, nor can we be sure of the final product. Each time we invite learners into a community of inquiry, the ingredients of the process emerge with the investigation and more importantly the investigators. Allowing for the unpredictable in our communities of inquiry is a drastic change from the traditional ways that we view teaching and learning, but it is inherently democratic. Teachers do not construct democratic classrooms using a transmission model of teaching. If they hope to promote democratic principles then they know that inviting their learners to take ownership of their learning will promote a more in-depth and critical understanding of the world. Coming to understand the worth of an inquiry community does not occur overnight, nor is it easy. It is a process – in which we take one big leap and several small steps. It involves a type of letting go – letting go of the reigns of control. It involves trusting the students as learners and the learning process. It also involves providing structure to help students when they struggle or need some redirection.

Community of Inquiry Leads to Finding One’s Agency As our program continues to adjust to meet the pre-service teachers’ needs, we believe that our community of inquiry helps them to reexamine issues of power, develop a social justice disposition, raise their consciousness, and consider their roles as moral change agents. We believe that this is just the first step. We realize from our seminar discussions, as we send our pre-service teachers out to student teaching and later teaching, that there are many obstacles that can obstruct their actualization of these teaching principles.

Challenges Alan, a technology pre-service teacher, is unsure what social justice means to his teaching. By the end of his community of inquiry experiences, he begins to embrace constructivist and social justice understandings of teaching and learning but is

42


frustrated when he realizes that his cooperating teacher does not have the same beliefs. He recognizes the political implications of his new framework: Now that I have started student teaching, I am not sure how to teach for social justice. The sixth graders were given projects that stimulated research, critical thinking, and fostered a sense of inquiry. The students that I am working with are asked to sit quietly, take notes, do well on assignments and not cause disruptions.

Alan’s experience represents the voices of many pre-service teachers. Felicia expresses concern about finding a job in a school where she can really “carry out” her social justice beliefs. She wonders if her constructivist practices will be appreciated in all schools. These reflections raise serious questions as we continue to examine what preparing social justice teachers involves. We believe that transparency is essential in terms of our own pedagogical decisions and political advocacy in the field of education. Throughout the community of inquiry experience, we must articulate why we have made the choice to foster a learning community that allows pre-service teachers and students to learn from one another. We must also model the ways in which we navigate bureaucracy, teaching our pre-service teachers both the appropriate language and strategies necessary to work within larger communities of practice. How do we currently do this? We strive to demonstrate the means to publicize our social justice inquiry work. We present our projects to the local school boards, we meet with parents within the school, and we contact local newspaper journalists to write articles about our social justice inquiry projects (Moore, 2005). We attend multiple local and national professional conferences and we attempt to publish about our inquiries in professional journals. We also share with our preservice teachers our own instances of struggle within the university and middle school settings so that they are aware of the methods that we use to make change. We highlight the positive implications of our own membership in multiple diverse learning communities and the ways in which these social networks support our struggles and achievements. We strive to help our pre-service teachers recognize the value of participation in a community of inquiry. We hope that they will, in the future, seek out other like-minded teachers to form their own “communities of practice.” We know that this may be difficult to fathom for new teachers under pressure to conform to the system or to gain tenure, but we believe it adds a dimension of hope for their future potential as change agents. This is an aspect of teacher education that we specifically need to further develop. How can we strengthen our pre-service teachers’ sense of advocacy once they are student teaching and teaching? How can we equip them to develop supportive inquiry communities of their own?

Suggestions The following are suggestions that we offer to educators who hope to develop a community of inquiry that involves pre-service teachers and middle school students:

3 Pre-Service Teachers and Sixth Graders Explore Social Justice ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

43

The relationship between the teacher and university professor must be authentic and built on trust. It is difficult to team teach and negotiate individual roles with a stranger. Building a community of inquiry takes planning time and an element of risk-taking. Inviting students to become inquirers involves letting go of the control of the curriculum and sharing authority with students. The teacher and the university professor will not know all of the answers. Communities of inquiry emerge organically. The inquiry questions emerge authentically. The students need to understand that there will never be a right or wrong answer. They must begin to feel comfortable with the ambiguity. A social justice learning community necessitates safe spaces where inquirers can honestly grapple with difficult topics and tensions can arise. Being transparent about the work of the community of inquiry within the school, at the university, among parents, and in the community is essential in order to receive support.

References Bigelow, B., Harvey, B., Karp, S., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice Volume Two. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Boran, S. & Comber, B. (2001). Introduction: The inquirers and their questions. In S. Boran & B. Comber (Eds.), Critiquing whole language and classroom inquiry (pp. vii–xvii). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249–306). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. S. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Gordon, R. L. (1980). Interviewing: Strategies, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Harste, J. (2001). What education is and isn’t. In S. Boran & B. Comber (Eds.), Critiquing whole language and classroom inquiry (pp. 1–17). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Lee, E., Menkart, D., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (1998). Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist, multicultural education and staff development. Washington DC: Network of Educators on the Americas. Moore, E. (2005, February 17). Sixth graders target social injustice: College students work with Caldwell middle schoolers. Star Ledger, p. E1. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001). Standards for professional development schools (Washington, NCATE). Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers’ College Press. Short, K. G., Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. (Eds.). (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

44


Stock, P. L. (1995). The dialogic curriculum: Teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sutherland, L. M., Scanlon, L. A., & Sperring, A. (2005). New directions in preparing professionals: Examining issues in engaging students in communities of practice through a schooluniversity partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 79–92. Taylor, M. & Coia, L. (2006). Revisiting feminist authority through a co/autoethnographic lens. In D. Tidwell & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study research and issues of diversity (pp. 51–70). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Wells, G. (2001). Action, talk, & text: Learning and teaching through inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 2

DICEP: Promoting Collaborative Inquiry in Diverse Educational Settings Barbara Bell-Angus, Greta Davis, Zoe Donoahue, Maria Kowal, and Monica McGlynn-Stewart

Description of the Learning Community Context for the Learning Community The Developing Inquiring Communities in Education Project (DICEP) was formed in 1991 under the leadership of Professor Gordon Wells, who at that time taught at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. Since then the group has undergone substantial change in its organization and membership. What began as a university–school-based partnership to explore learning through talk in the science classrooms of three elementary school teachers has evolved into a self-directed, collaborative group of six teacher-researchers committed to promoting inquiry as a key mode of learning and teaching at all levels in education. Our group is comprised of elementary, high school, and post-secondary teachers who believe in a common theoretical framework. Currently, our members are teachers of grade three, grade seven French Immersion, undergraduate Early Childhood Education, and pre-service teacher education courses. One member provides professional development opportunities for kindergarten to grade six teachers at the Board level and another is a psycho-educational consultant. We are interested in understanding, in both practice and theory, how to create and sustain communities of inquiry in which all concerned learn with, and from, each other about matters of

B. Bell-Angus and Z. Donoahue Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto G. Davis Durham District School Board M. Kowal Toronto District School Board M. McGlynn-Stewart Ryerson University


19

20

B. Bell-Angus et al.

individual and social significance through talk and the generative process of knowledge building. Our group meets on a monthly basis throughout the school year. At our meetings we present and discuss our current inquiries and talk about issues in education. We also collaborate on conference presentations and publications and co-write grant proposals. We hope that by documenting our journey as a group we can contribute to the growing knowledge about learning communities and, in the process, encourage and support others’ work in this area.

Goals of Our Learning Community The goal of our learning community is to provide a safe, supportive and intellectually stimulating place where group members can get feedback about, and ideas for, the inquiries they conduct in their particular settings. Our group is collaborative in nature, and we bring a focus on making meaning through talk to our meetings, as well as to our work with our students. A number of common beliefs have emerged as we have conducted our inquiries. Our ongoing study of theory and current research enables us to function as a cohesive group in spite of our diverse working environments. These beliefs influence how we organize our learning environments, conduct our research, and function as a learning community. Even though our individual research projects are all self-selected and might be very diverse, (e.g., science instruction, kindergarten play, reading growth, teacher professional development), our shared beliefs provide an anchor for our work and enable us to discuss our research with a common language. These beliefs, or theoretical underpinnings, were not simply adapted to our practice but discovered collectively and individually over the course of many inquiries and our work together. Following are the six shared beliefs that underpin our research work. The importance of collaborative knowledge building. Collaboration features strongly in our classrooms and is central to our professional learning community. In our learning environments students and teachers are encouraged to share ideas and to construct their own understanding of particular concepts or topics. In our monthly DICEP meetings, we share our work in progress as we listen to, and question each other. Everyone feels responsible for the success of the group. When one person is presenting his/her current work at a meeting, everyone is truly engaged in thinking about that person’s question. There have been many instances when one of us has come to a meeting thinking that we are not far enough in our current work to share with the group, only to leave with more questions and ideas for new directions, or just a sense that our thoughts and findings, no matter how preliminary, were interesting to someone else. Our group has managed to build a community in which each member’s knowledge and contribution is valued and where informal teacher leaders are not only accepted but encouraged. The importance of having an improvable object. During each inquiry our focus is on improving something about our teaching practice or our students’ learning.

2 DICEP: Promoting Collaborative Inquiry

21

We call this an improvable object. In our classrooms this improvable object might consist of constructing a vehicle powered by an elastic band, using the metaphor of connoisseurship to help our students understand themselves as readers, or investigating the elements that lead to successful classroom discussions. In our professional learning community our improvable object is our teaching practice. Whereas some learning communities are formed with the intention of looking at new ways to apply policy initiatives, our focus is determined by some element of our practice that is currently unsettling in some way. There have been years when several of us have had the same interest that has arisen from our practice, and this has become a focus for the whole group. For example, one year, students in group members’ grade two, grade five and high school classes all asked their teacher if he/she would put in place an incentive programme to reward good behaviour. We were intrigued that students in different schools and at different grade levels would have all made this request at about the same time, and this led us to a year-long focus where the improvable object was students’ motivation. At other times, one of us has brought a new research focus to a meeting, and others have then chosen to explore a similar focus in their settings. The latter is how we came to be interested in involving our students in our inquiries as co-researchers, a focus that spanned a couple of school years. Some years, group members’ topics have been quite varied but might relate to an area we have inquired about in previous years, thus allowing all of us to contribute our knowledge and experience to each other’s current work. This occurred one year when a member was interested in examining the interaction between oral discourse style and competence, and group dynamics in her high school Special Education class, a topic that one of us had pursued years before when she inquired into how to give grade four students greater agency during discussions about books read aloud to the class. In these cases the improvable object was the students’ oral discourse. Whether our inquiries have an individual or group focus, the importance of having an improvable object is central to our individual research in our diverse settings for the duration of the research cycle. The importance of talk as a tool for meaning-making/learning. Purposeful talk is actively promoted in all our classrooms as a means of supporting collaborative knowledge building. Opportunities are provided for students to share, listen to, and question ideas. This classroom talk is also an important form of data in our research. We are interested in hearing learning in action and in including our students’ voices in our research. How to create opportunities for collaborative talk in our classrooms has been an important part of our research agenda and of our monthly meetings. Transcripts of student talk have provided the opportunity for us to slow down and to analyze the learning taking place in our classrooms. This rich data is also a tremendous resource that stimulates discussion, prompts us to ask new questions, and most importantly, impacts future instructional decisions and new cycles of research. Similarly, talk is the tool for the construction of knowledge in our monthly meetings. As we listen to a member share his/her research, we ask questions, make suggestions, and reflect on the data presented. In doing so, each of us is making meaning for ourselves as well as contributing to a collective understanding. In our

22


group, we have recorded, transcribed, and analyzed our own talk as we periodically “check in” to see if our learning community is meeting our needs and operating in a way that is consistent with our beliefs. The importance of teaching within the student’s zone of proximal development. Since new learning is constructed on the foundation of current knowledge, our role as educators is to ensure that we are teaching students within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1980). In designing learning activities, we use oral discourse and written assignments as vehicles for determining the level of background knowledge of our individual students and then use that information to inform our instruction. Our role is to scaffold (Wood et al., 1976) our students so that they are able to perform at a higher level than they would be able to perform independently. Initially we may not see the evidence ourselves, but we gain new perspectives at our monthly meetings when we share and/or analyze transcripts or written responses from our students. In our research we frequently make use of questionnaires and reflection sheets to find out about the learners’ perspective of being in our classrooms and then use that information to inform our future practice. For example, one year we were interested in how our students’ perceptions of learning activities matched our goals for them. In order to find out, we would stop students when they were in the middle of an activity and ask them to quickly fill out a sheet that might contain questions such as: “What are you doing right now?”, “What are you learning?”, and “Why do you think your teacher is having you do this?” The information that we gathered from these quick reflections provided excellent feedback for us. It also helped us to plan future activities that provided a better match between our goals and students’ understanding of our goals, and allowed us to better teach our students in their zone of proximal development. The learning/teaching process is of a dialogic nature. Knowledge building and the deep understanding associated with it are best promoted when the teacher acknowledges that a successful classroom is an open community of learners, in which all individuals, students and the teacher, learn from each other. The teacher has an authoritative role to play, but how one enacts this role is influenced by one’s understanding of one’s students, their prior knowledge of the object of study, interests, and learning characteristics. One’s teaching is responsive to the needs and actions of one’s students, whose learning is in turn influenced by these decisions. Our members bring a diversity of knowledge and experience to our group, and this is one of our strengths. We use this diversity to enrich our collaborative understanding of teaching and learning, just as we use our students’ diversity to enrich learning and teaching in the classroom. The importance of providing links with the classroom and the wider world. In organizing our classrooms we provide many opportunities for students to be involved in activities that reflect real-life experiences in various curriculum areas. In science, students are encouraged to develop hypotheses and test them; in geography, students conduct field studies and analyze their findings; in literacy, students are engaged in real conversations about books and they critically analyze their own


23

craft as writers. In this way, higher-level thinking skills are promoted, content relevance is better appreciated and students become more engaged in their learning. For our group, it is important that we stay connected to the wider world of teacher research and teacher education. We achieve this through publishing, presenting at conferences, and having members who are teacher educators.

Theories That Have Impacted Upon the Design and Implementation of Our Learning Community Many of the initial members of DICEP were graduate students who had taken courses with Gordon Wells and were engaged in classroom inquiry and action research. As a result of our coursework, many of us had read and discussed social constructivist theory and were exploring these principles in our classrooms prior to joining DICEP. Many of the shared beliefs or goals previously mentioned are grounded in the social constructivist framework that unites our group and is central to our work together (Vygotsky, 1980). The constant interplay between sociocultural theory and classroom practice has helped us to ground what we do each day in a consistent theory. So many of our questions over the years have arisen when something has not, in our opinion, been going well. Maintaining the link between theory and practice, and meeting regularly with critical friends who evaluate everything against this theory, has ensured that the courses of action that arise from our inquiries are in keeping with our core beliefs about how people learn best.

Rationale The Importance of a Community for This Work While teaching is an incredibly rewarding profession it can, at times, be exhausting and somewhat isolating. Being a part of DICEP provides the opportunity to talk with individuals who share common beliefs about learning in an inclusive, supportive, and equitable setting. Members bring questions, share classroom data, listen to others talk about their inquiries, and provide feedback. This process supports each of us in the next steps of our own classroom research, and enables us to see the commonalities among our work. As a result, we leave meetings feeling enthused and excited about our classroom inquiries and connected to others in the research community. An opportunity to discuss one’s classroom practice is not always available or welcomed in our work settings. Many school settings establish professional learning communities in response to board-initiated foci, or foci selected by school administrators. There is often little room in these communities to discuss issues that are specific to individual classrooms or to individual’s current questions. The

24


DICEP community provides a forum for discussion of individual concerns and, as a result, has had a dramatic impact on each of us in our own development as learners and teachers. Many of us agree that without DICEP we would not have sustained our work as teacher researchers. Having monthly meetings, schedules for sharing our work, conference presentations to prepare for, and writing deadlines keeps us accountable and focused on our research in a way that would be difficult, if not impossible, if we were conducting research on our own.

Studying Our Community In 1997, one of our members prepared, distributed, and analyzed an anonymous survey (McGlynn-Stewart, 1998) that provided a forum for members to discuss issues regarding how we functioned as a group. In 1999, the same member facilitated an interactive e-mail conversation among our members for an update as to how we were doing with respect to issues that arose in the earlier survey. During the 2000–2001 school year, there were two reasons that led us to again engage in a process of group reflection. First, our research group had begun a new phase. We had obtained a Spencer Foundation Grant as teacher-researchers after our university-based member had moved and became a long-distance adviser. We wanted to explore whether we felt that this change affected the nature of our group and what we perceived as the advantages and disadvantages. Second, we wanted to investigate our practice in a way that was consistent with what we were asking our students to do, as our focus at the time was on co-researching with our students. We wanted our students to be involved in setting the direction for research about their learning, in investigating their learning as it was happening, and in analyzing the results of the research. In keeping with this focus, we collaboratively designed interview questions for our group members. One member interviewed the other members individually, and was in turn interviewed (McGlynn-Stewart, 2003). He/she then facilitated a group interview, and finally, we met to collaboratively analyze the transcripts of the interviews. Some of the questions we asked ourselves included: ● ● ● ●

What makes this phase of DICEP unique? What is the best part of DICEP for you? What could we improve? Where should we go next?

Within the framework of these simple questions, we discussed a host of issues such as leadership, communication, the relationship between theory and practice, professional development, and our treatment of new members. Many of the findings from this investigation are highlighted in the following sections. One of our most valuable activities was this process of self-reflection. The interviews allowed us to reflect on our current phase of development as a collaborative action research group, to learn new things about each other, and to confirm the value that we place on our learning and teaching relationships. In conjunction with


25

the earlier survey and e-mail conversation, we now have a written history of our development over a five-year period as seen through self-reflection, and we used this data to make plans for the future. As one member said after reading the transcripts of our interviews: “If you were writing an article with advice to people starting and maintaining a teacher research group, I would suggest that they do some surveying, as you have, on a regular basis. I think it’s really valuable.”

Impact of the Learning Community Member Impact Being members of DICEP has had a dramatic impact on our lives as educators. Over the years, the process of inquiring into our classroom practices has been transformative for both us and for our students. As members of DICEP we are pursuing our own professional development as learners and teachers, while at the same time seeking to provide meaningful and effective learning experiences for our students. Here’s how one member described the professional development she then derived from DICEP: I think that the professional development opportunities that it gives me is the best part of DICEP, the fact that it gives me somebody else to talk to about things that I get excited about in my work. It also makes me do the things I would be doing anyway, but more systematically. I think it keeps me current. I get a chance to talk to people who are on the same wavelength; there’s a common viewpoint there. So I feel quite happy if somebody wants feedback, giving them feedback, and I feel quite happy bringing my stuff in and saying, “There’s this, but I want some help with this.” I feel completely comfortable with that. I get energy for my work through going to a DICEP meeting. DICEP also gives me a chance to attend conferences and to present at conferences. I think it gives me a chance to take leadership in my profession in a way that the school board doesn’t prioritize.

Belonging to a group of like-minded educators who validate our questions and are interested in our findings is very empowering. So often teachers’ day-to-day concerns are trivialized, or we feel that others do not have the same problems or issues as we do. Knowing that we have a monthly opportunity to be heard and that others will value our inquiries has increased our efficacy as professionals. This member’s view appears to be shared by all. People will give their full attention to what you bring, that is the part that makes the group feel so good and so respectful. And the times when I’ve come and I’ve thought, “I don’t know where I’m going with this” and everybody is so interested and they give me the best ideas. I always come away feeling like what I had was valuable and now I know where to go or I have some new questions. You know, just the contribution of the group always refuels what I come with and I never feel worried about what people are going to think. I just want to know what people think.

Listening to another member share her research also enhances our individual inquiries. In thinking about another’s work we often make connections to our own questions or to our own practice. Many of us have left feeling more energized about our own work after engaging in a lively discussion about another member’s inquiry.

26


As mentioned earlier, being a member of DICEP has benefited us professionally in terms of developing skills as conference presenters, proposal writers, and published authors. Many of these skills have enabled us to pursue a variety of teaching opportunities and to broaden our educational perspectives. One member joined the group as a classroom teacher after finishing her Master’s degree, then became a consultant, founded an independent school, and is now an instructor in an undergraduate education programme. Two of our members became instructors in preservice education after joining DICEP and one has since become a consultant. That our members come from different settings and levels of education has necessitated that we expand our perspectives beyond our own settings, and has allowed us to see the commonalities in our work with learners of different ages. As a result, our research is enriched by the combination of our experiences and perspectives.

Student Impact Membership in DICEP has had a positive impact on our students. Not only have they been the recipients of improved teaching and learning, but they also have had the opportunity to participate in, and in some cases direct, our inquiries. Co-researching with us has enabled our students to truly have a voice in the classroom and to explore questions about who we are, how we live together, and how we learn best. In at least one of the inquiries there was evidence that students not only developed their questioning skills and desire to have ownership of their classroom, but applied these skills in new classroom settings. Next grade teachers commented that our former students often questioned classroom routines and made suggestions that they felt would help to improve their learning environment. Throughout our work, there has also been confirmation that our students felt that they were a valued part of the research process. They were always excited to know that what they said and did in their classrooms was discussed with other educators, presented at conferences, and written about by each of us. Some of us have had the experience of children saying: “Don’t forget to turn on the video camera!” before a discussion, and many children have told us how much they appreciate being asked what they think about school and their learning. Two members describe the effect that their involvement with DICEP has had on their students. My [Special Education] students have benefited, absolutely. And I have some students with whom I have worked for three years and because of working and thinking [with DICEP], it’s allowed me to come up with yet again a slightly different perspective for how to attack the same goal – “How do I get these kids engaged, how do I get them to learn?” And I think now, I do have some kids engaged. And I think that’s movement. I think what I’m doing is giving more power to the kids. I think the kids get a real kick about being included in the research. And I also think that the emphasis that we have on talk, two-way discussion, and interpersonal relationships and the importance we put on talking things through, as opposed to doing everything in writing, has helped my kids tremendously in becoming thinkers for themselves.


27

Emerging Issues Leadership In our 1997 survey, leadership issues emerged and members indicated a preference for shared leadership within the group. As a result, we started to rotate the positions of chair and secretary during our monthly meetings. During the 1999 conversation, members reported that this increased the level of democracy in the group, but that power was not yet shared equally. By the 2001–2002 school year, we seemed to have evolved into a truly egalitarian and collaborative group. Here is what some of our members said: I just love the way we take turns so naturally in leadership, the way we support each other. No one is trying to prove anything … just people who sincerely are good teachers, they’re questioners, thinkers, and they want to be better. The way we work together is joint leadership, shared leadership, with specific targets and goals, and it’s self-directed, not because someone is having us do it. Well, I think the main difference [from earlier phases] is that the group truly is run as a democracy now, and there doesn’t appear to be anybody who is a leader of the group, we’re all sharing that responsibility equally.

A significant change to our group dynamics occurred when the founder of the group, Gordon Wells, moved to California. While we agreed that there was a sense of loss with his departure, we were very positive about the way our group subsequently functioned. As a result of Gordon leaving the group, we were challenged to write a grant proposal on our own for the first time and to assume all aspects of administration for the group. While this has resulted in more work for us, it has increased our sense of ownership in the group. We feel that we have made gains since being on our own, but we also miss Gordon and his knowledge and expertise. The trajectory of the group’s evolution, from Master’s/Doctoral students collaborating with their university professor to teachers taking control of all aspects of the group’s functioning, has been a very empowering process for us all. Over the years we gradually took over the jobs of writing grant and conference proposals, presenting at conferences and planning and conducting monthly meetings. Working alongside an expert in the early years of the group allowed us to envision how we could see ourselves as researchers, not “just teachers”. Another theme that arose is also connected to Gordon’s departure. Individually and collectively we have always striven to remain informed about current research and theory through reading and conference participation. One of our sources of current literature was Gordon, as he taught courses on action research and sociocultural theory, and was always up to date on the latest research. The interview process revealed that we all felt the loss of his contributions in this area, and that we needed to increase our efforts to find relevant resources about research and theory during this phase. We knew we needed to incorporate more reading and discussion of relevant articles into our monthly meetings.

28


Meetings As we took on the task of running the group ourselves, we realized the importance of setting the agenda for our meetings ahead of time. At the beginning of the school year, we asked everyone to choose a meeting where they will share their current research in detail. This gives us all a goal to work towards, and we know we will have an audience, even if our work is at a very preliminary stage. Other parts of the agenda are put in place by way of an e-mail sent out about a week before the meeting by that month’s chair. We always leave room at the end of each meeting for other business. Setting meeting dates that work for everyone is a constant challenge. We try to set several months’ meeting dates at a time, but inevitably find that someone has a conflict as the date nears. Sometimes we have met without that person; when possible we have rescheduled the meeting to a time when everyone can be there.

Group Size Over the years the size of our group has fluctuated between five and about twelve members. We believe that group size is a critical factor in the investment that members make in the group. If the group is too large, people may not feel that it is important that they attend every meeting, and everyone may not have a chance to speak. A group that is too small will suffer if just one person needs to miss a meeting, as everyone’s presence and voice is so necessary. We have found it is optimal to have about six members. Everyone has a chance to speak and feels that his/her presence at meetings is essential. We know one another well and take time at the beginning and throughout our monthly meetings to catch up on each other’s personal and professional lives. We are able to engage deeply with the inquiry work of five other professionals and to make connections with our own work.

New Members A strong theme of both the 1997 group survey and the 1999 e-mail conversation was that the main attraction and strength of DICEP is the supportive and constructive atmosphere it provides for teaching and learning. The 2001–2002 interview findings were no different. We welcomed two new members during this phase, and through the interview process discovered that they had had very different initial experiences with DICEP than members who had been with the group since its inception. One member, a high school Special Education teacher, joined just as we were finalizing a grant proposal. This is how she described her initial experiences.


29

I did always feel welcome . . . and I found you incredibly welcoming, incredibly generous. You gave me enough [information about the group] for the minute, and when I needed more you gave it to me. And I always felt that if I wanted to ask for more, I’d get it.

The other new person, a university professor, also felt that we were friendly, but she did not feel she was given the information that she needed to fully contribute. She described her feelings. I loved everybody instantly, like I got the best, best, best feelings. But I was nervous being an outsider, being a university professor because I didn’t want people to think that I thought something different. And I wasn’t part of the original grant, the Spencer Grant that you have now. And I remember thinking well, I want to ask to see the Spencer Grant, but then I thought that might be too presumptuous. I was always trying to piece together who was who … and so I still couldn’t ask any of these questions because then I felt well, I’m going to sound too pushy.

During the course of the individual interviews and the later group interview and group analysis, we discovered why these two new members had had such different initial experiences with DICEP. With the first member, we assumed that she knew very little about us, so we made an effort to give her as much information about the grant and about us as we could. With the second member, we assumed that she already knew about us and our work because she was a colleague of Gordon Wells. The first member assumed that her questions would be perfectly acceptable, while the second member was worried that we might think her questions were “pushy”. The interview process gave us the opportunity to examine our assumptions. We hope to learn from this experience by asking more questions of new members to ensure that we are meeting their needs. As one member said: I was struck with the fact that we don’t have a protocol in place for welcoming newcomers. I think [the second new member’s] comments will help us to be more aware of what we need to do, beyond being kind, welcoming and inclusive, when someone new comes into the group.

Funding Our group was most productive when we were supported with funding from the Spencer Foundation, which ended in 2003. The funding allowed us to release members from teaching responsibilities and to have day-long meetings once a term. With this extra time, we found we were able to delve more deeply into our research and that we accomplished a great deal during those full-day sessions. The funding also enabled us to participate in, and present at, teacher-research conferences. We are not currently funded, but we make the time to meet together regularly outside our working hours and we look for local opportunities to share our work. E-mail has been an invaluable tool in keeping us connected and saving us time. We are able to be more productive with our meeting times because we have discussed, shared, and in some cases, such as this book chapter, written together via e-mail.

30


Applicability of Our Learning Community to Other Settings While we share a common theoretical framework, our diverse educational roles bring rich perspectives to the inquiries we undertake. We believe this diversity deepens our subsequent understanding of the inquiries. Passing the buck, for instance, is never an option. For example, our middle-school teacher would never suggest that a problematic issue in her classroom would be solved if primary/junior teachers prepared the students better. On the contrary, she has been able to learn from her colleagues in other educational contexts about their relative perspectives and experiences and use this feedback to inform her understanding of her own classroom. We are a community of equals, each with expertise in our respective contexts and as such, we can have unique and valuable insights to contribute to our group’s understanding. In our opinion, non-hierarchical, inter-institutional diversity has rich potential in all settings of educational inquiry.

Findings from Developing Our Learning Community Through our work over the years, we have gained valuable insight about developing and maintaining a diverse learning community. Following are our key findings. We have found it beneficial to: ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

Have a common theoretical framework Have shared goals that provide a focus, such as writing for publication, applying for grants, presenting at conferences Generate questions from classroom practice (must be choice and job-embedded) Maintain a group size that is small enough to be accountable and is stable Designate time to present/share research at meetings Share roles within the group Share inquiries that focus on evidence of student learning (transcripts of classroom discussions, journal entries, etc.) Include members from diverse settings Enjoy each other’s company; both personal and professional relationships are important

References McGlynn-Stewart, M. (1998). Researching the researchers, Orbit, 29(3), 22–25. McGlynn-Stewart, M. (2003). Co-researching the researchers: DICEP’s ongoing self-reflection, Networks: An Online Journal of Teacher Research, 6(1). Available at: http://journals.library. wisc.edu/index.php/networks Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

Chapter 4

Lights, Camera, Action! Using Slowmation as a Common Teaching Approach to Promote a School Learning Community Garry F. Hoban

Introduction The Origins of “Community” Although the notion of a “community” is commonly used in current educational literature, the term is quite old. It was first mentioned by John Dewey over 110 years ago, when he envisaged that classrooms should be organised like a community rather than simply being places for the dissemination of knowledge. Dewey’s theory of “learning through experience” was based on the assumption that learning involves an interaction between psychological processes focused on the individual, and sociological processes focused on how an individual interacts with others. The example he often used in describing the interaction between psychological and sociological processes was children learning to talk in the ideal community environment of an educated family. I believe that this educational process has two sides – one psychological and one sociological; and that neither can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil results following. Of these two sides, the psychological is the basis. The child’s own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point for all education. … I believe that knowledge of social conditions, of the present state of civilization, is necessary in order properly to interpret the child’s powers. (Dewey, 1897, pp. 4–5)

The psychological processes were the personal experiences that an individual brings to the situation and so “education, therefore, must begin with a psychological insight into the child’s capacities, interests and habits” (Dewey, 1897, p. 6). He believed that organizing classroom activities based on the notion of a community generated motivation and a social spirit for children centred on “sharing in each other’s activities and each other’s experiences because they have common ends and purposes” (Dewey, 1916, p. 75). Hence, personal experiences are scaffolded or extended by social interactions with others. Moreover, Dewey criticised traditional educational classrooms because they were not organised in a way which encouraged students to share as a community.

G.F. Hoban University of Wollongong


45

46

G.F. Hoban I believe that much of present education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be learned, or where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying largely in the remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of something else he is to do; they are mere preparation. As a result they do not become part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly educative. (Dewey, 1897, p. 8; italics inserted by author)

In particular, the educative role of a community is to extend personal understanding by sharing ideas with others who may have different experiences and perspectives. Dewey (1938), therefore, believed that the role of a classroom teacher should be to scaffold the existing experiences of children by organising activities and by providing appropriate subject matter. I do not know what the greater maturity of the teacher and the teacher’s greater knowledge of the world, of subject-matters and of individuals, is for unless the teacher can arrange conditions that are conducive to community activity and to organization which exercises control over individual impulses by the mere fact that all are engaged in communal projects. … The planning must be flexible enough to permit free play for individuality of experience and firm enough to give direction towards continuous development of power. (Dewey, 1938, p. 58; italics inserted by author)

The Relevance of “Community” for Teacher Learning The importance of social interactions for children’s learning that Dewey highlighted is also applicable to professional learning for teachers. When schools are viewed as learning communities for teachers, the key feature is the social interaction with colleagues to share ideas embodied in phrases such as “shared decision making; information sharing and communication” (Darling-Hammond, 1994), “shared vision and team learning” (Senge, 1990), and “collective goals of understanding and judgment” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). A study of 22 English and history teachers conducted at one high school over 18 months (Grossman & Wineburg, 2000) showed that the formation of a community of teachers goes through several stages. Importantly, the researchers made the point that there is a difference between a community of teacher learners and a gathering of teachers who simply share ideas. The researchers noted four stages in the development of a community of teacher learners: (1) formation of group identity and norms of interaction; (2) understanding difference/navigating fault lines; (3) negotiating the essential tension; and (4) taking communal responsibility for individuals’ growth. Hence, a community of teachers grows and develops through sharing ideas, encouraging positive and negative feedback, and developing mutual understanding. In this chapter, the process and outcomes of forming a community of teacher learners will be described as it occurred in an elementary school in Australia. A particular feature of this initiative is that the teachers were all attempting to learn to use a new teaching approach, called “Slowmation,” which greatly simplifies the process of making digital animations so that school children become the animation

4 Lights, Camera, Action! Using Slowmation

47

creators. Hence, the purpose of the professional learning programme was to introduce a new teaching approach in the school with the intention that all the teachers might use this new teaching approach and share their experiences as a community. As clearly pointed out by Grossman and Wineburg (2000), the notion of community has been loosely used in the education literature, and a “gathering of teachers” is not necessarily a “community of teacher learners.” Moreover, a community of teachers has to share something. It may be resources, teaching ideas, technology, reflections and discussions about different children, or about other staff members. In this nine month study, the focus was on introducing a new teaching approach into the school with the goal being that the school might organise a whole-school “animation film night” to share the animations produced as an artefact of the learning from each classroom.

Description of the Learning Community Conditions for Teacher Learning A full-day professional development programme to introduce the new teaching approach was organised for the school at the beginning of the second school term in April, 2007. The author has had extensive experience in running professional development programmes (Hoban, 2002, 2003; Hoban et al., 2007). The new teaching approach, “Slowmation” (abbreviated from “Slow Animation”), incorporates a new form of stop-motion animation that greatly simplifies the normally complex process so that they can be created by learners (Hoban, 2005, 2007, in press). The process has been developed over the last three years by the author in science education classes at the University of Wollongong, Australia; slowmation is a simplified form of stop-motion animation involving the manual manipulation of materials with digital still photos taken at each step that are uploaded into a computer program to play them in a sequence to create an illusion of movement. Because the animation process is relatively simple, animations can be made about a variety of educational concepts in science, maths, English, and social studies. It was not an accident that this particular school was chosen to pilot this new approach to professional learning. The school in fact had various “conditions for teacher learning” (Hoban, 2002) already in place that made it likely that a community could be initiated: (i) The teachers had access to the necessary technology and resources because the principal had bought each teacher a laptop computer with the necessary program, i.e. QuickTime Pro (if using a PC then Windows Movie Maker can also be used). In addition the principal also bought eight digital still cameras and tripods for mounting the digital still cameras.

48

G.F. Hoban

(ii) The teachers had a need or purpose to try a new teaching approach in their classes. (iii) One of the teachers was very familiar with using the technology and the teaching approach as he had been employed as a tutor at the university and so became an in-school facilitator who was able to supply “just in time support” for the teachers in the school. (iv) The principal was very supportive of the teachers using this new teaching approach and hoped that the teachers would each make an animation in their class and be able to be involved as a “whole school project.” The goal of the programme was for each teacher to create slowmations with their class to present at an “animation film night” at the end of the year to parents and the local community. In addition, several other conditions identified in previous research that were conducive to school change (Hoban, 2002) were in place. They included: conceptual inputs in terms of new ideas (slowmation), a long-term time frame of nine months to initiate change, a willingness by teachers to instigate action and try out new ideas, and an established collegial atmosphere in the school to provide a likely environment for the sharing of ideas.

Introducing Slowmation Slowmation is a new form of stop-animation that is similar to clay animation involving students researching information, scripting, storyboarding, designing models, photographing digital still images of small manual movements of the models, and using a computer program such as Apple’s QuickTime Pro or Window’s Movie Maker to create the animation. Slowmation, however, is different from claymation in six key ways as shown in Table 4.1. Slowmations can be like “mini-movies” explaining science concepts averaging 3–5 minutes in length, or shorter one-minute assessment tasks. Over the last two years, over 400 animated movies have been made by preservice primary teachers about many science concepts including day and night, seasons, lunar cycles, life cycles of various animals, particle motion, magnets, fungi life cycle, plant reproduction, weather, movement of the planets, water cycle, simple machines, mitosis, meiosis, and phagocytosis. Because slowmations are played ten times slower (two frames/second) and are easier to make than traditional animations (played at 25 frames/second), learners can represent their own understandings of science concepts in very comprehensive ways (Hoban & Ferry, 2006). Slowmations can be created as comprehensive teaching resources and can take up to 20 hours to make, or shorter slowmations can be made by students in one hour as an assessment task to represent their understanding of a particular concept. On the professional development day, teachers were introduced to the slowmation teaching approach. After the facilitator (the author) demonstrated the approach,


49

Table 4.1 Comparative features of slowmation and claymation Feature Claymation Slowmation Purpose To tell a narrative or story (i) create a resource to teach a major concept (ii) as an assessment task to explain a smaller concept. Content English Science and maths but can be used in other subjects Orientation Models are made to stand up Models are mostly made flat on the floor vertically and manually and manually manipulated in the horimanipulated as they are zontal plane as they are photographed photographed with a digital with a digital camera mounted on a tristill camera mounted on a pod looking down at the models (this is tripod looking across at the not always the case, however, as existmodels. ing plastic models can be photographed in the usual way). Materials Clay or plasticine A wide variety such as soft play dough, plasticine, 2D pictures, drawings, clip art, existing 3D models, leaves, rocks, paper, fruit, felt, cardboard cut-outs and many everyday classroom materials. Learning prompts The art of telling the story Prompts are included to help explain a explains the experience concept such as audio narration, music, authentic photos, humour, diagrams, models, labels, questions, static images, repetitions, and characters. Timing Shown quickly at 20–24 Shown slowly at 2–4 frames/second to frames/second to simulate demonstrate a concept in slow motion real movement and hence the name “Slowmation”

teachers were given opportunities to make a slowmation themselves in any subject area that they selected. The teachers were successful to different extents on the day and some had to finish their animations later. They were then encouraged to try to make one with their class about any topic. Because the 10 teachers involved had different levels of technological expertise, it was intended that the teachers would help each other.

The Pedagogy of Slowmation As previously explained, slowmation greatly simplifies the normally complex process of creating animations and it is supported by a four-phase teaching approach as explained below (Hoban, in press): Phase 1: Planning. The teacher and/or preservice teachers plan how to represent a topic or concept which involves change. This can be done in one of two ways. One way is to get students to research a particular topic, which they do not know

50

G.F. Hoban

much about, as a project that will extend for a long period of time such as several days. Alternatively, the approach can be used over several lessons for students to represent what they have learned about a topic as an assessment task. The size of the concept is related to how much time is available and how familiar the students are with the process. Phase 2: Storyboarding. There are two forms of storyboarding which support the content that was researched, selected, and refined in the first phase. First, the content is chunked or broken down into several sections or episodes. The chunks focus on the main parts of the concept. An explanation needs to be provided with each chunk. Second, each “chunk” is sequenced into 10–20 movements that can be sketched as a storyboard. This analysis can guide an individual or group in making a complete slowmation, or each chunk can be allocated to a group of students similar to a “jigsaw” pedagogical approach so that the animation becomes a class project. For example, a chunk could include one of the life stages of a frog, one of the four seasons, one of the stages of a rocket take-off, one stage of a volcano developing, one part of meiosis or mitosis, or one part of a chemical equation. A key activity in sequencing storyboarding and scripting is the planning of learning prompts such as authentic photographs, labels, static images, or titles. It could also have a narrated explanation and/or music. It is unwise to have too much text, narration and music as it presents too much information and can be confusing as explained in Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2006). Phase 3: Construction. This phase involves making and photographing the models. It is best if the models are made on a sheet of project cardboard or butcher’s paper on the floor as a backdrop. Existing models that are readily available in a classroom can be used, or new models can be made with play dough or modelling clay. Specific responsibilities can be allocated to members of a group, if required. These could include: storyboarder, model maker, scriptwriter, sign maker (for title, ending, or descriptions for a particular photo), photographer, and background designer. A digital still camera needs to be mounted on a tripod and positioned over a sheet of cardboard so that pictures can be shot looking down at the models. As the students manually make the small movements in the model, a photograph is taken at each step. The photographer needs to take at least 20–30 still photographs of each chunk. It is simpler if the photographs are taken in order of the presentation of the chunks for the whole story. Another way is for each group to have their own camera and then have the different QuickTime movies collated together when editing. Phase 4: Reconstruction. Once all the digital still photographs are taken, they need to be downloaded on to a computer, copied on to the desktop, and imported into a computer program to put the photos in a sequence to create the animation. A program such as QuickTime Pro available on Apple computer software or Window’s Movie Maker available on a PC is needed to import the photographs. The playback speed selected is usually two frames/second to slow the process down and a QuickTime movie is produced that can be played on any computer, PC or Macintosh. Once the initial animation is created, refinements need to be made to


51

enhance and edit the animation. These can be made in several ways and are called learning prompts such as adding music, factual text, labels, static images, transitions, other backgrounds, or a narration. Research has showed that it is important for students to add a narration as this is the final layer of reflection to explain a science concept. The slowmations can be uploaded to web sites such as YouTube or Teacher Tube for public display.

Implementation of the Professional Learning Programme To assess the extent to which the teachers were sharing ideas about using the teaching approach in their classrooms and sharing ideas as a “community,” the animations that they produced were monitored. As seen in Table 4.2, all of the classes created at least one slowmation after six weeks. The classes made slowmations in four different subject areas: science, mathematics, social studies, and English. To gain an understanding of how the teachers were using the approach, several teachers were interviewed. The class that made the most slowmations was kindergarten, and so two of the teachers and the in-school facilitator were interviewed five months after the professional development programme started to ascertain their views on how they used the teaching approach.

Slowmations Made by the Kindergarten Classes Figure 4.1 shows some of the images from the math slowmation that the kindergarten children made about the number 10 entitled “Ways to Make 10.” The intention for creating an animation about counting was to provide the children with a deeper

Table 4.2 Some animation topics made by each class Class Topic Subject Kindergarten Incy Wincy Spider, Jack English and mathand Jill, Hickory Dickory ematics Dock, counting, ordinal numbers, sounds of the alphabet and counting to ten Grade 1 Ivy growing on back fence English Grade 2 Tom Thumb Lagoon Social science (aboriginal perspective) Grade 3 Volcanic eruptions Science Grade 4 Division and multiplication Mathematics Grade 5 Water evaporation and Science global warming Grade 6 Heat absorption Science

Extent of project completion All seven completed

Completed Completed but needed editing Completed Completed Completed Completed

52

G.F. Hoban

Fig. 4.1 Still photos from kindergarten slowmation Chunk 1: Title of the slowmation Chunk 2: Representing 10 as “five groups of two” Chunk 3: A circle of the number 10 Photo of a kindergarten group making their slowmation

understanding of the concept of “number” which is important in kindergarten. Small dolls were used to represent the numbers, and in addition to counting, the slowmation demonstrates the children showing different representations of the number 10 such as “two groups of five”, “five groups of two”, and a “circle of ten.” Also, in Fig. 4.1, there is a photo of the children working in groups taking the digital still photos as they created their slowmation. Note that in the group, one of the kindergarten children was standing on a chair to use the digital camera, but did this quite easily and they rotated their role as “camera operator” in the group. Two of the kindergarten teachers said that after the professional day they practised the teaching approach with their own young children at home to learn the process before using it in their teaching. These two teachers often team taught their two classes so in all there were 38 children in the combined class. The teachers explained that when they first started using slowmation, they did it as a whole class and made a few small ones about nursery rhymes such as “Incy Wincy Spider” and “Jack and Jill.” The whole process was very teacher-directed with the teachers taking the photos and moving the play dough models. After the teachers had made the


53

first animated movie, they progressively shared the responsibility by asking the children to take the photos and also make the model movements. As they used the new teaching approach, they began to introduce more group work. Teacher: We started as a whole group, the whole 38 of us, with Marina and I both involved doing nursery rhymes. That worked really well and we started off trying to get the kids to do the little steps … and we were controlling most of the process … yes we were taking photos to begin with, but that was only for the first one. And then in the second one we started getting the kids involved and getting the kids up to take the photographs. And already the kids had switched on to slow movements, making very small slow movements. We did several of those. We’ve done Hickory Dickory Dock, Jack and Jill, IncyWincy Spider.

The reason the class made seven slowmations in one school term was that it was very engaging for the children. Also after several tries, they then put the children into groups of five or six and gave them specific roles with each group having a camera and tripod like a mini production set. One teacher stated: Teacher: They were so engaged and so enthusiastic about it and the activity was very easy … it ran by itself almost. They’re just so interested in it, it’s exciting. They enjoy doing it. They like the camera, they like the roles that they’re given. And each member of a group had a specific role which kept them on task so we had a camera operator, a director who was in charge of the group and organised the group. And then that day, we had race assistants and when we did the car races each student had a number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for their specific car so it is important that the children have a role.

The teachers explained how they used the teaching approach and allocated roles to the students. Teacher: There’s a lot of preparation beforehand. Like organising all the roles and who needs to do what and we actually look at the kids and see who they’re going to work with in that group. And there is a lot of explaining. We explain the activity to them and then we pretty much do it in one go. The kids are getting familiar with those roles and we’ve used them more often. So we’ve explained the roles to them about what a director does and the camera operator. All the children agreed that the director was in charge of the group and made important decisions and ran the group. But all the other children had an important role too, so they all had something to do that kept them interested.

When asked why it was important for kindergarten children to have roles, a teacher responded: Teacher: It gave each child a focus, it kept them on task, on their specific task. Otherwise they’d be fighting over the camera. There is a lot of time preparing and organising the materials … there’s a few hours the night before making up the game boards. It just depends which one we’re talking about but the one that we … the race one we did was so organised that the kids sort of knew what they needed to do and just went off and did it.

One of the important insights from the teachers is that since the children have made seven slowmations in one school term, they now understand the process and have become more independent in making the animations. Teacher: And because we’d done lots before, they knew the process they needed to go through, they needed to start, they needed to make small steps and they actually did smaller steps than what I’d originally expected. And the children are now enjoying it that much and are getting into it so much that they’ve started to become aware of the process and tell each other what to do. … “There’s a shadow there so move out of the way, you know like I’m trying to take the

54

G.F. Hoban photo” and “you’re in my way, your hands in the way” so they’re really getting into it now. So they know what do to do by themselves. They know first that you need to set their scene and that they make a small movement, take a photo, make a movement, take a photo and so on.

One of the most interesting slowmations which was made over several weeks by the class was one demonstrating all the sounds of the alphabet with an image for each letter accompanied by the particular sound.

Interview with the Teacher Facilitator The teacher who was the in-school facilitator was very familiar with the process as he was a tutor in the university subject where the process was developed. He was a key person in the school as he was providing “just in time” support for the teachers. In an interview the facilitator stated what the plan was for implementing the professional development. Teacher: After that day each of the teachers were to go back and try and make one with their class, come up with a topic, and do it after they had made it. Each of the classes have made them, some of the teachers are obviously more into it than others. Like the kindergarten teachers have just picked it up and run with it. My class obviously did it. Some of the teachers, whilst they’d already made one themselves on the staff development day, still didn’t get the equipment. Like they didn’t open the tripod out, they sort of just carried the tripod around and so it’s jumping everywhere. So I know a couple of the teachers on the first ones they’ve done they weren’t happy with it because they could just see the final presentation and think “Oh no this is not good enough.”

He explained how important it was to have an in-school facilitator to help create change in a school. Teacher: For anything to work in the school, someone’s got to drive it, if you don’t have someone who’s passionate about it driving, it won’t work even if they do understand the computer program. Now if they’ve got the passion and the drive for it, two things might happen. First, they might not be able to use the program and they’ll just lose interest and it’ll drop out. Second, they’ll be passionate for it and they’ll find out how to use it. They’ll fiddle around with it themselves and therefore they can use it but you do need someone who will drive it, but I mean that’s the same with anything.

Interviewer: Alright, so what are the goals for the school then do you think? Teacher: By the end of this term we want to have that animation film night. After that it won’t necessarily be a school project, however, there’s going to be a big technology push within the school, you know with the new grants we’re getting and stuff like that. I know the kindergarten teachers have especially said they’ve got to continue using the digital cameras, whether that’s for slow animation or not it’s going to depend. I’d like to see more of them go and I can push for that. I don’t know how … I know the kindergarten teachers will still do it next year, I don’t have any doubt they’re going to do a slow animation. I think a couple of other teachers may try one or do one throughout the year, I don’t know how big it will get.

The teacher also commented on the importance of teachers sharing their ideas especially if it is to be a whole-school project. Although he did not use the word “com-


55

munity,” he discussed the importance of having whole-school goals which give a purpose for teachers to share and discuss ideas. Teacher: The teachers still see it as a school project. So I think in some ways, yes, but I think it’s the time that’s actually hard because it can be time consuming. And I know especially this term we’ve had Southern Stars going on and camp going on and this day going on, there’s been so many interruptions that I know a lot of them haven’t had a chance to spend the time on it. But yeah people do talk about it and I showed some of them at the staff meeting. I said “Oh this is some of the stuff that the people have done.” We showed the kindergarten ones, so the other teachers were impressed by them. Interviewer: Alright, so it’s still seen as a school project, everyone’s made one? Teacher: Everyone’s made one. Interviewer: Okay. Now what’s special about the kindergarten teachers, because it is a bit of a special situation actually I think? Teacher: For them, they just get so excited … they’ve been able to practice at home and they understand the technology. I show it to them once, they go and do it and they now help others.

The Big Night On Wednesday, 5 December 2007, the Coniston Public School Animation Film Night was organised and presented in the school hall. The children and teachers dressed up in theatre-like costumes, music was playing and the children sold pop corn. It ran for one and a half hours from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Every class in the school, grades K-6, showed two animations from a range of subject areas – science, English, mathematics and social studies. Each animation was introduced by a child from the class who told the audience of 150 people about the title and how it was made. From all who attended, teachers, children, and parents, it was a big success. It was the first animation film night held by a primary school in the region and possibly in the country, displaying and explaining animations made by every class in the school. A media release was prepared and there was an article in the local newspaper as well as an article on the University of Wollongong web site. Figure 4.2 shows a photo taken of the audience on the night at an apparently funny moment during one of the animations. You can see one of the children, Faith, dressed up in the front row in a long maroon coloured dress with a purple “boa” around her neck. You can see that the audience was made up of school children and parents with the author in the front row next to the child from kindergarten. The animation film night was fun for all, but it signified another important event. It was a clear outcome demonstrating that the school had developed into a learning community. As every class in the school had made at least two animations, it was a concrete goal for all the teachers and children to work towards. It was decided at the end of the night by the principal and the teachers that every class would continue to make slowmations about different educational concepts next year, and that they would hold another animation film night in 2008. A compact disc containing all of this year’s animations is now on sale at the school for US$3.

56

G.F. Hoban

Fig. 4.2 The audience at the Coniston Public School’s animation film night

Discussion From the follow-up observations at the school, interviews with various teachers, and the animation film night, it was clear that a learning community had been initiated by the introduction of the slowmation teaching approach into the school. Not only had each of the teachers in the school made a slowmation with their children, but they had been sharing their expertise and experiences in staff meetings and informally. In particular, the teacher who had been using the approach for three years became the in-school facilitator and the two teachers who had made the most number of slowmations, the kindergarten teachers, were also being called upon by other teachers to share their newly acquired expertise. Also, because the animations were concrete artefacts, the teachers were able to share them with each other and show what their class had produced. So it was not just talking about teaching but sharing real products. It involved a “shared vision and team learning” (Senge, 1990). One consideration for discussing the initiation of a learning community in the school was that it was ripe to begin such a community. This was because several key conditions for teacher learning were already in place, such as teachers having access to the required technology (each teacher had a laptop and there were eight digital cameras in the school), the principal was very encouraging, and the teachers were keen to try something new. Most importantly, there was an expert user of slowmation in the school already who was very happy to share his knowledge. Further evidence that a community had formed in the school is that the level of shared expertise increased. For example, the number of “experts” in the school had


57

expanded from one (the teacher facilitator) to three (with the two kindergarten teachers), which provided additional expertise to support the rest of the staff in using the approach and developing into a community. One other feature was critical for initiating this community. Although the slowmation teaching approach has mainly been used to develop science animations, the approach is simple enough to be used in other subject areas. For this reason, teachers were allowed to choose their own subject area, and from Table 4.2 it can be seen that the range included science, mathematics, English, and social science. Hence, the innovation is simple and versatile enough for each of the teachers to have a particular “buy in” and find a particular topic to explore, develop, and show to others. Initiating a community of teacher learners who can implement and share slowmations is possible in other schools, but careful planning needs to occur to ensure that the necessary conditions for teacher learning (Hoban, 2002) are present to increase the likelihood that this will occur. Hence, a principal needs to be confident that the teachers have a perceived need to try a new teaching approach, teachers have access to the required technology such as computers, tripods and digital cameras, and that there is back-up support within the school. Although this community of teacher learners has developed, I would suggest that it is only in stage 1 of Grossman and Wineburg’s (2000) framework, “formation of group identity and norms of interaction.” Perhaps before the new teaching approach was introduced, the teachers were more like a “gathering” sharing social interactions, not necessarily fostering each others’ professional learning. But certainly in the last nine months the teachers have found new ways to promote interaction about classroom practice, because they were introduced to a new teaching approach that could be used by all teachers and discussed across different grades and subjects. The “Animation Film Night” conducted on Wednesday, 5 December, was a significant whole-school achievement and was a demonstrated outcome that a learning community had formed. This chapter explains how a school learning community was initiated and developed when introduced to something as novel as a common teaching approach based on digital animation. Although the idea of an animation film night was mentioned as a possibility on the first day of the professional learning programme, the chance of it occurring was unknown. In terms of the future prospects for this emerging professional learning community, a longer study would be needed to ascertain if this community progresses through the other Grossman and Wineburg’s stages to engage in “taking communal responsibility for individual’s growth” whereby the teachers monitor and support each others’ professional learning. However, after the huge success of the animation film night that produced widespread public praise for the school, the teachers plan to do it again next year and make it “bigger and better.” This provides a goal and process for the teachers to build on the interactions this year and grow as a learning community. Furthermore, it is possible that other schools in the area may initiate the use of this new teaching approach, and so time will tell if this type of learning community will expand to include other schools. Hopefully, the animation film night will become an annual event in Wollongong involving multiple school-based learning communities.

58

G.F. Hoban

Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the teachers at Coniston Public School in Wollongong for their involvement in this project. Particular thanks also goes to the teacher who tutors at the University of Wollongong, Trent Whittaker, who became the school facilitator and the three kindergarten teachers, Nicole Flynn, Marina Zayakovski, and Christine Yates for their specific contribution to this chapter.

References Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York: E. L. Kellogg. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. Grossman, P. & Wineburg, S. (2000). What makes teacher community different from a gathering of teachers? Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Hoban, G. (2005). From claymation to slowmation: A teaching procedure to develop students’ science understandings. Teaching Science: Australian Science Teachers Journal, 51(2), 26–30. Hoban, G. (2007). Using slowmation to engage preservice elementary teachers in understanding science content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 1–9. Hoban, G. (2009). Facilitating learner-generated animations with slowmation. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostino, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning designs and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (pp. 312–329). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Hoban, G. F. (2003). Changing the balance of a science teacher’s belief system. In J. Wallace & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership in science education. London: Routledge Falmer. Hoban, G., & Ferry, B. (2006). Teaching science concepts in higher education classes with slow motion animation (slowmation). In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn, 2006 World conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education (pp. 1461–1646). Assocation for Advancement in Computing in Education: Honolulu, Hawaii. Hoban, G. F., Butler, S., & Lesslie, L. (2007). Facilitating self-study of professional development: Researching the dynamics of teacher learning. Studying Teacher Education, 3(1), 35–51. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Sweller, J. (2006). Discussion of emerging topics in cognitive load research: Using learning information characteristics in the design of powerful learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 353–357.

Chapter 5

Growing Our Own: A Learning Community Partnership between a University and a Public Middle School Cristy Kessler and Caroline S. Wong

More than 15 years ago Barth (1990) talked about the concept of a community of learners as the coat-rack which supported all of the components of his vision of a good school. Barth envisioned a school where all educators talked with one another about their practice, observed one another engaged in daily teaching and learning activities, shared knowledge of their craft with one another, and actively helped one another become more skillful teachers. It is this concept of a learning community that frames the partnership between a university professor, pre-service teachers, a principal, and teachers at Moanalua Middle School (MMS). The community of learners’ framework supports the University of Hawai’i Master of Education in Teaching Program (MEdT) in tandem with the professional development in a public school setting. Like teaching hospitals in medicine, the school aims to provide a site for state-of-the-art practice that is also organized to support the training of new professionals, extend the professional development of veteran teachers, and sponsor collaborative research and inquiry (Darling-Hammond, 2000). According to the American Educational Research Association (AERA), teacher education programs that incorporate collaborative partnerships between university programs and local schools have a positive effect on student achievement (NCATE, 2006). MEdT is a two-year program for students who already possess a baccalaureate degree in the arts or sciences. It is a field-based, learnercentered program focused on using inquiry, reflection, and collaboration to support the success of future classroom teachers. While fully immersed in the school setting for all four semesters, MEdT students teach, learn, and reflect on practice with veteran teachers and mentor teachers. The program was designed to develop a strong and collaborative relationship between the university and the partnership schools, and this relationship is essential to the success of the MEdT program.

C. Kessler University of Hawai’i at Manoa C.S. Wong Moanalua Middle School


59

60

C. Kessler, C.S. Wong

We believe that a purposefully designed professional learning community nurtures and sustains shared learning among pre-service and in-service teachers. In this chapter, we will describe the goals, essential characteristics, and processes of the learning community partnership between the university and a local public middle school.

Rationale As we reflect back on those early conversations in the partnership, we recall where each of us recognized that the other carried the same passion to improve teaching and learning by building the capacity of educators in a learning community. Cristy was a struggling college professor who missed the joy in teaching and the energy of a secondary school classroom. Caroline was a seasoned middle school principal seeking new ways to strengthen and reenergize shared professional learning for both classroom and pre-service teachers. At a MEdT Executive Council meeting in early 2005, an opportunity was provided for participants to share their hopes and expectations for the partnership through a round-robin process. Principals and teachers sat with university professors and student representatives discussing possibilities. Caroline bravely voiced that this partnership could powerfully support action research in the classroom and build an authentic research framework for teachers to utilize in their teaching and assessment. We discussed the potential for university graduate courses offered on the school campus as a way to give back to teachers who serve as mentors to MEdT students. Because Cristy had recently received National Board Certification (NBC), possibilities emerged for her to support reluctant teachers as they ventured forth into what many perceived as a daunting process. And so we glimpsed at an emerging vision and the endless possibilities of a genuine learning community built on the strengths, interests, and passions of educators in partnership.

A Shared Vision of a Learning Community Partnership In the beginning there was a great deal of dialogue about: (1) how we could develop and describe our learning community; (2) a shared commitment to the values of quality teaching and learning; and finally, (3) an inclusive learning community. We asked the same question posed by Schmoker (2006) in his work, what are the most practical, effective actions and arrangements for ensuring that instruction improves, meaningfully and steadily, in every discipline? There are two big ideas that have become clear and compelling as our learning community partnership has developed; these ideas are not linear and continue to overlap and integrate. Whether collaboratively planning an agenda, problem-solving a difficult personnel decision, or strategizing professional development for pre-service or in-service teachers, we discovered that no matter what the conversation topic was, our touchstone was always a shared commitment to two essential goals that were at the heart of it all.

5 A Learning Community Partnership between a University

61

Individually, and in partnership, our goals were: 1. To develop highly qualified teachers who would positively impact student learning 2. To employ research-based best practices so everyone in the learning community was simultaneously a teacher and a learner

Research-Based Best Practices: A Shared Commitment to Teaching Results Some of the key questions that we explored and discussed included the teaching and learning processes in our learning community partnership and how these processes were guided by research-based best practice findings. An example of the dialogue that took place between Cristy and Caroline went like this: Cristy: How do we most effectively teach pre-service teachers? Caroline: How do we best teach early adolescents in a middle school? Cristy: How do we organize the learning community in a middle school or a college of education class? Caroline: How do we purposefully create a culture in a classroom where it is safe to take risks, to ask essential questions, to dialogue about teaching and learning? Cristy: How do we overcome position and status to focus on shared learning?

Within all of this dialogue, our focus always came back to our desire for a shared vision for a learning community and for an approach that would include pre-service and in-service teachers working together to support best practice.

Description of the Learning Community: Nurturing Holonomy We wanted the learning community to reflect the concept of holonomy described by Costa and Garmston (2002) as a phenomenon with the dual characteristics of being both a part and a whole at the same time. Holonomy looks at both our independent and interdependent tendencies; i.e., being the best that I can be as an individual and reflective learner … and being the best that I can be as part of a team, partnership, or learning organization (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 19). A holonomous partnership continually seeks avenues of growth for every individual in the learning community, so that individuals become independent and self-actualizing while functioning and growing interdependently. Partnership members purposefully develop productive, collaborative relationships; respect individual differences and needs; and recognize their own personal contribution to the growth and development of the learning community regardless of role and position. This vision and sense of purpose is grounded in the shared belief that if educators have the training, skills, resources, and will, they can overcome barriers to student learning and make a compelling difference in achievement for all students.

62


Since our challenge was to incorporate research-based best practice findings in our pre-service and in-service teaching, we turned to the extensive research identifying essential instructional strategies that make a significant difference in student learning. We drew upon the meta-analysis of Marzano et al. (2001), who analyzed studies on K–12 instructional strategies. The researchers identified nine instructional strategies that have a high probability of enhancing achievement for all students in all subject areas in all grade levels. As practicing teacher educators, we used these nine instructional strategies to frame our efforts to focus on research-based best practice in both university classes and professional development with pre-service and in-service teachers. We are all learners and our efforts must reflect a commitment to developing and refining instructional strategies that we know increase student achievement.

Aligning Structures When teachers recognize that knowledge for improvement is something they can generate, rather than something that must be handed to them by so-called experts, they are on a new professional trajectory. They are building a new culture of teaching. (Hiebert & Stigler, 2004)

As the vision for a shared learning community partnership began to take definition, it was essential that structures currently in place at the school and in the MEdT program were aligned. As we speak of structures, we are referring to school and MEdT program organizational and work groups; the commitment of specific personnel, time or other resources; and school or program expectations, requirements, practices and processes in place. What pre-service teachers did for required university course work needed to be directly linked to what they were observing and doing in the field. We worked to bridge the gap between theory and practice for the entire learning community, and use the structures at the school and in the MEdT program to support the goals of the partnership. It was essential to identify the independent structures of the MEdT program and the middle school to understand how we aligned them to support our learning community. I do not believe that we should have a one-size-fits-all teacher education program, but I do believe that we can be using best practices and draw on research to develop common goals and practices. We need to make explicit pedagogies of teacher education that help to guide both new teachers and experienced teacher educators. Developing such pedagogies is fraught with challenges, but that is what teacher education is all about. (Kosnik, 2007, p. 29)

MEdT program structures that support the learning community partnership Throughout the two-year program, the MEdT on-site classes and seminars integrate research and instructional practices which are the same as those that actively engage


63

the classroom teachers. For example, MEdT students are grounded in standards-based lesson planning as well as strategies to differentiate instruction, address multiple intelligences, and integrate metacognitive reflections to strengthen the learning. Assessments focus on critical thinking, problem-solving and application to real-life situations, and may involve service learning. Seminar topics are often co-facilitated by the professor and principal and provide time for dialogue, clarification, and scaffolding to the professional development conversations of the faculty. Based on this model, pre-service teachers are able to work collaboratively with in-service teachers and develop a shared knowledge and language that focuses on improved teaching and student learning. In addition to weekly seminars and electives, MEdT students must also complete five program requirements. These include: (1) a school portrait; (2) a lesson study; (3) a case study; (4) a Master’s thesis or alternative project; and (5) a teaching portfolio. We share examples of these assignments to demonstrate the common focus of the learning community partnership which emerged from these learning experiences.

The school portrait During the first semester, the school supports inquiry learning for MEdT students through an immersion process within the middle school learning community. The immersion time provides the MEdT students with a realistic view of the daily routines and responsibilities of teachers, and includes participation in team and staff meetings. Students spend 15 hours a week observing in partnership schools while engaged in required university course work. The focus is on the school community rather than the details of a single classroom. The MEdT students use the inquiry process to investigate the culture of the school, examine school functions and processes, learn about the social context for classroom instruction, and produce a school portrait. The following is an example of the school portrait which illustrates the collaborative nature of this research project. Working with the school principal and site coordinator, four MEdT students designed an intensive research agenda to examine middle school teaming as their portrait topic. The following research questions were addressed through the portrait process: What are the teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of teaming in student achievement? How does teaming at the middle school encourage or prohibit the development of integrated curriculum? What resources are needed to advance teaming practices? The MEdT students collected data through surveys and interviews, analyzed the data, created a narrative of the outcomes, and then presented their findings to the school faculty. Staff members provided feedback, new insights, and follow-up questions after the presentation. The school portrait presentation data was given to the school for future self-study and school renewal. These same four students surveyed the entire faculty and administration one year later to determine the impact of the portrait on the school. The following quotes from the faculty and administration illustrate the value of the portrait process:

64

C. Kessler, C.S. Wong The portrait process is an authentic way for the MEdT students to be immersed in relevant school issues that integrate best practice and the review of literature with the realities of teaching practices. As pre-service teachers prepare to be educators, the portrait provides a process for how change may take place in a learning community. The portrait provided an opportunity for the staff to reflect on the research base of teaming and why it is good for kids. Too often the middle school structures serve the needs of the teaching staff rather than the learners. By examining the data collected from the teachers, it was clear that much of their team planning time was spent talking about student behavior, planning field trips, and even ‘talking story.’ We used the slides from the portrait presentation and the excellent review of the literature to revisit the teaming structure at our school and how it could be strengthened.

Lesson study During the second semester the MEdT students participated in the process of lesson study. Lesson study, a process to improve classroom instruction based on careful observation of students and their work (Lewis, 2002), provided a valuable opportunity for the pre-service and mentor teacher to collaboratively generate goals and design a lesson plan. When Cristy initially facilitated the lesson study process, she was amazed at the enthusiasm of the mentor teachers. As evidence of the growing learning community partnership, the site coordinator, principal, and professor are currently working with eight in-service teachers in the lesson study process. For each step of the process, teachers are documenting their goals, lesson plans, observations, debriefings, and reteachings, and will create a portfolio reflecting their professional growth through a new kind of collaboration. Case study During the third semester, the MEdT students continued to use reflection and inquiry to conduct case studies on a particular student or incident, or problem related to their student-teaching classroom and experience. The students incorporated action research methods to explore theory and practice through “hands on” real-life issues. Through their research, the MEdT students worked collaboratively with their mentor teachers to gain greater insight into the issue. Using a single student case study, the following quotes illustrate how one MEdT student explored ways of creating a positive learning environment to encourage greater student responsibility and engagement. I wanted to focus on creating and maintaining a positive learning environment where responsibility to self, the teacher, and peers encourages a student to take an active role in his or her learning and the learning of others. In order to do this I assigned roles to various students to see if this would positively impact their participation and responsibility for their own learning. I focused on one student. Student T is very smart but lacks motivation and a positive attitude to learn. My question was whether or not the implementation of the Tsunami’s of the Week (roles and responsibilities assigned to students throughout the semester) will give this student a sense of responsibility to himself, to his peers, and to the learning community. At the conclusion of my case study, Student T was actively involved in our learning community within my classroom. The case study approach really allowed me to see the impact of my teaching on one student.


65

Middle school structures that support the learning community partnership MMS has innovative middle school structures in place to support quality professional development of its in-service teachers. These structures also make MMS an ideal place for the MEdT students to learn the profession of teaching and researchbased instructional practices to improve student achievement. Some of the unique structures implemented at MMS include: (1) interdisciplinary teaming and team planning time; (2) looping; (3) a flexible block schedule; (4) TRIBES; and (5) staff development through team planning. Interdisciplinary teaming and team planning time All students and teachers are organized in interdisciplinary teams, which are actually smaller learning communities within the school and grade level. The MEdT pre-service teachers meet regularly with their interdisciplinary teacher team and quickly become an integral part of the whole team process. They are mentored not only by a supervising teacher in their content major, but also by team members from other disciplines. While students attend elective fine arts courses, team teachers share common planning time which is used for planning units of study and team activities; discussing student learning progress and sharing student work and exemplars; and collaboratively deciding when and how they will utilize school-wide instructional strategies. Team teachers also regularly review student achievement data to identify the students who are meeting content area benchmarks, and those who are approaching and need additional time or support to make the necessary achievement gains. If the team is an integration team with either special education or English Language Learning (ELL) staff support, review of special needs student status is done on a regular basis to make sure these students are experiencing success in learning. Looping All teams loop up from seventh to eighth grade so that students and teachers stay together for two years. The advantages of looping are many as there is less time spent at the beginning of the year reviewing what was learned the year before; teachers are able to make connections between learning across grade levels; and teachers are more familiar with student learning styles and therefore better able to support their success. Some of the MEdT pre-service teachers experience the benefits of looping when they are able to stay with their same interdisciplinary teaching team, and loop up with teachers and students the second year to complete their student teaching semester. A flexible block schedule A flexible block schedule supports regrouping of students for extended learning time. Teachers, not ringing bells, determine the length of the class period while

66


students are in the block. MEdT pre-service teachers truly became part of critical conversations as teachers plan strategies for differentiation and individualization of instruction; time for reteaching to support learning success for all students; and opportunities for enrichment of interested and gifted students in topics of their choice across the curriculum.

TRIBES Team teachers most often use the TRIBES (Gibbs, 2001) processes to identify common classroom practices and expectations, and to support the positive behavior of students. TRIBES processes are used to purposefully create a positive and supportive learning environment in the school and in every classroom. Through common agreements and inclusion practices, student voices are valued and no one is invisible. A four-day TRIBES training is provided each year for new staff members and MEdT pre-service teachers. What a powerful difference it makes for them to gain strategies and processes to purposefully create a culture in their classroom prior to actually becoming teachers! Additionally, they are able to make the connections as they observe TRIBES processes within various classrooms across teams.

Staff development through team planning Another structure that supports shared teacher learning time and professional development is the monthly staff development through team planning. The principal, teacher leaders, and, on occasion, the professor meet during planning time to provide focused support that is specific to their students and professional development needs. This time provides opportunities for small group shared learning and mentoring for in-service and MEdT pre-service teachers related to research-based best practice. Thinking Maps (Hyerle & Yeager, 2007) is one example of a school-wide research-based best practice implemented school wide over a two-year period which has had a statistically significant impact on reading comprehension.

Impact After identifying the unique structures that existed within the MEdT program and at MMS, we began to have conversations about how to integrate these separate entities into our shared vision. Together, a principal and a university professor created a culture to strengthen the holonomous culture and learning community for all the stakeholders. These shared structures include: (1) Executive Council meetings; (2) involvement of a site coordinator; (3) shared planning of MEdT seminars; (4) professional development at MMS; and (5) action research.


67

Executive Council This partnership has demonstrated a different and more effective way for schools and universities to work together, which truly benefits everyone in the learning community. Freese (2004) described the unique structure of governance of MEdT when she explained the Executive Council, which is composed of university faculty, mentor teachers, site coordinators, principals, and student representatives. The council meets monthly to provide an effective means of communication, collaborative decision-making, and formative assessment of progress to achieve the shared goals of the program. This governance structure includes all stakeholders working together and actively engaged in planning, teaching, inquiry, and decisionmaking to strengthen practice at all levels. It is this very structure that not only allows MEdT and MMS to communicate in a formal and regularly scheduled manner, but also supports the sharing of successes and best practice with other partnership schools who are working with the other MEdT cohorts.

Site Coordinator The role of the site coordinator is crucial to the partnership. We realized early on that due to the various roles the principal and professor would be playing, a site coordinator is necessary to serve as a liaison between MMS and the University of Hawai’i (UH). The site coordinator’s main functions are to communicate effectively with the staff at MMS who will serve as mentors to the MEdT pre-service teachers and coordinate partnership efforts at the school. We have found that teachers are more receptive to ideas when they are presented by one of their fellow staff members, as opposed to being given a directive from a principal or professor. Additionally, the site coordinator helps identify quality mentors, provide training (with us) for the mentors, follow up on a myriad of program details, and often participates in on-site seminars. The site coordinator at MMS also serves as the Middle School Coordinator. This site coordinator position provides the wonderful advantage that he is always at the school and is able to troubleshoot a potential problem situation with MEdT pre-service teachers before it becomes a crisis.

Seminars for MEdT Students Another unique structure for this partnership is the way that seminars are provided to the MEdT students. “Being able to articulate one’s own knowledge of practice is vital to enacting a pedagogy of teacher education in order to be able to answer questions such as: ‘Why does that teaching procedure work?’; ‘How does concept mapping enhance student learning?’; or ‘Why would I use a jigsaw method for group

68


work?’ ” (Loughran, 2007, p. 4). In an attempt to connect theory to practice in the seminars, we often discuss current teaching and learning issues at MMS and try to find ways to infuse them into the seminars. We co-teach many seminars and ask the site coordinator, as well as mentor teachers, to participate in relevant topics related to research-based best practice. Since MMS is actively involved in the implementation of TRIBES, we embed TRIBES into seminars and model how it can be used to not only build a culture within the MEdT cohort, but also may be used when the MEdT pre-service teachers work in their own classrooms. We design each seminar together to not only provide key information and instructional strategies of how to teach, but through our teaching we model for the MEdT students what these instructional strategies look like in a classroom. Using the inquiry process to guide the MEdT students, we purposefully teach standardsbased lesson planning and unit design, differentiation, multiple intelligences, and Thinking Maps, so when the MEdT pre-service teachers enter their student teaching semester, they are speaking the same language and thinking the same way as the in-service teachers.

Professional Development at MMS Just as we both collaborate on teaching and selecting topics for the student seminars, we also work with the faculty at MMS. Professional development days and faculty meetings have been designed to focus on specific information on the latest research on classroom instruction that works (Marzano et al., 2001), including how to promote critical thinking and problem-solving; as well as the NBC process. Trying to find ways to give back and support the needs of the faculty at MMS is important because the compensation for being a mentor teacher is never enough in light of the hours required to effectively support a pre-service teacher. As part of the partnership we implement a reciprocal process as a way to provide support for the professional development of the school staff members. We offer a course for a cohort of in-service teachers who are interested in pursuing NBC. “In experiencing what was personally required to complete NBC, Kessler brought new meaning to the notion of ‘recent and relevant’ experience for teacher educators” (Loughran, 2007, p. 9). Drawing upon DuFour et al. (2006), we created another purposeful small learning community with this group of in-service teachers to encourage a shift from focus on teaching to focus on learning. This philosophy relates directly to the goals set forth by NBPTS (2005) as candidates must demonstrate, through their portfolio entries, how their teaching impacts students’ learning. In addition, DuFour (2004) believes that collaborative teams drive the school improvement process. By establishing a learning community among candidates going through NBC, these teachers develop the tools necessary to become leaders within their schools and propel overall school improvement. In return, these teachers become highly effective mentors for the MEdT students. While undertaking the NBC


69

process, some in-service teachers were also serving as mentors to MEdT preservice teachers. This provides some extremely valuable lessons for the MEdT students as they watch their mentors struggle with their own journey of reflection-on-practice to become highly qualified teachers. Reciprocal learning is happening among the participants.

Action Research in the Partnership The partnership between MMS and MEdT is also a source for significant action research focused on student learning. We have joined together to collect relevant data and analyze the impact of research-based best practice on student success. Additionally, we collaboratively try to provide useful data for classroom teachers and present our findings at various educational conferences as well as publish articles in the field.

Discussion and Suggestions Since implementing our partnership in 2005, we continue to have frequent conversations to examine how we can make our partnership stronger. An integral piece of this conversation is celebrating the things that have been successful. The key elements in developing our learning community are: ● ●

●

● ●

A shared commitment to our vision and developing holonomy Principal and teacher buy-in at MMS to support the development of pre-service teachers Commitment from the university professor to be on-site and to support the professional growth of in-service and pre-service teachers A common research agenda Continuous dialogue between the principal and university professor as well as feedback from the site coordinator, mentor teachers, and the MEdT students

Challenges and Barriers to Overcome Just as we recognize our successes, we have been able to identify barriers and challenges to our learning community. Keynes (1935) stated more than 70 years ago that the real difficulty in changing the course of any enterprise lies not in developing new ideas but in escaping old ones. Some of our barriers are: (1) stability of university staff; (2) commitment to research-based instructional practices; (3) shared and purposeful action research to impact student achievement; and (4) inservice teachers willing to be mentors to pre-service teachers.

70


Stability of university staff One of the challenges is the mind-set of university professors who tend to buy into the ivory tower notion and find it difficult to leave their offices to walk in the lowly hallways of the K–12 setting. Hanna (2003, p. 26) identifies the ivory tower as “a time when knowledge was to be awarded in order to be preserved … and when the primary medium for storing knowledge was physically and geographically bound books.” In addition to the ivory tower mentality, a recurring and unresolved problem has been the high turnover of the university staff within the MEdT program. Although university educators are preparing teachers for our public schools, few choose to be involved in partnerships with local schools; fieldwork is often not very desirable. According to Freese et al. (1998) the major commitment of time, resources, and effort provide a source of tension for university faculty. Freese (2004, p. 14) states that “faculty are aware that there are no rewards from the university for extensive amounts of time devoted to working with partnership schools, and it is particularly difficult for untenured faculty because the demands of publishing and conducting research compete with the needs and expectations of the pre-service and mentor teachers at the partner schools.” Commitment to research-based instructional practices It is often assumed at both the university level and in most schools that there truly is a commitment to research-based best practices and a willingness to change practice. Few university faculty members focus on research-based best practice in the delivery of instruction, or model through lesson design and classroom practice those teaching and learning processes that reflect the needs of the adult learners. As Loughran (2007, p. 13) states: “[O]ne difficulty associated with framing professional identity through the lens of the ex-school teacher is that the teacher educator may be viewed as simply being a teacher teaching in teacher preparation rather than as a teacher educator with an expertise in teaching and learning about teaching.” These best-practice instructional strategies should also be modeled and included as an integral part of teaching and learning in College of Education courses. How often do university professors truly address the array of learners in their college classrooms or build a curriculum on the research-based needs of adult learners? Shared and purposeful action research to impact student achievement Many public schools today face what seems like insurmountable challenges as they attempt to address the needs of the array of learners in every classroom. Public schools desperately need teachers who can purposefully create a positive and caring culture in the classroom; utilize instructional strategies and an engaging curriculum relevant and important to students and their community; facilitate strategic reading and thinking skills; and use assessments to inform instruction. However, as recently noted on the front page of USA Today during the 2007 AERA conference: “[U]niversity professors often conduct studies on topics that do little to help schools solve problems such as how to train teachers, how to raise


71

skills, how to lower dropout rates and whether smaller classes really make a difference” (Toppo, 2007, p. 1). In-service teachers willing to be mentors to pre-service teachers In this demanding climate created by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, public school educators often feel that they have to function as be-all, know-all problemsolvers for everything that ails our society. Teachers are overwhelmed and are not always willing to take on the added responsibility and hours of commitment to mentor a pre-service teacher. The monetary payment for a mentor teacher is not even equal to a day’s pay, and many teachers feel that their role is not valued in the pre-service teacher preparation process. Therefore, one of the challenges that must be addressed systemically is to support the role of mentor teachers in preparing the pre-service teachers.

Next Steps The journey of this partnership continues to provide opportunities for reflection and refinement as we critically examine outcomes and what has worked and what has not been successful within our learning community. Part of this journey is acknowledging our barriers and committing ourselves to the process of overcoming them. Cristy remains a fundamental part of the faculty at MMS. She traveled with 10 educators from the Moanalua Complex to attend the Thinking Maps conference and then participated in a four-day training with MMS staff members to become a trainer for the Thinking Maps program. The next cohort of in-service teachers who will attempt NBC during the 2007–2008 school year is already in place, and has started its support sessions with Cristy. Cristy will also lead a small learning community of interested teachers in the lesson study process using Thinking Maps as the focus. It will be an additional effort to continue data collection on relevant research related to the learning success of students in the classroom. Caroline and Cristy will work with members of the learning community to develop a handbook for MEdT that is specific to our learning community and includes what we have learned during the past two years. We will also begin to restructure the seminars in the MEdT program to better reflect the research-based best practices that are currently implemented in the Moanalua Complex. Our goal is to strengthen the processes, methodology, pedagogy, and the culture of our partnership learning community. As we experience success in this collaborative effort, the outcome will not only be improved teaching and learning to support the success of every student, but also every teacher learner, whether university professor, instructional leader, in-service, or pre-service. As Marcel Proust has stated: “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”

72


References Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Costa, A. L. & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. MA: Christopher-Gordon. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166–173. DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11. DuFour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2006). Professional learning at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Freese, A. R. (2004). Evaluation as a way of knowing: assessing the impact of a PDS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association Research Association, San Diego, CA, April, 2004. Freese, A., McEwan, H., Bayer, A., Awaya, A., & Marble, S. (1998). Reinventing teacher preparation: The master of education in teaching program. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 8(1), 7–13. Gibbs, J. (2001). Discovering gifts in middle school learning in a caring culture called TRIBES TLC. Windsor CA: CenterSource Systems. Hanna, D. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher education. Educause Review, 38(4), 25–34. Hiebert, J. & Stigler, J. W. (2004). A world of difference: Classrooms abroad provide lesson teaching math and science. Journal of Staff Development, 25(4), 10–15. Hyerle, D. & Yeager, C. (2007). Thinking maps: A language for learning. NC: Thinking Maps. Keynes, M. (1935). Retrieved July 2007, from http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_maynard_ keynes/ Kosnik, C. (2007). Still the same yet different. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: values, relationships, and practice. New York: Routledge. Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook for teacher-led improvement of instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools. Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: values, relationships, and practice. New York: Routledge. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Researchbased strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Guide to National Board Certification (NBPTS). (2005). Retrieved October 2005, from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) web site online: http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/nbpts_guide_2005.pdf National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2006). What makes a teacher effective? Retrieved April 17, 2007, from (pamphlet). Proust, M. Retrieved July 2007, from http://www.quotesandpoem.com/quotes/ showquotes/ author/Marcel_Proust/79689 Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Toppo, G. (2007). Usefulness of education research questioned. Retrieved April 2007, from http:// www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-04-10-education-science_n.htm

Chapter 6

A Whole-School Approach to Urban Educational Renewal: Community, Collaboration, and Leadership Clive Beck, Clare Kosnik, and Yiola Cleovoulou

Many attempts at educational reform focus either on developing the knowledge and skills of individual teachers through courses, workshops, publications, and so on, or on mandating curriculum and pedagogy – with related professional development – across a whole-school system. The first approach is problematic because individual teachers need workplace support and encouragement in order to go in new directions, and furthermore the innovations of individual teachers must be reinforced by other teachers in their school if they are to have a substantial impact on students. The second approach also presents challenges. System-wide directives tend to be either so general that teachers have difficulty interpreting what they mean, or so specific that no room is left for essential adaptation at the school and classroom level. And even if appropriate “medium grain” standards (DarlingHammond, 1997, p. 229) can be found, implementing them across a whole system requires more resources, ingenuity, and coordination than are often available. In this paper, we report on an educational reform effort that pursued a third alternative, what we call a “whole-school approach.” The staff of a downtown Toronto elementary school worked together as a community to develop and implement a shared vision of teaching and learning. One of their central goals was to ensure that all students achieved success in this strongly urban setting. While aspects of the vision – and substantial support – came from government and school district sources, the staff showed a great deal of local initiative. This third approach to educational renewal also has its challenges. Just as individual teachers need support, so do schools: it is difficult for a school to rise above the general culture of a system. And even where one school is highly successful, there is no easy way to “spread” the success to other schools (Sarason, 1990). Fullan (1991) maintains that school renewal requires system-wide top-down initiatives as well as bottom-up ones. However, we believe the approach taken in our case study school is instructive and elements of it could be utilized in other school settings. Of particular interest for this book, of course, was the school’s emphasis on building professional community among the staff as a means of promoting school renewal.

C. Beck, C. Kosnik, and Y. Cleovoulou Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto


73

74

C. Beck et al.

Theoretical Framework In our research we were concerned to study ways of achieving “learning for all” in an urban school with a diverse student population. Recent theory on standards for the teaching profession has stressed the importance of ensuring that all students are successful (Beck et al., 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1997; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1995). New York city’s Central Park East Schools in the 1980s and 1990s, under the leadership of Deborah Meier, took a student population in Harlem with traditionally low academic success and enabled them to achieve at a high level, both at school and subsequently at college and university (Meier, 1995). While classroom teachers are key to school renewal and learning for all, they need the support and encouragement of their principal and other teachers in their school (Barth, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1992; Zemelman et al., 1998). Cuban (1998) states that seeing the school as “the basic unit of reform” was emphasized in the USA by the Effective Schools movement from the mid-1970s (pp. 461–462). This movement was founded by a small group of researchers who questioned the view that schools could do little to increase academic success among poor and minority students (p. 461). Because of the prevalence of this view at the time, there was a danger that special funding for schools in poor and minority neighborhoods would be discontinued. The central tenet of the Effective Schools movement was that “[a]ll children, regardless of background, can learn and achieve results that mirror ability, not socioeconomic status” (p. 462). In addition to its school-based orientation, the movement advocated the following strategies for ensuring that all students are successful: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Clearly stated academic goals Principal’s instructional leadership Concentration on basic academic skills Strong emphasis on maintaining order in the school Frequent monitoring of academic achievement Connecting what is taught to what is tested (pp. 461–462)

At the same time there existed a less prominent but also influential school-based reform movement focused on middle schools. It appeared initially in the mid-1960s and reemerged in the early 1980s (and is still with us today, in several countries). The middle schools movement, according to Cuban (1998, p. 467), “has competed with Effective Schools ideology for a version of what constitutes a ‘good’ school.” Strategies advocated by the movement include: ● ● ● ●

Team teaching of core subjects Teachers acting as advisers A pedagogy grounded in active learning and small-group instruction Large time blocks set aside for classes (p. 467)

The “neoprogressive philosophy” of this movement was “at best, skeptical and, at worst, hostile to some of the Effective Schools factors and standardized achievement testing” (p. 467).

6 A Whole-School Approach to Urban Educational Renewal

75

While in Cuban’s (1998) view the Effective Schools movement had considerable impact, some of its key principles were quickly modified. From the early 1980s, “policy elites” in the USA focused increasingly on the economic benefits to the nation of student academic success, neglecting other purposes of schooling such as “building citizens, seeking social justice, and providing a psychologically and emotionally healthy experience for children” (p. 465). [B]y the end of the 1980s, policymakers spoke publicly less and less of “effective schools” and far more about “restructuring,” “site-based management,” “professional development of teachers,” and “systemic reform”…. [T]hey viewed the reform of schooling as a far larger project involving national goals, curriculum, and testing rather than a local schoolby-school venture. (pp. 462–463)

On this model (which is still prominent today) many bureaucratic decisions were “site-based.” However, curriculum and pedagogy were largely generated at a system level and simply implemented by the school (or by individual teachers – hence the need for professional development). Assessment programs, too, were developed beyond the school and served primarily to determine whether students were meeting system targets. This was significantly different from the approach the Effective Schools founders had in mind. At the K-6 school we studied – Bridge Street School (we use pseudonyms in this paper) – the principal and teachers were acutely aware of the Ontario government’s curriculum and standardized testing program. The detailed curriculum expectations impacted their planning and teaching and framed student reporting; and every year the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) released to the public its test results in literacy and mathematics for grade 3 and 6 students, grouped by school. However, in line with the Effective Schools and middle schools movements, the staff chose in addition to develop a set of objectives, principles, and strategies for their school, with an emphasis on success for all students. In accord with these movements, too, the principal had a major leadership role in curriculum and pedagogy and several teachers were given special responsibility as “instructional leaders.” Also in keeping with the middle schools movement (and progressive education generally), the Bridge Street staff emphasized building community among the staff and students, using active and collaborative learning methods, and pursuing goals that went beyond academic learning to personal and social growth and citizenship development.

Context and Methodology of the Study Bridge Street is a relatively small elementary school (about 350 students) in downtown Toronto. It is high on the school district’s scale of “inner-cityness,” and thus qualifies for special funding and other kinds of support. According to the principal, the school is very diverse, with “no main group.” “They’re from all over the world,” perhaps 20% from Chinese background, 15% East Indian, 15% from Africa and the Caribbean, some from South America, and so on. A

76

C. Beck et al.

very high proportion were born outside Canada. One teacher said: “We have many students who are very low academically: there’s nothing wrong with them intellectually or physically, but their background experiences are quite lacking.” Nearly all the students come from the local neighborhood and most from relatively poor households. At the time of our study, the school was a practicum site for our OISE/University of Toronto teacher education program, and this gave us opportunities to observe it beyond those normally available to outside researchers. The study was funded through a small-scale grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, whose support we gratefully acknowledge. In the fall and early winter of 2004 we gained the ethical permission of the University of Toronto to conduct the study, the administrative consent of the Toronto District School Board, and the written agreement of the principal and teachers. Our observations at the school occurred from January 2005 to June 2006. In June 2005, we interviewed the principal and 13 teachers. In selecting teachers for interview we included all four “instructional leaders” and looked for a balance in grade level taught and years of experience at the school. Each interview was about an hour in length and was recorded and transcribed. In addition to the interviews, we conducted two focus groups in June 2006. Each group consisted of five teachers – a more junior and a more senior group – and again we recorded and transcribed the discussion. Our research approach was qualitative, as defined by Punch (2005). For example, we had a small sample (just one school, the principal, and 13 teachers) which we studied in depth, our interview and focus group sessions were somewhat openended, and the themes emerged as the study progressed. In analyzing the transcripts, we began by reading them several times to identify themes or “codes” related to the central issues of the study. We then developed a table of these themes, matched to interviewees and, going through the transcripts again, recorded the pages on which reference was made to each topic; this table was used in developing a structure for our report. As we wrote the report we continued to add, delete, and modify themes and kept going back to the transcripts to seek clarification and select further quotations and examples.

Findings In this main section of the chapter, we outline some of the key findings of our study of Bridge Street School. In line with the overall theme of the book, our focus is especially on the professional community, common vision, and collaboration established among the staff. While there were other important elements in the school’s renewal approach – for example, community among the students and links to the parents and surrounding neighborhood – limitations of space do not allow us to discuss them at length here.


77

A Staff Community We found that there was indeed a strong community among the teachers and principal at Bridge Street School. We observed it during our visits to the school, and many of the teachers spoke about it in the focus groups and individual interviews. For example, Gina said: “We feel very safe as teachers here. … It’s a small school, so we get to see everyone. In my first school, I was down the hall, I never saw half the teachers and didn’t know what they were doing … [But here] it’s really close knit.” Jane recalled that “when I first started in the kindergarten, other teachers were amazing, giving me resources, advice, and so on.” Natalie commented: I find that our principal is very supportive, she’s always there for the kids and for the teachers as well. If I ever have anything I need to talk about or am concerned about, I know I can always go to her, whether it be a personal issue or a professional issue. And the teachers within the school are great. If you need a resource, you can pop into anyone’s room and say, “Can I borrow this,” and they will say, “Yeah, take it, go.” It’s just a sharing community.

While there was much sharing and considerable closeness, however, some teachers commented that the community was more professional than social in nature. For example, Natalie said: “There’s just that professionalism; like somebody you may not connect with outside of the school, socially, you feel comfortable going to professionally to ask them anything, and they’re very willing to help you out.” Similarly, Gina distinguished between the professional and the social. There are people you gravitate towards because of similarities or what not, and then people you can connect with in the professional role but not more than that; and I think that’s fine. That’s what I realized my first year: I had these big hopes, these big dreams, that everyone is going to get together and we’re all going to get along; but nope, it’s not like that. We’re human beings and everyone has their baggage, their differences and similarities. Just like the kids in our classrooms, not everyone will always get along on a personal level, but they can do it professionally.

The teachers believed that having a professional community was very important for the success of the school. It enabled them to pull together and gave a common direction to their teaching. It provided a means of learning from each other and inspired them to work harder. Speaking of the community and its expectations, Mark said: “I think it’s good, because without big expectations you get teachers who don’t seem to care.” Amy commented: It’s important that in general teachers take the initiative to share resources … sharing success stories, materials, and that sort of thing … whether it’s in-school workshops that are being offered, whatever it happens to be. This information has to be disseminated. Also it’s important for teachers to support each other so we become creative problem-solvers, because there are constraints and demands that can sometimes seem overwhelming. If you have a particularly challenging class or if you are an inexperienced teacher, teachers can help each other by opening their doors.

78

C. Beck et al.

A Common Vision The community, then, was largely professional in nature (a “team,” as Janet called it), but the staff enjoyed the camaraderie of a joint enterprise, working successfully together with like-minded people. However, much of the success of their efforts – and the enjoyment – depended on the fact that they were pulling in the same direction. Having a common vision was crucial to the model. Obviously they differed on some matters and had varied styles, but there was basic agreement on goals and pedagogical approach. Many of the teachers made reference to this shared vision. For example, Natalie said: “As a staff … we have common goals for our kids. … [W]e all have main goals we want to accomplish, things we want to implement, things we want the children to learn. So it’s a whole-school approach.” Key elements in the vision were: ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

All students being successful Student engagement Development of the whole child A stress on academic development (especially in literacy, but also math and science) Integration of subjects A collaborative and integrated program across the whole school Appropriate behavior both individually and in the school Community among faculty, in individual classrooms, and across the school Inclusion of students of different backgrounds and abilities And links with parents and the neighborhood community

Summarizing the vision, Janet (the principal) said that its “three pillars” were “behavior, curriculum, and community.” While there was a common vision, however, it was not imposed in an overly strict or top-down manner. Amy spoke of flexibility in implementing it: “Sometimes you think, Oh I can’t handle one more thing; there’s that odd moment. But as Andrea says, you pick and choose, and the things that really need to get done tend to get done.” Amy talked of the autonomy she felt as a teacher at the school: “All of us want to support the initiatives that have been put in place here. But it’s also important to have a feeling of autonomy, a sense that you have the freedom to use other programs too that you think the children could benefit from; and I certainly feel I have that freedom.” Natalie said there was an acceptance in the school of teachers – especially new teachers – pacing themselves, implementing one thing at a time. The existence of a common vision was seen by the staff as having a number of advantages. Janet noted that teachers liked to work at the school, despite the common agenda and its heavy demands: “Teachers want to come here to teach; which is different from how it used to be. I have lots of applications now, from people who are interested in working successfully and happily in the inner city.” Some of the teachers spoke of the role of the common vision in helping them grow as teachers and teach in the way they wanted to. Gina said: I started here as a new teacher, so this common agenda and structure were good for me personally, because I came in as a blank slate. I had my teacher education, had been in a


79

couple of classrooms, and had taught ESL for a year; but it was nice to go into a primary classroom and have certain programs emphasized by the school, so I knew what the direction of the school was. … And I feel it has helped me create a well-balanced literacy program because of the school’s agenda and resources.

In particular, several of the teachers mentioned that buying into the school’s agenda resulted in their being far ahead of teachers in other schools in certain respects. Amy remarked in a focus group: “You know what I find – and I’ve heard some of you say this too – when we go to workshops, we are so ahead of the game. Like we’ll be sitting there and they’ll be going, Well, maybe you should try guided reading, and we’re like, Guided reading?! … And in my ESL course they said, Have you heard of ‘Erasing Prejudice for Good’?, and I thought, wow, we’ve been doing that for ten years.”

A Collaborative Enterprise The staff not only had a common vision, they also worked closely together. They shared strategies and resources and engaged in joint teaching and school-wide projects. Andrea said: “We do a lot of team teaching in our school and a lot of collaboration on how to make students work together and how to teach the Second Steps program (on behavior and conflict resolution). … That happens in every single grade: it is given to every class so they all know similar strategies.” Cindy reported: So when you see a child who has been in our school since grade 1, and let’s say they’ve reached grade 6, they will have a whole collection of experiences that they’ve shared as a whole group, but also individually in classrooms. And it’s also about sharing between the staff too, about what you’ve done as their grade 3 teacher, as their grade 4 teacher; and I can take that and build on it the next year … and not teach in isolation.

Among the school-wide projects was the Butterfly Project, coordinated by Naomi. All the classes from Kindergarten to grade 6 participated in some way in rearing, caring for, observing, writing about, and eventually releasing a colony of Monarch butterflies. A major aspect of the collaboration among the staff was teaching each other. Of course, much incidental sharing took place as they worked together, but often the instruction and coaching were more systematic. This was truly a learning community. For example, James said: Since I’ve started here I’ve had some excellent workshops and programs run by people at the school, such as the literacy coordinator (Cindy) and our old VP (the school no longer has a VP). In First Steps literacy, experienced teachers within the school prepared workshops for us to attend in the library after school and at lunch-time. … They showed us how they implemented First Steps in their classrooms. They brought student work and charts they had used and put things on overhead projectors. … And the librarian (Nina) will show us things that are on the computer.

Naomi, who later launched the Monarch project, described how she was introduced to integrated programming by other teachers at the school. One day the literacy coordinator (Cindy) and another teacher had a planning day and they involved me. They were teaching grades 3 and 4 and I had a grade 2/3 class, and we sat down to do some planning. They dragged me in and used the board, a chart, a map, and so

80

C. Beck et al. on, and I was like, How did you do that?! So I was blown away, but I guess they saw that I was willing to try and was capable of doing it. So … that’s how I got into cross-curricular planning, and they were really happy that I accomplished that.

The teachers believed that staff collaboration, within a shared vision, was important for the success of the school. Andrea described how, for literacy, students from Kindergarten onward have folders with work samples and other information that are passed on from one year to the next, so that “it’s not just individual classes, we’re pushing for a school-wide approach.” Similarly, Cindy commented: With our Butterfly Project … we’re now going into our third year of having the Monarchs in the school. So for example, the students who started with it in grade 1, and for whom all this learning about insects was new, those children now will be in grade 3. When their teacher starts to talk to them about life-cycle, migration, the changes, graphing, and keeping notes and records, that will remind them of what their teachers talked about in previous years.

Being part of a collaborative enterprise meant a lot of hard work, but several teachers maintained it was worth it. As we saw earlier, Natalie realized that implementing the vision involved extra work but said that all teachers have to work hard, and this is just a different way to do it. Naomi’s attitude was that “it’s stimulating, as a person, to be in a place where you can actually use your brain. Otherwise your job just becomes this thing that you go to and then you go home again, right? So for me, I feel I’m engaged.” Andrea commented: Teaching is not the only profession where the first couple of years you have to work a lot harder than you do later on. I mean, there are lots of other professions where people go in on a Saturday. It takes a while to build up a program and feel comfortable with what you’re doing. Even if I was in another school I think I would be working just as hard, but my job would probably be even more difficult because I wouldn’t have the resources to actually do what I want to do.

Teacher Leadership A key aspect of the model of school reform at Bridge Street was leadership by the teachers, especially the four “instructional leaders.” It is perhaps paradoxical to have strong leadership by a subgroup of teachers within a staff community, but in fact the teacher leaders helped to nurture a communal approach. Without teacher leaders who deliberately cross boundaries, teachers tend to work in isolation rather than as a community. For her part, the principal (Janet) said she found the teacher leaders invaluable and could not have developed and implemented the model without them. She gave them a lot of responsibility and room for initiative. The teachers designated as instructional leaders were Cindy the literacy coordinator, Mark the behavior resource person, Nina the librarian, and Linda the special education coordinator (or MART – methods and resource teacher). In addition, Gina helped with literacy, Natalie with behavior (especially through the Second Steps program), and Naomi with science (especially through the Butterfly Project). Other teachers mentored new teachers and assisted in a variety of ways.


81

How did the position of instructional leader come into being? Janet explained that she invented the role at the school: I call them instructional leaders; it’s just me calling them that. … Cindy’s the only one who has an actual school board position, a 0.5 allocated for PD in literacy because we are an EYLP (early years literacy project) school. The term instructional leader is used elsewhere in the board, but I use it in a different sense: to acknowledge their special leadership role in this school. For example, the MART position comes from the board, but together Linda and I built the “struggling learner” piece, and I consider that a leadership thing. Similarly, Mark built the behavior piece, and I consider that leadership.

So although it was not official at a school board level, Janet was able to set up a whole structure of leadership in her school. But doing so required a strong vision and a lot of juggling of budgets, positions, and roles. How was it possible in budget terms to have such a leadership structure? We have noted that Cindy’s half-time literacy position was funded by the school board. Nina’s library resource position was possible because she was the librarian, although having a librarian in a small school in Toronto today takes considerable ingenuity and determination with respect to both program and budget. Regarding the other two positions, Janet explained: In my first year here as VP (1996–97) the behavior was really awful; so the staff, the principal, and I decided to put forward a proposal to have a 0.5 behavior resource teacher, which meant that the teachers agreed to accept higher class numbers in order to have somebody who would support behavior. And that was the beginning of the turn-around for this school, we never looked back. Then eventually – about two or three years ago – they changed the special education model in the board and sent it all to the home schools. And that gave us the MART (Linda) 1.0 and 0.5 for the home-school program. So with 1.5 for special education, including Mark’s piece devoted to behavior, we were able to lower class size again.

Role of the Principal As one might expect, the principal – Janet – was a key figure in the school renewal effort at Bridge Street. It is difficult to imagine a school-based approach being successful without a strong and supportive principal. Janet began at Bridge Street as vice principal in 1996 and became principal in 1999. The teachers spoke about her important leadership role. Linda observed: “A lot of the vision comes from Janet. She has her finger on the pulse out there, what the current things are. And she will show, at our meetings, that she reads herself.” According to Cindy, “the school culture comes from Janet” and “she is the driving force.” Although she had vision and passion, however, Janet did not control the school in an overly top-down manner. She was open and flexible and relied heavily on the talent and initiatives of her teachers. As she said: “I’m open to a lot of different things … and if I see a good idea I try to implement it; but if it doesn’t work I drop it. I don’t have a vested interest in stuff.” On the matter of teacher autonomy, she commented: I’ve never been a person who wanted to tell teachers what to teach. To me teaching was such a creative enterprise, and I always enjoyed that aspect of it. I would hate for the prin-

82

C. Beck et al. cipal to prevent that. My expectations are very clear, even around topics in the curriculum. But my teachers know I’ll leave them alone if they’re doing a good job. So as long as they’re meeting the broad objectives, they can pretty well do what they want; I’m not interested in that kind of micro-management.

In the interviews and focus groups, the teachers repeatedly confirmed that Janet gave them considerable leeway. But while she did not control the details, Janet participated in the school at a detailed level, and we see this as an important distinction. She did not just leave the teachers to their own devices but worked closely with them. According to James, “she is committed to everyone being successful. … She honestly knows the name of every single student in the school and can tell you what grade they’re in and how they’re doing.” Janet’s central concern was the children’s academic and personal development and their general well-being. However, she took very seriously her role of providing material and other resources needed in the school. Nina observed: “She is very supportive. Like you’ll say, I really think we could use more of such and such, and she’ll say, Oh okay, I’ll find the money for it.” Jane said: “This school has perhaps been the one where I’ve received the most support as a teacher. Our principal is very open to our suggestions, and when we mention a problem she make things work; and unfortunately in public education, things usually don’t turn out the way you want them to.” Apart from resources for teaching, Janet also took great care to establish a school office and building facility that supported the teachers and the program.

Impact The Bridge Street efforts at school renewal led to what we regard as strongly positive changes in school programming, processes, and culture. These changes in turn undoubtedly had a major impact on student academic and personal development, although we were not in a position to assess this systematically. We observed strong practice in the classrooms: the state-of-the-art approaches to literacy teaching, group work, and special education promoted by the principal and instructional leaders were being implemented. Cross-curricular teaching was widespread. Students were engaged. And the staff’s commitment to “never giving up on kids” could be seen in the relationship between the teachers and their students. An especially apparent area of success was student interest in reading. Janet commented that “Nina loves books and the kids adore her, and our rate of borrowing books from the library went up 25 per cent in the first year she took over.” James, Ann, and Mark all spoke of how interest in reading had risen significantly in the school among both boys and girls. Improvement in behavior throughout the school was perhaps the most dramatic change that occurred. According to Naomi, the school is “complimented all the time on how well the kids behave.” James observed that behavior used to be so bad that he refused to supply teach at the school (before he became a permanent teacher there), even though he lived just a couple of blocks away. “The teachers used to have to take attendance ten times a day because children would literally run


83

away, or hide in the bathrooms. … But now it’s not really an issue any more, the school culture has changed so much.” In general, the respectful and caring approach of Mark and the rest of the staff toward the students helped build a positive culture throughout the school and in individual classrooms, a culture that was strongly conducive to ensuring that all students are successful. Many of the teachers spoke about how the community in their classroom had improved in recent years. At a school level, the atmosphere in the hallways and at assemblies was positive and friendly. Beyond the school, too, community links became stronger. Jane observed: “Community involvement has been progressing, at least since I’ve been here. In the past, parents were not that involved in the school. But over the last couple years … we have had some community events and everyone is surprised at the good turn out. … So the school is slowly becoming a part of the community, and people are starting to look at the school with a sense of pride.”

Conclusion and Recommendations From what we could see, the renewal effort at Bridge Street School was very successful. It resulted in enhanced programming, increased student engagement, substantial improvement in behavior, and a positive school culture and atmosphere. We think it highly likely that these changes in turn had a major impact on students’ academic and personal development, taking this strongly urban school some distance toward the goal of ensuring that all students are successful. The changes that took place appeared to be due in large measure to: developing a common vision; building community among the staff; working closely together; establishing a structure of teacher leadership; and having a strong principal at the helm. In many ways the renewal effort took place under favorable circumstances. The school was relatively small, a factor considered crucial by many school reformers (Meier, 1995; Wood, 1998). The principal was unusually able and knowledgeable and prepared to take a firm stand on the reforms. The teachers were also very talented and committed. And the school district had a policy of providing additional support to schools in poorer neighborhoods. However, there are ways of establishing a “school-within-a-school” to create the kind of context that was established at Bridge Street. Principals can be trained and encouraged to become more involved in substantive aspects of their school. And teachers can be selected and trained for a role similar to that followed at Bridge Street. We believe other schools could adopt many of the same strategies for ensuring that all students are successful. Based on our study, we would make the following recommendations for pursuing the success of all students in urban settings: ● ● ● ●

Keep the school small (or form a school-within-a-school). Select teachers carefully. Foster community and collaboration among the staff. Develop an explicit, shared vision for the school.

84 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

C. Beck et al.

In the vision, emphasize curriculum, behavior, and community. Establish school-wide programs, projects, and approaches. Build a structure of teacher leadership, including in-house professional development. Involve the principal deeply in developing the program and culture of the school. Develop community across the school and in individual classrooms. Establish close links with parents and the neighborhood community. Seek help from the school district and other potential supporters. Link up with government and district-wide initiatives that support the school’s vision.

References Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Beck, C., Hart, D., & Kosnik, C. (2002). The teaching standards movement and current teaching practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 27(2), 153–172. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wood, G. (1998). A time to learn. New York: Dutton. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Part II

Learning Communities in University Settings

Introduction Anastasia P. Samaras

The chapters in this section demonstrate that although we often think of learning communities in elementary and secondary schools, learning communities also have an essential place in university settings. The chapter authors invite us to consider how programs and courses for teachers, education students, dissertation-bound students, and doctoral candidates might look if there was a sense of community in their learning. These very interesting chapters offer detailed descriptions of key attributes of university-based learning communities. They call our attention to common themes found across the chapters and the value the community placed on relationship and interrelationships; the need for members to feel safe to take risks and to share any individual concerns that might impact the group; and the importance of caring about each other’s ideas for the group’s sustainability. As a whole, the chapters also highlight the attributes of openness and trustfulness in developing and sustaining learning communities. Impressive in each of these studies are the participants’ ongoing commitment to a shared group goal or task. You will read about their research rich with data on how their communities offered members academic, professional, and personal support. Authors explain their work in building and maintaining a learning community, the challenges they faced, and the refinements they were willing to negotiate as a group. The chapters also shed light on the importance of multiple perspectives in helping each community member to learn from and with others. Especially noteworthy in each of the learning communities was the usefulness and practicality of the work to the participants’ everyday lives and the positive impact the communities made in education. This section opens with Chapter 7, where Stern describes a challenging and rewarding journey in the development of learning communities designed to provide ongoing support and professional development for teacher graduates. Teachers are often catapulted into their teaching worlds with little or no contact or support from faculty. This chapter offers an example of a college’s role in changing that situation. In peer discussion groups, new graduates and college alumni developed a collegial exchange with faculty serving as group facilitators. This chapter provides an honest appraisal of the challenges in sustaining learning communities and how members mutually struggled to define and redefine their roles. It includes a discussion of the support the community needed, the lessons they learned along the way, and the success that resulted from their collective efforts.


87

88

A.P. Samaras

In Chapter 8, Freese and Strong take us into their multicultural education classroom where a unique learning community was established in their co-taught university class. They provide detailed descriptions of the instructional activities that brought theory into practice for their students and themselves. They explain the ways they supported and encouraged all voices and allowed students to get to know one another beyond superficial connections. Their pedagogical approach cultivated a classroom culture where students and faculty could wrestle and unpack tensions related to openly discussing multicultural issues and arriving at new understandings. Honoring their students’ multiplicity of identities, respectfully listening to students’ personal histories, and creating a classroom anthology with their students, enabled the class to experience, and not just talk about, a classroom learning community. In Chapter 9, Klein et al. explain the process and structure of their dissertation support group and offer a model for other doctoral programs interested in supporting their students through the arduous dissertation journey. As with Stern’s Chapter 7, the authors emphasize that conceptual and personal support and the development and care of other’s ideas are mutually beneficial to members who are new to any position, whether they are doctoral students, teachers, or peer discussion facilitators. This selfformed support group recognized that it is the multiple perspectives and voices, a dedication to reciprocity, and a commitment to mutuality that benefits all participants. Their work speaks volumes of the potential and need for such learning communities for all doctoral students during and after the completion of their dissertations. This section concludes with Chapter 10, where Samaras et al. tell us about how their learning community evolved as they supported each other in learning and teaching about the self-study research methodology. The “Mason Group” invites us to consider what a doctoral research method would entail if the professor shared leadership, learning, and researching with her students. They describe the pedagogical activities that were catalysts to their learning community designed with an application of Vygotsky’s (1981) ideas of situated learning, the zone of proximal development, social cognition, and using the arts as a mediating tool. Individually and collectively, the research members grew as self-study scholars as they questioned and shifted their thinking within a supportive, trustful, and open classroom atmosphere. Collectively, the studies in this section advance our understanding about the design of learning communities in higher education and how they can, and do, thrive in university settings. The chapters provide useful exemplars of learning communities that serve both students and faculty and are both scholarly and practical. These studies shift the paradigm of thinking about how learning communities can be developed in university settings and how much they are needed.

Reference Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. (Original work published 1960)

Chapter 7

Fellow Travelers: New Teachers and Their Graduate School Faculty Take a Journey to the Land of Peer Discussion Groups Barbara Stern

Toward the end of the 2007 school year, I had dinner at a restaurant in Brooklyn with nine members of a peer discussion group called “Weaving Bank Street Principles into Your Every Day Math Practice,” organized and facilitated by Hal Melnick, a fellow faculty member at Bank Street College of Education. The group had graciously invited me to join their celebration culminating 10 weeks of visiting one another’s schools and classrooms, sharing teaching practices, and engaging in collective brainstorming about ways to integrate learnings from graduate school with the demands and realities of their school cultures. Throughout the meal, tales of summer plans and other bits of personal lives mixed easily with serious discussion of teaching issues. As the group prepared to say their goodbyes, David asked the person next to him for advice about the next morning’s math lesson, and soon the entire group was once more engaged in lively discussion. For me, this was a culminating experience of a different nature. Three years previously, I had started coordinating a new induction program at Bank Street College. The program was part of a larger project funded by Teachers for a New Era (TNE), an initiative whose goal is to strengthen K-12 teaching by researching and enhancing programs of teacher preparation. In a collaborative venture of the Graduate School faculty and other members of the college community, an induction committee and I had designed and implemented several types of support for new teachers. Now the TNE project was drawing to a close. Listening to the group members reflect on themselves as a community of learners, I thought about the many moments of collaborative planning and learning that had led up to the formation of this and other peer discussion groups. In fact, although it was not the conscious intention of the TNE project, other communities of learners had emerged through the process of creating professional support and growth opportunities for graduates. The peer discussion groups for new teachers were the “intentional communities” that we set out to establish. Much to my surprise, other “unintentional communi-

B. Stern Bank Street College


89

90

B. Stern

ties” of faculty members also developed over time. Reflecting back on the experience of designing, creating, and implementing the peer discussion groups, it seems that faculty may have the same yearnings for connection and social learning opportunities as their students. This chapter traces the evolution of Bank Street College’s peer discussion groups, from the perspectives of both faculty members and new teachers. It looks at new teachers and faculty members as “fellow travelers” on a journey. While I write primarily from the perspective of an organizer and observer of the peer discussion groups, I also write from my vantage point as a facilitator of one of the first peer discussion groups and a participant in the concomitant faculty communities of learners.

History and Context of the Peer Discussion Groups for New Teachers1 When Bank Street College of Education was selected to participate in the TNE initiative in 2002, one of the challenges and opportunities was the requirement to establish a program of induction support for recent graduates (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2002). Like most other teacher education programs, we had not previously delineated a formal role in providing ongoing support and professional development to our graduates, though many faculties remained informally connected to former students. In designing this new program of support for graduates, we grappled simultaneously with redefining the roles of a teacher education program and individual faculty members in the professional lives of new educators. Relationships and collaboration are essential elements of all teaching and learning at Bank Street. All graduate students participate in a year-long, 12-credit experience of Supervised Fieldwork, which includes weekly “conference group” sessions with an adviser and four to six other students. Additionally, students meet at least twice a month with their advisers (Hirsch, 1991; Darling-Hammond & McDonald, 2000). In courses, students engage in Vygotskian social learning experiences such as small group discussions and collaborative projects (Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). Likewise, Graduate School faculty typically work together in a spirit of collaborative inquiry. In other words, graduate students and faculty are immersed in a number of learning communities (Beck & Kosnik, 2006). In designing the new induction program, it was important to maintain and build upon our core values of relationship and collaboration, and to create multiple kinds of learning communities to meet the varying needs of graduates. Though we did not frame it like this at the time, our experiments with various induction offerings represented an exploration of various types of learning communities. During the three-year lifetime of the induction program, we offered a web 1 While in this chapter I use “new teachers” to distinguish the participants from the faculty (teacher educator) facilitators, we usually prefer the term “new educators” to include graduates who worked in hospitals and other settings.

7 New Teachers and Their Graduate School Faculty

91

site with contributions from teachers, an online discussion group, a buddy system that matched new and experienced teachers, and a large-scale gathering. (For a more detailed description of these offerings, see Stern et al., 2006, 2007). With each of these offerings, we experimented with a different balance of support from fellow new teachers, more experienced teachers, and faculty members. In designing the peer discussion groups, we honed in on a particular desire and need frequently expressed by graduates: to reconnect with peers and faculty from the graduate program of study, in order to continue growing as a professional. The peer discussion groups were designed to provide opportunities for graduates to explore particular areas of interest and reconnect and expand their networks with colleagues from Bank Street, with facilitation from a faculty member.

The Challenges in Creating Peer Discussion Groups Prior to setting up peer discussion groups, we faced the challenges and limited success of attracting recent graduates to other induction offerings. We knew that new teachers were swamped and overwhelmed with the daily challenges of teaching, with little time or energy for anything else. Additionally, we recognized that dependency issues can be quite complex for new teachers. It is not always easy to admit that one feels insecure, overwhelmed, and/or less than fully competent. Some new teachers feel that asking for help is tantamount to admitting that they are not good teachers. Others, who view themselves as self-sufficient, are reluctant to admit that they need suggestions or encouragement from more experienced others. With the peer discussion groups, we hoped to focus on the strengths and interests of our graduates, rather than their needs or deficits. There were also challenges on the faculty side. For many faculty members, this was the first time that they were formally involved in the postgraduate learning of their former students. Recognizing that learning to find professional resources and establish professional relationships are key tasks of new teachers, and that building and growing a professional community of colleagues outside of the graduate school setting is an essential facet of success for our graduates, faculty grappled with the associated shifts in relationships with their former students. Some faculty members likened this process to the stage in parenting when the child leaves home. Like the parallel shift that occurs between parent and young adult child, the changing relationship between faculty members and graduates involves a transformation on both sides. Without the power differential that typically exists between teacher and student, the relationship has the potential to become more equal and collaborative. It is not always easy, however, to make this change. The peer discussion groups were an exciting way to address some of these challenges. Exit and alumni surveys indicated that graduates highly valued the weekly conference group component of their Supervised Fieldwork experience, and frequently wanted to maintain it after graduation. They also wanted to maintain connections with faculty members with whom they had close relationships. Peer

92

B. Stern

discussion groups could offer opportunities to connect with a small group of fellow graduates, as well as a faculty member. They seemed consistent with our growing understanding of an induction model that provided a transition from dependence on faculty to independent professional growth.

A Journey to the Land of Peer Discussion Groups The Beginning of the Journey: Conceptualizing the Peer Discussion Groups When the faculty facilitators2 of the peer discussion groups (or study groups, as they were originally called) started the journey of conceptualizing and creating the groups, we focused on the needs and interests of recent graduates. We walked the slippery slope of trying to design and shape something for others, while maintaining a philosophical stance that the groups would be whatever the participants wanted them to be. We rarely, if ever, talked about ourselves as fellow learners along with the new teacher participants. We did, however, quickly recognize that our planning group was itself turning into a sort of study group. Our first meeting took place in the apartment of one of the faculty facilitators. Linda Levine had prepared a beautiful spread of food, and as we helped set the table and chatted about our summers, it felt much like the beginning of a conference group meeting. Our conversation about the content and format of the groups also felt similar to a conference group conversation, with each member paying mindful attention and sharing thoughtful responses. Unknowingly, we were creating for ourselves a learning environment which we would later mirror in the peer discussion groups. Over the next few months, we exchanged a flurry of e-mails in which we ironed out details and built a mutual understanding of the groups. We had all planned courses collaboratively with colleagues, but this felt different. We were inventing something together. We wrestled with big and small questions, such as: Do participants need to engage in a predetermined course of study like reading a book or doing an assessment of student work? Should there be an “end product” such as a social action research plan? What are the pros and cons of meeting at the college versus a facilitator’s apartment? We struggled with how to convey the message that the group participants would shape the groups, even though we were presenting written descriptions for outreach purposes. We eventually crafted a publicity flyer that included a description of each of the groups and a summary statement which read: “Would you like to meet with other recent Bank Street graduates to address

2 The following current or former Bank Street College faculty members planned and/or facilitated peer discussion groups between 2005 and 2007: Nancy Balaban, Susan Goetz-Haver, Harriet Lenk, Linda Levine, Diana-Elena Matsoukas, Hal Melnick, Gil Schmerler, Jonathan Silin, Barbara Stern, and Patty Weiner.


93

issues of common concern to new educators?” We named the groups: (1) Looking Critically at Equity Issues within a School Culture: Using Social Action Research to Find Possibilities for Change; (2) Diversity in the Classroom: Family, Child, and Teacher; (3) Linking Observation and Assessment of Children Through Use of Descriptive Review Processes; and (4) Aesthetic Education.

First Stop on the Journey: Is This a Study Group or a Class? Response to outreach was so limited that, with great disappointment, we decided to postpone the start of three of the four groups. Only Linda had enough participants to start her Social Action Research Study Group. She sent the rest of us detailed descriptive notes from each of the group sessions, and together we identified issues that affected all of the groups. For instance, some non-Bank Street graduates who taught together wanted to join the group. Linda wrote in an e-mail: “Our aim is to help support grads by offering supportive, collegial community, opportunities for learning, etc. Helping grads build bridges to other like-minded colleagues in the field would be a useful thing.” We then raised the possibility of including experienced teachers, who had also expressed interest in the groups. Would this increase professional growth opportunities for new teachers, or would it betray the goals of providing induction support for recent graduates? After many rich discussions about the nature of social learning, we decided that, like mixed-age groupings for children, a mixture of new and experienced teachers would offer multiple learning opportunities for everyone. While Linda’s group continued (and dwindled in size due to the heavy teaching demands on some of the participants), the rest of us “went back to the drawing boards.” I wrote optimistically: “I see this as an opportunity to step back and creatively reconceptualize what we are doing.” A moment of epiphany occurred when we reread our group descriptions. They sounded like course descriptions, straight out of the Bank Street catalog! Much as we had wanted to invent something new, it was hard to escape our course instructor mentality. In fact, we were sometimes still talking about “teaching this course” rather than “facilitating this group.” In order to put aside our course-like way of describing the groups, we needed to deeply understand how the study groups differed from courses, and to alter our language accordingly. Summary notes from a facilitators’ meeting reflect our evolving understanding of the groups. “Some of the distinctions [between a course and a study group] that we noted were: a study group is driven by the interests and concerns of its members. It provides an opportunity to share individual and/or group interests, with many possibilities for working collaboratively. It is more open-ended and constructivist than a course, and doesn’t necessarily have an end product. The role of the study group leader isn’t exactly the same as the role of a course instructor.” The last line of the notes reads, “We ended by noting that we are like a study group ourselves!” Our collaborative process continued as we tweaked some of the groups, radically redesigned others, shortened or changed the names, and rewrote all of the descriptions. Recognizing the importance of language in conveying the intent of the “study

94

B. Stern

groups,” we also struggled with what to call them. Ira Lit, TNE Project Director, humorously but seriously advised, “Study Group – maybe this isn’t an appealing enough title for what we’re doing. A ‘Book Club’ sounds like a lot more fun. So does ‘Recess’ or ‘Tea & Cookies’ for that matter. While we’re not describing the endeavor like a course, perhaps having a faculty member invite one to ‘study’ invokes a similar reaction.” We ultimately changed the name to “peer discussion groups.” It is noteworthy that we did not include recent graduates, the “target audience” for the groups, in this process of reconceptualization. We were still trying to figure out what they wanted and needed, rather than giving them a true voice in reshaping the groups. One of the greatest challenges in shifting away from a course instructor mentality was giving up the monopoly on planning the learning process.

Second Stop on the Journey: This Is Harder than We Thought It Would Be! One of the groups that transformed significantly was “Diversity in the Classroom: Family, Child, and Teacher,” facilitated by Diana-Elena Matsoukas. The original description of this group read: “Are you seeking a forum to brainstorm, analyze, reflect, experiment, and craft a piece of thoughtful responsive work/project that focuses on diversity in your learning setting/classroom? Come and join a semesterlong alumni study group for Bank Street educators. … We will meet as a small group, and work at crafting/refining a piece of individual work/project, with the support of the group, that enables us to connect the diversity of children and families with the teaching and learning in our learning communities/classrooms. We will focus our study with a literature exploration of [an issue of a teaching journal].” Trying to be sensitive to the scheduling challenges faced by many teachers and the requests for online discussions that we had received, Diana-Elena decided to offer an online rather than in-person group. Her revised description read: “The On-Line Book Talk is a new study group being offered to Bank Street teachers, and soon-to-be graduates, who are interested in discussing a seminal piece of writing in the field of education. In this venue the group will engage in on-line discussion about a past or current book written by a provocative thinker and problem-solver. … The group process will serve to open pathways of thinking about elements and issues of social justice and how these can impact our teaching practice in independent or public schools communities.” Unfortunately, while many teachers expressed an interest in joining this online book talk group, there were never enough active participants to get it off the ground. I completely changed the focus of my group, and renamed it “Teacher Talk: Challenges and Opportunities in Under-Resourced Schools.” We met four times with three to five participants per session. Because there was a different configuration of participants at each session, a sense of community never developed. But the Art Matters group met regularly with nine to 14 participants at each of the four sessions. Reflecting on possible reasons for the sustained engagement of


95

participants, faculty facilitator Harriet Lenk spoke about the desire of new teachers to “nurture themselves.” She felt that framing the group as “not necessarily something to use in their classrooms, [but rather] for themselves” was a draw that motivated participants to come to each session. While the content of the group sessions clearly related to teaching, and the participants shared information and ideas that could be used with children, participants’ sense of deep satisfaction seemed to derive from the experience of joining with fellow teachers.

Third Stop on the Journey: Time To Adjust and Refine Upon completion of the peer discussion groups, the facilitators had a “debriefing” meeting to share reflections on the groups and to contemplate possible changes for the next round of groups. The debriefing meeting was noteworthy because it brought to our attention the faculty facilitator group’s nonjudgmental and noncompetitive nature. Rather, faculty members spoke honestly about the challenges in supporting new teachers, and about their own professional growth. Linda summed it up by saying “Be sure to let faculty and graduates know much we learned and grew in the peer discussion groups!” As Kosnik and Beck noted in their response to a description of Bank Street’s induction program and the evolution of the peer discussion groups (Stern et al., 2007), “The collaborative process was clearly at the heart of [the] work … the evidence-gathering element allow[ed] for the program to be continuously adjusted and refined” (Kosnik & Beck, 2007). The first-year facilitators completed their work together by rewriting their original description of peer discussion groups. The new statement, which was subsequently placed on all publicity materials, reflects an understanding of the spirit of the peer discussion groups that could only be gained from experience. It read: “Teaching Today – Imagining Tomorrow!” “Want more of the intellectual nourishment you found at Bank Street? Looking for a chance to reconnect with colleagues from Bank Street and expand your resources and professional community? Join one of our new peer discussion groups! Each group will have a mix of recent alums, experienced educators, and soon-to-be graduates, and will be facilitated by a Graduate School faculty member.” We also decided to widen the circle of faculty engaged in this conversation by holding a faculty seminar with presentations by recent graduates. After hearing several peer discussion group participants speak about how the group experience helped them get through difficult situations in their schools, faculty participated in a lengthy discussion about their role in supporting new educators. I believe that engagement in this dialogue inspired many faculty members to submit proposals to the TNE Leadership Team for new peer discussion groups. The team was stunned and delighted to receive 17 proposals, which gave us the opportunity to offer groups with a range of topics and formats. The five groups selected for 2006–2007 were entitled: (1) Child Life Chatter: Challenges and Opportunities; (2) Hot Topics in a Cold Climate: Talking Tough Topics in

96

B. Stern

Today’s Classrooms; (3) So Why Isn’t She/He Reading Yet?; (4) Teacher Leadership: Meeting the Challenge; and (5) Weaving Bank Street Principles into Your Daily Math Practice.

Fourth Stop on the Journey: We Are Really on a Roll Now! Again, faculty facilitators met to plan their groups collaboratively. This time I was more aware of the learning opportunities for the facilitators, and together we pondered how to use some of the insights gained from the experiences of the first-year facilitators. For example, we spoke explicitly about the complicated role of the faculty facilitator and ways to create a shared sense of ownership of the groups. We also talked seriously about the learning implications of involving teacher participants in nitty-gritty decisions like where and when the groups would meet. As each facilitator crafted her or his group, we became acutely aware that there is no perfect model to meet the needs of all new educators, and that “meeting the needs of new teachers” is often very complicated. Like the first year of the peer discussion groups, outreach and publicity required a tremendous amount of energy, but ultimately five of the six groups were up and running with approximately ten participants in each group. Faculty and participants were brimming with excitement, and many shared reflections with me as the groups progressed. After his first session, when Hal was so moved that he could not sleep, he wrote a reflection that included the following: “One participant (who teaches in a school in the Bronx) reluctantly but courageously admitted how difficult it felt for her to walk into this [affluent] school’s entranceway. In spite of the obvious painful contrasts and in the spirit of Lucy Sprague Mitchell, this dedicated teacher did not turn around and leave. She joined in. We all are here for one reason; to learn from and to help support one another.” For the teacher participants, the reflections tended to focus on the power of meeting with colleagues to talk about pressing issues. It was striking that the participants felt they were not only giving and receiving support, but were also engaged in active learning and professional growth. Megan Monteleone-Morrison, a new educator, summed it up by saying “I thoroughly enjoyed the peer discussion group, especially the connections – curricular and emotional-social – it enabled.”

Fifth Stop: One Journey Ends, Another Begins With the termination of TNE funding in 2007, Bank Street was no longer able to offer faculty-facilitated peer discussion groups. However, the legacy of the groups lives on, and the experience is infused in much of our work at Bank Street. When the groups ended, I conducted individual interviews with each of the faculty facilitators and several of the teacher participants, in order to gather information about their


97

experiences and to identify themes that could inform our ongoing work with students and graduates. Our learnings provide insights to others interested in traveling the road of developing peer discussion groups.

Impact and Insights Many comments in the interviews were similar to those of the first-year facilitators and participants. Interviewees spoke poignantly about the profound impact of the peer discussion groups on themselves as teachers and learners. The themes that emerged in the interviews have important implications for teachers and teacher educators.

Importance of Ongoing Nurturance and Support for Educators Across all of the groups, facilitators felt that the nurturance and support that participants gave to one another was at least as important as the content of the conversations. Patty Weiner reported that the participants in the Child Life group viewed the group meetings as “a time for themselves,” and an opportunity to talk about managing the stresses of their work. Many participants felt their school or hospital settings did not provide the kind of caring community that they had treasured at Bank Street. In Jonathan Silin’s group, teachers talked about needing support that was largely lacking within their schools. He said poignantly, “I thought people would come in with a ‘hot topics’ concern. However, a large part of the time was spent talking about the ‘cold climate’.” This group decided to attend a performance of an education-related play and go out to a restaurant afterwards, combining socializing with an exploration of teaching in the age of No Child Left Behind. With the peer discussion groups, participants were able to recreate elements of the conference group, while at the same time transforming the group into a new type of learning community that was appropriate to their stage of professional growth. Gil Schmerler reflected the sentiments of most of the facilitators when he said, “I see this as pretty close to a conference group. I think that’s what they want.”

Importance of Sharing Ideas and Concerns with Like-Minded Educators Many participants worked in settings where their teaching practices were not highly valued (or in some cases, were actively discouraged) by their colleagues. The groups offered opportunities for professional validation as well as exchange of ideas. In a farewell e-mail to Hal, Sharon Kramer wrote: “Although I didn’t take full advantage of our group because the logistics were sometimes nuts for me, I did

98

B. Stern

appreciate the opportunity to share ideas, questions, frustrations, and successes with a group of smart, caring educators. … I learned that no matter how diverse our educational settings, caring educators share a number of qualities including a strong spirit, passion, willingness to be self-reflective, and a sense of humor. … And mostly, I learned that it really helps me to have peers to share my work with.” Hal added that the visits to classrooms “allowed each member to show off in a very joyful way.”

Importance of Ongoing Professional Growth Opportunities and Renewal for Teacher Educators In the interviews, many faculty facilitators also spoke explicitly about their own professional growth. For instance, Nancy Balaban had long dreamed of creating a postgraduation group focused on the supervision issues of early childhood teachers. Funding from the TNE project gave her the opportunity to reach a long-awaited professional goal. Many of the facilitators also alluded to the transformative nature of their experience in planning and facilitating the groups. Hal identified two specific ways in which he had been transformed. Describing the impact of visiting the classrooms of recent graduates, he spoke of his intention to reorient his graduate school courses to include direct exposure to new teachers. He also spoke passionately about how the participants in his group “affirmed some of his beliefs” and inspired him. He reiterated what he wrote after the second meeting of the group: “It is so uplifting in the middle of my week! Everyone is committed to help one another learn. This is a delicious thing.” Recalling Virginia Richardson’s call for all teachers to be given opportunities for renewal (Richardson, 2007), I asked Hal if this group gave him a sense of renewal, and, as if recognizing that indeed this is what it was, he enthusiastically replied yes.

Importance of Clarifying the Role of Teacher Educators in Supporting New Teachers Throughout the process of facilitating the groups and into the final interviews, many of the facilitators grappled with understanding their role in relation to recent graduates. When I asked Jonathan what he would do differently if he were to do it over again, he immediately answered, “have a better conceptualization of our role as faculty.” Gil captured the depth of the challenge when he wrote after his first session “The people who came were really excited, but I mostly felt confused.” He honestly shared his ongoing confusion about the group and his role in it. He felt that it was much “messier” than being an adviser or course instructor, describing complicated decisions like introducing specific content versus allowing the group to take on its own shape, and “trying to bring together all the threads of the conversations.”


99

Other facilitators spoke explicitly about distinguishing their new role from that of a course instructor. Nancy explained the difference: “A class has a set agenda and I stick to it, with a goal in mind. I keep moving people forward … I’m in charge.” Her goal for the peer discussion group, on the other hand, was to “present opportunities to express deep concerns.” She introduced a focusing question at the beginning of the first session, and then let the discussion go in whatever direction the participants took it, recognizing that participants valued the shared experience more than any answers that she might try to provide. Harriet was mindful about the group process and used specific strategies “to get away from being the group leader.” Drawing upon a common model in Child Life3 and other therapeutic fields, Patty compared her role to that of a facilitator. While her overarching goal was to create a sense of “camaraderie” among the participants, she also helped structure learning experiences by bringing resources to the group and inviting a guest speaker to address common concerns. Patty was also available by phone or e-mail to the participants if they had a difficult case or situation at work.

Moving Forward at Bank Street and Implications for Other Teacher Education Programs Where do we go from here? One of the charges of the TNE grant was to use evidence to drive program renewal. How can we use evidence from the peer discussion group’s journey to transform our ways of working with students and graduates? Although facilitators and participants lamented the lack of funding to offer more faculty-facilitated groups, this has also pushed us to ask how we can best promote autonomy and mutual support among new educators. As we wended our way on the journey of creating peer discussion groups, we became increasingly aware of the developmental trajectory of new teachers, in which our graduates move away from dependence on faculty and towards support from, and collaboration with, professional colleagues (Stern et al., 2007) With this understanding, we shifted from a course-like, faculty-directed approach to a model that explicitly left lots of room for participant input. Faculty facilitators spent considerable time talking about this with one another, and made conscious efforts to make appropriate shifts in their own practice. Still, the faculty facilitators ultimately felt responsible for the success of the meetings. In the final interviews each faculty facilitator described ways in which she/he had “managed” the groups, trying to balance “leadership” with giving participants a sense of ownership of the groups. Jonathan captured this struggle when he described bringing in six videos and letting the participants describe which one to watch. With a chuckle, he said to me “I was following your instructions.” Ironically, somehow I had become the “expert” in how to facilitate a peer discussion group. It seems like it is really difficult for all of us to let go of the notion 3 Child Life prepares professionals to work as Child Life Specialists in hospital and community health-care environments.

100

B. Stern

that someone knows better, and we need to depend on that “expert” for knowledge and guidance. Even when we consciously reject the teacher-directed model of learning, it seems to shape our expectations of what is or is not possible. I believe that our experience with the peer discussion groups brought us closer to understanding how very difficult it is to promote true autonomy for teachers and teacher learning. Even when we hold a strong belief in self-directed learning and co-construction of knowledge, we live in a world where professional development for teachers is still largely expert-directed, with little or no input from the teacher participants. Math and literacy coaches frequently tell teachers what to do, rather than co-constructing instructional approaches. Unwittingly, we may have perpetuated this dependence on experts in offering peer discussion groups that were facilitated by faculty. What would it look like for teachers to participate in totally autonomous peer discussion groups (or other types of learning communities)? In the literature, there are many examples of facilitated study groups, but far fewer of groups run by teachers themselves (e.g., see Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). At Bank Street, we are considering a model in which more experienced teachers would take on leadership roles in organizing and facilitating peer discussion groups. We could draw upon the many “experienced alumni” who expressed interest in supporting recent graduates during the lifetime of the TNE induction program. A mixed peer discussion group of new and experienced teachers could offer valuable learning opportunities for all. There is also great potential for self-organized teacher groups within schools or geographic communities (Torres-Guzmán et al., 2006). At least one of the participants in our groups was inspired to create this kind of opportunity in her work setting. At the end of the “Weaving Bank Street Principles” group, Sharon Kramer wrote excitedly, “Yesterday I met with a group of Bronx math teachers from two schools to begin our collaborative journey.” This journey in peer discussion groups has underscored the importance of providing and promoting examples of learning communities not only after graduation, but also during the graduate school experience. For instance, collaborative learning experiences are built into Bank Street courses, and Supervised Fieldwork is shaped by the interests and needs of advisees. It would be helpful for faculty to explicitly identify these experiences as “learning communities” that can be replicated in future work settings. We have also infused some of our learnings from this journey into other aspects of the graduate school experience. For instance, as we look at ways of revamping our final integrative project, we are building peer support into a model that previously relied heavily on faculty support. We see this as a concrete way to move gradually from dependence on “experts” to professional autonomy and mutual support with colleagues. It is striking that faculty started this journey eager to provide learning opportunities for graduates, and ended the journey eager to reflect upon their own learning experiences. No matter where we are in our work as educators, we seem to be hungry for learning and community. When faculty met recently to talk about what they most want from faculty meetings, there was a powerful cry for “connections to our community.” The content of the conversations, it seems, is sometimes less important than the opportunities to simply be with one another in a shared learning experience. Perhaps the peer discussion group model will be adapted for faculty purposes.


101

Finally, we recognize the power of sharing the experience of participating in a learning community. Perhaps sometimes we sound like zealous converts to a new cause, but those of us who were part of the peer discussion group’s journey like to tell our stories often – to colleagues both within and beyond Bank Street – because we believe so strongly that the nurturance found within our peer discussion groups is exactly what educators need to stay vibrant and passionate about the work that we do. The peer discussion groups planted a seed that continues to grow and flourish at Bank Street and in the schools and other educational settings where participants work. We provided a model and an experience for faculty and new educators. In the spirit of learning communities, each faculty member and new educator will take the model and experience and incorporate them into their individual practices as well as their collaborative work with others.

References Beck, C. & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Burbank, M. & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499–514. Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2002). Grant prospectus, teachers for a new era. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Darling-Hammond, L. & McDonald, M. (2000). Where there is learning there is hope: The preparation of teachers at Bank Street College of Education. In L. Darling- Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level. (pp. 1–95). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Hirsch, G. (1991). The social construction of teachers’ practical knowledge in the advisement conference group: Report of a case study. Thought and Practice: The Journal of the Graduate School of Bank Street College of Education, 3(1), 94–134. Kosnik, C. & Beck, C. (2007). From preservice to induction: A response to “Endings and beginnings: Experiences in building a new teacher induction and support model through a higher education program of teacher preparation.” In J. Kitchen (Ed.), Teacher induction, mentoring, and renewal: Proceedings of the academic symposium. (pp. 31–34). Toronto: Centre for Teacher Development, Ontario Institute for Studies Education, University of Toronto. Richardson, V. (2007). Teacher renewal: What is it? How is it engendered? In J. Kitchen (Ed.), Teacher induction, mentoring, and renewal: Proceedings of the academic symposium. (pp. 77–90). Toronto: Centre for Teacher Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Samaras, A.P. & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field: Vygotskian interpretation in a teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 715–733. Stern, B., Lit, I., & Snyder, J. (2006). Bank Street College of Education Teachers for a New Era induction model. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Stern, B., Lit, I., & Snyder, J. (2007). Endings and beginnings: Experiences in building a new teacher induction and support model through a higher education program of teacher preparation. In J. Kitchen (Ed.), Teacher induction, mentoring, renewal: Proceedings of the academic symposium. (pp. 7–21) Toronto: Centre for Teacher Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Torres-Guzmán, M., Hunt, V., Torres, I.M., Madrigal, R., Flecha, I., Lukas, S., & Jaar, A. (2006). Teacher study groups: In search of teaching freedom. The New Educator, 2(3), 207–226.

Chapter 8

Establishing a Learning Community as a Site to Explore Our Multicultural Selves Anne R. Freese and Amber P. Strong

The self-reflexive journey inward can allow one’s multiple, contradictory identifications and locations-in terms of race, gender, sexuality and culture-to emerge, to “come out”. (Asher, 2007, p. 71)

Description of Our Learning Community Context The above quote has particular significance for our students in Hawai’i because of the blending of the many different ethnicities, cultures, languages, social classes, and religions. Given this diversity, teaching multicultural education in Hawai’i provides a unique opportunity to draw upon the rich multiplicity of cultures, ethnicities, religions, and languages. However, along with that opportunity there are unique challenges. Some students question why they have to take a multicultural education course in Hawai’i because they believe that people in Hawai’i are “color blind” (Okamura, 1998). They assume that racism happens somewhere else, not here. Despite the seemingly harmonious nature of our diverse society, underneath it all there are particular groups who have historically been, and continue to be, marginalized. We found that one of our challenges teaching multicultural education was to find ways to move beyond our notions of “color blindness” and to open up a critical dialogue about race, prejudice, identity, and other socially divisive issues in an effort to prepare our pre-service teachers to be effective multicultural educators. Related to this challenge was the need to examine our assumptions and find ways not to gloss over the sensitive issues, but rather to take risks and critically inquire into our assumptions, biases, and prejudices. In this chapter we present a pedagogical approach that describes the instructional practices that we incorporated in a required multicultural education course for education A.R. Freese and A.P. Strong University of Hawai’i


103

104

A.R. Freese, A.P. Strong

majors. Anne had taught this course three previous semesters and Amber, a graduate student and high school teacher, collaborated in the teaching and systematic study of the impact of the course on the students’ views of multicultural education. We examine how the learning community created conditions that encouraged students and faculty to wrestle with, and unpack, tensions related to openly discussing issues such as racism, discrimination, and stereotyping, and to arrive at new understandings. We discuss the theories that provide the framework for our pedagogical approach, and describe the learning community as a site for incorporating multicultural activities and practices in the classroom. In addition, we explore the ways in which the learning community allowed students to reframe and expand their thinking about multiculturalism.

Rationale Defining a Learning Community as a Site for Exploring Multicultural Education The term “learning community” can be defined in many ways and has been widely used as an approach for facilitating teaching and learning in classrooms. Learning communities are sometimes simply defined by structures or classroom configurations such as “group work,” “cooperative learning,” or “whole class discussions.” And although these classroom arrangements are practices with good intentions, they do not always foster the type of caring community of inquiry that we believe is necessary for meaningful and honest multicultural discussions. Therefore we would like to elaborate on our use of the term “learning community” by drawing upon the work of various philosophers and educational researchers. As multicultural educators, our goal was to encourage pre-service teachers to develop personal insights, multiple perspectives and empathy for those who are different from themselves. To do this we drew upon Lipman’s (1993, p. 15) description of “converting the classroom into a community of inquiry in which students listen to one another with respect, build upon one another’s ideas, challenge one another to supply reasons for otherwise unsupported opinions, assist each other in drawing inferences from what has been said, and to seek to identify one another’s assumptions.” We believe that learning is socially constructed (Vygotsky, 1981; Rogoff 1990, 2003) and that dialogue between members of communities is essential for creating the climate and dispositions that are necessary for establishing a community of inquiry. By opening up communication among our students within a multicultural learning community, we strove to free ourselves from being “ethnically encapsulated” and to “help individuals gain a greater self-understanding by viewing themselves from the perspectives of other cultures” (Banks, 2002, p. 1). Believing that effective learning communities must be authentic and cultivate rich relationships between both teachers and students, we drew upon Noddings’

8 Establishing a Learning Community as a Site to Explore

105

(2003) work regarding students’ “longing for community.” We focused on cultivating a classroom environment in which students felt connected and were given opportunities to make meaningful relationships with the instructors as well as with their peers.

Planning the Course So how could we create the conditions in the classroom for a “self-reflexive journey” that allows our “multiple, contradictory identifications to emerge and to come out”? (Asher, 2007, p. 71). We wanted our learning community to include a community of inquiry in which students felt connected and intellectually safe to actively participate in written and spoken dialogue. We wanted to create a space where they could explore their assumptions and understandings about their multicultural identities and multicultural education. We established the classroom as a site for discussion, inquiry, reflection, and evaluation where we could practice bridging the gap between our beliefs and biases, as well as our words and actions. All of our class assignments and activities were driven by the goal of having both the students and instructors reflect inward and discuss outward as participants in an intellectually safe community of their peers. We created conditions in the course that allowed the students to wrestle with, and unpack, tensions and stereotypes, and socially construct new understandings about multicultural education. With a sense of our shared commitment and shared philosophy, we co-planned, co-reflected, and co-taught the course geared towards helping pre-service teachers meet the needs of their future students. Considering the diverse demographics of our classroom, our goal was to raise our students’ awareness of the complexities of multiculturalism in Hawai’i and the issues that they might face as teachers. We did this by incorporating a number of structures and pedagogical approaches that support and encourage community. Students were required to read the writings of scholars (Banks, 2002; Gay, 2003) and other authors who reflected a variety of different multicultural perspectives. In addition, students wrote reflective papers, personal histories, and discussed case studies about controversial issues. Following is a description of the research and learning theories that guided our teaching. Dewey (1916) argued against seeing teaching as the transmission of readymade ideas, saying that “no thought, no idea, can possibly be conveyed as an idea from one person to another. … Only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem at first hand, seeking and finding [his or her] own way out, does [a person] think” (p. 188). Drawing on Dewey’s work, our goal was to problematize multicultural education and create an “intellectually safe” (Jackson, 2001) environment in which the students could openly discuss their assumptions and biases about race, class, culture, religion, as well as gender, sexuality and disability issues. We included aspects of self-study, described by Beck et al. (2004) as a “personal, constructivist, and collaborative approach,” to the study of multicultural education. This was in contrast to a technical transmission approach. We wanted to create a

106


learning environment that cultivated and supported the critical thinking that Dewey (1916) described. In the learning community our emphasis on a personal approach focused on our students’ prior experiences and personal histories. We emphasized a constructivist approach that included elements of inquiry, challenging prejudice and convention, as well as the personal construction of knowledge. While the term self-study suggests an individualistic approach, it emphasizes that the views of individuals must be constantly brought into dialogue with the views of others (Samaras & Freese, 2006). Knowledge construction became an interactive process that enabled the students to give expression to their unique experiences, insights, and interests (Fosnot, 1989, 1996; Richardson, 1997). The learning community and self-study concepts discussed above guided our course goals, assignments, and instructional activities. We believed that in order to operationalize a personal, constructivist, collaborative approach, we needed to create a learning community that fostered opportunities for social experiences and multiple perspectives. As we implemented various learning activities and assignments, we kept in mind Cochran-Smith and Zeichner’s (2005) caveat that the process of preparing culturally responsive teachers can create a sense of “stress and unrest” in both the students and instructor because it is “not simply a matter of grasping or understanding ideas – full blown and clear – that already existed” (p. 553). Rather it is a journey that involves “constructing uncertain knowledge about race and teaching” that may lead to “feeling doubtful, confused, angry and surprised by new realizations” (p. 553). Therefore, many of the course assignments caused students to “problematize their selves in their practice situations” with the objective being that the students would “reframe” their beliefs and/or practices (Feldman, 2002, p. 971). We realized that to be able to wrestle with sensitive issues in multicultural education, students would need to take risks, and be open and willing to share different perspectives. In order to accomplish this, it was essential that the learning community be a safe and trusting environment.

Studying Our Community of Inquiry Applying Theory to Practice We included a number of essential elements for approaching diversity and building community. In order to foster participation, we introduced learning community structures and designed activities for addressing sensitive issues and sharing personal stories. During the course of the semester, we regularly made the theories behind our pedagogical practices explicit so that the students would make the connections between theory and practice. We wanted the students to be fully aware of the pedagogical practices that foster a learning community in which all students’


107

voices are honored and we included pedagogical strategies that supported the multiple voices and perspectives of all students. Community building and intellectual safety were introduced the first day of class. As students and faculty introduced themselves they engaged in making a “community ball” together as a class (Jackson, 2001). The use of the community ball was an important strategy for facilitating conversations and honoring multiple perspectives. The ball helped to focus the discussions, encourage participation, and manage conversations so that no one individual or individuals dominated the discussions. The ball functioned like a “talking stick” in that only the person with the ball could speak. Students had the choice of speaking or remaining silent (pass) when they received the ball. As the semester progressed the ball increased the participation of all members of the class. Following is one student’s reaction to the creation of the community ball. The first activity that we did in this class was unusual but it set the tone for the class throughout the semester. The twisting and turning of yarn to create a ball was child like, but if it weren’t for that activity our class wouldn’t be like what it was. The environment in our class is something that you wouldn’t expect in a college classroom. Everyone got along and respected each other’s opinions. I also made friends I will always remember. With the ethnic diversities and backgrounds, our class was an example of multicultural education.

Developing relationships and getting to know one another was a critical part of establishing trust and a feeling of safety. We did this in several ways. In the early weeks of the semester, a critical component of the class involved students engaging in dialogue with each other by sharing information about themselves initially through their personal artifacts, and later through their multicultural collages. The personal artifacts involved each student bringing five or six items or pictures related to their background, interests, talents or anything that provided information about who they were and what they valued. Through sharing our personal artifacts and creating multicultural collages, we identified aspects of ourselves that related to our multicultural identities using the characteristics identified by Banks (2002) of race, class, ethnicity, language, religion, exceptionality, gender, and sexuality. One student described her reactions to the activities in her “lessons learned” paper. We got to know one another beyond the superficial and found connections and similarities that drew us together with others in the class. The personal interactions and relationship building done in the first several weeks of class opened the way for developing a learning community.

Another way we established bonds between the students and the instructors was through a file folder system. The first day of class each student received a file folder that was used as a tool for reflection and a means of communicating with the instructors. Each day at the end of class, the students wrote several sentences describing their thoughts, reactions, or questions about the day’s class. The file folders were a safe place to share comments and not risk public embarrassment. The comments were also crucial to us, the instructors, as a way of gauging the climate of the class and as a guide as to what issues needed to be revisited or explored further. Prior to each class session, we each read their reflections and wrote

108


responses on each file folder. The back and forth dialogue in the file folders helped to build connections between the students and ourselves. Drawing upon the application of Vygotsky’s ideas that learning is socially constructed (Samaras & Gismondi, 1998), we created opportunities for students to talk, share information, negotiate meaning and socially construct their understanding about multiculturalism through dialogue. A critical component of the class involved students engaging in dialogue with each other by sharing and discussing insight papers on the readings in small groups (four students) during each class. The insight papers required students to analyze and explain material in the small groups, share their reactions and different points of view, and obtain feedback from one another. The small groups provided a safe space for each person to speak and give feedback. In addition to the small group interactions, the class came together as a large learning community to engage in discussions on controversial and sensitive topics. The group activities were designed to foster multiple perspectives, to raise our awareness of differences between our beliefs and actions, and to provide opportunities to reflect on, and reframe, one’s beliefs through interactions with others. We included a variety of readings, videos, and current events to raise multicultural education issues and problems. In order to provide relevance, we encouraged the students to use their own multicultural experiences as topics to make connections during those class discussions. They were also encouraged to draw on their thoughts that they had expressed during written assignments, other discussions, and their interpretations of the readings. Drawing upon the work of Clandinin & Connelly (2000), we used students’ personal histories as a way to “help readers question their own stories, raise their own questions about practice and see in the narrative accounts stories of their own … with the intent to foster reflection, storying and restorying” (p. 20). Using the multicultural characteristics of gender, race, language, ethnicity, sexuality, class, and ability/disability, the personal histories were a way for students to inquire into their assumptions, biases, and beliefs (Samaras & Freese, 2006; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). The personal histories became an opportunity for the students to explore and better understand their prior multicultural experiences. The learning community provided a structure/foundation for students to share their personal histories about who they are as multicultural individuals and what experiences have shaped the way they think and act. The individual stories led to the creation of a class anthology, a sort of multicultural text that included each of the students’ personal histories. The students read the class anthology and conducted a content analysis of all the personal histories. The systematic analysis of the anthology allowed them to examine the multicultural characteristics of their peers and experience many different perspectives through each person’s unique and authentic multicultural history. This activity contributed to the collaborative nature of the course because the students were working together sharing their personal histories and analyzing the authentic, “real life” data that led to new ways of thinking about multicultural education. The analysis of the personal histories raised many questions such as how much of one’s identity is shaped by outside factors such as race, ethnicity, culture, family, environment, and religion. We questioned: “How much of our identity is a choice?” “What does it mean to be a


109

minority in Hawai’i?” “Do we all struggle to define who we are?” “Who is marginalized in Hawai’i?” “Are there other factors besides race and ethnicity that marginalize individuals?” By systematically examining the diversity in our classroom, the students saw “through new eyes” the kinds of diversity and multicultural experiences and dimensions their future students will bring to their classrooms in Hawai’i. By layering these essential course elements we were able to provide multiple opportunities for our students to make connections, personally reflect and build our community of learners. This interplay between written and verbal dialogue allowed students to listen and learn from one another. It was only through these combined activities that we were able to construct a meaningful community of learners in this multicultural setting. (See Appendix for a description of the course activities.)

Impact of the Pedagogical Approach Methods In order to examine the impact of the learning community on our students’ views about multicultural education we focused on several questions: ●

●

●

How did the learning community and pedagogical approaches impact their participation and willingness to take risks and discuss sensitive issues? Was there evidence of transformation and changes in their thinking about multicultural education? To what extent were the students able to apply theory to practice in their classrooms?

Participants The participants consisted of 24 students ranging in age from 20 to 56 years. There were 17 females in the class and seven males. Their religious affiliations included: Christian, Buddhist, and Jewish. Five of the students spoke English as a second language. The students came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds including Asian (Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or mixed Asian ethnicity), Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian, Caucasian, and “hapa” (mixed ethnicity). It is difficult to estimate what percentage of each ethnicity was represented in the class because many of the students were of mixed ethnicity, and did not identify strongly with just one ethnic group. The composition of the class is representative of the rich diversity that occurs in Hawai’i classrooms. This sample of students closely matches the demographic make up of the state of Hawai’i, which is very diverse in terms of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, disabilities, and language.

110


Data Sources and Data Analysis Data came from students’ (1) personal history papers; (2) file folder comments; and (3) “lessons learned” papers. Using the method of constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), we analyzed the students’ work by reading and rereading the personal history papers, the “lessons learned” papers, and the file folder comments. The student’s folder comments were directly linked to his or her personal history paper and the “lessons learned” paper. The intent was to compare and contrast the students’ formative comments with the summative knowledge. We coded the data from the data sources, identified themes, and made comparisons across the various data sources. The analyses revealed powerful information about how the learning community and pedagogical structures contributed to the transformation in students’ thinking about their multicultural identity and led to an increased awareness of themselves and others. The primary themes that emerged from the analyses included: (1) intellectual safety, (2) breaking down barriers, (3) anthology as multicultural text, and (4) identity formation/multiplicity of identities.

Findings Intellectual Safety The findings in this section suggested cognitive and affective outcomes. The students’ comments showed that they were very astute and “tuned into” the classroom climate. Their initial comments early in the semester indicated the importance of intellectual safety for creating trust and openness. Students noted that when they did not feel intellectually safe, they suppressed or censored their feelings and ideas. When some students took a risk and spoke out on a controversial issue in the early weeks of class, they often wrote a note on their file folder apologizing and vowing not to speak out again. While the person who took the risk felt bad about sharing his/her views, others in the class wrote comments complimenting the speaker and saying they admired his/her honesty and courage. Students’ comments revealed how building an intellectually safe environment fostered openness to take risks and engage in discussions of sensitive issues. The following quote emphasizes one student’s feelings about the importance of intellectual safety. We found that a student must feel safe in the classroom environment. This safety consisted nor only physical safety, but emotional safety. This emotional safety comes from a feeling that the student’s ideas and questions can be given without judgment or criticism. As we worked together in small groups, read each other’s papers and were able to present our opinions, our class became closer and our safety was secured. It is a trust that is earned through multiple interactions. … How many students graduate from high school without truly experiencing this type of safety?


111

By the end of the semester, there was evidence that the pedagogical approach cultivated a classroom culture, a sense of community, and a safe space for students to work through hidden struggles and closed doors of their past. The students broke down barriers and silences that often occur in classrooms when discussing sensitive topics. Over time students felt safe to share personal stories of racial slurs and discrimination they had experienced due to disabilities, gender, ethnicity, and race. They revealed stories of overcoming personal struggles (time spent in prison, drug addictions, gang behavior, and sexual abuse stories). The stories resulted in students reframing their assumptions about “others” by realizing that these stories were from their peers sitting right there in their classroom. They realized that issues of drugs, homelessness, disability, racial biases, violence, and marginalization are not issues relegated to books and movies, or situations removed from us. These insights became very meaningful to the students because they involved the personal stories of people they came to know and care about. One student described the value of getting to know one another and its positive impact on the learning community. I feel that I am much closer to everyone now that I know their personal histories, and this is a lesson that applies to the classroom as well; when you know your students you can more effectively relate to them. Further, when students know about each other, they feel more connected to one another and this gives them an environment of safety where they can learn.

Anthology as Multicultural Text The sharing of the personal histories led to greater self-understanding and awareness of multiple perspectives of individuals different from themselves. The personal histories came alive because they were real-life stories set in familiar contexts in contrast to the narratives we read in Banks (2002) and Gay (2003). Sharing each other’s personal histories via the class anthology resulted in a framing and reframing of one’s beliefs, biases, and sense of identity that occurred as a result of creating and sharing our own multicultural text. One student concluded that multicultural education “is a process of self-reflection and personal thought that we must go through to change our ideas or biases that we hold.” The collection of personal histories opened the students’ eyes and hearts to the tensions, contradictions, and prejudices they and their classmates have experienced. Through the personal stories they saw the subtle, and not so subtle, ways that individuals marginalize “the other.” The real-life stories dispelled the beliefs about “color blindness” and tolerance in Hawai’i by revealing that stereotyping and discrimination can take on many forms such as a type of “insiders” versus “outsiders.” Students shared how this mentality of stereotyping can result in discrimination towards individuals in the military, towards Caucasians, individuals with disabilities, people of different sexual persuasions, in other words, the “others.” These stories opened us up to confronting our assumptions and biases and resulted in understandings that are critical to

112


us as multicultural educators. They also led students to redefine what is meant by multicultural education as shown in the following student comment, “Multiculturalism is about understanding who you are and who your students are so that respect will prevail. As I learned, even an all ‘white’ classroom can and must be multicultural.”

Multiplicity of Identities The students also explored how identity is shaped by multicultural factors, e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, language, sexuality, gender, and disability. They opened themselves to their multiple identities and saw how these multiple identities shape who we are and how we think and act. With the mixing and blending of races and ethnicities students asked such questions as, “Do I identify more with my mother’s whiteness or my father’s Japanese culture?” “Am I multicultural if I am white?” The personal histories helped the students see how each person struggled to define his/her multicultural identity and saw that there were other factors besides race and ethnicity that marginalize individuals. One student explained: When I first stepped into this class back in January, I had a general idea about what the term ‘multicultural’ meant – I thought to myself, I’m Asian – I’m a minority, I know what multicultural means. Boy was I wrong. The anger and the irritation that I felt, as shown in one of my earlier papers, was obviously going unheard and was directed at the wrong audience. I thought my perspective was always right when it came to racial issues and discrimination because I am Japanese-American and I experienced prejudice for myself. But what I had failed to do [was that] I failed to see through another person’s eyes.

The students became more accepting of different religions because they got to know people who were Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, as well as many other religions. What came out of the discussions was the ability to see beyond one’s own unique experiences and interpretations. The open, honest discussions and papers revealed the misconceptions we carry around with us. First, I did not consider myself multicultural nor did I think I was confused about my identity. I thought of multiculturalism as something you were either born with or not. I did not believe it was something to strive to, as in becoming a multicultural person. I thought that people who practiced many traditions were multicultural. I even mistakenly thought that someone could “look” multicultural.

Discussion/Educational Significance of the Study In this chapter we discussed how we systematically studied our pedagogical approach to multicultural education and the creation of a learning community. Through this study we saw the power of purposefully designing a learning community curriculum that encouraged multiple perspectives and voices. We found


113

that the key was establishing a safe intellectual environment, an environment in which the students could feel comfortable discussing sensitive issues and sharing personal stories openly and honestly. Within this safe environment we fostered relationships by creating spaces for students to get to know one another through collages, small groups and circle discussions, and by creating opportunities for students to share their own stories situated in their own multicultural experiences. By the end of the semester there was evidence that the pedagogical approach cultivated a classroom culture, a learning community, and a safe space for students to work through difficult, sensitive issues. Creating a learning community, a community of inquiry, made it possible for the students to probe, take risks, and challenge their assumptions. Their papers and lesson presentations demonstrated their personal growth and commitment to change in their future classrooms. The students’ writings and discussions reflected honesty and trust and illustrated how they could look inward to understand themselves and explore the roots of their biases and prejudices. Their writings and discussions also showed how they also looked outward to understand others. Rather than try to have students leave the class thinking the way the instructors think they should think, the students experienced one another’s stories, put themselves in someone else’s shoes and began to see through different eyes. By giving them a safe space and allowing them to open up and share, we all learned stories about multiculturalism in a profound and deep way.

Suggestions for Developing and Sustaining a Learning Community Using the learning community as a context for teaching multicultural education has valuable advantages for fostering open and honest discussions as well as student reflection and participation. As a result of our study, we offer the following suggestions for developing and maintaining a learning community as a site for multicultural education: ●

● ●

●

●

●

Create an environment of intellectual safety by explicitly defining and modeling what it means in order to build trust and openness. Establish ground rules for group process and equity in participation. Use the physical environment to create community by changing the classroom spaces (circle, small and large group) to enhance community and increase student interaction and communication. Introduce pedagogical structures that encourage all voices and allow students to get to know one another beyond superficial connections. Change the power structure so that students and instructors learn from each other and become partners in the meaning making and inquiry. Transform the curriculum by making multicultural concepts meaningful and personalized to the students’ prior knowledge, and by selecting issues and assignments that reflect the cultures and experiences of the students.

114 ●


Create assignments that build-off of one another so that students begin to see multicultural education as a process of becoming, rather than an end unto itself.

We would like to close the chapter with one student’s description of what he learned about becoming a multicultural teacher. He described this process using the metaphor of a journey. I realize that multicultural education is in fact a central element of my journey as an educator. It is much more than teaching ethnic tolerance to students; rather, multicultural education is something that can transform student, teacher, and perhaps by extension, society itself. I now realize that multicultural education is more than just the gravy, it is in fact the meat; not sauce, but educational substance. Throughout the semester, this class has led me to adjust the way I thought of multiculturalism and to reevaluate not only what multicultural education means, but my entire identity as a potential teacher as well.

References Asher, N., (2007). Made in the (Multicultural) USA: Unpacking tensions of race, culture, gender and sexuality. Educational Researcher, 36, 65–73. Banks, J. A. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Beck, C., Freese, A. R., & Kosnik, C. (2004). In J. Loughran, M.L. Hamilton, V.K. LaBoskey, T. Russell (Eds.). International Handbook of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Vol. 2. pp. 1259–1293). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. New York: Jossey-Bass. Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education; The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Washington: American Education Research Association. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Feldman, A. (2002). Bec(o/a)ming a teacher educator. In C. Kosnik, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux, East Sussex, England. (Vol. 1, pp. 66–70), Toronto, Ontario, OISE, University of Toronto. Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Fosnot, C. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2003). Becoming multicultural educators: Personal journey toward professional agency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin. Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of “Gently Socratic” inquiry. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lipman, M. (1993). Philosophy for children. In M. Lipman (Ed.), Thinking children and education. (pp. 373–384). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Okamura, J. (1998). The illusion of paradise: Privileging multiculturalism in Hawai’i. In Gladney, D. (Ed.), Making majorities: Composing the nation in Japan, China, Korea, Fiji, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States. (pp. 264–284). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Peirce, C.S. (1955). The fixation of belief. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce. (pp. 5–22). New York: Dover.


115

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson, Constructivist teacher education: building a world of new understandings. (pp. 3–14). London: Falmer. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking; Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. New York: Peter Lang. Samaras, A. P. & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field: Vygotskian interpretation in a teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 715–733. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (4th Ed.), (pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Appendix: Course Projects Curriculum Implications for Multicultural Education ITE 440 1. Personal artifacts – Students began the course by learning about instructors based on the personal artifacts that their instructors shared with the class. The students subsequently brought in their own artifacts to share with their classmates as a way of building a community of learners. 2. Community ball – The students and instructors created a community ball used to balance individual members’ contributions to class discussions. 3. Folder comment system – Each student was given a file folder, and at the end of each class they wrote comments and reflections about the class. The instructors read the reflections and responded to each student’s comments for each class. Besides being a personal form of student communication, the folder comments also served as a formative assessment and a source of data for the instructors to modify lessons and plan future learning activities. 4. Autobiographical collages and reflection papers – The students created autobiographical collages to visually represent their “multicultural identity” to the rest of the class. Accompanying their collages were reflection papers that explained the students’ process of constructing the collage. 5. Insight papers – Each week students responded to selected readings and wrote a reflective 1–2-page paper. The reflections were shared in small groups where the students wrote comments on each other’s papers and engaged in small group discussions before sharing out ideas with the entire class. 6. Personal history papers – The students wrote papers that: (1) shared their personal history and family background; (2) critically reflected on their (continued)

116

7.

8.

9.

10.


race, ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, exceptionality, language, religion and how these multicultural characteristics impacted their own sense of identity; and (3) discussed how their family background, culture, and prior experiences influenced their beliefs about teaching and student learning. Personal history anthology – The students received copies of the personal histories of everyone in the class. The collection of the personal histories became a class anthology. Using the anthology as a text, each student read the collection of personal histories and conducted a content analysis of the readings. Each student wrote a synthesis paper, based on the content analysis of the personal histories. The resulting synthesis paper provided a collection of multicultural profiles that highlighted the diversity and commonalities of our class. Team lesson – The students translated the theoretical concepts of the class into a lesson they prepared and presented to the class. The presenters were to assume that our class was made up of the types of students (age, content, and multicultural components) that they would be teaching in the future. At the end of the lesson the presenters distributed the lesson plans to their classmates as future resources. Lessons learned paper – At the end of the course, the students wrote a paper that synthesized the information that they learned from the readings, their writing, class discussions, lesson presentations, and other sources throughout the semester. Other class activities – These included large group discussions, guest speakers, simulations, concept mapping, lectures, and other inquiryoriented activities.

Chapter 9

Dissertation Support Groups: Building a Community of Practice Using Noddings’ Ethic of Care Emily J. Klein, Megan Riordan, Amanda Schwartz, and Stacey Sotirhos

Introduction As four women spending a quarter of a decade writing individual dissertations, our goal was not to write a chapter together. It was to complete the final step of our academic training with our sanity and self-images intact. Perhaps you too know the experience of dissertation writing: often brutal and isolating. There are no road maps or training guides – you need the stamina of a marathon runner. Dissertation writing demands deliberate and ongoing preparation, absolute devotion to a topic, commitment to months or years of research and writing, and an unwavering belief in the ability to realize a goal. Few sprint from start to finish. Instead, many get mired in a solitary, time-consuming process, often a decade-long endeavor (Hoffer & Welch, 2006). Research indicates that approximately 25% of doctoral candidates abandon the pursuit upon reaching the dissertation stage (Ballinger, 2003). Those dropping out cite reasons such as lack of support systems and structure (Ballinger, 2003; Dorn & Papalewis, 1997). Other challenging pursuits, like marathon running, offer training programs, online regimens, and other organized support. Dissertation writing, however, offers few organized support systems. Although we discovered articles detailing structures for dissertation support groups, much of the literature was outdated or lacked practical information regarding sustaining a group while also “having a life.” This chapter emerged as we began to transition from doctoral student to professional and we reflected on what our group had meant to each of us, describing a

E.J. Klein Montclair State University M. Riordam Expeditionary Learning Schools Outward Bound A. Schwartz Amanda Schwartz Consulting S. Sotirhos New York City Public Schools


117

118

E.J. Klein et al.

non-linear process to highlight the aspects of our learning, reflection, and study. We began to believe that making our inquiry public offered much to those seeking ways to support doctoral students: universities, dissertation committees, and students.

Our Questions Below are the questions that organized our reflection and study about our work: 1. What purposes does a dissertation support group serve? How does a dissertation support group meet the various and changing needs of its members? 2. What are the issues/challenges involved in forming, structuring, and sustaining a dissertation support group? 3. How might our group’s process and procedures be generalized and applied, offering a model to students, faculty, institutions, and other communities of practice?

Context of Our Learning Community For approximately five years, our dissertation support group (DISGO) has been a high-functioning, caring community devoted to dissertation completion and career-building. We are colleagues from a large university who studied collaboratively, conducted joint research, and developed friendships as a result. Each individual comes from the field of education, yet with a different research focus, teaching background, and professional position. Amanda’s research was in special education and policy decisions, Emily’s work was in teacher professional development and communities of practice, Meg’s dissertation was on experiential education and internship-based learning, while Stacey conducted research on teacher professional development with a focus on Japanese Lesson Study. We are women in our thirties who entered a doctoral program within one year of each other.

Research Context Situated learning, as proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), suggests that knowledge is acquired through social interaction in an authentic context. The gradual acquisition of knowledge and skills becomes evident as individuals learn from each other in the context of everyday activities. This theoretical model teaches us that adults learn through contextualized experiences, building habits and relationships between participating community members and developing a shared ethic about the activity at hand. In turn, improving the community’s performance

9 Dissertation Support Groups

119

becomes central to learning. Putnam and Borko (2000) write that “some scholars have conceptualized learning as coming to know how to participate in the discourse and practices of a particular community” (p. 5). In many ways our group was an effort to support each other’s attempts to learn the discourse and practices of the academic community. When considering how our group learned together, we see a community of practice as Wenger (1998) defines it: “members of a community are informally bound by what they do together – from engaging in lunchtime discussions to solving difficult problems – and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities” (p. 45). Our actions, work, and knowledge-sharing embody who we are as a group. As a community of practice, the way we created, shared and implemented what we “knew” depended on the dynamic engagement of each member (Dixon, 2000; Wenger, 1998). Early on we established protocols that combined with our personal relationships to develop a group identity. In turn, this group identity impacted on each of us as individuals. We developed skills in selecting and communicating relevant information, finding and directing solutions to particular situations, innovating and implementing new ideas, and maintaining or regaining focus (Wenger, 1998). The dissertation support group is a community of practice which “navigate(s) the challenging process of completing the dissertation” by “gather(ing) to offer (and receive) support and information” (Sincell, 2000). Being a member of DISGO gave each of us a sense of achievement that comes from working in a community of practice. As Collison and Parcell (2001) write in Learning to Fly, “I have a sense that I have made progress because I have achieved something I could not have achieved alone” (p. 131). Upon analysis and reflection, we found that the relationships we developed can also be viewed through the lens of an “ethic of care,” as defined by Noddings (1992). This is a useful lens for meeting the challenges that dissertation groups face in their formation and life, one we both consciously and unconsciously used in our own work. Noddings (1992) describes caring as interactions marked by responsiveness and mutuality: “They are made up of strings of encounters in which the parties exchange places; members are carers and cared-fors as opportunities arise” (p. 17). As Noddings suggests, we have been attentive to the reciprocal relationship that caring requires using ground rules to encourage reciprocity, for without it, a caring relationship cannot thrive. We also employed the four practices Noddings finds necessary to developing an ethic of care in a community: modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation.

Our Study In an effort to investigate our lived experience, we conducted a self-study of our dissertation group. We examined our roles and interactions and how we came to understand the support this group afforded us individually and collectively. Russell and Loughran

120

E.J. Klein et al.

(2005) write that self-study can provide an important “context for productive learning” and as such, suited our purposes of learning through the documentation and narration of our work together. The goal of this self-study was “to provoke, challenge and illuminate rather than confirm or settle” (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 20). While self in self-study is associated with individual practice, this methodology can also be collaborative: group members experience mutual learning, take risks, deepen understandings, consider alternatives and change perspectives (Dinkleman, 2003; Loughran & Gunstone, 1996; Northfield, 1996). Our investigation of DISGO validated our work as a learning community where members are supported, cared for, respected and valued for their work (Crowe & Whitlock, 1999).

Time Frame and Data Collection The data for this self-study was collected from 2003 until 2006 and studied from 2005 to 2006. Data sources included conference call records (www. freeconferencecall.com), indicating an average of 300 recorded conference hours throughout that three-year time frame. To support our weekly two-hour conference call, e-mails were sent for overall feedback prior to conference call appointments, averaging over 650 pages. Detailed written feedback was also given to dissertation drafts and returned via mail or e-mail. The goal of comments was to confirm theory, articulate areas of confusion, and question validity. Approximately 2,000 dissertation draft pages were read and critiqued. Analysis of e-mails, conference calls, and dissertation draft comments allowed for triangulation of data. Toward the end of our data collection phase, we conducted hour-long interviews with each other to learn individual perceptions about our experience. We reflected on the following: “In your opinion, what makes for an effective dissertation group? What might you do differently in a future type of group?” The 15 pages of interview notes were transcribed and analyzed giving a participant check from multiple sources, confirming theories constructed (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Schwandt, 1997; Wolcott, 2001). All data was loaded onto Atlasti, a qualitative data analysis software program.

Data Analysis As in most case study methods, the process of collecting data and its analysis is interlaced and recursively examined (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Ely et al., 1991). As data was read, categories were constructed. These categories help identify patterns in the data (Tesch, 1990). As data was examined, we wrote reflections such as observer comments and analytic memos. The notes highlighted emerging theories generated from the data and underscored analysis of research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Glasser & Strauss, 1967).


121

Why Did Our Dissertation Support Group Work? The dynamic relationships of DISGO created six distinct support areas (Table 9.1). Through investigating our e-mail conversations and interviews, threads of conversation or single e-mails capture our story and demonstrate how we learned.

Writing Support Throughout the dissertation process, each of us struggled to transform ideas into the written word. Meaningful writing support is prevalent when group members provide feedback that shapes one’s structure and style, fine-tuning mechanics through editing, and developing a personal process associated with dissertation writing. Two of us had significant anxiety about sharing our writing, which required time to overcome. Stacey reflected: “I learned that ‘letting go’ of drafts for critique was productive, not harmful or embarrassing.” Sharing our work was important personally as writers and academically as participants in the discourse. We each struggled with writing and found meaningful ways to ask for help. In our early DISGO days, Stacey sought support on a particular chapter she began to write. She asked for feedback on writing structure, mechanics and overall style: Dear Emily, Meg, and Amanda, It’s late on Friday night and I’m feeling pretty good about my relatively productive week! I’m attaching the four teacher profiles as promised. I try to use several common threads to familiarize my readers with some important info here. … I’ve cut down a lot of unnecessary info already, but need lots of feedback, especially on the following: 1) How to tighten what’s here 2) Comments on writing (edits, style, etc.) 3) Ideas of how I can better thread each story together 4) Questions/ what you want to hear next We can talk at our next meeting! Stacey (Stacey, February 14, 2004, personal communication)

As Stacey highlighted the “threads” she was trying to use, she began to synthesize the best way to present each member’s story. Stacey sought specific writing support to develop her style and structure. In this next example, Stacey continued to grapple with the same chapter. However, her needs for writing support shifted. She was Table 9.1 Six supports of a dissertation support group Writing support Conceptual support: the development and exploration of ideas Technical and bureaucratic support Development of academic voice Personal support Job support, including job applications and résumés

122

E.J. Klein et al.

working on connecting her practical observation to her conceptual understanding. Once again, she used lists of questions to think through her own writing style. Dear Emily, Meg, and Amanda, Okay, here’s chapter 4 looking a bit more complete. I need both general feedback and suggestions on the following: 1) How can I thread Part I (profiles) and Part II (group activity) together to make it read more fluidly? 2) How can I incorporate my actual research question, so it’s clear that chapter IV is intended to deal with Q1 specifically? Q1: What were the experiences of this particular group of teachers engaged in lesson study in one school? Do I need an introductory paragraph or can I start as is? 3) What do I include that may not be necessary? What else might be necessary to include? Thanks, Stacey (Stacey, July 21, 2004, personal communication)

While Stacey continued to ask for writing support associated with structure and style, her focus was to articulate an important connection between her data and research question. Using a targeted list to request specific feedback helped her learn to craft her writing appropriately. Writing is not simply about getting the words onto paper, but rather communicating complex thoughts in concise and articulate ways. Shaping structure, fine-tuning mechanics, and developing a personal writing process occur when writers grapple with the challenges and questions associated with their writing or colleagues’ writing. In addition, DISGO shaped the particular ways we approached complex writing. The specific requests focused the feedback and assured the written word captured our meanings. Learning also occurs when group members read each other’s work, mull over a study’s concepts and consider how they would approach the same writing task.

Conceptual Support In DISGO, our discussions supported the development of our ability to articulate a research framework and identify themes. Grappling together to extract and develop concepts related to our individual research, we learned the skills of sifting through data, noticing and highlighting salient features, and gaining clarity in naming themes that resonated within the work. It was also here that caring for the ideas of others was most clear. We see manifestation of this conceptual support in Meg’s study of students learning through internships. In her data collection she amassed hundreds of pages of interview transcripts from students, advisors, and mentors. At various points, Meg struggled with identifying the recurring patterns or themes that arose from the data. Turning to the support group familiar with her data, she sought specific conceptual support, asking for feedback and suggestions on how to articulate themes emerging from the text:


123

Y’all, Hi kids! Hope your weekend was divine! I’m attaching another memo here, and looking for feedback on the following: 1. What connects and disconnects do you see here? 2. What themes arise? Any other specific/broad thoughts are greatly appreciated and encouraged. J Also, I’m going to send on a few other attachments (sorry in advance) that are transcripts of interviews, etc. Talk to y’all on Thursday! Love, Meg (Meg, August 23, 2004, personal communication)

Because of the group’s familiarity with Meg’s research, members could provide critical insights that enabled her to identify themes and create categories. DISGO helped by assuming the role of a sounding board for ideas and critical friends in responses and feedback. Seen within the context of the ethic of care, another important point emerges: Meg sought conceptual support from the group members and they responded by helping to categorize themes and build on ideas. She felt comfortable turning to others to articulate thoughts closely tied to her research analysis. A deep level of care for ideas, for the individual, and for the group processes is clear in that the group shared a commitment to uncovering hers.

Technical and Bureaucratic Support In conducting our dissertation studies, we depended on each other for understanding the nuances in navigating the system. We guided each other in completing paperwork, talking to the right people, and sorting through other logistical challenges. As each member was attempting to coordinate her proposal submission to the University Internal Review Board (IRB), complications over language, permissions, and consent forms created unforeseen challenges. For most of us, the process was unchartered territory and we felt left to our own devices to navigate it. We provided each other with examples of consent forms and informational letters to ensure each member met necessary requirements. For example, as Amanda had to revise a consent form several times for IRB approval, Meg connected her to staff to guide her. Ultimately, the IRB process was simplified by working together. Because we went through the process at different times, we learned from each other and avoided the pitfalls others experienced. We emphasized support for the most challenging part of the process: preparing the dissertation defense. By practicing ahead of time, posing challenging questions, and offering a debriefing about the group dynamic, the bureaucratic challenge of addressing committee members and outside-reader questions was anticipated and confronted with support. In the following e-mail, Emily reported on a conversation with a fellow doctoral student about the defense:

124

E.J. Klein et al.

She told me we get twenty minutes at the beginning to introduce ourselves, our story, why we chose our topic, how our research unfolded, and what we feel we have learned from the process. Then our two outside readers get time to ask their questions about the data and its analysis. They don’t usually get into any questions about the lit review. Often committee members will get into conversations about some of the questions – and we should just sit back and let them talk. Towards the end committee members might get time to ask questions, but that is not always the case. Then at the end, we are excused, they have a conversation and a vote, and then apparently they invite us back and say “congratulations Dr.” (Emily, March 14, 2005, personal communication)

DISGO offered each of us a safe haven to learn about the process, ask any question, anticipate pitfalls, and prepare us for success in our work.

Development of Academic Voice Evans (1996) suggests that benefits derived from a dissertation support group exceed simple process-oriented tips and include rich intellectual supports such as developing – or further developing – an academic voice. We strengthened our abilities to use, explain, and define terms, while we honed the skills of presenting ideas, evidence, and data in the terminology of our disciplines. Individuals developed a professional tone as we practiced and became part of a new discourse community. As the literature reveals, many doctoral students struggle with the transition from full-time student to independent researcher/writer (Ballinger, 2003). A support group can help by exchanging pieces of writing, sharing sample methodologies, and offering references for literature reviews. Engaging with others in the processes of dissertation research and writing may help to scaffold an individual’s skills and increase his/her confidence as a real researcher. The group serves to develop and affirm one’s academic voice and status as a professional. E-mail exchanges illustrate the ways in which we probed for stronger definitions, tighter structures, and evidence. Below, Emily sought advice on the inclusion of a study in her literature review: To: Meg, Amanda, and Stacey From: Emily I have a question about a literature review thing. Originally I had a section on teacher networks that I removed from the proposal because I felt like networking teachers might be one of my findings … is it okay to have literature in my sections on my three questions? I’m afraid it will read like a literature review but it seems weird to put in my current chapter because it anticipates something that I find later. Does that make sense? (Emily, May 7, 2004, personal communication) To: Emily From Stacey I would think that using those pieces from the literature in other chapters would strengthen your findings. However, I’m not sure such citations should “read” like a review of lit., but rather supportive literature either evidencing or negating what you found to be true. … The


125

only piece I think important to keep in mind is you don’t want to veer off on tangents unrelated to your review completely … think “tight.” (Stacey, May 7, 2004, personal communication) To: Emily From: Amanda I’m on board with Stacey … I see sprinkling in evidence with your findings as strengthening your argument and yet, don’t overdo. Citing a seminal study that has a similar finding makes sense. And remember, stay focused on your questions. (Amanda, May 7, 2004, personal communication) To: Emily From: Meg I’m wondering if you might do this: introduce the idea of teacher networks and institutional memory in your lit review as some of the possible outcomes of quality professional development; then, in your findings, you can analyze whether or not and to what extent [the organization] achieves this. (Meg, May 8, 2004, personal communication)

This series of e-mails illuminates the way DISGO offered guidance to Emily, who sought advice on an academic question: What is the right way to voice these ideas as a researcher, and am I doing it correctly? The dissertation support group “takes our pulse” as emerging researchers. We help each other to gauge whether or not the structures, language, evidence, and findings we offer reflect an academic and professional voice. By creating a safe culture of caring, we contribute to a support group in which our academic voices have the space to develop. Putnam & Borko (2000, p. 5) write: “These discourse communities provide the cognitive tools – ideas, theories, and concepts – that individuals appropriate as their own through their personal efforts to make sense of experiences.” Doctoral students need practice with these cognitive tools, practice that cannot come in classrooms or isolation. Learning in this way requires work in communities if we are to succeed in meeting the demands of our new roles after graduation.

Personal Support One of the least planned for, but most significant, purposes of DISGO emerged as providing members personal support, particularly when personal problems competed with dissertation goals. We see personal support as providing attention to individual members, generating options to a member in distress, and helping members maintain focus on goals of dissertation completion and transition beyond. The problems we tackled have been numerous: beginning and ending relationships, celebrating and struggling in marriages, illnesses, workplace conflicts, and the general stress that occasionally arises during dissertation writing. Helping group members learn to manage these problems was integral to degree completion.

126

E.J. Klein et al.

We originally approached our group as an intellectual and social entity, not recognizing that this would lead to emotional and personal support. From the beginning, Amanda struggled with issues related to working full time, long-distance research, and maintaining a personal life. In 2004, this issue arose as Amanda faced illness, job stress, and challenges in her data collection. During a call she suggested that she felt overwhelmed by the weekly conference calls, feedback commitments, and other responsibilities of DISGO membership. She needed to focus on other aspects of life and pull back from the group. We discussed various alternatives through e-mail. Amanda wrote: I really appreciate your support. … I think I’m just in a different place because I’m in a holding pattern until I can get my data collection issues worked out. And I really just cannot commit to every week right now. I’m sorry. … I feel guilty about it, but it’s just too hard to do. I’m working and making progress, but it’s just a little stymied by outside systems. … If my being on the call twice a month is a problem, though, I’ll try to find another solution. (Amanda, September 16, 2004, personal communication) Hi Amanda: I understand that it’s a busy time right now and how you might be feeling swamped. What concerns me is if you taper back on DISGO, your work will also take the back burner – a risk not worth taking. my two cents, Stacey (Stacey, September 16, 2004, personal communication) Amanda, I, too (like Stacey) don’t want to see you stray too far from our flock of seagulls (get it – like the 80’s band …) Ok. enough. Anyway, I know you’re swamped with work and are stalled in your data collection … anything you do have, or any progress made is definitely something we want to hear about, though. Plus, you have great insights to share when you give feedback on our work, and that’s also something we value. So, I’d like not to lose that, of course. So, maybe for this time period – a month or so – if you need to e-mail feedback and talk every other week, cool. Lots and lots of love, Meg (Meg, September 16, 2004, personal communication) Hey ladies, We’re all here with you Amanda – guilt shouldn’t keep you from being with us when you can. It’s a lot of energy to expend on working on our stuff when you’re not getting back because you’re not there yet. Do what you can and we’ll work around it okay? Until you’re done we’re not letting you go too far. Emily (Emily, September 17, 2004, personal communication)

In the series of e-mails we see a number of elements that define the kind of personal support we offered each other: listening, giving reassurance, providing an open door when needed, but encouraging continuous ties to the group for reentry. Personal support alone may be insufficient. Key to this interaction and noticeable in others is that we recognized that pressure in any form would be ineffec-


127

tive. Pressure abounded in our lives: from our professors, in meeting deadlines, from our families wanting us to spend more time with them, from our jobs and from our friends. While we wanted a mutual commitment to the group, ultimately that group had to be a place that relieved, rather than added pressure; the benefits had to outweigh the sacrifices. When it did not, guilt would only increase anxiety and resentment; each member needed to feel that the group offered sanctuary and support rather than restriction and judgment. In the end Amanda decided to continue with regular phone calls and gave feedback on other’s work as best she could for a number of months until she felt able to reengage in full participation.

Job Support One of the main functions of the dissertation support group over the last two years (2004–2006) has been to support members throughout the job-search process. Our data suggests that the dissertation support group functions as an informal professional network where members share ideas about possible career paths, as well as job-search-related resources and processes. As each of us made the progression from student to professional, the focus of DISGO conversation shifted from dissertation completion to job support. Our long-term relationship allowed us to easily offer contributions to each other’s decisions. Deeply connected to dissertation completion is having a forum to contemplate and discuss our future plans, our personal needs (e.g., sustaining family and friend relationships), and our own happiness. These decisions require people around us who recognize the multiple roles in our lives and our developing attitudes towards our work. Other people knew us better and differently; but only this group understood our work deeply enough to help us contextualize work decisions. In 2004, Emily applied for jobs at various universities, deciding which were most appropriate given her background, skills, and professional goals. Dissertation group members helped her develop interview questions, fine-tuned her resume, and edited her cover letter. They offered feedback on her presentations. Finally, upon receipt of several offers she described what she found appealing about different options: Hey ladies, so I got the official offers from University A and University B (meaning they gave me my salary). I’m so confused. I’m heading to University B next week for the day to meet with some people but then I HAVE to decide (University A has asked for a decision in two weeks and it’s no longer in anybody’s interest to postpone). I’m sending you guys my chart of the two schools. If you have any time to read it and give me some feedback that’d be great. The one thing that may not get emphasized in it is the major difference in the jobs – University B being the English Education position and University A being a Generalist Education Position. Any thoughts you might have would be great! (Emily, March 15, 2005, personal communication)

128

E.J. Klein et al.

After years of knowing Emily on a personal level and her professional interests in community, DISGO members demonstrate how well they understand her goals and factors she might consider in her decision. First, Congratulations, smarty pants! How exciting, and what a great position to be in. Now, I think the support and connection with colleagues is super important – a place that you feel valued and comfortable. … To me, that’s a huge factor – you’re planning to spend four or more years there (before tenure), so a positive atmosphere is necessary. (Meg, March 15, 2005, personal communication)

Her e-mail goes on to detail some of the challenges each job will bring, the different skills each will demand and the strains location may have upon her personal life. Similarly, Amanda responded: I agree with everything Meg has said and I looked at the chart to see if I can offer any insight. As someone who has held many, many jobs – I appreciate the rational approach that the chart has afforded you, but I’ll just say that my best decisions were made with my heart. So I am going to ask you some questions which may make your decision a little more clear. Where do you feel most “at home?” Where do you think your passions will be satisfied? Where do you think you will be able to find a mentor and/or peers to help you through rough patches? Which place will be the best place to manage the ups and downs of everyday life? Where will you be able to grow into the professional you want to be? Resumes, money, and time only matter when you are unhappy in your job. … Choose the place where you will be happiest. (Amanda, March 15, 2005, personal communication)

Recommendations There is much anecdotal work on the challenges that come with creating a dissertation support group. They are extensive and will vary widely for different groups but we believe that membership, structure, competition, and commitment are important to confront.

Membership In the formation of a dissertation group, people need to believe they can both meet their own needs and others’ needs; in particular, we found it was essential to care for the ideas of other members. In order to invest the time needed to be an effective support group member, it was critical to understand and care about the stance of the other members. Our recommendation is not that members must be of similar fields, but rather by interest or commitment, they must deeply invest in the ideas of others.


129

Structure Our dedication to reciprocity and mutuality framed how we addressed structural challenges. We structured our conversations in the following way: (1) A “clearing protocol” (McDonald et al., 2003) for 10–15 minutes to discuss personal issues and clear our minds of other life issues, share/receive support, and focus on the task at hand. (2) Following the “go-around,” we allocated 30 minutes per person to address an issue, challenge, or idea, and receive feedback. We allowed for flexibility, as sometimes one individual’s work required a longer period of time. In the case that someone needed feedback on a larger piece of work, that individual e-mailed it to the group members one week prior to the meeting. On the day of the meeting we would adjust our regular schedule and exchange the go-around for a focused discussion. As we were all on different schedules in the process, we sometimes were able to expend more effort on one member’s work for extended periods, recognizing our commitment to reciprocity. We renegotiated the protocol regularly to assure fairness and equal participation.

Conflict and Competition Dissertation groups face challenges in the interpersonal relationships and conflicts that inevitably develop and arise especially in a career where there is competition for grant money, publication, and jobs. Our group faced few of these challenges perhaps because of our diversity of interests and styles. The vulnerability we encountered in sharing our work, listening to critical feedback, and sharing struggles ensured that no one felt that others’ successes were “unearned.” We were deliberate in celebrating victories, small and big. Most importantly we shared resources – grants, calls for papers/presentations, and job opportunities. We recognized that competition lay outside us in the thousands of doctoral students around the country.

Commitment Finally, caring for each other’s work for a sustained period of time takes personal commitment and flexibility (Sergiovanni, 1994). We tackled issues early on in our formation. After only three face-to-face meetings, two long-distance moves forced us to transition to weekly conference calls. We decided that we would periodically reevaluate our commitment and our ability to sustain the activity in order to adjust accordingly.

130

E.J. Klein et al.

Implications Universities that help develop and sustain dissertation support groups can help students navigate the challenges of the research and dissertation writing process. One helpful practice at our university was the use of organized “support groups” in qualitative research classes. This provided training and early support group participation to experience the benefits of writing and conceptual support. Doctoral programs should provide this kind of training through various sustained group projects. And, while a self-chosen group is most effective, universities could begin by designing open dissertation groups possibly facilitated by a faculty member (Inman and Silverstein, 2003; Pauley, 2004; Sincell, 2000). These should not be required, but should be a regularly scheduled opportunity for students to join. By introducing students to each other and support group structures, smaller groups may break off if they find compatible styles and interests. Our findings also have implications for those initiating their own dissertation groups. This chapter highlights the most essential kinds of support dissertation groups can provide: writing; conceptual, personal, and bureaucratic support; the development of the academic voice; and job support. We found that our group not only supported us during our dissertation writing but also in our post-dissertation job pursuits. This study provides a solid example of how situating doctoral students in this learning context enabled individuals to develop and extend the habits and skills necessary for any type of adult community participation and learning. Group members may find that they are seeking support in certain areas, but this chapter provides a broad vision of what areas of support a dissertation group can offer. Ultimately, what does our experience offer those interested in understanding and building communities of practice? Maintaining an ethic of care is an important aspect. This means there is a shared caring for ideas and learning that serves as the primary focus. Those who define such communities describe the importance of focusing on shared practices and work (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). But a truly effective community of practice requires that we care for the practice of others. It is this element that most significantly influenced the effectiveness of our group in our work and in our lives. It impacted our ability to finish our dissertations, contribute to the knowledge base of support groups, and carry those skills into our future positions.

References Ballinger, B. (2003, September 21). Almost there; completing the dissertation is all that remains for many doctoral candidates – but that can prove an overwhelming obstacle. The Chicago Tribune, Chicago, IL. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bullough, R.V. Jr. & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.


131

Collison, C. & Parcell, G. (2001) Learning to fly: Practical lessons from one of the world’s leading knowledge companies. Oxford: Capstone. Crowe, A.R. & Whitlock, T. (1999, April). The education of teacher educators: A self-study of the professional development of two doctoral students in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal, Quebec. Dinkleman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 16–18. Dixon, N.M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dorn, S. & Papalewis, R. (1997, March). Improving doctoral student retention. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Chicago, IL. Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer Press. Evans, T. (1996). From A.B.D. status to Ed.D.: A successful dissertation support group. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405530) Retrieved from ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) database. Glasser, B. D. & Strauss, A. K. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Hoffer, T. B. & Welch, V. (2006). Time to Degree of US Research Doctorate Recipients. National Science Foundation. Retrieved on June 17, 2006 from http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/. Inman, A.G. & Silverstein, M.E. (2003). Dissertation support group: To dissertate or not is the question. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 17(3), 59–69. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Loughran, J. & Gunstone, R. (1996, April). Self-study in teaching and research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York. McDonald, J., Mohr, N., Dichter, A. & McDonald, E.C. (2003). The power of protocols: An educator’s guide to better practice. New York: Teachers College Press. McLaughlin, M.W. & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press. Northfield, J. (1996, April). Quality and the self-study perspective on research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York. Pauley, D. (2004). Group therapy for dissertation-writers: The right modality for a struggling population. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 18(4), 35–43. Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. Russell, T. & Loughran, J. (2005). Self-study as a context for productive learning. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 103–106. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sincell, M. (2000). Sharing the pain. Retrieved on November 2, 2005 from http://sciencecareers. sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/0420/sharing_the_pain/ Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London: Falmer Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker. 9(5). Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.ewenger.com/pub/pub_systems_thinker_wrd.doc. Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 10

Collective Creativity: A Learning Community of Self-Study Scholars Anastasia P. Samaras, Mary Adams-Legge, Deanna Breslin, Kavita Mittapalli, Jennifer Magaha O’Looney, and Dawn Renee Wilcox

Shaffer and Anundsen (1993) defined community as “a dynamic whole that emerges when a group of people participate in common practices, depend on each other, make decisions together, identify themselves as something larger than the sum of their individual relationships, and commit themselves for the long-term commitment to their own, one another’s, and the group’s well-being” (p. 10). In the past, involvement in community was determined by where you lived, your family, or religious connections. However, today our communities are formed through emerging choices with respect to identity and values; they are not necessarily placebased. This has been referred to as a conscious community in which each member’s need for personal growth is emphasized; a community which honors the views of all its members (Shaffer & Anundsen, 1993). The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998) recommended extending community to undergraduate classrooms, with colleges building and cultivating conscious communities for learning and growth (Boyer, 1987, 1990). The Commission called for undergraduate college communities that are purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebratory. Our goal in this chapter is to explore what a conscious community can look like in a university graduate classroom. In this story, we describe our experiences in a new course offered on self-study research in spring 2006. The course was designed and taught by Anastasia, a selfstudy teacher educator, with five Ph.D. candidates: Mary, Deanna, Kavita, Jennifer, and Dawn Renee. It took place at the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at George Mason University, a large Mid-Atlantic university committed to both research and the scholarship of teaching. The CEHD holds the following core values listed in alphabetical order: (a) collaboration; (b) ethical leadership; (c) innovation; (d) research-based practice; and (e) social justice. Some of the questions we asked in our self-study were: “In what ways does our work together align with the values of our college?” “How would we describe our learning community?” “How did our learning community impact our learning, and what are the implications of our graduate learning community for other classrooms, programs,

A.P. Samaras, M. Adams-Legge, D. Breslin, K. Mittapalli, J.M. O’Looney, and D.R. Wilcox George Mason University


133

134

A.P. Samaras et al.

and universities?” In this chapter, we individually and collectively analyze the impact of our learning community. Self-study has inherent paradoxes, such as the tension between its individual and collective aspects. In addition, it has a dualistic nature that may seem contradictory or confusing (Loughran & Northfield, 1998). However, “paradoxes highlight the complexity, the uniqueness, and the potential of self-study. Paradoxically, selfstudy is first, individual and collective; second, personal and interpersonal; and third, private and public” (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 48–53). In our self-study group, the six of us provided academic and emotional support to each other while respecting and caring about each other’s research. Our goal in presenting the lived experience of our self-study course is to “provoke, challenge, and illuminate rather than confirm or settle” (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 20). Members of a self-study research group learn from each other, develop a deeper understanding of their research, and consider others’ perspectives in ways that can change their thinking about their work and encourage them to take greater risks as practitioners (Dinkleman, 2003). By being able to answer our research questions of What, Where, How, and Why, we illuminate the set of decisions taken during the course, why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result for course improvement (Schramm, 1971). By questioning the status quo and challenging ourselves and each other, we arrived at new understandings about how to improve our professional practice through self-study. Our experience offers a profile of a class that evolved into a research team and changed the dynamics of the traditional professor/teacher relationship. Our chapter opens with a description of our self-study learning community. We outline the context and nature of our course, the goals of our learning community, and the design and process of our self-study research. The impact of our self-study learning community was studied by its members as a research team and our analysis identified five themes. We close our chapter with a discussion of the catalysts of a learning community such as ours and with recommendations to others interested in building a learning community in a university setting.

Description of Our Learning Community Context and Nature of the Course The doctoral research class initially consisted of six self-study scholars and one professor, aged 26–56, with varied education, and research interests, and professions. However, one student dropped the course due to pressures at her workplace. Two students work for research organizations, one is a school psychologist, another is a science teacher, and one is a secondary English department chairperson/teacher. At the time of the study, the students were at different stages of their Ph.D. studies and majoring in different programs, i.e., Educational Psychology, Early Childhood/

10 Collective Creativity: A Learning Community of Self-Study Scholars

135

Literacy, Education Leadership, and Research Methodology. The professor’s research interests include Vygotskian applications in curriculum design and selfstudy of teaching and professional practices. Despite the variety of interests and professional backgrounds, we shared the common goals of exploring self-study, becoming self-study researchers, and learning to be critical friends through responsiveness and mutuality (Noddings, 1992). These individual and group identities impacted each of us in developing skills in the self-study methodology, applying them to our personal and professional lives, and innovating and implementing new ideas for the course. Our work, interaction, and knowledge-sharing depended on the dynamic engagement of each member in the group (Wenger, 1998). Jennifer offered her initial reactions to the areas of self-study. One evening in the fall semester of 2005, we had a guest speaker in our doctoral seminar class who was speaking about self-study. I had no idea what this was, but as a psychologist I was certainly interested. Anastasia met with the class and began to talk about an area of research that focused on studying ourselves as practitioners, and when she shared a piece of her narrative work with the class I knew I wanted to know more. At the end of the lecture, Anastasia handed out flyers for a new self-study course she would be offering in the spring. Not quite sure what I was signing up for, I registered and waited for the spring semester to begin. About a week before classes were to start, the students in the self-study course received an e-mail from Anastasia asking us to bring an artifact to class on the first night that represented our relationship with education. Although deciding on an artifact was challenging, that assignment was one of the most memorable experiences I have had in graduate school.

Then as Mary observed: “During the first class, Anastasia put us at ease, explaining that we should expect to feel confused and sometimes frustrated at first. We spent time getting to know one another–and then we were off.” The class met face-to-face during a weekly seminar for one semester, as well as virtually through e-mail and a class blackboard page. In 13 weekly class sessions lasting two and a half hours each, we shared our work, responded to each other’s research, and supported each other’s efforts. The seminars included professor and student-led discussions, reflective activities, and student presentations. The selfstudy class was distinctive in its form and structure. Kavita felt the class was “unique … as the professor became the learner and learners became teachers to each other.” In essence, there was shared leadership and collaborative work among peers and the instructor. The course content was challenging to teach as the field is just beginning to articulate its methodology (Feldman, 2003; LaBoskey, 2004), its definitions and methods for conducting research and analyzing data (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; Loughran, 2007), and its impact in affecting the policy-making process (Zeichner, 2007). Another challenge was the periods of nebulousness resulting in numerous student questions. For example, in the beginning, we floundered with the multiple definitions of self-study. Also, some students who had conducted action research were unclear how self-study was different. In addition, students struggled with the professor’s expectations for student participation in class, the large number of reading assignments, and the lack of structure of class projects.

136

A.P. Samaras et al.

At the start of the course, the community was raw and undeveloped, taking shape during each class as we expressed ourselves through course assignments. The assignments were a key factor. Unlike those found in a traditional university classroom, they encouraged creativity and collaboration. As Deanna commented: “The artistic twist that could be incorporated into each assignment intrigued me. The assignments allow[ed] me to look at things differently than I would if it were a ‘traditional’ classroom.” The mutual trust these assignments required helped our learning community to bond.

Goals of Our Learning Community The group had individual goals, as well as the collective goals of learning about the self-study methodology and applying it to their professional practice. Students worked with “critical friends” or trusted colleagues who seek support and validation for their research. Kavita explained this dynamic. Personally, my goals for the course were to learn the process of self-study and be able to apply them in my academic and professional lives. … One of the bigger goals of the course was to form small working networks among students … and be critical friends throughout the course and beyond, if possible. The goals of the learning community were to enable open and free dialogue between students and with the instructor. It was a two-way process throughout, where the respective roles of the instructor and the students were known to each other, but it was fluid in the sense of collaboration and learning.

One of the collective class goals was to develop exemplars of self-study that were not limited to teaching practice. Despite the plethora of research related to the selfstudy of teacher educators and teachers (e.g., Hamilton et al., 1998; Loughran & Russell, 2002; Russell & Korthagen, 1995; Samaras, 2002), there are few examples available that demonstrate its usefulness to practitioners outside of the teaching profession (e.g., administrators, librarians, occupational therapists, psychotherapists, counselors, and community educators) and what Samaras and Freese (2006, p. 18) call self-studyship. As Wilcox et al. (2004, p. 307) note: “Self-study allows practitioners to engage in inquiry that contributes to their own capacity for expert and caring professional practice while also contributing to the growth of their professions.” Each student completed a self-study of professional practice research project and peers were essential to that process.

Course Design and Process The course design was inspired by Vygotskian (1978, 1981) principles to offer students opportunities to gain a better understanding of the intersections of their personal histories of learning and knowing, their cultures, professional practices, and the development of knowledge about these. The zone of proximal development


137

(ZPD) in a learning community can be explained as the difference between actual learning and development determined by individual problem-solving and cognition levels, as well as, potential or possible development determined through collaboration and sharing with capable others (Vygotsky, 1978). Learning zones (LZ); (Samaras & Freese, 2006), adapted from Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD, are multiple spheres of collaborative work which invite students with various skills to explore and inquire through collective activity. In our work together, activities grounded in personal history enhanced what Kravtsova (2006) calls a collective zone of possibility (ZOP) where all of us were learners open to new understandings that emerged from our dialogue. The professor used scaffolding to push the students past their realm of comfort in creative thinking, which included using individual communities of critical friends and the class as a whole. An interactive learning community was central to the course, as was the need to work with a partner. As a group, there was constant sharing and collaboration about readings, learnings, and assignments. Valuing each other’s contributions and perspectives, having a shared responsibility and commitment to each other, and encouraging expertise for improvement-aimed change were central to the collaborative work. Jennifer noted that “It would have been a very different experience … without the feedback of other members.” Kavita went even further, asserting that “these assignments wouldn’t have been possible if we hadn’t worked in our group. …Our working in circles led to our conceptual framework of [a] professional network.” The seminar format allowed for a great deal of interchange in dialogic circles of mutual support. As a class and over time, the objectives were to create an intellectually safe environment in which participants learned from each other. There were four major class projects: (a) a partner portfolio, which included a series of research memos to a critical friend to catalogue and seek feedback (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 69–72); (b) a mid-term visual representation of the student’s research project; (c) a self-portrait as a developing self-study scholar (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 167–169); and (d) a final self-study research project situated in students’ professional work contexts (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 88–95). Students were asked to evaluate to what extent they had met self-study methodological dispositions as outlined in Samaras and Freese (2006, pp. 57–60). Other smaller class assignments included: (a) an artifact that students presented to introduce themselves and to articulate the connections between their culture, professional practice, and self-study research interests (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 162– 164); (b) a personal history education-related self-study (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 66–68); (c) a critique of a self-study article or chapter; (d) a mock proposal review where the class served as editors of a former proceedings of The International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices; and (e) a performance of a story from an individual each student had interviewed (Samaras & Freese, 2006, pp. 171–173). Students collated the assignments in a course portfolio and shared it with peers. Each of these projects was designed to provide opportunities for students to consider not only what they were interested in researching but also why they were interested in that topic. They reflected on their own schooling, their learning experiences, both positive and negative, and the possible intersections of their culture,

138

A.P. Samaras et al.

identity, and research. Deanna noted: “Our assignments were unlike those found in a traditional university classroom; for example, they involved interpretive art, which some individuals expressed through drawings, paintings, and visual displays.” Students were also encouraged to write to self-study scholars whose work related to their own research interests. The constant sharing of the projects enabled students to express themselves in a community that became more trusting over time.

Impact of Our Self-Study Learning Community Methods After the course ended, our group stepped back to examine the overall impact the course had on learning to conduct self-study research. We collected and analyzed multiple primary data sources including: (a) student projects and assignments noted above; (b) student feedback: verbal comments during the course, anonymous narrative mid-term and final course evaluations, and university mandated course evaluations; and (c) the professor’s log: lesson plans and notes, feedback to students, teaching videotape, feedback from her critical friend, blackboard postings, e-mails to students, and her self-assessment of meeting the course objectives. For this study, we focused on our assessment of the evolution of our learning community. Utilizing the data collected, we wrote individual assessments on the impact of the learning community and specifically explored the following research questions: ● ● ● ●

How did the learning community impact our individual and collective learning? What role did critical friends play in our learning community? What were the challenges we faced? What suggestions can we offer others?

Since each of us took turns bringing food to share during each class, food had become part of our class culture. As a result, we decided to gather for dinner to hold our research meetings over the summer and after our course ended. At our first meeting, we drafted visual frameworks depicting our learning community on napkins and took notes as we opened our discussion. Kavita offered her conceptual framework for assessment as a “picture color puzzle. It is just the way we start building a puzzle from the beginning – by first spreading all the puzzle pieces on the ground and then beginning to see where we can start the process of fitting each piece.” Mary diagrammed our group as a bidirectional network of interactive learning communities among the class as a whole and among critical friends. During the course, we paired ourselves into groups of two, however Mary was left without a critical friend after hers dropped the course. Despite the loss of our classmate, we continued to help one another develop our understanding of the self-study research methodology. The professor had conducted her critical friend work with a professor at another university. From that discussion, we designed the conceptual framework

10 Collective Creativity: A Learning Community of Self-Study Scholars Kavita’s research participants

Kavita

Deanna

Deanna’s colleagues

Dawn Renee’s colleagues

Dawn Renee

Jennifer

Jennifer’s colleagues

Mary’s English department

Mary

Student X

Anastasia’s students

Anastasia

139

Anastasia’s critical friend

Fig. 10.1 Our interactive learning community.1

of our interactive learning community, indicating our research project participants and our individual and collective critical friend support (Fig. 10.1). Each research team member then wrote their assessment of the impact of our learning community and sent it to each other. Using a case study approach (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2002), we each read the individual assessments and took notes of any commonalities. The data was analyzed using the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with each research team member assigning codes identifying possible categories. We met again to discuss our individual assessments across the group and identified overlapping categories and themes. Similar themes were combined and unique ones were integrated into existing themes where appropriate. Finally, the research team discussed and agreed upon the final themes. At our third research team meeting, we discussed what we had learned as a group, the challenges we faced, and our suggestions to others interested in building a learning community in a university course. We agreed to write sections of this chapter, sent the sections to each other for group editing, and continued to work through e-mail correspondence. Through our discussion and analyses, we arrived at the following conclusions about the impact of participation in our self-study learning community.

Findings Academic and Emotional Support Perhaps the most obvious effect of working in the scholarly learning community was the support it gave us. Kavita commented that having a critical friend “provided me constant academic support.” Dawn Renee said: “My critical friend 1 In Fig. 10.1 white boxes and arrows represent critical friends, grey boxes and arrows reflect research participants, and striped arrows represent collaboration among members of the interactive learning community. Student X represents the student who dropped the course.

140

A.P. Samaras et al.

encouraged and supported my ideas, offering practical and helpful advice. I felt more at ease as I started to find meaningful connections and similarities as I learned more about her.” Deanna found that the group “mutually supported our efforts to better understand self-study research methodology. By the end of the course, we had all achieved the goal of conducting and writing up our own self-study research project.” And Jennifer observed: “Regardless of my hesitations, our learning community gave me the opportunity to learn from other successful women about how to juggle a career, school, and family.” Some of the participants noted that such support not only helped them but enabled them to see how they could provide support to others. Jennifer commented that “critiquing others’ work has never been a strong suit for me, but writing with Dawn Renee (my critical friend) made me feel like I really impacted her work.” Dawn Renee explained her thinking. Moving forward, my new goal is to help others gain the kind of knowledge that has helped me in understanding a broad range of science issues. I thought of the many classrooms where teachers feel increasing stress and pressure to “cover” all of the information; instruction often gravitates towards lecture, worksheets, or “drill and kill.” I also thought about my own classroom as I progressed through the self-study class. As a teacher, I believe I am responsible to help students find their way past the awkwardness, self-doubt, and fear of failure that many are feeling.

The community learning experience was not all smooth sailing, however. Mary spoke about some the challenges. While I enjoyed the class, there were some initial frustrations. I did not always understand the syllabus, the directions for assignments, or the readings. The articles were difficult for me to acquire, and then I never felt clear about what we were to read and when. The second obstacle occurred when my critical friend quit the class. While Anastasia tried to fill this support gap, she really couldn’t: she was still the teacher and I the student. I found myself turning to the others if I had a question, and while they were good about helping me, I still missed a great deal of camaraderie and constructive criticism that the others shared among themselves.

But in the end, Mary reported that the insights she gained from the total experience “have helped me enormously.” She also noted that “as an English teacher with a very constructivist nature, this method seemed to fit well with my own approach to teaching.”

Increased Trust and Openness Self-study and collaboration involved relatively new experiences for many of us in the group, and we were somewhat apprehensive about working so closely with others. However, we soon learned to trust each other. Deanna stated that “each activity required trust in each other,” and Dawn Renee said, “As I started on the path of my self-study journey, I was excited by the open-endedness and creative freedom that was encouraged in the self-study activities. I was excited and a little nervous to work with


141

and share my ideas with a critical friend and with the whole group.” Jennifer reported: “After we shared our artifacts, we were asked to find a partner – our ‘critical friend’ for the semester. Almost angry at first about this forced relationship, it took only a few weeks to realize the importance of the critical friend. Dawn Renee and I used humor and our love for children’s literature to deal with the uncertainty of the course.” As the trust grew, so did openness and a willingness to express ourselves. Deanna noted: “As a result of this course, I have begun to express myself more openly in my work both educationally and professionally. I continue to use oil painting to express myself, and I am more vocal in group settings. The most valuable lesson I learned from my learning community is that it’s okay to admit that you don’t know something.” Anastasia observed: “Our reciprocity of mutual respect and empathy allowed us to express what we did not understand and gave us all permission to self-assess with class feedback. Interestingly, it is perhaps this mutual dependence that helped our learning community evolve.” Kavita described how the course enabled her to share some of her personal life experiences. My artifact assignment depicted an emotional journey of my life. It brought back some sweet memories of how my process of learning and conducting research began in my country of birth, India, and later in the U.S. The assignment, like others, not only provided a way to express myself and my thoughts in a systematic manner, but gave it a meaning. It was truly a journey back along memory lane.”

However, Jennifer spoke of the need to find balance: “Sharing in the many class activities was a key aspect for establishing myself within the learning community. However, there were still moments when I had difficulty expressing my experiences with the group. I sometimes wondered if I had shared too much with the other students – and with a faculty member on my graduate committee.” In her assessment, Anastasia wrote about her unique position as the professor with respect to collaborative teaching and inquiry. Why aren’t these students interested in having a discussion, instead of listening to me talk for the whole class? I asked myself that question often in my first year of teaching social studies to ninth graders. I wanted us to be a learning community. What I didn’t understand was that encouraging students’ understanding of each other, and not only the material, is essential to building a learning community. Now many years later, I continue to work in understanding learning communities “with” students rather than “to” students. I asked students to join me in understanding how to teach and learn about self-study, and in that process we became a learning community.

Understanding Why and How to Work Collaboratively We came to see how much one can learn through a learning community and acquired understandings and skills needed for such participation. We also came to the conclusion that a group is not a learning community just because the professor says it is. In her assessment, Deanna explained how the original group grew to become a mutually supportive learning community. “Our self study learning community evolved over

142

A.P. Samaras et al.

time to what it is today.” Kavita said she “learned that some things work well in a group.” Jennifer commented: We have been given opportunities to continue to work together and examine exactly what it means to be part of a community of scholars. Both the class experience and working together after the fact has been an important step in my development as a researcher and as an education professional.

Dawn Renee observed: “As a teacher, or facilitator, I can turn the ideas I learned in this class around and apply them to my classroom. I believe it is my job to expose students to a wide range of instructional topics. When the students are encouraged and inspired, amazing things will happen!” As noted earlier, Mary initially had some concerns about the experience: “While I enjoyed the creative outlets for self-expression, I often had trouble conceptualizing how this would ultimately be useful. A 27 year teaching veteran, it was hard for me to overcome my need for immediate practicality.” However, she came to see the value of process, and even its practicality. To my surprise, of all the doctoral projects I have worked on to date, my self-study has been the most practical. I studied my role as a department chairman, and the insights I gained about myself, my colleagues, and the position have helped me enormously. Self-study forced me to think outside the box in new ways, and it changed my way of thinking, despite myself.

Once again, Anastasia reflected on the professor’s point of view with respect to having to learn to trust the students and the collaborative process in the course. Most of all, I realized that I had to trust, dismantling the power relationship I held as “professor.” I worried that if I asked students for their honest feedback to improve the course, they would take advantage of me. I wrote about that to my critical friend, Anne Freese. I sensed my students weren’t sure if they could trust me with their honesty. I, too, needed to trust them. As they read the self-study literature, they began to understand that self-study scholars genuinely ask for others’ perspectives. Being vulnerable and soliciting student input was ultimately the best way for me to improve the course. Once I trusted the process and let go of the “I and thou” power position, more than my practice changed. When students also let go of their position as “student,” they became a different kind of learner and we became more than a class or a course to take.

Anastasia found encouragement in the ideas of John-Steiner (2006, p. 163), who describes “knowledge transmission and transformation” as a process through which professors and doctoral students can mutually benefit and develop more fully professionally. And the positive results were soon evident to her: “By midterm, I wrote Anne, ‘These students are taking the course in directions I never imagined and are brilliantly making the connections to their research interests!’”

Greater Reflectiveness Several of the participants reported that the learning community experience led them to be more reflective. Dawn Renee said: “I came to feel that I needed to outline or identify my own beliefs and reasons for choosing particular methods of science teaching before I moved to study the beliefs and motivations of others.” Deanna found that “the lack of structure in class assignments encouraged student interpretation, thus


143

giving me a rich understanding of how to express myself in nontraditional forms (e. g., oil painting). The use of artistic expression opened my eyes to a new way of learning.” Anastasia observed: “In reciprocal fashion, we influenced and expanded what we understood and did not understand. We integrated our diverse talents and areas that needed development. The self-study methodology became clearer and easier to comprehend through our actual experiences and application of its methods.” Kavita spoke at length about how she became “more self-reflective in my academic and professional lives.” She continues to apply what she learned in the course both inside and outside of school. “The course has certainly provided me ways to be more self-reflective at my work place. It showed me the importance of peer feedback as a way for internal validity of the process, and that learning didn’t have to be only through narrative/writing, but also through ways beyond them – art forms, drama, and concept maps, to name just a few.” She continued: “The course … can also be extended to non-teaching practices, which enables us to understand our self-development process in depth. Constant questioning, self-reflection, looking for connections in all that I do in my life – self-study has taught me all of these.”

Increased Direction and Precision in Our Work Working together as self-study scholars helped direct and shape our inquiries and writing. Kavita said that having a critical friend “provided direction to my work … her probes and constructive criticisms helped to gear me towards my study and course goals.” Dawn Renee commented: “At the time of this course, I was a sixth grade science teacher in the midst of reading and sorting through a variety of literature aimed at preparing myself for writing my dissertation. I signed up for the selfstudy course because I felt it would help me to frame or focus a series of questions I had related to teacher beliefs, choices, and methods of science instruction, as these ideas related to education reform. My plan was that these ideas would soon become the focus of my dissertation research.” Not only did the experience give us direction, it increased the precision and clarity of our writing. Kavita reported: “My class peers’ curiosity about my self-portrait and concept maps forced me to think about them more concretely, in order to provide a clear logic and explanation.” And Dawn Renee said: Sharing ideas with a critical friend and with the whole group made me produce better quality work, because I knew that others had to understand it. …Thinking back on the selfstudy class, I found that through the sharing of ideas and the telling of “stories” I was able to explain the usefulness of my ideas to others.

Catalysts of Community In addition to analyzing the impact of our learning community experience, we identified certain core catalysts that promoted and sustained our learning community and that also aligned with the values of CEHD.

144

A.P. Samaras et al.

Core Catalysts Supportive and shared leadership. A strong self-study learning community requires the collegial and supportive participation of an instructor who shares leadership and facilitates the work of students. The instructor needs to be able to participate without dominating, and must choose activities that encourage collaboration and personal accountability. Shared values and vision. The instructor has to model unswerving commitment to students’ learning, a commitment that is consistently articulated and related to the students’ work. An essential part of the vision is connectivity and a strong work commitment to learn with and from each other. The group must set both individual goals and collective goals to provide a common vision. Individual and collective learning. A participatory consciousness of each other’s research leads to a mutually beneficial relationship between the critical friends and the class as a whole. Activities should be purposefully selected to provide opportunities for students to consider not only what they are interested in learning, but how other’s work helps to inform their own. Although we completed individual selfstudy research projects, we each grew to care about each other’s research as we helped to shape it. Smith (1998), exploring the development of collective knowledge, notes the importance of relationships among individuals engaged in selfstudy projects who work as a group. Supportive classroom conditions. Classroom conditions have a major impact on when, why, and how the students regularly come together as a learning community. Sitting in circles, bringing in food, and sharing our work and concerns with each other helped to establish a climate of community. The small size of our class and the physical proximity of the instructor to students allowed participants the opportunity to talk and listen. Interdependent teaching and learning roles allowed for shared leadership and collaborative work among peers and the instructor. An open and free communication structure is needed so the group evolves into a trustful learning community. Openness to course development and innovation. Student feedback on the course structure must be invited from the beginning of the course and continually shared throughout the semester. In our case, Anastasia noted students’ concerns and made adjustments. For example, initially the readings seemed unstructured; and while there may be a level of necessary murkiness with new ideas, that is all the more reason to be explicit in guiding students through provided readings. Another suggestion from one of the students – to be implemented in the future – is the option of having groups of three critical friends instead of just two. This would allow for the possibility of one dropping out, and also provide a balance of feedback rather than too much dependence on one person’s opinion.


145

Our Recommendations Based on our findings, we would make the following specific recommendations for developing self-study learning communities.

Ways To Establish a Collaborative Structure ● ●

●

●

Keep the group relatively small (6–10 persons). Establish goals and assemble readings that build on individual experiences and promote collective thought. Provide opportunities for critical friend work with shared responsibility and mutual support. Design activities with interdependent teaching and learning roles to encourage a participatory consciousness and attention to each other’s research.

Ways To Apply Self-Study To Multiple Professions ●

●

●

Identify professions similar to your own and invite them to be part of your learning community (e.g., counseling and social work). Select topics for projects related to your profession, discuss your work with other professionals, and provide feedback to members of your group. Establish online networks to keep in touch (e.g., e-mail, blog) enabling group members to discuss topics in between group meetings.

How To Build a Collaborative Learning Community ●

●

●

●

Create an intellectually safe learning environment with an open and free communication structure. Model collegial and supportive participation as an instructor who shares leadership and facilitates the work of students. Enter the community with an open mind, honoring each other’s individual strengths and valuing each other’s contributions. Embrace your role as a continuous learner within a community of learners.

References Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook.

146

A.P. Samaras et al.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. NY: Harper & Row. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bullough, R. V. (Jr.) & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. Dinkleman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 16–18. Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 26–28. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin. Hamilton, M. L., with Pinnegar, S., Russell, T., Loughran, J., & LaBoskey, V. (Eds.), (1998). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. John-Steiner, V. (2006). Creative collaboration. NY: Oxford University Press. Kravtsova, E. (2006). The tasks and prospects of cultural-historical psychology. Keynote lecture at the 7th International L. S. Vygotsky Memorial Conference “Cultural-Historical Theory: Prospects of Development” Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, November. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 1, pp. 817–869). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. Loughran, J. J. & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. L. Hamilton, with S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. Loughran, & V. K. LaBoskey (Eds.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 7–18). London: Falmer Press. Loughran, J. J. & Russell, T. (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-study. London: Routledge/Falmer. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press. Russell, T. & Korthagen, F. (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Samaras, A. P. (2002). Self-study for teacher educators: Crafting a pedagogy for educational change. NY: Peter Lang. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. NY: Peter Lang. Schramm, W. (1971). Notes on case studies of instructional media projects. Working paper for the Academy for Educational Development, Washington, DC. Shaffer, C. R. & Anundsen, K. (1993). Creating community anywhere: Finding support and connection in a fragmented world. NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam. Smith, H. A. (1998). Self-study and the development of collective knowledge. In M. L. Hamilton, with S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. Loughran, & V. LaBoskey (Eds.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 19–29). London: Falmer Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. [Original work published 1960]. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5). Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.ewenger.com/pub/pub_systems_thinker_wrd.doc.


147

Wilcox, S., Watson, J., & Paterson, M. (2004). Self-study in professional practice. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Vol. 1, pp. 273–312). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Yin, R. K. (3rd ed.) (2002). Case study research, design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36–46.

Part III

Learning Communities in Professional Networks

Introduction Clare Kosnik and Clive Beck

With the rise of e-mail, Skype, affordable air fares, and modest phone rates, learning communities are no longer bound by location. Members do not have to be in the same location or the same institution in order to collaborate. Working in separate locations, often geographically quite distant, challenges the traditional notion of community which envisaged most members working and living in close physical proximity. The six chapters in this section provide examples of communities that cross institutions, with members not necessarily working together on a regular basis. How do these qualify as communities of practice? Wenger et al. (2002) define communities of practice as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). Close proximity is not a requirement but passion is. “[Finding] value in their interactions” (p. 4) often leads members to seek opportunities to continue the collaboration with others who have a deep understanding of the issues or an appreciation of the complexity of a job. Not surprisingly, “[t]he value is not merely instrumental for their work. It also accrues in the personal satisfaction of knowing colleagues who understand each other’s perspectives and of belonging to an interesting group of people” (p. 5). Without a doubt, the communities described in this section include very interesting individuals who are deeply passionate about their work and believe that participation with others enhances both their work and their well-being. An interesting aspect of the communities described in this section is that many have been in existence for an extended period of time. Over time, the communities have developed their own mores and culture. For example, Heston et al. document the rise of the Castle Conference group over the past decade. This summer will be the sixth meeting of the Castle Conference; the group has helped establish norms and a culture which they call the Castle Way. “When we talk about the Castle Way, we refer to those aspects of the conference (both intentional and serendipitous) that help to create a genuine community of scholars. These aspects include creating supportive structures, inviting the community in, including the community throughout the process, making a conscious effort to be open and inclusive to diverse approaches to study, working to establish collegial friendships, modeling the combination of critique and support, working to create new networks, and making current


151

152

C. Kosnik, C. Beck

networks more widely accessible to others.” As new members join the group they are immersed in a particular culture. As we looked at this set of papers, a few common themes emerged, including joint academic endeavors, professional support, and friendship. The range of collaborative projects or academic endeavors is impressive. For example, the Tate et al. chapter reports how the group developed case studies for use in practice teaching supervision, while the Erickson chapter demonstrates how Kang – who was introducing action research into a school in China – was supported by Erickson in Canada and Mitchell and Ryan in Australia. In some instances, colleagues from afar offered professional support not readily available in the respective home institutions. For example, in Chapter 11 Moir and Hanson describe how at the weekly meetings of the mentors – the mentor forums – there was discussion of some of the challenges they faced as new teacher mentors moving from school to school. Not surprisingly, friendships developed among the members of the various communities. The “best friends” group described in Chapter 16 tended to begin each professional conversation by first catching up on personal news. We believe that part of the success of each of these groups was due to the interplay among the various factors – academic, professional, and social/personal. Each element was essential for the success of the community; the multidimensionality helped each community to thrive, especially as it faced the inevitable bumps and tensions that are part of any community. Chapter 11, by Moir and Hanson, offers a different perspective on mentoring new teachers. They focus on the mentors working in the New Teacher Center at the University California, Santa Cruz. Their chapter includes a description of the methods used to build a community for the mentors; the features of their regular meetings; and the value of the community for the individuals in the mentor role, the new teachers, and ultimately the partner schools. Chapter 12, by Heston et al., is an examination of their work as the program chairs for three successive meetings of the International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, affectionately known as the Castle Conference. They document strategies used to make the conference inclusive, describe the Castle Conference culture, and outline the impact of their involvement in the conference on their work at their respective home institutions. Chapter 13, by Erickson et al., documents an international collaboration focused on implementing action research in schools in China. They discuss some of the differences between the contexts (Canada, Australia, and China) and the strategies used to collaborate both on-site and across such great distances. Chapter 14, by Holzman, discusses the history, methodology, and programs of the East Side Institute’s learning community in New York City. This is an independent research and training center for the development and promotion of alternative and radically humanistic approaches to psychology, teaching and learning, therapeutics, and community. Chapter 15, by Tate et al., describes the development of a community for practicum/internship supervisors at George Washington University. They include an account of four self-studies they undertook to improve their practice, indicating how each study helped the development of the community and led to the improvement to their supervision practices.

Introduction

153

Chapter 16, by Kosnik, is a look at the collaborative ventures of four faculty (the editors of this volume), working in three different institutions widely separated from one another geographically. She identifies the features of the community and the strategies used to work across borders.

Reference Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chapter 11

A Learning Community for Teacher Induction Ellen Moir and Susan Hanson

Introduction The New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz (NTC), opened in 1998 with a mission to transform the way new teachers enter the profession through intensive, mentor-based induction. New teachers need an induction program focused on instruction and the guidance of successful, experienced teachers trained to accelerate the advancement of their classroom practice. Highquality induction programs are part of a larger scaffold that not only supports the competence of new teachers, but also builds the capacity of veteran teachers who serve as mentors to be dynamic school leaders who know how to create environments in which all teachers, new and experienced, can grow and thrive. The NTC’s theory of teacher development emphasizes ongoing skill and knowledge growth focused on building student success in school-based communities of practice. This chapter describes key components of our multilayered approach to building professional learning communities that support teacher induction and teacher learning in schools.

A Learning Community for Teacher Induction Is Born In the mid-1980s, as Director of Teacher Education at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Ellen Moir was responsible for overseeing the clinical faculty in the teacher preparation program. As part of a new supervision model, exemplary teachers from local schools were invited to teach methods courses in collaboration with faculty and to supervise student teachers. Full-time clinical supervisors had reduced caseloads, enabling them to visit each student teacher weekly. While the teachers had all been exemplary classroom teachers, they were not necessarily

E. Moir and S. Hanson University of California at Santa Cruz


155

156

E. Moir, S. Hanson

effective mentors. To support their growth, as well as to ensure congruence across supervisors whose responsibility it was to sign off on credential requirements, Ellen brought the staff together in weekly study groups. The clinical supervisors improved their ability to observe candidate growth and development, they learned about the needs of pre-service teachers, and they shared their work with one another. As the conversations deepened by looking at artifacts of practice such as lesson plans and sharing ideas, Ellen could see that not only were they improving their skills to meet the main intent, but more importantly, they were learning together about teacher growth, how to guide the candidates’ practice, and move their thinking forward. In 1988, California initiated the California New Teacher Project, enabling Ellen to start the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project and hire four exemplary teachers to work full time as mentors. Ellen’s positive experience with the study groups for supervising teachers led her to immediately launch a weekly meeting for the mentors. Entitled the Mentor Forum, this study group for mentors has existed in Santa Cruz for 20 years. When I started these mentor meetings I realized that we didn’t know that much about brand new beginning teachers. I had always worked in preservice. I wanted to better understand what is it that first year teachers need to be able to know and be able to do. What do they need? Not many people had been working in this area. When I started the induction program, I mirrored this process. I could see benefits. There are not many people in the country that really study and focus on teacher learning – preservice teacher learning, induction teacher learning, new teacher learning – at very specific, concrete levels. You can develop a teacher program, have standards, competencies, but what does it really look like when a teacher is operationalizing these pieces and how do we organize ourselves so we can give rich feedback and support new teacher growth and development? That’s why I developed the Forums. They grew into being a community of practice.

The norm for new teachers after their pre-service had been just “sink or swim.” Some schools had an informal buddy system in which new teachers were matched with experienced teachers. Though buddy mentors can provide emotional support and introduce new teachers to the norms and expectations of the school and district, they are not provided the training and resources to link mentoring to the norms and expectations inherent in effective teaching and professional growth. The old system in our district was just a buddy system. You never got into the classroom of the beginning teacher while they were teaching. There was never any opportunity for observation or reflection. You would meet after school, before school, or at lunch, and they would talk about their problems, and it was a lot of band-aiding, and suggesting ways around the problem such as scripts with parents, managing systems they might try in their classroom.

What new teachers really need is an intensive induction program focused on instruction and the guidance of successful, experienced teachers trained to mentor. And both mentors and new teachers need time off from other duties to work together to improve teaching.

11 A Learning Community for Teacher Induction

157

Mentor Training and Support Few veteran teachers, no matter how exemplary their classroom practice, are prepared to assume the role of mentor teacher in an ambitious induction program without participating in sustained mentor professional development. Our model requires that the districts with whom we work release exemplary experienced teachers full time from the classroom to mentor first-, second-, and sometimes third-year teachers. Each mentor is assigned a caseload of approximately 15 new teachers to provide weekly support over a course of a school year. The experienced teachers who are selected to be mentors improve their knowledge and skills simultaneously with sustained investment in their development. Mentoring is complex work and the kind of professional development offered to mentors matters immensely. The NTC supports ongoing professional and organizational learning through the development and modeling of authentic professional learning communities. Mentors participate in a Mentor Academy four times a year and meet almost weekly in a Mentor Forum. Both experiences are firmly rooted in the fundamental principles of effective professional development, serve to reinforce our induction goals, and teach the structures and processes of the NTC Model of Induction. The Mentor Forum, a weekly 2–3 hour, structured professional development opportunity for mentors, fulfills a number of purposes: (1) to create a collaborative community of practice for mentors; (2) to study beginning teacher development and the use of formative assessment; (3) to deepen mentoring skills and advance induction practices; and (4) to support each mentor’s emerging leadership.

Building a Community of Practice Among Mentors The first essential ingredient for building a professional community of practice is having significant time committed for people to work together. Time is a precious commodity in schools and it speaks volumes about what is important. The NTC Model of Induction commits significant time for mentors to work together rather than with their mentees. Mentors come together regularly in Forums and Academies to learn new information and work on projects together. He [the program director] has given us a whole week to come together. It just shows the importance they place on the collaboration. If you demonstrate that it’s important and follow through by providing time, then people are going to know and realize that it is important.

The Forums and Academies provide a time for mentors to develop a common language and understanding, to practice and deepen skills, and problem-solve issues of practice with colleagues. The meetings bring together exemplary teachers who

158

E. Moir, S. Hanson

have different areas of expertise to work in a collaborative learning environment on a weekly, or almost weekly basis. This is not something that most teachers have experienced before. This is all of our first year doing this and we’re all learning together. We tap into the ideas and resources that we all have and we get so excited about it and it just bonds us. It has forced me to do things that I’ve never done before and it’s provided the support to do that, not [just] to say, “Do it.” I’m getting the training and I have the support of my colleagues. It’s not anything I’ve ever really been a part of – such a large group of people who want to contribute to each other’s development.

Under the direction of a District Program Director and guidance from the NTC, the Forums are led by the mentors. Each meeting has a theme and mentors are asked to plan and facilitate activities. Mentors are encouraged to take leadership roles from the initial grounding activity to teaching new concepts and effective strategies. Teachers who move into a mentor role typically have not had extensive experience presenting workshops or facilitating networks. Leading aspects of the weekly meeting give mentors leadership experience that serves them well at their school sites and in their careers. As teachers lead teachers, all participants gain a better understanding of what a learning community is and its value. The NTC Model of Induction requires the mentors to acquire considerable knowledge and to learn skills over time. Led by experienced NTC Outreach Coordinators, the mentors receive authentic professional development at the Academies. The Academy’s curriculum and pacing are guided by the understanding that the most powerful learning occurs in response to an immediate need. Initial sessions focus on the mentor’s role, the needs of the beginning teacher, the use of professional standards to guide mentoring, and new teacher development. As the year progresses, mentors are introduced to several NTC formative assessment protocols that support new teacher learning. The second year Academy series stresses the more strategic aspects of mentoring: including issues of differentiation, equity, inclusion, working with English language learners, as well as training in facilitation skills and designing learning experiences that support professional growth. Mentors learn content and skills and then they observe and debrief with their new teachers – a powerful model for induction. When I mentored before, we were always stuck in classroom management … kids who wouldn’t behave. We never really got to talk deeply about content, about student engagement … about assessment – how you assess these students, about differentiation of instruction – how you look at your groupings and turn them into smaller learning groups. None of that was ever done, because we weren’t seeing these kids while they were being taught. To me, being able to observe and then debrief with the teacher on what you saw and what you heard is so powerful.

New knowledge to learn, skills to practice, and real problems to solve contribute to making the time when mentors leave their schools and come together worthwhile and something they personally value.


159

The Mentor Academies have been really good because we get to model. Our last academy was about developing professional development. They broke each day down at the end of the day and said “Here’s how we’ve applied what we were teaching.” They related them back to all the other Academies. … The things they said that are good professional development are exactly what they’ve been modeling the whole time.

The NTC Outreach facilitators, responsible for leading the Academy meetings, have received considerable training and they model leadership skills and teachers teaching adults, as they facilitate meetings and support Program Directors throughout the year.

Mentor Community Leadership It takes excellent leadership skills and experience to make the most of bringing teachers together to work on their own learning. A successful learning community does not develop from simply placing teachers together and guiding them through the NTC model. When experienced teachers, selected district-wide from a rigorous selection process, come together as mentors, they will recognize the talent in the room among their colleagues. From past experience, they may be skeptical of the value of regular professional development meetings. The Program Director must earn the respect of the veteran teachers to make the most of the collective skills and potential of the group to serve their district. Leading some of the most experienced and respected teachers in the District, the Program Director must have the stature to earn their respect. Furthermore, she/he must have the disposition to help teachers unpack what they are learning over time, help co-construct, and take ownership for the work. We have learned that the quality of the program leadership matters immensely. Here are a few qualities that mentors noticed about their program directors that they appreciate and which represent good modeling. When he asks us our opinion, he really wants to know our opinion. And whatever our opinion is, is what he goes with, whether he agrees or not. And when he says, “This is what we’re doing; it’s not negotiable,” we understand. The way he has incorporated us into the development of things that are coming and the way we’ve been asked to contribute our ideas at the district level, I think that has made people feel very professional, and that their knowledge is highly regarded and as a result, has inspired a lot of people to want to learn together and want to contribute together. Our directors, they definitely listen to our concerns. They’re definitely about helping us be the best we can be so that we can help our new teachers.

Mentoring is ultimately a teaching role – teachers teaching teachers to teach. The quality of the mentor–teacher relationship is at the core of the work. Just as new teachers need an induction program focused on instruction and the guidance of successful teachers trained to accelerate the advancement of their classroom practice, mentors also need similar relationships and exposure to move their mentoring

160

E. Moir, S. Hanson

practices forward. Mentoring requires the ability to build adult relationships, both with individuals and among groups, a commitment to collaboration, and the skills to articulate teaching strategies, analyze evidence, and support teacher growth and development. Effective mentors are not one in a million, but excellent, experienced teachers who exist in every school. Through thoughtful, ongoing professional development these teachers can become effective mentors and school leaders. Experienced teachers who assume the role of full-release mentor are embarking upon a new path. They have new responsibilities, are learning new skills, and are developing new relationships. No longer do they stay at a home-based school, with major responsibility for their own classroom, and work primarily with other teachers in their grade level or department. Mentors are usually assigned a school where they have never worked. Their first responsibility is to establish a schedule to provide weekly support to their beginning teachers. The role of “mentoring” includes more autonomy, unstructured time, and collegial stability, than many teachers have had in years. Just as new teachers adjust to new working conditions during their first year, so do mentors. I’ve become a lot more comfortable being out of the classroom. Last year being out of the classroom was very uncomfortable for me. Not having my day run by bells was a really really challenging thing for me. And the reality that there is down time in the day, that I might have thirty or forty-five minutes where I might just help a teacher find something online. This was a really strange thing. This year I’m more comfortable because having talked a year with all the others, everybody has that. When you are alone, sometimes you really question how you’re doing things, and what you should have done in this certain case, so that is really good to bounce that off at the forum.

The collegial community that develops among mentors has proved to be extremely important to the success of our induction program. Mentors, particularly those working alone in schools, look forward to sharing their experiences and challenges with other mentors when they meet together and it improves their practice. A favorite activity done in Mentor Forums, called Problem Pose/Problem Solve, enables mentors to share their immediate challenges with each other and support each other as they should support other teachers. There’s usually something we can take away from the conversation, even if it doesn’t directly apply to our own situations, just helping somebody work through something gives us the motivation to continue that for ourselves. They’re just so creative, the ideas we come up with. … And, also they’re problem solvers. I respect that. Anything we talk about is confidential. So, if we’re having a problem in our school with an ILT, we could talk about it. We’re all pretty close, which is really important. I mean, I’m not sure I would have survived without having somebody else who’s in a similar situation to say “How do you handle this situation?”

After mentors have shared a challenge they are experiencing with either a partner or a group, they are asked to reflect and discuss the following questions: “In what ways did the process support your problem-solving?” “What are you


161

learning about yourself as a listener/coach?” and “What insights did you gain regarding your own challenge?” Continual modeling and learning via reflection and collaboration in everything we do help to build strong learning communities. Mentors are carefully selected across all disciplines, grade levels, and schools within a school district. They are encouraged to share their curriculum and pedagogical expertise in response to the needs of other mentors. Just as mentoring is about teachers teaching teachers how to learn and how to teach, the mentor forums are also about teachers teaching teachers. Accomplished teachers experience new responsibilities and challenges as new mentors and they share their learning in pairs, triads, across grade levels, and subject matters both in and out of meetings. When we find out what somebody’s specialty is, it’s publicized amongst all of us so we know whom we can go to if we have a question about this. It’s on the Friday afternoons that I get to follow up. For example, I have a science teacher, and I go to the science teacher who’s in our group, and say, “How can I get through this?” I always come out feeling reenergized by our meetings. Sometimes I’ve had to ask, “Can we allow some time in the agenda just for us to talk?” because our agenda is so packed. There’s so much to do, so much to learn, and we only have those few hours on Fridays. So when we come in, we’re on from the time we start until it’s over.

Outside of the Forums, mentors informally organize their own learning communities via e-mail and building friendships. The mentors email each other all day everyday with help and ideas with things that help and things that didn’t work and you know that kind of thing. So we’re constantly in contact, plus our weekly meetings, or approximately weekly meetings that we have. Even though we see each other less frequently, I have more contact and more meaningful interaction professionally with these thirty-one other people than I did on campus as a teacher. We are in constant email contact with each other. We see each other; we’ll meet up after school for coffee. “I’ve got something I need to work on. Can you help me out?” … They are so open to helping and helping each other learn. It’s knowing that I might not have answers, but we’ll work together kind of attitude.

Mentoring “The New Teacher Center Way” encourages the ability, perspective, and enthusiasm of mentors to view their work of supporting new teachers as their collective responsibility.

Transferring the Mentor Community Experience to Work in Schools Through strong mentoring and coaching, the NTC model works on many levels to create and support communities of adult learners in schools. Briefly, the NTC’s theory of action works as follows: NTC Outreach Coordinators create learning communities among mentors, who create learning communities with beginning teachers, who work with colleagues and administrators. The learning at each level

162

E. Moir, S. Hanson

results from the interactions between leaders and learners around a shared set of principles and strategies. NTC promotes learning at each of the nested layers of a school, as well as between layers, thereby building the school’s capacity to support such work. In this way, the NTC approach supports the development of “nested learning communities.”1 Just as mentors work one-to-one and in small groups with their colleagues to promote learning, mentors work similarly with new teachers to develop habits of mind that include inquiry and reflection. The NTC model emphasizes not telling mentors or beginning teachers where to improve, but inquiring with them about their practice and modeling expertise, and facilitating learning. By working together to improve classroom pedagogical practices, beginning teachers and mentors see how working together improves competence. By providing an ongoing Forum for mentors to collaborate with their colleagues, reflect, and participate in rich professional learning, mentors develop a vision for what can be. Mentors become inspired to create new environments where teachers can thrive at their school sites and in their school districts. I’ve come to believe that professional development doesn’t necessarily have to come from outside of the school, it doesn’t necessarily have to come in a huge group setting, that a lot of the skills that we are seeking out for professional development are sitting right within the building where we sit, and that professional development should be differentiated to different teachers’ needs. I think I believe that it’s more possible now than I used to. For example at this school, the principal has set up, for the core classes, common planning between teachers of the same content area and they have them every week and they talk about curriculum and instruction. To me that is professional development because they’re learning from each other, they’re talking about curriculum instruction, and they’re doing it based on what their needs are at the moment.

Having a thoughtful, instructional relationship with other teachers builds habits of inquiry and thoughtfulness – skills teachers need to have a successful learning community. Many mentors move on to become school and district leaders. Here is an excerpt from an interview with a former mentor who moved on to become a vice principal that conveys the lasting power of participating in a weekly professional learning community for induction. The habits of mind that I learned of collaboration and reflection and the cycle of inquiry, all those became a part of me because I was given the luxury of time to slow down and make that part of me and the professional development was ongoing.

Having been in existence for 20 years, we see how profoundly mentoring contributes to the thinking of educators. The NTC’s model leads all who are touched by our work- experienced teachers, new teachers, and administrators- to grounded insights about professional learning and community building in schools. Mentors

1 A nested learning community refers to “organizations in which all individuals and units are expected to upgrade their capacities continuously in accord with a shared set of instructional principles and strategies.” See Resnick and Glennan (2002).


163

have as their primary goal to construct authentic, job-embedded, inquiry-oriented learning with their beginning teachers. As they work with new teachers using a shared set of instructional principles and collaborative strategies, they begin to create schools in which sharing to improve one’s practice becomes embedded in the culture of the school. This year the group [of new teachers] has become a very supportive, tight-knit group that shares ideas. … They’re really to me the perfect example of a professional learning community. … Last year it was building. But now it’s not like I had to pull them in to do it, they’re doing it on their own.

In this way, building communities of practice and building competence in teachers and mentors can have an impact on entire communities, from classrooms to schools. By professionalizing teaching through incremental, subtle processes, the power of a comprehensive induction system that encourages teacher retention and improves student achievement is more likely to be realized.

Reference Resnick, L. B. & Glennan, T. K. Jr. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In Hightower, A. T., Knapp, M. S. March, J., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160–172). New York: Teachers College Press.

Chapter 12

Creating an International Learning Community for Teacher Education Scholars Melissa L. Heston, Deborah L. Tidwell, and Linda M. Fitzgerald

Over the past 15 years, an international body of scholars interested in the self-study of teacher education practices has developed. During that time, these selfstudy scholars have developed their own extensive and quite diverse literature base, a specialized academic journal, a strong presence at the leading research conference for academics in teacher education, and networks of collaborative partnerships at the international, national, regional, and institutional levels. In many ways, these scholars are quite similar to most other groups of academics who share a common interest. Yet, it is our experience that participating in this self-study community is quite different from our experiences as members of other scholarly interest groups. We believe these experiential differences arise, in part, because a unique set of cultural norms have encouraged the creation of an international community of scholars for whom a collaborative learning process, both within and outside the self-study community, is of paramount importance. The dedication of the self-study community to fostering a collaborative learning process can best be seen through a close examination of the development of a biennial international conference on the self-study of teacher education practices. We believe that a collaborative learning community, like that of the Castle Conference, emerges within a conscious and deliberate design that enables supportive and collegial engagement and interactions within the processes for planning the conference, for editing the conference proceedings, and for participating during the conference. In this chapter, we will provide a brief history of the Castle Conference, describe the editorial processes that have evolved since the conference’s inception, and discuss the conference norms that play a critically important role in creating and maintaining an international learning community for self-study scholars. We will close with a brief discussion of how we have used our experiences in the selfstudy community and as participants in the Castle Conference to foster a small but growing learning community within our own institution.

M.L. Heston, D.L. Tidwell, and L.M. Fitzgerald University of Northern Iowa


165

166

M.L. Heston et al.

The Castle Conference as a Catalyst for an International Learning Community The First International Conference on Self-study of Teacher Education Practices was held in 1996, and was sponsored by the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) Special Interest Group (SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). This SIG developed out of a growing interest in the connection between “teaching about teaching and learning about teaching” (Loughran, 2004, p. 14) building from the research on reflection (Clift et al., 1990; LaBoskey, 1994; Russell & Munby, 1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), action research (McNiff, 1988; Whitehead, 1991), teacher thinking (Clark, 1988), and teacher as researcher (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). The catalyzing event for this SIG was a symposium of papers presented at the 1992 AERA annual meeting by Rusell (1992) and the Arizona Group (Guilfoyle 1992; Hamilton, 1992; Pinnegar, 1992; and Placier, 1992). Their research focused on the dynamics of their own practice as teacher educators. More specifically, they examined their assumptions about teaching and learning, how these assumptions influenced their practices, and in turn, how their practices influenced their students. By 1994, S-STEP had become a functioning special interest group in AERA (Samaras & Freese, 2006). A growing recognition among scholars of the validity of self-study of teacher education practice research grew in the academic community (see, e.g., Bullough & Gitlin, 1995; Hamilton, 1995; Korthagen, 1995; Loughran, 1994; Russell & Korthagen, 1995), and provided the impetus for the creation of an international conference on self-study. Under the leadership of Tom Russell, the first international conference, held at the Queens University International Study Center at Herstmonceux Castle in East Sussex, England, marked the beginning of a unique community of self-study scholars (Samaras & Freese, 2006). Participants at the first Castle Conference tended to fall into one of two groups: (a) scholarly collaborations that came to self-study already established (e.g., Russell and Loughran; Dalmau, Gudjonsdottir, and Bodone; the Arizona Group; and so on), and (b) true newcomers to self-study. While this general pattern can still be seen, the conference itself has prompted the creation of new and often international collaborative partnerships as participants discover common interests and challenges in their practices. From our perspective, the Castle Conference provides a truly unique opportunity to develop such collaborations and a variety of factors contribute to this generative aspect of the conference. One primary factor in creating a sense of community is the explicit and intentional focus given to making the conference itself an ever more welcoming and inclusive experience. During the regular feedback session at the close of each conference, considerable attention is given to how to better integrate participants with very different levels of expertise, degrees of connectedness to the S-STEP community, and areas of practice within teacher education. As a community, we quite intentionally strive to create structures and strategies for welcoming newcomers and novices, and being supportive of all participants throughout each conference.

12 Creating an International Learning Community for Teacher Education Scholars

167

This genuine and consistent emphasis on the experiential quality of the conference for each participant reflects a strong shared desire to create a true international learning community of scholars. The setting of the conference is also a significant contributor to the development of a sense of community among participants. Herstmonceux Castle is nestled in the countryside of southeast England. Conference participants stay in a dormitory located on the grounds several hundred yards from the Castle and take all meals together at long tables in the common dining hall in the Castle itself. Opportunities for informal small group conversation abound during meals, drinking tea in the courtyard between presentations, sharing a drink in the evening at the castle pub, and strolling the extensive garden and surrounding grounds. Thus, both the location and the physical facilities encourage participants to interact extensively throughout the day and evening in both formal and informal ways, and allow conversations that begin in conference sessions to spill over easily into non-session times. On average, there are between 80 and 100 participants in the conference. This number, which is optimal for the size of the facilities, creates substantial opportunities for everyone to engage with virtually everyone else repeatedly over the course of four days. We do come to know each other well because we are always talking together, both during conference sessions and during free time. Compared to the large AERA conference where the S-STEP SIG meets each year, the Castle Conference is quite intimate. In both cases, however, participants come from all over the world. While the large majority of Castle Conference attendees are from Great Britain, Canada, the USA, and Australia, we have had participants from the Republic of Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Brazil, Peru, and South Africa. This diversity among participants creates a rich opportunity to consider how self-study works in rather different teacher preparation programs. By discussing our various programs and what we see as their strengths and weaknesses, we all gain new insight into the complexities of teacher preparation and our own practices as teacher educators. The small size of the conference community lets us explore these complexities in depth, rather than merely catching glimpses of them as is the case at the large AERA conference. Thus, at the Castle Conference, we enjoy substantially greater opportunities to grow and develop as a community in our understanding of self-study, teacher education, and ourselves and others as teacher educators. The processes we use in planning each Castle Conference and in developing the conference proceedings also are critical contributors to the development of the S-STEP learning community.

Creating a Learning Community Through the Conference Planning and Editorial Process The conference planning and editorial process is highly collaborative. We actually begin the community building process for each upcoming Castle Conference before sending out the call for proposals. At the close of each Castle Conference, and during

168

M.L. Heston et al.

the AERA meeting the following spring, we solicit input regarding the theme for the next conference from members of the S-STEP community. After the AERA meeting that follows a Castle Conference, we develop an invitation for input regarding suggested conference themes which is distributed through multiple listservs. These listservs include members of the AERA S-STEP SIG and previous Castle Conference participants. Everyone is encouraged to respond to the listserv with their views and to respond to the views being shared by others. This lets us invite the whole community into the conference planning process, and creates the first of the Castle Conference opportunities for learning through collaboration. For example, responses to the call for conference theme input often include reflections on self-study, references to important literature, and different perspectives on how self-study plays out for various individuals. This invitation for input reflects one primary Castle Conference community norm: everyone’s voice should be heard, regardless of his or her level of expertise in selfstudy or previous history with the S-STEP SIG or the Castle Conference itself. The editors then work to use that input to discern a consensus view of what the theme should be. Once the theme is finalized, then an open invitation is sent out to the S-STEP community, where it is specifically stated that proposals need not directly address the theme. This choosing of a theme but not having it dictate what the proposals must be illustrates the community norm of inclusiveness. As program planners and proceedings editors, we have developed a conceptual framework that reflects our commitment to supporting the participation and work of each participant. Essentially, our actions and interactions with participants from the initial call for theme suggestions through the actual end of the conference, including the preparation of the proceedings, can be seen as occurring on a conceptual continuum that is anchored by acting as mentors at one end, and engaging in professional intimacy (Fitzgerald et al., 2002, p. 77) at the other end. Between the two ends of this continuum lie the notions of critical friends (Schuck & Russell, 2005), and collegial friends which builds from the collegial discussions and interactions chronicled in Tidwell’s (2006) self-study research using nodal moments. For us, the differences between these points on the continuum reflect differences in the degree of interpersonal distance and hierarchical power in the relationships we establish with each participant throughout the planning and editorial processes and the conference itself. For participants who are new to self-study and the Castle Conference itself, we generally see ourselves as mentors and our primary responsibility as one of providing a kind of apprenticeship that will let newcomers join the self-study community of practice. We work to provide extensive feedback and contextualization through the proposal and paper preparation process and even during the conference if need be, so that newcomers can develop their understanding of self-study, its methodologies, and community norms. Our goal is to ensure that these new participants are as prepared as possible both to contribute to the self-study literature and to attend the conference as members of the self-study community. We find that we take on this role most frequently during the proposal review process, and sometimes during the early stages of preparing a paper for the proceedings. We seek to bring forward the best that a relatively new scholar’s work has to offer the community, rather than sit in judgment of the worthiness of the new scholar to join the community.


169

For participants with at least some familiarity with self-study or the Castle Conference, we generally take on the role of critical friend, a frequently used methodological tool in self-study. This is also the role that most reviewers take during the blind reviews of proposals and papers. In this role, we provide both encouragement and constructive feedback often through challenging and authentic questions and comments (Schuck & Russell, 2005). However, we are less directive on the whole, and set aside at least some of our authority in the editorial process. With very experienced participants, we generally take on the role of collegial friend. In a collegial friend relationship, there are no differences in levels of expertise or authority. In these cases, our feedback to participants is much more conversational in tone, and only rarely becomes directive. We focus on making sure that papers from these participants are accessible to other participants who have little or no background in self-study. In a few cases, we may move into what has been termed professional intimacy with very experienced colleagues whose work we know well. The primary difference between serving as a collegial friend and working from the position of professional intimacy lies in the degree to which the boundary between professional and personal issues and questions dissolves. Although there is often an assumption that personal issues and questions are not relevant or appropriate for consideration in scholarly endeavors, in reality the personal always influences the professional. However, encouraging participants to examine their practices for the impact of personal issues and deeper questions about their research requires an unusually high level of interpersonal trust paired with, and arising from, frequent collaborative work. We do not seek to work with Castle participants at this level of depth, although we can and will do so should it seem appropriate in a particular situation. The review and editorial process begins with the submission of a short (1,000 words) proposal. The review process itself is somewhat unique in that each person who submits a proposal consequently agrees to serve as a reviewer for at least two other proposals. Thus, the pool of reviewers includes scholars who are highly experienced in self-study and scholars who are extremely new to the field. Each proposal is given a blind review by two different reviewers. As editors, we try to assign proposals to ensure that reviewers who are new to self-study get to review at least one proposal by someone who is highly experienced in the field. Reviewers who are new to self-study are encouraged to dialogue with the editors about any questions they have during the review process. Thus as editors, we have the opportunity to mentor new members of the self-study community into the community’s norms for critiquing a self-study and for providing feedback to colleagues. Proposals from scholars who are new to self-study are reviewed by at least one established scholar in the area. We find that this process encourages extensive learning for both experienced and novice self-study scholars alike. Experienced members are encouraged to treat their reviews as opportunities for mentoring, providing models of appropriate and useful critique from which new members can learn. In addition, the perspectives of scholars new to self-study can challenge experienced scholars to think more deeply about the assumptions they are making about what self-study can or should be. Rather than some kind of gold standard that

170

M.L. Heston et al.

all members of the self-study community must model, this process encourages community members to remain open to diversity in approaches to self-study. The actual proposal review form is designed to encourage reviewers to identify strengths within the proposals and make extensive and constructive suggestions related to study methodology and relevant literature. Once proposal reviews are returned, we prepare an editor’s review that highlights the most important suggestions from reviewers, contextualizes and elaborates on suggestions that may not be especially clear to someone new to self-study, and identifies the aspects of the proposal that are most likely to generate interest during a conference presentation. As much as possible, we utilize questions to the authors (e.g., “Have you considered …?” “Could you say more about …?” “What idea do you think is most important here?”), rather than a set of highly prescriptive and essential changes to be made when preparing a paper for the conference proceedings. On occasion, some authors ask for more ongoing editorial support as they develop their papers and we work to provide this in every instance. The next phase of the review process occurs when authors whose proposals have been accepted for presentation submit their papers for the conference proceedings. The 3,000-word conference papers are subjected to a second blind review (one reviewer), and a second editorial review synthesis. Again, the emphasis is on strengths, rather than on weaknesses within the paper, and we continue to focus on asking questions, rather than prescribing specific changes. Through both reviews, our goal as editors is to lead the authors to make further discoveries about themselves as educators and scholars through the self-study process. As editors, we use a highly collaborative process with each other. Although we have designated one of us as the first editor during each of the conferences for which we have been editors, the first editor role is generally much more about serving as contact person, general coordinator of the editing process, and program chair rather than “boss” editor. In our work with the proposals and papers, we regularly consult with each other about the questions, comments, and suggestions we send to authors. This lets us learn from each other since we each bring somewhat different strengths to the editorial process. In addition, as editors, we do not use form letter responses, as is often the case at other conferences. Rather we seek to engage with all of the authors we work with through an interactive cyberspace dialogue as they prepare, refine, and finalize their papers for the proceedings. A final aspect of the review and editorial process that seems to facilitate the formation of a learning community is the self-study community norm that emphasizes openness to different methodologies, and paper and presentation formats. For authors this affords a degree of flexibility rarely available in other scholarly venues. Rather than having a kind of “one-size-fits-all” template to which all papers and presentations must adhere, we emphasize an inclusiveness that often sparks considerable creativity. An examination of the proceedings illustrates the community’s openness to different kinds of papers and presentations. For example, the variety of papers at past conferences has included both traditional and highly experimental formats, such as an epistolary form, poetry, and reflective personal story telling. In addition, presentations have included experiential activities, music, readers’ theatre, short plays, and other kinds of dramatizations. Our openness in the review and editorial process has let us


171

The self-study community Reviewer (Novice) Theme development

Call for theme

Individual proposal development

Develop call for proposals

Reviewer (Experienced)

Distribute proposals for review

Individual paper development

Develop review summary

Review paper

Distribute papers for review

Finalize individual paper

Editor review summary

Editors

Fig. 12.1 process

Development of the biannual international self-study conference as a community

be highly inclusive while still pushing for greater rigor in the research process from each and every participant. (See Fig. 12.1 for a diagrammatic illustration of the editors’ virtual relationship to the self-study community before the conference.)

Creating a Learning Community Through Conference Programming and Discourse Norms As the conference program planners, we try to create the schedule of presentations in a way that encourages the formation of a learning community among Castle Conference participants. Early morning slots are generally assigned to established selfstudy scholars, especially on the first day of the conference, and we always try to avoid scheduling presentations by new scholars at the same time as presentations by established scholars. We do this for several reasons. The most important reason for this programming strategy is that it lets newcomers, whether to self-study or just to this conference, have the opportunity to see how presentations are conducted and what the discourse norms are during sessions. Presentations are generally informal and highly interactive; papers are almost never read to an audience. By scheduling experienced Castle Conference presenters early, new presenters have time, if they choose, to adjust their own presentation plans to reflect better the typical presentation pattern. This scheduling strategy also lets newcomers see a discourse norm that may depart radically from what they may have encountered at other academic conferences. The discourse

172

M.L. Heston et al.

norm at the Castle Conference emphasizes open-minded discussion characterized by deep curiosity and authentic questions. The conversations that take place during a presentation are intended to facilitate deeper levels of shared understanding and insight in a highly collaborative manner. The discourse norm at other academic conferences can be more like an intellectual jousting match rather than a true discussion. There are also some highly pragmatic aspects to our scheduling strategy. First, having established scholars present early motivates participants to attend sessions that might easily be skipped due to travel fatigue and jet lag. We generally try to give the more attractive presentation times (the second and third sessions in the morning, and the first session following lunch) to newcomers. Thus, we greatly increase the likelihood that sessions by newcomers are well attended. Finally, we try to have the most innovative and highly interactive sessions during the late afternoon when session attendance can lag. Often these sessions involve physical movement, creative arts, or dramatic performances, and thus they have considerable appeal despite the fact they come at the end of the day. Finally, three specific events have been developed to encourage participants to come to know each other well outside of conference sessions and regular meals. First, a day trip to various sites of interest is available for individuals who arrive at the Castle early. Second, another such trip is available on the second full afternoon of the conference, during which no sessions are scheduled. Third, a special celebration is generally held the last night of the conference. In addition, long-time attendees are expected (a Castle norm) to be inclusive and welcoming of all new attendees. This is a true hallmark of the Castle Conference – the deliberate effort by experienced self-study researchers to engage with new colleagues throughout the conference. While some participants do have long-established collaborative relationships with each other, the Castle norm subtly discourages cliques, especially during communal activities such as meals or gathering in the pub after dinner. The community norm of inclusiveness is perhaps most often seen when someone (usually, but not always, a scholar new to self-study and new to the Castle Conference in particular) violates norms of discourse during presentations. For example, it is not uncommon during the first day of the conference for an attendee to take an aggressively critical stance toward a presentation, as has often been modeled in other academic conferences. When this happens, other participants in the presentation step up their efforts to model being a critical friend to the presenter(s), rather than simply a critic. Moreover, these other participants often work as very subtle mediators of meaning between the presenter and a critic by reframing questions and comments in ways that both the presenter and critic can hear. In addition, we try to be certain that one editor or a select colleague attends each session. Although almost never necessary, on occasion the attending editor can engage the critic in a one-to-one discussion about self-study purposes and processes as the conference progresses and continue modeling and sharing ideas about self-study as a community of scholars, inviting the critic to become more of a collegial friend. When we talk about the Castle Way, we refer to those aspects of the conference (both intentional and serendipitous) that help to create a genuine community of scholars. These aspects include creating supportive structures, inviting the community


173

in, including the community throughout the process, making a conscious effort to be open and inclusive to diverse approaches to study, working to establish collegial friendships, modeling the combination of critique and support, working to create new networks, and making current networks more widely accessible to others.

Bringing the Castle Way Home: Creating Local Learning Communities Two or more of us have attended each of the Castle Conferences and we have incorporated the Castle Way norms into our work with colleagues at home. Below we offer our individual experiences within a variety of venues.

Melissa’s Story I have been deeply involved in faculty governance at our institution. For me, the Castle Conference emphasis on supporting rather than judging, seeing strengths rather than weaknesses, and being open to diverse approaches to issues and questions of practice has been especially useful. University governance often involves working with faculty with widely differing areas of expertise and interest. Intellectual jousting in which the goal is to win rather than make progress can often derail the work of a faculty group. Through the use of authentic and honest questions and working to ensure that all voices are heard in faculty work groups, I have found my own level of satisfaction in governance endeavors greatly increased. Essentially, by attempting to meet each colleague where that colleague is, I have been able to work more effectively with colleagues, especially those I had previously found very challenging. At the same time, Katheryn East, a colleague with whom both Linda and I have collaborated extensively, has taken what she has learned through participating in self-study and the Castle Conference into her work with students and faculty in our school psychology program.

Linda’s Story As anticipated in the paper on professional intimacy given at the fourth Castle Conference (Fitzgerald et al., 2002), I have found the energizing and growth-promoting participation in self-study to be helpful in working for change in the campus-wide teacher education program. Together with two members of local self-study groups who have not yet attended a Castle Conference, I have carried out self-studies about preparing teachers for diversity in their classrooms (Canning et al., 2007; Fitzgerald, 2004; Fitzgerald et al., 2005, 2006; Miller et al., 2006). We each have served a number of years as elected representatives to a campus-wide decision-making body for teacher education and in that capacity helped to start a subcommittee addressing issues of diversity in teacher education. In the past year we brought in our colleague, Katheryn

174

M.L. Heston et al.

East, to help lead our efforts. By making our self-study work central to the work of the committee, we are helping to spread the Castle Way not only within our self-study colleagues who cannot attend, but to more members of the teacher education faculty who have never heard of it before. One of the main results of our first self-study in this area was a decision that our orientation to diversity had to be from a social justice position. We have found that we can weather the opposition our stance on social justice can elicit because of the support we draw from our work together, where we encourage each other – and hold each other accountable – to develop the very dispositions for social justice that we hope to nurture in our teacher candidates. For the 2007–2008 academic year, two of us have received a small grant to interview the teacher education faculty across the campus about their dispositions toward and skills related to diversity issues (including issues related to recent immigrants and refugees in Iowa). We plan to investigate how their dispositions enable them to address the needs of our state’s changing PK-12 student population in their teacher education classes. In our proposal we stated that one of our objectives would be to create an enduring community centered on social justice within the teacher education faculty, an aspiration that draws encouragement from self-study colleagues both at Castle Conferences and at AERA. In turn we have begun to share this work, and our self-study methods, with other special interest groups in AERA to which we belong.

Deb’s Story Another example of bringing the Castle Way home is my work in expanding self-study of teaching practice beyond the teacher education program through work with teachers in the public schools. Our state has embraced an individualized professional development model that enables teachers to engage in self-created professional development plans. In essence, these plans speak more to a professional learning model (Berry et al., 2007; Hoban, 2002) where teachers determine their own individual focus for improving their practice. Working with classroom teachers in these professional development programs in school districts has afforded me the opportunity to engage in self-study discussions and to form small collegial groups for critical reflection and support as the teachers deliberate and discern aspects of their own teaching that lead to self-study of their own practice and their own engagement in professional learning. An intriguing aspect of this professional learning experience is the interactions across all levels of teaching (from prekindergarten to middle school to high school to university level) where we work together as a community engaging in genuine discussions of our practice as teachers. One particular instance of expanding the Castle Way to self-study with classroom teachers is my work with a dual language Spanish-English school, begun six years ago, and now in the process of expanding from the elementary school into a middle school. As part of the district’s development of this dual language program and to fulfill the state requirements for professional development, the teachers examine their practice and create their own professional development plans for improving their


175

teaching. This context for professional development lends itself well to self-study. In order for self-study to be viable, though, I saw my first priority as the creation of a safe environment for teachers to feel comfortable in discussing their practice and critiquing their own work without concern about such critique being seen by administration as weak and unprofessional. In essence, the same issues that teacher educators deal with in their own self-study work, as far as placing themselves beyond the role of expert and exposing their foibles and learning processes, are shared by classroom teachers. Part of incorporating the Castle Way into the school was the inclusion of the administration in developing a school-wide approach that encouraged teachers to seek out collegial friends to engage in critical discussions of their practice and of their plans for improving their teaching. By extending the Castle Way into the school district and into the dual language school’s professional development program, teachers became supportive collegial friends, colleagues who are genuinely interested in working together to improve practice. In fact, the Castle Way has influenced more than just the individual teacher’s approach to improving practice. By working as collegial friends, by engaging in critical discussions of genuine issues and teacher-chosen interests in improving practice, the dual language program as a whole has benefited. Teachers are more clearly able to articulate programmatic issues and concerns as well as strengths and successes. And particularly exciting for me, the teachers and the administration at the school have a strong sense of community which builds out of their collaborative approach to school improvement and to learners’ success through self-study of their teaching practice. One of the primary things we have learned through our participation in the Castle Conference and its learning community is the importance of being intentionally supportive of new faculty, whether they are new to the university, new to a school district, or simply new to self-study. As we work with colleagues new to us, we strive to ask open honest questions about their teaching practices and our own. We also try to model this discourse norm as we work on various service committees and in discussions with administrators. Living as critical friends (perhaps moving toward collegial friends) for all our colleagues and viewing them as critical friends of good intention lets us build a more hospitable environment in which we can create learning communities that flourish across varied context.

References Berry, A., Clemans, A., & Kostogriz, A. (Eds.). (2007). Dimensions of professional learning: Professionalism, practice and identity. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Bullough, R. V., Jr. & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland. Canning, C., Fitzgerald, L. M., Miller, C., & Johnson, J. (2007). Opening eyes: Preparing teachers to teach for social justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5–12.

176

M.L. Heston et al.

Clift, R. T., Houston, R. W., & Pugach, M. C. (Eds.). (1990). Encouraging reflective practice in teacher education: An analysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Fitzgerald, L. M. (2004). My “I’m a racist” talk: Using story to educate reflective practitioners. In D. Tidwell, L. Fitzgerald, & M.L. Heston (Eds.), Journeys of hope: risking self-study in a diverse world. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (pp. 108–112). Cedar Falls, IA (ISBN 1-55339-079-2). Fitzgerald, L. M., East, K., Heston, M., & Miller, C. (2002). Professional intimacy: Transforming communities of practice. In C. Kosnik, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Self-study of Teacher Education Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (Vol. 1, pp. 77–80). Toronto, Canada: OISE, University of Toronto. (Also available online: http://educ.queensu.ca/ ar/sstep/S-STEP4-2002a.pdf). Fitzgerald, L. M., Canning, C., & Miller, C. (2005, April). Prelude to accountability: Dispositions for teaching for social justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Fitzgerald, L. M., Canning, C., & Miller, C. (2006). Dispositions for teaching for social justice. In D. Tidwell & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity. pp. (173–193). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Guilfoyle, K. (1992, April). Communicating with students: The impact of interactive dialogue journals on the thinking and teaching of a teacher educator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hamilton, M. L. (1992, April). Making public the private voice of a teacher educator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hamilton, M. L. (1995). Confronting self: Passion and promise in the act of teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 29–43. Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Korthagen, F. A. J. (1995). A reflection on five reflective accounts. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 99–105. LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Loughran, J. J. (1994, April). Learning how to teach: Unpacking a teacher educator’s thinking about pedagogy in pre-service education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Loughran, J. J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. (Vol. 1, pp. 7–39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. London: Routledge. Miller, C., Fitzgerald, L. M., & Canning, C. (2006, April). Developing dispositions for teaching for social justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Pinnegar, S. (1992, April). Student teaching as a teacher educator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Placier, P. (1992, April). Maintaining practice: A struggle of too little time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Russell, T. (1992, April). A teacher educator and his students reflect on teaching on teaching high school physics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Russell, T. & Korthagen, F. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education. London: Falmer.


177

Russell, T. & Munby, H. (Eds.). (1992). Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection. London: Falmer. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. New York: Peter Lang. Schuck, S. & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107–121. Tidwell, D. L. (2006). Nodal moments as a context for meaning. In D. Tidwell & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity (pp. 267–285). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Whitehead, J. (1991). How do I improve my professional practice as an academic and educational manager? A dialectical analysis of an individual’s educational development and a basis for socially orientated action research. In C. Colins & P. Chippendale (Eds.), Proceedings of the First World Congress on Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management (Vol. 1, pp. 7–82). Canberra, Australia: Acorn. Zeichner, K. M. & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23–48.

Chapter 13

Role of Teacher Research Communities and Cross-Culture Collaboration in the Context of Curriculum Reform in China Gaalen Erickson, Chanyung Kang, Ian Mitchell, and Janette Ryan

Introduction China recently launched a large-scale reform of educational practices encompassing curricular content and pedagogical approaches. In this chapter, we outline some of the issues and types of changes that we think will be required of school and university-based educators in responding to this reform. The research project described in this chapter is part of a three-country collaborative project (Australia, Canada, and China) which explores the processes and products of teacher researchers operating in networks of professional learning communities. In this chapter, we will only be describing our work in the Chinese context. Many scholars argue that the most effective approach for promoting deep and sustained teacher development to achieve desired educational outcomes is to create “professional learning communities” (PLCs) involving educators at all levels of the educational continuum (Borko, 2004; Fullan, 2001; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Issues of organizational change are crucial for all educational jurisdictions as they engage in system-wide reform, but especially so for China as it attempts to implement radical, countrywide curricular and pedagogical reforms (Liu, 2006; Zhu & Kang, 2002). The international scope and design of this project will enable us to look at the ‘mobility’ of pedagogical practices and understandings across different teaching communities and contexts (Eraut, 2004; Nespor, 1994). We begin the chapter with a discussion of our ‘working frame’ for the China case. We follow with a narrative description of some of the relevant curricular and pedagogical contexts in China. Next, we lay out how the project was initiated, followed by a discussion of our preliminary results based upon the early stages of the project and conclude with a brief look to the future for the project. G. Erickson University of British Columbia C. Kang Beijing Normal University I. Mitchell and J. Ryan Monash University


179

180

G. Erickson et al.

Working Frame We envisage three phases for this work, although there will be considerable mobility between these phases. The first consists of establishing several PLCs in China and developing a collaborative research network with our Chinese colleagues. The second entails a number of ‘scaling up’ activities expanding the network of PLCs in China. This requires considerable commitment on the part of our Chinese colleagues and the support of the Ministry of Education (MOE). The third phase envisions creating a sustainable international network of PLCs with both virtual and real linkages between ongoing projects in Canada and Australia. This could entail both teacher and student exchanges, the sharing of teaching resources and narratives of teaching approaches, and possibly an international conference of teacher research showcasing some of the classroom and district-level research projects. Over the past year some of the first and second phase work has been completed as one school in Beijing and a number of schools in several districts in Inner Mongolia have established communities of teacher researchers. The authors have visited these sites on several different occasions during the past two years to establish some of the initial networks. Our observations to date lead us to the tentative conjecture that many of the dilemmas identified by the Chinese teachers (e.g., how to engage students in problem-solving activities, how to make curriculum relevant to a new generation of children) are precisely the same dilemmas facing Australian and Canadian teachers. As Kang recently claimed: “Strategies and philosophies of teaching and learning are, like science and technology, common treasures of humanity” (Erickson et al., 2006).

Context of the Chinese Curriculum Reform At the turn of a new century, China launched a large-scale education reform encompassing both curricular content and pedagogical approaches, which is the eighth basic education curriculum reform since PRC’s foundation. This reform, while facing some significant difficulties, is still regarded by many as one of the important events in China’s educational system (Liu, 2006; Zhu & Kang, 2002). The recent and rapid development of China’s economy has brought tremendous changes in people’s lives. The Chinese government has recognized the importance of education and determined to implement the strategies outlined in the nationwide K-12 reform. The scope and depth of the reform can be overwhelming for educators at all levels as the changes involve a systematic transformation of curriculum goals, structure, and content; teaching and learning approaches; and assessment and administrative structures. As a result, the major issues of the reform agenda include (but are not limited to): ●

Changing the teaching and learning focus from ‘basic knowledge and skills’ to the ‘capacity of students to engage in critical thinking, problem solving, and creative efforts’

13 Role of Teacher Research Communities ●

● ●

● ●

● ●

181

Changing the teacher-centred teaching mode to being more student-centred, with more emphases on student engagement, attitudes, and traditional Chinese values Linking learning content with real life Cultivating a sense of social responsibility, sharing, cooperation, and communication Developing systematic and sustained teachers’ professional development Establishing an assessment system that promotes all-round and individual development Promoting a greater variety of textbooks and resources Implementing a three-level curriculum administration system between and among national, provincial, and school levels

The speed of the reform is dramatic. In 1998, education experts formulated curriculum standards for each subject. In 2001, the MOE issued curriculum standards for grades 1–9 and grades 10–12 in 2003. In 2001, the new standards were adopted in 38 experimental districts/counties across the country. By 2005, every initial grade of elementary and middle school was scheduled to begin using the new curriculum. The new high school curriculum was piloted in four provinces across the country in 2004 and is scheduled to be implemented in the whole country by 2007. This reform is so fundamental and extensive that there are huge challenges for all stakeholders, particularly school administrators and teachers. A key question in this reform is: How do you develop effective teacher education programmes at both the pre-service and in-service levels? We are addressing only the latter level. One approach by the MOE to develop in-service teacher education programmes was to establish 16 Research Centers for Basic Education Curriculum Reform at various universities and institutes across the nation, functioning as a bridge between academic research and teaching practice. Beijing Normal University (BNU) was one of the first of these Centres established in 2001 to support national curriculum reform. One of the key members of our project, Dr. Kang Changyun, was appointed as the executive deputy director for the centre. As the leader of the centre, Kang served as a key coordinator of the national research project and witnessed the process of the curriculum reform from the beginning. Kang had conducted several key MOE research projects including on University–School–Government strategic partnership and Developing and Utilizing Curriculum Resources. We think that it would be useful to briefly discuss, in Kang’s voice, how he initiated and became involved with this research project.

Kang’s Description of His Role After seeing some of the difficulties the teachers were experiencing in implementing the new curriculum initiatives, I decided to apply for short-term leave to study some Western approaches to teacher professional development and curriculum reform. I was accepted as a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia

182

G. Erickson et al.

(UBC) for three months in 2004, where I held a series of meetings with Gaalen Erickson to discuss some of the issues that we were trying to address in the Chinese educational context and to learn more about his previous work with teacher professional development programmes. Gaalen showed considerable interest in the problems and issues that I outlined as characterizing the Chinese educational context and indicated that he and his colleagues had been involved in several different research projects with similar aims and objectives. We agreed to explore further the idea of creating small-scale PLCs at the school level as the first stage of a much larger research and development agenda in the Chinese setting. Thereafter we had weekly meetings to discuss the issues that had emerged from their projects with teachers and Gaalen arranged for me to visit several schools to provide me with further understanding of both the context and issues facing Western educators. About half way through my stay at UBC, one of Gaalen’s colleagues from Monash University in Australia, Dr. Ian Mitchell, visited and joined into our discussions. Ian was a founding member of the Project to Enhance Effective Learning (PEEL) and they had worked together on previous teacher development projects and written about their findings (Erickson et al., 2005) that we discussed in terms of initiating an international collaborative research project using PLCs. I proposed an idea of establishing a Teacher’s Learning and Developing Community (LDC) project in China. Gaalen and Ian were very supportive and I began to develop a plan for implementing the Chinese component of our collaborative research and development project. In May 2005, I returned to China and began to set up the Chinese LDC research team with the aim of implementing our collaborative project in a small number of schools. My first contact was with Ms. Liu Keqin, an accomplished mathematics teacher and member of the Chinese national math curriculum standards committee and principal at a Beijing elementary school (Zhongguangcun No. 4 School). I had worked with her on previous mathematics curriculum development initiatives and thought that she would be interested in working on this collaborative research and development project involving teachers and university-based educators. The second person that I recruited was Mr. Li Yuping. As a result of my earlier work with the MOE and the Research Centre at BNU, I was familiar with a teacher development project entitled ‘Enhancing School-based Teacher Inquiry’ initiated by Li Yuping in Inner Mongolia. This project was being threatened by a change of the policy in the local government and so I appointed Yuping as a visiting scholar at BNU and a key member of LDC. Yuping had more than 20 years’ experience as a language teacher, a school principal as well as a district-based educator in charge of professional development. In June 2005, the three of us met to discuss the collaborative research and development project that Gaalen, Ian and I had tentatively mapped out and both enthusiastically supported my proposal. In the summer vacation of 2005, our LDC research group organized the first teacher workshop with the teachers at No. 4 School as an introduction to collaborative teacher research and activities of a PLC. In September 2005, the teachers began more systematic observations and discussions of their

13 Role of Teacher Research Communities

183

practice. There has been a tradition in the Chinese educational system of observing other teachers and providing feedback in a debriefing session, hence, discussions about teaching practices were not unusual for the teachers. However, with members of the LDC team and Yuping regularly observing and videotaping lessons, these sessions became much more systematic and focused around specific issues and problems. I joined in on many of the debriefing sessions. We did not introduce the idea of developing specific research projects at this point as we were developing an open and trusting relationship with the teachers and were trying to understand the issues and problems they were facing in introducing new curricular content and teaching practices. In November 2005, the Chinese team invited Gaalen and Ian to visit China to engage with members of the LDC team and in particular with the teachers in No. 4 School. This visit provided them with some critical insights into the varied contexts of the Chinese educational system and perhaps more importantly established some close personal and professional linkages with the LDC team and the teachers at No. 4 School. Janette joined the LDC team in January 2006 after discussions with Gaalen and Ian. Janette is fluent in Mandarin and has a long-term interest in the relationship between Chinese educational and cultural practices (Ryan & Louie, 2007). Ian will comment further on the November visit, plus a visit by him and his wife Judie Mitchell in June 2006 to No. 4 School and Dongsheng in Inner Mongolia. This latter site was to become the first whole-school district to become a part of the LDC project (the beginning of Phase 2 activity) as Yuping had received a new appointment as the Associate Director of the Dongsheng Curriculum Facilitator’s Office. Fortunately, Mr. Gao, Head of the Dongsheng District Educational Bureau, recognized the importance of Yuping’s ongoing contact with the LDC team in Beijing and so he was able to work with me and Principal Liu in No. 4 School during the 2006–2007 school year and was an important bridge between the LDC project in Beijing and his new school district.

Ian’s Description of His Role The discussions that Gaalen and I had with Kang in March 2005 left us interested in being involved in the project that Kang wished to establish as we felt it could be part of a large naturalistic experiment that would be fascinating both to observe and to participate in. While our tentative plans with Kang were consistent with my experiences that collaborative teacher research could develop the kinds of ‘practically sophisticated knowledge’ (Loughran et al., 2003) that Chinese teachers would need to make progress with the curriculum reform, I had no idea if we could set up learning communities of teachers who would be interested in doing this, nor if such a process would be feasible in Chinese contexts. Gaalen and I were both aware that ‘teacher ownership’ of both the issues and the process was essential in teacher research and developments projects (Erickson et al., 2005). But we did not know what sorts of issues would be important to Chinese teachers, nor what sorts of ideas

184

G. Erickson et al.

about learning, teaching, and change that we had developed in our contexts might be seen as useful by Chinese teachers. The Chinese curriculum reform, as I understood it, was primarily framed as a reform of teaching. The chapter by Judie Mitchell and myself in this book about the PEEL project (Chapter 1) details the value of a focus on how students are learning for improving teaching; however, I had no intention of trying to impose this focus and did not know whether or how it might become part of this project. Gaalen and I discussed our experiences with learning communities and teacher research with Kang in Vancouver, but did not propose any specific plan – he did this partly before he left and partly after he returned and responded to what was a changing situation with respect to the progress of the reform. When Gaalen and I visited China in November 2005, we saw what Kang and his colleagues had been able to establish in the 10 weeks since the start of the new school year. We saw this visit as a process of learning, acculturation, and general orientation for us. We arrived to find a vigorous, school-wide culture of action research in No. 4 School. Unlike primary/elementary schools in our contexts, there were no generalist grade teachers, but rather subject-specialist teachers who taught across a number of grade levels as they do in our high schools. As the teachers have fewer contact teaching hours in comparison with Western teachers (although high marking loads) they had time to visit other classrooms. It is a general expectation by the MOE that all teachers have several ‘open classes’ each month and that teachers regularly observe others. We observed this in all of the schools we visited. Teachers open their classroom up to eight colleagues (including the principal) and one or more members of Kang’s team, and then meet later to debrief, beginning with the teacher explaining his or her purposes and reactions and then others offering constructive, often very frank, comments. We participated in a series of these, waiting until everyone else had spoken before we made any comments. We also ran some inservice sessions with the teachers and had a series of meetings with the academic team. During this visit, we were cautious about introducing ideas from action research communities in Canada and Australia and even more cautious about linking these to ways of framing learning that had been important to Western teachers. As is illustrated below, we confined ourselves to reacting to what we saw. Nevertheless, the reactions of the Chinese teachers suggested that at least some of the ideas and frames could cross cultural ‘boundaries’. It was also clear that approaches to teacher learning hitherto unfamiliar to the Chinese teachers, such as case discussions (Shulman, 1992), played out in ways similar to what typically happens in Australia and Canada. Interestingly, when I had a case translated that we have used with Australian teachers, the Chinese teachers identified the same issues and saw it from similar perspectives. I include a description of a class that I observed to illustrate several of the findings that we discuss later in the chapter. The class was a 45-minute grade 3 science class taught by Teacher Hao. There were about 12 teachers and academics observing the lesson. The focus was on fingerprints (using inkpads that Chinese use for sealing documents). One recurring feature of the lesson was a strong sense of ‘shared intellectual control’ (Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997); a second was a series of challenges where students had to work things out for themselves. Rather than announcing the object of the lesson, Hao asked the students to work it out from a few clues such as the inkpads. She then challenged them to make a clear fingerprint, tell others about


185

their fingerprint, and then asked some students to put their ideas on the board. The students’ ideas were affirmed and used in a short discussion. Having given the students a common experience, they framed questions about fingerprints that they wanted to explore. They discussed this in groups and five were collected: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Can different people have the same fingerprint? How many kinds of fingerprint can people have? Are they different from the rings in trees? Do some people have no fingerprints? Do fingerprints change with age?

Hao asked them to consider which of them they could most readily explore today with the materials at hand. The students picked question 2 as one that they would all do; in my opinion, they were now much more likely to be clear on the purpose of their next practical investigation than if they had been working from a prepared sheet. Hao did have a prepared sheet for recording what was done, but she asked the students to work out what they would put where and invited each group to add to their exploration another question of their choice. The class set about their work with high enthusiasm and the teacher waited for them to identify a new problem – how would they represent fingerprints that were clearly of the same type, but subtly different. She circulated, watching what individuals were doing, and when this question came up, she stopped the class and invited a student she knew had a solution to share this on the board – the others agreed that this was a good idea and resumed work. The practical exploration was done quickly and Hao asked two students to come out and lead the discussion of results. Initially no one had anything to contribute, but rather than taking over, Hao asked the leaders to think how they might get someone to start. Soon the class was discussing various ideas and closure was reached on question 2. Hao moved to other questions; while doing this, she took one response to question 4 and announced that this was correct. To my surprise a student challenged her, giving a reason. Hao praised the student for this and said she did not want students to take anything she said for granted and encouraged such challenges. The students had found two basic types of fingerprints; they now went to their texts and found these two types, but there was also a third type listed. Hao asked why they might not have found it and a student suggested that maybe this third one was not very common. This gave Hao a good reason for the homework task of testing their family’s fingerprints. Finally she gave the students a mystery fingerprint that belonged to someone in the room (it was an observing teacher) and challenged the students to find the person – someone did. From the perspective of promoting quality learning, this was as good a science lesson as I had ever seen. It contained aspects that map strongly onto what teachers in Australian PEEL groups have been doing and when I spoke in the later debriefing meeting I was able to make such links. Working from what the Chinese teachers had done in this way was something Gaalen and I were able to do many times. We were thus able to affirm aspects of the Chinese teachers’ practice and use it to introduce ideas about teaching and learning that we felt were already present, but perhaps were somewhat tacit. This reframing and mirroring back of practice can be an important role of academics in these communities. It allows for broader and

186

G. Erickson et al.

more purposeful use of (for example) sharing intellectual control by working from students’ questions or by giving students genuine choices and decisions. At the end of this trip, I talked with each (of seven) Chinese academic about what they had found valuable from our visit and every one of them began by commenting about the way we used and affirmed what the teachers had done. No. 4 School was clearly still at the first phase of this project, having participated for less than three months. Gaalen and I left China impressed with both the speed and quality of the developments though we all recognized that this school was better resourced than others. Not long after we left, the teachers organized themselves into four research teams, each with a focus (such as more open classrooms, or building closer relationships with parents). In January, Gaalen and I observed (via Skype) the teams presenting their proposed problem areas and plans to each other. Kang adopted our experiences about the value of writing as part of the process of reflection and at the end of the year the teachers wrote their first book about what they had done (they have since written two more). In mid-2006, my wife Judie and I spent three weeks in China: at No. 4 School and in districts in Mongolia being explored for Phase 2. Kang and I held a series of focus group meetings with teachers, consultants (‘resource teachers’), and principals. Kang, Yuping, Judie, and I also ran a series of in-service meetings for teachers and resource teachers and always included feedback from participants on what they found useful. On this second trip, I tested the suppositions from the first trip by more proactively introducing ideas about learning, teaching, and change. We spent two lengthy sessions with the staff at No.4 School eliciting how they now framed learning and what they had learnt from their year of action research. We suggested that having a set of 6–10 general features of learning that were important to them could help them maintain focus and provide a framework for reflection and planning. The teachers were ready for this and they produced a first draft of a list that interestingly again mapped well onto what teachers in PEEL groups saw as important.

Some Preliminary Findings In this section, we identify some tentative preliminary findings emerging from our work over the past two years. We have provided illustrative quotes from the teachers based on the teachers’ comments in their first book (Li et al., 2006).

Collaborative Action Research Was Attractive to Many Teachers in Phase 1 We were unsure about how Chinese teachers would react to collaborative action research, but it seems to sit well with an existing culture of mutual critique. The teachers seem very comfortable with publicly identifying problems in their prac-


187

tice. Teacher Hao wrote to the LDC group: “How can I organise a Science class where the main class activity is discussion? Please feel free to give me advice!” Many teachers have said that to enact the curriculum reform they need appropriate advice, but seemed happy to develop this themselves and did not seek ‘quick fixes’. For example, Teacher Wang Changsheng wrote: “We don’t have to make every class perfect. Maybe as the time and space keep changing, to become perfect is impossible, there is no perfect class.”

Problems and Issues Cross Cultural Boundaries In discussions with teachers as well as in what they wrote, the kinds of changes they wanted to make and the barriers to these were remarkably similar to those raised by teachers in our own contexts. For example, consider the following quote by Teacher Wang Fanlian. I often find that when students are working in groups, they just express their own ideas and don’t listen to others. I think this is only shallow collaboration. Before they begin, I get them to identify some rules to govern the processes of the group, first on their own and then they have to negotiate the final rules within the group. This has resulted in the groups working more collaboratively and effectively. It’s made me realize the value for teachers of reflecting on teaching strategies for transforming your teaching and also yourself.

This quote and the one by Teacher Hao raise issues associated with trying new teaching approaches. Another related issue was how to draw together an openended small group task.

Ideas About Learning and Teaching Cross Cultural Boundaries As referred to earlier, teaching ideas developed in Australian and Canadian contexts were very positively received by the Chinese teachers. Moreover, there were several episodes where Chinese teachers gave examples of how they had already been doing something similar; learning about these ideas helped them to reframe their practice. As discussed in the chapter on PEEL in this book (Chapter 1), the construct of generic teaching procedures has been important in PEEL and Chinese teachers who had, for example, made use of a Role Play or a Think Pair Share (Mitchell, 2007) had not thought of using these in different teaching contexts. Another, albeit related kind of knowledge, which was also seen as relevant and useful by the Chinese teachers, was the kinds of frames used to analyse lessons. As this story illustrates, these frames were seen as useful because they mapped well onto what the teachers were already doing. One idea that resonated with teachers in both Beijing and Inner Mongolia was building a list of ‘Good Learning Behaviours’ with students displaying these and using them as part of classroom discourse. Chinese buildings and classrooms are full of slogans and exhortations for

188

G. Erickson et al.

better learning and behaviour practices and this idea has been followed up and built on in many classrooms.

Cultural Stereotypes Were Not Supported by Observation Much of the literature on Western conceptions of ‘the Chinese learner’ characterizes them as passive, surface/rote learners, uninterested in original, critical, or creative thinking (Clark & Gieve, 2006; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Lee, 1996; Ninnes, Aitchison & Kalos, 1999; Phan, 2004; Phan, 2006; Ryan & Louie, 2007). A few of the 20 or so lessons we observed were primarily transmissive in nature, but most were not, with students offering and defending ideas and making choices and decisions in open tasks. Teacher Hao’s lesson was one of the most developed in this regard, but many others were similar. While the sample of lessons observed was certainly not representative of all Chinese classrooms, the range showed a variation along dimensions such as degree of student independence that was similar to what would be likely in Australia or Canada. As one way of reporting on this issue, we extracted the list above from the literature and then generated lists of student learning behaviours (such as offering opinions of their own), teacher tasks (such as tasks that give students different choices) and teacher behaviours (such as encouraging and using lateral questions) that are contrary to these stereotypes and could be used to analyse records of lessons at No. 4 School. This list was given to Principal Liu and some of her teachers during a meeting with the LDC team. Initially there was a quite hostile reaction to the notion that Chinese classrooms could be described in these ways, even though it was pointed out that there were also Chinese writers making such statements, not just Westerners. The incident provided insight into the contemporary educational values of the people at the meeting and there was recognition that at least some of the conventional descriptions of the teacher-led nature of many Chinese classrooms still have some relevance. The discussion also pointed to some of the difficulties that the teachers were experiencing in changing their practices. In the following excerpt from an interview that Janette conducted with Principal Liu about progress on the project, Principal Liu explained the difficulties that some teachers were having in changing sometimes long-ingrained practices. Primary school teachers do not really understand the kinds of things that university lecturers talk about. When I talk with primary school teachers, I talk to them about how to help children to grow up and mature, that they need to treat children as equal human beings. Chinese teachers have been heavily influenced by Confucianism and these cultural influences on them are very strong. It is called “Honouring the teacher”; getting children to listen to the teacher, and thinking that children who listen to the teacher are good students. Teachers think that they are there to help children, that they are there to educate children, and that if children do not do well they should criticize them. But now, we want to learn more about how to respect other people, and that means helping children to become more mature and more independent of teachers, how to become more self-confident. So the first thing that teachers need to do is to treat


189

children as equals, in the way that they talk with them and the ways that they work with them; they need to listen carefully to what children are saying to them (Principal Liu, Beijing, March 2007).

These are Some Cultural Differences in the Process of Action Research While there are many similarities in the way collaborative action research is playing out in China, Canada and Australia, there are also some differences. In Western contexts, providing a safe and supportive environment for teachers has been paramount and direct criticism of teachers has been rare, particularly from academics to teachers. Mutual observation has not been common and large numbers of observers in the same class are unknown. Our observations of Chinese teaching contexts showed us that there can be very positive benefits when this kind of constructive criticism is built into teaching as a routine part of improving practice. Chinese teachers seem to be much more open to critique and observation is central to the teaching process. In one school, we saw a second-year teacher teach a Year 8 Maths lesson on geometry with 52 observers in the room including about 10 academics and 20 Master’s students. The lesson was quite transmissive and noted below is what some of the observing teachers said: You could have linked [your shapes] to the outside world. Let students work out problems for themselves. Don’t worry if they do not finish the work, let them explore. I suggest that you allow students to tackle problems in different ways, not channel them into one way. Why did you not follow up with the student who commented on how he might use this in the future? When students gave the wrong answer, why did you not ask them why they said this?

These comments indicate these teachers think about learning in ways similar to what is espoused in the West, but the experience was not one we could conceive of in our cultures. However, the criticisms and suggestions were always intended to be constructive and they seem to be readily accepted. This means that the role of academic ‘critical friends’ may be a little different from Canada and Australia. One of the articles in the project’s first book (Li & Men, 2006) is written jointly by a teacher and Li Yuping, who observed her lesson and then took a more proactive role in the subsequent debrief than we would in our context. Li asked the teacher why she always asked the high-achieving students (who put up their hands) and not others to answer her questions. In a series of exchanges, it becomes clear that the teacher had never thought of doing anything else; eventually, in reference to the students who had not put up their hands she says: ‘They won’t put up their hands and can’t answer questions even if picked. It would be a waste of time and the teaching task may not be fulfilled.’ Li pursues this revealing comment and eventually they arrive at what is a very significant rethinking

190

G. Erickson et al.

of teaching by the teacher, but which was only reached by some persistent interrogation by him that went well beyond what we would do in our contexts.

Future Directions It is important to stress that this is a collaborative project involving three countries. They are similar in geographic size but are vastly different in context. This is not a case of one system imposing its ideas on another; of Western ideas being introduced unquestioningly. The real value of this project is in its potential for learning between the partners. We are concerned with how we can best learn from each other what will be useful in our own contexts. We believe that our collaborative learning communities can only be successful if learning between and among these communities is two- or even three-way, not one-way. We need to remember that these three countries are very large and diverse and will have much variety regarding schools, local features, and teachers within these contexts. Each country has a range of city, provincial, and rural or remote schools and curriculum reform needs to address local contexts and local concerns. There is potential for learning here in terms of the need to take into account not just national contexts and imperatives but also local ones. We think excellent progress has been made on the first phase of the project and we are satisfied that the development of PLCs is a viable approach to addressing some of the problems emerging from the Chinese context. As we moved into the second phase of this work, we were able to see and experience the vitality of these communities in a conference in Dongsheng, Inner Mongolia in July 2007 where close to 100 teachers presented their teacher research projects to over 1,200 teachers, school administrators, university-based educators, and the LDC research team. As we develop further networks of teachers in Phase 2, we will simultaneously be exploring some Phase 3 activities to establish linkages between PLCs in Australia and Canada. While we acknowledge the ambitious nature of the overall project, we think that it will further contribute to our understanding of promoting and sustaining educational reform initiatives in three important ways. First, it will provide us with a better understanding of how collaborative work by teachers and university academics can be used to promote educational change within a school and a school system. Second, we will be in a better position to understand the dynamics and issues associated with ‘scaling up’ the model of PLC from the school to the district level and beyond. Third we will be in a position to assess the robustness of the model in terms of crossing cultural boundaries. The overall project, then, will involve understandings about how ideas move between, and play out in, different contexts and cultures.


191

References Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Clark, R. & Gieve, S. (2006). On the discursive construction of ‘The Chinese Learner’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 54–73. Eraut, M. (2004) Informal learning in the workplace, Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–274. Erickson, G., Mitchell, I., Minnes, C., Brandes, G., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher learning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(7), 787–798. Erickson, G., Kang, C.Y, Mitchell, I., & Ryan, J. (2006, May). The China question: Role of teacher research and cross-cultural collaboration in the context of curriculum reform in China. Research seminar at the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 17 May 2006. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Problematizing cultural stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 709–716. Lee, W.O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Li, Y. & Men, L. L. (2006). Examining our ‘blind spots’ in the classroom. In Y. Li, K. Liu, & C. Kang, (Eds.), Towards excellence: Learning and Developing Community in the Beijing Zhongguansun Number 4 School. Volume 1. Beijing: Beijing Normal University. Li, Y., Liu, K., & Kang, C. (2006). Towards excellence: Learning and Developing Community in the Beijing Zhongguansun Number 4 School. Volume 1. Beijing: Beijing Normal University. Liu, K. (2006). Engaged education. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (in Chinese). Loughran, J. J., Mitchell, I. J., & Mitchell, J. (2003). Attempting to document teachers’ professional knowledge. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(6), 853–873. Mitchell, I. J. (Ed.). (2007). Teaching for effective learning: The complete book of PEEL teaching procedures. (3rd Ed.) Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing. Mitchell, I. J. & Mitchell, J.A. (Eds.) (1997). Stories of reflective teaching: A book of PEEL cases. Melbourne, Australia: PEEL Publishing. Nespor, J. (1994) Knowledge in Motion, London: Falmer. Ninnes, P., Aitchison, C., & Kalos, S. (1999). Challenges to stereotypes of international students’ prior educational experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(3), 323–342. Phan, L. H. (2004). University classrooms in Vietnam: Contesting the stereotypes. ELT Journal, 58(1), 50–57. Ryan, J. & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy?: ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ concepts of scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Learning 39,(4) 404–417. Shulman, J. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teacher College Press. York-Barr, J. & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. Zhu, M. & Kang, C. (2002). Approaching the new curriculum: Dialogues with curriculum participants. Beijing: Beijing Normal University (in Chinese).

Chapter 14

Creating Stages for Development: A Learning Community with Many Tasks and No Goal Lois Holzman

On a cold November evening in 1990, about a hundred people got out of their seats in a public high school auditorium in lower Manhattan and walked into the street, chanting, “We define community!” This spontaneous “peaceful demonstration” was catalyzed by Fred Newman, co-founder with me of the East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy (Institute). Newman was delivering his annual Institute-sponsored lecture, this one entitled “Community as a Heart in a Havenless World” – a play on both title and sentiment of Christopher Lasch’s 1977 Haven in a Heartless World, a book that enjoyed significant popularity among intellectuals. Newman’s talk (an edited version appears in The Myth of Psychology, a 1991 collection of early Newman lectures) made the point that there is no haven in this world (Newman, 1991). What there can be is community. He introduced a new concept of community – community not as a static entity defined by others according to geography, ideology, or identity, but community as a passionate living environment/activity that has the capacity to support and nourish people who are committed to engaging the cruelty of a havenless world. With creating community, Newman told the audience (the majority of whom were community activists and their friends), comes the responsibility for defining what community is not once but over and over and over again. He asked people to get out of their seats and join him in the street, and then come back and ask him hard questions. That evening remains with me as a particular moment of conscious articulation of the Institute community’s practice/understanding of community as collectively self-defining, non-goal directed, developmental activity. The Institute is ambitiously dedicated to creating and supporting learning communities in practice all over the world. An important part of this task, as the Institute sees it, is taking a serious look at what learning is, what communities are, and what constitutes practice. All of which I will try to bring to life in this chapter. The work of the Institute (and my work as its director) cannot be understood separate from its institutional location – a community that has been and continues to be a unique social experiment. The beginnings of the experiment go back 35

L. Holzman East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy


193

194

L. Holzman

years or so to when Newman, who was a philosopher of science by training, left City College in NYC with a small, disheveled group of 1960s radical students. Finding the environment of the academy stifling, they went out to try to build something, to create something. This group of about 30 people went into middle class communities, working class communities, and very poor communities and set up health clinics, therapy centers, free schools – and they had absolutely no plan. They said: “We want to do something to make the world a better place and we’re going to go out and do something even though we don’t have any idea of how to do it.” They had one rule, if you will, even though they did not call it a rule (perhaps conviction is a better word), which was: “We will only keep this – whatever this is – open if people come. We will not take any government or corporation or foundation funds. We don’t want our hands tied. We don’t want to be controlled by somebody’s whim of what they are going to give money for this year or next year.” It is now 2008, over three decades later, and what has been built is a community that we call a “development community” because human development is the focus of the dozens of projects that have been created and sustained. The Institute is the community’s research and training center. We have trained hundreds of people in social therapy, the approach to emotional development Newman created. Some of them work in our centers located in New York and other cities, and others work in hospitals, mental health clinics, schools, and community centers. The Institute also trains educators, youth workers, and health workers in methods for group and community building, offers a yearly series of seminars and workshops, and hosts national and international conferences that bring together people across disciplines. Newman and I write books and articles, and the research we do is in the partnership with people in projects rather than studying them from afar.

Social Therapy The Institute was founded originally to develop and promote social therapy, and this remains at the core of our now quite diverse work, even as social therapy has grown into a methodology for supporting human beings to help each other grow and develop in all kinds of settings and life situations. Newman1 created social therapy as a component of his and his colleagues’ community building effort. It was one of the many hundreds of experiments in alternative therapy and education that

1

More broadly, as a method for social-emotional growth and learning, social therapy has impacted on education, including outside-of-school, or supplemental, education and youth development (Feldman & Silverman, 2004; Holzman, 1997a,b, 2000; Lobman, 2003, 2005; Sabo, 2007); on training and practice in medicine and healthcare (Massad, 2003); and on community development, organizational development, and executive leadership (Farmer, 2005; Holzman, 2006; Salit, 2003).

14 Creating Stages for Development

195

sprang up in the 1960s era. Like other radical therapies at the time, it was linked to progressive politics in attempting to help liberate people from oppression and the “isms.” However, unlike most alternatives from that time, social therapy managed to sustain itself and continued to transform, mature, and prosper through the following decades. I met Newman and social therapy in the mid-1970s and have been part of its growth ever since. My training is in developmental psychology and I approach the study of social therapeutic practice from this perspective (Holzman and Mendez, 2003). What initially struck me about social therapy was that it was a way of helping people with whatever emotional pain they were experiencing without diagnosing their problem, analyzing their childhood, or interpreting their current life. Instead, the therapist charges the clients (mostly in group settings) with the task of working together to create an environment in which they could get help, because in the activity of developing the group, all would emotionally develop. In other words, clients are not “worked on” by a therapist-expert, but create their own “cure” by creating something new together out of their emotional activity. It was Newman’s understanding of philosophy, language and dialectics – coupled with his dissatisfaction with the methods of psychology, its understanding of human beings as isolated individuals, and its obfuscation of process in favor of products – that led him to create this mode of therapy. In particular, Newman was convinced that therapy needed to help people demystify language and give them the opportunity to create meaning together. It is our language – especially our language of emotions – that has become rigid and reified and leads us to experience the events in our lives and our feelings as individuated products, not as part of the continuous process of crating our lives (Newman & Gergen, 2000; Newman & Holzman, 1996, 1997). Using current terminology, social therapeutic methodology shares company with postmodern, social constructionist, collaborative, and narrative approaches that are designed to support the expression of what is positive about people, rather than to fix what is wrong with people (Holzman & Morss, 2000).

Learning In and Out of School The Institute and its broader community have also worked to address the failure of educational institutions in a manner consistent with social therapy’s focus on creating environments for growth. In the 1980s, the Institute attempted to create a model school, the Barbara Taylor School, based not in acquisitional learning but in what we call developmental performance (Holzman, 1997a). The school proved to be too radical to be sustained; we closed it after 12 years and have since, across the development community, pursued two different paths. One path is the creating of outside-of-school programs. Conceptually, these programs are not merely outside of school but also “other than school” in that they do not replicate school-based teaching and learning. After two decades of growing

196

L. Holzman

these programs as laboratories for the development of a new learning model, they have begun to impact the mainstream. The programs are run by the All Stars Project, Inc., a non-profit organization that utilizes the Institute’s social-therapeutic approach. The All Stars’ learning model focuses on performance, creativity and development because of how these activities complement the acquisitional learning of the school day. Out of its educational and performing arts complex on 42 St, the All Stars Project runs outside of school youth development programs: the All Stars Talent Show Network; the Joseph A. Forgione Development School for Youth; Youth OnStage! and the Production of Youth by Youth. (See www.allstars.org.) Together the programs involve several thousand young people, ages 5–25, with uniquely non-school like learning activities that are based in a developmental understanding of performance – both on and off stage – as fostering emotional and social development. Equally important, the programs emphasize the fostering of new kinds of partnerships between youth and adults. Critical to the running of the programs are youth volunteers who have participated in one or another of the programs, adult financial contributors and adults who volunteer. These programs now serve as a model for outside of school programs in several other cities in the US and abroad.

At the same time, the Institute has worked within schools to support teachers and administrators who want help to bring creativity, developmental learning, and a performance approach to learning into their schools and classrooms (to the extent possible in the high-stakes testing environment that dominates). In 2006, we launched The Developing Teachers Fellowship Program in which NYC-area public school teachers train with us during the school year. The program has a specific focus on collaboration, creativity, and improvisation. Now in its second year the program works with about a dozen teachers annually, a mix from preschool through high school.

Developmental Learning As any parent can attest, babies and pre-school children learn through engaging socially, whether that be with caretakers, siblings, peers, pets, toys, or media. Moreover, this social activity is most often playful and improvisational. There is no text or worksheet. Before school, children are encouraged to learn how to learn, to stretch, to do what they do not yet “know” how to do. They learn developmentally because others relate to them not merely as what they are capable of at the moment but simultaneously as who/what they are becoming. They experience that they are learners because they are related to as ahead of themselves (Holzman, 1997a, 2000; Newman & Holzman, 1993). But beyond kindergarten – and even there it is becoming a rarity – play is discouraged and even disallowed. As a learning community in practice, the Institute tries to contribute to the conceptual transformation we believe education and psychology need – from the study of “individual being” into the study of the social activity of becoming. Right away the unit of study becomes a process. Right away, it becomes a social unit. How do people produce becoming, what helps and what hinders it? Vygotsky, with his understanding of learning as sociocultural activity, is of practical-theoretical help here (Vygotsky,


197

1978; 1987). He showed us that you could not use old tools, especially old conceptual tools, to do new things, or even an old model (conception) of what a tool is. He gave us the new conceptual tool of tool as tool-and-result (Newman and Holzman, 1993). With tool-and-result we create the tool and in the process of creating it, we get “the result.” This is the method to create a psychology and a learning practice of becoming. Vygotsky’s understanding of how young children learn and develop is itself an application of his tool-and-result methodology. Young children and their caretakers create what Vygotsky calls Zones of Proximal Development (ZPDs), developmental environments that support children to do what is beyond them, to perform who they are becoming (even as they are who they are). They play language games, speaking before they know how. Their creative imitation of the language spoken to, and around, them is fully accepted. They learn to speak by playing with language; they perform as speakers (who they are becoming). The process of creating the ZPD is the joint (ensemble) creation of their becoming language speakers. The process of learning and the product of learning are created together.2 Learning and development in early childhood are social-cultural joint activities of being who we are and who we are becoming. Young children learn and grow because they are supported to “perform a head taller than they are” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 102). In the work that my colleagues and I do, we have been able to specify two critically important aspects of joint activity that are integral to our work with schoolaged children, adolescents, and adults. Both can be expressed as directives “Grow the group!” and “Perform!” for these are the joint activities that create ongoing human development and learning. If learning and development occur by creating environments for joint activity (ZPDs), in which you can perform past where you are at the moment, then it would make sense that what you would want to do to continue learning and growing is to create (environments for) joint activity. In our work we talk of growing the group, or building the group, because the current psychology (as social science and as how people experience themselves) is individualistic. In contrast, we want people to experience the socialness of existence, and we want people to experience what it means to exercise the power of collective creativity – and by that I do not mean anything very grandiose. I mean events as every day as the baby saying, “Ba-ba”

2 This characterization of the ZPD parts ways with the more typical interpretation that it is an interactionist scaffolding process that aids in enculturation (e.g., Bodrova and Leong, 1996; Rogoff, 1984; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). To me the ZPD is expressive of the dialectic of human life – that we are always who we are and simultaneously who we are becoming. For Vygotsky, the dialectic being/becoming was critical to early childhood. He noted that the critical factor in human relationships is how we relate to little children as ahead of themselves (i.e., as who they are and who they are becoming) and it is by virtue of the employment of this creative methodology in every day life that human learning and development occur. Learning, then, is both the source and the product of development, just as development is both the source and the product of learning. As activity, learning and development are inseparably intertwined and emergent, best understood together as a whole (unity). Their relationship is dialectical, not linear or temporal (one does not come before the other) or causal (one is not the cause of the other).

198

L. Holzman

and the mother saying, “Do you want your bottle?” That is joint activity; that is collective creation. However, most of us walk around most of the time not experiencing that we create together in that way. Social therapy and developmental learning have as their task helping people to create an environment (their group) in which they can get help and/or learn. It is in that process of “growing the group” that new emotional and learning activity is generated. And why “Perform!”? Performing, as I am using the term, is a form of play that, when done intentionally, can intensify and change the relationship between being and becoming. This is a relatively new understanding of play and performance. The more usual view is to see play in contrast to work, something unserious, what little kids do and what adults sometimes do in their time off. And most play, from adolescence on, is game play – competitive, rule-governed, with winners and losers. But there is more to play than games. When little children play they usually have no goal other than playing what they are playing. If there are any rules, they are usually made up in the playing rather than beforehand. In play, children creatively imitate and amplify other people in their lives – their brothers and sisters and parents and grandparents, and television, storybook, and toy characters. They create scenes and stories. This kind of play is more like performing in a play than playing a game of basketball. Unlike later game play, in their pretend play, children are who they are and, at the same time, other than who they are. They are doing what is familiar to them and, at the same time, doing things that are brand new, things that are beyond them. And they do this all day long. We let very young children perform ahead of themselves – speaking before they know how, drawing pictures, reading books, and much more. That is how they learn and develop. This performing kind of play and these spaces for performance are essential to development and learning – not only in early childhood but for all of us at all ages. Additionally, performance reminds us that we are social beings. As human beings we live our lives in groups – family, work groups, school groups, play groups, all kinds of groups, cities, countries, and continents. But we do not do it very well. It seems clear from everyday life and from the world situation that our group skills are not very developed. I think we do not understand all of what groups are and do. I am suggesting that the unit that grows, that develops, that learns is a social unit not an individual unit. Groupings of people construct “zones” – the spaces between who they are and who they are becoming – that allow them to “become.” Seen in this way, the ZPD is the ever-emergent and continuously changing “distance” between being and becoming. In constructing ZPDs people do things they do not yet know how to do; they go beyond themselves; they perform. That is how I understand developmental learning communities. As ZPDs, they are a rejection of the individuated learning and development model that dominates our educational system. More than deconstruction, they present a positive alternative – groupings of people engaging in the ensemble, performatory activity of developing and learning. Taking performance to a metaphorical level, we would do better to imagine stages for development than stages of development, for example, as in Freud’s or Piaget’s stage theory (Holzman, 1997b).


199

Creating a Global Learning Community As mentioned earlier, the Institute is a research and training center for developing and promoting alternative and radically humanistic approaches to psychology, teaching and learning, and therapeutics. From our founding, we believed that developing new conceptual frameworks and methodologies required the simultaneous building of a fully participatory community and, further, that these twin tasks required an independent location, i.e., one free of institutional ties to university, government, corporation, or foundation. As a small nonprofit organization, the Institute still carries on its work with a nearly all-volunteer staff of seasoned professionals and undergraduate interns, and a few hundred dedicated financial supporters who believe in our mission. We recently created two innovative international programs as a way to include many more people into the community building activity. Performing the World (PTW) is an international conference bringing together practitioners and scholars, grassroots entrepreneurs, and mainstream professionals who are working with, or want to learn about, performance-based approaches to human development, social transformation, and cultural change. A uniquely non-disciplinary and performatory gathering, PTWs have been held every other year since 2001. The International Class (IC) is a 10-month combination NYC residency and distance-learning program for helping professionals, educators, and community developers throughout the USA and internationally who want to learn the Institute’s approach to human development and learning. In its first four years, the IC has trained 50 colleagues from dozens of countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Central and South America, the USA, Canada, and Mexico. All told, we estimate that currently the Institute (through these and other programs and events, print and other media materials, and the Internet) and the network of organizations, institutions, and individuals it works with in the USA and abroad directly serve over 500,000 people annually. It is an emergent, improvisationally created learning community in practice. In 2001, the Institute began to offer a series of online seminars, usually lasting 4–5 weeks. For the first few years we did them in real time, which was very difficult for the participants across the Atlantic (and Pacific) who had to stay up or wake up in the middle of their night. So we switched to a virtual time format, with people writing whenever it is convenient for them. The seminars are open to everyone who wants to participate, regardless of their educational background, and participants range from teachers in Brazil to US social workers needing continuing education (CE) credits to youth workers in India to graduate students from just about anywhere. With heterogeneity of culture, profession, and experience there is more “material” with which to build the learning community/create a ZPD. The faculty who “teach” these seminars usually begin with a post inviting people to create the learning group simultaneously with creating the learning – like this one from “The Social Therapeutic Approach: An Unscientific Psychology” Hello Friends and Colleagues! We’re a big group of people from several countries, professional locations and fields of interest. I’m looking forward to us getting to know each other as we create our learning together. If you’re new to online classes it could take some getting used to. Each of you

200

L. Holzman

will discover your own comfortable-with-a-little-stretch way to participate. You can expect to hear from me quite a lot during the weeks, although I am likely to pick one day each week to concentrate on you. Our first reading is the last chapter of Kurt Danziger’s book, Naming the Mind (the entire book is a great read). Here’s a line from it: “The special authority of modern Psychology derives, not from its moral implications, but from its scientific pretensions” (p. 182). The next reading is from Unscientific Psychology, a book Fred Newman and I wrote, in which we say (many times!) that psychology is a myth. It will be interesting to begin by hearing from everyone responses to these statements. Some of you are psychologists and/or have studied psychology some, and others of you are not. So let’s mix it up with thoughts about psychology and pretensions and myths.

Where the group goes from there is completely open. It is our job together to create the seminar/community and to take responsibility for what we create. Not surprisingly the challenges of creating community online can become a topic of conversation, as it did in the “Developing Community Development” seminar. In the second week of ongoing conversation, the Institute faculty member leading the seminar wrote: It is certainly a particular challenge to create online communities. How are we doing in that task? How do we define ourselves? “Participation” has engendered a lot of conversation in community development circles. Issues such as the cultural dimension of participation are being looked at in the field. For this seminar, here are some questions I ask myself about participation. If people don’t write, does that mean they are not participating? For me this is tricky in an online environment. In community contexts I have experienced that people who talk all the time are not necessarily more participatory than people who listen more or do more. It’s a different kind of participation. But in an online context it’s much harder to know what people are thinking and/or doing if they don’t write something. Online environments have this limitation. On the one hand they give us the opportunity to be in contact with people all over the world but on the other hand we are limited to the words we write to each other to be connected. The connectedness part is for me the critical issue. If it is difficult to understand each other in person, it is even more difficult online! (for example what is our understanding of what it means to understand?) So given this, I am not so concerned with understanding. Even if we don’t understand each other, we can still build especially if we allow ourselves “to play with” our words and comments.

The assignments we give (in addition to readings) are to talk to people, not merely or even primarily as “research” to find out what people think, but to involve, include, invite others to create conversation (and community?); and then to come back and continue the conversation online. My colleagues sometimes introduce me as the Institute’s international ambassador because I travel all over the world meeting people. Going to conferences, lecturing, leading workshops, visiting programs, talking long into the night with newly met colleagues – whether in Belgrade, London, Moscow, Johannesburg, Amsterdam, Stockholm, or Caracas – are always challenging and inspiring. This international outreach is an adventure in community building. It is a privilege to be able to learn first hand about hundreds of innovative projects being developed in villages and towns and cities, to build relationships with so many extraordinary ordinary people, and to create together with them an ever-expanding and transforming developmental learning community. Over the years people from different countries have written to me after hearing me speak or reading a book or article Newman and/or I wrote, asking how they


201

might learn more and train with us. That is where I got the idea for the IC. I sat down with some of our staff to flesh out the rudiments of a program and see who wanted to teach in it. We came up with a structure – three meetings a year at the Institute in NYC and online seminars in between – and some content areas and activities. I wrote to about two dozen people who had contacted me and invited them to become the first IC. Nine were able to do it. We were off and running! The best way I have found to describe the IC is as a core grouping, working to create itself as a developmental learning community as it interacts with other groupings involved in the same task/activity. Concretely, the IC is joined online each seminar by 3–15 others around the world; during residencies at the Institute, it joins with therapists, teachers in our other training programs, with teachers, children and teens in schools and youth programs we work with, and with therapy clients in social therapy groups they observe. There is a wonderful – sometimes chaotic – fluidity in this coming together/separating/coming together of overlapping ZPDs. It is a fascinatingly diverse community these people have created – one that is continuously and improvisationally inclusive. Upon graduation in June, the Institute’s 2006–2007 IC formed the IC Alumni and Friends Fund. The members of this class included a grassroots community theatre director from Bangladesh, a medical student who formed an organization to aid Roma children in Serbia, a performance artist from Toronto, a social work professor and a social worker from rural southern Georgia, a director of a workers university in Taiwan, a social science research analyst from NYC, a Kenyan poet/ storyteller who founded an organization for children orphaned by AIDS, a development officer/youth program director from Los Angeles and, from Montreal, a performer/clown/trainer and a writer of plays and films. This is the story they are eager to tell. We write to offer you a story of untangled emotions, human messiness, money, learning and selling pens. We want to share what has been a valuable step in our development as an international community of community builders, and invite you to join us in advancing this work. We came together for the first time in October 2006. At that time, we engaged in new conversations and activities. As the week progressed we were introduced to new ideas about development, community building, education, social therapy and so much more through the East Side Institute. As we came to know each other, we also became aware of the financial discrepancies between participants in the International Classes. Those of us from poor countries had the furthest to travel and the least sources of funding. Before we returned home, our Class agreed to commit to our mutual growth and development as well as our participation in future residencies in February and June. As well as covering expenses for travel to New York, this involved each of us having adequate funds for food and transportation while in New York. We understood that not being physically present and/or not having enough money for everyday expenses would impact our collective development. Immediately after our first residency we hit the ground running: asking friends, coworkers, and family members to support our International Class. We engaged potential donors, describing the leadership and commitment of our class. By the time our second residency came around we had raised $2,000. On a very cold afternoon in February, we gathered in Union Square Park and distributed the funds. We took on guilt and shame and commitment and awkwardness and good intentions, in order to collectivize airline tickets debt repayment, and daily expenses for the residency.

202

L. Holzman

In between the second and third residencies we intensified our fundraising activities. Parties and fundraising events were held in Canada, the U.S. and Serbia where product development took the shape of a pen inscribed with the phrase “Don’t leave me alone” – our signal to not suffer economic challenges in isolation. As a group, we sold almost all of these pens in Union Square Park for $2 a piece, 5 pens to Fred Newman for $160 (matching funds), and auctioned off the last pen for $75 at our graduation. At our final residency the group began to play with new questions: “What about the next class?” “What can we leave for the next class?” “Will they come together in October and have the same financial struggles as we had?” In response to these questions, the International Class of 06/07 has announced the creation of the East Side Institute International Class Alumni and Friends Fund. We have completed a course of study, but our collective development is not done. We, as alumni, can raise funds to support future classes regardless of our economic circumstances.

It is people who change the world, Karl Marx said. Many take him to mean “the working class” or “the proletariat,” a sensible reading to be sure, but an ideological one that ignores Marx’s substantial humanism and concern with people – all people – developing. His language in the following quote from The German Ideology is 19th century but his sentiment is consistent with a 21st-century social change sensibility: “We have further shown that private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, because the existing character of intercourse and productive forces is an all-round one, and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives” (Marx & Engels, 1974, p. 117). Developmental activity is the participatory process of people exercising their collective power to create new environments and new “all-round” learning and development. It is, for the moment, how “we define community.”

References Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Farmer, E. (2005). Community development as improvised performance: How a New York housing project turned around. Progressive Planning, Spring, 163. Feldman, N. & Silverman, B. (2004). The let’s talk about it model: Engaging young people as partners in creating their own mental health program. In K. E. Robinson (Ed.), Advances in School-Based Mental Health, Best Practices and Program Models. New Jersey: Civic Research Institute. Holzman, L. (1997a). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Holzman, L. (1997b). The developmental stage. Special Children, June/July, 32–35. Holzman, L. (2000). Performative psychology: An untapped resource for educators. Educational and Child Psychology, 17(3), 86–103. Holzman, L. (2006). Lev Vygotsky and the new performative psychology: Implications for business and organizations. In D. M. Hosking & S. McNamee (Eds.), The social construction of organization. (pp. 254–268). Oslo: Liber.


203

Holzman, L. & Mendez, R. (Eds.). (2003). Psychological investigations: A clinician’s guide to social therapy. New York: Routledge. Lobman, C. (2005). “Yes And”: The uses of improvisation for early childhood professional development. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(3), 305–319. Lobman, L. (2003). What should we create today? Improvisational teaching in play-based classrooms. Early Years, 23(2), 131–142. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1974). The German ideology. New York: International Publishers. Massad, S. (2003). Performance of doctoring: A philosophical and methodological approach to medical conversation. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 19(1), 6–13. Newman, F. (1991). Community as a heart in a havenless world. In F. Newman, The myth of psychology. (pp. 140–157). New York: Castillo International. Newman, F. & Gergen, K.P. (2000). Diagnosis: The human cost of the rage to order. In L. Holzman & J. Morss, J. (Eds.), Postmodern psychologies, societal practice and political life. New York: Routledge. Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge. Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1996). Unscientific psychology: A cultural-performatory approach to understanding human life. Westport, CT: Praeger. Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1997). The end of knowing: A new developmental way of learning. London: Routledge. Rogoff, B. (1984). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sabo, K. (2007). Youth participatory evaluation: Strategies for engaging young people. New York: Wiley. Salit, C. R. (2003). The coach as theatre director. Journal of Excellence, 8, 20–41. Tharp, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. New York: Plenum.

Chapter 15

Supervisors of Teacher Interns: Building a Learning Community Through Inquiry-Based Practices Patricia S. Tate, Marian H. Jarrett, Ann C. Lawlor, Lois M. Page, and Anita S. Ramsey

Supervisors of teacher interns play a key role in preparing our new teaching force, yet they often remain the unsung heroes of this essential endeavor. Sorely missing in the teacher education enterprise are opportunities for the professional development of supervisors. We believe university supervisors need a forum to frame, assess, and reframe their role as mediators of clinical experiences. Our learning community – The University Supervisor Group (USG) – addresses this critical need. In this chapter, we share the results of a self-study of our professional practice (Samaras, 2002; Samaras & Freese, 2006). Our overarching goals for the self-study were to understand our evolution as a learning community and to establish a foundation for furthering our development as teacher educators. We discuss here: (1) our outgrowth and goals; (2) the design of our learning community; (3) our professional inquiries; and (4) the analysis and impact of our collaboration on our professional development and on our teacher education programs. Our self-study provided a venue for understanding how our inquiries were useful in framing and reframing our work with teacher interns. These inquiries brought us together around a shared focus to improve our supervision and to support our development as a learning community (Tate et al., 2005).

Description of the Learning Community Our community draws from a cadre of 42–45 supervisors who monitor, assess, mediate, and evaluate performance of 200–250 graduate-level teacher candidates across elementary, secondary, and special education teacher preparation programs at a private university. This supervisor group is led by Pat, the Director of the University Field Placement Office. The supervisor cadre includes faculty, project directors, doctoral students, and adjuncts who are mostly retired school administrators and teachers. They supervise teacher interns in clinical experiences in a variety of school partnership settings, some of which include tuition support and intense levels of school/university P.S. Tate, M.H. Jarrett, A.C. Lawlor, L.M. Page, and A.S. Ramsey George Washington University


205

206

P.S. Tate et al.

collaboration. The most important aspect of our cadre is that it includes education professionals from diverse backgrounds with varying areas of expertise across elementary, secondary, and special education. As a learning community our cadre is nurtured by the rich and diverse perspectives of our university supervisors who share their wisdom, knowledge, and experience. Supervisory responsibilities differ across programs with some interns participating in full-year internships and others in two different school settings in one semester. Additionally, our elementary, secondary, and special education programs use different assessments aligned to their national specialty organization standards to document growth of their teacher interns. In a word, the supervisor group comes together as a community to share their differences as well as their commonalities in order to learn and grow in the work of teacher development.

Design of Our Learning Community Practitioner Research Our work is situated within the larger scheme of practitioner research (Tate et al., 2000; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). The lens that we used for our self-study draws upon Fullan’s (2001) and Dufour’s (2004) constructs which describe a professional learning community (PLCs) as a culture focused on learning from practical and research-based data and developed in a supportive environment that nurtures trust. Fullan (2001) maintains that leaders can create effective change by establishing learning communities. These professional learning communities enable organizations to systematically deal with constantly changing contexts and build a coherent and relational work culture where knowledge is both created and shared. Learning communities allow groups of individuals to fully explore their fundamental values and purpose and forge connections with others. Dufour (2004) emphasizes that participants in educational learning communities should maintain a focus on learning and collaborate together toward this end. Learning communities are characterized by a culture of collaboration where values, beliefs, and knowledge are shared, new meanings are discovered, and reframed understandings lead to change efforts. Our community engages in this type of sharing, mutual trust, and support. We continually share our supervisory practices and use our inquiries to learn and grow as educators and to produce new knowledge and resources to support our teacher interns.

Reflective Leadership Pat provided consistent leadership and meeting structure for the supervisors group engaged in reflection and self-study. In building a learning community, we drew on constructs of reflective practice and clinical analysis. Clinical analysis is a process of examining practices with others to uncover the alignment of personal goals,

15 Supervisors of Teacher Interns

207

beliefs, and values to outcomes (Richardson, 1996). Reflective practice involves creating knowledge from common experiences and then testing that knowledge against multiple perspectives and interpretations (Schon, 1991). We have conducted a series of inquiries of our supervisory practices to examine whether our beliefs align with our practices. Our inquiries were developed into supervisory guidelines and supervisor case studies which became presentations and publications that were shared within and outside our learning community (Jarrett et al., 2005; Tate, 1998; Tate & Beck, 2006; Tate et al., 2004, 2005a,b). Further inquiries uncovered the common needs of our teacher candidates and how theories of teaching and learning are reflected in our teacher preparation curricula.

Meeting Structure Our meetings are voluntary and are carefully designed to accommodate the participants’ busy schedules. They take place during the lunch hour with light food provided. Meetings begin with readings that focus on a particular inquiry. Following the reading, each participant is asked to share their thoughts and reactions. Participants’ responses are recorded on chart paper so that ideas and comments are visually represented to assist the supervisors in processing new ideas and perspectives. The charted discussion allows participants to follow and track the threads in the conversation. Feedback and suggestions are given in a timely manner by stopping, reflecting, and helping others with immediate needs and concerns. A summary of the status of our current inquiry is given and a check on progress on the original “action plans” is done. The group has the opportunity to revise and make necessary additions to these plans. Meetings are purposefully designed to make available the research relevant to an inquiry. Supervisors noted in our self-study that they value these evidence-based resources as well as meeting minutes and other relevant materials. They indicated appreciation of the e-mail communications about meeting dates, topics to be explored, guest presenters, and updates on the inquiry work. We have also tapped expertise within and outside our learning community by inviting teaching faculty, project directors, and cooperating teachers with related areas of expertise to join the group. Supervisors consistently generated new ideas and resources and understood that their contributions were welcomed and necessary to our work together as a learning community.

Outgrowth and Goals In 1993, Pat in collaboration with faculty, spearheaded an initiative to address problems related to supervision. It had become apparent that supervisors were unsure of their roles and in some cases were misinformed about expectations for

208

P.S. Tate et al.

them. Pat and interested faculty organized monthly meetings for supervisors. These meetings brought together supervisors from specialty areas. The goal for the meetings was to create a support structure for university supervisors who were disconnected from the university programs and from the teaching faculty. There was a twofold need: to coordinate the individuals who supervise our teacher candidates and to prepare them to supervise according to the university philosophy of the teacher preparation program. Thus, the meetings were intended to be part of a larger support framework that would provide guidance to the supervisors and foster the development of expertise and wisdom, which in turn would lead to consistency in supervisory practices. There were four phases in the development of our learning community which took place over a 14-year period. The phases described below represent the inquiries that are a testimony to the group’s sustainability.

Phase One: 1993–1998 Supervisors embraced the idea of examining supervisory practices to develop guidelines for supervisors. Meetings during phase one were relatively unstructured with minimal note taking and sharing of information beyond the group.

Phase Two: 1998–2003 Supervisors became passionate about writing cases that reflected problematic supervisory experiences in order to gain new perspectives and learn from them. Meeting topics and agendas were developed in collaboration with the supervisors and were based on their needs and interests. During meetings, notes were written on chart paper and summarized into minutes to document the group’s efforts.

Phase Three: 2003–2005 Supervisors expressed a need to understand and connect with what interns were being taught in their methods courses in order to better align their supervisory support with the teacher education curriculum. A consistent format was established for meeting agendas which included: advanced organizers, key concepts to be discussed, presenter information, and references related to the inquiry work of the day. A list of topics and possible guest presenters were generated in advance for the academic semester. E-mail became a key communication tool for updating supervisors about each inquiry. Each participant also received copies of related research articles and summary reports of our work.


209

Phase Four: 2005–2007 During this phase, the supervisor group developed a new interest in identifying resources that supervisors could access to address the common needs of developing teachers. Our meetings became increasingly participatory with discussions of related readings and conversations with guest participants including doctoral students, faculty, and teachers. As our work continued, it became apparent that our supervisors needed a voice and a place for discussing and sharing their common concerns and ideas for improvement. We found ourselves engaged in deep thinking not only about the practices of our teachers but about our practices as supervisors. We sought to question our lived practice as supervisors and how that did or did not align to theory and practice espoused in the university teacher preparation curriculum and researchbased literature. This in turn led us to a self-study of our learning community. Although we were reflecting on our practice, we had not researched how our learning community evolved and what had sustained us over time.

Our Self-study The self-study was designed from key questions generated by the supervisor group about how we aligned with the central concepts of a PLC as identified by Fullan (2001) and Dufour (2004). Specifically the questions we wanted to address were: ● ● ● ●

How did our community develop and evolve? What style of leadership supported our development? What sustains us as a learning community? What difference did our learning community make in our teacher education program?

Pat directed this self-study with 16 supervisors. Participants in the self-study comprised the following: five faculty, eight adjunct faculty, one project director, and two doctoral students. Specialty areas for the supervisors included: elementary and secondary education (English, ESL, social studies, mathematics, art, foreign language, and science) and special education.

Methods Our work entailed multiple and varied data sources to answer our research questions. First to answer the research question, “How did our community develop and evolve?” we gathered data to gain a historical perspective of the group’s work. This included: ● ● ●

Minutes from monthly meetings, annual reports, and summaries of inquiries Content analysis of reports of each professional inquiry Syntheses of our discussions and responses to journal articles and guest presenters

210

P.S. Tate et al.

Next, to answer our other research questions, i.e., “What style of leadership supported our development?” and “What sustains us as a learning community?” further data was collected and included: ●

● ●

Focus group discussions and reflective writing by supervisors who were engaged in our inquiries Interviews with participants and key leaders for each inquiry Facilitator reflections

Two focus group sessions were conducted in spring 2007 with 11 supervisors participating in the study. Interviews were conducted with an additional five supervisors who participated in past inquiries. Qualitative data analysis of focus group and interview data was conducted using content analysis methodology. Coding categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994/1984) reflected relevant themes related to the constructs of a learning community (Dufour, 2004; Fullan, 2001). Coding categories were not mutually exclusive. Data analysis was a collaborative process between chapter authors. Two authors served as an observer-reliability check on the trustworthiness of the coding.

Findings Our analysis resulted in four major themes: (1) a culture of care with sharing, trust, and support; (2) facilitative leadership; (3) reflection and perspective taking; and (4) identification of effective supervisory practices aligned to teacher education curriculum. A culture of care. This data analysis identified a learning culture of care where individual contributions were valued. Participants were responsive and appreciative of peer support as exemplified in this comment: Being in the group helps because I could ask anyone of these persons in here – This is the situation that I have. Can you help me with it? And everybody could give me something that would make me feel more equipped when I go out the door than when I came in. … I am around people with expertise and knowledge. … One of the things for me when we share in these meetings and we go around, [is that] we hear that we have some of the same kinds of concerns. So it helps me know that I must be on the right track because the concerns and needs are pretty basic for the interns.

As the group addressed various inquiries, action plans were developed to structure how we would go about answering our inquiry questions. However, these plans did not limit the inquiry. Each inquiry was given its own life span to allow all participants to share and participate fully. We agreed that the results of our inquiries should be shared with broader educational communities through local, regional, and national education conferences. Facilitative leadership. Findings of the self-study revealed that leadership practices facilitated the creation of the culture of trust and support that exists in our group today. Pat’s structuring of the group meetings and creation of an atmosphere


211

of caring and support sustained interest in the group for 14 years. The professional development of our learning community and our self-study work as teacher educators continues. The most salient finding related to leadership practices was the ability of the leader to convey a spirit of inclusion in our meetings. Analysis of focus group and interview data affirmed perceptions that meetings are carefully organized to ensure that all participants are included in the conversation and treated like professionals. The study participants considered supervisor meetings to be a “value added” experience; a place where “your ideas are carefully listened to and valued.” Supervisors noted the supervisor meetings “renewed … enthusiasm for helping others grow.” They reported that they came away from a meeting feeling they learned something and that their time was not wasted. This comment captures this finding: “Supervisor meetings greatly influenced my approach to the task of appropriate assessment, and I felt the need to reflect on my own personal style and what I am doing in supporting and coaching the student intern.” Reflection and perspective taking. Data supported that reflection on, and connection to, research-based supervisory practices was evident. For example, participants commented on the importance of “negotiation with the cooperating teacher” and “getting the intern to be involved in learning about their community.” Participants noted the value of the meetings and the research-oriented presentations to their reflection and application to their practices. A comment captures this idea: “The university supervisor meetings widen my base of knowledge about good teaching practices. Also inviting professors who teach content was so helpful to get a context and see the bigger picture.” Analysis of reflective writings underscored the value participants placed on acceptance of their stories and the support they felt they received in addressing their problems. Participants shared their reflections about their changed role from teacher to supervisor and as one noted, “For me having come from a classroom for nine years [has] helped me change hats and develop more of a supervisor identity. I am just not seeing things as I did as the classroom teacher, but as someone who was there to help and support my teacher.” Discussion of critical experiences was cited as key in giving confidence, new understandings, and new perspectives about theory-to-practice connections. Participants also articulated their purposes in supervision – “to make a difference for interns to become a better teacher and to let them be accountable for their actions.” Our analysis indicated evidence that our learning community assisted supervisors in becoming reflective practitioners who thought deeply about the dimensions of their role as both mentor and supervisor. Identification of effective supervisory practices. Focus group and interview data illustrated how participants engaged in articulating what they considered effective supervisory practices. The group provided a forum for supervisors to express their beliefs about best practices and identify the connections their supervisory practices have to schools and school systems. When thinking about the importance of beginning of year procedures, a supervisor said:

212

P.S. Tate et al.

I think I have learned from the group that it is important to get in there early, in the classroom, to assess the types of classes the intern has and try to anticipate potential problems. Are procedures clear? Do the kids know what to do?

Participants acknowledged the importance of teachers understanding the school community and the culture. [It] really made me go back and think about how important it is for the student teachers to really know the community where they are. I don’t think we have students really go and get to know the community in that way and how helpful that is. We talk about it. Doing is different than really talking about it. I thought that was really powerful. In a discussion about teacher dispositions, a supervisor explained: I think a lot of that is achieved by defining and discussing concepts that underlie what we do. Things like familycentered and child directed and natural environments all require a disposition in order to work in those kinds of ways. … Everybody talks about them, but do you really get down to what the issues are?

Our training and follow-up of the observation/assessment systems we use was cited as very influential in “sharpening supervision skills” and in providing a “standards-based approach to supervision.” Data from focus group sessions showed how meetings were useful in translating supervision practices that reinforce pedagogical practices. The group also noted the value of our meetings to them as they assisted teachers in dealing with conflict and behavior management issues and in learning about the background of the pupils. Our work and our new understandings encourage us as one person stated “to keep coming back to learn more.” We share the impact of our professional inquiries more specifically with you next, answering our final research question: “What difference did our learning community make in our teacher education program?”

Impact of Our Professional Inquiries Our focused professional inquiries have resulted in: (1) the development of guidelines for best practices in supervision of the teacher intern; (2) the creation of case studies for understanding ethical dilemmas in supervision; and (3) an identification of teaching methodologies essential to teacher preparation. Our ongoing work entails a fourth inquiry focused on identifying key resources to meet the common needs of beginning teachers/teacher interns across specialty areas. Each inquiry is discussed in terms of its contribution to the practices of the University Supervisors Group (USG) PLC.

Inquiry #1 – 1993–1998: Guidelines for “Best Practices in Supervision of the Teacher Intern” Our first inquiry asked “What are the ethical standards that should underlie best practices in our supervisory work?” The inquiry yielded a coherent belief system that was articulated through guidelines for supervisory practice (Tate, 1998). The


213

process broadened supervisors’ understandings about their role in facilitating productive learning experiences for their teacher interns. We concluded that teacher interns need to be supported in taking responsibility for their learning, negotiating with school professionals, and building a foundation for habits of reflection and problem-solving needed to be an effective teacher.

Inquiry #2 – 1998–2003: Case Writing During the process of developing our guidelines, supervisors told stories of their supervisory experiences and critical issues that arose. These scenarios were later developed into mini-cases that could be used in preparing novice supervisors to think about their work. Meeting activities engaged the USG in reading the research literature on case study and the power of narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Merseth, 1996; Shulman, 1992). Faculty with related expertise were brought into that discussion (Taymans, 1993). This inquiry encouraged us to share our work and case studies on a national level (Tate et al., 2005b). Now a case-writing group composed of university supervisors and cooperating teachers has formed to continue this work and its dissemination (Beck et al., 2007; Jarrett et al., 2005; Tate & Beck, 2006; Tate et al., 2004, 2005b).

Inquiry #3 – 2003–2005: Identification of Key Teaching Methodologies Essential to Teacher Preparation The USG wanted to know the content of students’ methodology courses and the learning theories that were emphasized in their course work. The inquiry questions we asked were: “How do faculty who teach the methods courses teach about connections between theory and practice?” “What is required of students?” We believed that answers to these questions would aid the supervisor in identifying targets for observation of the intern and in reinforcing theory-to-practice connections. To address these questions the USG invited faculty who were teaching methods courses to the USG meetings to discuss the theories, teaching approaches, and pedagogical applications they taught. Constructivist theories about teaching and learning were identified as undergirding the methods curriculum across programs. In this regard, methods faculty modeled constructivist theories in class assignments and activities. They provided examples for supervisors of ways teacher candidates were engaged in constructing meaning and in making connections to prior experiences. We discussed the variety of assignments given to teacher candidates such as construction and deconstruction of lesson plans coupled with opportunities to micro- teach their plans with peer feedback. The results of the inquiry brought insight into how supervisors could better scaffold interns’ experiences with

214

P.S. Tate et al.

planning and application of constructivist practices. It also marked a broadening of our focus and a connection to methods faculty that had not previously existed in our program.

Inquiry #4 – 2005–to the Present: Common Needs of Teacher Interns Our current inquiry explores areas where our teacher candidates need continual help and support. We identified common areas where interns need the most support so we could provide supervisory practices and resources to meet their needs. The questions generated for our inquiry included: “What do our interns need to be productive and successful in their internship?” “How can we better address our interns’ immediate needs during the beginning phase of their teaching careers?” The group identified four areas they believed were common needs of teacher interns across elementary, secondary, and special education: (1) behavior/management and discipline; (2) classroom management; (3) paper flow management; and (4) formative and summative assessment. We invited colleagues within our university and school networks to present on topics related to these common needs as we reviewed pertinent literature. We read about: (1) the importance of how teaching novices use assessment data from their teaching to plan learning activities for their students; (2) types of stress, both good and bad, and how management of routines and paperwork can diffuse bad stress (Brown & Nagel, 2004); (3) types of assessments – formative, diagnostic, and summative, and how these can lead to effective teaching practices (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005); and (4) the use of theory-practice coaching wheels to scaffold teacher thinking about classroom interactions and management practices (Lyman,1994). Presentations were made by doctoral students and faculty regarding current research findings that related to our inquiry. For example, a supervisor whose dissertation focused on the development of dispositions in special education teachers gave us new insights into the “conflict cycle” and the power of giving consistent feedback in “re-orienting” teacher dispositions toward practice in positive ways (Ihrig, 2005). Another presenter shared her work on engaging teacher interns in community mapping – a process of engaging interns in learning about their school community. Three cooperating teachers, one secondary and two elementary, shared organizational systems used in their classrooms and the ways they assisted the professional development of their teacher interns. A cooperating teacher shared an interview protocol developed with peers to use with interns at the beginning of their placement to assist them in articulating their practices and teaching philosophy. Teacher job interview questions were discussed to challenge interns with expectations for interviewing for a teaching position. Plans are underway to build a website to incorporate our groups’ ideas and resources and offer a repertoire of pedagogical approaches and resources for supervisors to use with interns.


215

Conclusions This self-study has provided the bridge for moving from informal inquiries to application of formal research processes enabling us to share what we have learned with a broader audience (Richardson, 1996). It brings attention to the important work involved in supervisory practice. The very process of studying our work enriched it for ourselves and others. Focus group and interview sessions invited “reflective dialogue” among participants. Participation of supervisors in data analysis and synthesis of what was learned allowed the supervisors to engage in the role of the researcher and further develop dispositions and habits for reflective thinking (Dinkelman, 2003). All of these components added to the trustworthiness of the findings (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Overall, the results of the self-study affirm the value of our work and our activities as a learning community. Our meetings are defined as a place where supervisors feel they can speak their minds, share their ideas, and be recognized for the important role they play in development of our future teachers. It is apparent from the data that a learning community evolved over time and was facilitated by consistent leadership and focus. By tapping the expertise within our networks, we enriched our knowledge and broadened our perspectives about the ways to assist the growth of developing teachers. We identified key leadership practices that assisted in keeping the USG focused on inquiries that spanned several years. Supervisors were involved in synthesis of inquiry work and findings at the end of each academic year. In each of these activities, leadership was shared as participants engaged in review of data and summary of the new knowledge acquired. Summaries of findings and activities associated with the inquiry work were used as the springboard for continuing the inquiry and keeping the group focused at the beginning of each academic year. Thus, the selfstudy helped us see the cyclical nature of this process in keeping the USG connected and focused.

Recommendations We present several recommendations for those who are interested in developing this type of professional work culture: ●

●

First, essential to the process of creating and maintaining a learning community, is a leader who creates space – a place – a time – where participants can come together to reflect, share, and validate research-based practices. This leader is the connector, the boundary-spanner, the facilitator who holds it all together with a vision and specific agenda for taking the group where they want to go (Fulwiler, 1996; Havelock et al., 1983; Jenlink et al., 1996). Second, the leader must build on the needs of the group and involve them in design and implementation of an inquiry. We found that tapping the expertise of

216

●

●

●

P.S. Tate et al.

faculty and teachers within our networks provided ways to connect our work across programs. Third, the inquiry process should be a catalyst for creating the learning culture that sustains interest, reenergizes the group, and connects the community. Inquiry became the answer to the challenge of sustaining the interest and focus of veteran members, while remaining inclusive for new members joining the group each year. Fourth, self-study serves to reflect and formalize the work of the learning community. For us, self-study has been a way to acknowledge areas that need to be addressed in furthering our understanding of the learning needs of our interns. Viewed from the learning community lens, it means we have to get better at connecting to schools. Our current work will increase involvement of interns and cooperating teachers in our inquiry. We will bring “real” data from our assessments of interns’ progress to better understand what they have learned and applied in their clinical practice. This knowledge can be fed back into the evaluation cycle of our programs and can lead to improvement in coursework and in our supervision. Fifth, supervisors should have a key voice in helping to understand their own work and what supervisors need to do better to support and teach their interns. The focus group discussions acknowledged that feedback about supervision is shared in very general terms at the program level, but it does not differentiate by individual supervisors. It is recommended that supervisors set individual goals for the academic year and receive feedback on them during the year.

In this self-study, we have identified the areas where we can improve as a learning community and made recommendations for others who intend to try these practices. Overall the self-study has provided the opportunity to engage in reflective thinking and has given insight into how we, as teacher educators, are actively engaged in a learning community. Furthermore, it gave us insight into how individuals can collaboratively build and sustain a professional work culture through leadership that focuses on inquiry-based practices. We hope our work is useful to others interested in building a learning community through inquiry-based practices.

References Beck, S., Lawlor, A., Blackow, S., & Ramsey, A. (February, 2007). Teacher education supervisors creating and applying knowledge through case writing: Development of a community of learners. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators, San Diego, CA. Brown, S. & Nagel, L. (2004). Preparing future teachers to respond to stress: Sources and solutions. Action in Teacher Education, 26(1), 34–41. Clandinin, J. & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. New York: Jossey-Bass. Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18. Dufour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.


217

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fulwiler, L. (1996). A beggar in both worlds: A supervisor in the schools and the university. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 21–26. Havelock, R.G., Cox, P., Huberman, A.M., & Levinson, N. (1983). School-university collaboration supporting school improvement, 4. Washington, DC: American University, Knowledge Transfer Institute. Ihrig, K. (2005). An examination of preservice teachers’ perceptions of their dispositions toward teaching students with emotional and behavioral disabilities: The effects of integrating intra/ interpersonal concepts in teacher training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Jarrett, M., Hammonds, S., & Page, L. (April, 2005). Teacher educators writing cases about supervision for standards-based teaching. Paper presented at the Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher-Researcher Conference. Fairfax, VA. Jenlink, P.M., Kinnucan-Welsch, K., & Odell, S.J. (1996). Designing professional development learning communities. In D. John McIntyre & David M. Byrd (Eds.), Preparing tomorrow’s teachers: The field experience (pp. 63–86). CA: Corwin Press. Lyman, F. (1994, revised). Principle-based teaching/coaching wheels. (Available from Howard County Maryland Public Schools Staff Development Center). College Park, MD: College of Education, University of Maryland. McTighe, J. & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 10–12. Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Silula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722–744). New York: MacMillan. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (Original work published in 1984). Richardson, V. (1996). The case for formal research and practical inquiry in teacher education. In F.B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 715–737). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Samaras, A. P. (2002). Self-study for teacher educators: Crafting a pedagogy for educational change. New York: Peter Lang. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York: Peter Lang. Schon, D. A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, J. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Tate, P. (Ed.). (1998). Ethical guidelines for “best practices” in supervision of the preservice teacher. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Department of Teacher Preparation and Special Education. Available at: www.gwu.edu/~ole/ Tate, P. & Beck, S. (February, 2006). Case writing group initiative: Developing case knowledge in ethical supervisory practices. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators Conference, Atlanta, GA. Tate, P., Hall, L., Beck, S., & Pyke, C. (April, 2000). Principled practices in supervision of the teacher intern: Giving shape, form, and structure through practical inquiry. Workshop conducted at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. Tate, P., Lawlor, A., Jarrett, M., Pattarini, K., Thorne, M., Page, L., & Hammonds, S. (October, 2004). Adventures in storytelling: Teacher educators writing cases about supervisory practices that work. Workshop presented at Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators Conference, Orlando, FL. Tate, P., Hammonds, S., Lawlor, A., & Page, L. (October, 2005a). The pitfalls of the three P’s: Assessing performance, pedagogy and personality of the novice teacher through cases. Workshop presented at Maryland State Teachers Association Annual Convention, Ocean City, MD. Tate, P., Pyke, C., Kortecamp, K., & Muskin, C. (2005b). Developing an ethical orientation toward supervisory practice through collaborative case writing. Action in Teacher Education 27(3), 13–25.

218

P.S. Tate et al.

Taymans, J. M. (1993). Our stories, our solutions: Building a learning community through cases. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Zeichner, M. & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Chapter 16

Funny, This Does Not Look Like a Community: Working Collaboratively Across Borders and Institutions Clare Kosnik

I think our collaboration gave me wings and helped me achieve things that I wouldn’t have done by myself. Anne

The term learning community (LC) could conjure up one of the following images: a group of faculty gathered in an office developing a new program; a team of teachers sitting around a table in the library working on a school-wide initiative; a cohort of students celebrating the end of their program; or a research team huddled over transcripts, discussing their coding categories. Common to all of these images is a physical closeness of the participants. In this chapter, we present our LC, affectionately named Best Friends, where the four participants, Clive, Anne, Anastasia, and Clare, are separated by thousands of miles, at times, working in four different universities, and only meeting once or twice a year. Are we still a community? We would answer with a resounding, yes! But the unusual arrangement raises questions: Has distance limited our collaborative efforts? How did we overcome the problems of distance? Did communicating mainly by e-mail, create tensions? In general, how were tensions resolved? This chapter aims to respond to these questions, and many others, by describing the ways our tiny community has thrived and the impact of the long-term collaboration.

Introduction The four participants in this study are all faculty who have worked in pre-service, in-service, and doctoral programs for many years. Clive has been a professor for four decades, held senior administrative positions, and been an extremely productive scholar in both teacher education research and values education. He works at the University of Toronto, a tier one university which prides itself as Canada’s foremost research university. Anne, working at the University of Hawai’i, came to C. Kosnik Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto


219

220

C. Kosnik

teacher education after working in educational psychology. She has spent many years in their cohort-based teacher education program and recently was awarded the Board of Reagents outstanding teacher/faculty award. Anastasia moved to George Mason University six years ago after 10 years at The Catholic University of America. She is well regarded as a Vygotskian scholar and was also a successful early primary and secondary school teacher. Like Clive, I work at the University of Toronto, and similar to Anastasia was a classroom teacher. For over a decade I have been heavily involved in all aspects of teacher education – teaching and researching – recently directing the teachers for a New Era project at Stanford University. We initially met through the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (SSTEP) Special Interest Group (SIG) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in the early 1990s. All of us had participated in successful LCs before beginning our collaboration. None of us was satisfied with the current culture in our universities which seem to pride themselves on individual efforts and reward single-authored work. Interestingly, Anne, Anastasia, and I were all Directors of our teacher education programs at the same time. In my interview for this research, I commented: “It was great to be able to talk to two other women in the same role, who were experiencing the same challenges as I was. We shared some helpful hints about communicating with faculty. But it was the discussion about the sexism towards us that was affirming.” We were certainly open to each other and none could have imagined the productive and rich relationship that evolved when we first met at an S-STEP social. Now into our second decade of collaboration, we often wondered why our collaborations have worked so well.

Literature Review In other chapters of this book, a range of literature regarding LCs has been discussed. I draw upon literature relevant to this project and will not repeat discussion that occurred elsewhere in this book. In Democracy and Education, Dewey explores the concept of community and argues that communication and common values are part of community building. He concludes that “men live in a community in virtue of the things which they have in common; and communication is the way in which they come to posses things in common” (Dewey, 1916, p. 4). A community is more than a collection of individuals, it is a cohesive group with shared values which are discussed with all members. As described below our Best Friends community has many common values, some of which we all possessed while others were developed through our collaborations. Interest in LCs is not restricted to education nor is it recent; from guilds in the middle ages to some sectors of the business world, LCs have been, and continue to be, explored and supported (but not universally). Although Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) write from a business perspective (e.g., research on Chrysler, Amoco, Silicon Valley) using the term communities of practice, their definition is

16 Funny, This Does Not Look Like a Community

221

highly applicable to our work. “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). Acquiring knowledge is more than just useful for conducting one’s job; it has additional benefits. “This value is not merely instrumental for their work. It also accrues in the personal satisfaction of knowing colleagues who understand each other’s perspectives and of belonging to an interesting group of people” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 5). Like others, they believe that communities of practice develop a shared history and culture developing “personal relationships and established ways of interacting” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 5). The work of German sociologist Ferdinand Tonines is useful in describing our Best Friends community. He delineated two types of communities: gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. The former is bound by ties of kinship, of place, and of mind whereas the latter is bound by contractual ties (Sergiovanni, 1994). Our Best Friends LC is definitely in line with the former because we choose to work together for intellectual pursuit and our friendship is a form of kinship. In Grossman et al.’s (2001, p. 946) long-term study of a teacher community, they delineated the tensions within the group and the problem of negotiating through these tensions. They concluded that “communities are not quickly or easily formed. It takes time for individuals to develop a common history so that they, in effect, become a ‘community of memory’ where public discussion revolves around members retelling the ‘constitutive narrative’ of the group.” The fact that our LC rarely meets is not unique. Lighthall (2004, p. 205) describes “a mode of collaboration [which] transcends geographical distance, joining colleagues at separate and distinct institutions – the email and internet collaborations.” He cites examples of cross-site collaborators such as Guilfoyle, Hamilton, Pinnegar, and Placier; Dalmau and Gudjonsdottir; and LaBoskey, Davies-Samway, and Garcia. He summarizes that these “scholars engaged in this field collaborate often not only in their research and writing, but also in creating collegial niches for themselves and in the practical work of educating teachers together” (Lighthall, 2004, p. 206). Our group has created a collegial niche within both the teacher education and S-STEP communities. Researchers are beginning to explore the dynamics of LCs. Although Seifert and Mandzuk (2006) write about cohort-based teacher education, the first two reasons they suggest for forming cohorts of students apply to our Best Friends group: support for “mutual intellectual stimulation, facilitate the forming of supportive social ties that continue past graduation, and [are] easier to organize” (pp. 1296–1297). They recognize that collaboration can take different forms: “often it can be shallow but you should not mandate a particular form e.g. must meet X number of times” (p. 1297). They are quite savvy in their assessment of LCs: “Altogether, the research suggests a need to investigate the widespread belief that learning communities or collaboration have desirable outcomes. … Working together, it seems, may not always happen smoothly, and it may not always lead to desirable outcomes even when it does” (pp. 1298–1299). Later in this chapter, we identify some of the desirable outcomes which have resulted from our collaboration.

222

C. Kosnik

Similar to Seifert and Mandzuk, McLaughlin and Talbert (2006, p. 11) argue that we need to study how effective LCs develop, how they are sustained, and how members learn to work collaboratively. They cite three reasons why LCs often fail: “lack of trust, time, and talent.” Hargreaves suggests that one of the fundamental problems with communities is teachers do not understand the nature of interdependence required for participation and success in LCs (2001). He concludes that teachers often feel personally attacked and can become angry during group work; they are not sure how to deal with tensions in the group (2001). Selznick suggests that the development of a shared history and culture will provide the stability and predictability of the LC (1992). As seen later, I show that our shared history and culture in fact do provide the foundation for our LC which led to developing strategies for dealing with tension.

Methodology For this self-study, I reviewed our previous writing about us as a community (Kosnik et al., 2006b). I was very mindful of the e-mails that we have been exchanging, as we worked on this book, printing them off to be analyzed. I conducted semi-structured interviews with Anne, Clive, and Anastasia. Before conducting the interviews, I circulated a draft of the questions and revised them based on their feedback. The questions were in six broad categories such as: collaboration within your university; working with the Best Friends; and understanding our collaborations and LC. At the end of the formal questions, each person was invited to add further comment. Clive interviewed me following the same procedure. The interviews were one hour to one and a half hours in length, tape-recorded and transcribed. The first draft of the chapter was sent to my three colleagues who provided helpful feedback.

Why Has Our Community Thrived? Our first major collaboration was chairing the Program Committee for the fourth “Castle” conference in 2002: Anne, Anastasia, and I organized both the program and the published proceedings while Clive offered moral support and advice on some tricky matters. This led to the four of us collaborating on the edited text, Making a difference in teacher education through self-study: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal (Kosnik et al., 2006a). Over the years, we have copresented papers at AERA and the Castle conferences. As we worked on these projects, we exchanged many e-mails and at conferences had dinners together. Sprinkled throughout our e-mails and conversations was information about our personal lives: Anne’s daughter getting married, Anastasia’s trip to


223

Paris, Clive’s movie reviews, and my fitness regime. When we had dinner together, our conversation was lively, as we gave updates on our families, friends, and work. Over time, the personal and the professional meshed. As Anne commented: I know your background, our personal histories, our upbringings, and how that’s shaped who we are, our educational experiences. And I think that a lot of those things, for women, are very important in bonding them and having them be there for each other beyond the professional side of it.

Having Common Values All four of us would describe ourselves as social constructivists, some more closely than others, but the framework of social constructivism is at the heart of our approach to life and working: valuing the whole person, recognizing the social aspect of learning, and forming LCs that are equitable and inclusive (Beck & Kosnik, 2006). On a more specific level, we share common values. In the series of questions on the qualities we value in collaborators and friends, there was remarkable consistency in our responses: caring, commitment, responsibility, conscientious, hard-working, and fun-loving. These values get “played out” in a variety of ways in our LC: for example, deadlines are usually met and feedback is prompt and thoughtful. Regarding respect which was central to all, Anastasia described Anne as, “the ultimate, positive cheerleader; she always validates people’s feelings. She reiterates everything that you say … which is a way to really show people that you respect them.” Our LC provides intellectual safety which Anne describes as “unconditional support” without the judgment. Being of a certain age we have all had life experiences. As a result, we are clear what we value in both a friend and a collaborator. Anastasia commented: “I cherish my Best Friends. And I think I’m also a demanding Best Friend in a lot of ways because I put a lot into being a Best Friend. I want a certain dependability or a kind of a mutual commitment to each other. And I feel that that’s so strong for us, I would never let you down.” Blurring the distinctions between collaborator and friend has not been a problem for us. We are careful about the projects we choose and over time have developed skills of working together. As junior faculty we may not have had these choices or the wherewithal to be so astute about what to look for in a collaborator, but experience has taught us well. We come to our Best Friends LC as four very able individuals. As Hargreaves (2001) and McLaughlin, and Talbert (2006) note, some recurring problems in the development and functioning of the LC are individuals who want to be part of the community for reasons other than the original intent of the group or are very threatened by the dynamics within the group. None of this applies to us because no one has unrealistic expectations for the group or places unreasonable demands on the others. At times, two of the four have chosen to complete a specific project (e.g., Anne and Anastasia wrote Self-study of teaching practices, (Samaras of Freese, 2006) but this has not been a problem for

224

C. Kosnik

the “larger” group because when we come back together as a foursome, our skills have been sharpened. This freedom has allowed us scope to pursue particular interests, but as described in the next section we come back together as friends and colleagues to complete a specific academic goal.

Working on Specific Projects Before completing a project, we begin to plan our next collaboration. This has meant that we have almost continuously worked together. The project usually requires us to meet deadlines which in turn provides reasons to be in regular communication. We all described ourselves as task-oriented so having a clear goal matches our style. Since we all have heavy teaching loads, often with administrative responsibilities, our time is precious. Our projects provide the impetus to have regular contact. Anastasia noted: “I think what happens is when I see your email, I’m happy. I am happy to answer it. And I don’t know why, but I can’t wait to do that work. And maybe that is something that is also part of the secret of being more productive than I would have been, because we have fun together.” I described our collaborations as follows: The process is always so much fun with the emails and all the laughing on the emails. And then you see, the product, so far everything we’ve done has been blockbuster. Both are just so rewarding. Being so task oriented, if it wasn’t both the process and the product, I don’t know if I would have continued these decades.

A process for collaborating has evolved with one person always taking the lead on a project. This is determined at the outset and although we give feedback, we recognize the leadership of the person on that project. This has saved time, avoided confusion about roles, and streamlined decision-making.

Having Complementary Talents I felt that part of the success of our LC lay in our complementary styles and differing background knowledge. I wondered how others felt. Since it would not be systematic to simply ask each of us what talents he/she felt the others possessed, I used Gardner’s (1993) theory of multiple intelligences as the framework for pursuing this line of inquiry. I first asked each person to what extent he/she agreed with the theory of multiple intelligences. All supported it in principle but each had a few reservations about it. I then asked each person to match the intelligences with a member of the Best Friends; some could not limit one intelligence to one member and needed to assign a particular intelligence to more than one person. Below is a chart detailing which person we believed has a talent for each intelligence.


Logical-mathematical Linguistic Spatial aesthetics Bodily kinesthetic Musical Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalist

Clive

Anne

x, x x, x, x, x

x x x, x, x

x, x x, x

x, x, x x, x x

225 Anastasia

Clare x

x, x, x x, x x x, x x, x, x

x, x, x x, x, x, x x, x

When looking at the data, a few patterns emerge: all believe that we each have strong interpersonal skills which may be part of the reason for our success at working together. This results in us being able to facilitate communication and work well with others. Yet, we recognize the talents of others. All agreed that Clive has outstanding writing skills, and we affectionately refer to him as our “wordsmith.” Anastasia is our artistic member who Anne commented “gets us thinking outside the box.” One of the downfalls of the distance is that aspects of our lives can get overlooked. Since I work in the same city as Clive and in the same department, I have regular contact with him. I know that he is extremely knowledgeable about music, a regular attendee at operas and concerts yet Anastasia and Anne did not assign him the musical intelligence. I began to wonder about other talents my Best Friends possess that I do not know about. Since all of us have held senior administrative positions, we each have strong organizational and project management skills. This is helpful when meeting deadlines but it has also meant that each of us can assume a leadership role. For example, I had taken the lead on writing a paper on our collaborations; when Anne read my draft she felt that it sounded self-congratulatory. As soon as she said this, I realized that she was right. She then took over the paper, reorganizing it into a much stronger paper (Kosnik et al., 2006b). Anne describes this as “us switching roles” which allows everyone to play a key role in our group. This example also reveals how we can and must be critical friends. Our friendship does not cloud our academic judgment.

Being Part of a Larger Learning Community It was through S-STEP that we originally met and S-STEP continues to play a significant role in our LC. It is a forum for us to share our work; the group holds values similar to ours (e.g., valuing collaborative projects and valuing the whole person); it provides opportunities to meet others so that we do not become insular; and many of the members are involved in the day-to-day work of teacher education. I commented that “the S-STEP people are all truly committed teacher educators who want to improve their teacher education program, so they are right there in the preservice courses. I think our work resonates with the S-STEP people because they’re doing similar kind of work and they know how hard it is to do the kind of work

226

C. Kosnik

we’re doing.” A further benefit of our academic home being S-STEP is that some of the leaders recognized potential in us that we did not see ourselves. For example, John Loughran and Tom Russell invited us to cochair the program committee for the Castle conference in 2000. Most likely, we would never have thought to volunteer for this task. And the members’ recognition of the four of us as a team has reinforced our belief in ourselves that we are a LC. S-STEP has been such a productive group that we have benefited from its ongoing initiatives. For example, Anne, Clive, and I wrote the chapter on practice teaching for the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Beck, et al., 2004) while Anastasia coauthored with others the chapter on personal history. Contributing to S-STEP developed projects allows us to work together without having to fully initiate and manage the entire project.

Working in Separate Institutions With e-mail readily available and phone rates reasonable we can overcome the barriers created by distance, which we have done; however, we recognize that being in different locales may have worked to our advantage. We all noted that in our home universities there are departmental politics, turf wars, competition for grants, and so on. The logistics of working in the same department can easily undermine a community. Anne commented: “I find that people get competitive, even [staking] ownership of a school, student, or mentor teachers.” By working in different universities, we do not have to contend with thorny issues of course offerings, classroom location, timetabling, or merit pay. Although all felt that we would still collaborate if we worked in the same university, each recognized that the day-to-day politics of the university might negatively impact on our collaboration. Clive identified another advantage of our far-flung community. It puts you in touch with other people and other situations and settings–that is a big advantage of being in different places. Having this kind of collaboration extends your connections and your experience very considerably.

Dealing with Tensions Our small LC has been very productive and for the most part extremely collegial, but naturally there have been some tensions. When I asked the participants if they had ever been frustrated working with the Best Friends, I quickly added that they did not need to respond to the question. Each person noted that there had been some stresses. For example, Anastasia recalled: “I wouldn’t say it’s a heavy frustration. A recent example, was I needed to figure out what were we doing on the book, who


227

is going to be section editor; who was going to be section editor of which section. I think sometimes people might just pull back if they don’t want to have to deal with it.” Clive commented: I think that any learning community activity is bound to have frustrations. I don’t think that’s anything to be ashamed of. It arises largely out of different styles. My style tends to be that of a perfectionist, sometimes not a risk-taker. At times, anybody is frustrated by somebody who does something differently, but I think it’s worth it.

It seems that the process of collaboration can cause some frustrations, rather than the project or a clash in values. But how do we resolve the inevitable tensions? Anastasia observed: “I think we’re very careful about how we speak to each other and what we say. I wouldn’t want anything to ever come between all of us. But I think that we’re also obligated to say what’s on our mind.” Anne elaborates: “I think in any relationship, we are always still trying to find whether there’s a discomfort if you say something that would make someone uncomfortable. And I think as close friends, we never want to mix it up.” Since collaboration is perhaps a higher value than the actual product, we keep sight of the big picture and the long-term goals of friendship and collaboration. Given our strong interpersonal skills, shared history, and experience in administration, we are able to deal with tensions quickly before they escalate. And each of us takes a turn offering advice on how to proceed; once we are back on track, our task-oriented nature moves us past the hurdle.

Impact of Being Part of a Learning Community Our involvement in the Best Friends LC as indicated above has been highly satisfying but I wanted to know how it has influenced our work. Below we describe some of the impact of our long-term collaborations.

Greater Productivity It was unanimous that as a group we were more productive than we would have been if we had worked individually. Clive observed that our joint efforts have resulted in “a body of research” and facilitated the research and writing process. I think it’s just nice to have company, to not feel you’re alone in your research, so it’s part of the support, psychological support. But another big factor is division of labour, that different people contribute different things and that makes the research more successful.

As noted above, through collaborations we learned about other contexts which enhanced our learning. For Anne, she saw being involved with us gradually increasing her confidence: “They’ve been like stepping stones for me. I wouldn’t have had the same opportunities to see myself grow professionally if it hadn’t been [for the collaborations].”

228

C. Kosnik

Collaboration gave us the support to take risks which again facilitated our learning. Anne and Clive both described themselves as individuals who are not necessarily risk-takers. Both initially felt that each project upon which we embarked was a risk but through the solidarity in numbers and Anastasia’s and my enthusiasm/leadership, they became more comfortable with it. Clive felt that all our collaborations initially “seemed rather risky … they may not work out. It takes you into unfamiliar territory;” however, he notes a not-often-recognized benefit of collaboration. “There’s probably more risk to working away on your own because you may be on the wrong track. The Best Friends keep you on the right rack.”

Increased/Decreased Respect for Collaborating Within the Self-Study SIG, we all felt that we are respected by the members because of our collaborative efforts. Since working together is a central value of the SIG, we were respected for the topics we chose to study and the way that we worked together. However, our collaborations have not always been viewed as favorably within our home institutions. For example, Anastasia feels that a pervasive attitude in her school as stated by a faculty evaluation committee is “when you collaborate, they don’t know what part you did and so you don’t get credit for it.” Clive and I both concurred with Anastasia that our institutions are wary of joint work but the three of us felt that the benefits of working with others surpasses the problems caused in our respective universities. Yet Anne has had the opposite experience: “I’ve definitely gotten more respect because of the publications that have come out of our collaborations. And I think that of late, and this is really probably more in the last, say, five years, there is a more of a sense that publishing together is okay in our department.”

Changed Way We Work with Our Students When asked about the influence of our collaborative approach on our teaching and research, all gave examples of topics or assignments that were developed by one of us that the others had incorporated into their teaching. In addition, all of us stated that we have tried to form LCs with our doctoral students. Not only do we want to provide a community for our students but we also want to mentor them into a different way of working – with others. Anastasia commented: “[T]hey are very, very much a part of anything that I do, that’s connected to them. They’re going to get invited in, if they want to participate.” Since we have first-hand experience of LCs, we share our experiences with our students. Anne reflected that when she advocates teachers becoming a LC she shares with her students our e-mails and provides spe-


229

cific examples of her experience working with us. Forming a community with our doctoral students has the added advantage of giving each of us a community in our home institution.

Advice to Others As described in the literature review, each LC has a unique history and culture. Nevertheless, I asked my interviewees if they had any advice for others wanting to develop and/or nurture a group with which they work. Anastasia eloquently provides the following advice: Do not force it, do not feel that you can read these interviews and then just go through it and it all works. Just having trust or openness or having care is not going to make it work. Follow your intuition and collaborate with people that you want to work with, not because you need to work with them, or because they have their research under way, or because they’re a good writer. You have to be purposeful about who you decide to collaborate with. … Let it evolve. Know [your] own members. Bringing in somebody who wants [to be there] for other reasons [can make it go] sour. Pulling junior faculty along, writing chapters with them, helping them get published is not a LC. That’s being a nice person.

Contrary to common belief that you need to work with faculty in your home department or university, Clive offers this advice: Who find people you like, you have similar values with. You don’t have to necessarily have similar styles, in fact, maybe better not, but people you really like to be with who socially and have similar values and a commitment, who you know will be willing to pitch in rather than wanting to use you. And also I’d suggest going international, or at least national because often even in a group of 20 or 30 people, there just isn’t a kindred spirit. So often to get a collaborative group you have to go fairly far afield.

Conclusion Returning to the topics of our complementary styles and shared values, absent from Gardner’s model is a “caring intelligence” which I believe the four of us have. We truly care for our students, the teachers in our partner schools, and the programs. Our work history is a testament to our commitment to others. As Noddings (2005) wondered, who will care for the caregivers? Yes, we get some appreciation from our students but it often does not match our efforts. My Best Friends care for me just as I am deeply committed to them. The Best Friends are truly a caring community which may be our greatest strength and may partially explain the secret of our success. Work and friendship have gone hand in hand for us and I anticipate will continue for many years to come.

230

C. Kosnik

References Beck, C. & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in preservice teacher education: A social constructivist approach. Albany, NY: SUNY. Beck, C., Freese, A. R., & Kosnik, C. (2004). Learning through self-study in a professional setting: The preservice practicum. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 1259–1293). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S. & Woolworth, S. (2001) Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record 103(6), 942–1012. Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503–527. Kosnik, C., Beck, C., Freese, A. R., & Samaras, A. P. (Eds.). (2006a). Making a difference in teacher education through self-study: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Kosnik, C., Samaras, A. P., & Freese, A. R. (2006b). Beginning with trusted friends: Venturing out to work collaboratively in our institutions. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston, & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Collaboration and community: Pushing boundaries through self-study. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (pp. 152–156). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. Lighthall, F. (2004). Fundamental features and approaches of the s-step enterprise. In J. Loughran, M.L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 193–245). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach (2nd. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Samaras, A. P. & Freese, A. R. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices. New York: Peter Lang. Seifert, K. & Mandzuk, D. (2006). Student cohorts in teacher education: Support groups or intellectual communities? Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1296–1320. Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

About the Authors

Mary Adams-Legge teaches in Frederick County, Virginia. She is the English Department Chair at Sherando High School and has been an English teacher at the high school and community college level for 27 years. She holds both her B.A. and M.A. in English from The College of William and Mary, is certified in Gifted and Talented Instruction, and is a National Board Certified Teacher. She is currently working on her PhD in Teacher Education at George Mason University. She lives in the country near Winchester, Virginia with her husband, Ray Legge, and her two sons, Withrow and Army, where she enjoys raising chickens, organic gardening, and knitting. Barbara Bell-Angus works as a psycho-educational consultant with the Toronto District School Board and as a lecturer at the Ontario Institute for Studies/University of Toronto where she teaches Psychological Foundations of Learning and Development in the Bachelor of Education program. Barbara is involved with action research as she strives to improve her practice. She is also involved in research that evaluates leadership programs using a cognitive psychology lens and in developing and evaluating character education programs to meet specific school needs. Clive Beck is Professor in the Centre for Teacher Development and the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. At OISE/UT he teaches and supervises in the graduate program, teaches in the Midtown elementary preservice program, and supervises practice teaching. He is past-president of the American Philosophy of Education Society. His books include Ethics: An Introduction; Educational Philosophy and Theory; Better Schools; Learning Values in Adulthood; Making a Difference in Teacher Education Through Self-Study (coedited); and Innovations in Teacher Education (co-authored). He is currently principal investigator of the Four year research project Key Components of Learning to Teach Literacy funded by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Deanna Breslin holds a MEd. in Educational Psychology and is a Research Associate for Circle Solutions, Inc., Virginia. Deanna is also a graduate research assistant in the Administration of Justice Program, and a Ph.D. student with a specialization in Research Methodology in the Graduate School of Education,

231

232

About the Authors

College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University, Virginia. Deanna’s passion for improving the quality of life of others led her into program evaluation. She has presented and published nationally and abroad. Her research career began in 2005, and has led to contributions to social science research in the areas of criminal justice, substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, school violence, and workforce development. When conducting research she uses a myriad of methodologies. Yiola Cleovoulou is a doctoral student in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at OISE/UT. In her dissertation, Socially Inclusive Pedagogy, Socially Inclusive Schools, Yiola seeks to understand how teachers in one elementary, inner city school fostered social inclusion in their classrooms. A former elementary school teacher in the Toronto District School Board, Yiola has a keen interest in teacher development, student learning, and literacy education. She currently works with student teachers as a Teaching Assistant in the OISE/UT Master of Teaching program. Greta Davis currently holds the role of Literacy/Numeracy Facilitator in the Durham District School Board. During her career, Greta has taught kindergarten to grade 8 as well as held the role of acting vice principal. She has been an instructor in the pre-service teacher education programs at York University and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. She has also worked in the Early Childhood Education program at Ryerson University. Zoe Donoahue is an elementary teacher who taught for 18 years for the Toronto District School Board and for the past five years at the Institute of Child Study Lab School at the University of Toronto. Zoe has been a member of the Developing Inquiring Communities Project (DICEP) since its inception and with her colleagues was the recipient of three Spencer Foundation Research Grants, as well as participating in many conference presentations in both Canada and the USA. Zoe has published chapters in two books and a magazine, and was co-editor of a book of teacher research articles. She was the recipient of an International Reading Association Teacher-Researcher Grant and of a Phi Delta Kappan Outstanding Educator Award. Zoe’s research interests have varied over the years, centering around ways to improve her teaching and her students’ learning. Gaalen Erickson is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies at the University of British Columbia. He has had a long standing research interest in examining the methods and theories used to identify and interpret student and teacher learning in the context of science education. As a former director of the Centre for the Study of Teacher Education at UBC, he also developed with colleagues and graduate students a research program on models of teacher professional development examining the relationships between research and practice as they are enacted in projects documenting the nature of practitioner inquiry and professional knowledge. Linda May Fitzgerald is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Northern Iowa. She prepares preservice teachers to accept into their classroom communities a wide

About the Authors

233

variety of children. In addition to self-study of teacher education practice, her current research and writing focuses on the inclusion of individuals with disabilities into everyday settings and dispositions for social justice in teacher education. She is coeditor with Deborah Tidwell of Self-Study and Diversity (Sense Publishers, 2006). Anne R. Freese teaches at the University of Hawai’i in the Department of Curriculum Studies. She received the University of Hawai’i President’s Award for Excellence in Teaching in 2000 and the Board of Regent’s Medal for Excellence in Teaching in 2006. In addition to numerous articles, her recent publications include Self-Study of Teaching Practices which she coauthored with Anastasia P. Samaras, Making a Difference in Teacher Education through Self Study (coeditor, 2006) and a chapter in The Missing Links in Teacher Education Design (Garry Hoban, ed., 2005). Susan Hanson has over 20 years of experience in the field of education research and program evaluation. She currently works with Ellen Moir, Director of the New Teacher Center at UC Santa Cruz, as a researcher documenting how supporting mentors systemically leverages teacher talent to develop school leaders and catalyze school-wide improvement. Dr. Hanson also consults for foundations, primarily helping with formative evaluation of their education grants. Specializing in the use of qualitative methodology to capture and understand K-12 schools, Dr. Hanson previously worked at SRI and West Ed on evaluation and policy studies related to teacher development. Melissa L. Heston is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Foundations at the University of Northern Iowa. She teaches primarily courses in child development for preservice teachers. Melissa has pursued self-study since the early 1990s, and has served as a proceedings editor and program planner for 2004, 2006, and 2008 International Conference of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. She is deeply involved in a wide variety of faculty governance activities related to teacher education and undergraduate education. Garry Hoban is an Associate Professor of Science Education at the University of Wollongong in Australia. His research interests focus on teachers’ professional learning and developing new teaching approaches enhanced by ICT. He is the creator of “Slowmation” (abbreviated from “Slow Animation”) which is a new teaching approach that greatly simplifies the process of making animation so that students of all ages can create animations of educational concepts. In 2006 Slowmation won two international awards for innovative use of technology in teacher education and in 2007 Garry was the team leader of a Aus $240,000 Australian Research Council grant to build a web site to demonstrate the animations world wide. Lois Holzman is co-founder and director of the East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy, an international research and training center for new approaches to human development, learning, therapeutics and community building, headquartered in New York City. She is a proponent of a cultural-performatory approach to psychology and education and has brought Vygotskian activity theory and postmodernism together in her theoretical and practical work. She has authored/ edited numerous books, including Schools for Growth: Radical Alternatives to

234

About the Authors

Current Educational Models; Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist; Performing Psychology: A Postmodern Culture of the Mind; and Vygotsky at Work and Play. Lois received her Ph.D. in developmental psychology from Columbia University. Marian H. Jarrett is an Associate Professor of Special Education, George Washington University, and Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. She is the Lead Faculty in the Early Childhood Special Education Program. Dr. Jarrett holds a doctoral degree in Special Education from George Washington University and a Master’s degree in Speech Pathology from Northwestern University. Her research interests include personnel preparation, including supervision of interns; the needs of families of children with disabilities; and cultural and linguistic diversity. Changyun Kang is currently a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Education at University of British Columbia in Canada since 2004. He works in the Center of Science Education Research at Beijing Normal University, serving as associate director. His research interests include teacher research, curriculum reform, teaching and learning, portfolio assessment and science museum learning. He had been involved in Chinese curriculum reform as a key organizer and coordinator, and now he is committed to bridge the western culture and educational research with Chinese traditional wisdom as well as current school practices, especially Confucius philosophy and Daoism. He has published a number of books and papers in China on curriculum and learning resources. Cristy Kessler is an Assistant Professor in the Institute for Teacher Education at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Dr. Kessler received National Board Certification in Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Social Studies-History in 2005. Cristy has 11 years of experience as a middle and high school social studies teacher in the state of Maryland. She currently works with the Masters of Education in Teaching (MEdT) Program and is involved in purposeful ways of developing learning communities and building relationships between the university and their partnership schools. Emily J. Klein is an Assistant Professor at Montclair State University of New Jersey in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching. She earned her doctorate in English Education from the Steinhardt School of Education at New York University. She previously taught high school in NYC where she developed and implemented interdisciplinary curriculum with the American Social History Project and the NYC Opera Project. She is the author of several articles on high school professional development, building communities of practice, and teacher networks, and is currently working on a book about scaling up of successful high school designs. Clare Kosnik is Associate Professor and Head of the Centre for Teacher Development in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. She was recently the Executive Director of the Teachers for a New Era project at Stanford University. Previously, she was the Director of the Elementary Pre-service Program at OISE/

About the Authors

235

UT. She also taught and supervised in the Midtown Preservice Program at OISE/ UT. She has recently coauthored the text, Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach for SUNY Press and coedited the Springer text, Making a difference in teacher education through self-study: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal. Professor Kosnik recently completed a term as Chair of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group of the American Education Research Association. Maria Kowal is a teacher with the Toronto District School Board where she currently teaches grade 7 French immersion (French, Social Studies and Math). During her career, she has taught at high school, elementary, and pre-service teacher levels. In all these contexts, she has been interested in understanding and researching how educational practice and theory are informed by each other. Ann C. Lawlor has been adjunct faculty with George Washington University since 2001. Currently, she supervises teacher interns in the Fairfax Transition to Teaching Partnership in Fairfax County, Virginia. A former high school English teacher, she has worked on the GWU University Supervisors Case Writing Project since its inception and presented the results of that research at conferences in Ocean City, Maryland; Orlando, Florida; and San Diego, California. Ms. Lawlor holds a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction from George Mason University and a Bachelor of Arts in English from Anna Maria College in Paxton, Massachusetts. Monica McGlynn-Stewart is an instructor and Faculty Advisor in The School of Early Childhood Education, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Previously, she has been an elementary classroom teacher, founder and principal of an independent high school, and consultant in the family resource sector. For the last 14 years she has conducted research into her practice, and published and presented her research with the collaborative action research group DICEP (Developing Inquiring Communities in Education Project). Her current responsibilities include teaching undergraduate courses in education, and supervising student teachers in their field placements. Ian Mitchell spent 23 years as a secondary teacher; for the last 14 of these he worked half time in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, where he is currently a senior lecturer. He has had a career-long commitment to teacher research. In 1985, he co-founded the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL). This was a collaborative action research project led by teachers who shared concerns about passive, dependent learning. PEEL has subsequently spread to hundreds of schools in several countries. Ian convenes the project and is editor of a range of publications that have flowed from it. Judie Mitchell was a founding member of PEEL (in 1985), and has worked with teachers in PEEL groups for 21 years. She was most recently Head of Teaching and Learning at Brentwood Secondary College. Judie’s Ph.D. research focused on teacher knowledge and teacher professional development.

236

About the Authors

Kavita Mittapalli works as an education researcher and evaluator for a Virginiabased company while working on her PhD in Research Methodology from George Mason University, Virginia. In this capacity, she evaluates several federal, state and school districts’ program evaluation grants related to schools and community partnerships, education technology, high school reform, state improvement grants and after-school programs. Additionally, she works with professors/ researchers at George Mason University in special education and improving teacher quality and compensation initiatives. Ms. Mittapalli holds a B.S. degree in Agricultural Sciences from Banaras Hindu University, India, and an M.A. in Applied Sociology from George Mason University. She writes, publishes, and presents at various regional and national and international education conferences. Ellen Moir is founder and executive director of the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz. For more than 20 years, she has pioneered innovative approaches to new teacher development, research on new teacher practice, and the design and administration of teacher induction programs. Ellen continues to work with the Santa Cruz/Silicon Valley New Teacher Project and is an advocate for new teachers across the country. Ellen has received national recognition for her work, including the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. 2005 Prize in Education and the 2003 Distinguished Teacher Educator Award from the California Council on Teacher Education. Ellen is the author of several articles and book chapters and has produced video series related to new teacher development. Jennifer Magaha O’Looney is a doctoral student in Literacy and the Education of Young Diverse Learners at George Mason University. She holds graduate degrees in the areas of school psychology and experimental neuropsychology and is currently employed as a school psychologist with Prince William County Public Schools in Virginia. Mrs. O’Looney is a former special education teacher for students with autism and has spent much of her professional career working with students with low incidence disabilities. Her main areas of interest are family literacy, education of young children, multicultural education and practice, school mental health, learning differences, and child neuropsychology. Gennifer Otinsky is currently an educational consultant. Prior to that she was a sixth grade language arts/ social studies teacher for 13 years. She received her Bachelors at James Madison University in middle school education and has a Masters from Saint Peters College. She is interested in teaching for social justice, middle school inquiry, adolescent literature, theater and music, and arts integration across the curriculum. Lois M. Page is a retired high school English teacher and publication adviser who has mentored George Washington University teaching interns in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development for seven years. She also works as a consultant for the Prime Movers Project for GWU’s School of Media and Public Affairs which has its goal as the creation or rejuvenation of high school media programs. She is the project’s web master. A former high school English teacher,

About the Authors

237

Ms. Page holds a Master’s degree from West Virginia University in British Literature and a Bachelors in English from Dickinson College. Anita S. Ramsey is the Project Director of the Fairfax Transition to Teaching Partnership, a secondary teacher preparation program in collaboration with Fairfax, Virginia County Public Schools and The George Washington University. She has taught at all of levels of education from preschool through graduate school and has a background in both general education and special education. She received a Master of Arts in Behavioral Disabilities from the University of Wisconsin, Madison and requirements for a doctoral degree except for the dissertation at GWU. Her research interests include beginning teacher development, teacher concerns, and the intersection of theory and practice. Megan Riordan is a School Designer with Expeditionary Learning Schools Outward Bound (ELS) in New York City. She supports several ELS schools in Manhattan and facilitates professional development for teachers on both local and national levels. Megan received her doctorate in Education from New York University, with a research focus on experiential and internship-based education. Prior to earning her Ph.D., she taught middle school, high school, and university students in Chicago and abroad as a Peace Corps volunteer in Kazakhstan. She is currently collaborating with Emily J. Klein and Joseph P. McDonald on a book about scaling up successful high school designs. Janette Ryan is a senior lecturer in education at Monash University in Australia. She is the author of A Guide to Teaching International Students (Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, 2000) and coeditor of Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All (Routledge, 2005). Her research focuses on the adaptation of curriculum and pedagogy for diverse groups of learners, especially learners from diverse cultural backgrounds, and cross-cultural teaching. Her first degree was in Mandarin Chinese and she studied Chinese language and literature in China from 1980 to 1982 and subsequently taught Chinese in primary and secondary schools. Her recent research has involved examining Western and Confucian concepts of scholarship and learning and identifying differences and commonalities between the different cultures of learning and teaching. Anastasia P. Samaras is an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education at George Mason University where she has served as director of several teacher education programs. A former school teacher in Pre-K-12 settings, her 36 years of teaching and research experiences have continuously centered on learning communities in her practice. Current research interests include investigating her design of Vygotskian applications in curriculum, using the arts to teach research methods, and self-study of professional practices. Anastasia is author of Self-Study for Teacher Educators (2002), coeditor of Making a Difference in Teacher Education through Self-Study (2006), and coauthor of Self-Study of Teaching Practices (2006). Her research has developed with the support of an international community of self-study scholars and especially Anne, Clare, Clive, and her students.

238

About the Authors

Amanda Schwartz is a special education teacher in Northern Virginia and a private consultant working on early childhood issues. She has worked as a national consultant on education issues for the Federal government and completed her doctoral work at New York University after completing a dissertation study on administrative perspectives in special education decisions. Her work is rooted in her experiences as a teacher in inclusive classrooms working with students from diverse backgrounds. Stacey Sotirhos has been an elementary teacher, curriculum developer, and instructional support specialist for the New York City Department of Education. In her current position as a staff developer on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, she works with teachers, coaches, and administrators to make literacy accessible to all learners. Stacey has Masters Degrees in Teaching English as a Second Language and School Administration and Supervision. She obtained her doctorate in Elementary Education from New York University, specializing in teacher education and professional development. Barbara Stern is on the graduate school faculty of Bank Street College of Education. She is an adviser in the Working Teachers Pathway in the General Teacher Education Department and an instructor of courses in child development and observation. From 2004–2007, she was the coordinator of the Teachers for a New Era-funded induction program at Bank Street. She is particularly interested in collaborative learning opportunities for graduate students, graduates, and faculty. Amber Strong received her Master of Education in Teaching, and is currently pursuing a Doctoral degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Hawai’i. She is a National Board Certified teacher who has taught high school social studies for the past seven years. Amber has kept one foot in the university and one in her public high school classroom in an effort to understand how theory successfully translates to practice, especially in the area of social justice. Amber’s current project involves developing the curriculum for a violence prevention ethnic studies course. Patricia S. Tate is an Associate Professor of Elementary Education and Director of the Office of Laboratory Experiences, The George Washington University. She supports the professional development of university supervisors at GWU through various inquirybased initiatives. Dr. Tate holds a doctoral degree in Education, Policy, Planning and Administration from The University of Maryland, College Park and a Master’s degree in Elementary Education from George Mason University. Her research interests include supervision in teacher education, learning to teach, and beginning teacher development. Monica Taylor is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching in the College of Education and Human Services at Montclair State University. She began her career as a middle school teacher of Spanish and French in an alternative school in New York City. She has a Ph.D. in language, literacy, and culture from the University of Arizona. Her dissertation examined the ways that

About the Authors

239

Mexican American adolescent girls constructed identity through multiple sign systems. Her research revolves around several major themes including middle school inquiry, teaching for social justice, arts integration across the curriculum, professional development school partnerships, methods of self-study, action research, and co/autoethnography. In 2007, she published an edited book titled Whole Language Teaching, Whole Hearted Teaching: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Deborah Tidwell is an Associate Professor of Literacy Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Northern Iowa. She directs the UNI Reading Clinic where undergraduate and graduate students work at school sites with struggling readers and writers in a tutorial experience. Deborah has been active in selfstudy research for over a decade with a focus on reflective practice, on the development of nodal moments as a method of instructional reflection, and on issues of equity and access. In addition to her self-study research and literacy teaching, Deborah works with teachers in school-based dual language programs. Dawn Renee Wilcox holds a MEd. in Curriculum and Instruction and has been a science teacher for 16 years and is currently the Division Science Coordinator at Spotsylvania County Schools in Virginia. She was honored with the 2001 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Dawn Renee has published in referred and popular teacher journals such as Science and Children and in edited books and has presented at numerous international conferences. Her research interests include hands-on inquiry-based science instruction, brain research, how people learn, self-study, communities of teaching and learning, collaborative teaching, and staff development. Dawn Renee is also known as the Zoo Lady and once saved someone’s life by wrestling a crocodile to the ground in Australia! Caroline S. Wong has been the principal of Moanalua Middle School for over 15 years. During her tenure, she has guided the restructuring of a traditional junior high school into a fully implemented middle school to support the learning needs of early adolescents. The school has become one of the highest achieving middle schools in Hawai’i. In 2005, Mrs. Wong was named the Middle School Principal of the Year for Hawai’i.

Author Index

A Adams-Legge, M., 133–145 Aitchison, C., 188 Anundsen, K., 133 Asher, N., 105

B Baird, J.R., 7, 8 Ballinger, B., 117, 124 Banks, J.A., 104, 105, 107, 111 Barnes, D., 7 Barth, R., 3, 59, 74 Beck, C., xvi, xvii, 73–84, 90, 95, 105, 151–153, 223, 226 Beck, S., 207, 213 Bell-Angus, B., 19–30 Bereiter, C., 46 Berry, A., 174 Bigelow, B., 33 Biklen, S.K., 120 Bodrova, E., 197 Bogdan, R.C., 120 Boran, S., 33 Borko, H., 119, 125, 179 Boyer, E.L., 133 Breslin, D., 133–145 Brown, S., 214 Bruner, J., 22 Bullough, R.V., Jr., 120, 134, 135, 166 Burbank, M., 100 Burke, C., 33

C Canning, C., 173 Clandinin, D.J., 108, 213 Clark, C.M., 166 Clark, R., 188 Clemans, A., 174

Cleovoulou, Y., 73–84 Clift, R.T., 166 Cochran-Smith, M., 33, 38, 39, 106, 166 Coia, L., 32, 34 Collison, C., 119 Comber, B., 33 Connelly, F.M., 108, 213 Costa, A.L., 61 Crowe, A.R., 120 Cuban, L., 74, 75

D Daniels, H., 74 Darling-Hammond, L., 46, 59, 73, 74, 90 Davis, G., 19–30 Dewey, J., 40, 45, 46, 105, 106, 220 Dinkelman, T., 215 Dinkleman, T., 120, 134 Dixon, N.M., 119 Donoahue, Z., 19–30 Dorn, S., 117 DuFour, R., 68, 206, 209, 210 Duke, K., 179

E Eaker, R., 68 Ebbers, L.H., xvi Ely, M., 120 Engels, F., 202 Eraut, M., 179 Erickson, G., 179–190 Evans, T., 124

F Farmer, E., 194 Feldman, A., 106, 135 Feldman, N., 194 241

242 Ferry, B., 48 Fitzgerald, L.M., 165–175 Flavell, J.H., 7 Fosnot, C., 106 Freese, A.R., xvii, 3–4, 67, 70, 103–114, 134, 136, 137, 166, 205, 226 Freire, P., 38 Fullan, M., 73, 179, 206, 209, 210 Fulwiler, L., 215

G Gallimore, R., 197 Gardner, H., 224 Garmston, R.J., 61 Gay, G., 105, 111 Gergen, K.P., 195 Gibbs, J., 66 Gieve, S., 188 Gismondi, S., 90, 108 Gitlin, A., 166 Glaser, B.G., 36, 108, 139 Glasser, B.D., 120 Glennan, T.K. Jr., 162 Gordon, R.L., 36 Graves, L.N., xvi Grossman, P., xvi, 46, 47, 221 Guilfoyle, K., 166 Gunstone, R., 120

H Hamilton, M.L., 136, 166 Hammonds, S., 213 Hanna, D., 70 Hanson, S., 155–163 Hargreaves, A., 223 Harste, J., 33 Harste, J.C., 33 Hart, D., 74 Havelock, R.G., 215 Heston, M.L., 165–175 Hiebert, J., 62 Hirsch, G., 90 Hoban, G., 47, 48 Hoban, G.F., 45–57, 174 Hoffer, T.B., 117 Holzman, L., 193–202 Houston, R.W., 166 Huberman, M., 210 Hyde, A., 74 Hyerle, D., 66

Author Index I Ihrig, K., 214 Inman, A.G., 130

J Jackson, T., 105, 107 Jarrett, M., 207, 213 Jarrett, M.H., 205–216 Jenlink, P.M., 215 John-Steiner, V., 142

K Kalos, S., 188 Kang, C., 179–190 Kauchak, D., 100 Kessler, C., 59–71 Keynes, M., 69 Klein, E.J., 117–130 Korthagen, F.A.J., 136, 166 Kosnik, C., xvi, xvii, 62, 73–84, 90, 95, 105, 151–153, 219–229 Kostogriz, A., 174 Kowal, M., 19–30 Kravtsova, E., 137 Kumaravadivelu, B., 188

L LaBoskey, V.K., 135, 166 Lave, J., 118 Lawlor, A.C., 205–216 Lee, E., 33 Lee, W.O., 188 Lenning, O.T., xv Leong, D., 197 Lewis, C., 64 Li, Y., 186, 189 Lighthall, F., 221 Lipman, M., 104 Liston, D.P., 166 Lit, I., 91, 95, 99 Liu, K., 179, 180 Lobman, C., 194 Lobman, L., 194 Loughran, J., 70, 119, 120, 135 Loughran, J.J., 134, 136, 166, 183 Loughran. J., 68 Louie, K., 183, 188 Lyman, F., 214 Lytle, S.L., 33, 38, 39, 166

Author Index M Magaha O’Looney, J., 133–145 Mandzuk, D., 221 Marx, K., 202 Marzano, R., 62, 68 Massad, S., 194 McDermott, R., 151, 220, 221 McDonald, J., 129 McDonald, M., 90 McGlynn-Stewart, M., 19–30 McLaughlin, M.W., 130, 223 McNiff, J., 166 McTighe, J., 214 Meier, D., xv, 74, 83 Men, L.L., 189 Mendez, R., 195 Menkart, D., 33 Merriam, S.B., 139 Merseth, K., 213 Miles, M., 210 Miller, C., 173 Mitchell, I., 179–190 Mitchell, I.J., 7–9, 12, 17, 183, 184, 187 Mitchell, J.A., 9, 12, 17, 184 Mittapalli, K., 133–145 Moir, E., 155–163 Moore, E., 42 Morss, J., 195 Munby, H., 166

N Nagel, L., 214 Nespor, J., 179 Newman, F., 193, 195–197 Ninnes, P., 188 Noddings, N., 104, 119, 135, 229 Noffke, S., 108 Noffke, S.E., 206, 215 Northfield, J., 120, 134

O O’Connor, K., 214 Okamura, J., 103 Okazawa-Rey, M., 33 Otinsky, G., 31–43

P Page, L.M., 205–216 Paley, V., xv Papalewis, R., 117

243 Parcell, G., 119 Paterson, M., 136 Pauley, D., 130 Phan, L.H., 188 Pickering, D., 62, 68 Pinnegar, S., 120, 134, 135, 166 Placier, P., 166 Pollock, J., 62, 68 Pugach, M.C., 166 Punch, K., 76 Putnam, R.T., 119, 125

R Ramsey, A.S., 205–216 Resnick, L.B., 162 Richardson, V., 98, 106, 207, 215 Riordan, M., 117–130 Rogoff, B., 104, 197 Ross, G., 22 Russell, T., 119, 136, 166, 168, 169 Ryan, J., 179–190

S Salit, C.R., 194 Samaras, A.P., xvii, 87, 90, 106, 108, 133–145, 166, 205, 223 Sarason, S., 73 Scanlon, L.A., 32 Scardamalia, M., 46 Schmoker, M., 60 Schon, D.A., 207 Schramm, W., 134 Schuck, S., 168, 169 Schwandt, T.A., 120 Schwartz, A., 117–130 Seidman, I.E., 36 Senge, P., 46, 56 Sergiovanni, T.J., 74, 129, 221 Shaffer, C.R., 133 Short, K.G., 33 Shulman, J., 213 Silverman, B., 194 Silverstein, M.E., 130 Sincell, M., 119, 130 Smith, H.A., 144 Snyder, J., 91, 95, 99 Snyder, W., 151, 220, 221 Sotirhos, S., 117–130 Sperring, A., 32 Stern, B., 89–101 Stigler, J.W., 62

244 Stock, P.L., 34 Strauss, A.K., 120 Strauss, A.L., 108, 139 Strauss, A.S., 36 Strong, A.P., 103–114 Sutherland, L.M., 32 Sweller, J., 50

T Talbert, J., 130, 222, 223 Tate, P., 205–207, 212, 213 Tate, P.S., 205–216 Taylor, M., 31–43 Taymans, J.M., 213 Tesch, R., 120 Tharp, R.G., 197 Tidwell, D.L., 165–175 Toppo, G., 71 Torres-Guzmán, M., 100

V Vygotsky, L., 22, 23 Vygotsky, L.S., 88, 104, 136, 137, 196, 197

W Wasley, P., xv Watson, J., 136

Author Index Welch, V., 117 Wells, G., xv, 34 Wenger, E., 3, 32, 38, 40, 118, 119, 135, 151, 220, 221 Wesch, M., xvi Whitehead, J., 166 Whitlock, T., 120 Wilcox, D.R., 133–145 Wilcox, S., 136 Wineburg, S., 46, 47, 57 Wolcott, H.F., 120 Wong, C.S., 59–71 Wood, D., 22 Wood, G., 83

Y Yeager, C., 66 Yin, R.K., 139 York-Barr, J., 179

Z Zeichner, K., 106, 108, 135 Zeichner, K.M., 166 Zeichner, M., 206, 215 Zemelman, S., 74 Zhu, M., 179, 180

Subject Index

A Academics and teachers, interactions, 11–12 American Educational Research Association (AERA), 59, 166

B Bank Street College peer discussion groups challenges, 91–92 conceptualization, 92–93 debriefing meeting, 95–96 faculty facilitator role, 96 history and context, 90–91 individual interviews, 96–97 online discussions, 94–95 study group/class, 93–94 teacher education programs, 99–101 Bridge Street School collaborative enterprise, 79–80 common vision, 78–79 cross-curricular teaching, 82–83 instructional leaders, 80–81 principal’s role, 81–82 recommendations, 83–84 staff community, 77 student’s academic and personal development, 82–83 teacher leadership, 80–81

C Change agents community of inquiry, 41 teacher education, 42 Chinese curriculum reform educational reforms, 180–181 Ian’s role, 183–186 Kang’s role

educational context, 181–182 LDC projects, 182–183 PEEL, 182 Collaborative action research project. See Project for enhancing effective learning Collaborative enterprise, 79–80 Collaborative working group community concepts, 220 community of practice, 221 community types, 221 complementary styles and background knowledge, 224–225 dealing with tensions, 226–227 failure reasons, 222 impact “caring intelligence”, 229 experience sharing, 228–229 gaining respect, 228 productivity, 227–228 in separate institutions, 226 methodology, 222 projects, 222–224 research association, 220 S-STEP, 225–226 social constructivism, 223–224 College of Education and Human Development (CEHD), 133 Community of inquiry pre-service teachers and sixth graders data forms, 36 definition, 38 impact, 36–41 knowledge of practice, 33 ownership learning process, 37–38 professional development school partnership, 31 role sharing, 38–39 rationale, 32–33

245

246

Subject Index

Community of inquiry (cont.) scaffolded social justice exploration, 31 social justice teaching, 33–35 suggestions, 42–43 traits, 32 university and middle school, 31 views, 41 Community of practice activists, 40–41 learning-centered community, 32–33 ownership possibilities, 37–38 teacher reciprocity, 38–39 traits, 32 Constructivism challenges, 41–42 community of practice, 32 learning community, 31–32 Cross-curricular teaching, 82–83 Cross-faculty community, 12

Dissertation support group (DISGO) data analysis, 120 implications, 130 learning community, contexts, 118 recommendations commitment, 129 conflict and competition, 129 membership, 128 structure, 129 research context, 118–119 study, 119–120 supporting areas academic voice development, 124–125 job-search process, 127–128 personal, 125–127 technical and bureaucratic, 123–124 theme identification, 122–123 writing, 121–122 time frame and data collection, 120

D Developing inquiring communities in education project (DICEP) beneficial values, 30 community meetings, 23–24 development, 19 diversity impact, 30 e-mail conversation, 24 emerging issues fund collection, 29 group size and meeting, 28 leadership, 27 new members, 28–29 goals classroom nature, 22 collaborative knowledge, 20 improvable object, 20–21 proximal development zone teaching, 22 purposeful talk, 21–22 wider world connection, 22–23 groups involved, 19 member impact, 25–26 self-reflection, 24–25 sociocultural theory and classroom, 23 student impact, 26 Developing teachers fellowship program, 196 Developmental learning social therapy, 198 social-cultural joint activities, 197 ZPD, 197 DICEP. See Developing Inquiring Communities in Education Project

E East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy, 193 Effective learning. See Project for enhancing effective learning Effective Schools movement, 74–75

F Faculty facilitator role, 96 File folder system, 107–108

G Gemeinschaft communities, 221 Generic teaching procedures, 12 Gesellschaft communities, 221 Graduate school faculty peer discussion groups challenges, 91–92 conceptualization, 92–93 debriefing meeting, 95–96 faculty facilitator role, 96 history and context, 90–91 impact and insights, 97–99 individual interviews, 96–97 online discussions, 94–95 study group/class, 93–94 teacher education programs, 99–101

H Holonomy, 61–62

Subject Index I In and out of school learning, 195–196 Inquiry-based practices description, 205–206 meeting structure, 207 phases, 208–209 practitioner research, 206 professional inquiries, 212–214 reflective leadership, 206–207 self-study culture of care, 210 effective supervisory practices, 211–212 facilitative leadership, 210–211 methods, 209–210 reflection and perspective taking, 211 university supervisors, 207–208 International learning community castle conference, 166–167 conference programming and discourse norms, 171–173 local learning communities, 173–175 planning and editorial process, 167–171 self-study community, 165

L Leadership. See Teacher leadership Learning and developing community (LDC), 182 Learning community collaborative work community of practice, 221 community concept, 220 complementary styles and background knowledge, 224–225 dealing with tensions, 226–227 failure reasons, 222 impact, 227–229 in separate institutions, 226 methodology, 222 projects, 222–224 rationale, 32–33 research association, 220 S-STEP, 225–226 social constructivism, 223–224 community of inquiry activists, students, 40 challenges, 41–42 definition, 33 impact, 36–41 methods, 36 ownership possibilities, 37–38 roles of teacher and learner, 38–39

247 sixth graders’ engagement, 34–36 social justice teaching, 39–40 social justice views, 41 strategies in, 34 suggestions, 42–43 DICEP beneficial values, 30 development, 19 diversity impact, 30 e-mail conversation, 24 emerging issues, 27–29 goals, 20–23 groups involved, 19–20 meetings in community, 23–24 member impact, 25–26 self-reflection, 24–25 sociocultural theory and classroom, 23 student impact, 26 dissertation support groups data analysis, 120 implications, 130 recommendations, 128–129 research context, 118–119 study, 119–120 supporting areas, 121–128 time frame and data collection, 120 human development stages in and out of school, 195–196 innovative international programs, 199 social therapy, 194–195, 198 social-cultural joint activities, 197 unscientific psychology, 199 ZPD, 197 inquiry-based practices description, 205–206 meeting structure, 207 phases, 208–209 practitioner research, 206 professional inquiries, 212–214 reflective leadership, 206–207 self-study, 209–212 university supervisors, 207–208 multicultural education applying theory to practice, 106–109 context, 103–104 definition, 104–105 discussion/educational significance, 112–113 findings, 110–112 pedagogical approach, 109–110 planning, 105–106 suggestions, 113–114

248 Learning community (cont.) PEEL academics and teachers, interactions, 11–12 challenges, 15 cross-faculty community, 12 curriculum reforms, 15–18 decisions, 13 goals, 7–9 interdependent innovators, 9 long-term service, 14 poor learning tendency, 7–8 stimulation and support, 9–10 teacher’s responsibility, 13–14 self-study scholars catalysts, 143–144 description, 134–138 findings, 139–143 goals, 136 impact, 138–139 recommendations, 145 teacher induction buddy system, 156 clinical supervisors, 155–156 mentor community, 157–163 Learning community partnership action research, 69 aligning structures MEdT program, 62–64 middle school, 65–66 challenges and barriers commitment to instructional practices, 70 in-service teachers as mentors, 71 stability of university staff, 70 student achievement, 70–71 teacher training research, 70–71 commitment sharing, 61 Executive Council, 67 goals, 61 holonomy, 61–62 key elements, 69 professional development at MMS, 68–69 research-based best practices, 61 seminars for MEdT students, 67–68 site coordinator, 67 structure sharing, 66 vision sharing, 60–61 Learning zones (LZ), 137

M Master of Education in Teaching (MEdT) Program Executive Council meeting 2005, 60 requirements

Subject Index case study, 64 lesson study, 64 school portrait, 63–64 Mentor community forums and academies, 157–159, 161 learning communities, 161 NTC outreach coordinators, 158, 162–163 teaching role, 159 training and support, 157 Metacognition as necessary skill, 7 stimulation and support of students, 9–10 Middle schools movement, 74–75 Moanalua middle school (MMS) flexible block schedule, 65–66 interdisciplinary teams and planning, 65 looping, 65 staff development, team planning, 66 TRIBES processes, 66 Multicultural education theory and practice community building and intellectual safety, 107 developing relationships, 107 file folder system, 107–108 students’ personal histories, 108 Vygotsky’s ideas, 108 context, 103–104 definition, 104–105 discussion/educational significance, 112–113 findings anthology as multicultural text, 111–112 intellectual safety, 110–111 multiplicity of identities, 112 pedagogical approach data sources and data analysis, 110 methods and participants, 109 planning, 105–106 suggestions, 113–114

N New teachers peer discussion groups challenges, 91–92 conceptualization, 92–93 debriefing meeting, 95–96 faculty facilitator role, 96 history and context, 90–91 impact and insight, 97–99 individual interviews, 96–97 online discussions, 94–95 study group/class, 93–94 teacher education programs, 99–101

Subject Index P PDS. See Professional development school partnership PEEL. See Project for enhancing effective learning Peer discussion groups challenges, 91–92 conceptualization, 92–93 debriefing meeting, 95–96 faculty facilitator role, 96 history and context, 90–91 impact and insight ideas sharing, 97–98 like-minded educators, 97–98 nurture and support for educators, 97 professional growth opportunities, 98 renewal for teacher educators, 98 teacher educators’ role, 98–99 individual interviews, 96–97 online discussions, 94–95 study group/class, 93–94 Poor learning tendency, 7–8 Principal leadership. See Teacher leadership Professional community. See Staff community Professional development at MMS, 68–69 instructional strategies, 62 MEdT program structures, 62–64 middle school structures, 65–66 staff development, team planning, 66 Professional development school partnership (PDS) community of practice, 36–37 learning-centered community, 36 Professional growth opportunities, 98 Professional inquiries case writing, 213 supervisory practice guidelines, 212–213 teaching methodologies, 213–214 Professional learning communities (PLC) Chinese curriculum reform educational reforms, 180–181 Ian’s role, 183–186 Kang’s role, 181–183 preliminary findings collaborative action research, 186–187 cultural differences, 189–190 cultural stereotypes, 188–189 learning and teaching, 187–188 problems and issues, 187

249 working frame, 180 Project for enhancing effective learning (PEEL) academics and teachers, interactions, 11–12 challenges, 15 cross-faculty community, 12 curriculum reforms, 15–18 decisions, 13 goals, 7–9 interdependent innovators, 9 long-term service, 14 poor learning tendency, 7–8 stimulation and support, 9–10 teacher’s responsibility, 13–14

S S-STEP. See Self-study of teacher education practices School learning community Coniston Public School Animation Film Night, 55 origin, 45–46 psychological process, 45 “Slowmation” digital animations, 46–47 dough models, 52 in classrooms, 51 kindergarden classes, 51–54 mini movies, 48–49 photos and model movements, 53 teaching approach, 49–51 vision sharing and team learning, 56 vs. claymation, 49 teacher facilitator, 54–55 teacher learning conditions, 47–48 social interaction, 46–47 stages of, 46 School renewal collaborative enterprise, 79–80 common vision, 78–79 cross-curricular teaching, 82–83 principal’s role, 81–82 recommendations, 83–84 staff community, 77 student academic and personal development, 82–83 teacher leadership, 80–81 Self-study learning community class projects and assignments, 137 collaborative structure, 145 core catalysts, 144

250 Self-study learning community (cont.) description course design and process, 136–138 course, contexts, and nature, 134–136 goals, 136 findings academic and emotional support, 139–140 reflectiveness, 142–143 trust and openness, 140–141 understanding work collaboration, 141–142 work precision and clarity, 143 impact core catalysts, 144 data sources and assessments, 138 interactive learning community framework, 139 methods, 138–139 multiple professions, 145 Self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP), 220 international learning community castle conference, 166–167 planning and editorial process, 167–168 learning community productive group, 226 role, 225–226 “Slowmation” teaching approach animation film night, 55 construction, 50 digital animations, 46–47 in different subject areas, 51 kindergarten classes animation topics, 51 counting animation, 51–54 dough models, 52 group work, 53 learning prompts, 51 mini-movies, 48 phases of, 49–51 planning, 49–50 reconstruction, 50–51 vision sharing and team learning, 56 stop-motion animation, 47 storyboarding, 50 teacher facilitator, 54–55 vs. “claymation”, 49 Social justice agency, 41 challenges, 41–42 data forms, 36 inter-related dimensions, 39 strategies, 34–35

Subject Index teaching, 37 Social therapy, 194–195. See also Unscientific psychology Social-cultural joint activities, 197 Staff community, 77 Staff development, 66

T Tall poppy syndrome, 15 Teacher collaboration. See Collaborative enterprise Teacher education scholars, 99–101 castle conference AERA, 166 S-STEP learning community, 166–167 conference programming and discourse norms castle conference, 171 genuine community, 172–173 scheduling strategy, 172 local learning communities Deb’s story, 174–175 Linda’s story, 173–174 Melissa’s story, 173 planning and editorial process castle conference, 167–168 collegial friend, 169 professional intimacy, 168 self-study conference, 170–171 Teacher educators renewal, 98 role, 98–99 Teacher induction buddy system, 156 community leadership, 159–161 exemplary teachers, 155–156 forums and academies, 157–159 mentor training and support, 157 NTC models, 161–163 Teacher interns common needs, 214 supervision guidelines, 212–213 Teacher leadership, 80–81 Teacher/teacher interactions, 12 Teachers for New Era (TNE), 89 Team planning, 66 TRIBES processes, 66

U University Internal Review Board (IRB), 123 University of Hawai’i (UH), 67 University Supervisor Group (USG), 205, 212

Subject Index Unscientific psychology, 199 Urban educational renewal. See School renewal Urban school renewal. See School renewal USG. See University Supervisor Group

W Whole-school approach Bridge Street School collaborative enterprise, 87–88 common vision, 86–87 principal’s role, 89–90

251 recommendations, 91–92 staff community, 85–86 student academic and personal development, 90–91 teacher leadership, 88–89 context and methodology, 84 theoretical framework, 82–84

Z Zone of possibility (ZOP), 137 Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 136, 197–198

Learning Communities in Practice (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Teaching Africa: Towards a Transgressive Pedagogy (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Critical Pedagogy and the Everyday Classroom (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice

Narrative Life: Democratic Curriculum and Indigenous Learning (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Cultivating Communities of Practice

Breaching the Colonial Contract: Anti-Colonialism in the US and Canada (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Critical Pedagogy and Teacher Education in the Neoliberal Era: Small Openings (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Educational Change: From Traditional Education to Learning Communities

Teaching, Learning, and Loving: Reclaiming Passion in Educational Practice

The Education of Diverse Student Populations: A Global Perspective (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Explorations in Learning and the Brain: On the Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Educational Science

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP & LEARNING: Practice, Policy and Research

User-centered Design of Online Learning Communities

Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information And Knowledge Management

Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information And Knowledge Management

Network Learning for Educational Change

Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage

Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice

Going Virtual: Distributed Communities of Practice

Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice

The Materiality of Learning: Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives)

Learning Communities 2.0: Educating in the Age of Empowerment

Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice

Communities of Practice in Health and Social Care

Paulo Freire: Teaching for Freedom and Transformation: The Philosophical Influences on the Work of Paulo Freire (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Purpose

Purpose

Learning Communities in Practice (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Teaching Africa: Towards a Transgressive Pedagogy (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Critical Pedagogy and the Everyday Classroom (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice

Narrative Life: Democratic Curriculum and Indigenous Learning (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Cultivating Communities of Practice

Breaching the Colonial Contract: Anti-Colonialism in the US and Canada (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Critical Pedagogy and Teacher Education in the Neoliberal Era: Small Openings (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Educational Change: From Traditional Education to Learning Communities

Teaching, Learning, and Loving: Reclaiming Passion in Educational Practice

The Education of Diverse Student Populations: A Global Perspective (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Explorations in Learning and the Brain: On the Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Educational Science

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP & LEARNING: Practice, Policy and Research

User-centered Design of Online Learning Communities

Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information And Knowledge Management

Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information And Knowledge Management

Network Learning for Educational Change

Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage

Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice

Going Virtual: Distributed Communities of Practice

Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice

The Materiality of Learning: Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives)

Learning Communities 2.0: Educating in the Age of Empowerment

Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice

Communities of Practice in Health and Social Care

Paulo Freire: Teaching for Freedom and Transformation: The Philosophical Influences on the Work of Paulo Freire (Explorations of Educational Purpose)

Purpose

Purpose

Recommend Documents