Category Archives: self-study

More about the conference…

Posted on by
Reply

idea

Dr Noga Hermon discussed the use of cognitive mapping to represent “ideational knowledge” visually. Although her paper discussed mathematics education, I was reminded of the use of mapping and I have been playing around with ideas how to include it in my work with teachers. A map of “ideational knowledge” is similar to a semantic map but uses 13-16 concepts which were carefully chosen ahead of time. A sentence must join two concepts, not a single word. In Dr Hermon’s research, the map is created in the framework of a closed interview. The map portrays far more knowledge on each concept than pure definitions.

Dr Leah Shagrir of Levinsky discussed the importance and contribution of self study in teacher education. She discussed the use of autoethnographic research methods.

I enjoyed the comparison made between the portrait painted in oil paints by the artist and the self portrait portrayed by the qualitative researcher. The artist produces a peice which can be significant for others. An artist will produce different self portraits at different times  – he or she sees himself differently at different crossroads. The portrait is an interpretation, the figure is created differently each time.

The researcher should be aware of the reader and what he or she can learn from the text. There should be space for the reader to bring his or her own experience to the reading. The researcher should remember that it is not only his or her text, it is the story of all those involved.

An interesting point stressed was that teacher education should be seen as a profession and that the teacher educator must therefore be an expert. He or she must possess excellent teaching skills as there must be an additional level, one of modelling teaching and reflection. This is of course in contrast with lecturers in other fields.

In the same session on self study in teacher education, the paper which captured my attention most was presented by Dr Rina Brenner, of The Kibbutzim College of Education. This paper was about encouraging personal growth through written response.

Dr Brenner pointed out that today many people think of “response” as a quick reply in a chat or blog. Brenner discussed the written responses she shares with her students as a teacher educator and researcher. Her study examines her own teaching practice, in particular the written responses to student writing in online reading logs. 

Questions Brenner asks herself are similar to the questions I pose when examining my own role in the online campus when teachers post their teacher narratives: In which role am I writing these remarks? As a lecturer? a teacher? a researcher?

An article by Robinson & MacMillan, 2006 was cited here. I found: The ethnography of empowerment : the transformative power of classroom interaction/ Heljä Antola Robinsonin the Monash Library and another article on the web about Professional Development.

Brenner instructs her 3rd year students to choose a childrens’ book, read it and respond periodically in an online reading log. This task is similar to the reading logs I used to run with my primary students. Each student writes 6-8 chapters in the reading log. Each chapter is responded to by Dr Brenner and often there is a chain discussion as a result.

Brenner makes a distinction  betweeen  feedback and response. Feedback is seen as an organisational tool which reflects a pedagogic dialogue according to specific professional  conventions. This feedback is aimed at strengthening or improving specific teaching practices. A response is different, it echoes and answers a particular text and its ideas. The response has no predetermined goals, it is a journey, a search. The response is viewed as an teaching practice which stimulates learning. This is a text which is directed at a specific reader.

An intimate circle of participants is formed.  Brenner describes several circles: the inner circle, the interpersonal circle (dialogue), the group circle and the public circle (publishing the research).

I was surprised to realize how close Dr Brenner’s work with these students is to my work with in service teachers. The way I respond to teacher narratives on the virtual campus, in a closed online environment is very similar. As I always try to do, Brenner looks for “what there IS” in a text and not what is missing or problematic. There is a constant search for what touched me in a student’s writing which will help me touch someone else. Brenner opens her response with a personal greeting, a description of how she read the text, in what context, a reflection of the topics covered in the chapter,  and discussion on one of the issues raised. The text ends personally. The response often involves personal memories, aspects Brenner especially likes and points to opportunities which arise from the text.

There are three aspects covered here: cognitive, emotional and dialogic. The response reflects, represents , reinforces and empowers everything the text brings with it. This written dialogue is a process of building interpersonal relationships.

I spoke to Dr Brenner after the session and will continue my discussion with her by email – I feel that we are doing similar work and that I have a lot to learn from her. In general, I came away from the conference with a feeling of community, that there are indeed researchers in Israel doing the kind of research I am, people who can understand my work and even be partners in professional dialogue.

RF pic:  http://www.images.com/

New Articles

Posted on by
Reply
TI: Teacher Learning: the Key to Educational Reform
  AU: Lieberman, Ann; Pointer Mace, Deslree
SO: Journal of Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 59   NO. 3   ,pp.226-234
AB: This letter to the next president of the United States recommends the transformation of teacher in-service learning as a powerful means of education reform. Too often, professional development is perceived by teachers as being idiosyncratic and irrelevant. The authors recommend a reconceptualization of professional learning for practicing teachers, in which educators are involved in learning communities, these communities evolve over time, and they revolve around norms of openness, scholarly rigor, and collaborative construction of professional knowledge. The authors describe three such environments of professional learning—the National Writing Proje ct, the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and the Quest Project for Signature Pedagogies in Teacher Education—and recommend that the incoming chief executive should capitalize on the strengths of such programs and extend them to many more teachers nationwide.
KW: teacher learning • communities of practice • professional development • online networks
TI: Teacher learning through reciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences
  AU: Zwart, R.C.; Wubbels, Th.; Bolhuis, S.
SO: Teaching and Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 24   NO. 4   ,pp.982-1002
AB: Just what and how eight experienced teachers in four coaching dyads learned during a 1-year reciprocal peer coaching trajectory was examined in the present study. The learning processes were mapped by providing a detailed description of reported learning activities, reported learning outcomes, and the relations between these two. The sequences of learning activities associated with a particular type of learning outcome were next selected, coded, and analyzed using a variety of quantitative methods. The different activity sequences undertaken by the teachers during a reciprocal peer coaching trajectory were found to trigger different aspects of their professional development
KW: Learning process; Learning activity; Activity sequence; Reciprocal peer coaching; Professional development

 

TI: Interaction in Online Courses for Teacher Education: Subject Matter and Pedagogy
  AU: McCrory, R.; Putnam, R.; Jansen, A.
SO: Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 16   NO. 2   ,pp.155-180
AB: This article explores results from a research project studying teacher learning and faculty teaching in two online courses for teachers in a master’s degree program. We focus on the interactions among students in online small-group discussions. We argue that three aspects of the online cours es impact the way students enter into discussions online, and consequently, what they have opportunities to learn: (a) the subject matter itself, (b) the representations and media through which the subject matter is engaged, and (c) the tasks students are asked to carry out online. In addition, we argue that students’ disposition to engage in constructive discourse (or not) is an important and only partly controll :able factor in what happens in online discussion.
KW: Educational Technology; Collaboration; eLearning;Professional Development;Teaching Methods;Multimedia
TI: ‘That’s not treating you as a professional’: teachers constructing complex professional identities through talk
  AU: Cohen, Jennifer L.
SO: Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,  2008   VOL. 14   NO. 2   ,pp.79 – 93
AB: Public debates about the role of teachers and teacher performance place teachers at the center of a range of national and local discourses. The notion of teacher professional identity, therefore, framed in a variety of ways, engages people across social contexts, whether as educators, parents, students, taxpayers, voters or consumers of news and popular media. These highly contested discourses about teachers’ roles and responsibilities constitute an important context for research on teachers and teaching, as researchers and educators ask how changes to the teaching profession affect teacher professional identity. This article investigates the identity talk of three mid-career teachers in an urban, public school in the USA, to better understand how the teachers used language to accomplish complex professional identities. Research approaches to teacher identity often focus on teacher narrative as a key tool in identity formation. The analysis presented here extend s our understanding of language as a resource in teacher identity construction by using discourse analysis to investigate how speakers use implicit meaning to accomplish the role identity of teacher. The analytical lens draws on an interdisciplinary framework that combines a sociological approach to teacher as a role identity with an investigation of language as a cultural practice, grounded in the ethnography of communication. The analysis focuses on how teachers use specific discourse strategies – reported speech, mimicked speech, pronoun shifts, oppositional portraits, and juxtaposition of explicit claims – to construct implicit identity claims that, while they are not stated directly, are central to accomplishing teacher as a role identity. The analysis presented here focuses on the particular implicit role claim of teacher as collaborator. Findings show that, in their identity talk, the teachers strategically positioned themselves in relation to others and to institutio nal practices, actively negotiating competing discourses about teacher identity by engaging in a counter discourse emphasizing teachers’ professional role as knowledge producers rather than information deliverers, collaborative, rather than isolated, and as agents of change engaged in critical analysis to plan action. Awareness of how these counter discourses operate in the teachers’ conversation helps us better understand the cultural significance of identity talk as a site for the negotiation of the significances for the role identity of teacher. In addition, the notions of role identity and implicit identity claims offer an accessible way to talk about the complexity of teacher identity, which can be helpful for increasing awareness of the importance of teacher identity in teacher education and professional development, and in bringing teachers’ voices more prominently into the debates over education
KW: discourse analysis; id entity talk; secondary school teachers; urban schools; teacher characteristics; role identity

 

TI: Teachers reflecting on their work: articulating what is said about what is done
  AU: Marcos, Juan Jos; Snchez, Emilio; Tillema, Harm
SO: Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,  2008   VOL. 14   NO. 2   ,pp.95 – 114
AB: Teachers’ written reflections on their work, which report on a change in their practice, were the object of this research. Taking teachers’ articulation of their plans and actions in teacher journals as our source, this s tudy’s aim is twofold: (1) to describe how teacher reflect in a self-initiated and non-framed way on their own practice, and (2) to review teacher self generated reflections in reference to models of reflection. In this way, we tried to disclose what precisely teachers write (said) when reflecting on their work (did) in order to appreciate their way of describing what matters in their work; and position this in reference to models that conceptualise (“talk”) on how to actualise (‘walk’) reflection. This ‘double’ articulation of reflection is gauged in two ways, i.e., on: a) completeness, that is, whether it includes relevant components of reflection (models) to be found in the literature, and on b) recursiveness, that is, whether the written account gives evidence of an integrated cyclical, i.e., recursive process of re-view, which appraises and looks back on what has been accomplished. The results show that teachers do not work along the lines identified in current refl ection models (i.e. providing clear problem definition, searching for evidence, planning for change, and reviewing plans). Instead, many teachers use a narrative and valuing appraisal of their accomplishments; not so much cautiously reviewing their actions but prospectively commenting on plans and solutions for future action. The data lead us to be cautious about the prominence of reflection models as advocated in the literature to be applied to teachers’ written accounts of their practice.
KW: teacher reflection; action research; teacher research; self-studies; reflective action; professional development
TI: Making Connections: Grounding Professional Development in the Developmental Theories of Vygotsky
  AU: Eun, Barohny
< SPAN class=”heading abbreviation”>SO: The Teacher Educator,  2008   VOL. 43   NO. 2   ,pp.134 – 155
AB: Professional development is grounded in the developmental theories of Vygotsky in an attempt to better understand the mechanism underlying teacher development. The rationale for the use of Vygotskian framework is provided in the context of describing the various models of professional development. Within this theoretical framework, it is argued that concepts formulated by Vygotsky that are relevant to the education of students in school settings are also applicable to the professional growth of teachers in their work places. Various implications for effective professional development are presented by linking the developmental aspects of professional development and major tenets of Vygotsky’s developmental theori es.
TI: Fitting the Methodology with the Research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography
  AU: Hamilton, Mary Lynn; Smith, Laura; Worthington, Kristen
SO: Studying Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 4   NO. 1   ,pp.17 – 28
AB: Sharpening our approaches to methodology in self-study research can strengthen our work and clarify questions that arise for readers unfamiliar with this research genre. Our article considers three methodologies – narrative, auto-ethnography and self-study – that privilege self in the research design, believing that addressing self can contribute to our understandings about teaching and teacher education. We address two questions: In what ways, if any, does the methodological choice affect the inquiry of the researchers? When, if ever, might self-study be the best choice for inquiry? For this, we use one selected work to explore the critical elements of these methodologies to determine usefulness. This is not a discussion to determine which approach is better; rather it is a discussion to explore w hen one method might be privileged over another and why
KW: methodology; research design; self-study; narrative inquiry; auto-ethnography
TI: Balancing Acts: Negotiating authenticity and authority in shared reflection
  AU: Calderwood, Patricia E.; D’Amico, Kathleen M.
SO: Studying Teacher Education,  2008   VOL. 4   NO. 1   ,pp.47 – 59
AB: In this self-study, a teacher educator and an experienced teacher analyze an unexpected shared opportunity to mentor pre-service elementary educators. Our partnership arose during a graduate course on literacy development for elementary students, serendipitously captured during an extended electronic conversation with the pre-service candidates. We uncovered an interplay between authenticity and authority that generated enhanced professional development for each of us and for the teac her candidates who were enrolled in the course. As well as reflections on our own practices, implications for teacher education development and pedagogy are noted.
KW: teacher education; professional development; collaboration

 Information from the Israeli Macam center

Professional growth and perspective transformations / Bowers Sipe & Rosewarne

Posted on by
Reply

teachers_meeting1.jpg

The authors describe the collaboration that they found effective in their own professional development.

“Together, we create a deeper, clearer understanding of her classroom environment than either of us could hope to do individually” (p. 41).

“There is another reason Tracy and I have chosen to collaborate on this project. In terms of professional development, it doesn’t get any better than this. Our collaboration around real questions that affect real students…requires that we draw from previous learning spanning our entire professional landscape: From literature on best practices to research methodology, everything comes into play. We share a sense of urgency to do this work well because, if we do, we might make a difference in the lives of students. Moreover, we share the hope that our work will contribute to the national conversation about reading and writing instruction and, in so doing, provide support for others” (p. 42)

Another private text becomes public…

The authors describe the traditional PD programs they had attended. They explain that they were passive consumers and that they took no part in their design. Rosewarne goes as far as to say that she remembers nothing from four years of inservice PD – not even the theme. (p. 44).

The authors cite Jack Mezirow (1981) who argues that once a significant change has taken place, one that causes a person to look differently at life, there is no return. The authors reveal:

“Once we realized that our stories were important and our questions worthy of research, there arose a pervasive need for more opportunities for collaboration and growth” (p. 45).

This and similar forms of collaboration are grounded in “a belief that the knowledge and stories of classroom teachers are important, an understanding that teachers-with the right kinds of skills-could make a significant contribution to the knowledge base of our profession” (p. 45).

 The authors are aware that this kind of reflective collaboration demands flexibility and personal exposure and involves the possibility of getting hurt.

“It is a risk to question what feels comfortable and normal in our classrooms. However, as teacher-researchers, we began to see how knowledge grows and how we could be a part of that developing conversation”  (p. 45)

“By finding safe communities of educators, we were able to stay alive in our professional knowledge building. And, by finding mentors and collaborators, we were able to create opportunities for growth as we observed students, discussed observations, and thought hard about beliefs and practice” (p. 46).

“Because we collaborate, there is a sense of safety, and the feelings of alienation that have been reported by many experientially open teachers are kept at bay. Our work energizes us and helps us gain perspective on ways to engage students” (p. 46). 

Bowers Sipe, R., & Rosewarne, T. (2005). Learning to love the questions: Professional growth and perspective transformations. The English Journal, 95(2), 41-46. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Image: http://www.cuslight.org/Portals/ConcordiaMilwaukee/images/teachers_meeting.jpg

Collaboration and dialogue in a teacher community

Posted on by
Reply

 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.

Reframing beginning teachers as knowledge producers / Bulfin & Mathews

Posted on by
Reply

Bulfin and Mathews wrote this article as early career teachers, it deals with the production of professional learning and teacher identity.

The authors point out that “it is easy to forget that teachers are learners and should in fact understand “learning” better than most…Perhaps while knowing a lot about “learning”and what can help it along, we forget to hold ourselves up to the mirror and ask the same questions” (p. 48).

The authors ask the important question:

“How might we, as beginning teachers, create a physical and metaphorical “discursive space” in a meaningful way when our work and teaching conditions often appear pre-determined, inflexible and isolating?” (p. 49).

In my opinion, this question is just as relevant and crucial for experienced teachers.

I applaud Bulfin and Mathews and  admire the way they took responsibility for their own professional learning.

“we have undertaken a collaborative and dialogic approach to our own professional learning. We have…actively listened, talked, read, written and theorised our experiences, we have come to know and see them differently and more powerfully” (p. 49).

Bulfin and Mathews felt that as early career teachers it was problematic to see themselves as legitimate creators of professional educational knowledge. I believe that many experienced teachers (if not the majority), feel the same way.

The authors believe that a major barrier is that “teacher learning is generally conceptualised as an individual and psychological process only” and they present the recent literature which disagrees and encourages teacher learning to be dialogic in nature.

“There is plenty of talk that goes on inside schools, but there are also many barriers that do not encourage the kind of sustained intellectual conversations we believe are important for the professional development of teachers” (p. 51).

In her personal journal, Mathews wrote:

“It seems people already know and they want to tell me the answer rather than talk about the possibilities” (p. 52). This extremely important statement, which may not be immediately relevant to my thesis but is central to my work with teachers (beginning and experienced). I want to try to explore this feeling (which I know reflects the reality) with my colleagues in a written conversation…you have to start somewhere. Here is an example where beginning teachers can actually stimulate the professional learning of experienced educators.

What did the authors achieve in their collaborative dialogic learning?

  • “we stretched the boundaries of our understanding, challenging each other to look further than we could see alone” (p. 52).
  • “we came to better understand the problems we encountered” (p. 53).

 Bulfin, S., & Mathews, K. (2003). Reframing beginning teachers as knowledge producers: Learning to teach and transgress. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 2(3), 47-58. Retrieved from http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2003v2n3art4.pdf

Conversation + collaboration + writing

Posted on by
1

writingequalslearning.jpg

 Scott Bulfin, in comparison with those who called for teachers to write in the 1990s, emphasises the importance of collaboration – communicative writing with others. This writing can take place between colleagues in a school setting, between friends, and between more and less experienced educators. This collaboration can take place face to face or online.

Collaboration intensives the reflexive  processes and the products are deeper than each individual writer would have achieved alone.

Bulfin claims that writing has been central to his professional development and gives examples –

  • email conversations
  • coauthoring an article
  • blogging

In addition, his dialogue with students is influenced by these processes. Bulfin seems to see student benefit as secondary, as an extra – his main interest is his own professional learning as a teacher . In the 1990s teacher-writing was recommended as a direct means of understanding student difficulties and improving instruction. Bulfin is referring to a far broader concept of teacher learning.

Bulfin cites a list of beginning teachers (is it degrading to call someone a “beginning teacher” rather than an “early career teacher”?) and practitioner researchers who reflect on their practice in writing.

The author uses the term “discursive community” to describe the field where “texts – narratives, counter narratives and arguments … frame and reframe each other”  (p. 41). “These texts ‘speak’ to each other in generative, though sometimes dissonant ways, creating a space where knowledge is co-constructed” (p. 41). I have been particularly interested in the “writing cirle” I have been discovering, teachers and teacher educators (many from Monash University) who write, read each other, co-write and co-publish. The idea of colloboration through written conversation is demonstrated in various ways in the literature I have been reading. As I read, I am often envious of the significant professional relationships formed and maintained through writing. I consider myself lucky to have been exposed to these practices and the intelligent and wonderfully enlightening ideas encompassed in these texts.

Bulfin mentions the possibility of dialogue between pairs or groups of early career teachers and also between novice and more experienced practitioners. (Of course a wonderful example is contained in the written conversations and  co-authoring done by Graham Parr and Natalie Bellis). Bulfin describes “a dialogue in which there is more than a hint of potential for teacher renewal and change, and an argument in favour of a broader notion of professional identity and learning than is implied by the notion of ‘professional development’, involving a recognition of the value of other dialogical spaces (Bakhtin, 1981;Bulfin and Mathews, 2003) and the socio-cultural nature of learning and identity (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Renshaw, 1998; Rogoff, 1994; Witherell, 1991) (p. 41).  Often we push for collaborative social learning environments for our students and ignore the fact that teachers have the same needs, that teacher learning is of course based on the same principles.  I have been looking at myself in the mirror as a result of this reading – how do the PD courses I run measure up? This is another topic I should be addressing at length in writing…

According to Bulfin, teachers are continually subjected to the tensions between the “personal and private” and the “public and political” (p. 41). Teachers in schools are always negotiating between these opposite forces. This observation is extremely relevant. Examples I can think of are:

  • PD courses are usually in biggish groups and are ready made and top down – no room is made for the interests or individual needs of the participating teachers. I do begin my courses with a questionnaire about teacher needs but this is far from adequate.
  • Very often questioning and reflection in schools are directed toward school needs or pupil needs, teacher needs are rarely discussed.

In his narrative, Bulfin retells his experiences from his first years of teaching. Dealing with the isolation often felt by teachers, he missed the rich theoretical conversations characteristic of university life. There are, at least here in Israel, almost no connections made between pre-service study and what is done in schools. As an experienced teacher and literacy coach, I am ashamed to say that I have no idea how pre-service teachers are prepared these days. I concentrate on helping early career teachers become familiar with school and making them feel at home, I really have been missing something…  

“So while there is plenty of talk and conversation that goes on in schools…there are also many barriers to the type of ‘authentic conversation’ (Clark, 2001) or sustained intellectual dialogue that is important for quality teacher learning. The situation is similar with respect to writing – while a lot of writing goes on, very little could be regarded as reflective  or exploratory. Most is done in order to meet administrative demands” (p. 43). Staff rooms are noisy places. My husband says that teachers attend more meetings than the government. Teachers talk about what is going on, they often complain together, sometimes share success stories, plan together and discuss pupils and their achievements.  Some of the barriers to ongoing “intellectual dialogue” are lack of time, resistance to personal exposure (the same personal vs public tension), lack of modelling, encouragement and appropriate frameworks. As far as writing goes, the same barriers are relevant but the situation is dimmer. Here in Israel, as I have said before, teachers only write (openly at least) what is absolutely required and necessary. Most of this is definitely administrative in nature.

“importantly, we also wrote narratives of our teaching and other reflections on critical incidents, sharing these  with each other. This gave us space to unpack and to theorise our experiences, to re-examine our basic assumptions, to ‘try on’ the talk and mind of professional teachers in a more personal-private setting” (p. 44).

Bulfin and his learning companion Katrina discovered “alternative ‘spaces’for…professional learning” (p. 44).

Collaboration, conversation, written dialogue –

Bulfin claims: “Being presented with different readings of one’s own text can result in a type of fracturing of original intent, and that can be very generating” (p. 47). This kind of safe professional relationship can be incredibly empowering. As far as I can see  many educators are now receiving this kind of critical reading and constructive feedback through blogging. Here again Bulfin is emphasising the advantages of written conversation rather than solitary reflexive writing. 

“An important part of this was finding a language to frame our experiences and give them shape. As  a result, we were able to see further than we could see alone” (p. 48).

Bulfin is aware that as he was learning about teaching in this way he was also learning about learning.

“Writing such as this is important for many reasons, not in the least because it provides a sense of distance from which it is possible to critique practices, discourses and assumptions, especially one’s own (cf. Kamler, 2001). Despite the content, our writing and conversations are always fuelled by a desire to understand why things are the way they are and how we might go about changing some of them…We work to create a dialogic space (often online), where we can begin to imagine possibilities and to find support to teach (and think) in different ways” (p. 53).

“There are many issues associated with ‘written conversation’ as opposed to physical conversation that have implications for participants in any exchange: power and authority, access and disadvantage, to name just a few” (p. 55).

“In order to reflect on and write about their interests and concerns, many teachers require active support, encouragement and opportunities…otherwise they might not ever speak or write ‘out’ ” (p. 55). This is of course my biggest challenge today – How can I support and encourage my peers and in turn, early career teachers, on this exciting and rewarding road to professional learning?

It is significant that Bulfin chooses to take of professional learning rather than professional development. It seems crucial to remind teachers that PD occurs as a result of LEARNING, real personal learning, from the inside out, not from hours of sitting in lectures or seminars where somebody pours out info or lesson plans.

“in the end, there are opportunities for professional learning in all experience, but I believe that this learning must also include efforts at pushing back against the pressures and dilemmas teachers live and work with everyday. I am thinking not only about the need to resist the prescriptiveness of narrow in-service professional development, but working out ways in which we can push back the ‘normalising’ practices of mainstream schooling which can squeeze the life and hope out of both students and teachers” (p. 55).

Bulfin calls for cooperation in these issues between educators, teacher associations, the government and universities.

“Teacher conversation, collaboration, and writing have the potential to generate learning opportunities that are more meaningful than professional development as typically conceived by governments and schools. The processes that I have been describing better recognise the complexity and professionalism of teachers’ work and knowledge, and the contextual factors that play such an important part in any workplace. This said, the kinds of conversations and writing that I am arguing for really only become critically useful when participants are engaged in sustained theoretical reflection about their work. Such learning is not just a matter of ‘talking’ or ‘working together’ or scribbling journal notes about how a lesson may have gone – important though these activities may be. It is about self-reflexive, practice based inquiry that contributes to our knowledge as a profession” (p. 56).

Bulfin, S. (2005). Conversation + collaboration + writing = professional learning. In B. Doecke, & G. Parr (Eds.), Writing = learning (pp. 40-58). South Australia: Wakefield Press.

Auto ethnography – An empowering methodology for educators

Posted on by
4

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:

“With this understanding of narrative in mind I began to recognise that the knowledge, which I was constructing – through my own experiences, encounters and interactions with the world – was legitimate. It was my reality that I was a part of, yet also apart from, that I was constructing and, dare I say it, creatively inventing through the narrative text generated using language” (p. 37).

Dyson chooses to quote Polkinghorne (1997, p.7):

“No longer are knowledge statements considered to be mirrored reflections of reality as it is in itself; rather, they are human constructions of models or maps of reality.” This comment blends in well with the other affirmations for the legitimacy of narrative I have found. It connects with the claims I have written about that in postmodernist thinking about research there is no one truth, every claim to knowledge is in doubt until it proves its validity. 

Dyson describes the process, how he came to adopt auto ethnography for his research, for example:  

“As my understanding of the narrative approach developed I began to recognise that it was an appropriate means of telling my story” (p. 37).

“To resolve this I visited with the ‘big guns in research’ i.e. the authorities in this narrative /auto ethnographic style. Reading the work of Ellis and Bochner convinced me that…” (p. 37).

“In reading the researchers of narrative and auto ethnography (Denzin, 1997; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Ellis, 1997; Ellis and Bochner, 2000; Patton, 2002; Reed-Danahay, 1997; Richardson, 1995; Tierney and Lincoln, 1997; Van Maanen, 1995) I began to understand that the subjective was legitimate and nothing can ever be totally impersonal, or totally independent, of the writer. In realising this my focus as a researcher evolved a little more as I came to understand what could be achieved in using such a personal and powerful tool as auto ethnography” (p. 38).

What is auto ethnography?

Dyson uses the same definitions as Deunte:

Auto ethnography as described by Ellis and Bochner is a genre of writing that “displays multiple layers of consciousness connecting the personal to the cultural” (p. 739) They claim that the distinctions between the cultural and the personal become blurred as the author changes the focus and moves back and forth between looking outward and looking inward” (p. 38).

“Reed-Danahay (1997) suggests that “One of the main characteristics of an auto ethnographic perspective is that the auto ethnographer is a boundary-crosser and the role can be characterised as that of a dual identity” (p. 3). In presenting a history of auto ethnography Reed-Danahay (1997) identifies the many different understandings of the term. She defines her use of the term as the form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context. It is both a method and a text in a similar way to ethnography but the self is embedded” (p. 38).

Dyson acknowledges the changes taking place in himself as a person and as a researcher as he proceeded on his research journey . He used his growing set of self understandings to foster perceptions into the cultural group of which he is a member.

“Within auto ethnographic writing the author and researcher necessarily reveals his or her hand, or voice, up front. As explained by Ellis and Bochner (2000), “The goal is to enter and document the moment-to-moment, concrete details of a life. That’s an important way of knowing as well” (p. 761). Further to this they suggest that “Auto ethnography provides an avenue for doing something meaningful for yourself and the world” (p. 761)” (p. 39).

The important point for me here is not to read these points about autoethnography (as I have already read them in different words in different places) but to see how Dyson presents them explicitly as part of his explanation  of the methodology chosen by him.

“In the telling of my story I am not declaring my emerging knowledge as scientific truth, or as a discovery beyond me, but rather as my creative construction of a reality, which I have lived through” (p. 39).

 “…an auto ethnography is a presentation of one person’s view, or map, of reality, constructed around and through other people. It is a good story, which does not establish truth, like an argument, but presents verisimilitude, that is lifelikeness” (p. 46).

“Rather than be a seeker of ‘the truth’ the auto ethnographer reveals ‘the voice of the insider’ who has sought new knowledge and understandings of the world and found what was unknown to them when they began the journey. The credibility of such research is established through the verisimilitude revealed and the ‘ringing true’ of the quality story related” (p. 46).

Writing in first person

“Ellis suggests that authors aren’t encouraged to write articles in first person (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). Malin supports this by declaring that we have now come a long way from the time we felt compelled to refer to ourselves, in third person, as the ‘researcher’ (Malin, 1999). I prepared my dissertation and now write in the first person as much as possible because I believe that writing in first person brings with it a personal accountability, an active voice, presenting a truthworthy narrative, which contains the pitfalls as well as the strengths” (p. 40).

Dyson discusses the danger associated with the exposure of writing in first person. He acknowledges that the researcher becomes vulnerable to criticism but affirms the power of the first person possesses in communicating with the reader.

The use of metaphor in narrative writing 

Dyson chose the metaphor of a journey for his research story, in particular the journey of a mountain stream. He believes that metaphor deepens our thought and our knowing and can enable us to arrive at understands beyond those we expected were possible. Metaphor enhances and intensifies reflection. Connections between the journey of the mountain stream and Dyson’s research story are presented in a table on page 44.

“The auto ethnographer, like other qualitative researchers, uses metaphor to order thoughts, experiences and to construct a reality about lived experiences rather than use particular procedures, to generate formal and empirical truths. Metaphor is used because of its power to bring new things into consciousness leading to initially unperceived knowledge. It generates lifelikeness and has the power to move a human being to new levels of consciousness as the various parts of a journey are pondered and unravelled” (p. 46).  

The whole story is never told…

 “There are risks involved in telling personal and professional stories and seldom can the whole story ever be told. Although there are parts that should, or can, never be shared on moral and ethical grounds what is told, is told, from my perspective with my filters engaged” (p. 44).

Dyson describes the stage when a researcher sees things differently from the way that he saw them initially. The life of the researcher in turn changes because of this new outlook on the world. He claims that the change occurs as a result of a new level of personal conciousness but forms a novel “‘worldview’ rather than just a ‘me view'” (p. 45).

Dyson, M. (2007). My story in a profession of stories: Autoethnography – an empowering methodology for educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 36-48. Retrieved from http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/ISSUES/PDF/321/Dyson.pdf 

Thank heavens for ebooks!

Posted on by
Reply

Now that I’m well on the way to writing my paper as an autoethnography (well…not really…but at least I’ve decided on a direction!) I have been devouring more articles and book chapters on the topic. This morning I discovered a fantastic ebook which will prove to be very helpful in the writing of my methodology chapter.

  

Firstly I was happy to see that I already “know” most of the researchers mentioned in the chapter I read, “Autoethnography”. The chapter provides helpful definitions in simple language.

Etherington presents a reassuring point as she opens this chapter. She quotes Gergen and Gergen (2002, p.14):

 “In using oneself as an ethnographic exemplar, the researcher is freed from the traditional conventions of writing. One’s unique voicing – complete with colloquialisms, reverberations from multiple relationships, and emotional expressiveness – is honoured” (p. 137).

Why does this quote attract me and reassure me? Here is another example of my worrying that my writing isn’t good enough, isn’t up to standard. The pressure my colleagues feel when instructed to write in school or PD settings is what I can identify in myself here. But is it reassuring? Is personal voice easier than copying traditional conventions…that I will see in the next few weeks.

“Autoethnography is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that has been described as a ‘blend of ethnography and autobiographical writing that incorporates elements of one’s own life experience when writing about others’ (Scott-Hoy 2002, p.276); a form of self-narrative that places the self within a social context (Reed-Danahay 1997).  Autoethnography is a word that describes both a method and a text.

Ellis and Bochner (2000, p.739) describe the process of how researchers create autoethnography: As they zoom backward and forward, inward and outward, distinctions between the personal and the cultural become blurred, sometimes beyond distinct recognition…

Ethnography, has traditionally focused on the ‘other’ as an object of study, typically spending time observing people in other cultures and societies, but in more recent times, influenced by feminism, postmodernism and an increasing understanding of the role of researcher reflexivity, experimental methods have been proliferating among sociologists, anthropologists and more generally across disciplines such as communication studies, psychology, women’s studies, management and  organizational studies, theatre studies, literature, health sciences, education and sports science (Bochner and Ellis 2002; Ellis and Bochner 1996) (Etherington, 2004, p. 139-140).

When I read Mel’s description of her research journey I sat in front of the computer screen and cried. I connected with her honest descriptions of her experiences and discoveries. Mel’s short text about her research has helped me to better understand the criteria Laurel Richardson (2000, p.934) uses for assessing social science papers for publication:

  • Does the work make a substantive contribution?
  • Does the work have aesthetic merit?
  • Is the work reflexive enough?
  • What is the impact of this work on me?
  • Does the work provide me with a sense of ‘lived experience’?

Another point made about the validity of self study is made by Etherington. She quotes Braud (1998, p. 219):

“When feelings of excitement, surprise, and delight are supplemented by feelings of awe and gratitude, researchers can be assured that they are being true to the experiences that are being explored and that their approach and findings are valid” (p. 149).This is of course the challenge awaiting me…

The author mentions researchers (Mykhalovskiy, 1997; Picart, 2002; Sparkes, 2002) who disapprove of autoethnography, those who claim that this kind of work is  egoistic, self-absorbed and vain. The author explains that in order for the researcher producing autoethnography to ensure that his or her work does not fit those negative descriptions, they must ensure that they fully understand the purpose of the study, are entirely aware of their own reasons for choosing this kind of research and have the ability to ensure that the work is high in “aesthetic, personal, social and academic value” (p. 141).

Etherington also presents Janice Morse’s criticism of autoethnography. Morse (2000) claims that it is extremely difficult to protect other people connected with narratives in the study as they are often recognizable. The advantages and disadvantages of publishing autoethnographic research under pseudonyms are discussed.

Another problem with this exposive kind of research is the risk of the student/new researcher becoming vulnerable or disadvantaged professionally after publishing stories of weakness or difficulty.

I was interested to read about memory and it’s role in the process. One of the things that has been worrying me is that maybe I won’t remember enough. Since I have begun writing narrative drafts, I have been surprised by the way that I seem to draw threads of recollection from my teaching memories.  I will definately return to the following quote:

“Writing stimulates and facilitates the motor and sensory regions of the brain, and can help us recover additional fragments of former experiences (Penn 2001). Half-known aspects of our selves can be accessed through the metaphors we use in our writing as we ‘reach intuitively into some part of ourselves that is outside our notice – still unnamed but there’ (Penn 2001, p.45). In telling our stories we are also re-affirming and re-educating our selves, our experiences and our lives and creating new stories. Writing autoethnography involves us in a kind of ‘recollection’, which is more than remembering” (p. 146).

Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a reflexive researcher: Using our selves in research. London: Jessica Kingsley Press. Available from www.ebooks.com/ 

Autoethnography – an example

Posted on by
1

 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