thesisthoughts

One of the books GP introduced me to while I was in Melbourne was:

Private readings in public : schooling the literary imagination by Dennis Sumara.

I want to start with some short quotes in which Sumara describes the research process. I found this first chapter of the book very reassuring – I will attempt to explore the reasons why.

“This is also what it means to include research into one’s life. Like the reading of literary fictions, inquiry into lived experiences means deciding that the research will not simply be reduced to a series of “data gathering” tasks. Rather, it means that the researcher will dedicate her or his life to “learning to see” differently… the researcher must live a life that allows for this shift in perception, a life that includes a particular “focal practice”… (p. 9).

I believe that my decision to continue on with my study journey, beyond my Masters degree is strongly connected to this change in focus described by Sumara. I have honestly begun to learn to see the world in general and my work as an educator, in particular, differently.  I admit that this learning will probably be life long and that reflection and inquiry  will  be be developed slowly over time. I feel that every professional conversation, every text read and every new project which arises is somehow new material to be explored.

“During the course of my investigations into the schooling of shared reading there were many times when I felt a bit lost, unsure, confused and wished for the “good old” pre-determined research plan. In retrospect, I am pleased that I chose to put up with the ambiguity of it all, for although many deliberate decicisions were made that changed the course of the research path, as many unanticipated things occured that dramatically altered the course of my own understanding” (p. 11-12).

Each time I read another researcher openly admitting to the insecurities encounted on the road to success, I am relieved and grateful for their honesty. I imagine that my path will be crowded with questions, problems, dilemmas, dissatisfaction and doubt. The more I am convinced that this is natural and normal, the easier it will be to cope.

When I finished my Masters thesis and reflected on the process, I, like Sumara, was “pleased that I chose to put up with the ambiguity of it all”. I would never have reached my goal without it. Even now, I have no idea how the parts of the puzzle fit together, it certainly wasn’t planned ahead.

“I describe my inquiries as “post modern” because I am not claiming (or aiming) to present a unified, fixed or complete theory of reading or of shared reading in schools. I acknowledge that my inquiries evolved from a particular set of historical, cultural, and political situations that shaped not only my research method but my interpretations of the data that was gathered and the life that I lived around those inquiries and interpretations” (p. 12).

This quotation is brilliant and it seems I should read it aloud to myself at each intersection in my work. One of my goals is to look at how my interpretations are developing and how my life experience and my particular cultural context are influencing my work.

“There is a deep understanding that there is no word, no phrase, no theory, no narrative, that can ever capture the fullness of human thought and experience” (p. 14).

Another sentence that should be hung up above the desk. Experience and narrative are not the same thing. I should be exploring the relationship between them more.

When I mentioned to GP, my supervisor, that I was intending to attend the AATE conference in Hobart, his first reaction was: “Of course you are going to give a paper…”. I wasn’t intending on presenting a paper, in fact I thought I would attend my first conference as a listener and as a learner, and that some time in the future I would try my hand at presenting my work. I had no idea how this type of conference works in Australia, even in Israel I have only been to a few.

As usual, when encouraged by my supervisor to present my work to others, I felt inclined to try. I sat down (fairly quickly) and prepared my abstract. I told myself that if it wasn’t accepted I would still have the rich learning experience I was looking forward to, and that if it was accepted, I would worry about it later.

I have written enough about my anxiety and have shared my experiences delaying the preparation of the paper. I will now try to explore how the paper went (from my subjective point of you, of course). I am writing this three weeks after returning from the conference.

My paper was set to be given in a fancy board room with a large table and comfortable meeting chairs. From a technical point of view, everything went according to plan and my Powerpoint presentation worked well.

I was convinced that nobody would come to hear me, especially as this was the last session of the conference and there were another 14 sessions going on at the same time. Being up against a large session on the National Curriculum was especially tough competition.

In the end, I was relieved that I had a small audience and began my presentation on time. I was thrilled that the educators present stopped me to ask questions and to comment. If I had been worried about time, the paper fitted the hour perfectly.

I was especially pleased that each of the participants (those I didn’t know) shared what she was taking away from the session.

I am still trying to build my identity as a researcher, it’s a title I don’t yet feel comfortable wearing. I can honestly say that daring to present at AATE was a significant step in seeing myself in this new role. I’m happy I chose to present some of my Lit review in the paper, I feel it was relevant and important background to the work I have been doing.

Having one of the participants email me and then look up my blog was special for me. I thank her for her interest.

That seems to be it for my Masters thesis – squeezing two journal articles and a conference paper out of it has been rewarding and satisfying. Now it is clear to me that I will need to find new angles and experiences to write about.

I have some ideas, but no time!

I have one week left here in Australia and am already apprehensive about saying goodbye to family. It is comforting to know that my studies will bring me back again in the not too distant future.

OK, I’ve been in Australia for a week and a half already, and I feel that if I don’t start recording a bit of what I am going through, it will be lost.

I left Israel the day school finished for the year. Exhausted and stressed, I parted from my colleagues and from everything that the school year demands of me and got on the plane with my two younger children. Thank goodness they were cooperative and we all slept most of the way to Australia. The family welcome we received was as always, wonderful… our visit had begun.

Mylife is always intense, rushed and pressured, and so was the beginning of my month out here. The next morning, at 9 am, I was supposed to be at Monash University for the MERC (Monash Education Research Conference). I was panicking about finally turning up at the uni in person, after 3 years of online study. I was shy and unsure of how the day would go.

The day was interesting and varied. I payed particular attention to the kinds of work the research students were presenting and how they presented themselves as students and researchers.

The highlight of my day was finally meeting GP my supervisor and we had a nice lunch together. It seems to me that meeting someone face-to-face after years of online conversation is as unnerving as a real first time meeting.

The next article I attempt to write may very well be about distance education and the experiences I have had with it.  

After a weekend off (crammed full of family commitments), I was back at Monash on Monday and Tuesday. The Winter School for postgraduate students was a terrific way to get the feel of the campus, of the research assistance available and to start to chat to other new (and not so new) PhD students. The workshops were interesting and relevant and gave me a sense that I’m really getting started and that this PhD idea is viable.

I especially enjoyed the workshop by Dr  Judy Williams and Ros Winters on Self Study. The session on Autoethnography by Dr Peter De Vries and the sessions on writing by Rosemary Viete and Anne Prince were also very worthwhile.

One of the highlights of those days was going into the Matheson Library for the first time. The library staff have given me so much assistance over the past three years and really have catered for all my research needs, despite me being on the other side of the world. When I got to the Education section and started seeing the books I had used for my thesis (scanned as PDF files or read as ebooks) I almost couldn’t breathe. The excitement was immense. I had butterflies in my stomache and was simply overcome by the experience. I was shocked at my own reaction.

I took five books from the library that day. As I approached the loans desk, like a normal student doing an everyday act, only I was aware that I was a student in my fourth year at Monash, touching “real” library books for the first time.

My next post will tell about my experiences at the AATE coference in Hobart.

I was happy to see that Sage are having another month of free access to all of their journals. They can be accessed here.

 The first article I chose to read is by Hilda Borko, one of the researchers cited in the Stanford report (although they cite a different study). This article maps the research which has been completed or is currently underway in the field of PD and teacher learning, but more importantly, it outlines necessary directions for new research.

Borko presents examples of policy papers (e.g. No Child Left Behind – 2001) which call for “high-quality” PD programs for teachers. She notes that these policy makers do not usually include descriptions of what constitutes quality programs and guidelines how they can be achieved. Citing the work of Ball and Cohen (1999) and Putnam and Borko (1977), the author claims that PD programs are usually “fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do not take into account what we know about how teachers learn” (p. 3).

 Borko believes that much progress has been made in the past 20 years of research, and that there is evidence available that teacher learning can influence instruction and student learning. Despite this progress, she is aware that “we are only beginning to learn, however, about exactly what and how teachers learn from professional development, or about the impact of teacher change on student outcomes” (p. 3).

The author adopts the situative theory of learning which views “learning as changes in participation in socially organized activities, and individuals’ use of knowledge as an aspect of their participation in social practices” (p. 4). She quotes Adler (2000, p. 37) “… a process of becoming knowledgeable in and about teaching”.

 Teacher learning takes place in a variety of different contexts, in the classroom, at school and in PD frameworks. Research on the professional learning of teachers must examine the teachers as individual learners and the context in which the learning is based.

Borko lists the main elements of PD systems:

• “The professional development program;
• The teachers, who are the learners in the system;
• The facilitator, who guides teachers as they construct new knowledge and practices; and
• The context in which the professional development occurs” (p. 4).

 The author chooses to divide research into three phases, each continuing on from the previous phase.

“Phase 1 research activities focus on an individual program at a single site. Researchers typically study the professional development program, teachers as learners, and and the relationship between these two elements of the system. The facilitator and the context remain unstudied. In phase 2, researchers study a single professional development program enacted by more than one facilitator at more than one site, exploring the relationship among facilitators, the professional development program and teachers as learners. In phase 3, the research focus broadens to comparing multiple professional development programs, each enacted at multiple sites. Researchers study the relationships among all four elements of a professional development system: facilitator, professional development program, teachers as learners and context”. (p. 4).

Aims of the different phases:

• Phase 1 – to prove that a particular PD program can have a positive influence on teacher learning.
• Phase 2 – to determine whether a particular PD program can be delivered “with integrity”, in different locations by different facilitators.
• Phase 3 – “to provide comparative information about the implementation, effects, and resource requirements of well-defined professional development programs” (p. 11).

Phase 1 -

• Most of the research done to date has been this kind.
• usually small studies
• usually the creators of the program are the researchers.
•  ”evoke images  of the possible… not only documenting that it can be done, but also laying out at least one detailed example of how it was organized, developed, and pursued” (Shulman. 1983, p. 495).
• provide evidence of the positive influence of teacher learning communities on learning and instruction.
• “Records of practice are powerful contexts for teacher learning” (p. 7). (e.g. videos of lessons, student work, lesson plans).
• The challenge of exploring the individual teacher learner and the community is discussed.

Phase 2:

“A professional development program must be well defined and clearly specified before researchers can investigate how it is enacted by multiple facilitators in multiple settings, and what resources are needed to ensure its effectiveness” (p. 9).

Borko did not find any programs which are able to prove that they can be presented “with integrity” in different locations by different facilitators. She does however bring a few examples of programs (like the NWP), which are aiming towards this goal or are widespread.

In my experience… In previous years, when we used to sit as a team to plan PL courses, they always turned out to be very different, despite the similar content. The way a facilitator understands the material, the group of teachers participating (motivation, background knowledge, willingness to take learning to the classroom and bring it back for reflection…) and even the physical conditions at the PD centre (technology, atmosphere, set up of tables…) all make a huge difference.

Today, I am teaching the same material in two different sites and I can see that the courses are very different. The differences between the groups and even the physical conditions at the teachers’ centre determine, very often, how the workshop will be delivered.

Phase 3:

“Research tasks include gathering and analyzing data from multiple professional development programs, as they are enacted by multiple facilitators at multiple sites” (p. 11).

The author does not know of any phase 3 research that has been done, despite its importance for resource allocation.

Directions for future PD design and research:

• important for research to be done in all 3 phases
• investigating whether the characteristics of effective PD programs can be utilized when planning PD in a different content area.
• Projects like the NWP should explore whether their content and materials are sufficiently clear to enable other sites to  present them “with integrity”.
• Phase 2 must explore the dilemmas associated with “fidelity and adaptation”. “Which elements of a program must be preserved to ensure the integrity of its underlying goals and principles” (p. 13).
• In stage 3 there will be a need for new data collection and analysis tools.
• Stage 3 research – “resource requirements for successful enactment of professional development programs and impact on teacher and student learning” (p. 13).

Reading this article has helped me put my blurry image of my research into perspective. According to Borko’s division into 3 phases, my work will be stage one.. or maybe stage 2…? 

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-15.

Lather wrote this article in an attempt to understand the US government push for “evidence-based” scientific research in education. In this move, “the reductionisms of positivism, empiricism, and objectivism are assumed” (p. 16).

The author sees the return to the mandate of scientific research to be a reaction to the growth of alternative research methods and their use by women and political and cultural minorities.

Lather  explains that this is not the first time that scientific method as a solitary research path has been critiqued. She admits that she believed that there was a chance for policy to be shaped by non-traditional research.

Addressing this restricting connection between government policy and scientific research , Cochran-Smith (2002) wrote that in order to be financially supported “educational research must be evaluated “using experimental or quasi-experimental designs… with a preference for random-assignment experiments (Cochran-Smith , 2002, as cited in Lather, 2004, p. 18).

Lather reminds us that “The shift to qualitative methods in the 1970s was related to the difficulties of measuring what is educationally significant and th limits of causal models given the preponderance of interaction effects” (p. 20).

Which organizations are running after research money?

Which studies are encouraged and for what purposes?

Who pays for research grants and why?

Lather calls for educational researchers to refrain from following the natural sciences. She encourages researchers to ask complex questions, those that do not have single dimensional answers and in doing so, to “foster understanding, reflection, and action instead of a narrow translation of research into practice” (p. 23).

Lather sets out to disrupt the dominance of the white, male, academic voice in the production of educational knowledge.

Lather argues that although non-traditional research cannot be judged on “objectivity and systematicity” (p. 24), it is no less capable of valid knowledge production.

Lather optimistically remarks that “A rich production of counter-narratives is alive and kicking” (p. 26).

I believe I am part of this movement, making an effort to make other, more diverse voices heard in the production of educational knowledge.

Lather explains “… there is virtually no agreement … as to what constitutes science except, increasingly, the view that science is, like all human endeavor, a cultural practice and practice of culture” (p. 28).

Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry,10(1), 15-34. doi:10:10.1177/1077800403256154

 Information from the Israeli Macam center

 The work of this group of teachers is based on the premise that “inquiry is central to the work of teaching, that it requires community, and that communities of practice can take  a myriad of forms” (p. 596). These teachers have formed a community of learning, despite the geographical distance between them.

An interesting point made is that the teachers searched for this kind of professional support group despite the fact that they were seasoned teachers. They mention feeling disappointed and secluded in their classrooms.

The authors, teacher educators, are concerned with two problems:

1. Teachers are expected to teach “in dialogic ways” but have never been taught anything in this manner.
2. They “rarely have the opportunity to experience sustained exploration of a complex idea, let alone through dialogic practices” (p. 598).

The authors cite Gavalek and Raphael (1996) who described learning as “as a complex, iterative process of social engagement, reflection, and transformation” (p. 602).

The authors argue that teachers are detached from their colleagues in their work and that their professional lives are dictated by others. “Missing from the lives of teachers is the opportunity to articulate and investigate with others the means for improving our practice and the learning of those with whom we work.” (p. 606). Learning communities are suggested as an appropriate solution.

The authors base these understandings on the theories of learning suggested by Vygotsky (1978). “Individuals learn, but that learning begins, and is based in, social activity or the social plane. This social plane is reflected in the public and shared discourse of the teacher study groups as ideas are appropriated and transformed” (p. 606).

The work of Swales (1990) and Gee (1992), also helped the authors understand the significance of social communication. “Knowledge of the language practices within a discourse community provides access to that community and defines who the community members are. Language is a key factor in the development of our identities-as professionals, as educators, as literacy educators, and as teacher researchers.

Understanding the importance of the discourse community helps us to create opportunities for access and opportunities to harness the power of conversation to move beyond the immediate setting and effect important changes in practice” (p. 606).

I like the balanced statement appearing at the end of the article:

“Thus, while we are not naive about the historical privileging of academic research in which teachers serve as “subjects” or “informants”, we are also not sanguine about such work. We underscore teacher research as another powerful, but-like university-driven research-also limited genre for the study of education” (p. 606).

Raphael, T. E., Florio-Ruane, S., Kehus, M. J., George, M. A., Levorn Hasty, N., & Highfield, K. (2001). Thinking for ourselves: Literacy learning in a diverse teacher inquiry network. The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 596-607.

OK, it looks from my blog that things are slowing down but I’m not so sure.

What have I been doing?

I have written a narrative,  around 3000 words so far, about writing in my own personal experience and the forming of my professional identity. I am waiting for feedback on my methodology chapter and I already know it needs work.

 Literature Review 

I have been reading everything available on the role of writing in teacher PD and identity. A lot deals with reflective practice. I am noticing some kind of patterning in the lit and have tried organizing the materials into a diagram. Now I plan going back to the books and articles I have read in order to check my diagram and enter article names and dates. If this works, this is a major breakthrough.

One point particularly relevant to me at this stage is the extra benefits of collaborative writing and written conversation. The more I read and compare these processes with the almost solitary work I am doing, the more frustrated I get.

All  in all I am very happy with my learning and am busy trying to work out what I’m going to do with all of this in the real world.  One thing I’m sure of – the professional learning activities I organize for teachers will never be the same again…

More about changing the world later!

Questions for the Lit Review – Diagram from the NSWU Learning Centre

                    (Not all relevant for my work)

Dyson discusses the methodology of auto ethnography (he writes the term as 2 words) and the use of metaphors in narrative research writing.

Some of the issues dealt with in the article:

• The advantages and disadvantages of researching areas in which the researcher is involved professionally and emotionally.
• The question of objectivity – should research of this kind portray objectivity?

The author describes the process through which he understood that research through personal narrative is legitimate:

 Looking more seriously at autoethnography I decided to look for a relevant example.  In this journal article, Duarte describes her experiences in professional development, looks critically at her narratives and draws conclusions relevant for her teaching and for the work of other educators.

I paid particular attention to the way she presents the different parts of her paper in the abstract and then goes on to signpost them:

“The first part provides a brief introduction of autoethnography as a reflexive writing genre; the second part presents the broad narrative – that of myself as a ‘neophyte pedagogue on a journey of discovery’; the third part reflects on the challenges of the implementation of the redesigned subjects (courses) in the aftermath of the project, and the fourth part raises some important institutional issues that emerged from the experience” (p. 1). 

The author writes of her “shifts of consciousness” (p.1) as she learned new educational theories and mastered new teaching abilities. This is in fact what I am aiming to follow in the next few weeks. I am planning to examine my teaching practices and to compare them with the many exciting thoughts which have been filling my consciousness in the past few months. It is clear to me that I will be making enormous changes in  practice when I get back into the classroom in September. In addition, my ideas for a totally different PD program are already forming and taking shape.

The author quotes Ellis & Bochner (2000 p. 793) and gives their definition of autoethnography:

“an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness, connecting the personal to the cultural” (p. 2). Duarte describes autoethnography “As a reflexive genre of writing” it “situates the self within the context of a culture, sub-culture or group, and studies one’s experience along with that of other members of the group…Autoethnography has no pretense of objectivity” (p. 2). She explains:

“Autoethnographic writing begins with a descriptive narrative of events and activities that unfold within a particular culture and then develops into a reflective analysis of these events and activities to generate new insights and to enhance the researcher’s sensitivity towards the knowledge gained in the process” (p. 2).

Duarte writes about those moments in her learning which caused her to stop,and examine her practice differently. She calls those “aha moments” and borrows a helpful term from Mezirow (1990) a “transformative learning” incident (p.6).

It was interesting for me to see how the author made the shift from personal to what she calls “institutional” focus. She lists the various issues arising from her studies and describes the challenges and questions which remain open.

Duarte, F. (2007). Using autoethnography in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Reflective practice from the ‘other side of the mirror’. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl