Tag Archives: constructivism & learning

The National Writing Project – from the other side of the globe

Posted on by
Reply

Since I heard read about the National Writing Project in the United States (while studying for my Masters), I have been inspired by the philosophy of the project, the way it is organized and the way teachers respond to its activities. I have often daydreamed about flying to the States to take part in a three week summer workshop and then attempting to reproduce the experience here in Israel.

When I finally read this article by Locke, Whitehead, Dix and Cawkwell (2011) my daydream came to life again. Throughout the reading I found many connections with my own study. I will jot down some of those thoughts here.

I did not know that there was an attempt in NZ in the 1980s to create a NZ Writing Project. The idea certainly did suit the NZ literacy scene of that decade. After the project ceased to function in NZ years ago, the researchers recently revived the idea and created a six-day non-residential workshop for teachers, based on the NWP model.

As I read the article I asked myself: Does this mean that my study is irrelevant? That all has been done before? The  answer is, of course, quite the contrary.  I believe this study is another anchor to hold on to, another sign that what I am doing is important. Somewhere else in the world, with a different group of teachers, others are using similar principles of professional learning to reach out to educators with their unique professional needs.

Here the authors are emphasizing the NZ context. I should look closely at how they do that so that I can think hard about how to emphasize the Israeli context in my own thesis and publications. In the past I have heard this stressed in feedback on my work.

 The article is of course relevant in that it is another example of practitioner research in the field of teacher learning and teacher education. There certainly are many of these articles being published in respected journals. The authors write:

“These objectives had given rise to a series of research questions, which are currently being investigated via a series of methodological lenses: ethnographic, case study, critical discourse analysis and self-study, but reflecting overall an action research ethos” (p. 277).

I am interested in the way they have chosen the phrase “action research ethos”? This approach encourages me to return to the way I  am trying to envision my work as practitioner research within a narrative framework. As I read this article I don’t see the need to choose one approach over the other.

I believe the authors (as a group or individually) will publish additional articles on this interesting project. Here they chose to examine two of the many research questions arising from the study. This is also a structural feature of the article that I should examine. The authors describe the study as a whole and then zoom in close in order to present material relevant to two research questions and then zoom out again.

Additional thoughts:

I should inquire into the intensity of a 6 day workshop rather than a ‘once a fortnight’ session.

How do you say “writers workshop” in Hebrew? “Sadnat Ktiva” – סדנת כתיבה really doesn’t say it all for me.

Could I set up one course as a workshop based on the NWP principles?

Do I have to be an expert writer to run a workshop like that? Why does this question arise when I am thinking about a NWP style workshop? It doesn’t occur to me when I am planning and implementing my own courses here.

Could a workshop like this be a follow up to my courses? Stage 2 maybe? Could I do it in the summer? It is possible – but the  only time unit possible today in Israel is 30 hours.

The mix of primary and secondary school teachers from several subject areas is an interesting aspect. The article seems to indicate that this has positive potential, but would be better in a longer workshop.

And finally… I must find a way to participate in a writing project workshop – maybe in NZ…

Thanks to SB who sent me the article!

Locke, T., Whitehead, D., Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). New Zealand teachers respond to the ‘National Writing Project’ experience. Teacher Development, 15(3), 273-291.

Relational Teacher Education: A new and inspiring concept for me

Posted on by
1

I recently read an interesting article by Dr Julian Kitchen, Associate Professor in teacher education at the Brock University in Canada.  As I read I found many links between Kitchen’s work with preservice teachers and the work I am trying to do with practicing teachers.

 Kitchen quotes Dewey: “…education is development from within” (Dewey, 1938, p. 17). This resounds with thoughts about learning versus development. Development is seen as something that comes from the outside, that someone “does it” to the teachers whereas learning is something internal, it is the union of stimuli from outside with the personal knowledge, experience, intelligence and beliefs of the teacher. This learning is of course something gradual which develops slowly, at an individual pace. This is far from the “boom” of “being developed” at a seminar or short course.

 

According to Kitchen “Relational teacher education is a reciprocal approach to enabling teacher growth that is respectful of the personal practical knowledge of preservice teachers and builds from the realization that we know in relationship to others. Relational teacher education is sensitive to the role that each participant plays as teacher and learner in the relationship, the milieus in which each lives and works; it stresses the need to present one’s authentic self in relationships which are open, nonjudgmental and trusting” (Kitchen, 2005, p. 196).

 

When I read this article, many of the things he wrote seemed to suit my view of my teaching and gave them a name. I had never heard of “Relational Teacher Education” before and hadn’t even thought about giving a name to my style of teaching. After completing my MEd thesis, I did make a conscious decision to respect the knowledge and experience the teachers bring with them and I even talk about this explicitly throughout the course. Many of the comments I receive from teachers at the end of my courses relate to these points.

 I also strongly believe in the social aspects of learning. In the past my courses have been built on sharing classroom experiences and I will definitely build on that this year. I will dare to give more time for sharing.

I am interested to explore the way that each individual (including myself) is both a teacher and a learner in the course.

 

Kitchen identifies seven important characteristics of relational teacher education:

“1. Understanding one’s own personal practical knowledge

2. Improving one’s practice in teacher education

3. Understanding the landscape of teacher education

4. Respecting and empathizing with preservice teachers

5. Conveying respect and empathy

6. Helping preservice teachers face problems

7. Receptivity to growing in relationship”

(Kitchen,2005, p. 196).

Some thoughts on these issues:

1. I must be committed to examining my own knowledge and experience. One of my advantages is that I really teach children and can try out the things I am talking about. I must remember to find more time to reflect on my own teaching both at school and in the course.

2. I am interested and committed to improving my teacher education. It took me years to feel comfortable with the title “teacher educator” but that indeed is what I am. I think I am improving over the years and this year, through my intensive written reflections, I should improve even more. What I should do is find a significant friend to read those reflections and discuss them.

 

3. I am trying to understand the landscape of teacher education – and my thesis is part of it. I don’t like dealing with politics but I have discovered that teacher education is a highly political issue. Maybe all teaching is? I have been leaving the policy documents to the end in my literature review and I think I should dive into them.

 

Kitchen writes: “I began to discover that we as teachers often have been told that our stories are inauthentic and that experts have the answers. I became aware that we have been forced to obey “objective” studies, even though they often run contrary to our classroom experiences. I awakened to the realization that we must discover our own voices because, as Roland Barth (1990) observes, “When teachers stop growing, so do their students” (Kitchen, 2005, p. 199).

 

My aim is to add to the growing body of teacher stories, stories which may at some stage be publishable. Teachers must know that they can learn from writing and rewriting their teacher stories and reading and responding to those of their peers.

 

Kitchen (2005) explains that “Relational teacher development and education recognizes the roles each participant plays as teacher and learner in the relationship and is sensitive to the milieus in which each lives and works (p. 200). I have often stated in my reflections that I am acting as teacher and learner in my sessions. I learn from each teacher I lead. Through my thinking about their work I reflect on my own and alter my own classroom practice and workshops.

This article contains a letter Kitchen wrote to his preservice students before meeting them in one of his courses. He writes: “This letter both invited preservice teachers to reflect on their tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) and expressed my personal professional commitment to developing meaningful and respectful personal professional relationships with each of them. By sharing my experiences, I illustrated my engagement in reflective practice. By listening authentically to their stories, I modeled respect for teachers as curriculum makers. By providing them with reflective tools, I assisted my preservice teachers as they explored their personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988)” (Kitchen, 2005, p.200).

 

I would love to be able to write this kind of letter to my participants and for them to write a reply to me as their first task. This letter exchange could open up the communication between us and leave me with a far clearer sense of the teachers sitting in front of me than the dry questionnaires I have today. I wonder though if they take me as sincere before they get to know me? Israelis are so cynical. It certainly would take a lot of the talking out of the first stages of the course. I think I should give it a go – using Kitchen’s letter as a guide.

 

Kitchen writes “By responding personally and rigorously to their reflections on past and present experiences, I attempted to assist them in reconstructing their cognitive structures and their approaches to teaching. By engaging them in cooperative learning and team-building activities, I helped to foster a sense of community among those in the class” (p. 200-201).

 

What do I try to achieve in my own responses to teachers? I make connections between practice and theory, give names to the things the teachers are talking about, and aim to elicit extra or deeper understandings.

 

Cooperative learning is also a relevant issue – I am continually searching for ways to deepen this collaborative experience in just 30 hours.

Kitchen explains that relational teacher education is based on respect. This respect is many things – starting on time (maybe with something that they won’t want to miss?), not wasting teachers’ time , making the most of their time. This need for respect is obvious in many ways but not always easy. When a teacher arrives without a pen and notebook, when she sits knitting throughout the whole session, when I have to fight to get a word in…

 

“My constructive criticism of student work is not an uncritical stance. Typically, in responding to personal portfolios, I mirror back my understanding: I note patterns that extend across their metaphor and look for five critical incidents and five personal narratives, I respond to their interpretations, and I share related stories from my experience. Each of these interactions serves as an opportunity for dialogue and professional growth for both preservice teachers and the instructor. Although this is a time-consuming process, the students respect the results. When they nominated me  for Professor of the Year in 2001, they spoke of my “rigorous expectations,” “constructive criticism,” and “in-depth personal analysis of both content and  structure.” At the same time, I deepen my understanding of teaching and learning by hearing what my students have to say” (Kitchen, 2005, p. 202).

 Kitchen isn’t boasting here, he is explaining what works in his courses and according to the feedback from my courses, this is similar to some of the remarks I have received. I too learn from reading and responding to my teacher-students.

 After getting excited about these inspiring concepts, I return to earth and ask myself: Is any of this possible in a 30 hour course?

 

Reference:

Kitchen, J. (2005). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 194-207.

Creating Collaborative Relationships of Power in Literacy Teaching-Learning

Posted on by
1

This book describes another example of university-school collaboration project aimed at teacher learning.

A unique feature here is that the teachers determined the direction of inquiry and not the academic researchers.

The term collaborative here is used to describe the way the teacher researchers learned to work with the uni researchers AND how they learned to involve their students more in their whole language classrooms.

The authors discuss the production of knowledge about teaching and quote Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993, who explain that often knowledge about teaching is formulated in academic frameworks and then transmitted to teachers.

Pappas and Zecker also cite Gitlin (1990) who points out that most in most educational research, issues studied are almost never initiated by teachers. This balance of power in research implies that teachers have nothing to contribute from their professional knowledge.

“Teacher research promotes a new, distinctive way of knowledge of teaching because it privileges teachers as those with the authority to know about teaching” (p. 4).  

“Showing and talking about particular features of their teaching that were working well gave the teachers feelings of accomplishment and demonstrated strategies that others might try… On the other hand, airing difficulties or vulnerabilities in inquiries afforded opportunities to obtain new ideas or directions to consider” (p. 6).

The theory that all humans construct knowledge through social interactions = “socioconstructivist perspective on literacy” (p. 7).

  • Wells, 1994b
  • Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992

Vygotsky – 1962, 1978

  • Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995
  • Moll, 1990
  • Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989
  • Wells, 1994a, 1994b, 1998
  • Wertsch, 1985, 1989, 1991

Pappas, C. C., & Zecker, L. B. (2001). Introduction: Creating collaborative relations of power in literacy teaching-learning. In C. C. Pappas, & L. B. Zecker (Eds.), Teacher inquiries in literacy teaching-learning: Learning to collaborate in elementary urban classrooms (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Can’t get much clearer than that – PD = teacher collaboration

Posted on by
Reply

In this letter to the new president of the US, Lieberman and Pointer Mace call for a move from traditional PD for teachers to a model of PD based on the collaborative learning  from teacher experience and knowledge. The authors explain that “Teachers work in isolation and only rarely have a chance to observe their colleagues or talk about their teaching work” (p. 226).

“But professional development, though well intentioned, is often perceived by teachers as fragmented, disconnected, and irrelevant to the real problems of classroom practice” (p. 226).

The authors claim that traditional top down forms of PD do not recognize the particular needs of classes, the teacher’s own knowledge and that there are varied ways of achieving successful learning in schools. (p. 227).

“Instead of creating the conditions for teachers to teach each other, support their peers, and deepen their knowledge about their students, teachers are being given a “one size fits all” set of professional development workshops that deny the variability of how teachers teach, and how they and their students learn” (p. 227). 

The article also explains the social aspect of learning, that people learn through interaction with others. “They learn through practice (learning as doing), through meaning (learning as intentional), through community (learning as participating and being with others), and through identity ( learning as changing who we are). Professional learning so constructed is rooted in the human need to feel a sense of belonging and of making a contribution to a community where experience and knowledge function as part of community property. Teachers’ professional development should be refocused on the building of learning communities” (p. 227).

  The NWP is quoted as a successful model of PD through teacher collaboration (of course the teacher as writer is also involved here).

Another example is the networked communities in the UK (studied by Jackson, 2006; Jackson & Temperley, 2007). “The school networks helped to create practitioner knowledge (from teachers’ experience), public knowledge (from research and theory), and new knowledge (from what was created together). (p. 229).

“These networks of teachers from different schools managed to raise achievement for students, taught the participants how to work collaboratively linked yo “rigorous and challenging joint work”, and managed to build trust in helping make teaching public as they developed and distributed leadership among the teachers (Earl, Katz, et al., 2006)” (p. 229). 

 See: Networked Communities

http://www.ncsl.org.uk/networked/networked-leo-search.cfm

http://www.nlcexchange.org.uk

Gallery of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org

 “Living archive” of teaching practice

http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/insideteaching/

“The teacher communities described here exhibit the best we know so far about effective professional development. They focus on instruction; are sustained and continuous, rather than short term and episodic; provide opportunities for teachers to lern from one another both inside and outside the school; make it possible for teachers to influence how and what they learn; and engage teachers in thinking about what they need to know (Hawley & Valli, 2007)” (p. 233).

 Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226-234. Retrieved from http://jte.sagepub.com