International Teacher Education : Promising Pedagogies 9781784411350, 9781784411367

Citation preview

INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PEDAGOGIES (PART A)

ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON TEACHING Series Editor: Volumes 1 11: Jere Brophy Volumes 12 22: Stefinee Pinnegar Recent Volumes: Volume 9:

Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constraints

Volume 10:

Using Video in Teacher Education

Volume 11:

Learning from Research on Teaching: Perspective, Methodology and Representation

Volume 12:

Tensions in Teacher Preparation: Accountability, Assessment, and Accreditation

Volume 13:

Narrative Inquiries into Curriculum Making in Teacher Education

Volume 14:

Places of Curriculum Making: Narrative Inquiries into Children’s Lives in Motion

Volume 15:

Adolescent Boys’ Literate Identity

Volume 16:

Narrative Inquirers in the Midst of Meaning-Making: Interpretive Acts of Teacher Educators

Volume 17:

Warrior Women: Remaking Post-Secondary Places through Relational Narrative Inquiry

Volume 18:

Emotion and School: Understanding How the Hidden Curriculum Influences Relationships, Leadership, Teaching, and Learning

Volume 19:

From Teacher Thinking to Teachers and Teaching: The Evolution of a Research Community

Volume 20:

Innovations in Science Teacher Education in the Asia Pacific

Volume 21:

Research on Preparing Preservice Teachers to Work Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals

ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON TEACHING VOLUME 22

INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PEDAGOGIES (PART A) EDITED BY

CHERYL J. CRAIG University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

LILY ORLAND-BARAK University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Israel

United Kingdom North America India Malaysia China

Japan

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2014 Copyright r 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78441-136-7 ISSN: 1479-3687 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PEDAGOGIES INTRODUCTION Lily Orland-Barak and Cheryl J. Craig

1

PART I: PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER SELECTION PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER SELECTION: A SOUTH KOREAN CASE JeongAe You

15

PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER PREPARATION: THE CASE OF MATHEMATICS ENHANCEMENT COURSES IN ENGLAND John Clarke and Jean Murray

33

PART II: PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION ONE TEACHER EDUCATOR’S CAREER-LONG DEVELOPMENT OF A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION Tom Russell

55

PROMOTING CORE REFLECTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION: DEEPENING PROFESSIONAL GROWTH Fred A. J. Korthagen

73

v

vi

CONTENTS

REFLECTION AND WORK CONTEXT IN TEACHER LEARNING: TWO CASE STUDIES FROM ICELAND Hafdı´s Ingvarsdo´ttir

91

PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION: DIALOGICAL PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS IN ISRAEL Arie Kizel

113

SELF-STUDY OF TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICES AS A PEDAGOGY FOR TEACHER EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Mary Lynn Hamilton and Stefinee Pinnegar

137

PART III: PEDAGOGIES OF NARRATIVE WAYS OF KNOWING NARRATIVE PEDAGOGIES FOR PEER GROUPS Eila Estola, Hannu L. T. Heikkinen and Leena Syrja¨la¨

155

DISPERSED NARRATIVES AND POWERFUL TEACHER EDUCATION PEDAGOGY Amanda McGraw

173

THE NARRATIVE AS THE PRACTICAL AND THE PRACTICE: TOWARD THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS Jason Loh

195

NARRATIVE TEACHER EDUCATION PEDAGOGIES FROM ACROSS THE PACIFIC Edward Howe and Masahiro Arimoto

213

LITERACY NARRATIVES FOR 21ST CENTURY CURRICULUM MAKING: THE 3RS TO EXCAVATE DIVERSE ISSUES IN EDUCATION Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker

233

Contents

vii

PART IV: PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY John Loughran

257

NARRATIVE-BIOGRAPHICAL PEDAGOGIES IN TEACHER EDUCATION Geert Kelchtermans

273

PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY Paulien C. Meijer, Helma W. Oolbekkink, Marieke Pillen and Arnoud Aardema

293

PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY A¨li Leijen, Katrin Kullasepp and Tiina Anspal

311

TEACHER RESEARCHER: AN EPISTEMIC PEDAGOGY FOR RECONSTRUCTING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY IN IRAN Khalil Gholami and Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi

329

DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY IN PRESERVICE EDUCATION: EXPERIENCES AND PRACTICES FROM PORTUGAL Maria Assunc¸a˜o Flores

353

PART V: PEDAGOGIES OF MEDIATION AND MENTORING COLLABORATIVE MENTORING PEDAGOGY IN INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION: LESSONS FROM A SCOTTISH CONTEXT Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe

383

MENTORING AND MEDIATING THE INTERFACE OF MULTIPLE KNOWLEDGES IN LEARNING TO TEACH CHALLENGING CONTENT Steven Z. Athanases

403

viii

CONTENTS

USING ACTION RESEARCH TO FOSTER PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTION ON THEMSELVES AS LEARNERS: EXAMINING BELIEFS AND CHANGING PRACTICES Carmen Montecinos, Andrea Ceardi and M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez

427

INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PEDAGOGIES CONCLUDING CHAPTER Cheryl J. Craig and Lily Orland-Barak

447

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND THE AUTHORS

463

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Arnoud Aardema

Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe

American University in the Emirates, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Tiina Anspal

University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Masahiro Arimoto

Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Steven Z. Athanases

The University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA

Andrea Ceardi

Universidad Cato´lica de Valparaı´ so, Valparaı´ so, Chile

Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker

Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

John Clarke

University of East London, London, UK

Cheryl J. Craig

University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Eila Estola

University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez

Boston College, Boston, MA, USA

Maria Assunc¸a˜o Flores

University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Khalil Gholami

University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran

Mary Lynn Hamilton

University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

Hannu L. T. Heikkinen University of Jyva¨skyla¨, Jyva¨skyla¨, Finland Edward Howe

Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada; Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya, Japan

Hafdı´s Ingvarsdo´ttir

University of Iceland, Reykjavı´ k, Iceland

ix

x

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Geert Kelchtermans

University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Arie Kizel

University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Fred A. J. Korthagen

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Katrin Kullasepp A¨li Leijen

Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Jason Loh

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

John Loughran

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Amanda McGraw

Federation University, Victoria, Australia

Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi

Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Paulien C. Meijer

Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Carmen Montecinos

Universidad Cato´lica de Valparaı´ so, Valparaı´ so, Chile

Jean Murray

University of East London, London, UK

Helma W. Oolbekkink

Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Lily Orland-Barak

University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel

Marieke Pillen

Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands

Stefinee Pinnegar

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Tom Russell

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Leena Syrja¨la¨

University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

JeongAe You

Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PEDAGOGIES INTRODUCTION Lily Orland-Barak and Cheryl J. Craig ABSTRACT This chapter introduces the theory practice divide through surveying highly diverse sources of literature that document its existence and call for ways in which it can be overcome. After that, gaps between theory and practice as they appear in the field of education are foregrounded and presented as a challenge, particularly in the Western teacher education enterprise. The authors contend that the gap between theory and practice can be addressed nationally and internationally through focusing on pedagogies that are locally deliberated and enacted. Such pedagogies would be specifically named by teacher educators; the origins (cultural/ practical/theoretical/policy roots) of the pedagogies would be traced; and live, evidence-based exemplars of the pedagogies unfurling in their home settings would be presented from an insider point of view. Through this approach, promising pedagogies with potential portability to other national and international contexts would be made known. In this manner, a dialectical relationship between theory and practice where each speaks productively to the other would be established. This

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 1 11 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022037

1

2

LILY ORLAND-BARAK AND CHERYL J. CRAIG

relationship, the authors reinforce, would need to be continually negotiated when the enactment of the promising pedagogies is attempted in different settings and/or at different junctures of time. Keywords: International teacher education; promising pedagogies; theory-practice relationship; learning to teach; evidence-based exemplars

In a panel debate on the intersection of theory and practice in academia in Israel (August 2005, Hebrew University), a well-known scholar in Mystic studies provoked the audience by overtly criticizing the still prevalent legacy of the 19th century German academy. In the speaker’s view, nothing has changed since then: There is the professor and owner of theory and there is the student and recipient of that knowledge who is also expected to apply the transmitted theory in his /her practice outside the confines of academia. The speaker called for a blurring of the dichotomy between the two: “I forward the Parisian [mode of scholarship], whereby the researcher is committed to his subject of inquiry, is identified with it, and is not detached from it.” In his view, the best way to educate academics and future professionals is through creating open spaces to connect theory and practice. In this scenario, the student positions himself/herself inside the experience and outside of it simultaneously, through the careful balancing of both. Thus, he contended, scholars should see themselves committed to building anew the logic and methodology of mystic studies in the academy, by creating spaces outside the classroom walls, if possible in nature, as one walks, in a cave or under the shade of a Prophet’s tree, all this in order to facilitate the growth of a new prophet, who is both a political and social activist. Many well-known colleagues in the audience spoke fervently against this kind of merger. They contended that there is a place for experience but not within the walls of the academy, one cannot combine the two because practical studies will happen at the expense of theoretical studies. Others posited that mystics should be studied through thought rather than through action because through thought we construct and direct reality, not through talk or action.

The above theory-practice argument in mystics education elucidates the fact that what seems like an emergent debate in the education of prospective “prophets” (as well as philosophers, psychologists, nurses, medical doctors, and other professionals) appears to us as educational researchers and teacher educators like “old wine in a new bottle.” Indeed, over the past two to three decades, the aforementioned debate has been granted ample platform in the scholarship of teacher education, suggesting that the field has undergone serious talking and thinking concerning how theory and practice in teaching and education should be conceptualized, studied, and integrated in innovative pedagogies in teacher education (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992;

International Teacher Education: Introduction

3

Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Craig & Ross, 2008; Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Shulman, 1987; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003). Nevertheless, there is still a widespread call for moving beyond conceptual discussions and for providing more evidence-based accounts of the design, enactment, and impact of particular teacher education models, pedagogies, and activities for promoting connections between theory and practice, for developing novices’ professional identity and leadership roles in education, for encouraging teacher agency and social activism, for working with diversity, for selecting teacher candidates, for mediating understandings across a variety of experiences and settings during practice teaching, for working with multimodal instructional and technological tools, for establishing and sustaining communities of teacher learning and partnerships with schools, and for assessing and evaluating teaching and learning processes and outcomes.

PEDAGOGIES IN TEACHER EDUCATION The Practical Schwab’s (1969) vision of “the practical” has been attributed by some with revolutionalizing the field of education. They claim Schwab fired the “first volley” (Pinar, 1988, p. 2) and “created the first fissure” (Westbury, 2005, p. 90) in how research and teaching would occur from that point onward in the US. Others assert that Schwab’s practical “changed the field forever” (E. W. Eisner, 2006, personal communication). Schwab’s views on the practical confronted those engaged in “flights from the field” (Schwab, 1970, pp. 17 18) and placed his scholarship on a trajectory different from that of his theory-driven counterparts (see Reid, 1993). His practical called for an epistemologically and empirically different starting place: it was “built around the forms of thought that address choice and action in the reality of ongoing experience” (Westbury, 2005, p. 94). Stated differently, the particularities of human experience and by association, practical knowledge formed the core of Schwab’s practical. Through theorizing on the practical, Schwab contributed to “the humanization of educational inquiry …” (Eisner, 1984, p. 24). As Eisner explained [Schwab … provide[d] a theoretical justification of the virtue and complexity of practical inquiry … He explained … why eclecticism was not a practical liability but a

4

LILY ORLAND-BARAK AND CHERYL J. CRAIG necessary feature of the deliberative process and why deliberation the exercise of the human’s highest intellectual powers was necessary in making decisions that always must suit changing contexts riddled with idiosyncrasies. (p. 24)

Thus, Schwab laid the groundwork for Scho¨n’s ideas about reflective practice (see Doll, 1988) even as he participated in face-to-face discussions with Kuhn (1996) during Kuhn’s formation of his treatise on paradigm shifts (I. Westbury, 2006, personal communication). Schwab also envisioned professors and educators in schools working together, encouraging researchers to surrender “the vice of abstraction” (Schwab, 1970, p. 25) and learning to conduct research consistent with the Greek root of empirical: empeira (experience). Of course, what Schwab was promoting in the United States bore similarities to what Lawrence Stenhouse (1980) was advancing in the United Kingdom as part of the teacher-as-researcher movement (Hollingsworth, 1995). Likewise, what Schwab and the Jewish mystic had to say in vastly different milieus somewhat concurred with parts of Confucian philosophy practised in Asian societies (Cheng, 2011; Han & Feng, 2013; Xu, 2011) and the Indian Brahman tradition during the Vedic age (Ratnam, 2013) as well.

Pendulum Shifts Influenced by Schwab’s and others’ beliefs and conceptualizations, the scholarship of teacher education has articulated important contributions to the development of our thinking with regard to the competing tenets voiced in the Israeli panel; that is, whether theory precedes or follows practice, whether practice (re)constructs theory, or whether theory and practice exist in dialectic relationship (McKeon, 1952). A broad survey of the literature from 1960s up to the early 1980s reveals prevalent views that dichotomize theoretical knowledge (knowing what) and practical knowledge (knowing how) as two separate bodies of knowledge (Polanyi, 1966), whether one precedes or follows the other, or whether one constitutes the application of the other (Harste, Leland, Schmidt, Vasquez, & Ociepka, 2004; Scho¨n, 1983), not always necessarily implying that one is more influential or prominent than the other. A few examples of postulations that occupied educational thought at the time entailed statements such as “knowing how to perform activities cannot directly derive from a general knowledge of theoretical principles about practice” (Elliot, 1979) or alternately, “practice should rely on and derive from a basic overall theory component,” or “practice is the application of theory,” or “there is an interim applied science stage between

International Teacher Education: Introduction

5

pure theory and pure practice which should be acknowledged” (Dearden, 1984). Although pronounced almost four decades ago, the deep-rooted influence of the theory-practice dichotomy on educational thought still finds, in the early 21st century, a prominent place in many university teacher education faculty arenas (Smagorinsky et al., 2003). Despite this, however, the impact of constructivist and social constructivist thinking on learning, education, and teacher education in the late 1980s (Engestro¨m, 2001; Loughran, 2003) along with the re-emergence of concepts such as learning from experience (Dewey, 1933), has led to a shift from the “theory-practice divide” to a view of theory-practice as constituted dialectically through what Scho¨n (1983) referred to as “reflective practice.”

Pedagogies of Dialectics The call for educating “reflective practitioners” through pedagogies that make meaningful connections between theory and practice in teacher education (Scho¨n, 1983, 1987) can be traced to the writings of educational philosopher John Dewey, as early as 1933. The dialectical process of constructing, reconstructing, and co-constructing theory through practice and vice-versa has become a major pursuit in preservice teacher education programs and pedagogies (Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Laboskey, 1994; Loughran, 2003; Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2005; Rodgers, 2002). This implies that in learning to become a teacher, prospective student teachers would ideally put into action competencies that rise above technical thinking about “what to do in the classroom” and engage in trying to establish relevant connections between theory and practice. In this process of reasoning, “why one does what one does” pedagogies would enhance practices whereby student teachers would become attentive to practical, ethical, critical, and transformational dimensions of the experience of learning to teach, leading to more informed and integrative understandings about their roles and practices (Benner,1984; Eisner & Powell, 2002; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Van Manen, 1991). This prevalent view of pedagogy in teacher education through which theory and practice can be mutually constructed to make sense of the lived experience of learning to teach (Clandinin, Davies, Hogan, & Kennard, 1993; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Laboskey, 1994; Loughran, 2003; Olson & Craig, 2001), has led to a shift in preservice education pedagogies from a “teacher training” perspective (focusing on techniques and skills) to a “teacher education” perspective, emphasizing the

6

LILY ORLAND-BARAK AND CHERYL J. CRAIG

systematic process by which prospective teachers develop their own subjective educational theories (Kelchtermans & Vandenberghe, 1994) alongside the acquisition of teaching skills, through reflective tasks.

Enhancing Connections The divide between theory and practice deriving from Cartesian thought has been a continuous obstacle in modern society, particularly in Western cultures. Moreover, we continuously witness the conflict where, on the one hand, formal abstract knowledge is appreciated and awarded a higher status with regard to professionalism, and on the other hand, there is a call to focus on “what works” and on best practices of “doing.” This duality positions the teaching profession in a “lose-lose” situation. In the background, developing pedagogies that aim at establishing meaningful connections between the various domains of learning to teach is particularly challenging and demanding, especially when adding the survival and pragmatic needs and concerns of novices at these early stages of development (Kagan, 1992; Olson & Osborn, 1991; Rust, 1994). The frequent absence of such connections is often associated with the structure of the preparation program, which provides little time for in-depth reflection, experimenting through trial and error, and experiencing a variety of teaching contexts and populations (Kwo, 1996; Woods, 1991). Feiman-Nemser (2001) discusses the weak relationship between course and field experiences, as evidenced in the overall lack of coherence, fragmentation, weak pedagogy, and lack of articulation in extant teacher preparation programs. Studies, thus, suggest integrating activities and course components that encourage talk and reflection on the connections and gaps between theory and practice that students encounter. Specifically, in order to avoid reducing pedagogical activity to technical solutions, programs recommend that prospective teachers be provided with direct experiences and ample opportunities to interact with and study school students in systematic ways, to make meaningful connections to the theoretical coursework (Bullough & Knowles, 1992; Calderhead, 1991; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990) and to experience dissonance when placed in a school context in which the beliefs and practices are not congruent with those of the novice (Kagan, 1992). Studies encourage the design and enactment of various tools for enhancing processes of awareness raising, for constructing pedagogical knowledge, and for legitimizing the experience of working through anomalies: concept mapping (Jones & Vesilind, 1996), journal writing and portfolio making,

International Teacher Education: Introduction

7

and the use of structured reflection questionnaires, peer observation, and group conferencing. Such tools can assist teacher educators in appreciating how the student teacher relates the context and experiences of the program to a personal and workable theory of teaching. The question of developing appropriate pedagogies for student teachers/ candidates to have increased opportunities for experiencing perplexity, discomfort, curiosity, and doubt in supportive learning environments (Jones & Vesilind, 1996), for engaging in core reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), in critical scrutiny of their practice, and in dialectical connections between theory and practice, is still a challenge and central concern in the work of teacher educators and educational researchers (Freeman, 1996; Joiner, 1993; Korthagen, 2010; Raymond, 2000; Zeichner, 2010). Such a challenge calls for the need to extend our understandings of how such envisioned opportunities for merging between theory and practice are actually evidenced in the practice of teacher education. In her proposal of a framework for thinking about a curriculum for teacher learning over time, Feiman-Nemser (2001) urges us to think more methodically about “well-designed opportunities to link theory and practice, develop skills and strategies, cultivate habits of analysis and reflection through focused observation, child study, analysis of cases, microteaching, and other laboratory experiences …” (p. 1020).

Filling in the Gap Based on Wang, Haertel, and Walberg’s (1993) review of 91 meta-analyses, 179 chapters, and 61 experts in the area of teachers’ propositional knowledge, Kliebard argued: The failure of research to affect practice is not a matter of obstinacy, ignorance, or malfeasance on the part of teachers, or for that matter a failure on the part of researchers to employ sophisticated research techniques, or to amass large enough data bases. It is failure on the part of the research establishment generally to take seriously enough the conditions of teaching as well as the perspective of teaching professionals. (p. 301)

Attending to Kleibard’s criticism and in response to the above challenges and gaps in the teacher education literature, this book presents and critically explores the design and enactment of researched innovative pedagogies in teacher education in different nations. Nowhere is there a volume that globally surveys teacher education pedagogies and invites international scholars to describe the most productive ones in their home countries. To this point

8

LILY ORLAND-BARAK AND CHERYL J. CRAIG

in time, teacher education has been approached in mostly insular ways because it is largely driven by local and national education policies. However, the spread of the global economy and the increased stature of international comparison tests (i.e., TIMSS) have changed all that. All countries in the world understand that education is vital to human and economic prosperity and that teacher education unavoidably is implicated. But the snag is this: political forces shaping public opinion in individual nations are deeply divided concerning how teacher education should proceed. This book acknowledges this Achilles’ heel tension but does not become weighed down by it. Instead, it focuses on practical matters that have been locally deliberated and enacted. Pedagogies are named, origins (cultural/practical/ theoretical/policy roots) are traced, and a live evidence-based example of the pedagogy unfurling in the local setting is presented from an insider’s view. After that, the conditions necessary for the pedagogy to be transported successfully to another international location are discussed. Each book of this three-volume set presents a different selection of pedagogy. Volume 1 offers the following promising pedagogies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Pedagogies of teacher selection Pedagogies of reflection Pedagogies of narrative ways of knowing Pedagogies of developing teacher identity Pedagogies of mediation and mentoring

REFERENCES Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. California, CA: Addison-Wesley. Bullough, R., & Knowles, J. (1992). Emerging as a teacher. London: Routledge. Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(5 6), 531 535. Cheng, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy: East and west, then and now. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 591 599. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum (pp. 363 461). New York, NY: Macmillan. Clandinin, D. J., Davies, A., Hogan, P., & Kennard, B. (1993). Learning to teach/ teaching to learn: Stories of collaboration in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

International Teacher Education: Introduction

9

Craig, C., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating teachers as curriculum makers. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282 305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dearden, R. F. (1984). Theory and practice in education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books (The original work was published in 1910). Doll, W. (1988). Curriculum beyond stability: Scho¨n, Prigone, Piaget. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 114 133). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Eisner, E. W. (1984). No easy answers: Schwab’s contributions to curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 201 209. Eisner, E. W., & Powell, K. (2002). Art in science? Curriculum Inquiry, 32(2), 131 159. Elliot, J. (1979). How do teachers learn? Norfolk : University of East Anglia. Engestro¨m, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work. Toward activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133 156. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013 1055. Freeman, D. (1996). ‘To take them at their word’: Language data in the study of teachers’ knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 733 753. Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119 136. Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108, 1 29. Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329 348). New York, NY: Macmillan. Han, X., & Feng, Z. (2013). School-Based Instruction Research (SBIR): An approach to teacher professional development in China. In C. J. Craig, P. C. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (Vol. 19, pp. 503 526). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Harste, J. C., Leland, C., Schmidt, K., Vasquez, V., & Ociepka, A. (2004). Practice makes practice, or does it? In Understanding the role that theory plays in teacher education (symposium). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans. Hollingsworth, S. (1995). Teachers as researchers. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 16 19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joiner, E. G. (1993). Reflecting on teacher development. In G. Guntermann (Ed.), Developing language teachers for a changing world (pp. 187 212). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Jones, M. G., & Vesilind, E. M. (1996). Putting practice into theory: Changes in the organization of preservice teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 91 117. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129 169.

10

LILY ORLAND-BARAK AND CHERYL J. CRAIG

Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: A biographical perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(1), 45 62. Kliebard, H. M. (1993). What is a knowledge base, and who would use it if we had one? Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 295 303. Korthagen, F. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 98 106. Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4 17. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 47 71. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of the scientific revolution (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (Originally published in 1962). Kwo, O. (1996). Learning to teach English in Hong-Kong classrooms: Patterns of reflection. In D. Freeman, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 295 320). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Laboskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Record. Loughran, J. (2003). Knowledge construction and learning to teach. Keynote address for the International Association of Teachers and Teaching Conference, Leiden University. McKeon, R. (1952). Philosophy and action. Ethics, 62(2), 79 100. Olson, M., & Craig, C. (2001). Opportunities and challenges in the development of teachers’ knowledge: The development of narrative authority through knowledge communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 667 684. Olson, M., & Osborn, J. (1991). Learning to teach: The first year. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(4), 331 343. Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Same but different: Jewish and Arab student teachers’ reflections on the use of L1 in teaching English as a foreign language. Language, Learning and Curriculum, 18(1), 91 114. Pinar, W. F. (1988). Introduction. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 1 13). Scotsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Garden City Doubleday. Ratnam, T. (2013). Engaging India’s social history to understand and promote teacher change. In C. J. Craig, P. C. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (Vol. 19, pp. 527 554). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Raymond, H. C. (2000). Learning to teach foreign languages: Case study of six preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Reid, W. A. (1993). Does Schwab improve on Tyler? A response to Jackson. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(6), 499 510. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842 866. Rust, F. O. (1994). The first year of teaching: It’s not what I expected. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(2), 205 217. Scho¨n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

International Teacher Education: Introduction

11

Scho¨n, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schwab, J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78, 1 23. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 1 22. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399 1436. Stenhouse, L. (Ed.). (1980). Curriculum research and development in action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Publishers. Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249 294. Westbury, I. (2005). Reconsidering Schwab’s “Practicals”: A response to Peter Hlebowitsh’s “Generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation.” Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 89 101. Woods, H. E. (1991). The student teaching experience: A qualitative examination. Doctoral dissertation. Corvallis. OR: Oregon State University. Xu, S. (2011). Bridging the east and west dichotomy: Harmonizing eastern learning with western knowledge. In J. Ryan (Ed.), Education reform in China: Changing concepts, contexts and practices (pp. 224 242). New York, NY: Routledge. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1 2), 89 99.

PART I PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER SELECTION

PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER SELECTION: A SOUTH KOREAN CASE JeongAe You ABSTRACT With growing emphasis being placed on the selection of highly qualified teachers, it is inevitable that policies and practices of teacher selection will become more methodical. This chapter explores systematic practices of selecting preservice teachers by examining local/national policies related to teacher selection in South Korea. The first part of this chapter explains why a conceptual understanding is essential to understanding the Korean educational context. Included is a short explanation of various approaches to improve teacher selection processes and procedures. The work is based on the assumption that effective teachers can be chosen by implementing an effective teacher selection system. The second part outlines the current process of teacher selection in South Korea, along with the issues and challenges surrounding practices related to teacher selection. In South Korea, teaching is still considered a highly desirable profession compared to other countries, as well as to other occupations in South Korea. Hence, a huge number of teacher candidates and preservice teachers must pass through many steps before becoming

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 15 32 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022003

15

16

JEONGAE YOU

certified as teachers. They also must take national and district tests. The teacher selection system in South Korea is highly centralized and more complicated than most other countries. In this chapter, the teacher selection system in South Korea is critically analyzed in an effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in national policy and practices related to teacher selection. The final part of the chapter discusses implications based on the analysis of the teacher selection system in South Korea. Keywords: Teacher selection; teacher quality; teacher certification; teacher education; South Korea

INTRODUCTION Globally, there is a growing interest in improving and/or testing teacher quality because of its impact on student learning (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Dee & Wyckoff, 2013). In reality, the underlying premise is that what teachers know and do is the most influential thing affecting what students learn. This has generated debate among scholars, educators, and policy-makers for several decades. For this reason, much discourse about the importance of teacher quality has taken place, but little is known about the concept, elements, and characteristics affecting teacher quality within the educational community. In short, universal agreement about teacher quality has not been reached nationally or internationally among educators, policymakers, and teachers (Dee & Wyckoff, 2013). Driven by local understandings of teacher quality, many efforts have been made to determine an effective teacher selection system for choosing qualified teachers. Teacher selection is defined as the process by which the most qualified and effective teacher candidate is chosen to fill a position (Vitale, 2009, p. 17). According to Stronge and Hindman (2006, pp. 4 5), this includes procedures such as an “employment application, screening interview, building-level interview and [in other instances] may include a writing sample, a demonstration lesson, additional interviews, and so on.” Globally, the teacher selection system varies between countries due to different ways of recruiting preservice teachers, certifying teachers, and hiring teachers. Each country applies its own method in accordance with current local conditions. As a result, the teacher selection system in most countries is both similar and different to those in other countries.

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

Fig. 1.

17

Foundational Ideas Affecting Teacher Selection in South Korea.

Moreover, the teacher selection system is constantly being changed. South Korea is no exception. Unlike other countries, the status of the teaching profession in South Korea is very high in comparison to other professions and forms of work. For this reason, there are more teacher education programs in universities than in departments representing other academic or professional disciplines in Korea. Historically, the teacher selection system in South Korea has evolved as time has passed (Chung, Kim, Ryoo, Park, & Moon, 2011). In South Korea, new challenges and demands for reforming the teacher selection process are ongoing. The foundational idea underlying the Korean system is the rigid link between the national K-12 curriculum, desirable teacher role identification, teacher certification, and the teacher selection system as outlined in national policy (see Fig. 1). Hence, it is important to introduce the current teacher selection system and to further discuss issues and challenges associated with creating a better teacher selection system in Korea before specifically addressing preservice teacher education.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS Internationally, South Korea is recognized as a highly educated society. Among its strengths is the fact that it has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. Against this backdrop, the building blocks for teacher selection in Korea will now be discussed. As foreshadowed, these building blocks are the Korean national K-12 curriculum, teacher role identification based on national curriculum revisions, and teacher certification. South Korean National Curriculum in K-12 Education: Decentralization and Autonomy Korea has a single-track 6-3-3-4 system with six years of elementary school, three years of middle school, three years of high school, and four years of

18

JEONGAE YOU

university, with graduate programs that may follow. In the case of school curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has initiated national curriculum revisions. The most recent national curriculum was the 2009 Revised National Curriculum, which centered on creativity and character development. Unlike previous curriculum revisions, this recently revised national curriculum in Korea placed school-based curriculum at the center of the national curriculum and emphasized the role of the national standards in supporting schoolbased curriculum. Korean national curriculum autonomy began in the sixth curriculum revision in 1987 when the decentralization of decision-making provided the freedom to organize and implement local and school curricular initiatives. Since the sixth national curriculum revision, school autonomy has expanded. In case of the 2009 Revised Curriculum, which is the ninth curriculum in Korea, there are two striking changes to curriculum autonomy. One is the categorization of all existing extracurricular activities as “creative experiential activities” (Ministry of Education, 2009). This means that each school can offer flexible programs with various time allotments to students. The second change grants permission for schools to freely increase or decrease class hours of subject clusters within 20% and to autonomously organize and implement a completion period and class hours for each subject area by expanding a concentrated subject system with the introduction of grade clusters and subject clusters (MOE, 2009).

Teacher Role Identification In the South Korean education system, the desirable teacher role is that of “teachers as curriculum makers” (Kim & You, 2011; Oh, You, Kim, & Craig, 2013; You, 2009). This is supported by the increase in curriculum decentralization and teacher autonomy. The teacher as curriculum maker role means that “teachers and students live out a curriculum … [with] intentionality, objectives, and curriculum materials play[ing] a part” (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992, p. 365). According to Clandinin and Connelly (1992), “designing curricula for teachers to implement for instructional purposes” is “rather like putting the cart before the horse” (p. 365). Unlike teachers in other parts of the world who are treated as curriculum users by policy-makers, Korean teachers enacting the curriculum maker image create curriculum alongside students in local settings and exceed minimum state requirements (Clandinin & Connelly, 1995; Craig & Ross, 2008).

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

19

The policy construction of teacher roles is outlined in the 2009 Revised National Curriculum. As mentioned, the latest revised Korean national curriculum focuses on creativity and character education. Thus, Korean teachers need to fulfill two criteria: (a) to qualify as a teacher they must be creative and of good character and (b) teach creativity and model good character to students. In other words, teachers must be creative human beings with good characters in order to teach creativity and character to students based on the objectives of the national curriculum. Regarding the policy construction of the teacher role, the Korean Ministry of Education (2006) introduced 10 teacher standards that define and develop the professional qualifications of new teachers and which provide frameworks for guiding curriculum in teacher education, teacher education evaluation, and the teacher selection system. The 10 teacher standards are as follows: • Standard 1: The teacher possesses a healthy character, and is accountable and ethical. • Standard 2: The teacher contributes to the learning and welfare of students. • Standard 3: The teacher understands how learners learn, and develops and recognizes various patterns of learning and development within learning environments. • Standard 4: The teacher possesses professional knowledge of subject matter. • Standard 5: The teacher develops and implements curriculum appropriate to content, students, and educational contexts. • Standard 6: The teacher plans and effectively teaches according to plan. • Standard 7: The teacher monitors and assesses students’ learning. • Standard 8: The teacher promotes an educational environment and culture that supports students’ learning. • Standard 9: The teacher creates and builds collaborative networks within the educational community. • Standard 10: The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning.

Korean Teacher Certification System In South Korea, there are two kinds of teacher certification. In the case of primary school teachers, only national universities train and educate preservice primary teachers according to Korean government policy. However,

20

JEONGAE YOU

secondary school teachers can be trained in colleges of education or in education departments of universities. Preservice teacher candidates study the prerequisite subjects in Table 1 for teacher certification (MOE, 2013). The latter method of preparation was introduced to attract competent teachers from other areas of study into the field of education and to facilitate the high demand for secondary teachers in particular subject areas. All in all, the Korean government established universal prerequisite courses for teacher certification at general universities to standardize the qualification of teachers, to provide fairer opportunity for teacher candidates, and to facilitate a more open teacher training system (MOE & KEDI, 2011). Since 1991, new teachers at the secondary level have been selected through the highly competitive national examination. At the same time, the Korean government perceived that future teachers needed to develop more practical teacher competence in dealing with students with various special needs. For this reason, the government strengthened its requirements for teacher certification by adding several new courses like “Introduction to special education,” “Prevention & solution of school violence,” and “Educational service activities.”

Table 1.

Prerequisite Subjects for Teacher Certification (MOE, 2013).

Area

Prerequisite Subjects

Educational theory (12 credits or more/6 subjects or more)

Introduction to education Educational philosophy Curriculum Educational evaluation Teaching methods and educational strategies Educational psychology Educational sociology Educational administration and management Other subjects on educational theory

Subject matter education (14 credits or more/5 subjects or more)

Major subjects→ Three courses are required. Curriculum in major subject (2 credits or more) Teaching methods in major subject (2 credits or more) Logics in major subject (2 credits or more)

Educational literacy (6 credits or more/3 subjects or more)

Introduction to special education Prevention and solution of school violence Teaching practicum

Educational practicum

School field practicum (2 credits or more) Educational service activities (2 credits or less)

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

21

TEACHER SELECTION SYSTEM IN SOUTH KOREA Current Teacher Employment Tests In Korea, all public teachers in the primary and secondary levels are public officials. Public officials in Korea are guaranteed social and economic stability compared to other occupations. The teacher employment test (TET) has been an open competition since 1992 (MOE & KEDI, 2011). For this reason, highly talented high school students are more willing to enter the teacher education programs. The ratio of undergraduates in nonteacher education programs who have acquired double majors or taken additional courses such as “Prerequisite subjects for the teaching certification courses” has greatly increased. In addition, there also is a group of people who apply to graduate programs in education to acquire teacher certification. Teacher candidates who graduate from various primary and secondary teacher education programs are selected as public school teachers after they pass the TET. Currently, the TET consists of two phases. The first phase is a national test, whereas the second phase is hosted by 17 provincial superintendents of education. Each phase has different teaching areas and ratios. In Phase 1, the MOE has decided that the ratio of the two testing areas is 20% and 80%. However, the ratio of teaching areas in Phase 2 depends on the local areas. Additionally, 1.5 times more than the target quota is the number of final candidates selected in Phase 1. Thus, only 1.5 times the number of targeted teacher candidates are tested in Phase 2. The final candidates are selected based on their combined scores in Phases 1 and 2. Since 1992, there have been no changes in Phase 1 or Phase 2. While the primary and secondary TETs are administered separately, the phases and elements for both tests are almost identical. In the primary level, the first phase is a national written test (long and short essay/shortanswer) and includes content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and education in 10 subject fields. The second phase consists of in-depth interviews, lesson plans, teaching demonstration lessons, and English ability as a way to evaluate teaching aptitude and ability. In South Korea, English was introduced as one of the required subjects in grades 3 6 in the revised 2007 national curriculum. Generally, the competition rate among preservice candidates is high. Only one of three applicants is admitted to a teacher education program. The secondary TET is also conducted in two stages. Phase 1 is a national written test with long and short easy and short-answer questions about

22

JEONGAE YOU

general education (20%) and each subject matter (80%). The test items in each subject matter include pedagogical content knowledge (20 28%) and content knowledge (52 60%) of the 80% ratio. Phase 2 consists of an in-depth interview to evaluate the candidate’s teaching aptitude, lesson planning, demonstration teaching for evaluating teaching competence, and/ or performance tests for a few subjects (i.e., English, physical education, music, and visual arts). In particular, the elements of the skill tests vary from local area to local area. In general, the competition mean rate is around 25 people for every available teaching position. Hence, the teaching field is the most selective and competitive of all occupational areas in Korea.

Characteristics of the Testing System: Simplification and Integration The teacher selection system in Tables 1 and 2 was recently revised in 2013. Fig. 2 shows the changed testing steps and tools before and after 2013. Prior to 2013, there were three phases in the teacher selection system. The first phase was multiple choice tests in general education and in the subject areas. The strengths of the multiple choice tests is that standardized testing can reduce subjectivity in grading system for selecting teacher Table 2. Phases [Phase 1] National test

[Phase 2] Local test

Primary Teacher Employment Test.

Testing Areas (and Ratio)

Test Coverage

Tools

General education (20%)

All general education disciplines

Long essay (1 item)

Subject matter curriculum (80%)

All areas of elementary school curriculum (i.e., Korean, Math, Science, English, social studies, P.E., music, and arts)

Short answer/short essay (total 22 items)

Teaching aptitude

Aptitude, personality, attitudes, etc.

Interview

Lesson plan ability Teaching ability

Communication and teaching skills as teachers

Lesson plan Demonstration

English ability

Competencies in teaching English English communication abilities

English interview and teaching demonstration in English

23

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

Old system

New system

Multiple choice tests (40 items in general education/40 items in major subject)

Long essay (less than 10 items in major subject)

Short answer test (15 items in major subject) Short essay (6 items in major subject) Long essay (1 item in general education/ 2 items in major subject)

Fig. 2.

The Changed Testing Steps and Tools.

candidates, and the appropriate test can effectively determine the knowledge levels of prospective teachers. Because the TET in Korea is very competitive, as mentioned earlier, the grading system in the national essay written test in the second phase is always controversial. Hence, the multiple choice test is favored as an effective testing tool because it is objective, able to be graded electronically, and free of issues associated with human graders. However, after five years of usage, the multiple choice tests for general education and the subject areas in the new system were abandoned as Fig. 2 indicates. This happened for two reasons. One reason was the serious burden it placed on teacher candidates who had to prepare for two extensive domains of education. In fact, there are over 10 sub-domains in general education such as philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, curriculum, evaluation, counseling, instructional technology, administration, lifelong education, special education etc. As a result, the written test in education for teacher selection system is now determined by only one testing item. The one testing item is an integrated test designed to measure the logical problem solving of teacher candidates. Also, compared to the multiple choice testing items in the old system, the one long essay testing item in the current test enables teacher candidates to connect the practical and contextbound testing prompt with their professional knowledge learned in their preservice teacher education programs. The other reason the multiple choice tests for general education and the different subject areas fell by the wayside was because developing multiple test items takes too much time and money and requires too much administration. In fact, for the past several years, the time for administering the first phase to the third phase in the teacher selection system generally was four to five months. Additionally, from the starting date of the first phase to the ending date of the third phase in the old system took more than three

24

JEONGAE YOU

months for teacher candidates. Thus, the new teacher employment system is simpler with the assessment of teacher candidates’ professional knowledge replacing the evaluation of their content knowledge in multiple areas of study. The major change from the old system to the new system has increased the quality of the long essay testing items. As the number of the long essays has been reduced, several teaching areas have been integrated into the long essay testing item. Thus, the long essay testing item evaluates professional knowledge such as one’s logical thinking skills, problem solving skills related to educational contexts, and one’s ability to be reflective. To prepare for these tests, most of universities in Korea have developed special programs for teacher candidates such as workshops and lectures for essay, lesson planning, and skill tests, and pilot tests for interviewing and for their teaching demonstrations. In particular, in-service teachers have been invited to become members of the judging panels when pilot testing for interviewing and teaching demonstrations takes place. In addition, more universities are developing websites that provide online sample materials like long essay questions, lesson plan assignments, and interview questions.

ISSUES OF TEACHER SELECTION The increased emphasis on selecting highly qualified teachers, the growing number of competitive teacher candidates, and the decrease in the number of elementary and secondary school students/number of teaching positions available are issues that sit in the background of teacher selection in South Korea. Issues relating to two matters, teacher certification and the TET system, will now be discussed.

Issue of Teacher Certification: Single Teaching Path versus Multiple Teaching Paths As mentioned earlier, there are two different pathways for teacher candidates to become certified in South Korea. For teacher candidates at the primary level, only one teaching path exists. In contrast, multiple teaching paths allow talented teacher candidates to be selected at the secondary level. Arguments for and against teaching pathways exist in Korea (Chung

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

25

et al., 2011). The decision for/against a single teaching path or multiple teaching paths involves different beliefs of teacher education. One belief is “teachers are made” and the other one is “teachers are chosen” (Wang & Fwu, 2007). Those who defend the “teachers are made” argument strongly support a purpose-oriented system of teacher certification. The supporters of the purpose-oriented teacher certification insist that the system is more capable to recruit potential high school students who want to become teachers. According to these supporters, under the purpose-oriented teacher certification system, most of the teaching training institutes are filled with preservice teacher candidates who are called to be teachers. On the other hand, those who possess the different belief, that is, “teachers are chosen,” argue that the open system is more effective in selecting competent prospective teachers with a strong sense of confidence and accountability. The reason is that the new teachers have passed the very tough employment test. Also, the open system makes it possible to recruit teacher candidates with various skills and backgrounds. As Table 4 shows, both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Currently, elementary teacher training institutes are operating under the purpose-oriented system, whereas secondary institutions work according to the open system in South Korea. In the case of the primary level, there is a growing number of people who insist that the teacher preparation system at the primary level needs to be open like secondary level. Currently, due to the nature of primary education, primary teachers have taught all subject matters. For this reason, compared to secondary teachers, they do not have expertise in teaching all subjects. So, many people suggest that the primary teacher certification system needs several specialized subject areas such as English, physical education, music, and visual arts. Moreover, the teacher selection ratio (around 3:1) in primary level is more than eight times lower than the teacher selection ratio (around 25:1) at the secondary level, despite the salary of primary and secondary teachers being identical. Inequities between being selected at the primary level and at the secondary level fuel arguments for reforming the primary teacher certification system and making it more like the secondary teacher certification system. However, there also exist people who support the purpose-oriented system of primary teacher certification because they perceive that educating students is more important than teaching subject matter to students. Meanwhile, people tend to agree that the secondary teacher certification, which takes place in an open system, puts teacher education institutes at risk in Korea. When the teacher certification system became open, the

26

JEONGAE YOU

status of colleges of education in Korean universities became unstable. Because undergraduates in non-teacher training institutes could acquire teacher certification after they take prerequisite courses for teacher certification, private universities in Korea tended to decrease the number of students in college of educations (COE) or to close COEs. In terms of the universities owners, the COE is one of colleges with low economic return. Due to this tendency, there also exists a group of people who insist that the secondary teacher certification system needs to be changed from being a totally open system to a partially open system. That is, teacher candidates who teach common subject matters (Korean, Math, English, science, social studies, p.e., arts) in K-12 need to be certified by the purpose-oriented system, whereas other teacher candidates who teach elective subjects (technology, engineering, home economics, French, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, etc.) would be certified by an open system.

Issue of Teacher Employment Test: Centralization versus Decentralization As mentioned previously, there are two phases of the TET at both the primary and secondary levels (see Tables 2 and 3). The testing system in Phase 1 is characterized as centralized and the system in Phase 2 as decentralized. Table 3. Phases Phase 1

Secondary Teacher Employment Test.

Testing Areas (and Ratio) General education (20%) Major subjects (80%)

Phase 2

Test Coverage All general education disciplines Pedagogical content knowledge in each major subject (20 28%) Content knowledge in each major subject (52 60%)

Tools Long essay (1 item) Short answer, short essay, and long essay (about 25 30 items)

Teaching aptitude

Aptitude, personality, attitude, etc.

Interview (3 4 questions)

Lesson plan ability Teaching ability

Specialized major subject

Lesson plan (20 mins) Teaching demonstration (15 20 mins)

Activity test

English, physical education, music, arts, etc.

Skill tests

27

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

As indicated in Table 4, the centralized and decentralized systems also have affordances and constraints (see Table 5). Comparing Phase 1 and Phase 2 in TETs, Phase 1 is more influential in being selected as new teachers than Phase 2. Generally, 150% of teacher candidates have been chosen to receive testing qualifications during Phase 2. Phase 1 consists of three written test items: short-answer, a short essay, and a long essay, for mostly measuring content knowledge of teacher candidates. In fact, the competitive written tests in most countries are used not only for certification but also to control the number of candidates with access to public employment as a teacher. In Korea, despite the long essay test items recently introduced to solve the limitations of multiple choices or Table 4.

Comparison of Purpose-Oriented and Open System (MOE & KEDI, 2011, Cited in p. 52).

Classification

Merits

Demerits

Purposeoriented system

• Fosters teachers with a sense of calling • Develops professional knowledge and technologies about teaching occupation • Controls qualification of teachers

• Impossible to foster teachers in charge of all subject areas • Explores science in a closed way • Lack of diversity due to the standardized curriculum

Open system

• Acquires various knowledge on major courses • Acquires a wide range of information and perspectives • Improves the qualifications of teachers through free competition • Earns a high return on investment in teacher training

• Lack of an ethical awareness of the teaching profession • Ambivalent attitude towards the study of education • Lack of expertise in subject matters and ability to teach and instruct students

Table 5. Classification

Comparison of Centralized and Decentralized Systems. Strengths

Weaknesses

Centralized system

Quality control of test items is possible The process of test making and managing is systematic and consistent

Test item is standardized Much time and budget are needed

Decentralized system

A variety of test items can be made Tailored teacher selection is possible

The process of test making and managing is not stable Teacher qualification is not guaranteed

28

JEONGAE YOU

short answered test items, the long test item tends to significantly evaluate content-based understanding rather than advanced thinking skills and/or problem solving skills as teachers. Due to the importance of the written test in Phase 1, most teacher candidates are likely to devote their college life on acquiring content knowledge rather than understanding or cultivating teacher competence that suits life in the real school world. Even worse are the unexpected side effects of the national test on teacher education programs in Phase 1 in Korea. It presents dilemmas concerning what to teach and how to teach preservice teachers in teacher education. To increase the ratio of the teacher employment rate, most teacher training programs tend to pay less attention to cultivating teacher competence and attitude, and more attention to content-based courses for preparing the first phase in the TET. Despite teacher training programs having some local influence, the established courses in most teacher training programs are mostly alike. Moreover, the ways of teaching in teacher education programs are likely to be similar in order to prepare for the national written test in Phase 1. In the meantime, the Korean government has tried several times to make the teacher selection system entirely decentralized, but most of the provincial superintendents of education have rejected these trials due to high-stakes testing and lack of expertise in test making and management. In the future, Phase 1 may be changed to a decentralized system like Phase 2 if the provincial superintendents of education are ready. However, there are also proponents who argue that the national testing system is still effective in terms of promoting the status of the teaching profession and the academic credentials of teacher candidates.

CHALLENGES FOR TEACHER SELECTION IN KOREA The following unique challenges for teacher selection in Korea are globalized and/or localized. They, in turn, can offer valuable insights and lessons that can be shared with the rest of the international community.

Integrating Primary and Secondary Teacher Training Institutes To date, primary teachers and secondary teachers have been trained in separate teacher training institutes. Primary teacher candidates attend small

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

29

colleges of education, whereas secondary teacher candidates are trained in large universities in various colleges such as the College of Liberal Arts, College of Law, and College of Engineering. At the primary level, due to the homogeneity of the teacher candidates, there are few opportunities to expand their perspectives and activities as future teachers. In addition, insufficient budget is invested in small colleges, which presents another disadvantage. Meanwhile, few opportunities are afforded to secondary teacher candidates for understanding primary education, which necessarily should be connected to secondary education (MOE & KEDI, 2011). For this reason, voices that support the integration of primary teacher and secondary teacher training institutes in Korea are growing in the educational community. If the integration is possible, it is expected that the integrated teacher training institutes in primary and secondary levels could provide more extensive, diversified, and sound programs because they will have the teacher educators, instructional facilities, and resources to do so. Also, primary and secondary teacher candidates would attend the same campus. Mutual understanding between primary education and secondary education for teacher candidates as well as teacher educators would facilitate educational links among all subject matters (Chung et al., 2011; KEDI, 2011). So far, no changes in teacher certification at the primary and secondary levels have taken place.

Dual Primary Teacher Selection System At the primary level, a teacher is in charge of all eight required subject areas, and a teacher candidate prepares for eight different TETs. In addition, the teacher candidate studying in primary teacher training institutes faces many difficulties in acquiring knowledge and skills in eight different subject matters. That is, all three stages of the teacher training system, the teacher certification system, and the teacher employment system at the primary level are tough. The level of difficulty does not change after the teacher candidate becomes a real teacher at the primary level because a primary teacher is required to teach all eight subject areas. For this reason, there is a need to implement a dual primary teacher selection system such as regular classroom teacher and primary subject matter specialist teacher. The classroom teachers need to be in charge of several subject matters, including Korean, math, science, and social studies. However, four subject areas (English, physical education, music, and visual arts) could be taught by primary subject matter specialist teachers. If this

30

JEONGAE YOU

approach is adopted, separate TETs at the primary level should be implemented: one for classroom teachers and the other for primary subject matter specialist teachers. In this arrangement, classroom teacher certification holders would take the classroom TET only. On the other hand, primary P.E. teacher certification holders, for example, would have taken the P.E. TET only. Likewise, the teacher certification holders in primary English, music, and visual arts would be tested in their respective employment test areas in a manner mirroring the secondary TET in Korea.

Separation of Secondary Teacher Selection System In Korea, the national curriculum consists of common curriculum (grades 1 9) and elective curriculum (grades 10 12). In the case of elective curriculum in high school level, more specialized expertise in teaching is necessary. For this reason, highly advanced content knowledge and professional teaching skills in each major subject area are needed in high school contexts. This presents another challenge for teacher selection at the secondary level. Some argue that there is a need to separate the single teacher certification into two different teacher certifications: middle school teacher certification and high school teacher certification (KEDI, 2011). First of all, the prerequisite courses for teacher certification would need to be redesigned to respectively fit middle school certification and high school certification. At the same time, the TET at the secondary level would need to change.

CLOSING REMARKS In South Korea, new teachers at the primary and secondary school levels are annually selected among a number of the prepared candidates who have acquired teacher certification at teacher education institutes and passed the TETs. Although the primary and secondary TETs are operated separately, the appointment procedure is almost same. There is no doubt that the quality of education has been positively affected by the professional teacher certification system and the employment test. Thus, the teacher certification system and the employment test system are seriously studied in all teacher education programs in order to improve the overall quality of education (MOE & KEDI, 2011). In this chapter, the highly

Pedagogies of Teacher Selection: A South Korean Case

31

competitive nature of the Korean teacher selection system has been presented. The burden, stress, time, and money to prepare for the TETs have been questioned. The burdens and stresses arise from two sources: the entirely open system for teacher certification and the highly centralized system for TET. As discussed in the teacher selection section of this chapter, there are also advantages and disadvantages to both the teacher certification system (purpose-oriented and open system) and the TET (centralized and decentralized systems). Clearly, the teacher selection system needs to be reformed because it influences the quality of South Korea’s teacher education institutes. In fact, the teacher selection system in Korea has greatly impacted the curriculum and pedagogy of teacher educators. In Korea, quality teachers, according to national curriculum (grades K-12) policy, are creative teachers with good moral character. Hence, the teacher selection system needs to be altered to reflect the preferred images of teachers in South Korea. Ultimately, teacher selection systems are likely to differ depending on the country of origin. Hence, the constructive reform of the teacher selection system based on the favored image of a qualified teacher in Korea continues to be a work in progress.

REFERENCES Chung, M., Kim, J., Ryoo, J., Park, I., & Moon, C. (2011). Improving teacher recruitment in Korea. Research Report of Korean Education Development Institute. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American educational research association (pp. 363 461). New York, NY: Macmillian. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Craig, C., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teacher as curriculum maker. In M. Connelly (Ed.), The handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282 305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. Prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America’s future. Retrieved from http:// www.nctaf.org/documents/DoingWhatMattersMost.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1 51. Dee, D., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence form impact. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19529. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19529

32

JEONGAE YOU

KEDI. (2011). A study on improvement of the teacher recruitment system. KEDI Research Report RR 2011-05. Korea. Kim, W., & You, J. (2011). Practical dilemmas and strategies of experienced teachers as curriculum makers. Korean Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 17(4), 39 66. Ministry of Education. (2006). Developing teacher standards. Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2009). 2009 revised national curriculum. Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2013). Teacher qualification standards. Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education & KEDI. (2011). Successful strategy for training teachers in Korean education. 2011 Knowledge Sharing Program. Government Publications Series. Oh, S., You, J., Kim, W., & Craig, C. (2013). What spurs curriculum making in physical education: Four narratives of experienced teachers. Sport, Education, and Society, 18(2), 243 266. Stronge, J. H., & Hindman, J. L. (2006). The teacher quality index. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Vitale, T. (2009). An analysis of teacher selection tools in Pennsylvania. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Wang, H., & Fwu, B. (2007). In pursuit of teacher quality in diversity: A study of the selection mechanisms of new secondary teacher education programmes in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 166 181. You, J. (2009). Physical education curriculum. Seoul: Daehan Media Publishing.

PEDAGOGIES OF TEACHER PREPARATION: THE CASE OF MATHEMATICS ENHANCEMENT COURSES IN ENGLAND John Clarke and Jean Murray ABSTRACT This chapter outlines the importance of enhancement courses, particularly in mathematics, to the preservice landscape in England. These programs occur after an individual has completed a degree but before admittance to preservice teacher education. The pedagogies used in these programs are characterized as both pedagogies of teacher preparation and of selection for preservice. The learning that takes place in these programs is an under-researched area. The chapter addresses that issue by specifying, analyzing, and justifying the pedagogies of teacher preparation deployed in the context of one mathematics enhancement course (MEC). We draw on international research to argue that there is a specific body of knowledge for teaching their subject area, which all teachers need to generate. In terms of empirical work and personal scholarship, the chapter is based primarily on the scholarship and practice of the first author, Clarke, between 2008 and 2014. We present an exemplar of

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 33 51 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022005

33

34

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

teaching, following the principles of the pedagogies of preparation in place for the MEC. These pedagogies aim to develop for student teachers a profound or “relational understanding” of fundamental mathematics, aiming for the re-experiencing and re-construction of an aspect of mathematics, which they first learned as young grade school students. We argue that a distinctive form of mathematical knowledge is thus produced in and through the teaching processes. In the final part of the chapter, we outline the conditions in which these pedagogies might be adopted in other contexts, arguing that they represent good practice in teaching subject knowledge in all teacher education programs. Keywords: Teacher education programs; teacher education pedagogies; mathematics enhancement courses; pedagogy of selection; England preservice education

INTRODUCTION The recruitment and retention of secondary school mathematics teachers, the provision made for student teacher learning on preservice, or initial teacher education (ITE) courses, and the quality of teaching mathematics in schools are ongoing issues of concern in a number of countries across the world (Adler & Davis, 2006). Research studies (i.e., Adler et al., 2010; Even & Ball, 2009; Sullivan & Wood, 2008) indicate that a number of countries struggle with shortages of teachers in mathematics and science subject areas. Different solutions to these shortages have been tried over time. In South Africa, for example, mathematics “conversion” courses have been constructed for serving teachers whose subject is not mathematics (Adler & Davis, 2006). In this South African model, qualified teachers effectively retrain to become teachers of mathematics, in a subject which is “new” to them. But in England, one of the recent solutions to address this problem has been the provision of pre-ITE mathematics enhancement courses (MECs). As this chapter will detail, in MECs, the transformation of the individual into “a mathematician” and a potential teacher of the subject takes place before entry to a preservice course and formal qualification as a teacher. MECs are part of a suite of enhancement courses (or program) in subject areas, such as secondary school1 mathematics, chemistry, and physics, designed to address teacher shortages and recruitment crises in these subjects. Enhancement courses take place after an individual has

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

35

completed a degree in another subject, but before student teachers are admitted to a one-year postgraduate preservice course (PGCE) in their chosen subject area. MECs typically run for 24 weeks, culminating in an assessment of personal subject knowledge. Because it is a pre-ITE course, the whole of many MECs take place within universities, with very few opportunities for intending student teachers to undertake any work in schools. The pedagogies in such courses are therefore characterized here as primarily those of teacher preparation, but because passing the end of course assessment usually assures entrance into a PGCE program, they additionally may be regarded as pedagogies of selection for preservice education. MECs have been very important in the preservice mathematics education landscape in England, yet the learning which takes place in them is a largely under-researched area. This chapter contributes to addressing that issue by specifying, analyzing, and justifying the pedagogies of teacher preparation deployed in the context of a MEC. In terms of empirical work and personal scholarship, our chapter is based primarily on the research of Clarke between 2008 and 2014. Accounts of specific pedagogies are based on the reflective practice of Clarke for a Teaching Fellowship post in 2012. This practice is an example of what Schwab (1969) termed local deliberation and enactment of “the practical.” Our aim in this chapter is to describe, evidence, and analyze these teacher education pedagogies, based on ongoing research. We also draw on more extensive research in this area (i.e., Even & Ball, 2009; Ma, 1999; Shulman, 1987; Skemp, 1976), both nationally and internationally. We additionally spotlight literature concerning both generic teaching and learning and subject-specific materials related to mathematics education. In the conclusion to our work, we outline the conditions in which these pedagogies might be adopted in other contexts, arguing that they represent good practice in teaching subject knowledge in teacher preparation and selection, as well as in preservice courses.

MATHEMATICS ENHANCEMENT COURSES AND THEIR CONTEXTS In England, concerns about the recruitment and retention of high quality secondary school mathematics teachers date back to at least the Cockcroft Report (1982). But by the turn of the twenty-first century, these concerns about the effects of the shortage of specialist mathematics teachers on

36

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

the learning of mathematics in English secondary schools had intensified further. The 2000/2001 Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, for example, openly stated that “(i)n Mathematics: there are insufficient teachers to match the demands of the mathematics curriculum in one school in eight, a situation that has deteriorated from the previous year”(OFSTED, 2001, p. 1). The same report saw the difficulties in the recruitment of mathematics teachers, especially specialist teachers, impacting adversely on students’ standards of achievement. Against this background of ongoing concerns the Smith Report identified a need to look beyond the pool of mathematics graduates (Smith, 2004). It announced that the quasi governmental organization then regulating preservice, the Teacher Training Agency (TTA), had plans to first pilot and then implement nation-wide a series of MECs from January 2004. Courses have been run in many universities between that date and the time of writing. MECs are designed to target graduates from a wide range of nonmathematics degree backgrounds. All students had to have a mathematics qualification to Advanced (A) level or equivalent but might have degrees in subjects as varied as business studies, psychology, art or religious education. The primary aim of the MECs was and still is to develop and extend students’ mathematical subject knowledge, prior to enrollment on a PGCE in mathematics teaching. As the program has expanded, MECs have become, for many intending mathematics teachers who did not have a mathematics degree, a route to acquiring and understanding mathematics subject knowledge to be developed further and deployed on a preservice course.

MATHEMATICS ENHANCEMENT COURSES: SPECIFICATIONS AND TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PRACTICES The official specifications for the MECs may be characterized as a “pure” model of subject knowledge enhancement. This model envisages that knowledge acquisition can happen through an instrumental and essentially individualized process of transmission from teacher to learner and in a vacuum, divorced from the complexities of becoming a teacher of mathematics, and engaging with subject pedagogies. Implemented in an MEC, this model views intending MEC students as requiring new and more advanced knowledge to enable them to “cover” all aspects of the secondary

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

37

school curriculum, especially when teaching post-16 students studying for A-level qualifications. This is, of course, important since many MEC students would not have studied some of the new curriculum areas in their own mathematics schooling. An example here is that of “decision and discrete mathematics” (a branch of mathematics, which deals with solutions to a broad range of scenarios encountered in everyday life). This area of the subject is relatively new to the A-level syllabus in some areas of England. Subject knowledge to ensure curriculum “coverage” is not, however, enough for these intending teachers. And the inadequacy and emptiness of this “pure” model of subject knowledge, as acquired in some sort of pedagogical vacuum, is belied by research into the knowledge required for teaching and learning to teach. It was Shulman (1986), a student of Schwab, who introduced the phrase pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and started a wave of scholarly activity based on identifying teachers’ knowledge of their subject matter and the importance of this knowledge for successful teaching. The concept of PCK advanced thinking about teacher knowledge by overturning the accepted norm of treating teachers’ subject knowledge and pedagogy as mutually exclusive domains within research (Shulman, 1987, p. 6). In addition, Shulman (1986, 1987, 1992) created a model of pedagogical reasoning, which comprised a cycle of activities, which a teacher may have to complete for good teaching to be judged: comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection, and new comprehension. He suggested that teachers draw on three types of knowledge in order to be an effective teacher: subject matter knowledge (SMK), curricular knowledge (CK), and PCK. SMK is an idea originally based on the acquisition of the understanding of a subject (here and in subsequent discussion, mathematics). Used by mathematics educators, this concept has been deployed to describe a “deep” understanding of key mathematical concepts. Shulman’s work has some similarities with that of Skemp (1976) who suggested that there are two kinds of learning in mathematics: “instrumental understanding,” defined as mechanical, rote or “learn the rule/method/algorithm” mode of superficial and often skills-based learning and “relational understanding” defined as a deeper learning in which the learner understands why superficial rules work and comprehends the links and relationships, which give mathematics its fundamental structures and forms. Skemp’s view of mathematics, combined with Shulman’s concept of SMK, implies that to develop appropriate knowledge for teaching, the teacher-learner must move beyond a mechanical or rote view of mathematics and mathematical processes to

38

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

understand the reasons why they work and the multiple inter-connections between mathematical concepts. This might well involve the re-learning or deepening of some knowledge. Shulman’s concept of CK may be thought of as the extent to which a teacher is able to articulate the demands of the curriculum framework within which s/he works. This concept has sometimes been overlooked in analysis of Shulman’s work. However, in their paper on the relationship between mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction, Hill, Blunk, Lewis, and Ball (2008) indicated that knowledge of the curriculum was a crucial part of the puzzle in linking teachers’ knowledge to gains in student achievement. The concept of PCK is in many ways a difficult idea to comprehend. On a basic level, using a Venn diagram, this concept may be seen as the inter-connection of two circles: one representing pedagogy and the other representing subject content. In Shulman’s words, this intersection would contain within it “the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). By naming this knowledge PCK, however, he identified the complex nature of the actual knowledge, along with the deployment of this knowledge within teaching and the various ways of integrating it within teaching and learning. In addition, PCK as a descriptive term attempts to describe the complexity of the interdisciplinary issues which are the very nature of successful teaching. As Grossman (cited in Ornstein, Thomas, & Lasley, 2000) states, “(i)f beginning teachers are to be successful, they must wrestle simultaneously with issues of pedagogical content (or knowledge) as well as general pedagogy (or generic teaching principles)” (p. 508). Founded in Shulman’s seminal work, the literature on the concept of mathematics knowledge for teaching (MKT) is a growing area within the field of mathematical education. The following quote embodies an emerging consensus about this concept, “A new discourse is emerging, attempting to distinguish and mark out Mathematics for Teaching as a distinctive form of mathematical knowledge, produced in, and used for, the practice of teaching. And this discourse is fledgling” (Adler & Davis, 2006, p. 272). In line with others in this field (Ball & Bass, 2000; Ball, Bass, & Hill, 2004), Adler and Davis (2006) assert that there is a specific form of mathematics used in and for teaching the subject and that this knowledge is specific to the situation of teaching. In other words, specific mathematics is

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

39

produced in and through the teaching process. In addition to this epistemological assumption, Ball and Bass (2000) along with Ball et al. (2004) have identified that the unpacking of mathematical ideas is an important element of practice undertaken by teachers of mathematics. These ideas of the situativity of MKT have been supported by empirical studies (Hoyles, Noss, & Pozzi, 2001; Noss, 2002). In addition, Ball and Bass (2000) have postulated that the way teachers need to hold and use mathematics differs greatly from the way “pure” mathematicians need to hold and use knowledge of their subject. Ma (1999) theorized that the mathematics used in ITE is a distinct activity, different from mathematics encountered on an undergraduate mathematics program or mathematics studied by scientists or engineers; it is different mathematical knowledge, but of comparable value, when deployed in pedagogical contexts for the benefits of students’ learning. Ma (1999) also saw the content knowledge of teachers as important, but not necessarily in absolute terms; in her view, more mathematics is not always better mathematics as far as the preparation of secondary mathematics teachers is concerned. She stated that a “profound understanding of fundamental mathematics” (Ma, 1999, p. 23) is of more value to the mathematics school teacher. Ma did not see more mathematical knowledge for the school teacher (in a very broad sense) as a good thing, but emphasized that less mathematical knowledge known to a greater depth as being the way forward. More recent work suggests that teacher subject knowledge is “pedagogically situated within the socio-cultural community of practice” (Poulsen, 2001, p. 44) and that it is grounded in, and possibly constrained by, classroom experience, values, and beliefs (Aubrey, 1996; Meredith, 1993). This suggests that the situation is far more complex than the original triplet model of subject knowledge put forward by Shulman, useful as those definitions remain as a form of “shorthand” in pedagogical debates. These ideas on the complexity of mathematics subject knowledge for teachers have been highly influential in developing the pedagogies of preparation deployed in the MEC. Using Shulman’s (1986) terms, the aim of the MEC may be summarized as developing subject (content) knowledge through developing the pedagogical subject knowledge of the aspiring mathematics teacher. In other words, the teaching on the MEC is based on the epistemological assumption that there is specificity to the actual mathematics, which teachers need to know in order to teach the subject. In Skemp’s (1976) terms, the aim is to develop relational knowledge of the subject. The ideas of Ma (1999), in particular, influence the philosophy

40

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

behind the MEC, in that MEC’s are intended to start the process of creating cohorts of mathematics teachers, who are not graduate mathematicians, but can develop focused and effective forms of MKT through involvement in well crafted pedagogies.

RESEARCH INTO THE PEDAGOGIES OF PREPARATION ON MECS As well as informing the teaching on the MEC, these various studies into mathematics teaching have also been used to develop a conceptual framework and research design for empirical work exploring the effects of the pedagogies of preparation deployed in the MECs. The long-term aim here was to draw on these essentially practitioner research studies to improve and develop the pedagogies in use on the MEC. The conceptual framework deployed for the empirical studies aims to explore various things: first, the relationships for MEC students between prior experiences of being taught as students in schools and beliefs about their future teaching; second, the effects that those beliefs might have own their own subject knowledge; third, the effects of the MEC learning experience on the students’ MKT and their beliefs about the teaching of mathematics. From Clarke’s various studies on the MEC (2008 2013), two studies are briefly discussed here. The first was a qualitative study, using guided and semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of MEC students, to explore their precourse beliefs. Here, a grounded theory approach to data analysis was taken (Goulding, 2002), with the findings grounded in the qualitative data collected. The transcripts of the interview texts were initially open coded (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61) before analytic decisions concerning the data were made. A more focused approach followed, after highlighting the more frequently appearing codes. The second study collected quantitative data from a sample of 20 MEC students via two identical questionnaires; one given to those consenting to participate in the study at the start of the course and one to the same cohort at the end. The resulting analysis looked at the difference in responses, aiming to identify changes in students’ beliefs about what would constitute good mathematics teaching in their future classrooms. Findings from the study were analyzed using both descriptive statistics to identify insights into the relationships for MEC students between personal learning, constructions of mathematics as a subject, and beliefs about teaching.

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

41

The second study is discussed in more detail at a later stage in this chapter since it looks at the effects of teaching on the MEC. The first study showed clearly that the MEC students, all mature students, many of them coming out of high-flying careers in fields such as engineering and sales, had firm ideas at the start of the MEC about what they considered to be “good” mathematics teaching. Many had thought deeply about the influences behind their new careers and their aspirations for their own teaching. For some, one or more of their own secondary mathematics teachers had been inspirational in their learning and their choice of teaching as a second career later in life. Others, though, felt that they had learned their mathematics without the influence of good teachers and that their study had been driven by didactic methods. Two typical comments were • They basically taught us stuff about formulae and plugging things in. You were taught you had to pass the exam, but never told anything about why. • I viewed my math[ematics] lessons as number crunching, sort of accounting, tedious, laborious …

Three themes running through all of the interviews were identified. The first was termed “subject knowledge” issues because all the participants acknowledged that they did not see themselves as mathematics experts and were concerned about what they described as their lack of “confidence” in their own mathematical ability. Many identified “gaps” in their subject knowledge; others were concerned that they had learned by rote at school and consequently felt that they did not understand mathematics in any depth. They saw the MEC course as helping them “build confidence” and “better subject knowledge.” The second theme was about how the personal transition from being a learner of mathematics to a teacher of the subject might be managed. Many saw this transition as likely to be challenging, given lack of confidence in their subject knowledge on entry to the MEC. The third and most important theme connected individual views of future teaching with the participants’ own experiences as learners during their secondary school study. A significant number of participants stated that they were starting the MEC with the idea of planning to teach as they themselves had been taught at secondary level; after all, such instructional practices had worked to enable them to pass the necessary examinations at school. Overall, the findings reinforced Lortie’s (1975, p. 61) concept of the power of the “apprenticeship of observation” in influencing student teachers’ ideas about teaching in general and pedagogy in particular. Lortie’s

42

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

seminal concept underlines the importance for educators for understanding that student teachers enter preservice, having already spent thousands of hours as school students, observing and evaluating teachers in action. Lortie (1975) argues that this apprenticeship is very different from other professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, and is largely responsible for many of the preconceptions that preservice teachers hold about teaching. But, as he wrote, a student “sees the teacher front stage and center like an audience viewing a play;” they do not see the “back stage” behaviors which are central to a teacher’s performance: Students do not receive invitations to watch the teacher’s performance from the wings; they are not privy to the teacher’s private intentions and personal reflections on classroom events. Students rarely participate in selecting goals, making preparations, or post-mortem analyses. Thus they are not pressed to place the teacher’s actions in a pedagogically oriented framework. (Lortie, 1975, p. 62)

The participants in these interviews appeared to be entering the preparation for their teaching career with some reflections on their own experiences as learners. But ironically, many of these individuals were still relying heavily on their own early experiences of secondary school teaching to discuss what they wanted to do in their own classroom.

AN EXAMPLE OF THE PEDAGOGIES OF PREPARATION ON THE MEC An exemplar of teaching following the principles of the pedagogies of preparation for the MEC now follows. This section of the chapter describes a teaching session in which MEC students are exploring the area of algebraic expressions, with the mathematical goals of developing their algebraic concepts of equations, in equations and identities in order to distinguish between and interpret these things. This is an area of mathematics, which all students would have “covered” in their own mathematics education (albeit many years past), but in which personal knowledge of this areas may have been generated through didactic teaching and rote learning. The session is therefore not only about “revision” of subject knowledge but rather its structure and form deliberately aim to deepen the MEC students’ existing subject knowledge and challenge their beliefs about effective mathematics teaching. The context for the session is a typical task in school mathematics teaching. MEC students are asked to work on this task with the rationale that,

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

43

as well as re-visiting their own subject knowledge, they will also be learning about student misconceptions. (For nonmathematical readers of this chapter, we should explain at this point that students in schools often use letters in algebra without understanding what they mean. Common misconceptions include believing that a letter can only stand for one particular number; different letters must stand for different numbers and letters can only stand for whole numbers. Such misconceptions often arise when these students generalize from a restricted range of examples.) The MEC students work in small groups for this activity using a set of equation cards (see Table 1) and three statement cards: “Always true,” “Sometimes true,” and “Never true.” These students take it in turns to consider and evaluate an equation card and to justify their answer to their group who must challenge them if the explanation has not been clear and complete. When the group is in agreement about the “truth” of all of the equation cards, then they create a display of their responses and write examples and counter examples around each equation card to justify their choice. In this activity, MEC students tend to make the initial sort of their cards quickly and superficially. Many common beliefs and misinterpretations then begin to surface in their answers. For example, some appear to believe that different letters have to stand for different numbers and classify p + 11 = s + 11 as “never true.” The teacher educator then generally explores with the MEC students their ideas of potential misconceptions from students in schools (e.g., some combine letters and numbers inappropriately, thereby believing that 7 + 2y = 6y is “always true”). Others appear to believe that x2 > x is always true because multiplication always makes numbers bigger (but this is clearly not true if x is a fraction), and so on. The conclusion to the session is then spent reviewing and extending the MEC students’ own learning, encouraging the use of meta-cognition. Here, whole group questioning using mini-whiteboards is deployed as a teaching strategy. The educator spends time raising common misconceptions in

Table 1.

Cards for the Algebraic Expression Activity: The Equation Cards.

n + 6 = 12 3n + 2 = 2 + 3n 7 + 2y = 6y 4p > 8 + p 2(x + 1) = 2x + 1 x2 > 9 x2 > x

m + 6 = m + 12 2t − 4 = 4 − 2t p + 11 = s + 11 m + 7 < 21 2(1 − y) = 2 − 2y x2 = 3x 4x2 > (2x)2

44

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

the students’ own understanding and encouraging the groups to address and discuss these. The group is asked to ignore all the inequality statements generated and to consider which other statements are then left. Following often intense discussion, the “sometimes” statements are shown to be statements of equations; “always” statements are statements of identity; and “never” statements are statements of, “… mathematical rubbish” (aka trash, to translate for trans-Atlantic colleagues)! At this point, most of the students realize that through this group learning experience, their own concepts of equation and identity have just “changed” and deepened and that their own MKT has developed considerably. Overall then, the session aims to develop for the students what Ma would term a profound understanding of fundamental mathematics. In the terms of Skemp, such knowledge might also be termed relational understanding deep and inter-connected ways of knowing the subject. Here, the student teachers are re-experiencing an aspect of mathematics; they are re-learning what they first learnt as school students, but this time, the learning occurs in a context in which they are learning and thinking as intending teachers. A distinctive form of mathematical knowledge is thus produced in and through the teaching processes. These processes occur within the setting of a university seminar room, but are fundamentally grounded in the teaching and learning contexts of secondary school teaching. Other key pedagogical elements are important to note here: First, the group’s unpacking of their individual and communal mathematical ideas through discussion and debate is an important element of the learning taking place. Second, the form and structure of the task offer a kind of pedagogic model for work in schools, since it is an exemplar of the active and discursive ways of teaching students will be encouraged to use in school classrooms once they enter preservice and go out on practicum. Indeed, they could use such a task in an adapted form when teaching secondary school students in their future classrooms. On the MEC, much learning is undertaken in groups; mathematics learning is therefore not positioned as a solitary activity. Rather, students are deliberately given opportunities to talk about their own mathematical knowledge and to talk about the subject as future teachers of it. Discursive, communal forms of pedagogy take away some of the emphasis on purely individual learning, providing opportunities to open up any common misconceptions and/or lack of understanding in nonthreatening ways. This positive approach to knowledge using essentially constructive principles to build up understanding rather than creating a deficit model of the students’ knowledge is also a good way of building confidence for these

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

45

mature students. In this particular task, the identification of prospective preservice teachers’ likely misconceptions in understanding not only strengthens their PCK for their ITE course, but also adds to the nonthreatening context in which personal misconceptions can be addressed and resolved.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE PEDAGOGIES OF PREPARATION ON THE MEC? At the end of any MEC, all prospective preservice teachers have to take and pass a test of their subject knowledge before they are allowed to progress onto the PGCE course. The tests are skills-based and do not try to reflect any attempt to measure MKT; they do, however, allow students to demonstrate their now extensive and in-depth knowledge of all areas, which they will need to teach in secondary school mathematics classrooms. Over 95% of those students who start an MEC pass the test and go on to enroll in the PGCE secondary mathematics course for the next academic year. In the terms of increasing and developing subject knowledge then the MEC is a success story. But the research evidence collected in the various practitioner studies described earlier, also shows that the pedagogies of preparation within the MEC have a much broader impact on these intending teachers. The second research study collected 20 paired data responses from the two questionnaires. Each consisted of 25 statements about teaching practices for which the participants had to express a “belief” in (scored 1 5 on a Likert scale). The “belief statements” used to form the questions in both questionnaires were based upon statements previously used by Swan (2005) and the Department for Education and Skills Standard Unit (2005). During the study, there were 500 possible changes in belief (20 students × 25 statements). A total of 240 responses (48%) showed no change in beliefs. Of those responses which represented a change in belief, 160 (32%) were positive changes, representing a change toward a less didactic approach to teaching and 100 (20%) were negative changes, representing a change toward a more didactic approach to teaching. At this basic level, the evidence leads us to state tentatively that participation in and exposure to a variety of teaching approaches in this pre-ITE MEC had changed the “beliefs” concerning the way students think mathematics should be taught.

46

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

This change, we discovered, was not strong, and was not consistent throughout the statements. Some statements exhibited much more change than others. For example, statement 10 (“I believe I need to teach each math[ematics] topic separately”), statement 18 (“I believe I should jump between topics as the need arises”), and statement 19 (“I believe I should find out which parts learners already understand and don’t teach those parts”) exhibited strong positive change for half the group. These may be “beliefs” which are easily changed in the context of the MEC students themselves being learners. While statement 1 (“I believe learners should start with easy questions and work up to harder questions”), statement 5 (“I believe learners learn mathematics through doing mathematics exercises”), and statement 22 (“Even though I’ll plan my lessons thoroughly, I believe I’ll be constantly surprised by the ideas that come up during my lessons”) exhibited very little change. Many of these beliefs were already at the top end of the scale and therefore difficult in the study to exhibit more positive change. In the qualitative study referred to earlier, interview data gave a clearer sense of how effective the pedagogies of preparation had been in developing subject knowledge, strengthening confidence as a prospective teacher and extending knowledge of the range of pedagogic options in schools. All the interviewees talked about how they believed their mathematical grasp had moved on and where their confidence had been built. • It (the MEC) has opened up my horizons about what math[ematics] is. I’d only really done engineering math[ematics] before and suddenly there is like lots of other math [ematics]. • My view of mathematics has changed a lot since the start of the course ….I think my way of thinking has as well. • I think I have a better view of applying my own math[ematics] … apply it to teach rather than just getting marks in an exam.

All felt they had acquired a wider mathematical vocabulary and were more fluent in expressing themselves mathematically. Many felt inspired by the course, by their reacquaintance with the subject and the prospect of becoming a mathematics teacher: It (the MEC) has rekindled a passion for math[ematics] in me and I haven’t had as much fun with learning for 20 years. But there is much more here than just learning math[ematics] ….There are ethical issues concerning how you teach … There are opportunity costs associated with teaching styles … There are …

Three quarters of the sample felt that that their relationship with the mathematical subject matter had changed, although only one of the

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

47

participants described himself as a “mathematician” after completing the MEC. It was while reflecting on the question: “what impact do you think the MEC has had on you?” that three quarters of the interview sample claimed to have extended their knowledge of less didactic ways of teaching and translated these into their constructions of how they wanted to teach in the future. Overall, the beliefs of the MEC participants in this study did appear to have changed to espousing less didactic modes of teaching for their own future classrooms.

CONCLUSION This chapter has outlined the importance of enhancement courses, here particularly the MEC, in the preservice education landscape in England, identifying that the learning that takes place in them is a largely underresearched area. We have contributed to addressing that issue by specifying, analyzing, and justifying the pedagogies of teacher preparation deployed in the context of one MEC. We have drawn on international research to argue that there is a specific body of knowledge for teaching their subject, which all teachers need to generate. In terms of empirical work and personal scholarship, this chapter has been based primarily on the scholarship of Clarke between 2008 and 2014 and on accounts of personal pedagogy by the same author. The chapter has also presented an exemplar of teaching, following the principles of the pedagogies of preparation in place for the MEC. In brief, the session aims to develop for the students what Ma (1999) and Skemp (1976) would term a profound or “relational understanding” of fundamental mathematics. Teaching here aims for the students to re-experience and re-learn an aspect of mathematics which they first learned as young grade school students, but this time the learning occurs in a context in which they are learning and thinking as intending teachers. A distinctive form of mathematical knowledge is thus produced in and through the teaching processes. Models of learning (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) lead us to theorize how learning is constructed within a particular context, and how transformations of that construction occur during transitions between different contexts. Drawing on these ideas, a teacher’s subject knowledge whether in mathematics or in any other subject knowledge can be thought of as being constructed and re-constructed over a lifetime.

48

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

That construction will be changing, however, as the learning context changes from personal experience as a school and university learner, into pre-ITE learning, then through into the learning environment during formal teacher education, and lastly, into becoming a teacher of mathematics teaching secondary students in classrooms (Hodkinson, Gleeson, James, Postlethwaite, & Biesta,, 2004). In the MEC experience we have detailed here, the influence of the teacher educator leading the course is critically important to the learning process. We characterize Clarke’s practice, as we stated earlier, as an example of what Schwab (1969) terms local deliberation and enactment of “the practical.” Schwab’s valuable work clearly outlines ways in which educators can deploy the practical as a mode of inquiry, examining dilemmas of pedagogy and curriculum design within specific teaching contexts. Here Clarke’s deliberations are clearly situated in the real-world practice of mathematics teacher education. Using modes of practical inquiry enables him to take into account the multiple, complex, and sometimes competing factors which practising as a teacher educator so often involves. The enactments which result from these deliberations aim to create the best pedagogic forms of support for student teachers’ learning, taking into account the higher education institutions in which they are learning on MECs and preservice programs and above all the needs of the schools and students they will go on to serve as fully fledged teachers. In later stages of teacher education and preparation, teacher educators on the university element of the preservice course and school mentors (cooperating teachers) during practicum, not to mention the students themselves, will be very important too. Of central and enduring importance throughout, though, is the biography, dispositions, and sense of agency of the individual student as learner and intending teacher. We would suggest, therefore, that an emphasis on understanding and working with student teachers as learners within and across contexts is essential in comprehending and strengthening the pedagogies of preparation in all teacher education (Peressini, Borko, Romagnano, Knuth, & Willis, 2004) for pre-ITE and ITE itself. This emphasis needs to include consideration of the interactions with educators and students in the processes of teacher learning. The model of pre-ITE enhancement courses in mathematics and other shortage subjects for teacher recruitment, has, as we have detailed, been developed to meet the imperatives of teacher recruitment and high quality subject teaching in England. In enhancement courses of any kind, the deployment of similar pedagogies offers the chance to enhance and deepen subject knowledge, at the same time as challenging beliefs about

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

49

teaching, gained through the “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975). We are aware that this specific pre-ITE structure may not be found in many other national contexts, but we would suggest that the pedagogies detailed here represent good practice in the teaching of what may be shorthandedly termed “subject knowledge” in any type of pre or in-service program. In consecutive modes of preservice teacher education, very similar pedagogies, aims, and philosophies, which address both subject knowledge and teacher beliefs could be deployed. The use of these pedagogies is less straightforward in consecutive courses where students may well be developing disciplinary knowledge without consideration of their future careers as teachers of that knowledge. In these contexts, we would suggest that there is a job to be done in terms of educating faculty members who teach subject knowledge at degree level but may not be aware of the multiple issues, outlined in this chapter, around the generation of MKT for future teachers.

NOTE 1. A secondary school in the United Kingdom generally educates students aged from 11 to 16, with some such institutions offering Advanced level education to 18 years.

REFERENCES Adler, J. & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 270 296. Adler, J., Hossain, S., Stevenson, M., Grantham, B., Clarke, J., & Archer, R. (2010). Interpretations of, and orientations to ‘understanding mathematics in depth’: Students in MEC programmes across institutions. Paper presented at the British Association for the Learning of Mathematics Conference, London. Aubrey, C. (1996). An investigation of teachers’ mathematical subject knowledge and the processes of instruction in reception classes. British Educational Research Journal, 22, 181 197. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Broaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83 104). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

50

JOHN CLARKE AND JEAN MURRAY

Ball, D., Bass, H., & Hill, H. (2004). Knowing and using mathematical knowledge in teaching: Learning what matters. In A. Buffler & R. Laugksch, (Eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the South African Association for Researchers in Mathematics, Science And Technology Education (SAARMSTE), Durban, South Africa: SAARMSTE (pp. 51 65). Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London,: Sage. Cockcroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematics counts. London: HMSO. Department for Education and Skills Standard Unit. (2005). Improving learning in mathematics: A professional development guide. Retrieved from http://www.secondarymath site.co.uk/Improving%20Learning.html Even, R., & Ball, D. L. (2009). The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics: The 15th ICMI study. New York, NY: Springer. Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430 511. Hodkinson, P., Gleeson, D., James, D., Postlethwaite, K., & Biesta, G. (2004). Annual report of the ESRC TLRP project: Transforming learning cultures in FE. Leeds: University of Leeds. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 4 27. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Meredith, A. (1993). Knowledge for teaching mathematics: Some student teachers’ views. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(3), 325 338. Noss, P. (2002). Epistemologies at work. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 2 13. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). (2001). 2000/1 Annual report of her majesty’s chief inspector of schools. London: HMSO. Ornstein, A. C., Thomas, J., & Lasley, I. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Peressini, D., Borko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual framework for learning to teach secondary mathematics: A situative perspective. Education Studies in Mathematics, 56, 67 96. Poulsen, L. (2001). Paradigm lost? Subject knowledge, primary teachers and educational policy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(1), 45 55. Schwab, J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1). Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1 22. Shulman, L. (1992). Ways of seeing, ways of knowing, ways of teaching, ways of learning about teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 393 396. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4 14.

The Case of Mathematics Enhancement Courses in England

51

Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20 26. Smith, A. (2004). Making mathematics count. London: HMSO. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sullivan, P., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of mathematics teacher education: Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (Vol. 1). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Swan, M. (2005). Learning Mathematics through reflection and discussion: The design and implementation of teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.

PART II PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION

ONE TEACHER EDUCATOR’S CAREER-LONG DEVELOPMENT OF A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION Tom Russell ABSTRACT This chapter analyzes one teacher educator’s development of a pedagogy of reflection over a period of 25 years. My personal interpretation of the meaning of reflective practice leads to seven principles of a pedagogy of reflection that focus on relationship, listening, metacognition, modeling, and learning from experience. Justification of my pedagogy of reflection includes an account of books that influenced my development as a teacher educator and the insights gained from living and teaching in a different culture. Excerpts from and discussion of the work of two preservice teachers illustrate my pedagogy of reflection and emphasize the importance of replying supportively to each individual who shows awareness of the unique learning process involved in becoming a teacher. The research methodology of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices supported the development of my pedagogy of reflection and helped me to overcome the conditions that can constrain that development. Keywords: Pedagogy of reflection; self-study; teacher education practices; teacher educator development

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 55 72 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022006

55

56

TOM RUSSELL

Thirty years after Scho¨n (1983) introduced the idea of a reflective practitioner learning in action, I believe that a pedagogy of reflection can be described in terms of a set of principles for fostering reflective practice by those who are learning to teach. At the outset, I present my personal interpretation of reflective practice. I then describe stages in my development of a pedagogy of reflection and list seven principles of pedagogy that seem to characterize it. Justification of my pedagogy of reflection is presented and then illustrated with two examples from my own teaching. The chapter concludes with examples of self-study of my teacher education practices and comments on conditions necessary for adopting a pedagogy of reflection.

A PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF REFLECTIVE PRACTICE My 37 years as a teacher educator working with future secondary science teachers in Canada began in 1977. Thus, I had six years of experience as a teacher educator before Scho¨n’s The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action was published in 1983. I can confirm that before 1983, teacher educators did not ask teacher candidates to reflect; many of us asked them to write journals (and they often complained about having to keep a journal for every course). By 1990, most journal assignments had vanished, replaced by a greater number of requests to write a reflective paper (often quite short). The phrase reflective practice began to appear in mission statements; when little seemed to change, the phrase critically reflective practice became common. All of this seemed to assume that reflective practice can be started and stopped with ease and that it applies to future teachers in their education classes as well as in their practicum classrooms. My own view is quite different, thanks to numerous moments of serendipity. A colleague alerted me to Scho¨n’s book soon after it was published, and it provided me with a powerful perspective for analyzing the experiences of my first six years as a teacher educator. I was a practicum supervisor for many of my students, and thus, I saw many instances of the gaps between their aspirations in education classes and the realities of their practices in school classrooms. The concept of reflection-in-action and thinking in action impressed me as a significant potential link between the teachers’ habits that teacher candidates learned by observing teachers for many years

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

57

(Lortie’s, 1975 apprenticeship of observation) and the ideals they aspire for in their future teaching. A year’s sabbatical leave at Mills College in 1983 1984 provided me with new colleagues also interested in Scho¨n’s perspective. This was also an opportunity to write my first grant proposal for a one-year study of reflection-in-action in the context of preservice teacher education. That grant was followed by several longer grants with colleague Hugh Munby, which combined his interest in metaphor with my own interest in reflective practice. Another colleague (Skip Hills) invited Donald Scho¨n to Queen’s University in October 1984, where I was captivated by each of three lectures that Scho¨n presented; his lectures seemed even richer than the ideas in his book. Scho¨n returned to Queen’s for another series of seminars in 1987, and Hugh Munby and I were invited to work with Scho¨n by contributing to The Reflective Turn (Russell & Munby, 1991). By 1990, the powerful combination of personal interactions with Scho¨n and our funded research studies on how reflective practice links to learning to teach seemed to leave me with an understanding of reflective practice that differs significantly from the views expressed by many teacher educators. I believe it is folly to ask a would-be teacher to write a reflective paper or essay without acknowledging the need to establish how professional reflection is different from the everyday, common sense meanings of the word reflection. In 2005, I published a short article titled Can Reflective Practice be Taught? It proved to be an excellent title for attracting viewers, and it set out my basic assumptions about the phrase reflective practice. In this chapter, I take reflection-in-action in the context of teaching and teacher education to refer to an activity that can only be experienced in the act of teaching, whether it be children in a classroom or teacher candidates in a teacher education classroom. In my personal view, reflection (critical or not!) is not something practiced in the role of student in an education classroom, either during a class or in an assignment to write a reflective paper or essay. When I speak of teaching reflective practice to teacher candidates, I refer to focusing their attention on the ways in which they do or do not notice and attend to puzzling, surprising, or unexpected responses by their students, either in the classroom or on tests and assignments completed outside of class. One powerful strategy for teaching reflective practice involves modeling a teacher educator’s reflection-in-action in the teacher education classroom itself. Teacher candidates often pay more attention to how they are being taught than to what they are being taught. Just as they resent being lectured about the importance of not lecturing, so they also resent being asked to reflect without the teacher educator demonstrating personal

58

TOM RUSSELL

reflective practice and without a clear sense of what the process of reflection actually involves in the context of learning to teach.

STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION In 1976 1977, the year before my first classes with future science teachers, I worked with four history teachers and their principal, studying their teaching practices in one high school (Ireland & Russell, 1978). The teachers recorded lessons, prepared verbatim transcriptions, and then collaborated to identify and share distinctive patterns in their teaching. They reached two broad conclusions: (a) they did not realize how much they talked in their teaching and (b) changing that pattern of talking is very difficult. When I began teaching future science teachers in the following year, I confronted a fundamental contradiction: my students expected me to tell them how to teach, yet those history teachers had inspired me to reduce the amount of talking (telling) that I did in my own teaching. At the midpoint of my second year, I used a feedback exercise as a context for explaining the tension I was feeling and one student unforgettably asked, “Why didn’t you tell us you weren’t going to tell us?” With this comment, I was captivated by the tension between what and how we teach the ever-present risk of contradiction. Subsequent major stages in my development of a pedagogy of reflection included discovery of Scho¨n’s (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, conducting research on how reflection-in-action plays out in learning to teach, joining the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) special interest group in 1993, and coming to understand more about the need for those learning to teach to learn how to learn from experience.

PRINCIPLES OF A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION • Fostering reflective practice begins with a personal teaching learning relationship based on mutual trust. I have spent many years developing small strategies for quickly establishing trust; this includes developing attendance and assessment policies that indicate that I trust each person to be committed to the best possible learning. My teaching strategies in my first class are intended to create trust among members of the class and to make it less risky to say

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

59

something that is incorrect. During my first class, I ask each person to sign up to meet me for 20 minutes before our second class; I can do this with a class of 20, but if I had a larger class, I would meet people in pairs or threes, whatever small groupings would allow me to establish a more personal presence in about six hours of my time. • Fostering reflective practice requires listening to the unique features of each individual who is learning to teach. Listening often and carefully to students’ perspectives on their program experiences goes hand in hand with encouraging mutual trust. One of my essential strategies for listening involves asking each person to write a “Ticket Out of Class” in the last two minutes of every class (and especially at the end of the first class while students are still trying to figure me out). I give people a quarter-sheet of paper and two questions: (a) What is the main idea you are taking from this class? and (b) What issue would you like to understand better? This is always anonymous. The quarter-sheet of paper allows me to place them four-to-a-page and scan them into an electronic record of each class. The comments always inspire my planning for the next class. Comments indicating dissatisfaction are always helpful; differences among the responses remind me that each person is unique. • Fostering reflective practice must include attention to what each person, including the teacher educator, learned in the apprenticeship of observation in primary and secondary school. Those learning to teach already know how to teach they know what teachers do. But they lack practice and they lack experience of thinking like a teacher, but virtually none would have any difficulty stepping to the front of a classroom and starting to act like a teacher. Fostering reflective practice includes finding ways to signal how much is already known, but known only tacitly, in ways that are not directly accessible and only truly revealed when one studies one’s behavior when beginning to teach. • Fostering reflective practice involves fostering metacognition. Reflective practice is metacognitive; reflective practitioners are attending to how they are thinking about their own teaching behaviors and the learning behaviors of their students. The challenge for the teacher educator who wishes to foster reflective practice is one of finding ways to initiate attention to how one is learning a feature that should be part of one’s experience of school and university but often is not. Teachers rarely call attention to the learning process itself. Simply asking for reflection without explicitly developing metacognitive skills is unlikely to develop reflective practice.

60

TOM RUSSELL

• Fostering reflective practice demands explicit modeling of one’s own reflective practice. An unreflective teacher educator is unlikely to succeed in fostering reflective practice among those learning to teach. Fostering reflective practice demands one’s own personal experiences of reflective practice. How does one teach a skill of which one has no personal knowledge? Teacher candidates tend to pay more attention to how than to what they are being taught, and they are unlikely to respond productively to requests to engage in an unfamiliar process that has not been demonstrated and explained. From my personal perspective, reflective practice is a complex and unfamiliar skill that requires careful and deliberate preparation, support, and encouragement. • Fostering reflective practice focuses on learning from experience. School and university place a great deal of emphasis on learning from books and other forms of written material, including the vast array of websites that speak on virtually any topic. Most individuals who choose to enter a teacher education program have been successful at learning from the printed word and anticipate that they will work from a textbook as teachers. Those who succeeded at school also tend to be good at following directions and at accepting as true what they are told by teachers. School provides very little opportunity to learn from firsthand experience, yet reflective practice is all about learning from personal experience. Thus, I maintain that fostering reflective practice also requires explicit attention to the ways that learning from experiences is unique and different from learning from books and from other people’s experiences. • Fostering reflective practice must permeate every pedagogical move one makes. The preceding points suggest that fostering reflective practice is multifaceted and complex. Thus, I conclude that fostering reflective practice is not a focus of teacher education practice that only appears occasionally or whenever one happens to think of it. Perhaps reflective practice seems so elusive and so frustrating for many teacher candidates because it is assumed that they only need to be told that they should reflect a word with many everyday meanings that have little relationship to Scho¨n’s (1983) reflection-in-action (as his subtitle put it, “how professionals think in action”). If teacher educators themselves are not thinking in action as they teach, they are unlikely to foster reflective practice in future teachers in their classes. Thus, I conclude that all my pedagogical moves must be made with a view to fostering reflective practice.

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

61

JUSTIFICATION FOR A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION My justification for my pedagogy of reflection begins with Sarason’s (1971) The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. I read this book soon after it was published; I was a PhD student who had recently arrived in Canada after 4 years in Nigeria, where I had been first an untrained teacher and later a support person for other volunteer teachers. Living in Nigeria introduced me to the meaning of culture in powerful and memorable ways. Sarason showed me that there is much more to understand about classrooms and schools than is apparent to those who simply complete schooling and move into the world of work. I welcomed this introduction to new ways to think about my work as a teacher. Soon after it was published, a colleague introduced me to Barnes’ (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. As the title suggests, this book focuses on the nature of classroom communication, both between teacher and students and among students. Barnes introduces important distinctions between school knowledge and action knowledge and between transmission and interpretation. Knowledge which is available to shape action as opposed to knowledge which is held to be valuable in itself, perhaps because of its scarcity needs to be reflexive and adapted by the learner to his purposes. The knowledge at present taught in our schools seems to be an amalgam of both kinds, and moreover to be currently changing. Thus it seems proper to utilize an Interpretation model of learning wherever education is seen as a ‘preparation for life’ rather than as initiation into a mystery. (pp. 147 148)

Barnes also includes a discussion of “Action, Reflexivity and the Stranger” (pp. 102 107) that foreshadows the focus on reflection that followed from Scho¨n’s (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. Learning can be a passive acceptance of the beliefs and practices of the people about us; in our culture however we have learnt to value reflexive thought, the knowledge which we ourselves can shape and reapply. Reflexive learning seems to occur when a learner, acting upon purposes which are significant in his life world, is faced with disjunction between his implicit beliefs and those of the persons he is interacting with. (Barnes, 1976, p. 106)

Barnes (2014) provides a brief summary of his views on school and action knowledge, curriculum, and the importance of reflection in teachers’ work. Scho¨n (1983) put the focus directly on reflection-in-action, which he characterized as “how professionals think in action” and which he suggested

62

TOM RUSSELL

may occur in moments of uncertainty, when unexpected or surprising events occur. In a lecture in 1987, he expressed his ideas in these terms: This capacity to respond to surprise through improvisation on the spot is what I mean by reflection-in-action. When a teacher turns her attention to giving kids reason by listening to what they say, then teaching itself becomes a form of reflection-in action, and I think this formulation helps to describe what it is that constitutes teaching artistry. It involves getting in touch with what kids are actually saying and doing; it involves allowing yourself to be surprised by that, and allowing yourself to be surprised, I think, is appropriate, because you must permit yourself to be surprised, being puzzled by what you get and responding to the puzzle through an on-the-spot experiment that you make, that responds to what the kid says or does. It involves meeting the kid in the sense of meeting his or her understanding of what’s going on, and helping the kid co-ordinate the everyday knowing-in-action that he brings to the school with the privileged knowledge that he finds in the school …

Scho¨n continued: Explanations (of what it is that is bothering the pupil) give the teacher the knowledge of the greatest possible number of methods, the ability of inventing new methods and, above all, not a blind adherence to one method but the conviction that all methods are one-sided, and that the best method would be the one that would answer best to all the possible difficulties incurred by a pupil. That is, not a method, but an art and a talent. And this is teaching in the form of reflection-in-action. It involves a surprise, a response to surprise by thought turning back on itself, thinking what we’re doing as we do it, setting the problem of the situation anew, conducting an action experiment on the spot by which we seek to solve the new problems we’ve set, an experiment in which we test both our new way of seeing the situation, and also try to change that situation for the better. (Scho¨n, 1987, emphasis added)

Scho¨n (1983) made several important distinctions, but the one between problem-solving and problem-setting particularly caught my attention. I was interested in solving the problem of the gap I was observing between theory and practice in teacher candidates’ practicum experiences. Scho¨n’s concept of reflection-in-action encouraged me to find new ways of setting that problem. Teacher educators face at least three significant gaps as they teach: (a) the gap between their own teaching experience and that of beginning teachers, (b) the gap between what they teach and how they teach, and (c) the gap between teacher education classrooms and the school classrooms where teacher candidates gain firsthand experience of teaching. The concept of reflection-in-action gave me a new frame for my work and focused my subsequent efforts to develop a personal pedagogy of reflection. A number of events nurtured and supported my efforts. I seemed to have some initial success, as when my science methods class in 1986 presented me with a mirror inscribed “May you always reflect.” In 1991 and again in 1992, I arranged to teach one class of physics in a local secondary

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

63

school; this involved 75 minutes each day for the first five months of the school year. In the first year, returning to the secondary school with an unfamiliar curriculum and textbook left me paddling to stay above water; in the second year, my professional learning was profound. Efforts to understand the reactions of my physics methods students to my teaching them in the school where I had just taught a physics class led to a study of my work as a teacher educator that generated a focus on learning from experience and the importance of the idea of “authority of experience” (Munby & Russell, 1994). At the same time, I was learning about the unique teaching procedures being developed in the Australian Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (see http://peelweb.org) and I began working with a group of students who arrived with 16 weeks of teaching experience prior to their education courses. The leaps forward were impressive, as extensive prior experience made a substantial difference in what was possible in education classes (Featherstone, Munby, & Russell, 1997). When our preservice program was changed (1997 1999) to begin with practicum experience (for 14 of the first 16 weeks of the program), my colleagues rejected that approach and I realized just how far my pursuit of pedagogy of reflection had distanced me and my pedagogy from the views and approaches of most of my colleagues. Beyond the written justifications for developing this personal pedagogy of reflection, it is always the responses of those whom I teach that also justify my pursuit. Two recent experiences illustrate the nature of some of the most memorable of these student justifications.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION The Case of David Something remarkable and unexpected happened with “David,” one of the 14 individuals in my most recent physics curriculum class. Here was one of those surprising and unexpected teaching moments that called for my own reflection-in-action as I reframed my thinking about David’s professional development. When given the option to select his own topic for one of the course assignments, David chose to make a series of videos but later asked if he could “work more with the ‘professional knowledge’ that I recorded during my practicum” (4 weeks in February March). I had invited all my students to consider documenting their professional learning

64

TOM RUSSELL

in the practicum by making daily entries in a table titled What do I know today that I did not know yesterday? The table had two columns, one for technical details of teaching and one for the big picture of teaching and learning. David was one of the few individuals who took up this suggestion, and it was that exercise that he referred to as “recorded during my practicum.” I would like to analyze and probe deeper into the thinking that came as a result of that project, and then present this information in a more formal way … likely as a paper or report of some kind. So in essence, this report would describe the evolution of my understanding of what teaching is from when I began the program, to where it is now and where it might be heading. (Email from David, 24 March, 2014; used with permission of the author)

When I approved his request, I sent him an article by Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) that came to mind as potentially relevant to his project. Although there was subsequent talk of meeting to discuss the development of the assignment, I had no further indication of what David was writing until the assignment was submitted at the end of April. The following excerpts illustrate the importance of a teacher candidate’s efforts to understand how he or she is learning to teach. Yes, I thought teaching would be a rewarding career where I could make my mark on society; I could change young lives for the better, and once I got the hang of it, teaching would be easy. Likewise, the teacher education program would be of little value, as I was told it was “something you just had to go through,” it was “easy,” and “just a lot of busy work.” What I did not realize in the beginning was that my experiences as a student did not adequately prepare me to be a teacher. Indeed, my initial understanding of teaching, which was derived mostly from personal experiences of schooling, has been characterized as the “apprenticeship of observation” (FeimanNemser & Buchmann, 1987, p. 257; Russell & Bullock, 2010). The familiarity of classrooms and teachers that beginning teachers inevitably have can prevent them from questioning what they already know. As such, one of the main challenges facing preservice teachers lies in being able to look beneath the familiar world of schooling, and shift their attention from themselves to student learning and thinking (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987, p. 272). For me, the impetus for a shift in attention would be triggered by tensions I experienced during my first practice teaching placement. Despite being exposed to large quantities of information in education coursework prior to my first field placement, I arrived to the classroom with essentially the same understanding of teaching and images of self as teacher as when I entered the program [5 weeks earlier]. At the time, my default strategy was to lecture, but of course, to do so in an interesting and engaging manner. The time between my first and second field placements gave me ample opportunity to reflect on my experiences and determine exactly what I had learned, if anything at all. I believe it was during this time that I began to develop a more sophisticated

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

65

understanding of what it is to teach. I cannot describe this process or explain it succinctly in words, but the result was a radical shift in my thinking about teaching and learning, by putting the needs of learners front and center. One important factor in this transformation, I think, involved my introduction to a teacher educator who took a very different approach to teaching than I had experienced in the program before. The approach this educator took was one I will describe as teaching how to teach through example. Rather than simply telling me how to teach, this educator showed me how to teach through the experience that was created for me as a learner, and I was able to feel what that was like. Quite unlike my experience in other education courses, I no longer felt invisible. My learning was made to seem important and my previous knowledge was both acknowledged and respected. This teacher educator’s personal interest in me as a learner was apparent right away, and I could sense that there were high expectations set for my professional development. (Assignment from David, April 2014, used with permission of the author; emphasis added)

The words emphasized in the preceding paragraph took me by surprise. Perhaps for the very first time, a teacher candidate in my class had worked out on his own what I was trying to do and had described it to me quite clearly. David indicates that there was a point when he became more metacognitive about his own experiences learning to teach both in his education courses and in his practicum classroom. The comment that he no longer felt invisible should make every teacher educator ask whether her or his own students are in some way feeling invisible, which may be a powerful metaphor for feeling that one is not being noticed. If a teacher educator is challenging students to become the best possible teachers, capable of analyzing how teaching affects learning, those students will not be feeling invisible.

The Case of Justin Part way through the academic year and just before the start of a 4-week practicum placement, a colleague suggested that I might like to meet and speak with a teacher candidate whom she was supervising who had expressed interest in a poster that a colleague and I had presented at a conference and then posted on a bulletin board near our offices. Soon after, “Justin” and I met and spoke for about an hour. I suggested to Justin the same exercise I had suggested to David: Daily entries in response to the question, What do I know today that I did not know yesterday? After 2 weeks, Justin sent me his file about his experiences teaching in a kindergarten classroom. As a teacher and supervisor of those preparing to teach secondary science, this was unfamiliar territory but I could not put the file

66

TOM RUSSELL

down. I was captivated by Justin’s writing that was rich in moments of reframing as he noticed various features of the teacher’s and the children’s behavior and the interactions between the two in the name of learning. I added a third column to the existing two columns and inserted comments for every entry and then returned the file to Justin; this strategy for commenting is one that I have used for many years. The next day, I was startled to receive the file with a fourth column added in which Justin commented in response to my comments. No teacher candidate had ever responded in such detail or so quickly. We continued this practice of exchanging the file until the account of Justin’s 4-week practicum was complete; Justin had written 11,000 words and I had contributed 3,000 words. Table 1 (presented on the following pages with the permission of the author) illustrates just one day in Justin’s reflections on classroom practices, my comments, and his further comments. I hope that many teacher educators would applaud Justin’s reflections as I did. I see Justin as unique among those learning to teach. I can take no credit for teaching him to reflect; he developed that skill on his own before we met. I wish that most teacher candidates also developed such skills during or in spite of their school and university experiences. My conversations with Justin emphasize to me the importance of doing all I can to encourage and support a reflective stance that links how we think to how we act as professionals. Events in Justin’s prior schooling had developed far more metacognition and awareness of his own learning than most people seem to develop. I can take credit for encouraging him to document his reflections, but the credit for following through and then extending the conversation by commenting on my comments must again go to Justin. Over many years, a pedagogy of reflection has gradually become a way of life for me. When I see students beginning to reflect productively, I devote as much time as possible to encouraging and supporting that process. It is important to note that these two examples illustrate interpretation rather than transmission. A teacher educator may wish to convey to the new teacher the knowledge gained from personal experience, but a transmission style contradicts a pedagogy of reflection. Barnes (1976, p. 147) put it in these words: If a teacher sees knowledge as existing primarily in the knower’s ability to interpret, he will emphasize the reply aspect of his classroom role, thus making possible a negotiation between his knowledge and his pupils’ knowledge. This will open to them a collaborative approach in which the exploratory functions of speech and writing predominate. This will encourage pupils to relate new knowledge to their existing purposes and interests.

One Day’s Entry in Justin’s Account of What Do I Know Today that I Did Not Know Yesterday?

The Details of Being a Teacher

The Big Picture of a Teacher’s Work

Justin’s Reply (February 25)

Cognitively dissecting your associate teacher’s behavior sounds very productive. I expect she has many habits that she is not aware of and so may not be able to put into words as you can. Have you tried to describe what YOU tend to do in particular circumstances?!?!? That sounds like an intriguing activity? The Big Picture column has a lot packed into it. Asking why a strategy isn’t working sounds like the first step in a process of finding one that does “work.” We might have to talk about the second paragraph for me to be sure of your point. “limit their criteria.” “escape the huge cognitive demand.” Great phrases! Frustration reflex versus curiosity reflex … I wonder if frustration overrules curiosity because there is usually so little time to be curious before a response is

That certainly does sound like an intriguing activity. I usually wish, after the fact, that I had paid more attention to what I was doing while I was teaching. Having really only taught a handful of lessons so far, I still focus intensely on the actual movements of my body and the exact thoughts and sentences I’m creating. Attention to off-task behavior, the cues from my associate, and other distractions are only partially processed by me right now. I have noticed general improvements in my ability to “look up”, so to speak, from my lesson and see what’s happening. In JK/SK this is much easier because the lessons are so simple. But “performing” in general in front of people is something very new to me. My second paragraph is a sort of complaint that my associates place a great deal of emphasis on behavior. Really 95% of my practicum work is learning what my associates’ expectations are for the students’ superficial behaviors and learning

67

I’m wondering if/how much But, why do these strategies teachers consider why their work here? Asking why is particular teacher-behaviors challenging, and it’s are working. especially relevant when After this short period, it something isn’t working. seems like I can cognitively I see my associate reaching dissect the behavior of my for particular strategies in associate (though she is situations when we know more difficult to understand the strategies will fail. than my previous Recognizing what is associate). different is important, and Which is to say I could why that means a different make short sentences that strategy is needed. actually successfully It seems like there are so many describe what my associate behavior-related strategies teacher does in certain that some real “academic” circumstances, and I goal is almost never thought presume so could they. reflectively about. (It’s “If children are agitated as much more complex, sure, they go for snack, turn on but it is what would give music from ABCKids123 to any teacher long term calm them, otherwise do coherence for an objective.) nothing.” Some teachers simply limit “If children other than Aron their criteria for success to or Ron speak during escape the huge cognitive reading time, say, ‘Oh, oh, demand required of oh, oh my’ to silence the understanding people room.” (i.e., the criterion of success

Tom’s Comments (February 24)

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

Table 1.

The Details of Being a Teacher

The Big Picture of a Teacher’s Work

“If Victoria is screaming, ignore her unless she is violent.”

is that everyone is sitting quietly with a pencil in their hand, looking at a notebook.) But when strategies aren’t working, it is interesting to see the “frustration” reflex spike quickly, instead of the “curiosity” reflex. What does this represent?

(Continued ) Tom’s Comments (February 24) required particularly when it is a matter of changing behavior that could disrupt the entire class.

68

Table 1.

Justin’s Reply (February 25)

TOM RUSSELL

how I can best get the students to match those expectations. Modeling the exact behaviors of my associates is the quickest way to success in this regard. Once I’m comfortable acting out their behaviors I can try to tweak what I do but any missteps in doing this are judged harshly by the associate. “I noticed you did this and it went like that, do you see why I do it my way?” In all of this behavioral work, my associates generally don’t talk about what is being learned and what should be learned that isn’t being learned. This demand is offloaded onto worksheets and curriculum that tells the teacher what sorts of understanding is expected. There is not a reflective practice based on academics, only behavior. My associates don’t emphasize an aesthetic sense in academics in the same way that they do for behavior.

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

69

These illustrations of my extended professional learning conversations with David and Justin illustrate the value of replying rather than assessing and the significance of collaborating in exploration of issues and situations that are personally relevant to the individual learning to teach.

SELF-STUDY RESEARCH ON MY PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION Teaching reflective practice is no easier than developing reflective practice in one’s own teaching, but the teacher educator must try to do both at once. Many years of unreflective practice in the student role that included little or no encouragement to be metacognitive about how one is learning make reflective practice far more difficult to learn or to teach than the subjects in the school curriculum or the educational theories that are presented in books and articles. Both teacher educators and those learning to teach face challenges in developing a new stance toward their teaching and learning. In 1987, I met four doctoral candidates at the University of Arizona who showed collective interest in my presentation on the topic of reflective practice. By 1991, they had completed their degrees and moved to four different universities to begin careers as teacher educators. We developed a shared interest in the possibilities of studying our own teaching practices and presented early findings at a conference in 1992, where a member of the audience suggested a formal organization of teacher educators with similar interests. At the 1993 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, the S-STEP special interest group was formed, and the subsequent developments have been impressive, including an international handbook (Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004), and a refereed journal (Studying Teacher Education) begun in 2005. My own publications include explicit examples of self-study of my pedagogy of reflection as well as writing that seeks to foster self-study of personal teacher education practices (Bullock & Russell, 2012; Kitchen & Russell, 2012; Loughran & Russell, 2002; Russell, 2005a, 2005b, 2009).

CONDITIONS FOR ADOPTING A PEDAGOGY OF REFLECTION Adopting a pedagogy of reflection requires a willingness to acknowledge that learning to teach teachers demands far more than doing what comes

70

TOM RUSSELL

naturally on the basis of years of experience as student and teacher in school classrooms. Teaching people to teach is quite unlike teaching people to read, to do mathematics, or to study history or biology. The typical school classroom is not a hotbed of pedagogical inquiry, nor does it typically focus on metacognition and understanding how teaching does and does not facilitate and support student learning. Every teacher, including those who teach teachers, must understand what has and has not been learned by being a student for many years, and thereby, learning what teachers do without access to how teachers think about what they do. Only in the teacher education classroom can one generate (and often be unaware that one has generated) contradictions between what one is teaching and how one is teaching. One of the most common contradictions involves telling future teachers not to lecture to students during their practicum placements. Being intrigued by the challenge of recognizing and avoiding such contradictions is also an important condition for adopting a pedagogy of reflection. Developing a personal pedagogy of reflection does not require a supportive institutional culture, although a supportive culture would certainly help. In Canada, academics earn tenure that provides significant academic freedom that is often seen as freedom to speak. Academic freedom must also be seen as freedom to innovate pedagogically, a move that is usually more complex and risky than speaking out. Pedagogical innovation is an essential condition for enacting a pedagogy of reflection. When my colleagues rejected a program design that emphasized learning from experience, my pedagogy of reflection was able to withstand the setback. I worked many years before reaching the point that student feedback sustained my pedagogy of reflection. Developing and sustaining my pedagogy of reflection was facilitated by conversations with teacher education colleagues at other universities who shared my interest in developing a pedagogy of reflection as part of a commitment to improving teacher education. Each national, state, provincial, or local context has unique features that will support and constrain development of a pedagogy of reflection. The teacher educator who is determined to improve teacher education must find a personal path through the obstacles; students are often the central source of support. Adopting a pedagogy of reflection requires what Scho¨n (1991) termed a reflective turn. For teacher educators, a reflective turn might involve adopting a commitment to listening to teacher candidates’ experiences, in education classes as well as in practicum classrooms, and a willingness to connect their reports of their experiences to the teaching and learning that occur in one’s own education classroom (Bullock, 2011). Yet a pedagogy of

Career-Long Development of a Pedagogy of Reflection

71

reflection goes beyond good listening and involves exploratory collaboration if one seeks to foster a new teacher’s development of action knowledge, knowledge that will make a difference in the classroom. Justin put it very clearly in a comment about our conversations and shared writing: A major part of the success of our collaboration, and what I really missed from the [preservice] program and from the practicums, was the ability to explore thoughts hypothetically, tentatively, in a non-assessed, non-final way with instructors. Much of my enthusiasm in our collaboration came from the opportunity to do this. (Justin, personal communication, 21 May, 2014)

Thus, my understanding of a pedagogy of reflection has at its core the concept of exploratory talk, not the final draft talk that makes me sound like an expert. Connecting to the individual student’s learning from experience includes identifying the issues that we need to explore together. Rather than asking all my students to copy me or to become one particular kind of teacher, the goal of my pedagogy of reflection is to support each student’s efforts to develop action knowledge of teaching that will help them support and encourage the learning of their future students. My pedagogy of reflection seeks to help others develop skills of reflective practice, so that they can help their students develop similar skills and awareness of how one learns from experience.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT A special thank you is extended to Ryan Willock for carefully reading several drafts of this chapter and for his excellent suggestions for clarification and elaboration of important points.

REFERENCES Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Barnes, D. (2014, April). Under the rug of curriculum. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy, University of East London, UK. Retrieved from http://blogs. heacademy.ac.uk/social-sciences/2014/04/28/under-the-rug-of-curriculum/ Bullock, S. M. (2011). Inside teacher education: Challenging prior views of teaching and learning. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Bullock, S. M., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2012). Self-study, science teaching, and science teacher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

72

TOM RUSSELL

Featherstone, D., Munby, H., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1997). Finding a voice while learning to teach. London, UK: Falmer Press. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 255–273. Ireland, D., & Russell, T. (1978). The Ottawa valley curriculum project [Research Report]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 266 268. Kitchen, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2012). Canadian perspectives on the self-study of teacher education practices (Vol. 2). CATE Polygraph Series. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association for Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/cssecate/polygraphbook-series Lortie, D. A. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2002). Improving teacher education practices through selfstudy. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 86 95. Russell, T. (2005a). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6, 199 204. Russell, T. (2005b). How 20 years of self-study changed my practice. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. Freese, & A. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through selfstudy: Studies of personal, professional, and program renewal (pp. 3 17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Russell, T. (2009). Personal-experience methods: Re-experiencing classroom teaching to better understand teacher education. In C. A. Lassande, S. Galman, & C. Kosnik (Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 67 81). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Russell, T., & Bullock, S. M. (2010). From talk to experience: Transforming the preservice physics methods course. Brock Education, 20(1), 19–33. Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1991). Reframing: The role of experience in developing teachers’ professional knowledge. In D. Scho¨n (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 164 187). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Scho¨n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Scho¨n, D. A. (1987, April). Educating the reflective practitioner. Paper presented to the John Dewey Society at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Scho¨n, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

PROMOTING CORE REFLECTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION: DEEPENING PROFESSIONAL GROWTH Fred A. J. Korthagen ABSTRACT This chapter describes concrete guidelines for promoting reflection in teacher education. First, a phase model for reflection is introduced, which helps to promote meaning-oriented reflection. Next, typical problems related to reflection in teacher learning are discussed, which have led to an approach for making reflection more effective and transformative. Examples show how this Core Reflection approach, which is based on a model of levels of reflection, can bring the power of ideals and personal qualities to bear upon practitioners’ experiences of teaching and learning. Empirical studies on the use of the approach are discussed, as well as implications and context factors influencing the possibilities for using Core Reflection in various international contexts. Keywords: Core Reflection; teacher education pedagogy; professional development; transformative learning; character strengths

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 73 89 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022007

73

74

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

INTRODUCTION Developments in teacher education, such as the increase of more schoolbased approaches, require a rethinking of how best to build linkages between theory and practice. In this context, reflection has since long become a keyword in the education of teachers (Scho¨n, 1987; Vermunt & Endedijk, 2010). As Calderhead and Gates (1993) stated, the essence of reflection is that it enables professionals “to analyze, discuss, evaluate and change their own practice” (p. 2). Empirical evidence for the crucial role of reflection is found by Van Woerkom (2003), who showed that strong professionals can be characterized by the fact that they regularly reflect on their experiences with the aim of improving their future behavior. In other words, strong professionals learn from their experiences in a conscious and systematic manner. However, the focus on reflection is often problematic in teacher education. First, although teacher educators may emphasize reflection, the question is what do they mean by the term. Most conceptualizations of reflection seem to draw upon Dewey (1910), who defined reflection as “active, persistent and careful consideration” (p. 6). There is a lack of publications that describe in detail what this means for teachers or present specific guidelines for how to address reflection in teacher education. As a result, student teachers as well as experienced teachers often consider reflection as something vague, if not downright useless (Cole, 1997).

ACTION-ORIENTED VERSUS MEANING-ORIENTED REFLECTION Regretfully, teacher reflection often remains a superficial phenomenon. As an example, let us consider a teacher named Linda, who is struggling with classroom discipline. After her lesson, Linda might think: “In the next lesson, I will have to be more strict.” This means that Linda jumps to a solution and that her reflection does not include awareness of what has really been going on inside her and her students, for example, what affective and motivational aspects were involved. As a result, this teacher runs the risk of trying a superficial, ineffective solution in the next lesson. The moment Linda notices that her solution does not really work, she may even conclude that reflection is not very helpful.

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

75

What is needed is a deeper awareness of the essence of the problem. This can only be reached through a more detailed reflection that includes the dimensions of thinking, feeling, wanting, and acting, as research has convincingly shown that teachers’ actions as well as student behavior are not only guided by cognitive thinking, but may be influenced as much by feelings and emotions (Damasio, 1994; Hargreaves, 1998; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003) and personal needs (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Hence, if we take the person of the teacher seriously as the central instrument through which practice takes form, we have to realize that personal frames of reference, feelings, and needs determine teachers’ practices. If, in the example, Linda would reflect on relations between thinking, feeling, wanting, and acting, she might discover a discrepancy between what she wanted and what she did, or a discrepancy between, on the one hand, what she wanted and, on the other, how the students felt and what they needed or wanted. It will be clear that through such awareness, Linda’s reflection can become more fruitful. She may become aware that as a result of her lack of certainty, she had hardly given attention to what she wanted and to the needs of the children, something many beginning teachers struggle with. This may stimulate Linda to think more about motivating the students in her next lesson. If she concretizes this idea, she will arrive at another strategy than her original idea of “being more strict.” Moreover, reflection seems necessary on what made her behave the way she did in the previous lesson. Linda may then become aware that her uncertainty caused her to close her eyes to what was actually going on in the students. Such a reflection would further deepen her new strategy, since motivating the students will probably only work well if this teacher is really aware of what is happening in these students. This example shows the important difference between action-oriented and meaning-oriented reflection (Hoekstra, 2007), the latter being “oriented toward understanding underlying processes” (Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007, p. 57). The fact that teachers often have little time to reflect (Scho¨n, 1987), often causes them to focus on what to do or do better (action-oriented reflection), in other words, to quickly jump to a solution and skip the deeper understanding of the meaning of the situation under reflection. The example of Linda clarifies how ineffective the reflection can then become, compared to trying to become aware of what important underlying mechanisms in the situation were. Hence, it is no surprise that in her empirical study of teacher learning, Hoekstra (2007) found that in the long run, meaning-oriented reflection contributes to professional development, whereas action-oriented reflection hardly ever does.

76

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

THE ALACT MODEL OF REFLECTION In the early 1980s, teacher educators in the Netherlands started to realize that there existed a phenomenon termed “practice shock” in beginning teachers and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to rethink the relation between theory and practice. The idea was that reflection was the missing link between practice and theory. At Utrecht University, a practical approach was developed in which the person of the teacher and reflection not only on his or her own thinking, but also on emotions and needs, received a more central place in teacher education. Korthagen (1985) published a model describing the ideal process of learning from practice with the aid of five phases, namely, (1) Action, (2) Looking back on the action, (3) Awareness of essential aspects, (4) Creating alternative methods of action, and (5) Trial, which itself is a new action and thus the starting point of a new cycle (see Fig. 1). This five-phase model is called the ALACT model for reflection (named after the first letters of the five phases). It is currently not only in use in most Dutch teacher education programs and many other professional curricula in the Netherlands, but also in educational programs in many other countries such as Australia (i.e., Brandenburg, 2008).

Creating alternative methods of action

4

Awareness of essential aspects

3

5

Trial

1

Action

2 Looking back on the action

Fig. 1.

The ALACT Model Describing a Structured Process of Reflection.

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

77

The ALACT model clarifies that a focus on action-oriented reflection implies that the importance of the third phase of the model is overlooked. In order to arrive at meaning-oriented reflection, this phase is absolutely necessary. When teachers are able to progress through the various phases of the model independently, they will have developed a growth competence. In practice, however, initial help of a coach or colleague is often necessary. For initial teacher education, this means that a teacher educator should have the time (and competence!) to support their students’ individual professional development. As in most Dutch teacher education programs, student teachers are taught in cohort groups of 20 30 students, educators generally have such opportunities. Also, in most institutions for teacher education in the Netherlands, mentor teachers from practicum schools are trained to coach student teachers with the aid of the ALACT model. Moreover, student teachers can also learn how to use the ALACT model themselves during peer coaching. A detailed discussion of the background of the ALACT model and the interventions educators can use to support reflection based on the model can be found in Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, and Wubbels (2001).

Process and Content Having had many years of experience with the ALACT model in teacher education, we found that it helped to clarify what reflection actually can mean in practice. However, we also observed that while going through the five phases, many teachers still do not really reflect deeply (i.e., that they do not always focus on underlying phenomena in the practical situation under reflection). For example, in phase 1 of the model, there may be an experience that is dissatisfying, such as a discipline problem in a teacher’s classroom. Next, phase 2 (looking back) is sometimes nothing more than the conclusion that it was a bad experience; phase 3 (awareness of essential aspects) implies that the children should have been more quiet; and phase 4 (creating alternative methods of action) mandates that stricter teacher behavior is needed. If in phase 5 (trial) such a “reflection” appears not to work out well, student teachers sometimes start to criticize the ALACT model for not being helpful. Such reactions to models of reflection are not confined to the ALACT model. Hoy and Woolfolk (1989) in the United States also concluded that students often consider reflection as impractical and unhelpful in solving their problems, while being unaware that the problem has to do with the quality of their reflection.

78

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

Hence, although the ALACT model is helpful as a process model, it does not support the teacher in knowing what to reflect on, and this can easily make the reflection somewhat superficial. Especially in complex and recurring problematic situations, a type of reflection which only focuses on one’s previous and future behavior is counterproductive. As many authors emphasize, strong professional development processes should include the possibility of second-order changes (i.e., changes in the underlying sources of behavior) (Levy & Mary, 1986). In order for such transformational changes to take place, a deeper type of reflection is needed.

CORE REFLECTION For this reason, we have developed what is called Core Reflection. It is based on a model describing possible levels of reflection (Korthagen, 2004), which is shown in Fig. 2 (Korthagen, 2004). I will now discuss the meaning of the various layers in this model, which is often called “the onion model.”

Environment

Behavior Competencies Beliefs Identity Mission

What do I encounter? (What am I dealing with?) What do I do? What am I competent at? What do I believe in the situation? Who am I (in my work)? What inspires me? What is my ideal? Core qualities

Fig. 2.

The Model Levels of Reflection (The Onion Model; Korthagen, 2004).

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

79

1. The environment: This layer refers to everything that a person encounters outside of herself. In the case of a teacher, this involves the whole classroom setting, the subject matter, the school culture with all its implicit and explicit norms, and so forth. In the example of Linda, the most obvious elements in her environment are the students. 2. Behavior: This refers to what the teacher does, how he or she copes with the challenges in the environment, in Linda’s case how she acts in the classroom. 3. Competencies: This layer involves what the teacher is competent at doing. 4. Beliefs: This layer refers to what the teacher believes about the situation s/he is dealing with. With the term “beliefs,” we refer to assumptions about the outer world, which are often unconscious. 5. Identity: This layer refers to teachers’ assumptions about themselves, their self-concepts, and the professional roles they see for themselves. 6. Mission: This layer is concerned with what inspires us, and what gives meaning and significance to our work or our lives. Whereas the layer of identity has to do with how we see ourselves, the layer of mission is about our ideals. In the center of the onion model we locate the teacher’s core qualities, such as enthusiasm, curiosity, courage, steadfastness, decisiveness, openness, flexibility, and so forth. The term core qualities was coined by Ofman (2000), and the concept concurs with the notion of character strengths in positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). They are considered to be people’s psychological capital (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). Core Reflection is aimed at promoting awareness of these core qualities and at reflection on the relationships between the various layers within oneself. In particular, it focuses the attention on the question of what internal obstacles limit the enactment of one’s psychological capital, or put more concretely, one’s core qualities, and one’s ideals (the level of mission). The assumption is that people often use only part of their full potential. Inner obstacles can be located at all levels of the onion model. Core Reflection helps people become aware of such obstacles and provides a method for dealing with them. The essence of this approach is that instead of fighting with limiting patterns, the person learns to be mindful about them, feeling their damaging effects, and connecting with the will to make a different choice (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005).

80

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

Meijer, Korthagen, and Vasalos (2009) summarize the Core Reflection approach with the aid of the following key principles: 1. Promoting awareness of ideals and core qualities in the person that are related to the situation reflected on. 2. Identifying internal obstacles to acting out these ideals and core qualities. 3. Promoting awareness of the cognitive, emotional, and motivational aspects embedded in ideals, core qualities, and obstacles. 4. Promoting a state of awareness in which the person is fully aware (cognitively and emotionally) of the discrepancy or friction between 1 and 2, and the self-created nature of the internal obstacles. 5. Trust in the process that takes place from within the person. 6. Support of acting out one’s inner potential within the situation under reflection. 7. Promoting autonomy in using Core Reflection. Core Reflection provides a means to integrate, rather than separate, the multiple dimensions of our wholeness as humans our thoughts, our feelings, our needs, desires, and ideals and to bring the full power and potential of that wholeness to bear upon the experiences of teaching and learning (Korthagen, Kim, & Greene, 2013). As such, the Core Reflection approach connects the personal and the professional in teaching. As it appears to be a very effective approach to reflection, it has already spread to a variety of countries. For example, it is now a key element of the teacher education program at Southern Oregon University.

How Does it Work in Practice? The assumption underlying Core Reflection is that in order to find a deeper meaning in a teaching situation, one has to include the more inner layers of the onion model in one’s reflection. In the previous example of Linda, this means that she will not only reflect on what was happening in her classroom (the layer of the environment) and on what to do (the layer of behavior), but also about her own beliefs about the situation (layer of beliefs) and about what kind of teacher she wants to be (layer of professional identity), and what ideal she has (layer of mission); is she really interested in connecting with her students, also at the dimensions of feeling and wanting? What are her core qualities that can support her in this? And how has

81

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

she obstructed herself in acting from these qualities and her ideal, that is, her inner potential? This means that Core Reflection follows a phase model as shown in Fig. 3. Essential is that the teacher does not focus too much on a problem in the situation under reflection. On the contrary, in phase 2, the focus is an ideal (the level of mission, i.e., how would she like the situation to be?) and the core qualities connected with this ideal. Next, it is important to also reflect on inner obstacles that limit the enactment of these core qualities (phase 3). Such reflection means deliberately taking a different stance than looking at the problem encountered in the concrete situation. The attention goes from the outside to the inside. Often limiting beliefs have repressed important core qualities for so long that a skilled coach may be necessary to activate them again. Phases 3 and 4 of the phase model may ultimately result in a more fundamental solution than would be possible if the reflection would remain confined to the levels of behavior, competencies, and beliefs. For one thing, the process can lead to a redefinition at the level of professional identity or mission.

Using the core potential How can you enact your core potential and let go of the obstacle?

4

Thinking Feeling

Reflection on obstacle How do you limit or block yourself?

3

The elevator

Wanting

5

Trying a new approach

1

Describing a concrete situation What was your problem? What did you encounter?

2 a. Reflection on ideal What did you want, what was your desire?

b. Reflection on core quality or qualities What core qualities are you aware of?

Fig. 3.

A Phase Model for Core Reflection.

82

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

An Example of Coaching Based on Core Reflection In this section, I describe an example of a coaching session based on Core Reflection, derived from Korthagen et al. (2013). Teacher Susan has the ideal (level of mission) that she wants to show respect to her students’ uniqueness. Everyone has special personal qualities, and people should in her view try to see these qualities in each other, so that together they can contribute to a better world. Susan wants to prepare her students for such a world. (This means that at the level of identity, she defines her professional role in these terms.) Two students have handed in a piece of work on volcanoes. Their text reads so well that Susan suspects that the students have simply downloaded this text from the Internet. After a quick search, she finds the text on a website. She feels cheated, reacts furiously (level of behavior), and speaks about plagiarism. In retrospect, she regrets her reaction. She realizes she did not react respectfully at all, but she does not know how she could have handled the situation differently. Susan decides to ask a colleague for a collegial consultation. This colleague is an experienced coach, trained in promoting Core Reflection. She starts with naming Susan’s core qualities, such as her commitment to children and her openness, as is obvious from the fact that she has asked for this conversation. The colleague also asks about Susan’s ideal in her teaching. Susan speaks passionately about her ideal of respect for everyone’s uniqueness. While talking, she becomes more aware of the influence of her limiting belief “I was cheated” (level of beliefs). This belief makes her furious and blocks her from acting the way she desires. Susan realizes that more often she thinks that people deal with her in an unfair way, and that this has a strong impact on her. From this insight (thinking), her colleague helps Susan to move to her feelings. She feels frustrated and sad that as a result of her belief “I was cheated,” she has let herself be drawn into a type of behavior she actually does not want to show. This brings her to the dimension of wanting. From now on, she seeks to behave differently in situations in which she thinks “I was cheated.” Her colleague asks her how she would like to behave; what Susan’s ideal is. Susan starts to reconnect with her ideal of respect for the uniqueness of people, and with her desire to promote this ideal in other people, especially her students. The colleague helps Susan to feel the strength of this ideal in herself and the power of her core qualities of care and commitment. This helps to deepen Susan’s wanting; she starts to feel the strength of her ideal and core qualities even stronger, and she feels her desire to behave on

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

83

the basis of this inner potential, even in difficult situations. Her eyes start to shine. Suddenly she knows what she wants to do (level of behavior). She wants to go to the students and apologize for reacting too harshly. She wants to proceed with the conversation in a respectful way, but also to ask her students for more respect for her need for honesty. She feels she has the competencies to do this (level of competencies). Throughout the whole process, the colleague helps Susan move from thinking to feeling and wanting. This is called ‘moving the elevator’ (see Fig. 3).

Empirical Evidence An important question is: Does Core Reflection work and what are the outcomes of this approach? Over the last couple of years, several studies on the impact of Core Reflection on teachers and teacher educators have been published. I now summarize five of these studies. 1. A study by Meijer et al. (2009), carried out in the Netherlands, but published in English, describes the learning process of a teacher supervised with the aid of the Core Reflection approach. Based on analyses of the seven audio-taped coaching sessions, the authors identified six stages in the teacher’s development and related them to the above-mentioned seven key principles of Core Reflection. Both the teacher’s growth and the coaching interventions are described in detail and illustrated using quotations from coaching sessions, logbooks, and interviews. The authors show that the teacher developed more awareness of her core qualities and ideals. The teacher started to reframe her previously limited and negative self-concept and her beliefs about the educational situations she encountered, which was quite an emotional process for her. She started to act more upon her core qualities and ideals, which led to an effective change in her classroom behavior. 2. A study by Hoekstra and Korthagen (2011) also focused on the professional learning of one teacher in the Netherlands, and was published in English. The authors describe Nicole, an experienced teacher, who struggled with implementing a new pedagogy, requiring her to teach in a more student-oriented way. Detailed descriptions of the coaching interactions and in-depth analyses of Nicole’s learning process illustrate that Core Reflection helped Nicole realize her ideals by drawing more strongly on her core qualities. As Nicole was also studied intensively

84

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

before the period of coaching started, and data were collected about her classroom behavior and her beliefs before and after the coaching, the researchers were able to find clear evidence of a statistically significant shift that took place in Nicole, both in her beliefs and her behavior. In addition, the approach supported Nicole in accepting herself as a learner as part of her own professional identity. 3. Adams, Kim, and Greene (2013) conducted a study on the role of Core Reflection in the professional development of beginning teachers at Southern Oregon University. They highlight their roles as facilitators of a beginning teacher group over four years, and present brief scenarios of six new teachers, which include many verbatim quotes from these teachers. The authors analyzed the scenarios, searching for patterns in how the group’s use of Core Reflection and the six individual teachers’ learning and behavior developed over time. In a detailed and insightful way, the authors show that Core Reflection influenced the actualization of core qualities in the beginning teachers, and how this led to new insights, self-understandings, and behaviors. 4. A Dutch study by Attema-Noordewier, Korthagen, and Zwart (2013), published in English, describes a trajectory for professional development based on the principles of Core Reflection, carried out with complete teams of teachers in six primary schools. This approach was essentially bottom-up; teachers’ qualities and inspiration were taken as a starting point for professional growth. Quantitative and qualitative instruments were used for analyzing the outcomes of the approach for teachers and students, and for the school culture as a whole. At the teacher level, the researchers found increased feelings of autonomy, increased self-efficacy regarding coaching of students and colleagues, increased coaching skills, new or renewed insights and ideas about learning, and increased awareness of core qualities, of students, colleagues, and themselves. For most teachers, the learning process took place on all of the onion levels. At the student level, the teachers reported an increase in the students’ working and communication skills and in the students’ attitudes. 5. Core Reflection need not be limited to teachers, but can, for example, also be applied by teacher educators reflecting on their own practices. A three-year collaborative self-study by Kim and Greene (2013) describes the impact of Core Reflection on their identities and work as teacher educators at Southern Oregon University. The authors identify four themes defining the core identity issues in their study: understanding the contradictory nature of core qualities, confronting hypocrisies, holding ambiguity, and sustaining authenticity in everyday practice. Various

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

85

categories of change in the authors’ teaching identities and practice are outlined. Moreover, this study presents evidence of the beneficial influences of these teacher educators’ own development on their student teachers. The authors conclude that Core Reflection serves as a useful approach for aligning professional and personal identities with a sense of purpose, passion, and teaching ideals. Recently, a book on Core Reflection has been published (Korthagen et al., 2013), which combines an overview of the basic principles of Core Reflection with detailed descriptions of the above studies into the processes and outcomes of the application of Core Reflection. The overall conclusion is that Core Reflection leads to deep, transformative learning, that is, learning in which we experience “dramatic, fundamental change in the way we see ourselves and the world in which we live” (Mirriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Through Core Reflection, changes can take place that go beyond gradual adjustments in professional behavior (first-order change) and can thus be seen as the “second-order changes” we referred to above (Levy & Mary, 1986).

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION Emerging from all these studies is the importance of addressing the whole person in an effort to bring about change through reflection and coaching. In the transformations that were found in these studies, personal and professional growth appeared to be intertwined through a focus on personal qualities and ideals, that is, a focus on strength rather than weakness and problems. This concurs with findings from positive psychology. Fredrickson (2002), for example, conducted empirical studies showing that a focus on failures and inadequacies is counterproductive to creativity, whereas a focus on positive aspects makes people more open, creative, motivated, and effective. I wish to emphasize that Core Reflection can be applied to learning at all levels of education. It is not only important for teachers, but has also been shown to impact student learning and the professional growth of school principals. Many professional development programs have been given to teacher educators, teachers, and school principals in a variety of countries in order to develop their competence in Core Reflection coaching. Core Reflection is based on a view of how one can deal with deeply engrained inhibiting patterns in a person. Regretfully, people often associate

86

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

this with therapy. However, fundamental to the Core Reflection approach is the idea that for deep learning, it is not necessary to dive into biographical issues. What is important is awareness of one’s potential and one’s limiting beliefs. The latter have often become unconscious “prisons.” As Korthagen and Vasalos (2010) discussed, the prisoner can become free if s/he • starts to fully feel the negative, limiting impact of a belief or behavioral pattern on his/her functioning in the here-and-now; • understands the belief as a self-created mental construct; and • develops the will to no longer be guided by the belief. This means that in Core Reflection, “going deep” does not mean diving into the past or dealing with therapeutic issues, but it does refer to the power of possibilities in (re)creating a simple yet deep connection with one’s inner potential and overcoming inner obstacles. It is sad that most practices in teacher education are relatively weakly focused on this important goal. It is even more disappointing that some teacher educators seem to think that this is an area they should avoid. We do recognize that it is not common in our society to focus professional conversations on personal issues involving such notions as identity and mission. Even the idea of giving attention to feelings and emotions creates resistance in some teacher educators. They do not feel at ease with the notion that dealing with such things may be part of professional reflections. For example, they can be limited by such thoughts as “the student teachers will find me weird if I help them reflect on how they feel.” This belief sometimes changes completely when the teacher educator gives it a try, notices how the student teacher reacts in a natural way, and observes the effects on the student teacher’s learning, let alone how coaching based on Core Reflection positively impacts the relationship between the teacher educator and the student teacher. Over the years, we have heard and read impressive reports from teacher educators about their discoveries of the impact of the principles discussed in this chapter, which often changed the lives of the teacher educators themselves as well as their students, and sometimes even the entire culture in educational institutions (i.e., see Korthagen et al., 2013). Generally, such experiences only occur after teacher educators or coaches have had some training in a coaching approach based on Core Reflection. The notions presented in this chapter are not really difficult to apply, but, as explained, they are often in contrast with what educators are used to. Hence, the issue that is at stake here is the expansion of one’s comfort zone. For example, many teacher educators and coaches have a tendency to focus primarily on rational thinking about teaching, or on

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

87

weaknesses rather than on the qualities of their students. The idea to work within the tension between ideals and obstacles is often not their common habit. Our experience is that a two-day workshop is generally sufficient to support these practitioners in making a fundamental shift in their views about coaching and in their behavior, although we have to admit that much practice is needed to really become familiar with the principles discussed above. If this happens, the fundamental shift taking place in the professional relationships between teacher educators and students may set a model for what is possible in the relationships between teachers and students in schools, and may contribute to the development of a more holistic approach in education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS More information about the Core Reflection approach can be found at www.korthagen.nl. The author would like to thank Ellen Nuijten for her contributions to this chapter.

REFERENCES Adams, R., Kim, Y. M., & Greene, W. L. (2013). Actualizing core strengths in new teacher development. In F. A. J. Korthagen, Y. M. Kim, & W. L. Greene (Eds.), Teaching and learning from within: A Core Reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education (pp. 61 75). New York, NY: Routledge. Attema-Noordewier, S., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Zwart, R. C. (2013). Core Reflection in primary schools: A new approach to educational innovation. In F. A. J. Korthagen, Y. M. Kim, & W. L. Greene (Eds.), Teaching and learning from within: A Core Reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education (pp. 111 130). New York, NY: Routledge. Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy. New York, NY: Springer. Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. London: Falmer Press. Cole, A. L. (1997). Impediments to reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 7 27. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York, NY: Grosset Putman. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath & Co.

88

FRED A. J. KORTHAGEN

Fredrickson, B. L. (2002). Positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 120 134). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835 854. Hoekstra, A. (2007). Experienced teachers’ informal learning in the workplace. Utrecht: IVLOS, Utrecht University. Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher learning in a context of educational change: Informal learning versus systematically supported learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 76 92. Hoy, W. H., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1989). Supervising student teachers. In A. E. Woolfolk (Ed.), Research perspectives on the graduate preparation of teachers (pp. 108 131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kim, Y. M., & Greene, W. L. (2013). Aligning professional and personal identities: Applying Core Reflection in teacher education practice. In F. A. J. Korthagen, Y. M. Kim, & W. L. Greene (Eds.), Teaching and learning from within: A Core Reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education (pp. 165 178). New York, NY: Routledge. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core Reflection as a means to enhance professional development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47 71. Korthagen, F. A. J. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education, 9(3), 317 326. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77 97. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kim, Y. M., & Greene, W. L. (Eds.). (2013). Teaching and learning from within: A Core Reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2010). Going to the core: Deepening reflection by connecting the person to the profession. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 529 552). New York, NY: Springer. Levy, A., & Mary, U. (1986). Organizational transformation. New York, NY: Praeger. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 47 62. Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2009). Supporting presence in teacher education: The connection between the personal and professional aspects of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 297 308. Mirriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. S. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ofman, D. (2000). Core qualities: A gateway to human resources. Schiedam: Scriptum. Scho¨n, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Promoting Core Reflection in Teacher Education

89

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5 14. Sutton, R., & Wheatley, K. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for further research. Educational Psychological Review, 15, 327 358. Van Woerkom, M. (2003). Critical reflection at work: Bridging individual and organizational learning. Enschede: Twente University. Vermunt, J. D., & Endedijk, M. D. (2010). Patterns in teacher learning in different phases of the professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 294 302.

REFLECTION AND WORK CONTEXT IN TEACHER LEARNING: TWO CASE STUDIES FROM ICELAND Hafdı´ s Ingvarsdo´ttir ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on the importance of reflection for teacher growth. Through two case studies, life examples are given on the significance of embedding critical reflection already in initial teacher education. Teachers’ life stories were collected through in-depth “rivers of life” interviews. The interplay between teachers’ awareness of their life story and their subjective theories, and how this impacts on the teachers’ attitude and openness to change are illustrated. The findings indicate that reflecting on one’s life stories may play an important role in forming teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical practices and hence their attitudes to change. The findings also suggest that a culture fostering close reflective collaboration and collegial support plays an important part in developing teachers’ perspectives of their roles and that of their learners. The findings reveal that presuming a single work culture in a school may be an oversimplification as several subcultures may be at play in one institution

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 91 112 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022008

91

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

92

and even within the same subject area. The findings should have implications for approaches and procedures in teacher education and for the induction of novice teachers. Although the case studies reported here are based on Icelandic data, they should offer insights and have relevance for teacher education and teacher growth not only in Iceland but also in other countries as well. Keywords: Reflection; rivers of life; subjective theories; work cultures; teacher growth

I really enjoyed all the reflection. I began to think about teaching in a very different way.

This is a quote from a young teacher Klara, reflecting on her experience as a student teacher in a program where there was heavy emphasis on encouraging prospective teachers to reflect critically on their personal theories of teaching and learning, as well as on their teaching practice. Klara participated in a recent case study on teacher development based on a life story approach. This chapter describes the study and focuses on the development and change within foreign language teaching (FLT) as perceived by two foreign language teachers in an upper-secondary school in Iceland, seen through their life story and working context. One, Inga, went through a traditional teacher education, where she was not introduced to the concept of reflection or work with personal theories on teaching and learning. The other, Klara, went through a heavily revised program, where reflection was very much in focus with a special emphasis on teaching students to reflect and work with their personal theories. Decades ago, I became interested in teacher development after having observed and interviewed a great number of FLT and noticed how different they were in their teaching approaches. Some were still heavily influenced by grammar translation routines or gap-filling exercises, whereas others used a variety of approaches: task-based teaching, project work, working with learner strategies, and so on. In some classrooms, the target language was the working language most of the time, and in another classroom, only the teacher spoke the target language and rarely at that. Why were there

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

93

such varieties even within the same school, the same subject, and the same level? It should be noted that Icelandic upper-secondary teachers enjoy a great deal of autonomy with no standardized tests. The Icelandic National Curriculum is very open and does not promote any one particular teaching approach although it emphasizes the importance of all four skills, namely, speaking, listening, reading, and writing besides the use of the target language as much as possible as FLT (National Curriculum, 2006, 2011).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Reflection as a Tool for Professional Development The International Association of Teachers and Teaching (ISATT) has had teacher thinking at its core agenda from its beginning over 30 years ago. One of the concepts that have been at the heart of this proclaimed policy are reflection and reflective teaching. The emphasis on reflection can partly be traced to the influential work of Scho¨n (1983, 1987), where he introduced the notion of the reflective practitioner, grounding his work on Dewey’s pragmatism (Fenstermacher, 1994). Scho¨n’s conception of “reflection-inaction” referred to the ways professionals identify and solve problems through the consideration of alternative modes of framing or viewing professional situations (Calderhead, 1987). Scho¨n’s work rests on his profound dissatisfaction with what he has called “technical rationality,” the application of conventional social science to the problems and tasks of professional practice (Fenstermacher, 1994). Scho¨n (1983) claimed that the practitioner’s knowing was embedded in the action; hence, he talked about knowing-inaction and reflecting-in-action, referring to these concepts as the core of “epistemology of practice.” It can be argued that Scho¨n gave the concept “reflection” a new meaning, as he was concerned with practical thinking and reflection in the action as well as reflection on action (Carlgren, 1996). Kelchtermans (2009) maintained that reflection does not only need to be broad or wide but also deep, that is, probing beneath the action “to the level of underlying beliefs, ideas knowledge and goals” (p. 269). Much has been written about reflection in the last two decades and many scholars have seen reflection as a tool for bridging the gap between theory and practice in teacher education. Among many theorists, Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) argue that reflection is a key concept in teacher education and the reflection needs to be introduced and encouraged in initial teacher education. Korthagen (2004) claimed that in order to create

94

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

holistic teacher education and to develop as professionals, student teachers need to be taught how to reflect on their own actions and what they find most important. For teachers to become reflective professionals, the critical thinking embedded in reflection needs to be introduced in their initial teacher education. Reflective teaching conceptualizes teaching as a complex and highly skilled activity, which, above all, requires teachers to exercise judgment in deciding how to act. It can be postulated that if student teachers enter the profession having experienced “broad and deep reflection” on the relation between their actions and beliefs, they may from the outset be able to engage in teacher development, leading to high-quality teaching.

Teacher Learning and Subjective Theories Teacher thinking research has long established that to change teaching procedures, teachers need to change their thinking; in other words, their theories of teaching and learning (Fischler, 1994; Fullan, 2001; Pope, 1993; Sarason, 1971). Changing one’s teaching is a learning process, which involves changing prior theories/beliefs before any change in actions can be expected (Pope & Denicolo, 2001). In order to do so, teachers also need to understand how their theories are formed and what has modified their ways of thinking through the years since teachers’ theories are rooted in their whole life experience. Here, reflection plays an important part in making their life stories explicit in order to be challenged and eventually modified. What teachers feel, think, and believe about teaching has been widely discussed and different concepts have been used for the same phenomenon of teacher thinking: “teacher cognition” (Borg, 2003, 2006), “personal constructs” (Kelly, 1955), “personal practical knowledge” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988), “practical theory” (Handal & Lauva˚s, 1987), “educational vision” (Adalbjarnardottir, 2010), and “subjective educational theory” (Kelchtermans, 2009), to name but a few. In this chapter, I use the term teachers’ “subjective theories” for language teachers’ cognition (Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2007). The term is not new, however, and subjective theories as I define the concept have dual characteristics. First, the theories are subject bound, influenced by the subject, that is, the foreign language. And second, they are also idiosyncratic, related to the personal subject, that is, teachers’ emotional as well as their intellectual relationship with the subject in question. Thus, subjective theories hold a special subject identity (Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2007). Individual

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

95

teachers’ identities are thus closely related to their subjects; they are teachers of French, English, etc. with a distinct subject culture. I have argued that language teachers’ subjective theories are different in their disposition from those of, for example, science teachers or general classroom teachers (Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2011). For teachers, being adult learners, new knowledge is filtered through their subjective theories and in order to make fundamental changes, these theories need to be brought out in the open and challenged. This is where reflection plays such an important role; a reflective teacher makes sense of her experience by deliberately and actively examining her thinking and beliefs, that is, in this context, subjective theories. Making sense of one’s theories by deliberately and actively examining one’s thoughts and actions leads one to new ways of understanding oneself as a teacher. Only then can their subjective theories be fully understood and thus become open to development and change.

Understanding Teacher Thinking Sikes (1992) claimed that in order to understand teacher thinking, we needed a holistic approach to teacher development. Although teaching and being a teacher are only a part of teachers’ lives, other parts of their lives are affected by their role as teachers and vice versa. Sikes (1992, p. 39) sums up what she calls a “holistic picture” by claiming that teachers can be seen from four perspectives: Teachers as people; Teachers’ aims and purposes; Work context and conditions; Work culture. All the four perspectives are intertwined and interdependent in teachers’ lives as professionals. I would take it further and argue that by the teacher looking at herself from all four viewpoints through reflection, the teacher will become better aware of her own theories. She will thus better understand her personal and professional attitude toward change.

Work Context and the Subject The importance of context and work culture has long been established as a significant factor influencing teachers’ work, and there is an established need for research, with teachers working in a range of different settings or cultures (Bruner, 1987; Elbaz, 1990). Foreign language teachers are encouraged to update their professional knowledge, skills, and understanding as

96

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

educators, with special emphasis on learner autonomy (i.e., Goullier, 2007; Kohonen, 2001; Little, Dam, & Timmer, 2000; Seeman & Tavares, 2000). Depaepe, Noens, Kelchtermans, and Simons (2013) have recently reviewed the literature on teachers’ relationship with their subject which shows that in spite of prolific research for nearly half a century there still remain areas that are limited in the connection between teacher cognition and the subject matter. One of those is FLT and teacher cognition. According to Borg (2006), research on the relationship between FLT and teacher cognitions did not start until the mid-nineties, and much is still unclear. Language acquisition is a “whole person” endeavor, and learning to express oneself in a foreign language taps directly into the personal as well as the cultural identity of each individual. This may pertain particularly to oral production (Bayley & Regan, 2004; Dewaele, 2005). Nicholson and Adams (2010) have argued that: “More attention therefore needs to be paid to diversity and to the social relationships that continually and dynamically emerge and change amongst students, and between teacher and students when engaged in speaking activities” (p. 47). My intention in the study was to gain a better understanding of how foreign language teachers make sense of and engage in the educational environment for change, and whether and how their life story, their work context and last but not least reflection enhance this process.

RESEARCH CONTEXT, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS The two teachers who share their stories, Inga and Klara (pseudonyms), teach in the same comprehensive school. Most upper-secondary schools are comprehensive schools where both academic and vocational studies are offered. It was considered important for an investigation focusing on context and work cultures not to assume that each school had a single prevalent culture but to explore if different cultures coexisted within the same institution. This school, Hillside, was selected because it is known to be a progressive school with a supportive leadership and a high degree of teacher autonomy, drawing its students from agricultural as well as industrial areas, resulting in a wide range in student backgrounds. The two teachers were selected on the basis of their reputation as dedicated teachers. The study is based on an interpretative life story approach (Denzin, 1999;

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

97

Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2013). As this was research conducted in collaboration with the teachers, they were invited to read the transcripts, make changes, and add to and clarify their stories further at any stage in the procedure. The stories were condensed and analyzed with the purpose of keeping the main essence of teachers’ stories intact. The data was collected through in-depth interviews based on “rivers of life” and on interviews, focusing on teacher life stories. The teachers were asked to draw their lives as a bending river where each bend represents a change in the direction of teachers’ life (Pope & Denicolo, 2001) (Fig. 1). The “rivers of life” technique helps teachers to explore and reflect upon the influence of the past on the present. The interviews were then based on the themes from the river. One of the benefits of using the river technique is that the subsequent interview becomes more of a self-exploration by the teachers and requires the bare minimum of intervention by the researcher. The rivers technique has proved to be fruitful in my work in initial teacher education where my colleagues and I introduce the rivers of life at the outset and ask them to work on them throughout the program adding or deleting as their thinking progresses. Through the rivers approach, they start reflecting on their life, their subjective theories, and what has molded them. Toward the end of the program, they hand them in as a part of their teaching portfolio, with comments on how it evolved. The rivers technique has also proved to be effective in teacher development program (TDP) in Iceland. Many experienced teachers find critical reflection difficult and the rivers approach help teachers who are not used to deliberately examining their thoughts and actions to arrive at new understandings.

THE STORIES: DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY IN PRACTICE At Hillside, Inga teaches Danish, which is a compulsory subject in Iceland for historical reasons. She has 18 years of experience. Klara teaches French, which is the third compulsory language after English and Danish, and she is starting her sixth year of teaching. Hillside is of average size for Icelandic upper-secondary schools with about 70 teachers, of whom two teach French and four Danish. The facility is good for students as well as teachers, and the atmosphere in the staffroom is cheerful and warm. Both Inga and Klara report that there is a good relationship between the school administrators and teachers and that teachers are encouraged to be innovative.

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

98

Fig. 1.

An Example of a River of Life.

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

99

The Early Years Inga Danish became Inga’s first language as she was born in Denmark of Icelandic parents: I became more Danish than Icelandic. When her parents moved back to Iceland, she was an adolescent and was reluctant to leave: I was 21 when I first faced the fact that I was Icelandic and accepted it. I was always on my way back, you see, and I always regretted having moved [to Iceland]. She kept on reading Danish magazines and books but found Danish in school boring: The classical translations were not exciting. She did not learn much, perhaps the occasional word. Being a native speaker of the language, she needed materials at her proficiency level, and she remembers never being praised for her work. However, her fondness for the language remained intact. Klara When Klara was seven, she moved from the city to a remote village in Iceland and was sent to a small boarding school. There she did not know anyone: I was only seven and since then there is always this tough girl inside me, thus indicating that this experience has shaped her for life, preparing her to take risks. There was only one teacher at that school and things just ambled on from day to day without any overriding aspirations for the school or the students. Entering upper-secondary school, the shock was even greater. Then she began to learn French, which did not start till upper-secondary school, and she realized later that French salvaged her self-esteem: I started at the same time as the others, they didn’t know more French then I did, the other kids. So there I didn’t need to have this inferiority complex because I didn’t have the same background knowledge as in other subjects as for example in English.

The French teacher always remembered to praise Klara, and she remembers how she valued that. Later she also began to realize how important teachers can be: It is in fact terrible how teachers can make you or break you, terrible. She pauses and then says: So French was always mine, my favourite, there lay my ambition. When leaving upper-secondary school, both Inga and Klara had formed an emotional attachment, that is, they had developed an integral fondness for the language, albeit for different reasons, which later led them to become teachers of those languages.

100

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

The Road to Teaching The young women were both uncertain about what to do after leaving school and took different paths. Inga Inga enrolled in French and Linguistics at the University of Iceland, right after leaving upper-secondary school. Gradually, however, she realized that her studies would eventually lead to a teaching career and it was most sensible to become a teacher in the language she spoke fluently; so she enrolled in Danish. This time I thoroughly enjoyed my Danish lessons. I guess I liked the intellectual challenge and to finally learn about Danish from a theoretical viewpoint, descriptive grammar, literature, literature analysis, etc. When Inga received her qualification, only a BA degree in a subject was required for teaching. She was offered a teaching post right after graduation, which she accepted. In her university studies, there was neither a pedagogical angle nor was there any form for reflection. Klara Klara went to France to fulfill her dream and spend a year there. The one year became seven years. All the time, she lived in a complete French environment and spoke nothing but French, soaking up the French language and culture. With this cultural experience in my suitcase, she returned home after all those years but without a degree as she had not been studying at a university. She decided that the most practical solution would be to enroll for a French degree at the university. She completed her degree and subsequently undertook a diploma in education, which had now become a prerequisite to become a qualified secondary school teacher in French. I really enjoyed my French studies. Learning about French literature and French culture only deepened my interest in French. At the university, she began to form her “intellectual attachment” to the subject. Both Inga and Klara thus form their intellectual attachment (Pope & Denicolo, 2001) to the language through their university studies and amalgamate those feelings with their previously formed emotional attachment. The one year diploma in education (PGCE) proved to be a pleasant surprise for Klara: I really enjoyed them and all the reflection [they engaged in]. I began to think about teaching in a very different way and here I realised the uniqueness of each teacher and how she mirrors the background she comes from.

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

101

With hindsight she claims that learning to reflect has had a profound impact on her thinking. Starting out Inga Inga soon found out that she had taken on more than she had bargained for. She had too many classes and did not want to teach Danish in the way she had been taught, but she did not know how to do otherwise as she and had no appropriate role models. Inga says that she goes red in the face when thinking about how she taught that first year. After two years there, she felt she needed to take on studies in education and completed an MA degree in applied linguistics. Klara Right after graduation, Klara heard of an opening in Hillside. A friend told her that she should apply as she would fit in well to this school, meaning that she would like the atmosphere and the people. This proved to be right as she immediately liked the atmosphere and soon formed close working relationships with the other French teacher. Reflecting on her first term she thinks her main objectives were to survive and get through the curriculum: We had such a short teaching practicum and I did not feel prepared to take on all this responsibility. She also realized that it made her start more difficult because her personal objectives were to make her lessons enjoyable for the student. Being a Teacher Inga After obtaining her MA degree, Inga got a position at Hillside. Her MA studies had been quite theoretical and not as practical as she had hoped, however: It [the studies] gave me a solid grounding in theory, particularly in acquisition theory and you do see things differently by going through this. You think in a different way and gain new understandings of language in many ways.

When she started working at Hillside, the school was only three years old and it had almost a pioneering spirit. She was the only Danish teacher at that time (there are four now) and felt she was feeling her way forward.

102

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

After her first year, she felt what she was doing was old fashioned and began to attend courses for teacher professional development (TPD) to seek new ideas and inspiration. Inga feels that the short TPD courses have been inspiring and she has tried out some approaches she has been introduced to there. However there is a big “but”: These courses [TPD] you do not get enough time to digest and sort it out. You are taking so much in and you need time to digest, it takes time, you know, to adapt.

There are no clear stated common objectives shared by the teachers of Danish in her school. If there are, they are unspoken: I think my main objectives are to give students confidence. That they believe that they are able to make sense of the text they are reading. Her heavy emphasis on reading is to increase their vocabulary, as many of them pursue further studies in Scandinavia. Thus, she takes a practical stance as she has so often done in life. It is clear that Inga is absolutely convinced of the practicality of teaching Danish and has based her objectives on what she assumes may lie in store for many of her students, that is, good reading comprehension. Klara Klara’s objectives in her first term were to survive and get through the curriculum but she soon realized that her personal objectives were also to make learning French enjoyable for her students. Learning a foreign language can be such fun, therein lies the magic and I tried to make some use of this, performed a little bit. … Soon my objectives began to change already in my second term and I began to think this cannot all be about fun I have to get more out of them, during the lessons, make them do more [original emphasis].

Klara uses the word magic. For her, learning French was magic and she wants her students to sense this magic. During her educational studies, Klara feels she has developed as a reflective teacher and she claims that as a result, she is constantly critically evaluating her objectives. She and her closest colleague have a clear shared vision: To motivate students and make them want to learn more and give them enough confidence to use the basic French they learn in school. She and her colleague have set up an experimental module, changing the means of assessment so the traditional final written exam does not count for so much. Instead she uses project work and portfolio assessment and students are expected to be more autonomous in their learning.

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

103

Klara admits that she mostly uses the “new” approaches in the second and third year modules and that she could use these ideas more in the first year beginners’ modules. Being a reflective teacher, she can see that her own thinking is one obstacle to change: I do, of course, still carry my baggage from grammar school, where she explains that any kind of student autonomy was unthinkable.

Collaboration Inga The four Danish teachers at Inga’s school all teach the same compulsory modules and have to cover the same curriculum. Inga seems to have problems talking about collaborating with her colleagues. She seems keen not to sound as if she is criticizing them or as if she thinks she is the one with all the answers. However, she senses that her subjective theories differ from theirs: This [having to collaborate] has both good and bad sides (pause). There are no conflicts that is we try to avoid them (pause). You see, I am more of a risk taker then they are, they may not be as ready (pause) and, and I think our emphasis differs in some ways.

From Ingas’s words, can detect that she is working in a tacit culture. Inga does not try to push her colleagues into collaboration. Inga states: I am not afraid of throwing myself into the deep end and trying to swim, trying to find which direction to take. Sometimes it is not successful and then I can try to make changes. There are, however, many things she has heard of and read about, which she has not tried out. She explains that it is difficult to do this without having someone with whom to share the workload and discuss the issues that arise. Teachers need to be given more time. I need more time to do many of the things I want to. So many changes I would like to make, but I don’t have the time. It takes time to plan and organise and of course you need to have someone to work with and to discuss and that also takes time. … I would like to see some of our work time defined as time to collaborate.

Here again, we hear of her desire for a supportive colleague and her need for someone to have an open and honest discussion with. The issue of time may be some form of an avoidance strategy as it is not raised with her French colleagues.

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

104

Klara Klara and the other French teacher work closely together. She says that although they are different personalities, they share their love for the French language and culture. They discuss their teaching and there is mutual respect and trust since as they are not afraid of criticizing each other. They began visiting each other’s classes and this term they are going to try team teaching in modular one, a rare phenomenon in Icelandic upper-secondary schools. They are also completely restructuring the teaching of first year French. Klara emphasizes that this could not be done without full support from the school administrators and without close cooperation with her trusted colleagues.

TOWARD A HOLISTIC PICTURE Both teachers claim to take an interest in changing their teaching. They are aware of the latest developments in language teaching and both are committed to making language teaching more effective and practical. They are, however, at different stages in their progress. Let us return to Sikes’ (1992) model of the holistic picture of teachers: Teachers as people, teachers’ aims and purposes, work context and conditions, work culture to help us understand better and discuss Klara’s and Inga’s personal and professional attitude toward change.

Teachers as People It is clear from the interviews that both Inga and Klara are confident professionals and consider themselves good teachers. They have gained this confidence through the course of their personal and professional life; both have an extremely good command over the foreign language, not least the spoken language. Sounding (almost) like a native speaker gives the foreign language teacher heightened status in the eyes of the students. Their life stories tell us that neither of them is afraid to take risks and meet challenges. Both teachers should thus be well prepared to adopt new developments in FLT toward a more learner-centered approach. They are, as foreshadowed, at different stages in their professional life. Although Inga has a long teaching career and has attended numerous TPD courses, she has no role models from her own education and perhaps most

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

105

importantly, she has received no preparation in becoming a reflective pro˝ 1987), neither on her fessional (Bartlett, 1990; Korthagen, 2004; Schon, own nor with colleagues. In contrast Klara’s life story reveals that she has positive role models from her own French classes. Furthermore, her educational studies gave her the tools for critical self-evaluation before she started teaching, and from the beginning of her teaching career she has had a trusted colleague with whom to reflect.

Aims and Purposes Inga and Klara’s differences in aims and purposes can be partly explained by the different status their respective languages have within the Icelandic educational system. Danish is a compulsory language, an important tool for study and work, whereas French is an optional language. As Wideen (1994) has argued, “Subject matter itself may well determine the way one thinks about teaching and learning” (p. 199). Both teachers claim their aims have developed and they have personalized their goals. Inga’s decisions are based on the needs of her students: You see many of my students will be using Danish for further studies in Scandinavia so vocabulary and reading comprehension is very important for them. She has gradually increased her emphasis in those two areas and reduced her emphasis on speaking. Klara claims the development in her aims is mainly based on her critical reflection, in many cases with her trusted colleague: We trust each other completely and discuss and reflect on what we have been doing and what changes need to be made. … Sort of learning from experience what works and what doesn’t. Her aims are no longer that everything be enjoyable in class but that they will be able to enjoy knowing some French use, what they know, and that they will keep on learning it: I hope I have sown some seeds.

Work Context and Conditions As the teachers work in the same school, one might argue that they are working in the same context and certainly within the same culture. To some extent this is true. Both teachers are working with the same or a similar student population. It is noteworthy that both see students’ attitudes as an obstacle to change. Both suggest that although teachers want to be

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

106

innovative, students may be reluctant to take on new roles, such as taking more initiative and accepting more responsibility for their own learning. This is an example of context and work culture, which is beyond the single teacher to tackle and has to be a whole school endeavor since it relates to the common working culture of the school. Both stories also imply that a teacher’s expectations toward her students may either be an obstacle or an incentive to change. We have heard that Inga has more or less given up having her students speak Danish. She claims that students find reading comprehension less threatening as it is less personal. Reading and vocabulary learning may be more like other subject areas, whereas arguably writing and particularly speaking can be “personality sensitive,” as they involve students expressing themselves as individuals. Both teachers convey problems having students speak the foreign language in class, which relates to the social relationships between teacher and students (Nicholson & Adams, 2010) and between students and the psychological and emotional dimensions (Dewaele, 2005). Klara, however, is still trying to find a solution to this and seeks ways to motivate them to speak French.

Work Culture As Peddler, James, and MacBeath (2005) argue, the development of curriculum planning and classroom skills depends to a large extent on ongoing peer coaching, that is, close collaboration (i.e., Joyce, Calhoun, & Hopkins, 1999). Lomos, Hofman, and Bosker (2010) found in their study on cooperation that departments that are characterized by collaborative activity, shared vision, and reflective dialogue are associated with higher student achievement. In an earlier study in Icelandic uppersecondary schools, collaboration among teachers seemed incidental and sporadic (Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2004). The findings of the present case study suggest that there are layers of culture prevalent at Hillside, a general culture of collegiality, but at the same time, there exists what Little (1990) has called a culture of individualism within departments, which can foster a degree of isolation as we see in Inga’s example. Beneath the warm atmosphere and an overt culture of collegiality lies a “tacit culture.” In a tacit culture, sensitive issues are not brought out in the open or discussed (Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2007). One possible interpretation is that because of this collegiality, people shy away from any form of conflict. Thus, too much emphasis on collegiality may promote a tacit culture. Louis, Kruse, and

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

107

Associates (1995) argue that positive relationships and collegiality were important for teachers to work together productively. We have, nevertheless, seen here that this is not sufficient and can even be counterproductive. However, a culture of shared educational vision and reflective discussions (Adalbjarnardottir, 2007) can also thrive alongside a culture of individualism, as in the example of Klara and her colleague.

Living Examples on Teacher Learning As we have seen Inga’s and Klara’s path to teacher growth has been different. Both teachers have, in theory, kept up with the latest developments in FLT. However, the main difference between their abilities to take up new approaches in their classroom seems to lie in their life stories, immediate work context and last but not least, in their ability to reflect, examining their subjective theories and challenging them. One cannot but wonder what a TPD course will accomplish with regard to change if teachers’ subjective theories are not brought into clear view and contested. Klara has formed a close working relationship with the other French teacher, which has developed and become increasingly productive. Klara and her colleague have formed an alliance; a close, trusting, relationship with the purpose of improving their teaching (Ingvarsdo´ttir, 2007). Working so closely together in an open and trusting relationship, where they challenge each other’s theories through critical reflection (i.e., the river approach) has given them the incentive and courage to cross the threshold toward radical changes. Inga is in a different situation and although she has been growing as a teacher over the years, no radical changes have been made in her classroom. She has no trusted colleague and her work context lacks the openness and honesty which characterize the relationship between Klara and her colleague. Instead there seems to be a prevalent “tacit culture”: a tacit agreement not to discuss or challenge conflicting ideas. This study suggests that the subject issue is complex and even if teachers of Danish may have a common subjective view on the language and its culture, they may have different views on how to teach it. A crucial aspect where their experience differs is the issue of reflection. Klara reflects critically on her teaching and continuously does so; she has an acute awareness of her own subjective theories and the effect her life story has had on those theories.

108

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

Klara has a deep understanding of herself as a teacher and can challenge her theories. Inga has not been encouraged to critically interrogate her practice and does not mention reflection as a tool for her professional development. She seems not to have overt awareness of the effect her life story may have had on her teaching. She seems to be stuck behind an invisible fence that she cannot surmount in spite of her expressed wish to do so. Lastly, this data indicates that within their school, different subcultures coexist, and whereas Klara operates in an open culture, a culture of reasoning, Inga´s culture is tacit and pedagogical theories are not shared, reflected on, or challenged.

PULLING THE THREADS TOGETHER We have seen how life stories of the two teachers have influenced the teachers’ thinking and played a crucial part in forming their subjective theories. However, there are defining differences between these two teachers: their awareness of their own subjective theories and the differences in the work culture they find themselves. Previous studies have found strong and weak teacher learning communities within the same school (i.e., McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001), and this study supports those findings. Much has been written about the role of leadership in teacher change but as Stoll, Bolam, Wallace, and Thomas (2006) have pointed out, “Principles can only create conditions fostering commitment to the collective good; they cannot ensure it will happen” (p. 236). This study supports their conclusion. According to both teachers, the principal encourages such collaboration. Both teachers also state that major changes cannot be brought about without collaboration from a colleague. This finding is supported extensively by the research literature (Stoll et al., 2006). The tacit culture which emerged from these stories clearly needs further investigation. What is particularly necessary is to explore how teachers can break out of such a culture as it seems to be one prerequisite for their professional growth. This study has identified important areas pertinent to teacher development, which should be informative and relevant for other contexts in other countries. First, there seems to be a connection between teachers’ awareness of their own subjective theories, which they have gained through individual and collective reflection and their readiness for fundamental

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

109

changes. Second, the degree and nature of teachers’ relationships with their colleagues may have a significant impact on their ability to work toward root changes. This study supports once again findings claiming that emphasis needs to be placed in preservice teacher education on encouraging student teachers as well as in-service teachers to reflect (i.e., Craig, 2009; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), not just on their teaching and learning theories but also on their life stories, which will give them a deeper understanding of their subjective theories and help them understand their own motivation for change or lack thereof. It should be noted that emphasis on reflection and close collegial relationship may be culturally sensitive (i.e., some cultures may have more problems with the openness and critical thinking endorsed here). The smallness of the Icelandic community may be one such example. Let me therefore emphasize that critical reflection is geared toward the individual herself and her work, not the school leaders or authorities. Reflection, particularly collective reflection in initial education with fellow students, should raise student teachers’ awareness of their own subjective theories. Making those theories explicit seems to be a viable tool for professional growth along the teacher career continuum. The findings also indicate that for novice teaches to have a trusted colleague with whom to critically reflect may be a fruitful channel for enhancing teacher development. This is where the river technique introduced earlier in this chapter has proved to be extremely useful. The student teachers (or teachers) draw their rivers individually and then these are used as bases for reflection on prospective teacher/teachers’ values and hence bring out what has molded their subjective theories. For this to be successful we need to scaffold both groups of teachers with effective tools like the river technique. I think it is appropriate to conclude this chapter on reflection by citing Klara who was introduced to the river technique in her initial teacher education: Learning to teach and becoming a teacher has changed me as a person. All this reflection has given me confidence. I am surer that I am doing the right things. There have been many disappointments, reality is not as I thought but I keep on trying. … I am a good teacher although I have my bad days and have yet so much to learn. To begin with I felt bad and could not stop thinking about whether I had failed in some way but this is gradually changing, not least through all the discussions with my colleague. She lets you feel that you are great, she listens to your ideas and she is willing to share.

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

110

REFERENCES Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2007). Viring og umhyggja A´kall 21. aldar. [Respect and care: The challenge for the 21st century]. Reykjavı´ k: Heimskringla. Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2010). Passion and purpose: Teacher professional development and student social and civic growth. In T. Lovat, & R. Toomey (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student well being (pp. 737 764). New York, NY: Springer. Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C. Richards, & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 202 214). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bayley, R., & Regan, V. (2004). Introduction: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 323 338. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81 109. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, UK: Continuum. Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 11 32. Calderhead, J. (1987). The quality of reflection in student teachers’ professional learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 10(3), 269 278. Carlgren, I. (1996). Professionalism and teachers as designers. In M. Kompf, W. R. Bond, D. Dworet, & R. T. Boak (Eds.), Changing research and practice: Teachers’ professionalism, identities, and knowledge (pp. 20 32). London, UK: Falmer Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Craig, C. (2009). Learning about reflection through exploring narrative inquiry. Reflective Practice, 10(1), 105–116. Denzin, N. K. (1999). Biographical research methods. In J. P. Keeves, & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in educational research (pp. 92 102). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon. Depaepe, F., Noens, P., Kelchtermans, G., & Simons, M. (2013). Do teachers have a relationship with their subject? A review of the literature on the teacher-subject matter relation. Teorı´a de la Educacio´n. Revista Interuniversitaria, 25(1), 109 124. Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 367 380. Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse: The evolution of research on teacher thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Denicolo, (Eds.) Insight into teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 15 42). London, UK: Falmer Press. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 3 56). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association. Fischler, H. (1994). Concerning the difference between intention and action: Teachers’ conceptions and actions in Physics teaching. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teacher thinking and practice (pp. 165 180). London, UK: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.

Reflection and Work Context in Teacher Learning

111

Goullier, F. (2007). Council of Europe tools for language teaching: Common European framework and portfolios. Strasbourg, Council of Europe/Editions. Paris, France: Didier. Handal, G., & Lauva˚s, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching: Supervision in action. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Ingvarsdo´ttir, H. (2004). Mo´tun starfskenninga ı´ slenskra framhaldssko´lakennara [The formation of teachers’ subjective theories]. Tı´marit Um Menntarannso´knir [Journal of Educational Research], 1, 39 47. Fe´lag um menntarannso´knir, Reykjavik: University of Teacher Education. Ingvarsdo´ttir, H. (2007, July). Autonomy and alliance. Two dimensions in teacher development. Paper presented at the International Study Association of Teacher and Teaching, ISATT conference, University of Brock, St. Catharines, Canada. Ingvarsdo´ttir, H. (2011). Teaching English in a new age: Challenges and opportunities. In B. Hudson, & M. Meinert (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe (pp. 93 106). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Ingvarsdo´ttir, H. (2013). Lı´ fssaga sem rannso´knarafer [Life history as a research method]. In S. Halldo´rsdo´ttir (Ed.), Handbook on research methodology (pp. 337 346). Iceland: University of Akureyri. Joyce, B. R., Calhoun, E. F., & Hopkins, D. (1999). The new structure of school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257 272. Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1 & 2). New York, NY: Norton and Co. Republished (1991) London, UK: Routledge. Kohonen, V. (2001). Towards experiential foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen, & J. Lehtovaara (Eds.), Experiential learning in foreign language education (pp. 8 60). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77 97. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47 71. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509 535. Little, D., Dam, L., & Timmer, J. (Eds.). (2000). Focus on learning rather than teaching: Why and how. Papers from the IATEFL conference on learner independence, Krakow, 14–16 May 1998 (pp. 59–70). Lomos, C., Hofman, H. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2010). The relationship between departments as professional communities and student achievement in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 722 731. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.003a Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Long Oaks, CA: Corvin Press. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. National Curriculum Guide for Upper-Secondary Schools. (2011). National curriculum. Reykjavı´ k: Ministry of Education. Nicholson, M., & Adams, H. (2010). The languages classroom: Place of comfort or obstacle course? Language Learning Journal, 38(1), 37 49.

112

HAFDI´S INGVARSDO´TTIR

Peddler, D., James, M., & MacBeath, J. (2005). How teachers value and practice professional learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), 209 243. Pope, M. (1993). Anticipating teacher thinking. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: Understanding professional development (pp. 19 33). London, UK: Falmer Press. Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (2001). Transformative education: Personal construct approaches to education and research. London, UK: Whurr Publishers. Sarason, S. (1971). The culture of school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Scho¨n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc. ˝ D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schon, Seeman, T., & Tavares, C. (2000). Involving learners in their own learning: How to get started. In D. Little, L. Dam, & J. Timmer (Eds.), Focus on learning rather than teaching: Why and how? Papers from the IATEFL conference on learner independence, Krakow, 14 16 May 1998 (pp. 59 70). Dublin, IR: Trinity College. Sikes, P. J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In M. Fullan, & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 36 55). London, UK: Falmer Press. Stoll, L., Bolam, M. A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221 258. Wideen, M. (1994). The struggle for change: A case study of one school. London, UK: Falmer Press.

PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION: DIALOGICAL PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS IN ISRAEL Arie Kizel ABSTRACT This chapter discusses a form of pedagogy of reflection suggested to be defined as the dialogical-reflective professional-development school (DRPDS) a framework that develops and empowers students by engaging them in a process of continual improvement, responding to diverse situations, providing stimuli for learning, and giving anchors for mediation. The pedagogy of reflection relates to dialogue not only from a theoretical historical context but also by way of example that is, it offers empowering dialogues within the traditional teacher-training framework. This chapter outlines the importance of the pedagogy of reflection in the multicultural educational space of the preservice education field in Israel, analyzing the first university PDS model. The pedagogy of reflection in the context of the educational dialogue of educators is outlined as a tool for student empowerment, achieved through a community of learners who dedicate space to the development of their whole personality within

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 113 136 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022009

113

114

ARIE KIZEL

the profession, taking a moral stance toward the educational discourse, minimizing judgmentalism and prejudice, creating national/gender equality with the goal of examining the fundamental question of educational performance, and reinforcing their sense of organizational belonging within the system. In these contexts, the chapter is based on the elements of dialogical philosophy exemplified in the thought of Burbules, Nelson, Isaacs, Bohm, and Heckmann and the reflective basis of educational and organizational performance exemplified in the writings of van Manen. The chapter also presents two examples from a project in which teaching units based on dialogue and reflection were developed within a dialogic community that represents in its very being collective empowerment, the possibility of coping with problems that are too large for an individual to solve on his/her own, and an alternative to sealed and alienated organizations. Keywords: Dialogue; reflection; professional-development school; preservice teacher training

One of the reasons behind our increasing inability to break down the inherent barrier between teachers and students is due to a lack of engagement in ongoing dialogical reflection as a means of advancing the teaching-learning process within schools. Teacher student dialogue plays a central role in facilitating the ongoing growth of those engaged in education, particularly dialogue that invites student reflection on the instruction being given and the teacher herself. Dialogue aids students in articulating self-awareness (conscious or unconscious) regarding their behavior and learning habits and the learning process and it results, at the same time, in their assessing their quality and the ways in which they may be improved. According to Darling-Hammond (1996), teachers must teach teacher-training students to understand how to respond to their various learning needs, take their entry points into the learning processes into consideration, and shape their ways of teaching in order to provide the anchors and mediation necessary for their advancement. This chapter discusses a form of pedagogy of reflection I call the dialogical-reflective professional-development school (DRPDS), a framework (see Fig. 1) that develops and empowers students by engaging them in a process of continual improvement through responding to diverse situations, providing stimuli for learning, and giving anchors for mediation. For

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

Fig. 1.

115

Dialogical-Reflective Professional Development (DRPDS) Model.

the purposes of this chapter, I adopt Nimrod Aloni’s “working definition” of dialogue: Dialogue is a discourse in which those taking part in it make themselves available to others and show an interest in them both on the basis of their common humanity and their individuality. Promoting mutual trust, respect, openness, and attentiveness, together they work together toward a better and broader understanding of themselves, the other, and the life contexts they share. (Aloni, 2008, p. 26)

I would add to this that the pedagogy of reflection relates to dialogue not only from a theoretical historical context but also by way of example, that is, it offers empowering dialogues within the traditional teacher-training framework. This pedagogy of reflection is based on the view that reflective dialogue forms one of the best ways in which students’ learning needs can be identified and understood, the dialogic partnership between teacher and student, facilitating the latter’s ability to assess their “real” level of knowledge and reach and exceed their potential in every stage of the learning process. In Israel, the pedagogy of reflection is employed during the preservice teachertraining period with students preparing to become middle and high school teachers, experiencing their practica in schools in dialogical communities

116

ARIE KIZEL

while simultaneously taking university courses to deepen and broaden their theoretical and disciplinary knowledge. At the same time, they are also introduced to supporting research. This chapter seeks to contribute to the literature on reflection and dialogue by specifying, analyzing, and justifying the pedagogies of teachertraining education deployed in the context of DRPDS as an example of what Nelson (1949) refers to as cooperative group dialogue. It also draws on the literature, discussing the philosophy of reflection in connection to generic teaching and learning. I will provide evidence and analyze this form of pedagogy on the basis of a four-year research project conducted between 2010 and 2013, which included questionnaires distributed to the hundreds of students in the teacher-training track during those years and interviews with lecturers, academic coordinators, and school principals. In conclusion, I outline the benefits of this model, suggesting that it represents an excellent way to empower teacher education students, to cultivate their sense of belonging, and to reduce their sense of alienation from the educational system and its structure.

THE PDS FRAMEWORK IN THE TEACHER-TRAINING CONTEXT In the 1990s, increasing calls were made for traditional teacher-training programs based on academic learning to adopt ones that offered the student practical experience in the school (Carnegie Forum on Education and Economy, 1986; Holmes Group, 1990). This view proposed that teachertraining students must learn and gain experience of two types of successful teaching practices those focusing on subject matter (knowledge) and those focusing on the students (their individual needs as worlds unto themselves) (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). Practical classroom experience under the guidance of experienced teachers and academic experts consequently became an integral part of the teacher-training curriculum (Thompson & Sopko, 2000). The idea of partnerships between teacher-training institutions and schools was further established in the United States in the wake of a series of longitudinal studies by John Goodlad and his colleagues in the 1990s. Examining American elementary and high schools (Goodlad, 1984) and 1,300 teacher-training programs (Goodlad, 1994), the main conclusion these studies reached was that both the school system and teacher-training

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

117

programs required revision. One of the primary suggestions made was that teacher-training students should gain experience in schools with an outstanding academic and educational record to which they would naturally return to teach upon graduation (Goodlad, 1990; Sirotnik, 2001). Although the coining of the term “professional-development schools” (PDS) by the Holmes Group in 1986 formed the conceptual framework for the idea of partnership, its implementation was relatively slow. By the beginning of the 1990s, however, hundreds of PDS schools had been established across the United States, with their number reaching more than 1,000 in 1998 in 47 states. One of the important stages in the development of the PDS concept was the National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education’s introduction of a set of standards in 1998 (Levine, 2001). While Israeli universities have clung conservatively to the old model of the teacher as trainer, the Israeli education system also adopted a program of partnership with schools a decade ago with the aim of establishing a teacher-training curriculum integrating a practicum. Generally established between teacher-training colleges (also known as colleges of education) and (middle and elementary) schools, the idea was to promote connections and links between the two institutional cultures (Zilberstein, Ben Perez, & Grienfeld, 2006). It is preeminently exemplified in the creation of learning communities that seek to engender teaching-learning situations in which theory deepens understanding and insights into classroom teaching and pedagogy. This chapter describes how the pedagogy of reflection was introduced into the teacher-training track at the University of Haifa. Based on the pedagogy of reflection exemplified by a community of students studying in a network of Jewish and Arab schools in mixed groups (Jews, Muslims, Druze, and Christians) in the north of Israel, it is guided by the PDS approach first propounded by the Holmes Group (1986). CochranSmith (1991) distinguishes between three central models of the complex relationship between teacher-training institutes and training schools: consensus, critical dissonance, and collaborative resonance. Our model seeks to cultivate the teacher-training student’s ability to integrate various types of knowledge practical and theoretical within the framework of a learning community composed of teacher-training faculty and educational teams from field-training schools. At its base lies the view that teaching is a practical-reflective profession, students regarding the school as a place of learning and coming to affirm its value based on their recognition of the contribution assignments make to their own developments and society in general (Marshall, 1990). Enriched by the pedagogy of reflection, the

118

ARIE KIZEL

educational intellectual atmosphere in such an environment can develop into a vibrant and dynamic space, fostering intellectual tension and the sense of innovation and creativity that are so necessary for the educational task. In contrast to the traditional idea of the teacher as trainer, the latter plays a key role in the partnership model, being responsible for developing future teachers professionally and personally. As Copas (1984) notes, this enhanced role includes guidance, personal support, direction, and mentoring. The pedagogy of reflection in a dialogical community further expands the mentoring teacher’s role, making teacher-trainees part of a community of school teachers who are intimately involved in their training and ongoing education with the expressed intent of making them part of their community in particular and the education system in general. In the PDS model, teacher education students learn from practical observation in the school, gaining experience that allows them to enhance their abilities. An emphasis is placed on practices that focus on both the learning of material and the learner at the same time as taking the individual needs of each student into consideration (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). During their field experience, students are exposed to a discourse that integrates disciplinary studies, pedagogy, and didactics. This helps them prepare and initiate teaching-learning situations based on insights from various fields of knowledge, on the one hand, and gives them an opportunity to study how to teach on the other. A broad range of studies point to the significance and positive impact attached to practical experience (Hodge, Davis, Woodward, & Sherrill, 2002; Smith & Snoek, 1996). Thus, for example, Wang and Odell (2002) contend that students’ problems during the practicum stage can be substantially reduced if the practicum is carried out within a PDS framework. The research fluctuates between the partners’ subjective voices and ecologic and contextual examination of the partnership in order to demonstrate to what extent the cultural and organizational distinctiveness of each school and partner forms a key factor in novices’ professional development. A variety of research strategies are employed within the framework of the phenomenological-qualitative paradigm including stories, autobiographical and biographical narratives, ethnographies, case studies, and action and collaborative research (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). The most prevalent research tools within this paradigm are formal and informal interviews, documentation journals, protocols, comments from school observations, the collection of anecdotes and correspondence, narratives and stories, selfreports, etc.

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

119

DRPDS: SPECIFICATION AND TEACHER EDUCATORS’ PRACTICE DRPDS is a rich and comprehensive model of reflective teacher-training. Its fundamental premise is that rigorous reflective dialogue between teacher and student rests on three pillars. The first is the legitimization of the personal view of each of the partners in the dialogue combined with sensitivity to difference, empathy, mutual respect, and openness. Thus, for example, a teacher-training student and his teacher openly and non-judgmentally share with one another their views regarding their strengths and weaknesses. This principle plays an important role in the accord between students and teachers regarding the level of the former’s knowledge of their behavior as a launching point for future improvement, the real and imagined influence of the factors that interfere with their learning processes, and the ways to discern these and reduce their influence. The second pillar is joint analysis of the possible ways of coping with a certain situation, choosing options, and focusing on solutions and outcome. This principle reflects both the students’ commitment to adopting successful methods and consequent achievements and the teacher’s and school system’s commitment to provide feedback in a priori defined periods of time in order to help the students improve their work habits and results. The third pillar is the use of metacognitive thought. At the heart of metacognitive thought lies students’ practices of thinking about their thought processes on the basis of the assumption that the more they are aware of the various elements that influence their understanding the more they will be able to identify successful strategies and monitor them, thereby increasing their knowledge and improving their ability to solve problems. The metacognitive element is thus designed to contribute to enhancing students’ personal responsibility and autonomy as learners and their awareness of the improvement process. Implemented in a DRPDS, this model perceives teacher-training students as needing to think about their classes, students, and above all themselves as reflective professionals in a new way. This is an important point in light of the fact that many students from multicultural backgrounds have never experienced dialogical and reflective teachers prior to their teacher education studies. Among the numerous elements of this rich and comprehensive model is, of course, the preparation of novice teachers to teach a specific subject. Responsible for the introduction of the concept of pedagogical content knowledge, Shulman’s (1986) work led to the development of

120

ARIE KIZEL

a school of thought that sought to identify teachers’ knowledge of their subject matter and the importance of this for successful teaching. Reflective pedagogy adds a further component to this approach, placing at its center the process constructed in the community of learners. From this perspective, the latter “can be regarded as having a worth independent of its benefit […] Someone who values truth in this may find the constant effort to free his mind from prejudice and error painful” (Peters, 1966, p. 100). The DRPDS model seeks to form a community of learners that engages in reflective dialogue when confronting an educational text presented during class discourse or the teacher-training group. As Gadamer (1999) suggests, a group of peers should listen carefully, without rushing to judgment. Or as Lipman, Sharp, and Oscanyon inform us, “Philosophy is […] of enormous benefit to persons seeking to form concepts that can effectively represent aspects of their life experience” (1980, p. 90). Despite the difficulties involved in defining the “dialogic in education,” a number of trends related to this concept can be discerned. An expansionary school seeks to rely primarily on post-modernist, anti-authoritarian trends in its opposition to hierarchies and dichotomies in education. Inclusivist, this approach relates dialogue to such domains as interpersonal communication, nonviolent communication, interpersonal respect, encouragement of creativity, and the strengthening of school-community collaborations. The second trend is reductive in nature, concerned solely with defining rather narrowly the difference between dialogue and authoritarian approaches. Not questioning school hierarchies, this school of thought seeks to establish criteria that will shift philosophic dialogue from the theoretical to the methodological domain and produce methods that can be applied in educational practice. Attempting to define the desired form of dialogue between teachers and students, lesson planning, and ways of conducting dialogic teaching-learning processes, it encourages and promotes dialogue as a means of promoting good organization within the classroom and educational system by applying clear criteria defined in advance. Proponents of this trend have also defined criteria that can be applied to teacher-training courses developing novices’ empathy and flexibility during teacher training in order enable them to focus on developing dialogically-oriented lessons, for example. A leading proponent of the reductivist approach, Burbules (1993) proposes a limited view of the use of dialogue as a type of pedagogical communicative relations, arguing that certain types of interactions can be referred to as “dialogical.” Different approaches are appropriate to different styles of teaching, student learning, and fields of knowledge, when they are

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

121

applied to improve practice. While this approach views that dialogue is more a form of praxis than of techne, successful engagement in dialogue requires learning through practice. Burbules (1991) also discusses the possibilities of dialogue among different, foreign, and even hostile cultural communities seeking productive dynamics. According to Burbules and Rice (1991), these dynamics are obtained by attaining agreement regarding the consequences of facts, beliefs, and interpretations. This consensus in turn leads to meaningful cooperation, partial understanding, or acceptance of the legitimacy of other views, thereby facilitating the continuation of productive dialogue even in the face of real differences or remaining disagreements. The identityboundaries of the sides frequently becoming more open and the participants more flexible as they attain broader knowledge about the other and greater insight into their own selves by allowing themselves to see the other’s view, they thereby develop social, interpersonal, intercultural, and political-communication skills (Burbules & Rice, 1991). The principles of DRPDS pedagogy of reflection are based on the ideas propounded by Nelson (1949). Emphasizing the importance and power of dialogue in group learning, Nelson asserted that each group member may serve as a “midwife” during the process of developing ideas, the goal of the dialogic process being to advance an idea from “birth” to educational practice with truth being identified through consensus. Nelson’s theory was expanded into the domain of teacher education by one of his students, Heckmann (1981). Dialogue in the context of group learning including teacher-training education based on the DRPDS model and a community of learners adopts four elements from this approach: 1. The importance of producing results: Ultimately, the dialogic process seeks to answer the philosophic question posed by eliciting the truth about the nature of worldviews regarding tolerance, freedom, justice, and responsibility; 2. The importance of participation: Taking part in the collaborative process involves looking for answers to questions and developing a mutual understanding of others. Members share their concrete experiences, some of which the group selects for detailed investigation, all the members participating in the subsequent discussion; 3. The importance of enriching an individual’s deep understanding and enabling the participants to grasp the moral complexities of everyday life;

122

ARIE KIZEL

4. The importance of dialogue as a practice in shaping educational life achievements: Dialogue leads to greater clarity regarding which acts are guided by educational thought and which are not, thereby enhancing the participants’ confidence and enabling them to draw appropriate conclusions regarding the desired approach to an educational/educative life. Here, the distinction between the “act-of-talking” and the “act-ofdialogue” is relevant, the latter involving investigation, risk-taking, and the preservation of equality (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2004, p. 15). As these authors remind us, the dialogic process being collective, it facilitates critique and thus serves as a tool for achieving meaningful learning. This form of dialogue calls for participants in interactions to respond to the other participants in a way that takes into account how they think other people are going to respond to them. According to Isaacs (1999), it contains at least five components: 1. Respect: Partners in a dialogue should assume that all the participants irrespecare equal, legitimate, and important to the learning process tive of whether or not you agree with their views. 2. Listening: Partners in a dialogue should listen for understanding and learning rather than correctness. They should be aware of their listening to others by paying attention to “mental models” and obstacles that get in the way of what is being said and heard. The goal is not to listen in order to respond or advocate but to listen in order to understand. 3. Suspension of judgment: Partners in a dialogue should be aware of assumptions and certainties and learn to hold them apart or to the side without feeling compelled to act upon them. 4. Freeing oneself: Partners in a dialogue should seek to balance inquiry and advocacy, freeing themselves from rigid mindsets. Inquiry is an opportunity to seek clarification and a deeper level of understanding rather than to expose weakness. 5. Communicating one’s reasoning process: Partners in a dialogue should talk about their assumptions and how they arrive at what they believe, endeavoring to identify the data on which they are based and engaging in the same process with respect to others. As Peter Senge notes, Dialogue is not merely a set of techniques for improving organizations, enhancing communications, building consensus, or solving problems. It is based on the principle that conception and implementation are intimately linked, with a core of common meaning. During the dialogue process, people learn how to think together not just in the sense of analyzing a shared problem or creating new pieces of shared knowledge, but in the

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

123

sense of occupying a collective sensibility, in which the thoughts, emotions, and resulting actions belong not to one individual, but to all of them together. (1994, p. 358 [original italics])

PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION IN ISRAELI MULTICULTURAL JEWISH-ARAB SCHOOLS The teacher education pedagogy proposed here is based on two central practical and philosophical axes dialogue and reflection. These are exemplified in each of the professional learning circles of teacher-training students and their instructors by means of dialogic and reflective discourse communities that operate in parallel and in tandem with the goal of creating links, correlations, and changes in both these circles at the same time. The pedagogy of reflection seeks to meet the challenges posed by more extensive usage of dialogue in education by regarding the field of teaching-training as constructed of three parallel and interlinked types of learning-research communities: teacher-trainers (PDS coordinators), mentors (within the school, for professional development), and teachertrainees (during their studies, prior to taking up their first job). All of the activities of these communities are interrelated and affect one another. As part of the vision of the pedagogy of dialogical reflection, communities of diverse multicultural students have been established. Including Jews, Arab Muslim, Arab Christians, Arab Druze, Arab Armenians, and Circassians reflective of the various groups in Israeli society these communities are integrated within public schools that teach Hebrew and Arabic. Such participation in a discourse dialogue seeking to concretize the principle of multicultural dialogue around professional learning in the field of teaching, this method allows students to gain teaching experience in an atmosphere of equality and an ongoing dialogic discourse between the groups, without giving priority to any one national or collective narrative. The groups are also composed of preservice teachers specializing in various fields history, civics, language, literature, English, communication, etc. Here, too, the groups constitute diverse and pluralistic professional communities that promote generic dialogic discourse between divergent fields of knowledge with respect to their structure, curriculum, and method of instruction. The communities of students seeking to establish a broad dialogic culture in the teacher-training program in order to encourage creativity and

124

ARIE KIZEL

self-reflective thinking emphasize on two dialogic dimensions dialogic organization and the dialogic classroom on the basis of Isaacs’ (1999) five principles (respect, listen, suspend judgment, free yourself, and communicate one’s reasoning process). The content relates to dialogue and reflection. Throughout the day, these two axes are highlighted from both a practical and a philosophical perspective. The aim is to create teachers who are continually engaged in a classroom dialogue with their students, participating in an organizational dialogue with the school administration and staff, and committed to reflection throughout their work in order to enact necessary changes, accomplish desired goals, and encourage others to act accordingly in order to improve the school as a whole. The learning day generally begins with a dialogical-reflective group discourse guided by the group leader. The discourse includes all the principles of dialogue and reflection, both formally and substantively. The students share pedagogic and educational cases they have experienced in their practica, reviewing the dialogue they held with their mentors, the class they taught, and their views of the teaching profession. Opinions regarding pedagogy they witnessed and experienced are constructed and issues such organization within the classroom, the order of the meeting, classroom power relations, the school architecture, etc., are discussed. Diverse aspects relating to the teacher’s classroom leadership and the ability to become agents of change dedicated to reflection, transcendence, and cognitive and political changes in the school reality are also examined. Some of the schools are challenging because they are located in middle- or low-class neighborhoods, the features of the student population constituting a key element in the teachers’ work and the challenges they face. The group serves as a safe place that seeks to foster an atmosphere of security by enabling the participants to identify the basic views and concepts underlying the teaching-learning process in an open fashion and by linking the ideas to the school reality, dilemmas, social, environmental, and material problems and the personal/emotional challenges that they will face when they become fully fledged teachers. In the words of one of the PDS coordinators: The student simultaneously engages in a series of parallel and interlinked processes: she shares an educational case with the group, reflects on the mentor’s reflective process the doubts, decisions, and thoughts he had shared with her, testing herself dialogically via the mentor’s reflective process, and in parallel receives feedback from the group and PDS coordinator. At the same time, she also links the case that she raised to the school and socio-community reality and to the future school in which she imagines herself teaching. As noted above, this is an integrated and interrelated process, thus the

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

125

individual is flooded with both strengths and weaknesses, fears and hopes, personal and interpersonal difficulties and connectedness, as well as learning challenges. Without the dialogic discourse group in which the reflective act takes place, the student would have to face reality on her own without any support or feedback from the group, which acts as a sounding board, expressing different and contrary opinions. Our community of learners is in fact a research community in the field of learning about learning.

These dialogical-reflective processes are of great significance in the State of Israel a nation state characterized by a hierarchical system of centralized education with strict policies relating to teacher supervision, assessment, and evaluation. This reality affords the reflective discourse community of teacher-trainee students the opportunity to engage in an open and dialogical discourse of the system’s structure, regulation, and methods of supervision. At this early stage, before they have become fully qualified teachers, they can use the community to develop their own views, challenge their presuppositions, and test them in relation to the requirements of the systems both on the philosophic-curriculum and the practical classroom level. The egalitarian community of learners allows their views, thoughts, hopes, and fears regarding their profession and future placements to be taken into consideration at a significant stage in their training while laying emphasis on relevance and diversity of opinion. The “other” whoever s/he may be can thus express his/her views openly and honestly. The discourse group session is followed by a period during which the students observe lessons taught by their school mentor. The students then engage in another open discourse with the latter around the subjects that arose in the classroom that posed pedagogic and educational challenges, the mentor sharing his thoughts about his work process and in most cases also allowing room for feedback from the student. Herein, the teacher involves the student in his thoughts and deliberations regarding what occurred, the practices s/he adopted, and her/his regrets, this process forming a personal example for reflection as part of a revelatory dialogue, the mentor turning from “knower” to “hesitator” and even sometimes to “not-knower.” This reversal of roles gives the student an opportunity to experience, imagine, and envision herself as engaging in such a dialogue when she has become a teacher herself. A high school principal described the process in the following words: I picture the dialogical reflective process between the mentor and student as a type of “striptease” in which the teacher shares a lot with the student. It’s a process that ostensibly weakens the teacher, but in fact it makes him better, both personally and professionally. In my opinion, as a principal, it’s a process in which the mentor grows in the most important way possible because he says: “I would do it differently” thus in

126

ARIE KIZEL

effect declaring the beginning of a change. This is reflection that, in most cases, is even better and more beneficial than my observing a teacher in the classroom. The students serve as mirrors in this process, even as “professional mirrors.”

During the day, the students also conduct a class, or part of one. This may be a full or half class, a one-on-one lesson with three to five students, a group of students working on a project in a specific area, or preparing a lesson unit with the help of students. They also observe classes taught by their peers, sitting in the class and then discussing it afterwards with the PDS coordinator and mentor. The latter activity contains a reflective dimension in which the students analyze their performance and receive feedback from the mentor, coordinator, and their peers. They also conduct a class dialogue designed to examine their pedagogic, educational, ethical, and philosophical performance in the classroom while observing the mentor (or other teachers), during extracurricular activities, and their own taking of a class. The second form of dialogue they conduct is an organizational dialogue. Slotte (2004) proposes adopting dialogue as a way of strengthening organizational intelligence. Basing his ideas on Bohm (1992, 1996) a physicist who employed the dialogic approach in his scientific work he argues (2004) that dialogue is a form of philosophic work that can be internalized within an organizational culture and employed in such organizational activities as daily meetings, developmental discussions, work-related meetings, problem-solving, developing organizational strategies, leadership, and determining an organization’s moral vision. Drawing on examples from the daily life of leaders, organizations, and employees, he found that staff enjoyed the advantages achieved through such philosophical dialogic endeavors. Dialogue embedded in the organizational culture also improved communication and work relations while serving as a basis for problemsolving and the creation of organizational trust. Organizational dialogue occurs in a series of circles. In the first circle, students observe and interview school staff, being made a partner to their difficulties and challenges. In the second, they meet with various school staff, from the principal to subject teachers. The goal of each organizational dialogical circle is to lay emphasis on the education system’s obligations to the new teacher and give her full access to the professional community as possible in order to enable her to understand the structure, performance, roles, and challenges that face the school and the teacher working as part of a team. In contrast to student visits to schools designed to boost PR for the schools, showcase their curriculum and educational projects, and present

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

127

their outward appearance, organizational dialogue seeks to train teachers to share their professional difficulties, concentrating in particular on helping those in authority engage in disclosure and reflection. As one of the PDS coordinators noted: One of the great advantages of organizational dialogical discourse is that it makes a broad, long, and deep cut through performance, primarily regarding the deliberations made by those in the job. The students are impressed by the powers of disclosure and reflection of those already working as teachers, the atmosphere of trust and equality, and above all by the partnership that seeks to reach organizational truth.

According to a school principal: To the extent that a mentor does an act of professional exposure in front of the students and has to engage in very honest self-examination so too do the top echelon. This may be me as principal or my deputy. We have to possess reflective abilities on the one hand and the professional ability to present the job on the other. It’s not always an easy process, but it’s a process that brings maturation.

The students’ learning day in the school also includes several elements of the pedagogy of dialogue and the pedagogy of reflection. In many respects, this pedagogy is based on the premise that human beings possess the capacity to change, to be more than we were, and to welcome constant change one of the key demands of the teaching profession. Teachertrainee reflection is driven by an ethical commitment to dialogical and reflective work, both with their school students and with the school staff and faculty. It encourages overcoming the perception of man as an object and becoming an educating subject committed to an internal struggle that will prepare them for working toward achieving a reflective lifestyle that seeks social change to strengthen and support the weak (including the student population). One of the elements of the pedagogy of reflection is the understanding that a reflective lifestyle contains within it the willingness to be flexible that is, philosophical motility and lability and a refusal to be rigid personally and professionally. This philosophy of education also guides the PDS coordinators, the mentors who guide work with students as group leaders in the various schools. In precisely the same way in which the student groups become learning, studying, and dialogic communities, so the coordinating groups work in parallel within and between one another as a reflective community that reflectively and dialogically scrutinizes the students’ mentoring. Once every few weeks, the group of mentors meets together and studies/examines their work, bringing cases and responses and analyzing their performance via dialogical-reflective tools. This group work constitutes a guiding model

128

ARIE KIZEL

for the student-group activity and the mentors, the latter putting it into practice both in the staffroom/faculty lounge with other teachers and with the students and PDS coordinators with whom they conduct an ongoing discourse that includes reflection on their work. Manifestations of reflection exist in each of the dialogical and reflective circles in parallel with the goals of broadening, deepening, and investigating professional thinking reflected in van Manen’s taxonomies of reflection which are based on Dewey’s dimensions of the immediate, intuitive day-today aspect of reflection and the more distant aspect that enables personal growth in the demand for change. In the pre-reflective stage, guidance is given within the advisors’ group, the students’ group, and the mentors’ group, the school staff also helping the teacher-trainees. In the second stage, the reflection broadens out to include the daily experiences of each of the groups, which thereby receives a voice and forms the basis for conclusions regarding dos and don’ts. In the third stage, the reflection becomes more systematic, no longer being confined to personal experiences but also focusing on the experiences of others (advisors, students, and mentors), with the goal of shaping theoretical and critical insights into teaching experiences and organizational performance in the school. In the fourth and final stage, each of the learning community’s members reflects on his/her own reflective processes and the way in which s/he constructs theoretical knowledge in order to reach a better understanding of his/her reflection on the nature of knowledge, the ways it works, and how it can be applied in practice.

EXAMPLES OF THE PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION This section describes two cases in which student communities in the DRPDS framework integrated dialogue and reflection in their work via the creation of extracurricular teaching units that challenged the students themselves, their peers in the learning community, and the students in the school.

Narrative Interpretation of the Idea of “Slavery” in an English Class In one of the schools, a Jewish preservice student and Muslim Arab preservice student decided to collaborate in creating a learning unit around the theme of “slavery in the world” in the context of Barak Obama’s election as President of the United States. The two female preservice teachers who

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

129

were studying to teach English worked together on the unit that was not a compulsory part of the English curriculum. Over the course of a month, they each wrote the learning unit individually. When they met to plan the unit intended to be studied on a peak day in school they discovered they had deep differences of opinion. The Jewish student regarded presentday slavery as a learning space in which infringement of workers’, migrants’, and children’s rights could be discussed alongside statistics, personal testimonies, film clips from websites, and a class discussion following presentation of the facts. The Muslim Arab student viewed slavery in today’s world as the infringement of Palestinian rights in the PA-ruled territories and the State of Israel, emphasizing facts regarding the employment hierarchy of Arabs in Israel and the infringement of Palestinian rights in the territories and fields of work and the rights related to these subjects. After having presented these facts, she planned to have a discussion in class with the high school English students. The preservice teachers engaged in a painful dialogue that became a confrontation between two narratives. The discussion was conducted in the presence of the academic coordinator of the PDS program, the didactics English teacher, and within the community of students. The latter individuals split into two groups one, supporting the Jewish student, and the other, the Arab student. Each of the students engaged in a reflective move, reviewing the weaknesses and strengths of her project and the reasons why her partner was upset by it. After the dialogic process revealed the national narratives of each of the students, they began to jointly study the subject of national narratives. The Jewish student said: Through the dialogue I understood that my Muslim friend belongs to a minority population and that she finds a way to express herself via presenting a learning unit through the prism of a national narrative and in a concrete, actual, local way. The joint study allowed me to look at myself more critically and to consider her criticism of the government of my state.

The Arab student said: I understood that by presenting slavery through the eyes of my national narrative I was hurting my Jewish friend because she related to the subject of slavery as the slavery of the blacks in America whereas I related it to my own community. The word “slavery” carried totally different connotations for each of us.

As a result of the dialogue, the students decided to integrate elements from both narratives into the learning unit, agreeing that they would explain the narrative approach versus the “one truth” approach to the high

130

ARIE KIZEL

school students, believing that this would allow multiple perspectives and a much greater relevancy, as well as a way of coping with the issue of the Other. They also decided to share the difficulties they had experienced in creating the unit with their English classes. “We think that this way allows the student to understand that teachers also face dilemmas, disagree, have different interpretations of things and that learning includes diverse perspectives, disagreement as well as consensus, and that all of these lead to learning,” stated the Arab student during an interview.

The Palestinian Nakba as a Learning Subject for the Student Community An Arab student who defined himself as a “Palestinian Arab Israeli” did his practicum in a high school in which the language of instruction was Hebrew and the majority of students were Jewish. He suggested to the principal that the students do a project on the nakba the Palestinian “catastrophe” of 1948. She refused, on the grounds that there was no time and the Israeli Ministry of Education prohibits study of the subject. In consultation with the PDS coordinator, it was decided that the student community would study this unit, thereby students practicing the skills linked to teaching-training learning processes. The group of his peers from the university were divided equally into Jewish and Arab participants. The learning unit was very charged and aroused a great deal of controversy. The Jewish side objected to the way in which the Arab students presented the issue, with the Arab side supporting and identifying with the Palestinian national narrative. Over a number of weeks, the students moved from one side to the other in a dialogical fashion that also exhibited a reflective process. The Jewish students began demonstrating empathy toward the Palestinians’ pain after the Arab students increasingly criticized the lack of empathy some of their group’s members showed by focusing on historical facts rather than on human pain. The learning experience had a great effect on the whole learning community. At the end of the academic year, the two sides reported that the meetings had been very meaningful for them, allowing them to see the other side while dealing simultaneously with planning a learning unit, choosing materials, selecting emphases, and addressing a nationally, historically, and emotionally charged issue. The student who taught the unit decided to teach in the school in which he did the practicum, documenting his teaching processes in a reflective journal. He eventually acknowledged in his journal that he had gone about presenting the subject the wrong way and that the method he had chosen

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

131

(like that adopted by the students) had in effect encouraged radicalism “and even acts of violence,” in his own words. He summed up his journal with this statement: “I become a more aware person after the reflection that I learnt during my teaching-training. Today, I understand better that I have to examine what I do, get to understand the class, myself, and the material, and only then start working. Today, I understand that I can’t teach the way I taught before.”

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE PEDAGOGIES OF REFLECTION? Over the course of the four years (2010 2013), an academic dialogicalreflective school qualitative and quantitative study also formed part of the teacher-training curriculum in all the PDS in which the students did their practicum. This quantitative research sought to evaluate the importance of each teacher-training element from the teaching exercises in the specialized subjects through the university pedagogic coordinator, the group dialogical-reflective community, the mentor in the specialized subject, the students in the discourse community, and the staff in the schools who participated in the organizational dialogue. Each of these circles was analyzed via two-part questionnaires, first part asking the students to rank questions divided into subjects related to their teaching practice, giving a mark of between 1 (“not at all”) and 5 (“greatly”) to each subject, and the second asking them to describe the links that had been forged during their year of practical training and the school in which they had been placed, the university PDS coordinator, their mentoring teacher, and their peers, adding their insights. The study revealed that over the four years, the statements directly linked to the pedagogy of dialogue and reflection gained the highest rating. Thus, for example, the statements ranked highest (between 4 and 5) with respect to teaching exercises were: “Contribute to my development of professional responsibilities as a teacher” (4.71 in 2010; 4.23 in 2011; 4.22 in 2012; 4.21 in 2013); “Contribute to my development as a professional team member” (4.44 in 2010; 4.23 in 2011; 4.21 in 2012; 4.30 in 2013); and “Contribute to my comprehensive knowledge of the school system as a whole and the school staff” (4.17 in 2010; 4.11 in 2011; 4.01 in 2012; 4.25 in 2013). The statements ranked highest with respect to the PDS coordinator were: “Contributes to my rethinking regarding the teaching profession”

132

ARIE KIZEL

(4.71 in 2010; 4.67 in 2012; 4.44 in 2012; 4.67 in 2013); “Contributes to my comprehensive knowledge of the school system as a whole and the school staff” (4.55 in 2010; 4.32 in 2011; 4.22 in 2012; 4.20 in 2013); and “Contributes to my development of self-study skills” (4.22 in 2010; 4.44 in 2011; 4.32 in 2012; 4.44 in 2013). The statements ranked highest (between 4 and 5) with respect to the dialogical-reflective community of discourse were: “Contributes to rethinking my views of the teaching profession;” “the group session constituted a place of support;” and “Contributes to my development of self-study skills.” With respect to the mentoring teacher, the statement ranked highest (between 4 and 5) were: “Contributes to rethinking my views of the teaching profession;” “Contributes to my development of professional responsibilities as a teacher;” “Contributes to my development of integration-intoschool skills;” “Contributes to my development of self-study skills.” The quantitative section was composed of interviews with the student focus group, PDS coordinators, and school principals. This part addressed the efficacy of the pedagogy of reflection in teacher-training, focusing on two central elements: group dialogue and organizational dialogue. The interviews provided data regarding the way in which the reflective and dialogical components of the curriculum helped the students’ gain professional confidence as future teachers and increased their ability to tailor themselves to diverse student communities. In the words of a Jewish preservice teacher, Before I did my dialogical teaching practicum I thought that being ready was teaching the material. Today, I understand that I lead a community of learners that I have to engage in ongoing reflective processes and be committed to a dialogue of equality and respect. I’m learning all the time, both in and for myself and as part of the organization. I’m in effect a microcosm of the school as a whole.

In the words of an Arab student, My ability to understand what dialogue with pupils in the classroom is based on the fact that my commitment to them on the personal and professional level has been reinforced through this year. I understand that I stand in front of a group composed of many individuals with many needs and that I’m not a lecturer but a teacher who in effect is a person committed to each pupil. My view has changed from “teaching a group” to “teaching pupils.” My idea of equality regarding pupils from different backgrounds has also changed because of the reflective processes I engaged in over the year.

One high school principal stressed that the dialogue with young students was “enabling,” “developed thought,” “refreshed us organizationally,” and

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

133

“prevented stagnation.” Another observed that the process was sometime “organizationally painful because it exposed us to an aspect of our organizational weakness. But it strengthened us as an advancing and learning organization.” Another noted: “The pedagogy of dialogue and reflection exemplified in the PDS reinforces the sense of belonging the young teacher feels to the organization. It also reinforces their feeling that they are capable, that they’re not alone, and for us, the top echelon, it reinforces our sense of commitment to them. It builds a community, an educational community.”

CONCLUSION This chapter has outlined the importance of the pedagogy of reflection in a DRPDS in the multicultural educational space of the preservice education field in Israel, analyzing the first university PDS model which I termed DRPDS and a four-year study whose effects are still being felt. The pedagogy of reflection in the context of the educational dialogue of educators at the preservice stage of teacher preparation is outlined as a tool for student empowerment, achieved through a community of learners who dedicate space to the developing of their whole personality within the profession, taking a moral stance toward the educational discourse, minimizing judgmentalism and prejudice, creating national/gender equality with the goal of examining the fundamental question of educational performance, and reinforcing their sense of organizational belonging within the system. The dialogical-reflective community of learners is constantly faced with objections to this form of education because while boasting of an egalitarian relationship between teachers and school students in practice, it in fact preserves the authoritarian hierarchy of traditional education, merely creating the outward appearance of equality by educational manipulation. In the form in which it has been presented in this chapter, this objection has been proved both correct and erroneous. Educational performance always entails that one body take the initiative for another to grow and learn. If it takes place under the clear rules of reflection, however, it allows for the reaching of truer notions regarding the nature of the relationship between teacher and school students, primarily their democratic character. In the context of teacher education presented in this work, the process of constant reexamination of basic personal, collective, disciplinary, and even national

134

ARIE KIZEL

questions around education and work with young people children and adults alike is given center stage. This chapter was based on the elements of dialogical philosophy exemplified in the thought of Burbules, Nelson, Isaacs, Bohm, and Heckmann, and the reflective basis of educational and organizational performance exemplified in the writings of Van Manen (1991). The taxonomies the latter proposed a four-fold hierarchy, with reflection taking place with thinking in each phase. In the first stage of thought, pre-reflection, intuition, and habit reign. In the second stage of the hierarchy, reflection is directed toward daily experiences (in our case, student experiences) where conclusions are drawn regarding dos and don’ts. In the third stage, reflection becomes more systematic, extending beyond the boundaries of personal experience to focus on the experiences of others, with the goal of shaping theoretical and critical insights regarding daily experience. In the fourth stage, reflection is directed toward our own reflective processes and the way in which our theoretical knowledge is built so that we can reach a better grasp of self-reflection with respect to the nature of knowledge, how it performs in practice, and the implementation options of knowledge in our praxis. The students who participated in the dialogical-reflective learning communities attested in the study that they reached the final stage and that a teacher education curriculum based on the pedagogy of reflection helped them attain higher stages of reflection and educational language, as well as new develop personally. The chapter featured two examples from a project in which teaching units based on dialogue and reflection were developed within a dialogic community that represents in its very being collective empowerment, the possibility of coping with problems that are too large for an individual to solve on his/her own, and an alternative to sealed and alienated organizations (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977). The community elements evident in these examples are partnership, involvement, and mutual commitment qualities that naturally engender a sense of belonging and comradeship while constituting an effective response to the feeling of alienation and marginalization individuals and groups frequently experience in society. Modeling these examples constructed on the basis of extracurriculum themes enabled the students to engage in an inner dialogue with themselves and the student community and then with the school community. This valuable educational challenge offers preservice teachers an empowering professional experience that molds them into potential agents of change and quality professionals with proven abilities to rethink some of their fundamental assumptions underpinning their unique educational skills. In sum, the

Dialogical Professional-Development Schools in Israel

135

preservice teachers experienced a process similar to that proposed by Giroux (1987) and others, who maintained that unempowered teachers are unable to empower the students they teach.

REFERENCES Aloni, N. (Ed.). (2008). Empowering dialogues in humanistic education. Tel Aviv, IL: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew). Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education Intention, reflection, critique. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The rule of mediating structures in public policy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Bohm, D. (1992). Thought as a system. London, UK: Routledge. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Burbules, N. C. (1991). Varieties of educational dialogue. In D. Ericson (Ed.), Philosophy of education (pp. 120 131). Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society. Burbules, N. C., & Rice, S. (1991). Dialogue across differences: Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 93 416. Carnegie Forum on Education and Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Foundation. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 104 119. Copas, M. (1984). Critical requirements for cooperating teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 49 54. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy and practice of democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5 17. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597 609. Gadamer, H. G. (1999). Truth and method. New York, NY: Continuum. Giroux, H. A. (1987). Literacy and the pedagogy of political empowerment. In P. Freire, & D. Macedo (Eds.), Literacy: Reading the word and the world (pp. 1 26). London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Education renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Heckmann, G. (1981). Das Sokratische Gesprach: Erfahrungen in Philosophischen Hochschulseminaren. Hanover, DE: H. Schroedel. Hodge, S. R., Davis, R., Woodward, R., & Sherrill, C. (2002). Comparison of practicum types in changing preservice teachers’ attitude and perceived competence. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 155 171. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

136

ARIE KIZEL

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York, NY: Doubleday. Johnson, B., & Johnson, K. (2002). Learning from warthogs and oxpeckers: Promoting mutualism in school and university research partnerships. Educational Action Research, 10(1), 67 83. Levine, M. (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Marshall, H. (1990). Beyond the work place metaphor: The classroom as a learning setting. Theory in Practice, 29, 94 100. Nelson, L. (1949). Socratic method and critical philosophy: Selected essays. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. New York, NY: Scott, Foresman and Company. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Nicholas Brealey. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4 14. Sirotnik, K. A. (2001). Renewing schools and teacher education: An odyssey in educational change. Washington, DC: AACTE Pub. Slotte, S. (2004). Dialogue and systems intelligence: A work philosophy. In R. P. Ha¨ma¨la¨inen & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems intelligence: Discovering a hidden competence in human action and organizational life (pp. 39 55). Helsinki, FI: Helsinki University of Technology. Smith, K., & Snoek, M. (1996). Dutch and Israeli student teachers’ view on their future roles as teachers. Paper presented at the ATEE conference, Strathclyde University, Glasgow. Thompson, S., & Sopko, D. (2000). Empowered through experience: Preservice teaching and learning in professional development schools. Professional Educator, 22(2), 65 77. Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical view. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481 546. Zilberstein, M., Ben Perez, M., & Grienfeld, N. (2006). New trends in teacher education curriculum: Partnership between colleges and schools: The Israeli story. Tel Aviv: Mofet (in Hebrew).

SELF-STUDY OF TEACHER EDUCATION PRACTICES AS A PEDAGOGY FOR TEACHER EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Mary Lynn Hamilton and Stefinee Pinnegar ABSTRACT In this chapter, we present Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) as a research methodology that can be used pedagogically to explore the practices of teacher educators for their professional development. It can be seen as a pedagogic practice that enlists reflection to enable teacher educators to explore and explicate practice and make explicit what they know about teaching and teacher education in order to improve practice and contribute to larger conversations in research on teaching and teacher education. After providing a succinct interpretation of the origins of S-STEP work, we suggest that historical context, along with the understanding of the theoretical underpinnings, makes it viable as a research methodology and a potentially valuable pedagogy for teacher education research. S-STEP is an

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 137 152 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022010

137

138

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

intimate research methodology (Hamilton, 1995) in which the person conducting the research is both the focus and the author of the research and provides an insider’s perspective into practice and experience. We provide examples to demonstrate how others and we take up S-STEP as pedagogy for teacher educator professional development that allows us to grapple with what we know either explicitly or tacitly from and about our practice. International S-STEP research has the power to inform the professional development of teacher educators across these boundaries, because it attends carefully to the particular of the practice and context from which it emerged. Keywords: Teacher education; methodology; professional development; Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices

When I ask myself how I became a teacher educator, I am left puzzling about the first time I thought about doing that or left wondering if I ever really initiated a learning-tobe-a-teacher-educator process. I suppose, though, that I first began the process long before I became conscious of it … But who taught me how to [act as a teacher educator]? Really no one taught me. I learned by watching …, by reminding myself about what happened in my own classroom with high school students, … I also learned by making errors, major errors in front of the classroom … Somehwere, somehow, I decided that I could best support students if I supported their teachers. … So how did I do that? … How did I develop my knonwledge about teaching teachers? What elements influenced my choices and decisions? (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 40)

NAMING THE PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE PRESENTED In this quote, Mary Lynn, a self-study of teacher education practice researcher (Arizona Group, 1995), suggests that we, like most other teacher educators, taught ourselves to be teacher educators. In the phrases, “before I became conscious,” “learned by watching,” “by reminding,” “by remembering,” and “making errors,” we reveal this as a messy not a systematic process, one in which we drew on, acted on, and developed our personal practical (Clandinin, 1985) and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967). When teacher educators continue in this way, their understanding of their practice and what they know about acting and practising teacher education remains nebulous, partially evident in the practice, with little potential to contribute

S-STEP

139

either to the knowledge, action, or development of an individual teacher educator or to the larger conversation about research on teaching and teacher education. Thus, the potential of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) research as a pedagogic practice is its promise for contributing to the individual and collective development of teacher educators. The phrase “somewhere, somehow, I decided that I could best support students if I supported their teachers” alludes to the more important reason for doing such research. Our obligation as teacher educators is an ethical one that encompasses not only commitment to support preservice teachers in meeting their potential as humans (Bullough, Patterson, & Mayes, 2002) but also our duty and responsibility to the unseen and potentially unknowable students they will educate (Arizona Group, 1997). Because of the weight of this commitment, we do not believe our teaching practice has or ever will reach a final state wherein we need to only produce and reproduce the routines and practices we have already learned to enact. In our role as teacher educators, we recognize our practice must always be in flux, oriented toward becoming better and better. We must position ourselves to seek out, understand, and enact emerging and evolving practices that take into account new content knowledge, new understandings of learning, and new ways of teaching, and to produce scholarship that contributes to the refinement and evolution of such knowledge. Further, to contribute, we must understand and improve all aspects of practice encompassed in our role as a teacher educator. We recognize that, in our role as teacher educators, we had no formal tutelage in how to be teacher educators. In the work cited above (Arizona Group, 1995), we articulate our processes of becoming teachers of teachers, articulating the way in which our past practice as teachers, our content knowledge as well as our knowledge of learning, teaching, and development, our theoretical and philosophic orientations, our memories of being teachers and students, our work with students, and the study of our process in taking up the role of teacher educator, all contributed to our practice as teachers of teachers. Therefore, we present S-STEP as a research methodology (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009) that can be used pedagogically to explore the practice of teacher educators. It can be seen as a pedagogic practice that enlists reflection (more formally research) in order to enable teacher educators to explore and explicate their practice and make explicit what they know about teaching and teacher education in order to improve their practice and contribute to the conversation in research on teaching and teacher education. We assert then that S-STEP

140

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

methodology is pedagogy for professional development as a teacher educator. Our discussion of S-STEP as a pedagogy for teacher educator professional development has been categorized in this volume as a pedagogy of reflection. While reflection exists in every stage of the research process in which S-STEP researchers engage, we would not necessarily label it this way. We argue instead with LaBoskey and Hamilton (2010) that in engaging in S-STEP research as a pedagogy for teacher education, teacher educators provide a model of reflection for the teachers they educate. This is evident in the way Freese (2006) provides an S-STEP project that focuses on uncovering her practices in enlisting her preservice teachers in reflection that will guide their development as teachers. This study makes clear LaBoskey and Hamilton’s (2010) assertion that through engaging in S-STEP projects, teacher educators demonstrate and provide guidance for preservice teachers in developing reflection that positions them to be able to take up S-STEP as a pedagogy for their professional development as teachers.

ORIGINS OF THE PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE I came to teacher education with limited understanding of the context of academe. The struggle started when I began to comprehend the complexity and multiplicity of roles, the tensions and dilemmas a teacher educator faces … Using self study as a methodology embedded in teacher research, I am exploring my journey as a teacher of teachers … Since my purpose for entering teacher education is change by promoting justice and equity for all learners, the methodologies of teacher research act as a form of social change and support my inquiry … With the tensions and dilemmas I face, I recognize I can travel this road because “I get a lot of help from my friends” (Guilfoyle, 1992, p. 1, as cited in Arizona Group, 1995). Reading, reflecting, and researching also facilitate my journey. (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 44)

Karen’s statement drawn from the same S-STEP article with which we began this chapter (Arizona Group, 1995), argues the value of engaging in S-STEP research. At least for the Arizona Group, founding members of the S-STEP movement, development of the methodology of S-STEP began when we told each other of our “struggle” in “comprehending the complexity and multiplicity of roles, the tensions and dilemmas a teacher educator faces,” and determination to use the tools of qualitative research to develop understanding (as we acted to improve practice of our practice) of teacher education. We began and were soon joined by others (i.e., Hamilton, 1998;

S-STEP

141

Korthagen & Russell, 1995; Loughran & Russell, 1997) who had similar interests in developing a methodology that would enable contribution to practice and to the teacher education research community. Most of these researchers were interested in qualitative research of various kinds that were focused on teacher beliefs, teacher thinking, and teacher change: the relationship of teacher beliefs and teaching practice (Hamilton, 1989; Richardson & Placier, 2001), the movement from novice to expert teachers (Pinnegar, 1989), the usefulness of reflection in the development of teachers (Munby & Russell, 1992), and engagement of teachers in doing action research to understand and improve (i.e., Baird & Northfield, 1992; Loughran & Northfield, 1996; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). Early on, the group recognized that unless they organized a community that allowed for people to come together and develop this methodology, have opportunity to present and publish research, and join organizations that provide opportunity for academic advancement, the community would not thrive. Thus, we worked together to establish a research organization (Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices a Special Interest Group of AERA and the Castle Conference) and venues for publication (Castle proceedings and edited books), and provided opportunities to learn from and support each other. This community established a journal (Studying Teacher Education currently edited by Berry and Russell) and published a handbook (Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004). We have authored research methodology texts (i.e., Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009; Samaras & Freese, 2006). We continue to host the Castle Conference at Herstmonceux and publish the proceedings of the conference (Castle Conference Proceedings, 1996 Present). Often in accounting for the origins of S-STEP research, the focus is on its functional and practical historical development, recounted succinctly above. But just as important for understanding its value as a pedagogy for teacher educator development is an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings that make it viable as a research methodology and a potentially valuable pedagogy for teacher education research. S-STEP is an intimate research methodology (Hamilton, 1995) in which the person conducting the research is both the focus and the author of the research and provides an insider’s perspective into practice and experience (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). Indeed, S-STEP research methodology has several characteristics that position it to be simultaneously a form of professional development: its focus on practice and the use of accounts and artifacts of practice, reflection on the practice and analysis of the accounts, evidence and reflection to

142

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

uncover what is known about practice; its focus on ontology; and its use of dialogue as a process of knowing (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). We have argued elsewhere that S-STEP as a methodology of research is the study of one’s self, one’s action, one’s ideas … it is autobiographical, historical, cultural and political … it draw’s on one’s life, but it is more than that. Self-study also involves a thoughtful look at texts read, experiences had, people known and ideas considered. (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998, p. 236)

As we enact practices in our roles as teacher educators, we reveal what we know, what we believe, what sense we make of past and current experiences, and who we are and who we are becoming. The teacher educator who engages in research on practice recognizes that action in a classroom is based on personal practical knowledge (Clandinin, 1985), a holistic embodied form of knowing that combines what we have experienced, what we have learned, actions we have taken, our reflection, problem solving, and thinking. This knowledge is constructed as we act in present moments (Stern, 2004) and in our acting and thinking in preparing to act we construct tacit or embodied knowledge. It is an endless source for developing knowledge to guide and inform teacher education and the development of individual teacher educators. The character of tacit knowledge as holistic and embodied means that we can never completely explicate our tacit knowledge about a practice. In addition, as we explore our tacit knowledge and understand more clearly what we know, as revealed in our practice and we then take action based on this knowing, therefore, altering and deepening our practice and our knowing of it. In studying practice, teacher educators make their tacit knowledge explicit and as they do so invent and reinvent improved practices for other educators and researchers. A study of the practice of teacher educators then comprises an unlimited and evolving basis for developing knowledge about teacher education and teaching. This becomes evident in our (Arizona Group, 1995) exploration of their process of becoming teacher educators. Mary Lynn wrote: Reflection upon my teaching is, for me, the most critical element of the learning-toteach-teachers process. Upon what do I reflect? Just as a quilter draws upon her knowledge and experience as a stitcher to make decisions about patterns and colours, I draw upon my knowledge and experience of learning and teaching. I reflect upon articles and ideas I have read …, upon strategies and methods I have used in other settings, and upon … ideas of my students. All of my experiences come together in the moment to affect what I do next in the classroom …. My quilt could not be made without input from other people and experiences but I am the essential element in its creation …

S-STEP

143

[C]hange cannot occur in peoples’ thinking until they are conscious of what they believe. Once conscious of their beliefs, people, myself included can decide whether or not to shift their beliefs. (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 47)

While guiding a teacher educator or teacher to become a better practitioner is a helpful promising aspect of S-STEP as a pedagogy for professional development, the research record constructed also has the potential to contribute to our understanding of teacher education and inform and improve the practice of other teacher educators. The quote from Mary Lynn focused on her development as a teacher educator captures the multiple, complex, interacting sources from which our practical knowledge has emerged. Using the quilt, the quilter, and quilting as a concrete representation of the process provides an image we can explore to understand better how reflection and studying practice come together in this work. The image of the quilt as a representation of our practical knowledge also captures our understanding as S-STEP researchers that it is in the interaction of the pieces, the collective pattern, that meaning and development emerge. The quilter and quilting represent an artistic practice, reminding us as we think about S-STEP as a pedagogy for teacher educator professional development, that in our study of practice, the focus is never exclusively on the self our knowledge, our experience, our decision-making but our practice is constructed in relationship to others. Just as we can study carefully a single fabric scrap or block in a quilt, its beauty and meaning emerge in the collective and evolving whole and in the subtle interactions among and between the fabrics and patterns constructed. As Mary Lynn articulates here, for S-STEP researchers, professional development improvement in our understanding and action as teacher educators is a natural and interconnected part of the methodology. Reflection on practice is an interwoven aspect of S-STEP research through reflection, we determine what we will study; using reflection we construct accounts of our practice; and through reflection on accounts and artifacts, we engage in analysis of the practice and uncover its meaning and are guided in its improvement. We (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009) argue that S-STEP is a research methodology that enables teacher educators and teachers to study their practice in order to understand and improve it. This commitment is an ontological one. In studying our practice, we try to make explicit what is being studied. We use image, metaphor, artifacts, and journaling to create as clear an account as possible the action or tacit knowledge we are studying. We seek to have evidence that is strong enough to challenge preconceptions we

144

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

might have. We seek to include data from our perspective as well as the perspective of others in the practice. Peggy (Arizona Group, 1995) articulates this attention to the relationship of self- and other and the attention to completely capture the ontological reality of those participating. Becoming a teacher educator means learning how to link the curriculum to their interests, values, and identities, without compromising mine. I have found myself thinking as much about who my students are and what they know, think, believe, as what I want them to be, know, think, and believe. This has created further dilemmas, as I find out that what some of my students believe (i.e., racism, sexism, extremely judgmental attitudes toward certain children and families) seems to me to be incompatible with the ethical obligations of teachers in a democratic, pluralistic society. Academic freedom means that they have a right to express their opinions. But what is my ethical obligation to my students’ future students? Are we even justified at times in closing the gate to teaching based on attitudes or ideology. (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 46)

In her account, Peggy brings together the conflicting demands she faces: her attention to her students, their understandings, and her obligations and responsibilities. She articulates how her memory, experience, knowledge as well as her ongoing exploration of her students’ knowledge, experience, and understanding intersect as she constructs curriculum for social justice within teacher education. Just as importantly, she reveals again the ethical obligation that S-STEP researchers feel to the students of those they educate as teachers. Her statement reminds us of the ethical commitments we make to continue to improve our practice in order to support the development of our students, her recognition of the need to begin with their practical knowledge in developing their further knowledge, and her questions about how to meet competing demands between honoring and respecting our students and concern for theirs. When we take up S-STEP research, we focus our study on something in our practice that we want to know and understand better. As we design the research, we ensure that the data we collect will allow us to capture an empirical account of the practice, which allows us to simultaneously examine the context, content, and processes that inform and shape the practice. We seek to collect data from all participants in the practice and we keep records of our thinking about our practice during the time we enact the practice and often as we engage in analysis of the practice. The orientation to ontology in S-STEP research indicates moral and ethical commitments as well. These include collecting data and scrutinizing it to uncover the blemishes as well as the strengths resident in our practice. It includes acting with integrity as a researcher, attending carefully to developing trustworthy accounts and understandings of the practices studied. It means using what

S-STEP

145

we learn to improve all of our roles as teacher educators, and as Peggy reveals here, it also means attention and commitment to the relationships we have with our students and concern and care for the students they will educate. The findings of S-STEP research emerge not so much as epistemological claims but as statements of understanding based on particular practices at particular places and times. Dialogue as the central process of coming to know is another characteristic of S-STEP research (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009) that is important in engaging S-STEP as a pedagogy of teacher educator development. We come to know what we know about our practice as a teacher educator as we articulate what we think we are coming to understand and then seek to find alternative explanations, differing interpretations, or accounts that disrupt our interpretation. As Stefinee (Arizona Group, 1995) argues, often such critique comes from listening to what our students have to say and observing carefully how they react to the practices we engage in with them. I have committed myself to look clearly at my own practice and regularly ask my student how they perceive the work we do together. In this difficult arena, I feel I refine myself as a teacher educator and gain insights in the process of becoming a teacher and becoming a teacher educator. I am constantly learning how to teach from my memories, my experience, my reading and the interconnections I make among them. Learning from experience in this way, I am teaching myself how to be a teacher educator as I teach my students to teach themselves to be teachers. (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 49)

Stefinee articulates here the sources of critique we bring to disrupt, shape, and also strengthen the understandings we develop as we study our practice. The references to the various sources that shape her learning as a teacher educator and her attention to the voice of the student in her learning suggest the characteristics of dialogue as a process of coming to know: caring, respect, strong voices, and listening (Arizona Group, 2006). The details about the sources of knowing and their interconnections suggest the way in which dialogue exists in a zone of inconclusivity; this space, as articulated by Bakhtin (1982), is a space where past, present, and future collide. In that space, the past is brought forward into the present, reinterpreted in the present so that understandings and interpretations held in the past are reformulated in the present, and in this way, the past and present are changed, which changes the trajectory for the future. Critique for the ideas Stefinee develops emerge from her own experiences, readings, and knowledge and from insights she gains from checking her understanding with her students.

146

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

In speaking of how she learned to become a teacher educator, Karen (Arizona Group, 1995) makes even more visible dialogue as the process of coming to know as a fundamental characteristic of this research methodology when she explains: As interactions support and/or push my thinking, reading and writing extend my meaning. Connecting my thinking with others as they explore learning and teaching provides the support to move forward.…Through teacher research, I am aware that my development has been a learning process influenced by multiple factors. Inquiry supported through dialogue and critique pushes experience to the edge and opens new roads to travel. It doesn’t remove the struggle but it does help the teacher understand the journey. (pp. 51 52)

Karen makes clear the ways in which the process for coming to know involves dialogue with data, with researchers, and with experience, and requires critique. Dialogue as a process for coming to know “pushes experience” and opens new ways to think and understand the practices we study. Dialogue requires connecting what we see in practice to what we know from reading, experience, and the description of the practice. It also involves questioning, identifying gaps in our thinking, and both supporting and denying assertions about the understandings we develop. Dialogue emerges as talk moves to critique and inquiry with evidence, reflection, and response: all of these elements are present in Karen’s discussion of her learning. Deep engagement in unpacking and exploring accounts of our practice leads us to develop confidence in what we know from practice and how we shape and change it. Thus, dialogue, both internal and in interaction with others, enables our development as teacher educators. As a pedagogy for teacher educator development, the pervasive use of reflection, the orientation to ontology (uncovering what is), and the recognition of dialogue as a process of coming to know are the characteristics that ensure that S-STEP research can support the individual development of teacher educators as well as contribute to the research conversation in teacher education. Living Examples When I began teaching future teachers, my image of myself was the image of a beginning tap dancer. First you get the beat, then you add fancier steps, then you add hand motions, then you pick up the cane. But I kept dropping the cane or losing the beat and ending up arms akimbo, tangled in a heap. I never saw myself getting the beat. It is ironic that I would ever think of myself in the image of a dancer because I am completely uncoordinated. I think this initial image represented the denial I felt of my own

S-STEP

147

voice and talents, an incredible self focus, and my struggle to balance it all. (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 46)

When we take up S-STEP as a pedagogy for teacher educator professional development, we bring forward for reflection all aspects of our knowledge: descriptions of practice and context; reflections from, interviews with, observations of students; journal logs; identification and explanations of critical incidents; and images we hold. All these sources allow us to grapple with what we know either explicitly or tacitly from and about our practice. Stefinee’s articulation of her image of a beginning teacher educator as an incompetent tap dancer reveals the challenge she felt as she attempted to take up the practice of being a teacher of teachers her struggle to develop a routine and rhythm that encompassed and brought into relationship and balance all the elements of her practice. The image she presents is not one of a totally naı¨ ve dancer but one who understands the rhythm being sought, where to start, and how to practise so that the elements can be brought together and what is to be taken up first and what can come into play last. As a teacher of teachers, her image and her explanation of it reveal that her past experience as one who could and did coordinate the dance of teaching lies beneath her attempt to develop and coordinate a dance routine as a teacher educator. From unpacking this image, Stefinee was guided in her growth as a teacher of teachers. In the article used to illustrate S-STEP as a pedagogy of teacher educator professional development (Arizona Group, 1995) from which the quotes unpacked in this work emerged, the Arizona Group explored more fully their process of becoming teacher educators. Arizona Group (1995) provides a live example of the dual purposes teacher educators serve when they take up S-STEP as a pedagogy for teacher educator professional development: the study guided our development as teacher educators and because we published it, contributed to the emerging field of teacher educator knowledge and development. We began by exploring records of becoming teacher educators: articles we had written about our struggles with the academy (i.e., Hamilton, 1995), exploring their teaching practices (i.e., Guilfoyle, 1995; Placier, 1995), and developing new understandings about experience (i.e., Pinnegar, 1995), letters and e-mails we had shared, our journals, our student work, and other documents. We also reviewed research literature on beginning professors, experienced professors, and beginning teachers. We discussed the understandings we were gleaning. From these accounts and our explorations of them, we generated questions about our process of becoming teacher educators: “What were

148

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

our experiences? What were our questions? Where did we look for answers? What did we learn” (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 38)? These questions were the prompts from which we constructed individual accounts of our process. We then analyzed these texts and identified shared critical features of our experience: “questions and biography; memories, images, and metaphors; and process in our learning” (p. 39). In the text, we outline the study and our analysis, and report the assertions for action and understanding that emerged. What we realized from reviewing this work to use as an example for here is how what we learned in doing the work guided us further in our development: our commitment to listening to students’ experiences, our over-arching commitment to the students of our students, recognition of our images as a source of insight about our thinking, and the need to collect data about our practice and experience and analysis of it to develop deeper understandings. We also realized that the work read by other beginning professors might support them in their development. We would not think their experience would repeat ours, but we think our process articulated in the article and in our methodology text (Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009) could guide them in pushing their own development and contributing to the conversation in teacher education research. Hopefully, they might also decide to join our community, as well. In taking up S-STEP as a pedagogy for professional development, the teacher educator identifies various kinds and spaces of practice that might be studied. Frequently, S-STEP studies focus on a space in practice where a teacher educator experiences a living contradiction. Placier (1995) studied her own teaching fiascos. Erickson and Young (2011) experienced a living contradiction when a group of in-service teachers indicated that as teacher educators they were university people and not teachers. This led them to explore the role of their identity as teacher in their identity as teacher educators. Other researchers become interested in understanding and developing specific kinds of practices and then studying themselves as they enact the practice in order to improve as a teacher educator. Brubaker (2010) provides an example of such a study when he designs and implements particular kinds of assignments, exploring research in negotiation, applying the research to designing assignments, and then studying his enactment of the assignment. Other teacher educators become curious about how theories from research show up in their practice. Kosnik (2001) examined how she enacted a teacher education program based on a model of action research and how Donald Schon’s work on reflective practice provided new insights into action research as a model of teacher education and reflective practice. From these studies of our colleagues, we have learned about our own practices and used their findings to guide us. In this way, as a community,

S-STEP

149

S-STEP work has dual purpose. It leads us to develop and improve our understanding and our practice and contribute knowledge that might never have been uncovered to the conversation of research on teaching.

CONDITIONS FOR USE IN THE INTERNATIONAL TEACHING COMMUNITY From its beginning, S-STEP methodology was shaped and molded across countries, cultures, and contexts. There are currently many conditions in the development of teacher education across international boundaries that lend themselves to a turn to S-STEP to contribute to use of this methodology and to contribute to teacher education research. The central condition is that a teacher educator has practices they would like to learn from and know more about. The process of S-STEP research methodology was forged across contexts, and therefore, as a process for studying practice for improvement is easily adaptable. S-STEP research as an intimate research methodology values and privileges the power of understanding the particular in order to contribute to our general understanding. S-STEP is being utilized in many countries (including the US) that face the challenge of collaboration among university scholars and teacher educators who have participated more in practice than research. In some spaces, there is a demand that these more practice-focused teacher educators take up research as a practice. S-STEP holds promise to support these emerging scholars (i.e., Rentrop, 2010). International S-STEP research has the power to inform the professional development of teacher educators across these boundaries, because it attends carefully to the particular of the practice and context from which it emerged. Probably the strongest example of this is work by Berry (2007) who engaged in an analysis of S-STEP work conducted across a range of countries, contexts, and cultures, and developed a taxonomy of tensions that face teacher educators in their work in teaching teachers. Berry is from Australia (currently, The Netherlands), and her work was conducted and developed in Australia, but it has been helpful for framing conversations about the tensions in teaching teachers across the S-STEP research community. A more isolated but helpful example is Davey et al.’s (2011) exploration of collaboration and the contribution of various kinds of research collaborations to the professional identity development of teacher educators conducted in New Zealand can support other teacher educators in thinking about how to collaborate with colleagues across teacher educator roles to more productively support their development of a professional

150

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

identity as a teacher educator. Tuval, Barak, and Gidron’s (2011) work conducted in Israel provides insight into the value of engaging in research to understand and resolve conflicts among various factions within a teacher education cooperative. The concluding statements from the living example we have provided here expresses even today our beliefs about the value of S-STEP research as a pedagogy for teacher educator professional development. Our commitment to a different view of teacher education and our support from each other led us to risk taking to our students the kinds of education experiences we thought they needed. Our attempts to watch, analyze and report what we saw happening in our development and theirs is a hallmark of our process and the reason that this account exists … . Movement in understanding what we were doing as teachers of teachers was connected to interactions with other people and demonstrated that learning is social. Reading, reflecting, researching, and analyzing guided, supported and facilitated the process. We have become and are becoming teacher educators. Individually and collectively the paths we have chosen are alternative ones, but we believe they have the most potential to help us understand what it means to teach, to teach teachers, and to gradually re-create educational practices. We encourage others to begin, walking their own alternative paths, documenting as they go. (Arizona Group, 1995, p. 53)

151

S-STEP

REFERENCES Arizona Group, Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1997). Obligations to unseen children. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 183 209). London: Falmer Press. Arizona Group, Pinnegar, S., Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., & Placier, P. (1995). Becoming teachers of teachers: Alternative paths expressed in beginners’ voices. In F. Korthagen & T. Russell (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education (pp. 35 55). London: Falmer Press. Arizona Group, Placier, P., Pinnegar, S., Hamilton, M. L., & Guilfoyle, K. (2006). Exploring the concept of dialogue in the self-study of teaching practices. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. Freese, & A. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through selfstudy (pp. 51 64). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Baird, J., & Northfield, J. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Australia: Peel Publications. Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Brubaker, N. (2010). Negotiating authority by designing individualized grading contracts. Studying Teacher Education, 6, 257 267. Bullough, R. V., Jr., Patterson, R. S., & Mayes, C. T. (2002). Teaching as prophecy. Curriculum Inquiry, 32, 311 329. doi:10.1111/1467-873X.00230 Castle Conference Proceedings. (1996 present). Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/ Conferences/PastCastleProceedings/tabid/15213/Default.aspx Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 361 385. Davey, R., Ham, V., Gilmore, F., Haines, G., McGrath, A., Morrow, D., & Robinson, R. (2011). Privatization, illumination, and validation in identity-making within a teacher educator research collective. Studying Teacher Education, 7, 187 199. Erickson, L., & Young, J. (2011). Imagining, becoming and being a teacher: How personal history mediates teacher educator identity. Studying Teacher Education, 7, 121 129. Freese, A. (2006). Transformation through self-study: The voices of preservice teachers. In C. Kosnik, C. Beck, A. Freese, & A. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teacher education through self-study (pp. 65 79). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Guilfoyle, K. (1995). Constructing the meaning of teacher educator: The struggle to learn the roles. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 11 27. Hamilton, M. L. (1989). The practical argument staff development process, school culture, and their effects on teachers’ beliefs and classroom practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Hamilton, M. L. (1995). Confronting self: Passion and promise in the act of teaching or my ozdacious journey to Kansas! Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 29 43. Hamilton, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Reconceptualizing the education of teachers: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). Conclusion. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing the education of teachers: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer.

152

MARY LYNN HAMILTON AND STEFINEE PINNEGAR

Korthagen, F. & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Kosnik, C. (2001). The effects of an inquiry-oriented teacher education program on a faculty member: Some critical incidents and my journey. Studying Teacher Education, 2, 65 80. LaBoskey, V., & Hamilton, M. L. (2010). The role of teacher educator self-study in educating for reflective inquiry. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Press. Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. L. (Eds.). (2004). International of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 1 & 2). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1996). Opening the classroom door: Teacher, researcher, learner. London: Routledge. Loughran, J. & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Munby, H. & Russell, T. (Eds.). (1992). Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection. London: Falmer. Pinnegar, S. (1989). Teachers’ knowledge of students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Pinnegar, S. (1995). (Re)Experiencing beginning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 65 84. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and Practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Placier, M. (1995). “But I have to have an A”: Probing the cultural meanings and ethical dilemmas of grades in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 45 64. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Rentrop, J. (2010). On the spot language methodology: Teacher educator as metaphorical flame. In L. Erickson, J. Young, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on selfstudies of teacher education practices: Navigating the public and the private: Negotiating the diverse landscapes of teacher education (pp. 215–219). Herstmonceux Castle: Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices SIG. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Russell, T. (1995). A teacher educator and his students reflect on teaching high school physics. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 85 98. Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Stern, D. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Co. Tuval, S., Barak, J., & Gidron, A. (2011). Negotiating a team identity through collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 7, 201 210. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research: Living theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PART III PEDAGOGIES OF NARRATIVE WAYS OF KNOWING

NARRATIVE PEDAGOGIES FOR PEER GROUPS Eila Estola, Hannu L. T. Heikkinen and Leena Syrja¨la¨ ABSTRACT The aim of this chapter is to feature exemplars of narrative pedagogies used in teacher education in Finland. The theoretical framework of the chapter is based on two commitments. First, we argue that narrative pedagogies are meaningful, since becoming and being a teacher is a constantly changing and developing identity story. Narrative pedagogies also link to the notion of “participant knowledge,” in contrast to “spectator knowledge,” which has been the dominant view on epistemology in the modern scientific world. Participant knowledge is something typically narrative in nature, which has much to do with emotional and expressive ways of understanding the world around us. In this chapter, we first introduce practices of autobiographical writing as examples how to promote skills of critical reflection. We then introduce narrative pedagogies, which have been organized for peer groups. During the first project, a special method, KerToi, was developed both for preservice and in-service teacher education. The newest model is the Peer-Group Mentoring (PGM) model, in which peer group practices were further developed to support early career teachers in Finland, and to be used as the European

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 155 172 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022011

155

156

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

Paedeia Cafe´ model. We conclude that narrative pedagogies in Finnish teacher education offer an excellent environment that links theoretical, spectator knowledge to participant knowledge. The narrative approach to peer-group mentoring can be seen as a promising pedagogy, which can promote a more humane teacher education experience and reinforce the professional and personal growth of future teachers. Keywords: Narrative pedagogies; teacher identity; teacher education pedagogies; Finland; KerToi; Peer-Group Mentoring model

WHAT ARE NARRATIVE PEDAGOGIES? The aim of this chapter is to feature exemplars of narrative pedagogies used in preservice teacher education in Finland. Our theme is closely related to three other themes introduced in this book: reflection, identity work, and mentoring. First, sharing narratives with other people often triggers reflective moments that enable us to understand activities and happenings around us from a new perspective, as well as to become more aware of how our personal feelings and thoughts are affected by those experiences. Second, narrative work is a natural way to develop teacher identity; telling a story answers questions concerning who you are becoming as a person and as a professional. Third, narrative methodology has proven to be a promising tool for mentoring, both within preservice and in-service education (Doyle & Carter, 2003; Heikkinen, Jokinen, & Tynja¨la¨, 2012). Along with the “narrative turn” in social sciences, we have witnessed narrative pedagogies emerging everywhere over the last couple of decades. The interest in using narratives seems to be increasing in the preparation of professionals within various fields such as nursing (i.e., Brown, Kirkpatrick, Mangum, & Avery, 2008; Ironside, 2006; Kawashima, 2005), library management (Fyn, 2013), human resource development (i.e., Dachner, Saxton, Noe, & Keeton, 2013), and business management (i.e., Swap, Leonard, Shields, & Abrams, 2001). Narrative practices have also been applied to psychotherapy (i.e., Addis, Tippett, & Prebble, 2013; White, 2007; White & Epston, 1990), family therapy (i.e., Serneels, 2013), mentoring (i.e., Heikkinen et al., 2012), and coaching (i.e., Stelter, 2009). In teacher education, narrative work has also been used in many ways, which are introduced below in more detail (i.e., Elbaz-Luwisch, 2005; Heikkinen, 1998; Huttunen, Heikkinen, & Syrja¨la¨, 2002).

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

157

In this chapter, we introduce some cases of narrative pedagogy to support the professional development of teachers, which have been created in Finland. First, we will introduce practices of narrative writing and sharing oral narratives in groups. These practices have been further developed within the Peer-Group Mentoring (PGM) model to support early career teachers in Finland, and within the European Paedeia Cafe´ model, which will be introduced later in this chapter. It is apparent that there is no single narrative pedagogy, but rather a number of narrative pedagogies based on different social, political, psychological, epistemological, and philosophical foundations. Thus, before sharing our empirical cases, we provide an overview of some of the theoretical bases of narrative pedagogies as we understand them, and introduce the Finnish context where these pedagogies have been developed and applied.

OUR PHILOSOPHICAL THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Whatever we might expect from a teacher, the most essential thing is that she or he is a personality; a human being. (Salomaa, 1946)

The aforementioned phrase, introduced about 70 years ago by one of our most recognized Finnish philosophers of education J. E. Salomaa, is still acknowledged among many local teacher educators. These words of wisdom tell us that being and becoming a teacher is about something more fundamental than just learning to do the everyday job as a teacher. It is not simply about mastering methods of instruction or knowing about the subject matter to be taught. From this historical point of view, being a teacher has something to do with personal values. Being and becoming a teacher is about positioning yourself in the world and among other people. It is about answering some of the most fundamental and constitutive questions, such as Who am I as a person and as an educator? What is important to me in my life? How did I become myself? In other words, being and becoming a teacher is identity work accessed through narrative pedagogies. The answer to the question Who am I? however, is not stable but something constantly changing and developing. The answer might be somewhat different today than it was yesterday, and tomorrow my interpretation of myself might still be different. It is hard to try to formulate the answer in the form of a proposition with reference to a constant reality; the world is constantly changing and so too are the people in it. Thus, understanding

158

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

yourself as a person and as a professional is something constantly evolving. This is why/how narrative enters the picture. Narrative is a fundamental means through which people experience their lives as something continually changing. Through narrative you talk about yourself as someone who has developed over time. The reflexive project of knowing and achieving an identity is to sustain a coherent, yet continuously revised, narrative about ourselves and the world in which we live (Heikkinen, 2002, p. 15). In other words, narrative is temporal in nature, as is human life. In human life, we have a beginning, a middle, and an end, as in any narrative rendering of human experience (Aristotle, 1996). The goal of narrative identity work is to provide teachers and student teachers with an opportunity to reconstruct the meaning of their life narratives in ways that provide a deeper sense of understanding the impact their life experiences have on their everyday work as teachers and prospective teachers. Through sharing narratives, either orally or in written forms, students and teachers share and interpret their experiences to achieve new understandings. You inevitably construct your own answer to the question Who am I? in relation to other human beings, especially among so-called “significant others” (Woelfel & Haller, 1971). The philosophical underpinnings of narrative pedagogy are based on social constructionism. Narrativity is about construction of knowledge with others; it is a social meaning making process. The persons involved in the group co-create, negotiate, and transform knowledge through sharing their collective interpretations (Ironside, 2003; Kawashima, 2005). It is natural to therefore use groups as platforms for identity work in teacher education. Sharing narratives with others promotes collaborative and interactive practices and dialogue. In teacher education, narrative knowing can be seen as a fundamental process through which teachers are constantly working with their identities through telling and re-telling their personal practical knowledge, sharing their experiences with one another, and learning to work with students in new ways. Narrative pedagogies also have something to do with the notion of “participant knowledge,” in contrast to “spectator knowledge,” which has been the dominant view on epistemology in the modern scientific world and has evolved into a “paradigmatic notion of knowledge” (Bruner, 1986; Saugstad, 2005) that dominates most teacher education programs. Spectator knowledge comes from the Aristotelian notion of “episteme,” which established the foundations of “theoretical knowledge” in the Western philosophy and science. Theoretical knowledge is achieved

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

159

through observing the world from the outside, from the “perspective of gods.” This kind of knowledge tends to be something eternal, general, and universally applicable. Achieving this kind of knowledge is an end itself, without any practical aims of purposes. Participant knowledge, in contrast, is something achieved within practice and for practice (Swap et al., 2001); it is being continuously construed and re-construed within the lived life. Participant knowledge is therefore never certain or eternal but something constantly changing and evolving. The purpose of this knowledge is not to find a god-like perspective but to improve one’s ability to produce material things (techne) or to live a good and virtuous human life (phronesis) (Hadot, 2005; Kemmis, Heikkinen, Aspfors, Fransson, & Edwards-Groves, 2014; Polkinghorne, 1995; Saugstad, 2005). Participant knowledge is something typically narrative in nature. It has much to do with emotional and expressive ways of understanding the world around us. Bruner (1986), however, argued that narrative knowing is not merely emotive expression but a legitimate form of reasoned knowing. Both paradigmatic and narrative ways of knowing are useful and valuable, but they are different ways of knowing and irreducible to one another (Bruner, 1986). Narrative knowing is not so much about making truthful claims about the facts in the world, but understanding human action and social practices (Polkinghorne, 1995, pp. 9 11). In education, teachers’ pedagogical knowledge is achieved through narrative way of knowing; that is, through narrative cognition. This is why narrative pedagogies are a natural approach for high quality teacher education practices. Our interest has been to develop such narrative pedagogies that respect participant knowledge and that consider teaching as a holistic phenomenon, and as an emotional, moral, and embodied activity. Johnson (1989) was one of the first scholars to write about the importance of paying more attention to meaningfulness of body in education. Later on, some research focused on teaching as an embodied activity and as part of teachers’ identities (Estola & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2003; Hargreaves, 2002; Mitchell & Weber, 1999; Uitto & Syrja¨la¨, 2008). Still, it seems that research is much more interested in spectator knowledge distanced from the knowing person and participant knowledge. Part of the holistic understanding of teachers’ work is to take into account the place and culture where teachers work (Jones & Woglom, 2013). That is why we have developed narrative pedagogies that pay attention to small incidents and encounters in daily lives, which all are recognized as being important to teacher identities and participant knowledge (Juzwik & Ives, 2010; Uitto & Syrja¨la¨, 2008; Zembylas, 2003).

160

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

TEACHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND Finnish teacher education is university based; hence, research and teaching are intertwined. The connection between theory and practice was an important issue when the whole Finnish teacher education system was developed. When describing this starting point, different researchers use different terms, such as “research-based teacher education” (Kansanen, 1999), “evidence-based teacher education” (Niemi, 2000), “action research,” or “teacher as a researcher” (Heikkinen, 2002). What is common to all these definitions is that they emphasize research and knowledge as the basis for all teacher education. Approaches and methods typical of research should be present in all teacher education. This kind of teacher education helps the teacher to make decisions of his/her own, based on rational argumentation, and scaffolds the building a strong professional autonomy (Va¨lija¨rvi & Heikkinen, 2012). Although important, the traditional way of emphasizing “rational argumentation” and spectator knowledge can limit opportunities for participant knowledge. That is why narrative pedagogies are useful. The high professional autonomy and research-based orientation to one’s work have made it possible to develop narrative practices in Finnish teacher education through a continuous action research process. When evaluating the narrative practices presented in this chapter, one has to realize that they were developed in the Finnish context during a period when Finland was considered to be one of the best countries in the world to live. Additionally, Finnish parents value education highly and the top-level academic success of Finnish schools is internationally acknowledged (Sahlberg, 2011). As a result, we may see a “positive circle of recognition” taking place in the preparation and recruitment of teaching professionals. Finnish teachers have been recognized as excellent educators in international comparison tests such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and, as a result, the status of the profession has become even higher in Finland. This means that many young people are starting to consider becoming teachers, and thus the number of applicants remains high. This enables universities to select the best students for preservice teacher education programs based on their prior academic achievement. Thus, the people chosen for teacher education have excellent academic skills and are highly motivated to study. As a result, Finland produces good teachers who in turn achieve good results, and the cycle continues. Teachers are acknowledged as highly esteemed professionals, and they work in schools quite autonomously. This creates a circle of positive recognition of teachers,

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

161

which seems to differ from other nations globally (Heikkinen, Kiviniemi, & Tynja¨la¨, 2011; Honneth, 1995; Va¨lija¨rvi & Heikkinen, 2012). Narrative pedagogies in Finnish teacher education offer an excellent environment to link theoretical, spectator knowledge to participant knowledge. For instance, many preservice teachers pursue their Masters degrees using action research or narrative methods. Both are methodological approaches that link different ways of knowing in a natural way. As important as carrying out research that includes narrative understanding is offering places where students can construct their identities in group settings and position themselves in the world and among other people, as we pointed out earlier in this chapter.

EXAMPLES OF NARRATIVE PEDAGOGIES IN TEACHER EDUCATION Autobiographical Writing Autobiographical writing is an effective means to promote skills of critical reflection and reflexivity. The flow can be either way: a narrative may stimulate reflective thought and reflective thinking may stimulate narrative production (Bold, 2012, p. 72). Narrative writing has been applied in Finland, for example, in Hannu Heikkinen’s work as a teacher educator and researcher at the University of Jyva¨skyla¨. This action research project was aimed at developing narrative methods for teacher education and has been reported in a number of publications (i.e., Heikkinen, 1998, 2002; Heikkinen, Andem, & Vainio, 2002; Heikkinen et al., 2000). The study started by applying written autobiographical narratives within a traditional one-on-one mentoring relationship. In the early experiments, the student teachers were asked to write a narrative about their life, guided by some key questions. These reflective writings were afterwards commented on and discussed with their supervisor teacher educators. Gradually, the method turned from written narratives into sharing more oral and visual forms of narratives, and finally a kind of “autobiographical portfolio” where various narrative assignments were collected in the same folder (see Fig. 1). Also, the social element of sharing various narrative accounts within a peer group became increasingly an essential part of the process. At the University of Oulu, autobiographical work has been used in many ways in preservice teacher education. A collaboration with one of the

162

Fig. 1.

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

Mind Map of the Different Views of Autobiographical Narratives in Teacher Education (Heikkinen, 2002, p. 137).

founders of the narrative inquiry research method, Freema Elbaz-Luwisch, inspired us. She stated that biographical writing has been the main agenda in many of the preservice and in-service courses she has taught in Israel (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2005, p. 81). Some students have linked autobiographical

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

163

writing to their Master’s thesis by reflecting their own professional development through the teacher stories they have analyzed. During one course, the students were asked to write about their memories of their own teachers. These narratives represented teachers in relation to their students and the work of a teacher manifested as embodied, caring, entwined with power, and as a moral activity (Uitto & Syrja¨la¨, 2008). During another course, students were asked to write short autobiographical episodes about certain themes such as school memories, experiences about teacher education, and about their future plans as teachers. Autobiographical writings confirmed that students were aware of the moral roots of teachers’ work and also of the joys and challenges. Students considered hope to be an essential part of teachers’ work a perspective they did not want to give up, despite hearing various narratives speaking to the less-positive aspects of teacher work (Estola, 2003). The result is that the aforementioned research is used in the curriculum development work of teacher education at the University of Oulu. At the university, courses examining the knowledge of a teacher, relational nature of teachers’ work, and change are studied. Autobiographical and actionbased work is part of these courses.

Sharing Narratives in Peer Groups In addition to the individual work on teacher identities, we became convinced that teacher education needs to pay attention to social constructivist approaches, where knowledge is produced in social relationships. The first project in which ideas of narrative pedagogies were used in a peer group was a Finnish project in which 11 female teachers from early childhood education to vocational level met 16 times during the one-and-a-half-year period from 2004 to 2005. The group was called INTO, or Inspirational Narratives of Teaching as an Opportunity. The three-hour meetings featured four researchers present in the meetings, two of whom were mainly responsible for organizing the activities. The aim was to develop a method of narrative pedagogy founded on everyday discussion and a theoretical understanding of the significance of stories in making sense of life and experiences (Uitto & Estola, 2009). The “KerToi method” was developed during the project and has subsequently been applied in many groups both in in-service and in preservice teacher education programs, and also in peer-group mentoring, as will be described in this section. A new initiative started in the spring 2014 when a peer-group mentoring group was organized for beginning teacher educators at the University of

164

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

Oulu. The experiment pointed out that peer-group mentoring is also a useful tool in supporting beginning teacher educators. What is the KerToi method? In addition to verbal narrating, different ways of narrating are encouraged, especially Jacob Levy Moreno’s sociometric methods and psychodrama. Blatner (1997, p. 13) writes about action methods: “They are useful for those who have problems to handle issues intellectually or verbally but also for those who often over-intellectualize their experiences.” By choosing diverse methods, we wanted to recognize the multiple ways of knowing and to respect the embodiment of teachers’ work. The meetings are organized according to the same narrative logic. The group starts with a short round in which everyone can talk about their current thoughts and feelings. Usually, each meeting has a certain theme, for instance “my school memories,” “me and changes,” “starting a new term,” or “cooperation with parents.” The themes can vary, since the groups decide them. The themes are discussed verbally and are also often dramatized. The core idea of discussions is to share personal experiences in the form of small stories (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008). After sharing personal stories, they are reflected on at a more theoretical level in order to learn new ideas from the experiences and discussions. At the end of every meeting is a “closing circle,” in which everyone has the opportunity to talk about their thoughts and feelings arising from the session. The KerToi method has many benefits. One of the most common comments was that KerToi offers a time and place just to be, without any demands and in a trustful atmosphere. One participant talked about her experiences: “I also like that we’re here and we can see the faces of others. I think that it’s like this wonderfully warm atmosphere, that you can just throw yourself into this (points at the center of the group) and that atmosphere supports you.” Another preservice teacher observed: This is the place where you can talk about issues that you have never told anybody else. The group also offers a place to get feedback that shows other teachers have similar experiences. This is especially important when frustrating or vulnerable incidents are talked about: What you said: I have had the same experiences. (Estola, Kaunisto, Keski-Filppula, Syrja¨la¨, & Uitto, 2007)

The group offers a place for self-reflection; group discussions form a social context in which teachers can do their identity work and get some new insights into it (Kaunisto, Estola, & Leiman, 2013). The group supports and encourages teachers in their daily work by offering a place to share experiences. Group discussions can also do harm and provoke

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

165

feelings of vulnerability. This was the case when one teacher candidate talked about a traumatic situation with a student’s parents, mentioning that it was something she had not talked about to anybody though it had bothered her for weeks. Some group members started to ask the particular person questions, which the individual felt were accusing (Kaunisto, Uitto, Estola, & Syrja¨la¨, 2009). Facilitators’ sensitivity is thus crucial in guiding the group, in how and when to be supportive or critical.

Peer-Group Mentoring The aforementioned narrative methods, developed within the pilot projects that took place at the University of Oulu and the University of Jyva¨skyla¨, were further elaborated on in the context of mentoring of newly qualified teachers during their early career. Narrative methodologies form one of the most important methodological principles of the PGM model, which was developed from 2006 to 2010 in collaboration with teachers, schools, municipalities, teacher educators, and researchers of the Finnish Institute for Educational Research. In this model, new teachers meet regularly in peer groups facilitated by an experienced mentor who has been on a mentor education course organized by the regional teacher education institutions. The PGM model is being disseminated throughout Finland by the Finnish Network for Teacher Induction, “Osaava Verme,” which includes all the teacher education institutions in Finland. The practice is based on the socio-constructivist view of learning where participant knowledge is shared and further construed among the members of the peer mentoring group (Heikkinen et al., 2012). A narrative approach is applied in the PGM model in written, oral, and visual forms. The autobiographical portfolio, mentioned earlier, has been applied as a broad platform for developing different forms of narrative accounts and sharing them in peer mentoring groups, as well as in the education of mentors. Another narrative method applied in the education of peer-group mentors is to write fictional stories about PGM. In the mentor education course at the University of Jyva¨skyla¨, the mentors completing their mentor education are asked to write two fictional stories about a mentoring group on the basis of framework stories. The first fictional story is written about a group in which everything works fine; the second is about one in which nothing works properly. The participants are first given a framework story, based on which they use their imagination either to develop the narrative further or to describe

166

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

what has happened before the situation in the story occurred (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998, pp. 111 112). Even though the narratives collected through the role-playing method are fictional, the narrators draw upon their own experiences. The strength of the method is that it provides interesting interpretations of social reality: fiction can sometimes crystallize the essence of a matter in a very succinct and illustrative fashion. The two fictional stories written by mentors are analyzed. Thus, this method is not only used to trigger professional reflection but also as research data. This is often the case in narrative methodology: it is not only about identity work or collecting research material, but both simultaneously. The analysis of the aforementioned narratives reveals a number of key elements for a successful practice in peer groups. The physical setting, such as refreshments and a cozy meeting room, is present in almost all of the stories. In addition to coffee, biscuits or pastries were often served along with stories. Finding a time that suits everybody is also important. The frequent descriptions of physical settings in the stories indicate the salience of a welcoming space for the sessions. The administrative factors encompass organizational usually municipal support. This not only refers to the mentor’s fee and the space offered for the meetings, but also to a more general interest within the municipality in personal well-being (Pennanen, Bristol, Wilkinson, & Heikkinen, 2014; Teerikorpi & Heikkinen, 2012). The social factors embrace the attributes of the group and the mentor, as well as intra-group interaction. The positive group attributes presented in the stories included the participants’ motivation, activeness, and common goals. Their activeness and attitude seem to have a strong impact on how the mentor feels when guiding the group, and on how the discussions proceed. The members’ common goal motivates them to commit to the group and to the goal they have set. The group’s activities are also promoted by the fact that the members share an interest and are involved in the activities of their own free will. These factors increase motivation and facilitate the creation of a dialogical connection, both of which are important factors for the functioning of a mentoring group (Pennanen et al., 2014; Teerikorpi & Heikkinen, 2012). The PGM model has also been the starting point for the development of a European model for teacher induction, which has been described in the European Paedeia network, funded by the Life Long Learning Programme of the European Commission. This initiative was launched under the title of “Paedeia Cafe´.” A unique feature of this variant of PGM is that not only new teachers participate in the groups but also preservice teachers. The Paedeia Cafe´s offer a forum for newly qualified teachers and students at

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

167

the final stages of teacher education to share ideas and learn together. The activities not only allow sharing experience and tacit knowledge but also create a platform for new knowledge creation. This model is being piloted in Finland, Sweden, and Turkey from 2013 to 2015 (Paedeia Cafe´, 2013). Preliminary results from Finland show that students and teachers perceive the Paedeia Cafe´ model to be very useful. Some preservice teachers even claim that they have learned in the Paedeia Cafe´ more about teachers’ work than during their formal preservice teacher education program. In the final narrative assignment, which comprises the overall experiences of the Paedeia Cafe´, one of the prospective teachers crystallizes her experiences in the following way: The meetings were empowering and you were always in a good mood after the meetings. (…) When one of the teachers had some work-related issue in mind, (s)he was able to share it with the others in the group and together we tried to come up with ways to solve that situation. This group has helped me to grow from student towards a working teacher. I have also gained a peace of mind in solving and understanding issues which were bothering me. Now I’m not afraid of the challenges of work or managing workrelated stress, because from this group I’ve learned ways to solve issues and I know that I’m not alone with my thoughts. I’ve also learned to be merciful to myself and I know how important it is to ask for help, when I need it. (…) In a nutshell, I can say that I’ve learned more from the Paedeia Cafe´ than I’ve ever learnt from any exam or study assignment.

Rather similar experiences were expressed in the other preservice teachers’ narratives. According to many of the narrative accounts, the major benefit of the group was that it offered the student teachers and early career teachers a communicative space where the previously learned knowledge from preservice teacher education was integrated with participant knowledge developed in the teacher’s work and brought to the forefront for discussion through narrative and narrative teacher education pedagogies. However, we must still wait for the final report of the international comparative study, which will be published in 2015 when all the empirical results are fully analyzed.

DISCUSSION Narrative is not the central orientation in teacher education in Finland or elsewhere (Doyle & Carter, 2003). Instead, narrative is visible between the lines, reflected in the teacher education curricula of Finnish universities as both a pedagogical approach and a course content. Additionally, narrative

168

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

is present in Finnish teacher education research. For example, the annual meeting of educational researchers has hosted a theme group on narrative since 2005, in which participants are mostly teacher educators and teachers conducting research on pedagogies and classroom practices. Narrative research has increased in the last decade, especially in the work of teacher researchers and teacher educators, whose work requires them to try different pedagogical approaches. The solid research-based orientation of Finnish teacher education has in itself advanced the use of narrative as both pedagogy and course content in different universities. On the other hand, research-based education also means committing to rational spectator knowledge and emphasizing methodological studies and disciplinespecific studies. Narrative pedagogies might be more distinct if the teacher education curriculum was based more on holistic thinking and participant knowledge. This has already been achieved in Finland in the in-service training of teachers, where narrative approaches have been accepted as a practice within the national program for supporting new teachers (“Osaava Verme”) and arranging mentoring groups for beginner teachers. Obviously, teachers with longer work histories have more narratives to share, and therefore the aims and means for constructing a narrative of professional identity should be adapted for teacher education. In basic teacher education, narrative practices are most suitable toward the end of preservice teachers’ studies. They can also form part of methodological studies, when the prospective teachers can focus on their own life stories and different dimensions through approaches such as self-study and autoethnography. The networking of Finnish teacher educators has been pivotal for the development of narrative pedagogy in in-service training, thus making the PGM model available throughout the country. The basis of networking has been the common interest and action research-based development work. The narrative pedagogy we have developed is based on a committed peer-group, which has comprised the social context of the work. These groups can vary in their composition, but essentially they require a proper place, time, an educated instructor, and support from the local organization the school principal and the administration. However, the atmosphere of the group is essential for narrative pedagogy: the ability of the group to reflect, how narratives are told and received, and what possible future stories can be constructed in the assembled group. The group enables the preservice/in-service teachers to negotiate challenges, to survive work-related issues, and to recognize their

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

169

personal limitations. Ideally, these groups can help them in reflecting and finding alternative stories of being/becoming teachers (Kaunisto et al., 2013). It is essential that the narrating in the peer groups and mentoring are not limited to the practical level and to easily available “frozen” stories (Conle, 1999), but instead brought to the theoretical level so that the group can serve as an opportunity to achieve new perspectives and alternative stories. This can incorporate participant and spectator knowledge, which can help in combining theory and practice in teacher education. In the model we have developed, the narrative approach to peer-group mentoring can be seen as a promising pedagogy, which can promote a more humane teacher education experience and reinforce the professional and personal growth of future teachers.

REFERENCES Addis, D. R., Tippett, L. J., & Prebble, S. C. (2013). Autobiographical memory and sense of self. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 815 840. Aristotle. (1996). Poetics. (M. Heath, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377 396. Blatner, A. (1997). Toiminnalliset menetelma¨t terapiassa ja koulutuksessa. Psykodraaman ja sosiodraaman tekniikat ka¨yta¨nto¨o¨n sovellettuna. [Acting-In. Practical Applications of Psychodramatic Methods]. Suomen Morenoinstituutin julkaisusarja nro2. Naantali: Resurssi. Bold, C. (2012). Using narrative in research. London, UK: SAGE. Brown, S. T., Kirkpatrick, M. K., Mangum, D., & Avery, J. (2008). A review of narrative pedagogy strategies to transform traditional nursing education. The Journal of Nursing Education, 47(6), 283 286. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Conle, C. (1999). Why narrative? Which narrative? Struggling with time and place in life and research. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(1), 7 32. Dachner, A. D., Saxton, B. M., Noe, R. A., & Keeton, K. E. (2013). To infinity and beyond: Using a narrative approach to identify training needs for unknown and dynamic situations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(2), 239 267. Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (2003). Narrative and learning to teach: Implications for teacher education curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 129 137. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2005). Teachers’ voices: Storytelling and possibility. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Eskola, J., & Suoranta, J. (1998). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Tampere: Vastapaino. Estola, E. (2003). Hope as work Student teachers constructing their narrative identities. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 181 203. Estola, E., & Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2003). Teaching bodies at work. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 697 719.

170

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

Estola, E., Kaunisto, S-L., Keski-Filppula, U., Syrja¨la¨, L., & Uitto, M. (2007). Lupa puhua. Kertomisen voima arjessa ja tyo¨ssa¨. [A permission to talk. The power of narrating at daily work, in Finnish.] Jyva¨skyla¨: PS-Kustannus. Fyn, A. F. (2013). Peer group mentoring relationships and the role of narrative. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(4), 330 334. Hadot, P. (2005). Philosophy as a way of life. Oxford: Blackwell. Hargreaves, A. (2002). Teaching in a box. Emotional geographies of teaching. In C. Sugrue, & C. Day (Eds.), Developing teachers and teaching practice. International research perspectives (pp. 3 25). London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Heikkinen, H. (1998). Becoming yourself through narrative. Autobiographical approach in teacher education. In R. Erkkila¨, L. Syrja¨la¨, & A. Willman (Eds.), Promoting teachers’ personal and professional growth (pp. 111 131). Oulu: University of Oulu, Acta Universitas Ouluensis E 32. Heikkinen, H. (2002). Telling stories in teacher education: A narrative-biographical view on portfolio work. In R. Huttunen, H. Heikkinen, & L. Syrja¨la¨ (Eds.), Narrative research. Voices of teachers and philosophers (pp. 123 142). Jyva¨skyla¨: SoPhi. Heikkinen, H., Andem, C., & Vainio, P. (2002). Looking at yourself in a broken mirror: A story of two stories by three story-tellers. In R. Huttunen, H. Heikkinen, & L. Syrja¨la¨ (Eds.), Narrative research. Voices of teachers and philosophers (pp. 143 174). Jyva¨skyla¨: SoPhi. Heikkinen, H., Carlqvist, L., Hinkkanen, H. M., Munter, A., Pyrho¨nen, A., & Sa¨de, A. L. (2000). Looking at myself from the outside. Promoting reflection through autobiographical work in teacher education. In Learning and instruction in multiple contexts and settings II. Proceedings of the Third Joensuu Symposium on Learning and Instruction. University of Joensuu. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan selosteita 79, 77 89. Heikkinen, H., Jokinen, H., & Tynja¨la¨, P. (2012). Teacher education and development as lifelong and lifewide learning. In H. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen, & P. Tynja¨la¨ (Eds.), Peergroup mentoring for teacher development (pp. 3 30). Milton Park: Routledge. Heikkinen, H., Kiviniemi, U., & Tynja¨la¨, P. (2011). Integrative pedagogy in practicum: Meeting the second order paradox of teacher education. In M. Mattsson, T. V. Eilertsen, & D. Rorrison (Eds.), A practicum turn in teacher education (pp. 91 112). Rotterdam: Sense. Honneth, A. (1995). Struggle for recognition. The moral grammar of social conflicts. London, UK: Polity Press. Huttunen, R., Heikkinen, H., & Syrja¨la¨, L. (2002). Narrative research. Voices of teachers and philosophers. Jyva¨skyla¨: SoPhi. Ironside, P. M.. (2003). Narrative pedagogy: New possibilities for nursing education. Journal of the Japanese Academy of Nursing Education, 13(2), 53 68. Ironside, P. M. (2006). Using narrative pedagogy: Learning and practicing interpretive thinking. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(4), 478 486. Johnson, M. (1989). Embodied knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(4), 361 377. Jones, S., & Woglom, J. F. (2013). Teaching bodies in place. Teachers College Record, 115(8), 1 29. Juzwik, M. M., & Ives, D. (2010). Small stories as resources for performing teacher identity. Identity-in-interaction in an Urban language arts classroom. Narrative Inquiry, 20(1), 37 61.

Narrative Pedagogies for Peer Groups

171

Kansanen, P. (1999). Research-based teacher education. In J. Hyto¨nen, C. Razdeve¨ ek Pu1 ko, & G. Smith (Eds.), Teacher education for changing school (pp. 135 141). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education. Kaunisto, S-L., Estola, E., & Leiman, M. (2013). “I’ve let myself get tired” One teacher’s self-reflection process in a peer group. Reflective Practice, 14(3), 406 419. Kaunisto, S-L., Uitto, M., Estola, E., & Syrja¨la¨, L. (2009). Ohjattu vertaisryhma¨ haavoittuvuudesta kertomisen paikkana [Guided peer mentoring group as a place of narrating vulnerability, in Finnish]. Kasvatus, 5, 454 464. Kawashima, A.(2005). The implementation of narrative pedagogy into nursing education in Japan. Nursing Education Perspectives, 26, 168 171. Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H., Aspfors, J., Fransson, G., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2014). Mentoring as contested practice: Support, supervision and collaborative self-development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 154–164. Mitchell, C., & Weber, S. (1999). Reinventing ourselves as teachers: Beyond nostalgia. London, UK: Falmer Press. Niemi, H. (2000). Teacher education confronting a moving horizon. In K. Kumpulainen (Ed.), In search of powerful learning environments for teacher education in the 21st century (pp. 16 29). Oulu: University of Oulu, Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Series E. Scientiae rerum socialium 39. Paedeia Cafe´. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.osaavaverme.fi/osaaminen-jakoon/kumppanit/ paedeia-1/paedeia-cafe. Accessed on March 13, 2014. Pennanen, M., Bristol, L., Wilkinson, J., & Heikkinen, H. (2014). Whatever is good mentoring. A submitted manuscript. Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch, & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5 23). London, UK: Falmer. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Salomaa, J. E. (1946). Koulukasvatusoppi. Porvoo: WSOY. Saugstad, T. (2005). Aristotle’s contribution to scholastic and non-scholastic learning theories. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 347 366. Serneels, A. (2013). Picturing stories: Drawings in narrative family therapy with children. International Journal of Narrative Therapy & Community Work, 4, 21 29. Stelter, R. (2009). Coaching as a reflective space in a society of growing diversity Towards a narrative, postmodern paradigm. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2), 207 217. Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 95 114. Teerikorpi, S., & Heikkinen, H. (2012). Keys to success. In H. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen, & P. Tynja¨la¨ (Eds.), Peer-group mentoring for teacher development (pp.121 128). Milton Park: Routledge. Uitto, M., & Estola, E. (2009). Gender and emotions in relationships: A group of teachers recalling their own teachers. Gender & Education, 21(5), 517 530. Uitto, M., & Syrja¨la¨, L. (2008). Body, caring and power in teacher pupil relationships: Encounters in former pupils’ memories. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 355 371.

172

EILA ESTOLA ET AL.

Va¨lija¨rvi, J., & Heikkinen, H. (2012). Peer-group mentoring and the culture of education in Finland. In H. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen, & P. Tynja¨la¨ (Eds.), Peer-group mentoring for teacher development (pp. 31 40). Milton Park: Routledge. White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Woelfel, J., & Haller, A. (1971). Significant others: The self-reflexive act and the attitude formation process. American Sociological Review, 36(1), 74 87. Zembylas, M. (2003). Caring for teacher emotion: Reflections on teacher self-development. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22(2), 103 125.

DISPERSED NARRATIVES AND POWERFUL TEACHER EDUCATION PEDAGOGY Amanda McGraw ABSTRACT Careful attention to experience is often the starting point for narrative inquiries into teaching and learning. This chapter uses autobiographical reflection on pedagogical experiences, young peoples’ drawings, and examples of narrative research to demonstrate the value of sharing and connecting personal stories. In the context of evidence-based reforms in education and a focus on accountability and teaching standards, Australian governments, like others, express concern about the “quality” of teacher education and are looking to models of school-based “training.” While apprenticeship models of teacher education are considered inadequate, stronger partnerships between schools and universities are desirable. I argue that rather than continuing to be at the periphery, narrative research and pedagogies can exist as a central thread in teacher education programs, which have stronger connections to schools, teachers, and young people because they reveal the complexity of teaching and learning processes, enable deeper levels of understanding, and foster a critical reflective stance. I use examples from practice to show how

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 173 193 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022012

173

174

AMANDA MCGRAW

narrative pedagogies contextualize, problematize, and clarify personal values and experience, theory, policy, and issues of practice. Nowhere is this more powerful than in situations where dispersed narratives, told orally, in writing and through visual representations sit alongside of one another and collide. Dispersed narratives challenge the view that narratives are contained and individualized. Rather than being discrete, they exist as intertextual connections or networks of meaning that can be created by groups of people not necessarily confined by space and time. This chapter aims to open a space for the continued thinking about how dispersed narratives can be used in teacher education to deepen professional learning. Keywords: Narrative pedagogy; storytelling; dispersed narratives; school-based teacher education; autobiographical reflection

THE BOY AND HIS DRAWING

Student A’s Drawing of Deep Learning. He lies in bed enveloped by the spongy silence of night; his coat, desk, guitar shadowy silhouettes fading. He lets go of the day, of school and the pressures to perform. In the pool he dives below the surface and holds his breath. One, two … five, six … ten, eleven … slipping. It’s a competition he wants to win but in that space, at that time, he is beyond caring; beyond parents and teachers and other kids. Beyond the competition. In the aqua liquid that bubbles and shifts silently over his limbs, he is completely in the moment.

Recently, I attended a writing workshop conducted by Arnold Zable, a writer and educator, who is interested in the power of story to tap into memory and raise self-awareness. We were a group of teacher educators keen to examine narrative understanding and the importance of being

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

175

present to detail, of listening deeply to other peoples’ stories, and of thinking consciously about the shaping of texts. When Zable talked about the importance of discovering structure rather than being restricted and led by it, I began to formulate ideas for this piece of writing. I also remembered the 15-year-old boy and his drawing and I wrote the short narrative above. As a teacher educator keen to develop spaces where the careful attention to experience is the starting point for inquiry, narrative is a powerful way of both representing and understanding experience (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Narrative provides us with “a profound reflective and interpretive framework for holding together lived experience, tensions, shifts and continuity” (Goodson & Gill, 2011, p. 140). Trusting the stories that need to be told (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2014) as well as understanding that there are multiple layers of truth for both the storyteller and their audience are crucial. The boy’s short personal narrative accompanied by a drawing contains evocative images, which linger in the reader’s mind, perhaps because they too have experienced solitary, difficult thinking moments in the darkness. Perhaps it’s the youthfulness of the boy and the sense of vulnerability and honesty that are moving. Sometimes it is in the connections between dispersed narratives that we find the most powerful learning. Let me tell you his story and how it connects with my own as an Australian teacher educator. In order to extend my understandings of the nature of learning in school contexts, I have, over many years, asked young people, experienced teachers, and preservice teachers to draw learning. Sometimes I ask them to draw deep learning. Sometimes I ask them to draw school. With permission I included some of those drawings in my doctoral research. Each year in my first class with preservice Master of Teaching students, I ask them to draw learning and we examine some of the students’ drawings and look for significant connections, experiences, and provocative ideas related to schooling. The significance of the drawings is that they resonate (Greene, 1995); they evoke memories, emotions, deep and shared conceptual thoughts, and authentic concerns (Elbaz, 1990). In the space they make for engagement, interpretation, and critique, new possibilities are imagined. In provoking others to understand the paradoxical, often hidden worlds that exist in schools, we can begin to transform them (Greene, 1995). The narrative images send a profound message to beginning teachers: the stories and lived experiences of young people must be heard and central in the decisions we make as teachers. The boy did not know me but in responding to my request to draw deep learning, he captured those moments in the darkness when his mind was

176

AMANDA MCGRAW

free to question, delve, and make sense, and he raises the notion that this is not always easy or enjoyable. Two days later, the boy died in a tragic swimming accident. The students were preparing for the school’s swimming sport competition and there was a tradition in the school where boys would hold their breath underwater; in this informal race, the one who could swim furthest without taking a new breath would win. The boy was training himself to hold his breath in his backyard pool when he lost consciousness. Every now and then, this story returns to me, as it did in the writing workshop. At the time, it made me question the competitive and ritualistic nature of schooling and caused me to wonder about the power of both public and private practices that exist in institutions, which people feel pressured to follow; then, some days later, when I realized the connection between the boy and the drawing, I experienced overwhelming feelings of vulnerability, loss, and sadness. The figure that is both diving deeply into thoughts in the still of night and that is also, with the hindsight of what eventuates, a vulnerable figure in water, shows the power of narrative through its openness to interpretation, reinterpretation, and personal connection, to have impact. The humanity of these dispersed, interconnecting narratives struck me and stayed with me as a deeply felt and evocative reminder that our work as teacher educators is people-centered and cannot be reduced to what is measurable and clean.

A NARRATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT Prior to becoming a teacher educator, I was an English teacher in secondary schools and was actively involved in the English teachers’ subject association. Narrative has always been central to how I make sense of the world. Even when I became an Assistant Principal, responsible for cultural change in a school, I understood the power of telling stories and of asking teachers to write and talk about significant moments in their classrooms (McGraw, 2006). Now, as a teacher educator, I see narrative pedagogy and research as both comfortable and uncomfortable places from which to think about matters related to learning and teaching. Intuitively we know how to make stories. While we cling to narrative models of reality (Bruner, 2002) and find joy in sharing our stories with others, our “shadowy intuitions” (Bruner, 2002, p. 4) require scrutiny. Understandings of everyday experience can be shaped and trapped within narrative conventions. There is also a tension between the authority given to narrator (and researcher)

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

177

who experiences events personally, and the authority of the reader/listener who interprets the text through his/her own subjective lenses. Where is the place of authenticity in this complicated web of meaning-making? ElbazLuwisch (2014, p. 14) argues that in relation to pedagogy, events that have been experienced deeply and are conveyed to others in ways that enable identification and understanding are useful, and help to create ethical learning communities. Doecke (2013) suggests that storytelling enables us to be more fully responsive to what is happening around us: to the personal, social, cultural, and political aspects that influence our work. He argues that autobiographical reflection enables a socially critical stance and is particularly important in educational contexts where evidence-based reforms and standards redirect attention away from the focus on people and their interactions. Taking a stance within the world as opposed to gazing from a distance allows teachers to monitor the way values and beliefs shape what happens in classrooms. Storytelling is therefore a vital means of grappling with the complexities of classrooms from personal, social, and political perspectives, and for this reason has been used as a way to enhance teachers’ professional learning and to document and share teachers’ thinking, theories, and practice. Taking a stance from within the world and sharing personal/professional narratives in public spaces, however, evokes feelings of vulnerability more than most other methods of research as the following story highlights. Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy in Australia (STELLA: http://www.stella.org.au) began as a three-year project in Australia in 1999 with the goal of developing professional standards for teachers of English and Literacy (Doecke & Gill, 2000). In the context of the development of generic professional standards for teachers which aimed to map “teacher quality” on a grid (Gannon, 2012), relevant professional associations (the Australian Association for the Teaching of English and the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association), teachers from primary and secondary schools, teacher educators, educational researchers, and government education bodies in three Australian states worked collaboratively to design professional standards for English and Literacy teachers and to create a bank of teacher narratives, key words, and open-ended questions. The main reasons for including teacher narratives and questions for inquiry were to capture interconnections between standards, to foreground the contextualized nature of teachers’ work, and to provoke ongoing reflection and critical inquiry. As Gannon (2012) points out in her comparison between the generic national professional teaching standards that are now mandated across Australia through the Australian Institute for Teaching and School

178

AMANDA MCGRAW

Leadership (AITSL) and the STELLA project, the national standards lack any mention of teachers’ affective qualities like passion, curiosity, inspiration, and pleasure. Relational elements that are central in teaching are also rationalized and “flattened” out so that there is no sense of nuance and sensitivity (Gannon, 2012). In contrast, the narratives which accompany the STELLA standards are full of dynamic, affective pedagogical encounters, which illustrate that in good teaching there are rich interconnections between various elements mediated through relationships. STELLA was recently revitalized (as stella2.0) by a group of teacher educators in partnership with the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English (VATE) with the intention of exploring how narrative writing, dialogue, and collaboration in professional networks might enable English teachers to negotiate the difficult policy and professional environments in which they currently work. Parr and Doecke, two of the researchers involved in stella2.0 (http://www.stella2.org), argue that a growing number of professional development opportunities for teachers in Australia are aligned with meeting national and state-based standards (Doecke & Parr, 2011; Parr, 2010). stella2.0 is an opportunity to examine, some 15 years later, the impact of working in educational environments saturated by standards and to do this through the process of writing and sharing reflexive narratives. It is also an opportunity to advocate for the value of narrative and storytelling, which Parr, Bulfin, and Rutherford (2013) argue has been marginalized in teaching and learning in Australian classrooms due to the increased focus on standardized testing. stella2.0 provides teachers with an opportunity to learn through the reciprocal exchange of narratives. Exchanging narratives through dialogue is a pedagogic encounter, which enables people to craft and re-craft a personalized vision of life (Goodson & Gill, 2011). Professional conversations, which give narrative centrality, are also relational and not limited to the individual. They are at the same time, social, historical, and political and have the potential to create collective social action (Goodson & Gill, 2011, p. 148). It is through such encounters, where teachers are empowered to make sense of the complex connections and disconnections in personal and professional experience, that professional communities are more authentically developed and maintained. In the first year of stella2.0 (2013) and prompted by concepts raised in selected readings, interested teachers, teacher educators, preservice teachers, and retired teachers met face-to-face on three occasions to write about and discuss recent teaching experiences. In between these meetings, they shared and responded to one another’s narratives in an open online environment.

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

179

Always eager to write and to engage in opportunities to share narratives with other teachers, I volunteered to participate in the stella2.0 project. The timing of the first stella2.0 meeting coincided with the submission, in my university, of a newly designed Master of Teaching (Secondary) program to our national accreditation authority. As the Program Coordinator of this teacher education program, I had become intimately aware of the tensions surrounding the accreditation of tertiary education courses. At a national level in Australia, university teacher education courses must align with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers as well as standards in the Australian Qualifications Framework administered by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Overlayed on this are different state-based requirements as well as internal university expectations. The ACECQA (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority) outlines further requirements for early years’ programs. Working within the complicated maze of sometimes conflicting agencies who all seek authority is demanding and frustrating. The consequences can be that university courses are less responsive to local communities and less focused on the views, values, and experiences of teacher educators and their partnership schools, and that in the process of demonstrating compliance, learning experiences and assessment tasks become more explicitly focused on building narrow bodies of prescribed knowledge. Following is an edited version of the narrative I wrote in our first meeting of the stella2.0 project: I can’t begin to describe the layers of personal/professional meaning inherent in those pages prepared for AITSL (the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership) so that our new teacher education program could be accredited. We’d been working as a team of teacher educators and practising teachers for a year, designing a new Master of Teaching (Secondary) program. We intentionally decided not to start with government policy. We began with the question: what sort of teachers do we want our graduates to be? and from there we debated, shared values, articulated core beliefs, dredged back through experience and imagined possible futures. On the walls of the Meeting Room were our ideas and hopes laid bare; seemingly simple statements on coloured Post-Its that we clustered together and rearranged as our thinking shifted. Through a series of difficult and stimulating conversations, we eventually produced a set of core principles that would underpin curriculum and program design. We are researching the process of designing curriculum in the context of teacher education and the tapes of those initial conversations go on for hours. I wondered how our messy, rich understandings and experience would transfer to the AITSL standards and the clean, white boxes made for framing bodies of evidence. In developing a new program we had seized an opportunity to transform our practice; to think hard about the knowledge and skills required for teaching in contemporary schools; to not be constrained or shaped by shifting government policies, and to

180

AMANDA MCGRAW

investigate territory beyond standards. Our new program has a focus on ethics and inquiry. Our students will grapple with fundamental questions related to the purposes of education, to the nature of thinking and learning and to issues impacting on young people in contemporary communities. Our students will reflect through the construction and reconstruction of narratives and will learn how to listen attentively to the stories of others. Our students will work in professional learning communities with mentors so that there is a focus on making meaningful connections across the program (we want to dispense with the practice of fragmenting bodies of knowledge into compartments that make transfer of knowledge and skills difficult). Research methodologies and ways of thinking underlie all aspects of the program; school partnerships and an emphasis on creating alternative spaces for professional learning feature in every course; weekly workshops based in schools rather than in distant university spaces, will focus on pedagogies and link to classroom intensives where learning and teaching is made visible. There will be an explicit focus on hearing the voices of young people, particularly those from rural and disadvantaged backgrounds. When I sat down with our course material ready to show evidence of our compliance to AITSL, I saw that the features of our program that we were most proud of didn’t fit. There were no spaces to tell these stories. No one was requiring transformation. I am reminded that the standards are base-line. And dangerously limiting. During the accreditation phase the word “demonstrate” became a sticking point; the expectation that all preservice teachers (PSTs) show required knowledge and that this is verified through evidence. The only acceptable way that this can be done is through summative assessment. Formative assessment, in this context, does not have the same level of reliability. We have always tried to avoid assessment tasks which ask PSTs to spit back predetermined bodies of knowledge. When negotiation with students is also central, it is difficult to show evidence that all students have met certain standards. I’ll use one of our tasks as an example; a learning experience we have designed with a partner school that has a particular focus on wellbeing. The PSTs run focus group interviews with young people from a school setting, which is intended to reveal the sorts of things that matter to kids; the social, emotional and personal concerns they have. The PSTs use the students’ narratives to identify patterns and questions, they conduct research around those questions and then organize a full day conference where the PSTs run workshops for the students. We call it a “festival” with a focus on what matters to young people. In the design and running of workshops the PSTs also demonstrate what they know about learning and teaching. There are multiple opportunities for thinking and action in a task like this. And sitting at the core is building the capacity to listen to young people. Tasks like this don’t align easily with linear, constraining standards. Tasks like this open up possibilities in flexible and responsive ways and they build capacities important to teaching: empathy, inter-dependence, listening, creativity, accountability, organisation, leadership to name a few. Importantly, tasks like these show how important it is to celebrate learning in ways that are inclusive and foster active participation. Because tasks like these can’t be used to show evidence that particular bodies of knowledge are developed in all students, they are under threat. In an attempt to gain accreditation easily, I wonder whether an indirect outcome of a process which rigidly requires compliance to standards, will be a return to single essay questions. I am troubled by the thought that this process of compliance will make transformation impossible.

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

181

Sharing my narrative at the stella2.0 workshop with a group of teachers around a table was a liberating thing to do; including my narrative on the web-based platform required more considered thought. My apprehension to tell my story about accreditation and my discomfort with standardsbased reforms stemmed partly from being identifiable. As time went on, we found that others too were hesitant to place their stories online and to respond in extended ways to the stories of others. The site was clearly attracting a lot of attention with hundreds of silent people outside of the group watching progress and reading the narratives. Who were these people? Might our schools, our courses, we as individuals be judged unfairly by authorities whose power in times of compliance and accreditation, is beyond anything we have previously witnessed in education? While the uneasiness related to publicly sharing our stories seems melodramatic, the feelings of vulnerability are real and will no doubt be explored at length by others in research papers emerging from this experience.

NARRATIVE ENCOUNTERS IN TEACHER EDUCATION The terms story and narrative are often used interchangeably (as I have done here); however, Abbott (2008) makes an important distinction between the two: narrative, he suggests is the representation of events; story is an event or sequence of events which also involves entities or characters. We use narrative discourse to represent those events. Stories come to life through narration; they are constructed, mediated, and shared with others through voice, interpretation, description, tense and so on. Stories are central to identity development and to understanding our lives in communities. Bruner (2002, cited in Charon, 2002, p. 8) suggests that our main purpose is to tell each other stories. Similarly, Goodson, Biesta, Tedder, and Adair (2010) contend that storytelling is fundamental to who we are: “We exist and live our lives ‘in’ and ‘through’ stories” (Goodson et al., 2010, p. 1). Stories give our lives meaning, coherence, and structure. For narrative researchers, both the stories and the humans who construct stories are made visible, and this includes highlighting the thinking and actions of researchers (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). The social dimension is an important feature of narrative inquiry; a respect for and desire to understand ordinary everyday experiences within the cultural, social, and institutional contexts we inhabit are at the heart of narrative inquiry. This means

182

AMANDA MCGRAW

that uncertainty and tentativeness are present in explanations (Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007). Underpinning narrative research are difficult questions related to research processes and the shaping of texts that are in constant negotiation: How can we engage people in narrative processes so that they can meaningfully tell their life stories? How can we deeply understand the stories told by people about their everyday experiences? How can we respect and recognize the silences in stories? How can we construct research texts, which examine and honor the narrative process? While narrative inquiry challenges us to reconsider notions of truth and reality, it has “opened the way toward a more integrated, adequate, and humane vision for studying the human realm” (Freeman, 2007) and is therefore a significant method for examining learning and teaching and enhancing teachers’ professional learning. In shaping this research text, I use narrative as a structural device, as a means to foreground the humanity of our work, and as a tool to evoke an imaginative space where new possibilities can be considered. Storytelling has been linked to reflective processes, learning, and change. Clandinin and Connelly (1998) distinguish between teacher knowledge as an attribute and personal practical knowledge that is experienced in context as “narratively embodied in how a person stands in the world” (p. 157). For Clandinin and Connelly (1998), school reform occurs best when the living stories within the landscape of the institution are respected, understood, and identified so that new imaginings emanating from the “parade” are seen, examined, and even used to change direction. Similarly, ElbazLuwisch (2005) suggests that it is in the narrative dialogue among teachers, administrators, students, researchers, and policy-makers wherein reform can be envisioned. Goodson et al. (2010) also examine the complicated relationships between life, self, story, and learning. They suggest that the construction of the self through story “is a central ‘element’ in the learning process” (p. 2). In the Learning Lives project, Goodson et al. (2010, p. 3) are primarily interested in narrative learning, which occurs spontaneously “in” and “through” the stories people tell about themselves and their lives over time. They suggest that there is little research related to the significance of narratives for learning purposes; however, in teacher education, the value of autobiographical storytelling and writing has been understood for some time (Craig, 2011). Salvio (1990) called for teachers to study their own and others’ life narratives and wrote that by crafting, dramatizing, and responding to life narratives, the teacher “initiates a process of reflection and re-construction that places her on the threshold of development” (p. 288). Beattie (2007) argues that professional learning for teachers involves not only understanding one’s own story, but also “learning to hear

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

183

and understand the stories of others, and continuously rescripting the stories of self as teacher and of school, community, and society” (p. vii). The process of rescripting she suggests is about inventing the future and imagining other possibilities. Narrative as a research method is based on the stories people tell. It provides a rich framework from which we can examine the ways people experience the world and, in education, examine the complexities and subtleties related to learning and teaching (Webster & Mertova, 2007). Narrative inquiry, however, goes beyond the collection and analysis of stories; it also uses the process of writing as a method for inquiry. Engaging in the act of narrative writing is in itself a powerful way to discover meaning in our worlds. Richardson (2001) suggests that through narrative construction we “word the world” (Rose, 1992) into existence. For Richardson (2001) writing is a vital, organic act that enables meaning-making. She applauds writing that is personal and exploratory and which openly honors experience, personal voice, and the significance of language. Inspired by Richardson and using Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomic metaphor, Australian educational researcher Gough (2008) engages in narrative experiments, which playfully draw upon texts and representations of ideas to engage in educational inquiries. This imaginative and intertextual activity generates new questions, practices, and knowledge. The idea of meaningfully assembling textual fragments to create unity is at the heart of new ways of thinking about the place of narrative in teacher education. If, as Richardson (2001) suggests, writing stories makes you a better reader, then using narrative writing throughout teacher education programs enables preservice teachers to be effective readers of the cultures they work within. Reading experience in this way is an important capacity to read experience in this way is an important capacity, given the contemporary and often conflicting pressures placed upon teachers in their everyday work. In Australia, as elsewhere, the focus in relation to government policy and reform, professional learning, and student achievement is on enhancing and measuring “teacher quality” by identifying factors of influence based on research (Dinham, 2008; Hattie, 2009; Rowe, 2002). While teacher education in Australia has been “reviewed to the eyeballs” (Dyson, 2005), in recent times, we have seen a renewed, strategic focus by national and state governments on teacher education. In 2014, two new national reviews were established by the Education Minister Christopher Pyne, one into “teacher training” and one into the recently designed Australian curriculum. In the wake of the last major national review in 2005, Aspland (2006) suggested that Australia was on the brink of returning to an apprenticeship model of

184

AMANDA MCGRAW

teacher education. Since then we have seen the introduction of national teaching standards and national accreditation, and in 2014, in the state of Victoria, Teaching Academies for Professional Practice will be established with substantial funding as part of a reform agenda to “lift professional practice” (DEECD, 2014). School-based teacher education is likely to resurface as the next key focus for governments across the country. Aspland (2006), in her analysis of teacher education trends in Australia, suggests that a feature of contemporary approaches is on enabling new teachers to be aware of the social, cultural, and political contexts that they work within and to build the capacity to reflect on personal practice. She suggests that this is an “investigative orientation” (Aspland, 2006, p. 154) that stands in direct contrast to the apprenticeship model. The process of “unpacking” teaching and learning through investigative approaches is challenging and multi-dimensional because it involves examining the complex interplay between teacher, context, subject matter, and students (Schwab, 1969). Questioning, examining, and understanding personal pedagogies and how these are influenced by personal history, beliefs, and assumptions is central in many teacher education programs. Findings from the Australian fouryear project Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Education (SETE), which is tracking 2010 and 2011 graduates in Victoria and Queensland during their first three to four years of teaching, has found that graduate teachers feel that they are well prepared in relation to knowledge and skills to engage in reflective practice (Mayer et al., 2014; http://www.setearc.com.au/publication-reports/). The disposition to reflect deeply and critically on personal practice facilitates continual learning and renewal throughout a teacher’s career. Knowing yourself, Loughran (2006) suggests is vital and this means “searching for, revealing and, owning” up to the assumptions and takenfor-granted aspects of practice that quietly lurk in the depths of our subconscious; but quickly surface through the ways in which we teach” (p. 19). Reflection on practice also enables teachers to examine external forces that inhibit and constrain them. Smyth’s (1989) four forms of action to guide reflection on practice: describe (e.g., What do I do?), inform (e.g., What does this mean?), confront (e.g., How did I come to think or act like this?), and reconstruct (e.g., How might I do things differently?) continue to be a powerful set of questions to prompt critical reflection on personal experience within strange and puzzling circumstances (Smyth, 1993). In the face of increased political pressure to return teacher education to an apprenticeship model focused on shaping practice in predetermined ways through a more stringent alignment to narrow professional standards, a critical focus on cultural forces within the profession, a creative focus on

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

185

the challenges and dilemmas inherent in teaching, as well as a reflective focus on personal experience become more crucial than ever before. Narrative inquiries into professional experiences and emerging issues related to learning, teaching, and schooling are powerful processes for learning as well as documentation of contemporary concerns. For some time, there have been calls for more systematic structures, which embed narrative inquiry in Australian teacher education programs (Hooley, 2007); however, given a renewed focus on school-based teacher education, there is an opportunity for teacher educators to work in partnership with schools to foreground school sites as spaces for critical inquiry which value, highlight, and examine teachers’ and students’ stories as they emerge in real contexts on a daily basis. Rather than being at the periphery, narrative inquiry can exist as a central thread, which enables both new and experienced teachers to engage in externalized and internalized conversations, which foster meaningful personal and professional learning and contextualize, problematize, and clarify theory, policy, and issues of practice. Narrative inquiry in this sense has significant value in creating a collection of stories that are both dispersed and connected, and which together operate on personal, social, and institutional levels to reveal what we do in schools as well as how to improve. We need to move beyond “encounters” with narrative in teacher education to using it as a central vehicle for making meaning and transforming what we do.

JOINING THE DOTS BETWEEN DISPERSED NARRATIVES Narrative inquiry enables teachers/researchers to understand the sometimes paradoxical, often complex experiences of teaching and learning. But nowhere is this more powerful than in situations where dispersed narratives, told orally, in writing and through visual representations sit alongside of one another or collide. The changing conditions of my work as a teacher educator have enabled me to see the value in collecting and connecting dispersed narratives. First, let me explain how the conditions of my work are changing. More recently the context of my work has altered as I have become more committed to developing ongoing school/university partnerships. For some time, I have experimented with having single university teacher education classes in school settings. Now, all of my university classes are based in a cluster of schools and our focus is on building

186

AMANDA MCGRAW

knowledge communities that can generate important insights into teaching and learning over time through social processes and shared experiences. The schools in our cluster include a large, regional secondary school, a rural school, an applied learning alternative educational provider, and a primary school. On a daily basis, we are amidst storied fragments developed in context and emerging from multiple perspectives; the voices of preservice teachers, young people of all ages, early career teachers, experienced teachers, school leaders, parents, employers, and teacher educators bump up against one another, revealing the complexity of our work in education. When teachers share their stories of practice in rich knowledge communities, they become explicitly aware of their personal practical knowledge as well as the tensions that exist in professional contexts (Olson & Craig, 2001). Mostly I work with my Master of Teaching (Secondary) preservice teachers in a contemporary, open, flexible space in a year 9 learning center in a local secondary school. The walls are glass and movable and when we disperse to think and design in our professional learning communities, we are amongst 15 year old students and practising teachers who are also learning in these spaces. Sometimes we work in the old hall where gold leaf inscriptions on honor boards dating back to the turn of the last century gaze down upon us as we talk. We wonder about those who are absent, particularly the women who, at certain times in history, are simply not recorded. On other occasions, we work in small groups in portable classrooms cheaply and uniformly constructed in the seventies which, through simply being there, transport many of us back to vivid and sensual classroom memories. At other times, we are in a state-of-the-art applied learning center recently constructed to build vocational skills. Teachers and school leaders are in our classes as we are in theirs and together we engage in classroom intensives where we make learning and teaching processes visible for analysis. In knowledge communities where diverse people tell and retell their life stories in shared spaces that evoke and challenge memory, we can reach new layers of understanding (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2014). Another major change in my work as a teacher educator is occurring through the increasing use of technology. The conversational space has expanded exponentially. Communication with my students used to be confined to timetabled face-to-face classes and visits to my office; now through the use of email, text messaging, and social networking the stories we share are less contained and more free-ranging. A more egalitarian and expanded conversational space has led to changes in teacher/student roles and more opportunities for exploratory, substantive talk. Technology has also reshaped the ways I operate as a researcher. I have engaged in research with

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

187

teacher educators from the other side of the world who I have not met in person and yet we have managed, through new technologies, to develop successful communities of practice that are both relational and purposeful (Ying, McGraw, & Berry, 2013). While new technologies enhance efficiencies, they also enhance opportunities to construct, share, and examine different types of narratives. I began to reconsider the need for coherence and unity in narratives when I read (online) about Walker’s (2005) notion of distributed narrative. In a world reframed by technology, distributed narratives have no need for boundaries or containment; they exist as networks of connection and movement rather than as “objects.” As people and their lives change, the way they understand and create narrative changes too. Through technology (the web, email, social networking) and the development of new multi-modal texts, narratives are created and distributed differently and do not need to be experienced in a single session, or composed by a single person. Walker (2005) writes about the notion of distributed authorship and suggests that technology enables people to deliberatively construct and reconstruct narratives individually and collectively, sometimes purposefully, sometimes randomly, across time and place. In thinking about these ideas in the context of my own work as a narrative researcher and teacher educator, I came to see the power of making purposeful connections between dispersed narratives that are episodic, sometimes random, and created by diverse storytellers. I will now share two examples from practice to illustrate what I mean.

“DISPERSED ARE WE” (VIRGINIA WOOLF, 1941) Inspired by Woolf’s depiction of characters who struggle unsuccessfully to attain a solid sense of self and community, I will describe two narrative projects where the focus is on making meaning from dispersed narratives that are juxtaposed, interwoven, and contrasted. In these experiences, a more satisfying sense of knowing emanates from a communal display of separate narratives that come together and are understood through their random assembly and relationships. The first is a yearly project embedded in the teacher education program I coordinate, which involves preservice teachers working collaboratively with young people who have been deeply disengaged at school. The focus is on telling stories about schooling and devising ways to improve the school experience for students and teachers. The young people are involved in local alternative programs aimed at reconnecting

188

AMANDA MCGRAW

them back into educational experiences. They range in age from 13 to 19 years. We spend two consecutive days together and on the first day the focus is on storytelling in small groups. Initially there is a focus on relationship building which requires us to talk explicitly with the preservice teachers about the nature of listening, questioning, and dialogue. In the first couple of hours, preservice teachers and young people are free to roam and chat. They prepare morning tea and lunch together, play getting to you games, sit under trees, and go for walks so that they can converse freely. Gradually they begin to share significant experiences related to school. They mind map their stories on large sheets of paper and together look for interconnections and themes. Each group chooses one common experience or theme to work with and the groups then explore the experiences more deeply through questioning, narrative storytelling, and pinpointing significant ideas. They think creatively about how things might be different and what they would change about school to make it a more effective place for learning. The groups then use their cluster of stories and ideas for improvement to develop a representative narrative that can be shared through music, oral performance, technology, sculpture, role play, posters, and so on. The two days have a focus on attending closely to the experiences of young people and so the audience for the narrated presentations includes influential educators from the community: principals, leading teachers from local schools, regional education bureaucrats, and university leaders. The presentations involve the young people and preservice teachers working collaboratively and democratically the focus is on giving equal value to the stories from those who want to teach and those who feel alienated at school. The spaces where we work for these two consecutive days house a range of technologies, including a recording studio. They are open, welcoming spaces that allow the groups to wander, eat, and work in various ways together. The power of the final event is in the public telling of significant personal stories (I will never forget the teenage boy who spoke with his back to the audience about the lack of dignity he felt at school due to the way teachers and students dealt with his dyslexia) and in the connections over time between separate narratives which offer deep, challenging, complex pictures of the social, ethical, and political dimensions of schooling. As in other components of our program, we finally lead preservice students to an experience of reflexive praxis, which has them considering carefully, through dialogue and writing, what they have experienced. This is where they clarify understandings of the complexity of individual learning, of the role narrative plays in constructing meaning, and of how crucial it is to hear and listen deeply to the diverse voices and experiences of young people.

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

189

In another project, I work with preservice and early career teachers to examine the possibilities of writing within Pratt’s (1991) contact zone (McGraw et al., 2011). For Pratt (1991), contact zones are “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power.” Pratt argued that education is negotiated in zones where students and teachers of different cultural backgrounds learn to communicate with one another. In similar ways, we explore the classroom as a contact zone where new teachers grapple with others (students, fellow preservice teachers as well as teacher mentors) in situations of conflict in order to learn. Fragments of narrative writing (email exchanges, poetry, journal entries, drawings) constructed from the contact zone are collected and arranged together like graffiti on a wall. Through juxtaposition, we begin to make connections and highlight significant ideas, questions, experiences, and potential research projects. Classrooms are not homogenous places; rather they are sites where as students and teachers, we grapple uneasily to master dominant discourses, to develop professional identities, to be liked and respected by others, and to comprehend discordant voices. The emphasis on teaching standards and learning outcomes mandated through regular national testing suggests a desire for uniformity, conformity, and efficiency. In contrast, understanding classrooms as contact zones where rich learning occurs in spaces that value multiple discourses, individuality, and questioning enables new teachers to rethink inappropriate notions of conflict as war; and to see the potential for learning in difficult encounters that challenge us socially, ethically, and intellectually.

FREEDOM TO NARRATE OUR OWN STORIES

Student B’s Drawing of Learning.

190

AMANDA MCGRAW

I asked a group of 14-year-old students to draw learning at school. When I looked for the first time at this drawing, I wondered how ever we could have arrived at this point. How could a student so capable of creativity and conceptual thought, be so terrified and restricted by learning at school? Here, learning is a monstrous, spinning chainsaw with hand-cuffs reaching out to constrain and imprison. The student runs madly in a ditch effort to find freedom, symbolized by an open door and natural landscape. For young people and teachers alike, learning within the context of school is increasingly controlled by prescribed curriculum, high stakes tests, and narrow, decontextualized professional learning agendas. Spoken, written, and visual narratives, formed in the complex, dynamic contexts of school reveal much about our ethical, pedagogical, and relational interactions, and direct us in imperative ways to areas of concern. Having narrative authority (Olson, 1995), the space to tell and examine our own lived experiences and establish meaningful directions based on inquiry and ongoing connections between theory and practice, is the basis for effective professional learning. While we understand the value of autobiographical writing for new and experienced teachers, a focus on narratives that are dispersed across time and place, combined through collaboration, generated through a range of technologies, and understood not as separate, unified texts but as intertextual connections, allows us to examine in new ways, the complex forces at work in teachers’ professional lives. Considering the creative potential of narrative as a collective construction will open up new ideas for research, professional learning, and reform. Powerful pedagogies exist in spaces where personal realities are shared and examined in public spaces. Schoolbased teacher education has been criticized as a return to an outdated apprenticeship model and as a mechanism for building compliance; however, Australian attempts to develop school/university partnerships based on mutuality, trust, and reciprocity have been highly successful (Kruger, Davies, Eckersley, Newell, & Cherednichenko, 2009). In such partnerships, narrative inquiries, which focus on stories told from diverse perspectives, can be the substance for thinking deeply about our work as educators and enable us to improve what we do with and for young people.

REFERENCES Abbott, H. P. (2008). The Cambridge introduction to narrative (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Aspland, T. (2006). Changing patterns of teacher education in Australia. Education Research and Perspectives, 33(2), 140 163.

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

191

Beattie, M. (2007). The art of learning to teach: Creating professional narratives. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Charon, R. (2002). Meaning and anticipation: The practice of narrative ethics. In R. Charon , & M. Montello (Eds.), Stories matter: The role of narrative in medical ethics. London, UK: Routledge. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Stories to live by: Narrative understandings of school reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149 161. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping the methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Craig, C. (2011). Narrative inquiry in teaching and teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (Vol. 13, pp. 19 42). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DEECD (Department of Education and Early Childhood). (2014). Teaching academies for professional practice. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/ partnerships/Pages/tapp.aspx. Accessed on March 17, 2014. Dinham, S. (2008). How to get your school moving and improving: An evidence-based approach. Melbourne: ACER Press. Doecke, B. (2013). Storytelling and professional learning. English in Australia, 48(2), 11 21. Doecke, B., & Gill, M. (2000). Setting standards: Confronting paradox. STELLA: English in Australia, pp. 129 130, December 2000 February 2001 and Literacy learning: The Middle Years, 9(1), February 2001. Doecke, B., & Parr, G. (2011). The national mapping of teacher professional learning project: A multi-dimensional space? English in Australia, 46(2), 9 19. Dyson, M. (2005). Australian teacher education: Although reviewed to the eyeball is there evidence of significant change and where to now? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 37 54. Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse: The evolution of research on teacher thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insight into teachers’ thinking and practice. London: The Falmer Press. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2005). Teachers’ voices: Storytelling and possibility. Greenwich, CT: Information Are Publishing. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2014). Auto/biography and pedagogy: Memory and presence in teaching. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Freeman, M. (2007). Autobiographical understanding and narrative inquiry. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 120 145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gannon, S. (2012). Changing lives and standardising teachers: The possibilities and limits of professional standards. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(3), 59 77. Goodson, I., Biesta, G. J. J., Tedder, M., & Adair, N. (2010). Narrative learning. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Goodson, I., & Gill, S. R. (2011). Narrative pedagogy: Life history and learning. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

192

AMANDA MCGRAW

Gough, N. (2008). Narrative experiments and imaginative inquiry. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 335 349. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: Synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hooley, N. (2007). Establishing professional identity: Narrative as curriculum for preservice teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 49 60. Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and sustainable university School partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: Teaching Australia Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Mayer, D., Doecke, B., Dixon, M., Kostogriz, A., Allard, A., White, S., … Hodder, P. (2014). Investigating the effectiveness of teacher education for early career teachers in diverse settings: A longitudinal study. ARC Collaborative Linkage Projects. Retrieved from http://www.setearc.com.au/introduction/about/. Accessed on October 28, 2014. McGraw, A. (2006). Struggling to make a difference in an imperfect world. In B. Doecke, D. Homer, & H. Nixon (Eds.), Only connect: English teaching, schooling and community. South Australia: AATE. McGraw, A., Grey, T., Dunkley, N., Brendan, W., Palmer-Brame, B., Williams, D., … Kelly, D. (2011). Writing from within the contact zone. Idiom, 47(3), 21 26. Olson, M. (1995). Conceptualizing narrative authority: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 119 135. Olson, M., & Craig, C. (2001). Opportunities and challenges in the development of teachers’ knowledge: The development of narrative authority through knowledge communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 667 684. Parr, G. (2010). Inquiry-based professional learning: Speaking back to standards Based reforms. Brisbane: Post Pressed. Parr, G., Bulfin, S., & Rutherford, S. (2013). Narratives of/in English teaching and learning. Idiom. Teacher Narratives: Making Sense of English Teaching, 49(3), 2 7. Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, J. G. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn to narrative. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 3 34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33 40. Richardson, L. (2001). Getting personal: Writing-stories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(1), 33 38. Rose, E. (1992). The world. Boulder, CO: Waiting Room Press. Rowe, K. (2002). The importance of teacher quality. Issue Analysis, 22(February), 1 12. Salvio, P. (1990). Transgressive daughters: Student autobiography and the project of selfcreation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(3), 283. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78, 1 23. Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2 9. Smyth, J. (1993). Reflective practice in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 18(1). doi:10.14221/ajte.1993v18n1.2

Dispersed Narratives and Powerful Teacher Education Pedagogy

193

Walker, J. (2005). Distributed narrative: Telling stories across networks. In M. Consalvo, J. Hunsinger, & N. Baym (Eds.), The 2005 association of internet researchers annual. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Woolf, V. (1941). Between the acts. London: Hogarth Press. Ying, D., McGraw, A., & Berry, A. (2013). Self and community: The impact of ISATT on the professional learning, teaching and research of members in the Asia-Pacific region. In C. Craig, P. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community. Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

THE NARRATIVE AS THE PRACTICAL AND THE PRACTICE: TOWARD THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS Jason Loh ABSTRACT In the past two decades, there has been an increase in the use of narrative in research and teacher education. Telling, writing, and interrogating personal stories can lead preservice and in-service teachers to better understandings of their contexts, and, in turn, lead them to further negotiate their teaching beliefs and develop their pedagogical approaches. This chapter outlines a narrative approach in teacher education in Singapore. A brief description is given of how a teacher education course was revamped to include and embed a narrative way of knowing in its weekly tutorials and in one of its assignments. Extracts from the students’ narratives and their responses are used to illustrate how the students explored and expanded their understandings of themselves as teachers. Keywords: Narrative pedagogies; narrative in teacher education; Singapore; teacher education pedagogies; narrative practices; preservice education

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 195 212 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022013

195

196

JASON LOH

I have been teaching low-progress students for the past three years. I enjoy teaching these students, as I find it a challenge to adapt my pedagogical content knowledge to suit their learning needs. These students are cognitively weak in the academic areas; some have learning difficulties, while some come from dysfunctional homes. These students want to learn, but they either do not know how or they are not provided with adequate academic support and guidance at home. As such, I plan my Mathematics lessons to suit the ability of my students. Sometimes, just to cover one lesson objective may take two teaching days. In addition, I have to conduct frequent review sessions, so my students will not forget what they have learned. That is how academically weak my students are. During my first year of teaching a class of low-progress students, I found it a struggle as I was not able to complete all the worksheets and tests that were required of the students. So, when the file and book checking exercises came along, my students’ files were considerably thinner when compared to the files of other classes. I managed to complete the worksheets, but I was not able to administer the requisite tests. To my Mathematics Head of Department (HOD) who conducted the check, I must have looked like an ineffective and inefficient teacher. She shared in a meeting once that she had better impressions of teachers whose files were thick and who supplemented their students’ learning with their own teacher-prepared worksheets in addition to the department-stipulated worksheets. I started to question myself. Was I really an ineffective and inefficient teacher? Did completing all worksheets and tests equate to achieving learning objectives? Was I really teaching? Did I add value to my students’ academic journey? (Extract taken from Norah’s narrative assignment)

The incident occurred during a lesson observation I had with my reporting officer. It took place in 2007, the first year of my teaching service. My reporting officer, Miss W, at that time, was also just promoted as the HOD [Head of Department] for Mathematics. During the post-observation conference with Miss W, she commented … that I could have “stretched” my students further in their thinking by giving them more difficult questions to solve during the group activity that was conducted. She also commented that, as a beginning teacher who had just graduated from NIE [National Institute of Education, Singapore], I should have better lesson ideas that I could have incorporated into my lesson. After listening to her feedback, I explained my reasons for planning the group activity in that manner. A summary of my explanation to Miss W can be summarized as follows: The class that I was teaching was mostly made up of middle-progress students who were not very strong in … Mathematics. In addition to that, the topic, Fractions, which I was teaching at that time, was a new concept and something that they had not come across before. The lesson planned, being the introductory lesson to the topic, focused mainly on introducing the concept of fractions and equal parts to my students. Being a new beginning teacher, I took into consideration the profile of my students and planned the lesson in such a way so as not to overwhelm and confuse them with the new and

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

197

abstract concept of fractions. The group activity planned involved the students using paper-folding as a way to see how the concept of fractions was actually equal parts of a whole. Upon listening to my explanation, Miss W remarked that being a beginning teacher, I should have aimed to produce and deliver a lesson that would have impressed her. She had also remarked that as a beginning teacher, I should have listened to her feedback obediently instead of trying to “argue my way out.” Listening to her remarks about how I should have conducted myself as a beginning teacher frustrated me. That lesson, being the first lesson observation, and the feedback I received from my reporting officer, undoubtedly affected me. Being a beginning teacher who had freshly graduated from teacher education, I perceived the negative experience and feedback as questioning and doubting my competency as a teacher. (Extract taken from Amanda’s narrative assignment)

AN INVITATION TO REFORM The two aforementioned narratives exemplify narratives that my Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) students shared with me in their narrative assignments. Narratives illustrate that teaching is highly personal, foster ownership and responsibility for the students’ interpretations, and reveal to individuals what those interpretations are (LaBoskey & Cline, 2000). As such, narratives reveal to them their own limitations of their understandings, and encourage a retelling that has been mediated by exposure and awareness of the wider literature, research, and reflection. After all, as Dewey (1938) noted, this reconstruction of experience is what education is all about. Educational courses with abstract theories and rhetorical arguments do not lend themselves to easy understanding or application. In such courses, the theory practice divide seems to be accentuated and perpetuated. The use of narratives, or the narrative perspective, has the potential to help preservice students bridge the so-called theory practice divide in such courses. According to Doyle and Carter (2003), a narrative perspective suggests that “the knowledge base for teaching resides in the stories of experience as a teacher” (p. 134). This means that to educate and enlarge the knowledge base of the new generation of teachers, a narrative response to academic readings/assignments might possibly be of benefit to future teachers. The primary purpose of this chapter is to consider and explore how narrative ways of knowing helps students to express their very being and their teacher selves, and how this correspondingly divulges and, at the same time,

198

JASON LOH

cultivates their professional understandings in response to the continuous pressures from the neoliberal discourse prevalent in the education sector of Singapore. Singapore, as a country, has consistently performed well in international assessments of its educational system. It was ranked in the top five performing education systems for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009 (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2010), and was ranked among the top three performing education systems for the latest PISA 2012 Paper-based Assessment of Mathematics, Reading and Science literacy and was ranked top in the PISA 2012 Computer-based Assessment of Mathematics and Reading literacy (MOE, 2013a); Singapore also topped the first PISA problem-solving test (OECD, 2014). Singapore has also performed well in other measures: it led the Asia-Pacific region in the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma exams for four consecutive years (Teng, 2014); it was ranked in the top two positions for its performances in the international Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); and it was ranked in the top four positions in the international Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) in 2011 (MOE, 2012). In an education environment such as Singapore, there is a certain amount of unstated pressure for continued success in these domains. However, Singapore has also seen an increase in the discourse on educational reform, so as to incorporate non-traditional pedagogical approaches (MOE, 2013b). Concomitantly, the National Institute of Education (NIE), an institute of the Nanyang Technological University, which is also the only teacher education institute in Singapore, a small island-city state with a land area of 716.1 km2 (Dept. of Statistics, Singapore, 2013), has transformed its teacher education model, and articulated in its Teacher Education 21 Report. The Institute’s focus is to “refine our curriculum, improve our pedagogies, … and strengthen the theory-practice link in our programs” (National Institute of Education [NIE], 2010). The document proposes that Singapore needs to transform its pedagogical approaches, so as to nurture a new generation of 21st century teachers and learners. It is against such a backdrop that I cultivate a narrative perspective in my teacher education course. Over the past two decades, narrative research has revealed that stories have a huge influence over what we believe and do. Human experience is fundamentally storied (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). History texts are composed of narratives stories of wars, military conquests, dynasties, medical

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

199

and scientific breakthroughs, political regime changes, prominent historical figures, among others. Stories reveal how we make sense of our experiences and how we make future decisions. As Beattie (1995) points out, “narratives … illuminate the ways in which we understand ourselves as teachers, appraise ourselves and our experiences and evoke and bring to life the meaning of those experiences” (p. 41). Narrative is situated in context and is a way of integrating new experiences and knowledge with what the learner already knows. It helps the learner embed his/her personal experiences in a given milieu, which aids his/her understanding by scaffolding what is unknown with what is known. Building on Schwab’s (1969) The Practical, Connelly and Clandinin have advocated and championed the use of narratives in the education of teachers in Canada since the 1980s. To them, the study of narratives is “the study of the ways humans experience the world” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2). Primarily, their research and practice were drawn from the philosophical ideas of John Dewey and Mark Johnson, the anthropological studies of Clifford Geertz and Mary Batson, the psychiatric work of Robert Coles, and the psychological research of Donald Polkinghorne (cited in Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). They pursued this interest in narrative and developed their research to demonstrate that narrative is a way of understanding experience, and through the construction of narratives, people reaffirm, modify, and create new narratives with which to live by. The role of narrative is central: “Life … is filled with narrative fragments, enacted in storied moments of time and space, and reflected upon and understood in terms of narrative unities and discontinuities” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 17). Indeed, there are great similarities in the understanding of the term narratives: Bruner (1986) describes narrative as a distinctive way “of ordering experience, of constructing reality” (p. 11); Polkinghorne (1988) states that the narrative is “the primary form by which human experiences are made meaningful” (p. 1); and Hinchman and Hinchman (1997) define narratives as “discourses with a clear sequential order that connect events in a meaningful way for a definite audience and thus offer insights about the world and/or people’s experiences of it” (p. xvi). In this chapter, with the various understandings of narratives in mind, narratives are defined simply as a way of organizing and ordering human experiences in order to cultivate preservice teachers’ meaningful discernment and insight (Craig, 2011). In their edited book Narrative Inquiry in Practice, LaBoskey and Lyons (2002) invited others to join them to use narratives as a form of teaching, so as to construct meaning, gather knowledge, and increase the understanding

200

JASON LOH

of practice. As teachers write about their practices, they gain an insight into themselves, their understanding of their contexts, the learning of their students, and the workings of the schools. These written narratives enrich preservice and practising teachers’ lives and their professional knowledge as a way of knowing. With this understanding and belief that narrative has the power to illuminate my preservice teachers’ understanding and application of what they are to learn from teacher education courses, I have accepted the invitation to incorporate narrative ways of knowing into my pedagogical approach.

PERSONAL REFLECTION: THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE Arendt (1961) suggests that “Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin” (p. 196). She further calls us to engage in action (Arendt, 1998), rather than to sit idly by. With her call in mind, I take up this mantle of responsibility and explain how I came to use narratives as a pedagogical approach as a part of my teacher education practices. Having been a primary school teacher for 11 years, I returned in 2009 as a Lecturer to the NIE where I had trained to be a teacher. I was in my third year of my PhD studies then, and I was very much influenced by the research and teachings of Clandinin and Connelly. I found a voice in the profession a voice which was very much suppressed in the official Ministry of Education (MOE) discourse, as well as in the positivist and post-positivist research traditions to which the NIE paid homage. I felt liberated; I could now share my experiences with the wider academic and teaching community. I was elated that I found such an avenue; after all, freedom requires the organized “company of other men (sic) who were in the same state” speaking out as one (Arendt, 1961, p. 148). I found I could speak as one with other teacher communities around the world. It seemed like a dream come true. I felt I could make a difference to the education of future teachers. However, the pedagogical practice was still similar, if not totally the same, to that when I was in preservice teacher education, in the 1990s. I was puzzled. I knew that the current approach was neither particularly convincing nor persuasive. My peers at the time and I felt then that the teaching was not relevant, because all we had heard from the various

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

201

lectures and tutorials were theories or educational concepts found in assigned texts. We felt they were far removed from the realities of the classroom. Sure enough, during our four teaching practices over the span of four years of teacher education, we met cooperating teachers in schools who did not use or refer to the theories or educational concepts. Even after we graduated, we did not encounter these theories or educational concepts in any of our schools’ discourses. It was something which I felt needed to be changed, in order for teacher education to have greater impact on human lives and possibilities. I started telling stories about my teaching experiences anecdotes from the classroom. The stories which I shared were of how I applied the particular theory or teaching concept, which was supposed to be taught for that week’s tutorial. The stories were of how the theory or educational concept was adapted or modified, so as to fit with the needs of the type of students I taught. The stories told of how the students responded to the lessons, and, crucially for the survival of beginning teachers, of how to accommodate and circumnavigate the socialization forces at work in the school system. The stories I told quenched the pent-up thirst of the preservice teachers. Comments from the official student feedback on teaching exercises were extremely positive. Under the section on What do you like best about the faculty member’s teaching?, these were some of the comments: Interesting tutorials; able to link from theories to practice. (Student 00080810) Interesting and connects practical classroom teaching to what we do. (Student 00080811) Sharing of his own experience and how he implements certain strategies in his classroom. (Student 00080812) Insightful real-life experiences shared. (Student 00080818) He provides us with real-life contexts we would face in schools. (Student 00080918) He used relevant and real-life examples to relate to the topics. (Student 00107625) Relates experience with research. (Student 00107628)

Why is there a need to share stories with the students? It was something that my peers and I would have appreciated during our own teacher education experiences. We wanted to hear how the various theories and “theoretical approaches” were lived in the classroom, but none of our tutors in the past did that. It was a missed opportunity, because we never had a chance to know whether those teaching strategies and educational

202

JASON LOH

concepts/theories could be effectively applied and, if they could, how they were effectively enacted in the local classroom with real students. This was something that I remembered discussing with my peers during our teacher education days, and that I felt I must assume responsibility for, since I am now a teacher educator of future teachers. I personally feel that to encourage and equip the future teachers to teach against the grain (CochranSmith, 1991), we must share with them our stories of how we adapt our pedagogies, so as to ameliorate the effects of neoliberal/organizational/ departmental requisites, which often conflict with our own personal beliefs about teaching and learning.

CONTEXT OF THE APPROACH: ORGANIZATION OF THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE For several years, I have used narratives as one of my tutorial tasks in the various teacher education courses which I have taught. The preservice teachers are required to construct a narrative based on a prompt. The prompt is related to the concept which they are to learn for that particular tutorial. Two years ago in 2012, I decided to make this pedagogical approach more prominent in my year-four course. The course is titled “Current trends in language teaching for primary schools.” It is the final course for the B.Ed. students, before graduation. These students were non-graduate teachers who have taught in schools for a number of years. Because of the MOE’s policy of all-graduate teacher recruitment by 2015, and the current push to upgrade the teaching qualifications all current primary school teachers (MOE, 2008, 2009), many non-graduate teachers have applied to further their studies at the NIE. I made certain changes to the first half of the course, so as to make prominent the narrative way of knowing. I also made changes to one of the assignments the reflective essay. Instead of solely reflecting on the course literature, there are now two parts to the assignment. First, the students are required to construct a prior experience, which they encountered when they were teaching in schools, in the form of a narrative. They have to construct five narratives in total, from a possible six. The narratives have to be related to five of the total six trends presented in the first half of the course. Second, the students have to interrogate the narratives, using the course literature as a lens with which to examine their narratives. This narrative self-study of their lived experience leads them to interrogate their understanding(s) of

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

203

their own narratives and deliberate on their experiences with the insights gained. The goal of this assignment task is to “connect the readings to one’s own experiences with the five (out of six) trends, and to relay one’s own beliefs and opinions to them.” The six choices of trends are: (a) MOE and reflective practice; (b) MOE and performativity; (c) schools and socialization of practice; (d) schools and teaching identity; (e) schools and micropolitics; and (f) examination and the wash-back effect. As this was the first time the students had encountered the use of narrative in their coursework, they were taken by surprise. Initially, there was apprehension about sharing their personal experiences. But these fears were allayed when I initiated the sharing of my experiences through narratives. I would always start by sharing with them a narrative of my own school experience, usually a critical event. Critical events have the following characteristics: they are typically traumatic, have an impact on the protagonist, and often attract undue attention from others (Webster & Mertova, 2007). The reason for my sharing of my own critical event is to build an honest and non-threatening environment. It is my belief that only within such an environment would the students be honest and share their personal narratives. After my sharing, they would then follow with the immediate narrative that came to their minds related to the particular trend. That narrative was usually the one that had the most impact on them and their thinking. As the students sit with their close friends, they were more willing to share these narratives. This small group-sharing helped to clarify their thoughts. At the two-hour mark of the three-hour tutorial, the students are then given 45 minutes to construct their narrative, which was related to the identified general trend (i.e., schools and micropolitics). They submit their narrative writing to me by the end of the 45 minutes or by the end of the day. This was so I could respond to them, before the next tutorial a week later. After my response to their narratives, the students would then link the narratives to the literature they read for the tutorial, and interrogate their responses to the experiences encountered: The Mathematics HOD [Head of Deparmtent] had equated the completion of all worksheets and tests as a measurable performance goal, which then can affect the ways teachers cognitively design their lessons (Chua, 2009). I completely disagreed with that view. I believed I had been a teacher who put her students’ needs and readiness first. The Mathematics HOD could not see that I was teaching a group of students who were already cognitively weak and they needed a different form of teaching strategy for them to internalize learning. As Tan (2008) mentioned, a “performative climate” is “unlikely to promote diversity and innovation, and may instead aggravate the problem of

204

JASON LOH

uniformity and conservatism” (p. 119). To her, standardized testing is necessary to ensure students, regardless of learning ability, achieve learning success. I thought things through and came to the conclusion that I could not change the mindset of the whole school, for according to Chua (2009), it can be a challenge to “exorcise the terrors of performativity” as “it is likely to be met with resistance by those to whom the solution is applied” (p. 162). So, I realized that I have to change my mindset. I did not have to conform but I knew I had to work smart. So I took the feedback in my stride and “recognize that the dominant performative discourse does not exhaust all the design possibilities and design cognitions that are rationally available and valid” (Chua, 2009, p. 163). I still use the same tests to expose my students to the rigor of testing but I make some changes to the tests such as modifying the number of questions to make the questions less intimidating, replacing some of the words in the questions to make them easier to understand, omitting some tougher questions or guiding my students to complete some questions. I supplement my students’ learning with interesting lessons, engaging activities and meaningful worksheets. I do not allow “exploitative policy technologies to stifle the otherwise potentially fluid thinking that is a signature of healthy design thinking in educators” (Chua, 2009, p. 166). (Extract taken from Norah’s narrative assignment) I honestly struggled to put myself in a position to understand Miss W’s opinions and though I was still unable to understand her point of view, I was able to overcome my struggle and “repositioned my thoughts to discover the positive potential in the negative experience I had” (Larrivee, 2000, p. 299). I was able to reposition Miss W’s feedback as a gift and a learning point for myself. It was a surprise to me that as soon as I repositioned my thoughts, “a deeper understanding emerged, moving me to the reconciling phase” (Larrivee, 2000, p. 305) which dispelled the negative feelings I harbored towards Miss W. I was able to reconcile with the fact that I should not have reacted negatively to the feedback given to the extent that it was affecting my working relationship with Miss W and undermining my professionalism as a teacher and a working adult. Despite the fact that it took me time and struggle to come to terms with the state of uncertainty and desiring a change in that state, the process and experience led me to a “personal deeper understanding, leading to a shift in my way of thinking and perceiving” (Larrivee, 2000, p. 304) of the situation. (Extract taken from Amanda’s narrative assignment)

STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE ASSIGNMENT: AN EVALUATION Because of the nature of the assignment, a wide variety of experiential narratives are submitted. The organizing theme of each week’s narratives is

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

205

the educational trend presented for that week. In general, the response has been extremely favorable. All 17 students in the last cohort of the course (2013) felt that this narrative assignment benefited them as students and teachers. The feedback was given via the focused group discussions held in the second half of the semester and via their written reflections at the end of the course. The narrative assignment helped to reveal the individual and collective nature of the experience, which allowed the students to challenge their own assumptions, values, and beliefs: The narrative response has helped me to relate my stories critically so that I could find the solutions/answers to my doubts and probing problems. I agree with Kagan (1991) as the stories we narrated offer greater understanding of our actions and others’ actions too. Through these understandings, I could find the solutions, directions, understandings and closure to what I strongly believe in and thus buy in others the ideas that I truly believe in. (Student A) It allows me to reflect critically and ponder on my experiences which will help me to consider the challenges, advantages or disadvantages, implications and areas of improvement that I can embark on in the future, if I were to encounter similar situations or conditions. (Student B) The narrative response allows me to tell my past experiences and it gives me opportunities to understand myself better as a person and my past, current and future actions. Through the narratives and through self-questioning, I was able to analyze my past and current situations in a more critical manner. (Student C)

As can be seen, my narrative pedagogy helped the students to become more reflective and to reframe their experiences, in light of the narratives constructed: It provides me an avenue to think and reflect on my actions and to be practical about it, not emotional. Thus it allows me to have different perspectives on the problems and my past experiences. (Student B) As I began to interrogate my narratives, I was able to reflect on the learning implications for future based on current situations. It allows me to consider multiple perspectives through active self-questioning. I became more reflective and developed my critical thinking. (Student C) As I wrote about these stories, articulating what happened, I began to reflect. Through narrating and reflecting, my own thinking became clearer. At the same time, I gained more perspectives and greater understanding of these perspectives, which included, oftentimes, the perspectives of the significant others in my storied life. This exercise increased my self-knowledge and self-awareness, and informed me of and prepared me for appropriate, possible courses of action to take in the future should something similar happen. (Student D)

206

JASON LOH

My narrative pedagogy helped the students to accept that their previous perspectives may not have been the most appropriate ones, and also helped them to be more prepared mentally and emotionally to face the future: I feel that the narrative response has benefited me, not just as a student, but as a person.… They gave me the much needed opportunity and time to think about what happened and why it happened. Through these narratives, I gained a better understanding of myself. I also saw perspectives of the people who were involved in the event…. This made me realize that not all my opinions are entirely correct. (Student M) The essence of the narrative response requires me to think back to a personal experience that I have gone through and record it down. Through the recording of that personal experience, it has definitely allowed me to reflect upon the experience and most times, asked myself why I had felt certain feelings and reacted in certain ways back then. This allowed me to reflect on my words or actions in a way and also, evaluate them. Upon reassessing and evaluating my experience, I realized that I should or should not have acted in a certain way. (Student O) It allowed me to go through that situation again in another time and place and with a calmer disposition. It allowed me to think of different ways to deal with that situation. Though I could not change anything but most importantly I learnt to reframe, think through, and not react emotionally to situations that will happen. It made a wiser person because I have the benefit of hindsight. It is like studying history, my history, making judgments, offering alternatives, so as not to repeat the mistakes again in future should it happen. (Student E) I looked back at what I have done and I understand myself better after constructing and thinking about the narratives. It helps me to move forward. It enables me to offer insights as to what I can do in the future. (Student L)

OTHERS USING A NARRATIVE PEDAGOGY The English Language and Literature Department that I am teaching at emphasizes a positivist and post-positivist tradition, with its tightly controlled and verifiable studies. Narrative as a way of knowing is neither wellknown nor well-practised. Besides me, there are two other colleagues who use narrative pedagogies in their undergraduate teaching. Both also require their students to write their narratives, with one as a tutorial activity and the other as an assessment task, similar to mine. Prompts are given for each week, so as to contextualize the construction of the narratives within the topic of the week. An example of the prompt for one of the tutorials is: 1. What are your earliest memories of learning the English language? 2. Who were the people (i.e., parents, teachers, friends, enemies) who significantly influenced your learning of the English language?

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

207

3. How did your first language (L1) shape and influence your beliefs, values, and/or world views? (Is your “first language” your “mother tongue”?) 4. Did culture (i.e., home, school, community) influence your language practices? 5. How do your learning personal experiences influence your teaching of the English language to students? To this colleague, the narrative is essentially a reflective, retrospective account of the students’ development as a “literate” individual. It helps preservice and in-service teachers to reflect on issues surrounding their experiences, influences, people, and events, in their personal history which have shaped their identities inside and outside of schools. For the other colleague, narrative is one way through which the students understand the world. By telling their own stories and comparing their tellings with others (through the online medium of blogging), the students see the similarities as well as the differences in their narrative accounts. For her, narrative is a way for student teachers to see the world better from their future students’ perspectives. Both colleagues see narratives as an alternative way of learning (Bruner, 1986).

NARRATIVE AS THE PRACTICAL AND THE PRACTICE Teacher education has been criticized for being too theoretical, emphasizing the idyllic and the abstract, and neglecting the reality, which is needed for survival, especially in the beginning years (Davis, 2007; Loh & Hu, 2014; Petrie, 2010). Similarly, Darling-Hammond (2006) posits that one of the recurrent problems that teacher education face is the difficulty of integrating “theoretically based knowledge” with “experienced-based knowledge,” a type of knowledge typically located in teachers’ practices and found in the real-life contexts of classrooms and schools (p. 8). Teacher education has traditionally front-loaded the preservice teachers with educational and pedagogical theories and concepts in the university, and sent them off for a teaching practice after the front-loading, in the hopes that the theories and concepts will be applied accurately and with discernment. Schwab (1969) and Smagorinsky, Cook, and Johnson (2003) have also highlighted this problem. In fact, they proposed a focus on the

208

JASON LOH

practical and the practice to ameliorate the difficulty of bridging the two “knowledges.” Schwab (1969) posited that there can be a renaissance of the field (in this case, the field of teacher education), if the bulk of curriculum energies are “diverted from the theoretic to the practical” (p. 1). To Schwab (1969), the theoric is “abstract” or an “idealized” representation “of real things” (p. 12). He cautions the over-emphasis on the theoretical: But curriculum in action treats real things: real acts, real teachers, real children, things richer and different from their theoretical representations. Curriculum will deal badly with its real things if it treats them merely as replicas of their theoretic representations. If, then, theory is to be used well in the determination of curricular practice, it requires a supplement. It requires arts which bring a theory to its application: first, arts which identify the disparities between real thing and theoretic representation; second, arts which modify the theory in the course of its application, in the light of the discrepancies; and, third, arts which devise ways of taking account of the many aspects of the real thing which the theory does not take into account. These are some of the arts of the practical. (p. 12)

I suggest that the arts to which Schwab was referring were possibly narrative ways of knowing. A narrative perspective is ideally suited to (a) identify the disparities, (b) modify the theory in its application, and (c) devise ways to take into account many aspects of reality. The narrative perspective is akin to the discipline of the practical, which is concerned with “choice and action,” and which will lead teachers to make “defensible decisions” (p. 2). After all, with a personal understanding of how theoretical concepts are applied to real-life contexts, through re-tellings, teachers are then able to deliberate among various alternatives and make the best choice for a particular situation. It is through the writing and re-writing of the narratives, with an eye on the wider literature, that students gain a deeper insight into themselves and the state of being of the schools in which they are situated. With this deeper insight, they are then more aware of the discourse prevalent in the school system, and hence have the ability and knowledge to interrogate and/or interrupt this discourse, if necessary. Using Vygotsky’s (1987) distinctions among concepts, pseudo-concepts, and complexes, Smagorinsky et al. (2003) found that the concept development in teacher education in inadequate and is often halted at the pseudo-concept stage (from the initial complex stage), a stage where the student teacher approaches the full understanding of a pedagogical concept, but still has internally contradictory associations. They find that teacher education does not go far enough in developing a full conceptual

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

209

understanding, because such an understanding requires “extensive knowledge and experience with the concept and that to which it applies” (p. 1405), a condition that is lacking in teacher education. This is what they termed practice, an activity central to the development of concepts. They argue that this challenge of full concept development can be addressed with the provision of such an activity setting “in which an approach … is grounded in experiences with teaching” (p. 1410), and that such experiences “ought to be the subject of informed reflection that is, rumination couched in an understanding of issues of culture” (p. 1426). To repeat, the narrative way of knowing is an ideal activity setting for such a practice. It contextualizes the concept that is being taught in the experiences encountered in the past or in the present. This is similar to the narrative assignment in my B.Ed. course. It enriches the understanding of the pedagogical concept, not just through one’s own rendering of experience, but also through the sharing of others’ experiences as well. The experiences found in the narratives then become the subject of informed deliberation and reflection. The narratives highlight and reveal the cultural settings in which the experience is situated. This provides clarity for understanding of the background of the experience. It is grounded in the practical, where the theory is applied and where adaptations can be deliberated upon. Darling-Hammond (2006) in her study of seven exemplary teacher education programs discovered a number of common features. Two of which include an extensive use of case methods, and strategies to explicitly identify and manage one’s beliefs and assumptions about teaching and learning. The pedagogy of the narrative way of knowing merges these two features, where personal cases are crafted, and one’s beliefs and assumptions are articulated through the constructed cases.

FINAL THOUGHTS Sartre’s (1964) remarked in his autobiography that “a man is always a teller of stories, he lives surrounded by his own stories and those of other people, he sees everything that happens to him in terms of these stories and he tries to live his life as if he were recounting it” (p. 39). Hence, the stories that teachers narrate help the students to clarify and integrate knowledge, experience, and context; the rich and contextual stories help to surface and identify the educational discourses around the students. With narrative,

210

JASON LOH

there is selection and organization of experiences. With selection and organization, there is consideration and deliberation of the meanings of these experiences understanding why and under what conditions certain encounters occur in the place we call the school. This is akin to what Mattingly (1991) claims: that sharing our personal narratives “can facilitate a kind of reflecting that is often difficult to do.” Such sharing helps us to become aware of our “deep beliefs and assumptions,” which people in general “often cannot consciously articulate or verbalize” (p. 236). The use of narratives as a pedagogical approach can thus help students to integrate and incorporate the knowledge gained from the wider educational literature into their own wisdom of practice. As such, it might be worth considering allocating spaces within the current tutorial and assignment structures for our students to share and interrogate their narratives. This need not be a complete overhaul of the current structures, especially in technical-rational organizations unfamiliar with the narrative way of knowing. It merely requires willingness on the part of the tutors to embed portions of time within a selected number of tutorials and/or apportion a part of the assignment for this narrative approach. This narrative way of knowing is a useful approach for both preservice and in-service teacher development. The knowledge, insight, and understandings gained from the narrative renderings of the students’ experiences help to elucidate and clarify misconceptions, and thus provide an important way to reduce the accumulated beliefs and impressions gained from the apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975). It also helps them to evaluate and mediate their understandings of the goals of education, especially if they are situated in neoliberal-influenced education systems, such as those located in Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Furlong, 2013; Hopmann, 2008; Loh & Hu, 2014).

REFERENCES Arendt, H. (1961). Between past and future. New York, NY: The Viking Press. Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Beattie, M. (1995). Constructing professional knowledge in teaching: A narrative of change and development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chua, S. M. J. (2009). Saving the teacher’s soul: Exorcising the terrors of performativity. London Review of Education, 7(2), 159–167.

The Narrative as the Practical and the Practice

211

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 279 310. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2 14. Craig, C. (2011). Narrative inquiry in teaching and teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli-Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries in curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 19 43). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(10), 1 15. Davis, S. H. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice: What’s good, what’s bad, and how can one be sure? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 569 578. Dept. of Statistics, Singapore. (2013). Population and land area. Retrieved from http://www. singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest_data.html#14. Accessed on February 14, 2014. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (2003). Narrative and learning to teach: Implications for teachereducation curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 129 137. Furlong, J. (2013). Globalisation, neoliberalism, and the reform of teacher education in England. The Educational Forum, 77, 28 50. Hinchman, L. P., & Hinchman, S. K. (1997). Introduction. In L. P. Hinchman & S. K. Hinchman (Eds.), Memory, identity, community: The idea of narrative in the human sciences (pp. xiii xxxii). New York, NY: State University of New York. Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 417 456. Kagan, D. M. (1991). How teachers’ classroom cases express their pedagogical beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 281 291. LaBoskey, V., & Lyons, N. (2002). In conclusion: An invitation. In N. Lyons & V. LaBoskey (Eds.), Narrative inquiry in practice: Advancing the knowledge of teaching (pp. 189 199). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. LaBoskey, V. K., & Cline, S. (2000). Behind the mirror: Inquiry based storying in teacher education. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 1(3), 359–375. Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. Loh, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Subdued by the system: Neoliberalism and the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 13 21. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mattingly, C. (1991). Narrative reflections on practical actions: Two learning experiments in reflective story telling. In D. Scho¨n (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 235 257). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2008). Developing a new generation school team (press release, September 25, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/ 09/developing-a-new-generation-sc.php. Accessed on February 14, 2014.

212

JASON LOH

Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2009). Growing the education service (press release, April 9, 2009). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/04/growing-the-educationservice.php. Accessed on February 14, 2014. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2010). International OECD study affirms the high quality of Singapore’s education system (press release, December 7, 2010). Retrieved from http:// www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/12/programme-for-international-student-assessment2009.php Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2012). International studies affirm Singapore students’ strengths in reading, mathematics and science (press release, December 11, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2012/12/tp11-press-release-annex-b.pdf Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2013a). Mean scores of top performing education systems in PISA 2012 (press release, December 3, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/ media/press/files/2013/12/annex-international-oecd-study-2013.pdf Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2013b). Be ready for stiff competition, young S’ poreans: Indranee. (Education in the News, June 4, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov. sg/media/news/2013/06/be-ready-for-stiff-competition.php National Institute of Education, Singapore. (2010). Teacher education 21. Retrieved from http://www.nie.edu.sg/about-nie/teacher-education-21 OECD. (2014). Singapore and Korea top OECD’s first PISA problem-solving test. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/singapore-and-korea-top-first-oecd-pisa-problem-solvingtest.htm Petrie, K. (2010). Stepping out of the “Ivory Tower”: An initial teacher educator’s experience of returning to the classroom. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(1), 97 112. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sartre, J. P. (1964). The words. New York, NY: Braziller. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(1), 1 23. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399 1436. Tan, C. (2008). Globalization, the Singapore state and educational reforms: Towards performativity. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2(2), 111–120. Teng, A. (Jan 6, 2014). Singapore comes out tops for the fourth year in International Baccalaureate exams. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/ breaking-news/singapore/story/singapore-comes-out-tops-the-fourth-year-internationalbaccalaureate-e#sthash.yUcDbgAy.dpuf Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In N. Minick, Trans., R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.), Collected works (Vol. 1, pp. 39 285). New York, NY: Plenum. Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. London, UK: Routledge.

NARRATIVE TEACHER EDUCATION PEDAGOGIES FROM ACROSS THE PACIFIC Edward Howe and Masahiro Arimoto ABSTRACT Interest in narrative pedagogies is growing. However, few studies have been conducted outside Western contexts. There remains a paucity of narrative research published by Japanese scholars, despite a pervasive culture of “teacher to teacher conversations,” storytelling, reflection, and action research by teachers in Japan. Thus, this research fills an important gap in the literature. It provides exemplars from preservice teacher education, higher education, and high school, as these educational milieus reflect the notion of “traveling stories” (Olson & Craig, 2009). We describe how this narrative pedagogy is interpreted from an insider’s point of view, through the voices of teacher education students, teachers, and teacher educators. In this process, students and teachers become curriculum-makers (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988; Craig & Ross, 2008), co-constructing knowledge, and reshaping teacher knowledge and identity. Narrative teacher education pedagogies resonate with Japanese teachers and play an important role in curriculum, teaching, and learning in Japan within our increasingly interconnected world. Furthermore,

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 213 232 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022014

213

214

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

narrative relates favorably to many Japanese cultural practices, including kankei (interrelationships), kizuna (bonds), and kizuki (with-it-ness). These are important, integral, and tacit elements of Japanese teachers’ practices because they embody the “mind and heart” of their personal practical sense of knowing. Furthermore, these practices involve placing other people’s needs ahead of our own an essential skill for global citizens of the 21st century. Keywords: Narrative inquiry; teacher education; pedagogy; Japan; global citizenship education

INTRODUCTION My 6 months in Japan helped me to see, in ways that are hard to capture through the grid of Western social science, some of the strengths of Japanese cultural resources. In the 70-odd interviews I did with intellectuals and administrators, patterns of thought emerged that seemed to be deeply connected to the varied regional cultures …. Indigenous Japanese forms of expression visual images or metaphors, expressed in the language of ordinary people, rather than abstract concepts from social science literature seemed to be the heart of Japanese culture. (Hayhoe, 2000, p. 438)

Interest in narrative pedagogies has grown significantly in recent years across many disciplines, including teacher education. A meta-search using the keywords “narrative inquiry” and “Pedagogy” generated 72 hits, from which we, as authors, identified 22 most relevant to teacher education. Most notably, Dewey (1938), Schwab (Craig, 2008), Elbaz-Luwisch (2010), and the groundbreaking work of Clandinin and Connelly (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) have greatly influenced our thinking. Furthermore, the narrative pedagogy described in this chapter reflects other international sources (Adler, 2011; Chan, 2012; Chan & Ng, 2012; Coulter, Michael, & Poynor, 2007; Huber, Caine, Huber, & Steeves, 2013; Latta & Kim, 2011; Rodriguez, 2011; Xu & Connelly, 2009). Indeed, many seminal studies can also be found within this edited volume. Furthermore, an excellent summary of the origins of narrative inquiry and the significance to teacher education can be found in Craig’s recent contribution to the field (Craig, 2011). However, few studies have been conducted outside Western contexts (Howe & Xu, 2013). Moreover, there remains a paucity of narrative research published by Japanese scholars, despite a pervasive culture of “teacher to teacher conversations” (Yonemura, 1982),

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

215

storytelling, reflection, and action research by teachers in Japan. Noteworthy exceptions include Ninomiya (2010), Sakamoto (2011), and Kimura (2010). Thus, the teaching and research reported here fill an important gap in the national and international literature. We begin this chapter with a brief introduction to the most relevant studies followed by a background to our narrative pedagogy within the context of teacher education in Japan. We have included exemplars from preservice teacher education, higher education, and high school, as these educational milieus reflect the notion of “traveling stories” (Olson & Craig, 2009). The bulk of this chapter is devoted to describing how this narrative pedagogy is interpreted from an insider’s point of view, through the voices of teacher education students, teachers, and teacher educators. Self-study of teaching and teacher education is an important aspect of narrative inquiry (Craig, 2008; Kitchen, 2009; Kosnik & Beck, 2010; Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004; Xu, 2011). Adler’s (2011) narrative research into her bi-cultural Japanese-American identity resonates with our sense of self-study and narrative pedagogy of a teacher educator outside the mainstream discourse. Also of relevance to our work is Iftody’s (2013) narrative self-study, drawing on a poststructuralist understanding of identity, within the context of English teacher education. But perhaps the closest narrative pedagogy to our work with preservice teachers is Ciuffetelli Parker’s (2011) “literacy narratives,” helping to build teacher candidates’ capacity to use their own knowledge as a frame of reference to better understand others’ experiences and to reconcile the theory-practice divide. While Ciuffetelli Parker used triads of teacher education students with her own letters added to the mix, we are using pairs of students with the teacher effectively completing the triad. The important point is that through these sorts of narrative pedagogies, students and teachers become curriculum-makers (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988; Craig & Ross, 2008), coconstructing knowledge, and reshaping teacher knowledge and identity. Thus, teacher educators can become curriculum-makers alongside preservice and in-service teachers. This is one of our long-term goals in promoting narrative pedagogies. There are few longitudinal studies on teacher candidates’ reflections and experiences as they learn how to become teachers, captured through personal narrative and story during their preservice teacher education. A noteworthy exception is Ciuffetelli Parker’s (2010) four-year longitudinal study of 20 teacher candidates at a mid-sized Canadian university. Ciuffetelli Parker’s research is most like the research reported here, as she employed weekly letter writing and established significant bonds with and between

216

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

her students over a long period of time. This letter writing she called literacy narratives. Ciuffetelli Parker investigated teacher knowledge formation and reflective practice through writing and storied practices. Furthermore, she illustrated how writing and sharing (with peers) of personal lived educational experiences, and personal narratives related to learning, teaching, and teaching practice were helpful in preservice teacher education. Literacy narratives move beginning teachers beyond the limitations of “just stories” or “another reflective journal” and toward a resonance (Conle, 1996) of experience with peers. This moves reflective practice (Scho¨n, 1987) further toward collaboration and shared inquiry of knowledge. Literacy narratives are seen here as useful to the development of teacher knowledge, to reconcile the tensions between theory and practice, and to build authentic learning communities in our teacher education programs. (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2010, p. 1258)

In recent years, narrative perspectives have become popular in Japan within adult education, nursing education, and Japanese language teaching. Narrative assessment for students with developmental disorders has also received attention among educators. Regarding teacher training, a recent narrative publication (Clandinin et al., 2006) was translated into Japanese in 2011 by Masaya Tanaka. Further evidence of a growing interest in narrative pedagogies can be found in a recent literature review on school reform in Japan and the United States (Ninomiya, 2010). Ninomiya examined how teachers are positioned in school reform practices pertaining to various social contexts and how the teachers are described in the literature on school reform (see Shin, 2012). Analysis of the thinking and orientation of teachers in educational practice revealed that the awareness of teachers is reconstructed not only in practice but also in the process of reflection. Finally, Japanese researcher-practitioners have also suggested that the mechanism of awareness is associated with tacit understanding (Hayashi & Tobin, 2014; Sasaki, 2012).

BACKGROUND TO OUR NARRATIVE PEDAGOGY AND JAPANESE CULTURAL CONTEXT As teacher educators, we have begun to use narrative inquiry in both our teaching and research. Teachers can recover and reconstruct personal practical knowledge (Clandinin, 1986) through an exploration of “images, personal philosophies, rules, practical principles, rhythms, metaphors, and narrative

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

217

unity” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988, p. 59). Teacher knowledge is a narrative construct, which references the totality of a person’s personal practical knowledge gained from formal and informal educational experience (Xu & Connelly, 2009, p. 221). Naturally, teachers use storytelling in their personal and professional lives. Thus, it is an integral part of our curriculum, teaching, and learning. The methodology used in our collaborative research blends reflexive ethnography and narrative inquiry. Rather than focusing on the macro-level of nation-states as the units of analysis, this research looks at the micro-level of individuals. Through participant observation, journal writing, email exchanges, and extended conversations with each other, our participants, and our students, we have uncovered significant insights that would likely have remained hidden in surveys or interviews. Japan has a strong national education system, centrally controlled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Japanese history, culture, and traditions have played important roles in shaping the present education system. So, to better understand the cultural context of this study, we first provide a brief description of education in Japan, and then introduce general features of teacher education. Finally, we illustrate how narrative understandings are an integral part of our pedagogies within the context of Japanese teacher education.

TEACHER EDUCATION IN JAPAN1 Since the Meiji restoration in 1868, Japan has looked beyond her shores for ideas and more efficient or better ways of accomplishing things. To be globally competitive, Japan had to learn to be modern, so scholars were sent to Europe, North America, and Asia to study education systems. This was a significant event influencing Japanese education for years to come. After WWII, Japanese education was modeled after the American 6 3 3 4 system. In 1947, the Fundamental Law of Education and the School Education Law were enacted, establishing a formal educational system on the principle of equal educational opportunity. In 1949, the Law for Certification of Education of Educational Personnel was enacted, with 249 institutions of higher education consolidated into 68 national universities, each containing a faculty of education. Three decades later, three institutions of teacher education were established by legislation: the Joetsu University of Teacher Education, the Hyogo University of Teacher Education, and Naruto University of Teacher Education. Since the

218

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

developments in the late 1970s, the overall system of teacher education in Japan has remained rather stable. The Law of School Education was revised in 1998 and 1999, and the New Course of Studies came into effect in 2002. Highly controversial reforms included more flexible school curricula, giving children more free time to enrich their school lives and cross-curricular “integrated learning,” which teachers had difficulty implementing (i.e., Namimoto, 2000; Suzuki, 2014). Other significant changes included a shortened school week (from 6 to 5 days) and new assessment methods. Some of these reforms were deemed “failures,” so there is a trend toward a “back-to-basics” approach among Japan’s teachers. Furthermore, teaching to the test is still the status quo beyond elementary school. Japanese teacher education is regulated by national laws established by MEXT. The most important statute regulating the Japanese national system of teacher education is the Law for Certification of Educational Personnel. This law in conjunction with other laws set forth the basic characteristics of Japanese teacher education. Certification and teacher training is the primary responsibility of MEXT but each of the 47 prefectures has some autonomy with their own boards of education, which issue renewable teaching certificates. New teachers are recruited by the prefectural boards of education annually from qualified teachers and teachers in training through competitive screening tests. First-year teachers have a one-year probationary period before becoming permanent employees. During this time, they must receive significant initial-service training. The planning of all initial and in-service training is the prefectural board of education’s responsibility. To become a teacher, one must obtain a teacher’s certificate by completing the subjects in a university program for teacher education and passing a rigorous exam. Candidates complete teacher training curricula at a MEXT-authorized university or junior college. But programs vary widely as there are nearly 1,000 institutions offering teacher training throughout Japan. Advanced, first class, and second-class certificates are awarded on completion of Master’s degrees, 4-year Bachelor’s degrees, and 2 3-year Associate degrees, respectively. In order to teach elementary or lower secondary school, a second-class certificate is required. There is no secondclass certificate for upper secondary school teachers. To teach in upper secondary schools, a first class certificate is required. Thus, teacher education in Japan forms a united pattern. The curriculum for preservice education at each university and college is developed within the framework of the Law for Certification of Educational Personnel. Each

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

219

prefectural university has established a teacher education program within a faculty of education. University-attached public schools at all levels play an important part in preservice teacher education by providing a space for student teachers and lesson study. Preservice teacher education involves an extended practicum of 3 4 weeks, visiting schools and other educationrelated institutions, and writing extensive lesson plans. Student teachers present exemplary lessons at the end of their practicum and must write lengthy critiques of each other’s teaching. There is a great deal of reflection built into every aspect of learning to be an effective teacher. Indeed, reflection is an integral part of curriculum, teaching, and learning in Japan. Much more emphasis is placed on practice than theory. Tacit personal, practical knowledge of teachers is respected, valued, and widely shared. Moreover, teacher kizuki2 or “with-it-ness” is analyzed and celebrated through action research. Since education is universally valued by Japanese society, teachers have traditionally been highly regarded and well paid. However, the working conditions of teachers have been steadily eroding with increasing incidents of classroom chaos, violence, and other serious problems. Teachers are often blamed for the ills of society in Japan. With the changing population demographics of fewer and fewer children, accompanied by further socio-cultural changes, there has been a public outcry for better schooling. Moreover, it is extremely competitive to become a teacher, and the exams to obtain a teacher’s license are difficult. The job of teachers is becoming more challenging. Most graduates do not get a full-time teaching position immediately. Many teachers find their way into the system initially through part-time work. So, the vast majority of beginning teachers are in effect “second-class citizens” as they do not receive formal initial teacher training unless they are later hired as full-time employees. This creates a “two-tiered system of teachers” those full-time with comprehensive initial teacher training and those part-time with significantly less formal training. This remains a serious flaw in Japanese teacher induction. Declining enrollments have been a demographic reality for decades now in Japan. There is much competition to enter teacher education programs and there are few positions available for qualified graduates. Thus, the Master’s degree in Japan is becoming a popular choice for some teacher candidates due to declining enrollments, credentialism, and increasing competition for fewer and fewer teaching opportunities. Moreover, while teachers are highly respected in Japan, there are more and more accountability pressures and increasing blame placed on teachers for declining student

220

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

achievements on international tests (Test Results Still Worisome [Editorial], 2010). Takayama (2007) insightfully noted the ironic trend of Japan re-borrowing the crisis of educational reform rhetoric from the infamous 1980s United States Nation at Risk report. The Japanese media, government, and some conservative academics are fueling the fire of educational reform, largely based on misconceived notions of drastically declining academic performance. There is a perceived perpetual educational crisis in Japan. Thus, a neoliberal tidal wave of reform, based on comparisons with Finland (which has a Master’s degree teaching credential) is likely driving MEXT proposals for a Master’s of teaching as the new standard of teacher accreditation. Research supports the practice of gradual teacher acculturation and the importance of ongoing professional development (American Federation of Teachers, 2001; Britton, Paine, Pimm, & Raizen, 2003; Howe, 2005b). This is already an integral part of teacher education in Japan, arguably one of the most successful teacher induction programs (Schwille, Dembele, & Schubert, 2007). Nevertheless, there remains persistent divides between theory and practice, universities and schools, and faculty and classroom teachers. Better articulation between university preservice education programs and classroom teaching is needed. Problems also stem from declining enrollments, an aging teaching population, fewer jobs, and increasing competition. Unfortunately, many students enter teacher education programs in Japan with no intention of becoming a teacher. Their goal is to get a “ticket to a decent job” for if they can get into a recognized program of study, pass the challenging tests to obtain a teaching license, this opens doors to becoming a civil servant or proving their worth to potential employers in the private sector. In these difficult economic times, students usually settle for any job they can find. Unless the economy improves, this is unlikely to change soon. In Japan, the role of teachers successfully integrates a reflective practitioner and lifelong learner with a knowledgeable scholar, artistic and caring professional, and responsible intellectual. Much praise has been made of Japanese teachers’ school-based professional development, known broadly as koˆnaikenshuˆ and often referred to as jugyoˆ kenkyuˆ or lesson study (Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006; Perry & Lewis, 2008). During their four-week practicum, student teachers are given a room to prepare lessons and work together in. The space is shared in much the same way as the teachers’ room,3 with desks arranged in clusters by subject or grade to facilitate collaboration. Thus, right from the beginning of a teacher’s

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

221

career, they learn to work together with others who share the same students (Howe, 2005a). Teacher induction includes extended internships, comprehensive induction programs, significant teacher collaboration, and ongoing professional development in order to facilitate a gradual acculturation into the teaching profession (Cobb, Darling-Hammond, & Murangi, 1995; Howe, 2005b; Shimahara & Sakai, 1995). Increasingly, these have been recognized as significant elements of successful teacher education programs throughout the world (Britton et al., 2003; Howe, 2006; Schwille et al., 2007). In narratives of teaching practica, student teachers share stories of great camaraderie amongst peers, teacher supervisors, and foreign teachers. With this in mind, we turn to the narrative pedagogy of the first author.

NARRATIVE PEDAGOGY IN JAPAN: NURTURING STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS The significant bonds or kizuna formed between teachers and students and amongst peers in Japan is noteworthy. I have experienced this phenomenon of kizuna with my teacher education students through their four years of study together in small cohorts of about 10 per year. For the past decade, I have had the pleasure of learning side by side with my students at Utsunomiya University, a mid-sized national university just 100 km north of Tokyo in the capital city of Utsunomiya, Tochigi-ken. When I started back in the fall of 2005, I could not understand why my predecessor was in tears as she described her close relationship with her students. Now, I can understand her feelings as I have developed close ties with each of my own cohorts. I have witnessed the growth of these students from wide-eyed high school grads to accomplished novice teachers. Every year, the English Department and other departments within Utsunomiya University admit small groups of only about 10 students. A professor is assigned as a supervisor for each group. This cohort takes many classes together, developing significant bonds over four years of study. Generally, I have taught a number of courses to students over their four years, including a communication course in their first year, a writing course in their second year, and seminars in their final two years. The English majors are usually grouped with Special Education majors, making my classes a desirable size of 8 20 students, easily facilitating student presentations, group work, and personal communication. Typically, I have less

222

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

than a dozen students in my seminars, allowing me to arrange the desks in a face-to-face horseshoe configuration to encourage discussion. At the beginning of every course, I open the class with an “ice-breaker” activity to help students feel comfortable speaking in English and to develop rapport. I also use something I call “ID Cards,” which allow students to share some of their thoughts, feelings, and interests with me on a weekly basis. This tool acts much like a renraku-cho, the communication book passed back and forth daily between parents and classroom teachers in elementary schools here something with which all Japanese students are familiar and something they will have to use in their own role as a teacher. My participation in the “ice-breaker” activities and the use of ID Cards gives me the opportunity to have an ongoing dialogue with students and to feel connected to them through the discovery of mutual interests. Recently, I have supplemented what we do in one seminar class with an online classroom using Word Press to build on our class discussions and enhance our dialogues. My classes all include student presentations, peer evaluations, reflection, discussion, journal writing, and the opportunity to learn together in a safe environment. Throughout their four years of study, we have many hours of classroom time together, culminating in a narrative inquiry course focused on students’ personal, practical knowledge. This is what I would like to share here. I have modeled this course on what I personally experienced as a graduate student at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto (OISE/UT) with Professor Michael Connelly. However, I have made some significant changes to adopt the approach for English as a foreign language (EFL) students and the different cultural context. In this class, as always, I begin with an “ice-breaker” activity. However, given the fact these students know each other very well, I have to create a lesson that encourages them to share some personal information that might be new to their peers. Thus, I have students each devise a unique and interesting personal question they would like to ask others. I ask them to write their questions on the board and then to write down their answers to each question on the back of their ID Card. I also participate in this exercise. Finally, students take turns asking these questions of each other. Questions can be as light and playful as “What is your most embarrassing moment?” or “Describe your ideal date.” But questions can also be more serious like “What is something you are most proud of?” In the next lesson, I introduce how to make an educational chronicle. Leading by example, I show them my educational chronicle and ask students to create their own in class using large poster paper and felt pens.

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

223

I explain that while my example is a timeline with formal educational events above and informal events below, educational chronicles can be less linear in design. For example, students might choose to make a video, a collage, or use poetry or even write a song for their final project. In any case, in this lesson, we rely on materials at hand. So, students spend about 30 minutes creating their educational chronicles. Then I ask them to place them about the classroom and to carefully look at the lives of their peers. Next, we return to our seminar style seating arrangement, sitting facing one another and having a discussion. I ask each student to either make a comment or ask a question to another student of their choosing. The third lesson is for sharing my own narrative to show students how to make a presentation, highlighting educational life events (both formal and informal). Narratives include PowerPoint slide shows, photo albums, home DVDs, journals, letters, scrapbooks, and other artifacts stored in a memory box. After my presentation, students are encouraged to ask questions or make comments. Students must write a letter of reflection to each presenter. I ask for one copy too. Students then take turns giving their own narrative presentations. I use a deck of cards to randomly and fairly select the order of presentations. If time permits, I invite special guests to give narratives. These guests have included my three children and previous graduates, veteran teachers as well as members of the community. In September, just before the start of the fall term, students often do a practicum in the attached junior high school. So, fresh from their practicum, they have lots of teaching stories to share. It is the perfect opportunity for extending their narratives to include their recent classroom experiences. For those students who are yet to do a practicum, I encourage them to present on other major life events like travel abroad or a volunteer experience. I continue the class in the same manner with students taking turns giving narrative presentations focused on their recent teaching experiences. Students again write letters of reflection to their peers. I usually finish the year off with a presentation from senior students who have gone abroad to study. In addition, I often have a celebratory Canadian pancake breakfast with this group, as this is the last course I take with them. Narratives of Two Special Education Students4 I first met Emi and Saki in April 2012. It was at a time of curriculum change in my department, so in a class that usually had nearly 20 first-year students, I found only four participants: Emi, Saki, and two others (a veteran teacher

224

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

and an exchange student from China). In the fall, it was just Emi and Saki who remained. So, I had to make some very significant changes to accommodate the much fewer students that were enrolled. While this was a challenge, it allowed me to learn a great deal more about these students, and it gave them more opportunities to share curriculum, teaching, and learning. Over the past three years, I have had Emi and Saki in several classes, including the seminar focused on narrative inquiry. So, I have chosen them for this brief example of my narrative pedagogy. I will include excerpts from some of their letters written in this class. In my narrative presentation, I tell stories of my cross-cultural experiences. These stories have become a significant and important part of my curriculum, teaching, and learning (Howe, 2003). I make use of PowerPoint, but I also include artifacts from my memory box including journals, letters, and more. I am a strong proponent of journal writing. Leading by example, I read an excerpt from my journal written on my first day in Japan (September 1, 1990). This provides students with a catalyst for discussion and helps them reflect on their own adventures abroad. This is illustrated in some of the letters of reflection between Emi, Saki, and me after our narrative presentations: Dear Mr. Howe, Thank you for your presentation. I enjoyed it very much, and that I could know about you [more] than ever. The most shocking story which I heard was the story of your entrance into Japan. Going abroad needs courage, but you came to Japan without any definite places you should go. I thought that you were very courageous! (Letter from Emi, April 19, 2013) Dear Howe-sensei, I enjoyed listening to your presentation last week. I was surprised by many things by your presentation. Especially, I was surprised the story when you came to Japan for the first time. Then I got worried by your presentation. The reason that I got worried is that I will go to Australia to study English and learn Special Needs Education from September to March …. But, I have never gone abroad. I have worries to go abroad. For example, to enter a country, to have a conversation with Australians or foreigners and so on. To relieve these anxieties, I’ll try to practice to speak English in Japan. First of all, I will do my best in English classes. (Letter by Saki, April 19, 2013) I was Dear Saki, Thank you for your presentation! It was very enjoyable one. surprised to know you took many lessons when you were young. And now, you take cooking lessons, don’t you? You sometimes show the picture of a meal which you cooked. It looks very delicious. Please tell me how to cook someday! Your family work as farmers. When Naomi and I went to your house, you cooked dinner. It involved food, which your I saw your family grew. It was very delicious. I will visit your house to eat something. brother for the first time! I think you and he are not alike. Are you close to your brother? You went to Australia last month, didn’t you? I want to know about your life in Australia. Before you go to Australia again, let’s drink tea with Naomi and Mariko. I am looking forward to coming that day! (Letter by Emi, written June 28, 2013)

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

225

Dear Saki, I hope you have a great experience in Brisbane, Australia. You must be excited about your upcoming trip in September. I’m sure your English skills will improve greatly with 6 months in Australia. I hope to see you again. Please keep in touch with me. I look forward to seeing your Facebook posts! (Letter written from me to Saki, June 28, 2013)

If undergraduates continue their studies in a Master’s course (which has happened on occasion), they have the opportunity to join my research methods class where we investigate in greater detail the concept of narrative inquiry as both phenomenon and method (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Since 2008, I have taught narrative inquiry to graduate students at Utsunomiya University as part of a general course in research methods. Also, I was invited by Professor Masahiro Arimoto to teach an intensive narrative course at Tohoku University in the fall of 2012. He contacted me after becoming interested in narrative from reading some of the literature in the field (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Elbaz-Luwisch, 1983, 2010), including some of my scholarship (Howe, 2005b). So, I was delighted to have the chance to collaborate with him in this unique course and to embark on narrative inquiry research projects in Japan. Our narrative research is an ongoing collaboration. The following section provides an insider perspective from Professor Arimoto who also participated in my seminar along with other teacher educators, teachers, and graduate students.

AN INSIDER’S VIEW OF NARRATIVE PEDAGOGIES FROM A JAPANESE TEACHER EDUCATOR “I want to help you with your research as it may one day help my own son’s development.” This is how a rural primary school teacher responded when I, Masahiro Arimoto, requested her to contribute to my analysis of communication in the classroom during my Bachelor’s thesis research in 1981. This episode reminded me of how strongly Japanese society values kankei (interrelationships) and access to networks of trusted people. In those days, some teachers had already started talking about teachers’ personal practical knowledge. Since then, although I noticed that curriculum planning and teaching needs teacher thinking as a study of practical knowledge (Elbaz-Luwisch, 1983), I have focused on curriculum evaluation. Nevertheless, for some

226

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

time now, I have been pondering the significance of narrative pedagogies and teacher’s personal practical knowledge. What do practitioners bear in mind? Simply put, they focus on stories of likeminded people and place emphasis on rich description of experience (Stake, 1988). Especially in a high context culture like Japan, tacit knowledge is largely based on experience and can only be revealed through the sharing of experience. Moreover, processes of socialization involving observation, imitation, and practice have been a part of Japanese traditional learning for centuries (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, I invited Edward Howe (the first author of this chapter) to Tohoku University’s Graduate School of Education to lead a special seminar on narrative inquiry in the fall of 2012. I describe here what I experienced in this intensive course, followed by another example of narrative pedagogy from my former graduate student, Ishimori-sensei, a high school English teacher.

Narrative Pedagogy within a Graduate School of Education Dr Howe introduced an ice-breaker people search activity first, and showed the 10 graduate students a guide to narrative presentations using a teacher example. The next activity was creating an educational chronicle. Students used large poster paper and felt pens to create a graphic organizer or timeline highlighting their formal and non-formal education life events. These educational chronicles were taped around the room for all to see. Time was devoted to study each other’s posters and for discussion afterward. Students had the opportunity to share their chronicles and to ask questions in turn. Other features of this intensive course included an introduction to essential elements of narrative inquiry, student presentations, discussion, and letters of reflection. Students each had the opportunity to do a narrative presentation, highlighting critical life events of their educational chronicles. Discussion followed each presentation along with letters of reflection written to the presenter by students and the teacher. I participated in this class in addition to the graduate students, who were a mixture of in-service and preservice teachers. In the course readings, Dr Howe emphasized his Comparative Ethnographic Narrative (CEN) methodology (Howe, 2010). Students were asked to summarize many of the readings themselves. He thought it was an important learning experience to give students this shared responsibility. Thus, the task of reading different papers was divided among the students. Each student had to make a summary and mini-presentation to the class.

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

227

For each lesson, students would take turns summarizing the readings in a mini-presentation with a one-page handout for others (in Japanese), followed by teacher-led discussions, mostly in English. Evidence from students showed that narrative pedagogy strengthened collegiality across generations. In sum, students had a positive experience in this class, and it led to better teaching and research for all participants (me included). Narrative teacher education pedagogies resonate with Japanese teachers as they are related to teachers’ personal practical knowledge and kizuki (loosely defined as teacher “with-it-ness” (Arimoto & Looney, 2012; Sakamoto, 2011) (see Fig. 1). What follows is how an in-service teacher successfully integrated global citizenship education in her English teaching. It is a fitting example of kizuki or “with-it-ness.”

Narrative Pedagogy in a Japanese High School Ishimori-sensei is a high school English teacher, credited for establishing a unique school-based global citizenship education program. Her narrative pedagogy is described within this context. She claims one of the main

Fig. 1. Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies Based on Kizuki. Source: Modified from Arimoto and Looney (2012) and Sakamoto (2011).

228

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

reasons for becoming a teacher is to share ideas about global issues with her students to make the world a better place. According to Ishimori-sensei, I feel that being a teacher is my calling. The world is full of many interesting experiences and many exciting possibilities. I would like to aid the cohesion of a more globalized society, even in developing countries, to the best of my ability. There are many starving children in the world today, and as the world becomes more globalized, its problems become more apparent. I am very excited to be able to talk with teachers around the world and educate society about these issues. (Personal communication, February 10, 2014)

Ishimori-sensei became an English teacher to share the importance of international communication and understanding. She wants her students to seriously consider global issues such as poverty, human rights, war/peace, and sustainable development. She trusts that education is the key to the future. Thus, since 2010, Ishimori-sensei has been teaching a new course entitled, “Global Citizenship.” In this highly effective and interesting class, students study various global issues. Her students have often said, “Thanks to your class, my perspective has changed.” The class is not the only chance to learn international problems or cultures; however, according to her students, it is the most powerful and popular class. This has a great deal to do with her extensive use of her personal practical knowledge coupled with narrative pedagogies. Ishimori-sensei believes her pedagogy is the key to success. Nevertheless, global education is not like other classes it is hard to grade. Instead of transmitting knowledge for examination by lecture, she lets students inquire into issues and deliberate solutions through discussion. Then, students gradually gain global perspectives and learn skills needed in a global society. Because the Global Citizenship class is so effective to her students, Ishimori-sensei wants to write about the class to share the information with as many teachers in Japan as possible. Once people know about global social issues and how we connect to those issues indirectly, they can change the way they think of the world. Hence, they notice invisible connections to other countries and how the issues bind people together. Hopefully, they will assume more responsible for their actions. It is a first step as narrative pedagogies make their way from university classrooms to high school classrooms in Japan.

CONCLUSION: INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT AND IMPLICATIONS ELSEWHERE As evidenced by the preceding stories from students, teachers, and teacher educators, narrative pedagogies play an important role in curriculum,

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

229

teaching, and learning in Japan within our increasingly interconnected world. Furthermore, narrative relates favorably to many Japanese cultural practices, including kankei (interrelationships), kizuna (bonds), and kizuki (with-it-ness). These are important, integral, and tacit elements of Japanese teachers’ practices because they embody the “mind and heart” of their personal practical sense of knowing. Furthermore, these practices involve placing other people’s needs ahead of our own. This is an essential skill for global citizens of the 21st century. Narrative pedagogies show great promise in providing much needed empathy for others within this global context. We believe these principles to hold true in Japan and elsewhere and thus can “travel” from one context to another with cultural considerations held closely in mind.

NOTES 1. Some of this section has been published previously by the first author (see Howe, 2008, 2013). It is used with permission. 2. Fig. 1, which appears later in this chapter, also addresses this concept. 3. In Japan, teachers do not have home classrooms. There is a common teacher room where all of the teachers’ desks relating to a particular specialty area are assembled. 4. Pseudonyms are used for the names of students.

REFERENCES Adler, S. M. (2011). Teacher epistemology and collective narratives: Interrogating teaching and diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 609 618. American Federation of Teachers (2001). Beginning teacher induction: The essential bridge. Educational Issues Policy Brief, 13. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/ pb_teacherinduction0901.pdf Arimoto, M., & Looney, J. (2012, August). Linking a framework of formative assessment and evaluation for “learning to learn“ to learning circles for transformational school leadership. Paper presented at the Sixth Biennial Meeting of EARLI Sig 1: Assessment and Evaluation, Brussels, Belgium. Britton, E., Paine, L., Pimm, D., & Raizen, S. (Eds.) (2003). Comprehensive teacher induction Systems for early career learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chan, E. Y. (2012). The transforming power of narrative in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 111 127. Chan, E. Y., & Ng, S. S. (2012). Narrative inquiry as pedagogy in a blended learning environment. International Journal of Learning, 18(11), 145 154.

230

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2010). Writing and becoming [a teacher]: Teacher candidates’ literacy narratives over four years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1249 1260. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.002 Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2011). Related literacy narratives: Letters as a narrative inquiry method in teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (Vol. 13, pp. 131 149). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. Philadelphia, PA: Farmer Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S., Orr, A. M., Pearce, M., & Steeves, P. (2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. London: Routledge. Cobb, V. L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Murangi, K. (1995). Teacher preparation and professional development in APEC members: An overview of policy and practice. In L. Darling-Hammond & V. L. Cobb (Eds.), Teacher preparation and professional development in APEC members: A comparative study (pp. 1 16). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (Eric Document No. ED 383 683). Conle, C. (1996). Resonance in preservice teacher inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 297 325. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. Coulter, C., Michael, C., & Poynor, L. (2007). Storytelling as pedagogy: An unexpected outcome of narrative inquiry. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(2), 103 122. Craig, C. J. (2008). Joseph Schwab, self-study of teaching and teacher education practices proponent? A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1993 2001. Craig, C. J. (2011). Narrative inquiry in teaching and teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (Vol. 13, pp. 19 42). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Craig, C. J., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating teachers as curriculum makers. In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York, NY: Croom Helm. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2010). Writing and professional learning: The uses of autobiography in graduate studies in education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 307 327. Hayashi, A., & Tobin, J. (2014). The power of implicit teaching practices: Continuities and discontinuities in pedagogical approaches of deaf and hearing preschools in Japan. Comparative Education Review, 58(1), 24 46. Hayhoe, R. (2000). Redeeming modernity. Comparative Education Review, 44(2), 423–488. Howe, E. R. (2003). Curriculum, teaching and learning within the context of comparative, international and development education. Canadian and International Education, 32(2), 1 14.

Narrative Teacher Education Pedagogies from across the Pacific

231

Howe, E. R. (2005a). Japan’s teacher acculturation: A comparative ethnographic narrative of teacher induction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada. Howe, E. R. (2005b). Japan’s teacher acculturation: Critical analysis through comparative ethnographic narrative. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31(2), 121 131. Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287 297. Howe, E. R. (2008). Teacher induction across the pacific: A comparative study of Canada and Japan. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 34(4), 333 346. Howe, E. R. (2010). A comparative ethnographic narrative approach to studying teacher acculturation. In V. L. Masemman & S. Majhanovich (Eds.), Papers in memory of David N. Wilson: Clamouring for a better world (pp. 121 136). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Howe, E. R. (2013). Alternatives to a master’s degree as the new gold standard in teaching: A narrative inquiry of global citizenship teacher education in Japan and Canada. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(1), 60 73. doi:10.1080/02607476.2012.733191 Howe, E. R., & Xu, Shijing. (2013). Transcultural teacher development within the dialectic of the global and local: Bridging gaps between east and west. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 33 43. Huber, J., Caine, V., Huber, M., & Steeves, P. (2013). Narrative inquiry as pedagogy in education: The extraordinary potential of living, telling, retelling, and reliving stories of experience. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 212 242. Iftody, T. (2013). Letting experience in at the front door and bringing theory through the back: Exploring the pedagogical possibilities of situated self-narration in teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 382 397. Japan Times. (2010). Test results still worisome [Editorial]. Japan Times, December 11. Retrieved from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20101211a1.html Kimura, Y. (2010). Narrative and emotion in teacher education. Bulletin of University of Fukui, Faculty of Education and Community (Education Sciences), 1, 197 209 (in Japanese). Kitchen, J. (2009). Passages: Improving teacher education through narrative self-study. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the selfstudy of practice (pp. 35 51). New York, NY: Springer. Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2010, August). Redesigning a teacher education program: A story of our challenges and successes. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices. Navigating the Public and Private: Negotiating the Diverse Landscape of Teacher Education, East Sussex, England. Latta, M. M., & Kim, J. H. (2011). Investing in the curricular lives of educators: Narrative inquiry as pedagogical medium. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 679 695. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(Spring), 3 14. Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Springer. Namimoto, K. (2000). On authenticiy of the ad hoc national council on educational reform. SEKAI (February, no. 681). Ninomiya, Y. (2010). Narrative approach to educational practices based on Clandinin et al. Gakkou kyoukugaku kenkyuu ronshuu (Tokyo Gakugei dai Bulletin), 22, 37 52 (in Japanese).

232

EDWARD HOWE AND MASAHIRO ARIMOTO

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Olson, M. R., & Craig, C. J. (2009). Traveling stories: Converging milieus and educative conundrums. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2009), 1077 1085. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2009.03.002 Perry, R., & Lewis, C. (2008). What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 365 391. Rodriguez, T. L. (2011). Stories of self, stories of practice: Enacting a vision of socially just pedagogy for Latino youth. Teaching Education, 22(3), 239 254. Sakamoto, Nami. (2011). Professional development through kizuki cognitive, emotional and collegial awareness. Teacher Development, 15(2), 187 203. Sasaki, Y. (2012). A review of studies on ‘thinking and orientation’ of a teacher in educational practice: Discussion from the point of awareness of a teacher. Bulletin of Faculty of Education, Hokkaido University, 117, 131 145 (in Japanese). Scho¨n, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schwille, J., Dembele, M., & Schubert, J. (2007). Global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving policy and practice. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Shimahara, N. K., & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and the United States. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Shin, J. (2012). Some perspectives for understanding teachers experiences in the studies on school reform. Bulletin of University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Education, 51, 329 340 (in Japanese). Stake, R. E. (Ed.). (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Suzuki, S. (2014). Toward professionalisation or de-professionalisation? Teacher education over the past 40 years: A Japanese retrospection. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 524–542. doi:10.1080/02607476.2014.95653 Takayama, K. (2007). A nation at risk: Transnational borrowing of the U.S. crisis discourse in the debate on education reform in Japan. Comparative Education Review, 51(4), 423 446. Xu, S. J. (2011). Narrative inquiry in curriculum of life on expanded and extended landscapes in transition. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 263 280). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Xu, S. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2009). Narrative inquiry for teacher education and development: Focus on English as a foreign language in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 219 227. Yonemura, M. (1982). Teacher conversations: A potential source for their own professional growth. Curriculum Inquiry, 12(3), 239 256.

LITERACY NARRATIVES FOR 21ST CENTURY CURRICULUM MAKING: THE 3RS TO EXCAVATE DIVERSE ISSUES IN EDUCATION Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker ABSTRACT This chapter explores literacy narratives as a narrative inquiry approach used in a Canadian education foundation course which focuses on story and experience as told and retold through letter-writing correspondence among teacher candidates. The process is illustrated in the chapter through a literacy narrative exemplar. The 3R framework developed by the author in her research program on poverty and education was applied to teacher candidates’ narrative ways of excavating storied experiences and assumptions in schooling. The 3R framework helps teacher candidates deconstruct their literacy narrative correspondences in order to avoid ‘hardening’ into their lived storied experiences as they work through the framework of: narrative reveal to help them excavate unconscious assumptions that surface in their writing; narrative revelation to show how they can interrogate further their own (sometimes biased) experiences, and; narrative reformation to show how prospective teachers can begin to

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 233 253 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022015

233

234

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

transform teacher knowledge through awakened new narratives. Literacy narratives, as a curriculum making pedagogy to deconstruct formally and informally using personal educative experiences, readings from the course, and usage of the 3R framework, is a pedagogical example of social justice that gives dignity, respect, and perspective in order to reframe thinking about diverse issues in teaching and teacher education. Keywords: Literacy narratives; narrative pedagogy; LGBTQ issues; poverty; bullying; diversity issues

INTRODUCTION This chapter is divided into six sections. In the section “Philosophy on Curriculum Making: Pedagogy of Narrative Ways of Knowing,” I provide my personal philosophy of teacher education as relationship, how I enact a teacher educator’s life, and how I engage with writing as a literacy method that informs my curriculum making alongside my students as we excavate diverse issues in schooling. I outline my theoretical inspirations garnered from Connelly and Clandinin’s (1988) foundational work on teacher education and narrative inquiry, and on Dewey’s (1938) and Schwab’s (1973) work on experience and the commonplaces of curriculum, respectively. In the section “Literacy Narratives as an Inquiry Tool of Thought,” I define literacy narratives and describe it as a narrative inquiry method and pedagogical approach for 21st century teaching to extrapolate diverse issues in education. Next, in the section “Theoretical Grounding of Literacy Narratives,” I provide theoretical insights that have grounded my work in literacy narratives as well as my 3R framework of narrative reveal, narrative revelation, and narrative reformation to excavate the complexity of diverse issues in education. The section “The Literacy Exemplar,” illustrates the literacy narratives in action, written by three former students in my foundational course1 and that depicts with detail the grounded use of diverse narratives of experience and the 3R framework. The section “What Literacy Narratives Offer in Teacher Education” provides a commentary on the literacy narrative exemplar and what literacy narratives offer in teacher education. The final section offers implications for the use of narrative ways of knowing in teacher education courses and how, despite the field is fruitful with narrative exemplars, still holds complexity. An account of others’ work furthers discussion and possibility in narrative inquiry pedagogy for teacher education.

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

235

PHILOSOPHY ON CURRICULUM MAKING: PEDAGOGY OF NARRATIVE WAYS OF KNOWING What drives me as a teacher educator? It is relationship. The teacherlearner relationship is vital to how I educate and learn alongside my [teacher candidate] students, our future teachers. I base my teaching on constructivist principles that are reflective of learners’ prior knowledge and that take into account diverse ways of learning, which focus on relationship with others in classrooms and in our larger educational society. I incorporate a community-based classroom setting and take up narrative activities which promote the broadening of perspective as well as learner-generated knowledge. Students are guided by my emphasis on learning by doing and by acknowledging social justice issues and diversity of thinking, living, and being. I believe in the fundamental priority of the development of students’ critical thinking skills as they adapt to each situated experience, whether they are learning in their theory courses, whether they are responding to the needs of K-12 students in classrooms or other educational settings, or whether they are conducting research in such settings. To enact this way of teaching, I draw upon the philosophical underpinning of experience as a central focus to understanding that humans live storied lives. I believe in an ethic of trust, respect, integrity, and care (Ontario College of Teachers, 2006) while in a teaching-learning relationship with students. The framework I use to incorporate these ethical qualities is narrative inquiry a way of understanding experiences as lived and as told through story (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). In my teachings and scholarship of teaching (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2010, 2011), I believe in narrative ways of telling and retelling, writing, and rewriting personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) stories with my students. To accomplish this, specifically, I have embraced a narrative teaching method I term literacy narratives (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2004). By using this method, I adhere to ethical standards of trust, respect, integrity, and care, or what I acronym as TRIC (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2008). I believe I am a curriculum maker alongside my students and, cliche´ aside, the “trick” to this is grounded in TRIC, in knowing at the deepest level possible the context of others’ knowledge experiences in a manner that is trustworthy, respectful, holds integrity, and care and ultimately maintains human dignity. This is the essence, I believe, in what it means to educate and to be educated and I view curriculum as experience. My students are curriculum makers alongside one another. In this manner, we form a curriculum of lives (Downey & Clandinin, 2010), lives that parallel, intersect, oppose, deliberate, polarize,

236

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

unite and, ultimately, come to deeper understanding of teacher knowledge and of what it means to be a teacher in a very complex diverse world. I draw on the importance of narrative ways of knowing as a promising pedagogy in teacher education and in settings of practice that focus on relationship with others. This means I believe in a Deweyan way of understanding curriculum as lived and experienced (Dewey, 1938). I am what I teach, and my teaching is related to what I study, write about, and theorize about. My commitment to narrative inquiry is mirrored by my deeply felt commitment to marginalized people and communities, for example. These issues get taken up both formally and organically in my classroom, through stories told, shared, and written about the literacy narratives by students grappling to practice the theory learned, and theorizing together the practice of their teaching. Diverse topics surface in experienced stories shared: culture, race, racism, poverty, immigrant experiences, second language learning, mental health issues, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) experiences, bullying, body image and related issues of identity, single parent families, homelessness, terrorism, war, love … these are but a few diverse issues that students feel compelled to write about with peers, making public their private lives and their lived experiences, while grappling with the complexity of how to teach with the new awareness of 21st century education. Relationship and developing teacher knowledge found in the lived and storied experiences of my students, is what drives me as a teacher educator.

LITERACY NARRATIVES AS AN INQUIRY TOOL OF THOUGHT Literacy narratives is a narrative inquiry approach I incorporate in my third year teacher education foundation course which focuses on story and experience as told and retold through letter-writing correspondence amongst teacher candidates (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2010, 2011). I use literacy to mean how teacher candidates come to see themselves in their diverse world; literacy, then, refers to life experiences had and written about to other peers, while in a writing relationship with those peers. I define literacy, in Tompkins’ (1997) words, to fully capture how teacher candidates “come to learn about the world as a means to participate more fully in society” (p. 6). In this manner, teacher candidates come to a deeper understanding not just of the word of textbooks and lectures, but also the world

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

237

of their own diverse lived experiences and their peers’ diverse experiences (Freire & Macedo, 1987). As a narrative tool of thought, the literacy narratives, is main assignment in my foundational class, and spans the length of the full course (e.g., 20 two-hour sessions, or 12 three-hour sessions). The written dialogue in letters provides deep and long-term reflection on narratives of experience on topics of teaching, learning, and schooling in Ontario, Canada. Course discussion and exemplars on narrative inquiry are provided while course readings, and my own writing models of narrative work, helped to engage the process of reflection-in-action to the traditional theory-to-practice model. The writing assignment calls for deliberation on theory of diverse topics in education as reflected on through their own educative lived experiences. The teacher candidates come to learn how their own critical written dialogue, with written responses by peers, act as counter-narratives for ongoing reflection and knowledge assimilation. In this manner, the assignment is both narrative and constructivist-based while valuing students’ storied way of knowing the world around them as prospective teachers. The method has gained attention in the field through a four-year longitudinal study on the effects and outcomes of literacy narratives in teacher education courses (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2010, 2011).

THEORETICAL GROUNDING OF LITERACY NARRATIVES Theoretical Inspirations into Curriculum Making and Literacy Narrative Understandings As a teacher educator, I have been inspired by Clandinin and Connelly (1992, 1996, 2000) and Connelly and Clandinin (1988, 2006) foregrounding of the importance of experience in education (Dewey, 1938) as well as Schwab’s (1969, 1971, 1973, 1983) notion of teachers as agents, doers, debaters, deliberators and decision makers, and curriculum makers of education.2 To understand the complexity of teacher knowledge and the relationship between life and education, narrative inquiry is an essential methodology for understanding experience as lived and as told through stories told and written. Connelly and Clandinin’s (1988) notion of curriculum is that it is “one’s life course of action” (p. 1). Curriculum can be understood to be made alongside students and, by direct association,

238

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

curriculum is made through the intertwining of the educator’s life course of action and her students’ life courses of action. The curriculum of lives, then, is curriculum that is centered in the experiences of several individuals living in relation (Downey & Clandinin, 2010; Huber & Clandinin, 2005). Narrative inquiry, in this manner, “invites curriculum making that arises out of the lives of our teacher candidates as they intertwine with our lives as teacher educators” (Ciuffetelli Parker, Kitchen, & Pushor, 2011, p. 13). Inspired by Connelly and Clandinin’s narrative terms, Ciuffetelli Parker (2013) wrote, Connelly and Clandinin’s (2006) inquiry terms living, telling, retelling, and reliving are useful terms to help describe the process of how teachers can burrow deeply into narratives of experience, as stories are told and retold, in order to make new meaning of their knowledge-in-practice and ultimately to use narratives as a way to help reveal hidden biases, as well as to help make newly formed narrative revelations worthy of further interrogation for future practice.

From the starting point of a narrative inquiry framework of telling, retelling, living, reliving terms, this chapter explores three teacher candidates’ knowledge-in-practice of diverse issues in education, as evidenced by their literacy narrative (letter) exchanges wherein they deconstruct their teacher knowledge through the narrative approaches of narrative reveal, revelation, and reformation, or what I term the 3Rs.

The 3Rs in Literacy Narratives: Narrative Reveal, Revelation, and Reformation The 3R framework (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013) first was developed from my research program on poverty and education as it was applied to narrative ways of excavating storied experiences and assumptions that educators keep of students and families living in contexts other than their own. The terms narrative reveal, revelation, and reformation are useful to help burrow deeply into storied assumptions and how teaching gets enacted when those assumptions also get enacted in classrooms. Storied assumptions of diverse topics, especially in our rapidly changing society, can be dangerous beginning points for beginning teachers. Conle’s (1999) metaphorical description of hardened and frozen stories helps us better understand how we might get “hardened to” or “stuck” in life without paying particular regard to our world’s history, change, or even how to live in the moment of truth rather than the foregone conclusion of the “stuck” story, or without paying

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

239

attention to Connelly and Clandinin (2006) three-dimensional space of temporality, sociality, and place of our storied experiences. Conle poignantly cautions that our “stuck” stories run the risk of being lost of their experiential context, asserting, “Stories can harden in this way; some of them may even shrink to one-liners and serve to order our world stereotypically” (p. 18). The 3R narrative framework helps teacher candidates deconstruct their literacy narrative correspondences in order not to “get stuck” or ‘harden’ into their lived storied experiences. Fig. 1 illustrates how teacher candidates work through the framework of: narrative reveal to help them excavate unconscious assumptions that surface in their writing correspondences; narrative revelation to show, once a revelation has surfaced, how they can interrogate further their own experiences to gain perspective of the “hardened” story, and; narrative reformation to show how they can, as prospective teachers, begin to reform their teacher knowledge through an awakened new story. The literacy narrative exemplar which follows will give evidence to this process. Following, three teacher candidates who formed a writing triad in my course have contributed their literacy narrative as an exemplar. Kalvin, a third year university student, shares a candid family story on an issue of gender identity and, as the discussion propels forward to the topic of LGBTQ issues in education, Kalvin uses the 3R framework to excavate further his own story as well as teachers’ role in schools. Marley, another third year student, responds and shows resonance (Conle, 1996) in Kalvin’s story by echoing her own non-mainstream experience of living in poverty and the storied myths of poverty and schooling. She describes

Narrative Reveal (excavated assumptions that surface in stories)

Narrative Revelation (interrogated storied experience that lead to awakened perspective)

Narrative Reformation (transformed teacher knowledge through the awakened new story)

Fig. 1.

The 3R Framework.

240

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

both her home life and school life to juxtapose conditions that are critical to the well-being of students. Shaylin, the final member of the triad and also a third year concurrent student, consolidates the storied plotline of deliberating critical diverse topics with new eyes by sharing her story of body image and bullying and what she has learned about her own teacher knowledge through a personal critical experience. I offer the literacy exemplar as a holistic piece, to show closely and with detail the grounded use of diverse narratives of experience and the 3R framework.

THE LITERACY EXEMPLAR Dear Marley and Shaylin, I believe [our] literacy narratives are an opportunity for creating a “knowledge community” where an exchange of experiences in the raw can be made in a safe setting, while “negotiating meaning and authorizing my own and other’s interpretations” of these events (Craig, 2011). Because of this, I would like to share with you a very personal story not about myself, but of my brother Noah and his journey thus far as a transgender individual. In case the term needs any clarification, a transgender is one who’s gender identity (male or female) does not align with their physical sex. Therefore, Noah who is biologically a female, identifies as a male, and uses gender expression to state this (through appearance, speech and behaviour). Although this is not directly a story of my life, I am indirectly affected and intertwined in his journey as a brother and family member, and understand that such an experience will shape my “professional knowledge landscape” (Clandinin and Connelly in Craig, 2011). Inspired by the way we deconstructed “Mr. Lincoln’s Way3” through narrative reveal, revelation and reformation, I hope to use Ciuffetelli Parker’s (2013) methods of narrative inquiry to relive this experience with new meaning and understanding. Thus I begin the process of narrative reveal through my experiences of Noah’s journey in the enrolling of events that have occurred within the past week, and years: Recently, my Dad revealed that he had accepted a job offer from his company to operate in Montreal. He has been working in Montreal for the past couple of months, and would fly home on weekends to visit us. However, the company’s Montreal location needed a permanent bilingual individual for a similar position as his, and because he enjoyed his work there and was engaged so intricately with the working environment in Quebec, he believed it was an opportunity to accept, at a time where he felt like was appropriate. The late flights home on Friday nights, and early 4 am flights Monday mornings were beginning to take a toll on his health, and within the next year both my brother and I would both be enrolled and operating on our own in post-secondary. Eventually, my mother would follow my Dad to Montreal once he was settled in. However, although an exciting point in our lives for us all, it was not without worry. My mother is anxious at the idea of leaving us in Ontario, and although we have family all around as support, it was different than

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

241

having an immediate mother and father figure to come home to. She revealed to me on the phone that it was not so much me she was worried for, but my brother. Kasandra, is my recently turned 18-year old sister. About two years ago she came out to the family as transgender, and wanted from this point on, to be identified as Noah. He revealed that from a very young age he already felt a disconnection between who he was physically, and who he was mentally and emotionally. Recalling, I could definitely see the process of discovery. He had always exuded more masculinity than I had, and in his early teen years he identified as pan-sexual (attraction to all gender identities and sexes) and read many books on sexuality and gender. I think the moment it hit me that he was transgender was when he revealed that he had purchased a chest binder online, without the knowledge of my parents. Eventually they discovered his purchase and he came out to them after coming out to me. It was not a smooth unveiling of truths. My parents were shocked, but also disoriented that all of a sudden, the person who they had raised and identified as a daughter no longer wanted to be that; he wanted to be their son. By this point many of his friends knew, and eventually Noah had talked to the school administration and his teachers about no longer being identified as Kasandra, but Noah, and that the usage of pronouns should always refer to “his” or “he” or “him.” It really breaks my heart to tell you that this topic is not so much accepted, but also avoided in our conversations as a family even to this day. Every time it comes up, a heated argument occurs with hurtful comments exchanged, and I often find myself caught in mediation between my parents and Noah. Where my Dad is more quietly disengaged from this discussion, my mother is more vocal and passionate in revealing her emotions. And I see all three of them hurting. There have been numerous car rides alone with my mother where I have tried to explain to her the importance of accepting Noah for who he is, and what it would mean for his dignity and self-esteem to know he has a supportive family, his foundation to rely on. I have expressed that our actions, our thoughts, towards his transition are huge in effecting how he develops emotionally, mentally, and socially. That gender identity is not binary, but expressed along a spectrum through a range of masculinities and femininities, and that we all “perform” a form of gender through our lives was also deeply expressed through what I had learned from my sociology classes. But each time, it ended in the same negative “end of discussion” way, and I could not understand why it was so hard for her, especially when I saw all these other people in Noah’s life accepting [him] [his] friends, [his] teachers, [his] girlfriend, and even our cousins. Noah booked a private appointment with our family physician about a month ago. Very soon, he has a consultation for hormone therapy in Guelph to get more information. This is one of the reasons why he wants to stay, instead of pursuing postsecondary in Montreal. However during the time that my mom waits for my Dad to move in this November, and the time it takes to sell our home in Guelph, she does not want Noah going through this process in our home. She believes it’s not the right time especially, to do it while trying to juggle new experiences of post-secondary that are about to come. Yet Noah is adamant about doing it, because, every time he goes out in public, he feels outed as a female. Furthermore, he wants to legally change his name to Noah now that he is 18 years old.

242

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

“Mother, you have to be there for Kasandra” (I am not permitted to refer to him as ‘Noah’ in front of her). I had made this comment sometime this week over the phone. She replied, “I love your sister to death, and I always will. I will love and support her because she is my child and we are family. I don’t care if she dresses like a man, or has a girlfriend I’m all for that. She can do hormone therapy when she is on her own, but I will not have her do hormone therapy in this house. I can’t accept the idea of rejecting and working with what God has given you; He has made each one of us in a way for a reason.” She went on, “Back then, do you know how happy I was to be told by the doctor that I was having a baby girl? A daughter! I was jumping for joy. It’s so hard to see that daughter change into a man before your eyes.” What a critical moment this was for me in my understanding of this experience. Reflecting on my narrative reveal, the revelation, where I gain new understanding from my retelling, occurred on my last phone call with my mom. I understood that it wasn’t just Noah hurting; my father, and especially my mother were hurting just as badly. To imagine their only daughter transition physically before their eyes into a different sex is disorienting and hard. It has only been two years that my parents were confronted to such a truth, a truth that has taken years for Noah to develop, and to come to understand his course of life and identity. Thus, the narrative reformation from this story, where I relive my experiences in tension (Connelly, 2011, as in Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013), has helped me achieve a new mindset to live by in my teaching practices. Reflecting on my mother’s emotions, I have come to see that there are always two sides to a story. Even though in a modern society of today, there has been some progress in understanding and accepting the LGBTQ community, it does not omit the fact that there are still deeply rooted cultural and religious values that people hold. My mother’s comment on accepting what God has given us, is one example of this. Therefore, as a teacher I must come to understand and reflect on the diversity within my classroom. Furthermore, I have come to learn that behind every student there is a deeper story to them than what appears in the classroom, based on their individual experiences; although Noah functioned well socially in school, there was also a side that was unhealthy emotionally and mentally at times within the home context. If we refer back to Dewey’s (1938) views on the meaning of purpose, it is more than just having a strong impulse and desire. Indeed, these are driving forces that motivate a person to carry through a course of action, but purpose also involves observation and judgement in order to develop ways to attain this purpose, and understanding the potential consequences that could follow with certain courses of action (Dewey, 1938). I could definitely see that Noah encompassed Dewey’s view of purpose. It is not just a strong desire to become a male, but creating ways for him to achieve that by booking a hormone therapy consultation. Judgement wise, he envisions that the hardships he is experiencing in the present do not outweigh the benefits of his transition in the future, and gaining a sense of unity between his physical self and other aspects of his identity. Likewise, my parents also demonstrate purpose, although their views are on the opposite spectrum; they saw that hormone therapy at this time and during his postsecondary education would lead to negative consequences in his future. You may still be wondering why I am sharing this intimate story, and how it has anything to do with my teaching practice. But as a teacher, we are not formed only by

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

243

our relationship in the classroom, but by those relationships outside of it as well (Craig, 2011). In sharing this story, it relates to Dewey’s views on subject matter, where the process of this narrative inquiry is not just relating to personal experience, but developing these situations into a richer truth. It demonstrates the “organic” connection between education and experience in everyday life (Dewey, 1938). Indeed, education and teaching is not just a career, but a lifestyle. Yours Truly, Kalvin Dear Kalvin and Shaylin, I would like to start off by thanking you, Kalvin, for sharing your story about Noah. This is a very personal story and I’m so glad you decided to share it with both Shaylin and me. This is clearly something that affects you a lot even though it is not about you directly. I liked how you used the model of living, telling, retelling and reliving [and the 3Rs] to explain your narrative. Kalvin, you are such a strong person and I love the fact that you are so open-minded and you are able to see something from all perspectives. I was not anticipating for you to talk about how you now understand how your mother is feeling. If it were me, I would have a hard time relating to what my mother has to say because you obviously can understand the pain that Noah has been through. Instead, you said, “Reflecting on my mother’s emotions, I have come to see that there are always two sides to a story.” This proves how open-minded you are to all perspectives because even though you back up Noah’s decisions you are still able to see things from your parents’ side. I can also relate to this because my mother is very religious and would have said the exact same thing your mom said: that God has made us who we are for a reason. She is very traditional in her ways of thinking; therefore, most of the time I do not agree with her. She does not believe in anyone being homosexual or transgender. I hate it. I do not judge anyone based on their personal choices in life and I think everyone is who they are no matter how different they are to me. So, hearing some of the comments my mother makes really bothers me. After reading your personal take on an issue that is so closely related to you, though, I can now start to understand why my mother may be feeling the way she is. She was raised in a different time period than I was (she is almost 60) and her religion makes her who she is. So, I will try harder not to be mad at her for having her own opinions on things even if I disagree with them. I can closely relate to the report we read, “Poverty and Education: A Niagara Perspective” (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2012). The opening line is, “Every month, 770,000 people in Canada use food banks with 40% of those relying on food banks for children.” This is the harsh reality of the poverty that our country and province faces on an everyday basis. I happen to be one of the 148 000 families in Ontario that depended on food banks. This report definitely hits home because that’s exactly how my childhood was when I was growing up. I still remember living in subsidized town houses with just my mom. The food banks would drop off cardboard boxes of food to the central location between all of the town houses every Tuesday. There were a few people, including my mom, who would get together every week and divide

244

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

everything up equally so that each person getting a box would get the same amount of items. Each Tuesday I would come home after school and we would have a new box of food given to us for free. Because of my mom’s financial situation, we relied on getting this box of food every week. So did many other families. We were all very grateful for the opportunity of the food. At the same time, the food was also not the healthiest. They would give us boxes of stale cookies, and the fruits and vegetables were always wilted. My mom is a very healthy person so she would always spend what little money she had to keep us healthy by buying extra things that the food banks couldn’t give us. The report talks about how rates of poverty are more than double for lone-mother headed households and children of Aboriginal, racialized, and new immigrant families. I know this is true because my mom is a single mother and always has been. We have never gotten child support from my father even though legally he should have been paying us. I have seen my mom struggle throughout my childhood and we have always lived below the poverty line, no matter how hard my mom tried. As soon as I was old enough to start contributing, I did. I was lucky enough to live in a decent area as a child and the school I went to definitely did not let my socioeconomic status define me. Because of the school I went to and the teachers I was able to work with I was able to overcome this stereotype that was placed on me. The school built a positive attitude. My mom was also an engaged parent so that helped me a lot too. Clearly, it is important for teachers to all work together to make the school come together with the community. Schools should not stereotype based on students and what SES they are. Students should not be judged on this factor and therefore it is important for all teachers to do the best they can to not let something like this govern the students’ lives. It’s crucial for teachers to go through training and professional development so that they are aware how to deal with situations like this. Learning more about poverty is also a way to help teachers address these issues. The article states that teachers at one Niagara school “gain new knowledge about poverty and a deeper sensitivity to poverty issues.” Others at this school remarked that their “eyes were opened” and they were less likely to judge what they saw. One teacher said it helped her “re-frame her thinking” (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2012). If everyone in our community is aware about what some families have to go through it will make students’ lives easier to deal with. I have first-hand experience being a child of a low-income single-parent family so I can say that this is true. My teachers saw the potential I had and motivated me to perform to the best of my ability despite what was going on at home. It’s important for everyone to work together so that all students can succeed. An [issue that] another article touches on is the [myth] that children who are raised in families who suffer from poverty follow their parents into unemployment or welfare (Dudley-Marling, 2007). Personally, I disagree with this. Even though my mom has always struggled with paying bills, this does not mean I have to follow in her footsteps. Seeing her struggling gives me even more motivation to succeed in life because I have been through a lot that I don’t want to put my future kids through. She has always tried really hard even though she has not always succeeded, which to me is important because I have learned to work hard because that’s how my mom is. I wouldn’t say that all poor kids follow their parents into unemployment because,

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

245

for me, I feel I am so much more motivated to do well in life because I’ve seen how much my mom has worked to get us where we are now. Sincerely, Marley Sullivan Dear Kalvin and Marley, First off Kalvin, thank you for sharing your story with us. It must have taken a lot for you to reveal this very intimate story, and I greatly appreciate it. Dissecting stories about prevalent societal issues, such as gender and sexuality, is vital to the reformation of individual mindsets regarding these issues. As stated by Ciuffetelli Parker, “Narratively inquiring into our storied assumptions by using the three terms can help to restore a more democratic way of viewing our students” (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013). You did not simply brush off what your mother had to say about Noah and just assume that she was just being stubborn. But rather, by dissecting your story using the 3 R’s framework and thinking deeper about what she said to you, you came to the realization that there is more than one side to every story, and the opinions held by individuals regarding such issues are deeply engrained in for a reason, and it important to keep this in mind when working with [students and families]. It is therefore important to [acknowledge a] person’s full and in depth story before making quick judgements, which you noted that you will strive to do in your future classrooms in addition to promoting an environment of acceptance and diversity. I have come to know you as such an open minded, accepting, and loving person, and I know that these qualities will make you an amazing educator. And thank you as well, Marley, for sharing your story of your financial struggles throughout your childhood. This really opened up my eyes to exactly what children and parents deal with when they are struggling financially. Having grown up in a fairly stable financial household, I had never really understood how it felt to have to be concerned with where our next meal was coming from, or about how I could financially contribute to my family. By reading and listening to your various stories, I can see that you are not only an accepting and open minded individual, but I have also come to realize just how strong of an individual you are. I don’t know if I could have gone through what you did and came out stronger on the other side, so I truly admire you for being able to do so. Being able to hear the stories of individuals who struggle with [diverse] issues is essential to opening up the minds of those who have never had to deal with such issues or known anyone else who has. While we were discussing some of the commonly held stereotypes of those in poverty during lecture last week, I will admit that I held some of these beliefs myself. That is why it is so important to share our own stories and listen to those of others. Narrative inquiry has the power to alter mindset [to] see the world [not by] societal stereotypes that have no factual basis behind them [but by perspective]. And this relates very well to the story that I will be sharing with you both. Determining the significance of our experiences is critical to moving forward and improving ourselves as teacher candidates. As Dewey (1938) notes, simply making observations without analyzing their significance is insufficient for us to move

246

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

forward and learn. Unless we find the significance in our experiences, we will not be able to use these events as a source of prior knowledge when encountering future experiences of a similar nature or dealing with similar problems. Following along with the theme of using narrative reveal, revelation, and reformation (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013) to relive and uncover new meanings of my experiences (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006), I will be sharing an experience I’ve recently had using this “three R’s” framework. Last Monday morning, after I had woken up and gotten ready for school, I decided to check my Facebook before I left to catch my bus. I was scrolling nonchalantly down my News Feed as usual, looking for a post that peaked my interest. And I found one, and unfortunately it didn’t catch my eye for good reason. One of my Facebook friends posted a status on his page that said the following: “You can’t heckle overweight people but you can with smokers; you’re both doing the same irreversible damage to your body, so why has one become socially acceptable and the other not?” I did a double take, and read it over again, because I could not believe what I was reading. This guy, whom I had been friends with all throughout grade school, was seriously questioning why it was not appropriate to insult and heckle overweight individuals for being overweight. When I went to look at the comments, I was expecting to see a load of backlash for this insulting and ignorant display. However, I received another shock: there were people agreeing with this! I was seeing comments like “It’s not rude. It’s being concerned and caring. This idea that it is rude needs to change. You’re overweight and unhealthy, do something about it!” I was absolutely flabbergasted not only the rudeness, but the sheer ignorance and arrogance of what these people were saying. As both of you know, this subject is extremely personal to me. Having struggled with my weight for essentially my whole life, I could not just sit back and ignore this. So I decided to act. Rather than simply shouting abuse and calling them out, I decided that a more effective means of getting my message across was to share some of my story with them. I told them about some of my own personal struggles with weight loss and personal health. After I posted this, others came to my aid and shared their opinions and some stories of their own as well. Hopefully, after seeing some of the stories of people who have shared my own struggles has opened up some eyes and reformed the mindsets (Ciuffetelli Parker, 2013) of some of these individuals. Similar to those in poverty, overweight and obese individuals are often looked down upon due to these commonly held stereotypes. Many of those who posted these rude and insensitive comments likely hold many of these stereotypes. I am glad, therefore, that I chose to address the problem the way that I did. Hopefully, by sharing my own story with them, and encouraging others to share theirs, I have helped these individuals develop a different and more critical perspective of the stereotypes that they hold and encourage them to look a little deeper before making assumptions about someone they don’t know or don’t understand. Like Kalvin mentioned previously, there are two sides to every story, and you should do your best to look for all the facts before jumping to conclusions about an individual or group of people. I intend to keep this message in mind when I enter into my own classroom. All of my students have their own unique set of experiences, and they are

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

247

the way that they are for a reason. Therefore, I will do my best to [understand] their stories and find out who they are to better understand them and help them grow both intellectually, personally, and socially. Best regards, Shaylin Halchuk

WHAT LITERACY NARRATIVES OFFER IN TEACHER EDUCATION The narrative exemplar illustrates how meaningfully and seriously Kalvin, Marley, and Shaylin reflect on their lived diverse experiences as they are related to their beginning teaching careers. Kalvin shares the intimate story of tension between members of his family on a very personal topic of transgender/identity. Often taboo, this topic is brought to the surface not to bring judgment or chastise those who are in conflict with LGBTQ issues, but to understand at a deeper level the persons involved in the storied account. Kalvin uses the 3R framework to unravel his own tensions between supporting Noah and understanding his mother’s perspective. Kalvin presents his written story as a narrative reveal and, by retelling his family story to his peers, a revelation is made which allows him to see with new eyes that his parents, as well as Noah, were “hurting just as badly.” He believes a narrative reformation comes with the act of “reliving my experiences in tension” and that as much as he might push against the progress of modern society, that “there are still deeply rooted cultural and religious values that people hold” and that as a teacher Kalvin must “learn that behind every student there is a deeper story” between home and school communities. Kalvin becomes deeply attuned to this through his literacy narrative and through the use of the 3R narrative strategy to unravel the tension in his story. He uses Dewey (1938) to ground his new teacher knowledge that moral “purpose also involves observation and judgement” and that “the process of narrative inquiry is not just relating to personal experience, but developing these situations into a richer truth.” In this manner, for Kalvin, the literacy narrative offers a richer truth behind the veil and mask of our hardened stories, in order to make “connection between education and everyday life.” Marley’s response is important as we see in the exemplar the academic richness that ensues with letter correspondence between prospective

248

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

teachers. Marley immediately acknowledges the fullness of how the 3R framework has helped Kalvin to deconstruct a complex issue in his family but that also is co-constructed to include the diverse complexities in current classrooms. She resonates with Kalvin’s story, citing his words and writes about her tensions within his story too and then, with this resonance (Conle, 1996), Marley bravely offers her own diverse story of life in challenging circumstances beginning with direct comparisons of religion, morality, and value as it pertains to her relationship with her mother and her own life experience. Kalvins’ deconstruction of his story leads to Marley’s alternative perspective of her mother’s traditional ways and writes, “I can now start to understand why my mother may be feeling the way she is.” What follows is an in-depth contextual description of Marley’s formative experiences. Using poverty literature as her backdrop, she adds to the lived personal account of her own life in poverty with her single mother. From the “food banks … drop off cardboard boxes” to seeing “my mom struggle throughout my childhood” her literacy narrative makes a case for the dignity of families living in poverty and uses her own story as a hopeful example. Marley highlights the danger of stereotyping children who live in poverty and the stigma that can remain when teachers do not have an awareness of diverse issues in schools today, “If everyone … is aware about what some families have to go through …” then, like Marley, students can be “motivated [t]o perform to the best of my ability despite what was going on at home.” Marley contextualizes her own storied experience with an academic stance, citing articles to back her live example. This reflection-inaction began with Kalvin’s use of theory to unravel the complexities of his own diverse family. The narrative revelation continues here in Marley’s literacy narrative response in that, sharing in this concentrated manner, allows meaning to surface between knowledge spaces of the once unknown and unspoken in teacher education topics of diversity. Shaylin’s letter which closes the literacy narratives installment is important because the piece bridges all three teacher candidates’ experiences to the lesson that it is essential to acknowledge a “person’s full and in-depth story before making quick judgements.” The shared stories from peers led Shaylin, living a financially stable life, to have “opened up my eyes to exactly what children and parents deal with” in both stories relayed. She reveals that she has held stereotypes but has learned from her peers that it is important to “share our own stories and listen to those of others” because, as Shaylin concludes, “Narrative inquiry has the power to alter mindset to see the world not by societal stereotypes that have no factual basis behind them” but by perspective. She uses this conclusion to tie in her

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

249

own story of body image and how she was bullied online. The currency of the Facebook story rings true in many facets around the globe and Shaylin, as a victim of bullying while a student in the course of writing the literacy narrative, uses her timely experience to alter her decision on how to react to her situation. This narrative revelation is both revealing and reforming: Shaylin “rather than simply shouting and calling them out” shares her own intimate story of body image, life struggle, and personal health. She makes her private life public as a moment of offering the world a socially just response that is both personal and public. In this manner, the literacy narratives, deconstructed formally and informally using personal educative experiences, readings from the course, and usage of the 3R framework, are an example of social justice accounts that give dignity, respect, and perspective in order to reframe thinking about teaching and teacher education. Shaylin says it best when she writes, As Dewey (1938) states, in order for education to serve its purpose both for the individual and for society, it must be grounded in life-experience. This course, and the process of constructing these narratives, stays true to this view of education in that it requires us to deconstruct and find meaning in our experiences in order to better our own views and personal philosophies. This will, in turn, better society in that we will take what we have learned from this course into our classrooms. I am certain that these experiences will ultimately shape us into better future educators, which will ultimately lead to a better educational experience for our future students.

CONCLUSION Narrative ways of knowing in teacher education courses are used nationally and internationally and have gained attention in the area of teacher education programming and reform (Conle, 1999, 2006; Craig, 2011; Kitchen, Ciuffetelli Parker, & Pushor, 2011; Li, Conle, & Elbaz-Luwisch, 2009; Olson, 1995; Olson & Craig, 2001). Looking at some of these examples closely, Conle (2006) offers an entire book/volume on the use of narrative methods in her foundation class with teacher education students in Toronto, Canada. Disappointed by the growing focus of standardized accountability of education in the Western world over the last number of decades, she wrote that narrative inquiry in her course was “prompted by the need for teachers to understand student thinking. It was a way around the danger of seeing students as objects who need to meet performance … standards” (p. vii). To do so, Conle incorporated key narrative activities as

250

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

the foundational basis for her courses. The volume is rich with teacher candidates’ narrative contributions of work, reflections on the process, and suggested outcomes for narrative curricula (Conle, 2006) which include and can be applied to the useful outcomes of curricula for literacy narratives as a narrative tool of thought, and these are: advances in understanding; increased interpretive competences; changes in life; visions gained; and moments of encounter (Conle, 2006). Subsequently, Li et al. (2009) collaborated on an international volume illustrating how teacher candidates, all with diverse cultural backgrounds, came to gain mutual understanding through narrative approaches. The authors demonstrate their respective use of narrative activities as a means of inquiring into tensions of polarization in their foundational courses, which provided international perspective depicted from education courses/programs in the United States, Canada, and Israel. Kitchen et al. (2011) edited a volume on narrative inquires into curriculum making with international author representation on a section reserved particularly on narrative curriculum making alongside students in teacher education courses over a variety of subject areas such as music, arts, social studies, and literacy (Erickson & Miner, 2011; Griffin, 2011; Keyes, 2011). Most noteworthy, Craig’s (2011) seminal chapter on narrative inquiry in teaching and teacher education offers a first account tracing on the origins of narrative inquiry that chronicles key conceptualizations in the teacher education field. The field is fruitful in narrative exemplars on teaching prospective teachers. Still, there are many complexities involved in narrative methods in teacher education. Li et al. (2009)’s international volume gives testament to this complexity as they grapple with how to shift polarized positions working narratively alongside multiple diversities, culture, religion, gender issues, race, and the list goes on. Conle (1999) “gradually became convinced that personally engaging, narrative inquiry as a part of … teacher education can narrow the gap that often exists between teacher education and life” (p. 11). Yet, the complexities involved in narrative teacher education methods remain in the global context. It is sometimes difficult work to “go there,” to the unknown of what is potentially uncovered in our deeply rooted experiential lives in a rapidly changing complicated and sometimes unjust parts of our world. Kalvin, Marley, and Shaylin dared to go there, to excavate the private and make it public, and gave narrative authority (Olson, 1995) in order to claim their lived experiences on their own terms. In many international spaces, this is not possible for students, and their livelihood could indeed be at risk due to political tensions, war, religion, or inequalities. This is an implication to narrative teaching in university

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

251

settings. Freedom of speech, and freedom itself, is an issue in many parts of our globe and we need not look far to see this unraveling in our world today. And yet, there is hope. We might imagine how to claim narrative authority of our curriculum making alongside our students in order to narrow the gap in our complex world and, as Conle advises, between our very lives and the lives we teach.

NOTES 1. With formal permission, the narrative exemplar within this chapter was written during the timeline of the foundational course taught by the author and contributed afterward by three students who wished to use their full names and disclosure. All three students made strong comments to social justice value in disclosing their stories, with added permission from their respective families and/or protection of identity within their stories, when warranted. With gratitude for their contribution and exemplary writing and analysis of their learning, I am indebted to contributing written submissions by Kalvin Coria, Shaylin Halchuk, and Marley Sullivan. 2. Michael Connelly was my doctoral dissertation supervisor at the University of Toronto (Ontario Institute of Studies in Education). Important to the genealogical academic lineage, Joseph Schwab was Michael Connelly’s doctoral dissertation supervisor at the University of Chicago. Connelly writes an autobiographical note on his learning under Schwab’s supervision in: Connelly and Xu (2007). 3. Mr. Lincoln’s Way is a picture book written by Patricia Polacco published by Philomel Books, 2001. The book is used as an interactive activity on the topic of race and diversity, as it relates to racism in schools. The 3R framework is used in lecture/class to discuss perspective and gain understanding of conflict and diversity in schools.

REFERENCES Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2004). Literacy narratives: Writing and relating letters and stories of teacher knowledge, identity and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ontario Institute of Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2008). Literacy leadership and the administrator: Relationship as moral agency from within. The International Electronic Journal for Leadership and Learning, 12(9), ISSN: 1206-9620. Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2010). Writing and becoming [a teacher]: Teacher candidates’ literacy narratives over four years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1249 1260. Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2011). Related literacy narratives: Letters as a narrative inquiry method in teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 131 149). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

252

DARLENE CIUFFETELLI PARKER

Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2012). Poverty and education: A Niagara perspective (Policy Brief). Niagara Community Observatory. Retrieved from http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/ 22962 Ciuffetelli Parker, D. (2013). Narrative understandings of poverty and schooling: Reveal, revelation, reformation of mindsets. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 4(1), 1117 1123. Ciuffetelli Parker, D., Kitchen, J., & Pushor, D. (2011). Narrative inquiry, curriculum making, and teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 3 18). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum (pp. 363 461). New York. NY: Macmillan. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories—Stories of teachers—School stories—Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24 30. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conle, C. (1996). Resonance in pre-service teacher inquiry. American Educational Research Association Journal, 33(2), 297 325. Conle, C. (1999). Struggling with time and place in life and research. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(1), 7 32. Conle, C. (2006). Teachers’ stories, teachers’ lives. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Connelly, F. M. (2011). Foreword. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. xi xvi). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. L. Green, G. C. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 477 488). Washington: AERA. Connelly, F. M., & Xu, S. J. (2007). On the state of curriculum studies: A personal practical inquiry. In B. Slater Stern (Ed.), Curriculum and teaching dialogue. American Association of Teaching and Curriculum (Vol. 9, No. 1 and 2). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Craig, C. (2011). Narrative inquiry in teaching and teacher education. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 19 42). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan Publishers. Downey, C. A., & Clandinin, D. J. (2010). Narrative inquiry as reflective practice: Tensions and possibilities. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective practice: Mapping a way of knowledge for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 385 401). New York, NY: Springer. Dudley-Marling, C. (2007). Return of the deficit. Journal of Educational Controversy, 2(1), Western Washington University. Retrived from http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/ CEP/eJournal Erickson, B., & Miner, A. B. (2011). Social studies teacher educators as curriculum makers: Engaging teacher candidates in democratic practices. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli

Literacy Narratives for 21st Century Curriculum Making

253

Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 151 168). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Begin & Garvey. Griffin, S. M. (2011). Tip-toeing pasts the fear: Becoming a music educator by attending to personal music experiences. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 151 168). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Huber, J., & Clandinin, D. J. (2005). Living in tension: Negotiating a curriculum of lives on the professional knowledge landscape. In J. Brophy, & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Learning from research on teaching: Perspective, methodology and representation (pp. 313 336). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Keyes, D. K. (2011). Making curriculum of lives: Living a story of critical literacy. In J. Kitchen, D. Ciuffetelli Parker, & D. Pushor (Eds.), Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education (pp. 239 260). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Pushor, D. (Eds.). (2011). Narrative inquiries into curriculum making in teacher education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Li, X., Conle, C., & Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2009). Shifting polarized positions: A narrative approach in teacher education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Olson, M. (1995). Conceptualizing narrative authority: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 119 135. Olson, M., & Craig, C. (2001). Opportunities and challenges in the development of teachers’ knowledge: The development of narrative author through knowledge communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 67 684. Ontario College of Teachers. (2006). Foundations of professional practice. Retrieved from http://www.oct.ca/publications/PDF/foundation_e.pdf Polacco, P. (2001). Mr. Lincoln’s way. New York, NY: Philomel Books. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78, 1 23. Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of the eclectic. School Review, 79, 493 542. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501 522. Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239 265. Tompkins, G. E. (1997). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PART IV PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY

PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY John Loughran ABSTRACT This chapter explores the notion of teacher identity and how teacher education might help to create a strong and clear vision for what it means to be a professional teacher. Within the organizational features and structures of teacher education, the pedagogy that students of teaching experience is crucial in shaping their understanding of their sense of identity. Teacher education needs to acknowledge and respond to the needs, issues, and concerns students of teaching have and create expectations that push beyond the personal and strive for the professional. This chapter suggests that in recognizing the importance of pedagogical reasoning and understanding learning about teaching through an inquiry stance, that students of teaching might begin to not only recognize the importance of knowledge of practice but also begin to see how to create knowledge from practice. A vision for their professional identity is then borne of a need to see value in “noticing” through practice in order to become more informed about teaching and learning. In doing so, the importance of pedagogy as a relationship between teaching and learning and the teacher’s role in mediating that

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 257 272 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022016

257

258

JOHN LOUGHRAN

relationship can support the development of an identity as a professional teacher. Keywords: Teaching; student teacher; teacher identity; knowledge of practice; learning about teaching; pedagogical reasoning

It is important at the outset to explain what is meant by pedagogies of developing teacher identity; especially so in a book that places pedagogy at the forefront in considerations of the work of teacher education. In the way that this chapter is constructed and the arguments that will be made, pedagogies of teacher identity refers to that which a teacher educator does to help student teachers develop their identity as a teacher. In doing so, pedagogy itself needs to be understood in terms of the teaching learning teaching relationship that is so crucial to not seeing pedagogy itself as simply a synonym for teaching (Loughran, 2013). Pedagogies of developing teacher identity then is not about a teaching strategy or procedure but rather the conditions created to ensure that teaching and learning genuinely exist in a synergistic relationship, that is, where teaching purposefully influences learning and learning purposefully influences teaching. In the context of teacher education, conceptualizing and enacting practices of teaching and learning about teaching comprise the specialist knowledge of teachers of teaching described by many as a pedagogy of teacher education (Crowe & Berry, 2007; Heaton & Lampert, 1993; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Loughran, 2006; Ritter, 2007; Russell, 2007). Therefore, pedagogies of developing teacher identity comprises the practices that underpin ways in which a teacher educator works to create the conditions for, and enacts practices that are designed to influence the manner in which students of teaching come to develop their identity as teachers. In working with students of teaching, I aim to develop them as thoughtful, purposeful, and reflective professionals who see teaching as more than the development of an armoury of useful “teaching tips and tricks.” I want my students of teaching to • have a vision for practice whereby their professional learning centers on understanding the place of pedagogical reasoning so that the what, how and why of what they do is directly linked to their hopes and expectations for their students’ learning;

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

259

• see teaching as more than the delivery of information and I want them to move beyond the simplicity and sub-conscious comfort of transmissive practice (Barnes, 1976, 1992); • think carefully about what they do with their students so that their practice is reasoned, thoughtful, and intentional; and • situate inquiry at the heart of their learning about teaching. With those aspirations, my hope is that they will see value in developing their professional knowledge of practice and that they will understand that knowledge is to be educative and dynamic. Overall then, the intention is to help them conceptualize teachers’ professional knowledge of practice as something that informs their growth as pedagogues and encourages them to be articulate about teaching and learning in ways that highlight genuine expertise. Yet with all that students of teaching are confronted by in learning to teach, fulfilling that vision is clearly easier said than done.

LEARNING ABOUT TEACHING: EXPECTATIONS AND DEMANDS Northfield and Gunstone (1997) described a number of assumptions that they viewed as significant when thinking about how to create a coherent and meaningful teacher preparation program. Their ideas were based on the notion that an important purpose of teacher education is to make explicit the ways in which teacher knowledge might be articulated and developed. Their assumptions continue to resonate despite the changing times because they carry meaning in light of the expectations and demands on students of teaching, teacher educators, and teachers through the institutional organization that is teacher education. Their assumptions are as follows: • Teacher education programs should model the teaching and learning approaches being advocated and promote the vision of the profession for which they are preparing teachers. • Teacher education must be based on a recognition of the prior and current experiences of teachers and encourage respect for teacher knowledge and understanding. • Teacher educators should maintain close connections with schools and the teaching profession. They need to be advocates for the profession and supporters of teachers’ attempts to understand and improve teaching and learning opportunities for their students.

260

JOHN LOUGHRAN

• Learning about teaching is a collaborative activity, and teacher education is best conducted in small groups and networks with ideas and experiences being shared and discussed. • Teacher education involves personal development, social development as well as professional development of teachers (Northfield & Gunstone, 1997, p. 49). These assumptions form a thought-provoking base from which to consider what teacher education is, what it is reasonable to expect it to be able to do, and to begin to focus attention on what it means to be fully involved in the enterprise of teaching and learning about teaching. When viewed from the perspective of students of teaching, these assumptions become all the more important because in their learning about teaching, they are confronted by two competing demands. Russell (1997) described these competing demands as the content turn and the pedagogical turn. As the names suggest, the content turn is about the knowledge underpinning the content, which is being taught and the pedagogical turn is the manner in which that teaching is conducted. For students of teaching then, they must simultaneously pay attention to both turns in order to purposefully reflect upon and learn about not only what is being taught, how, and why, but also what those learning experiences might mean for their own views about their developing practice which also has obvious implications for teacher educators’ approaches to their teaching of teaching. Despite the prior knowledge of teaching and learning that students of teaching bring with them to their teacher education experience, their own learning role is multifaceted as they are consistently learning, teaching, re-learning, revising, and through ongoing development, building up on their understandings of, and approaches to, practice; learning about teaching is clearly complex and demanding work. However, beyond these demands, learning about teaching can also be confusing and contradictory. Therefore, some form of framework to guide and inform the journey of development is crucial to shaping what students of teaching consider they are trying to do as learners of teaching and to be increasingly responsible for directing that learning at a personal level. Developing teachers’ professional knowledge of practice is one way of assisting students of teaching to plot a course for their journey and to create a vision for their ongoing professional learning as teachers. Thinking about teaching in such a way is then fundamental to developing an identity as a teacher; an identity forged in learning about, and enacting, professional knowledge of teaching through one’s own practice.

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

261

Palmer (1998) stated that, “good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher” (p. 10); a point well made. Yet it is equally the case that students of teaching may well yearn for technique as a crutch to support their developing competence in the classroom. Technique can offer them something concrete and create a sense of safety, or security, as they embark on their journey of pedagogical development something that is neither simple nor linear despite sometimes unconsciously carrying a false hope to the contrary. Haggarty and Postlethwaite (2012), in their study of the transition from student to teacher, drew attention to the difficulties that students of teaching and newly qualified teachers (NQTs) are confronted by as they move from the university classroom to the school classroom. Through their study, they found that rather than their participants developing further the knowledge and skills they had gained during their teacher preparation program, they tended to fail to “interrogate this knowledge base in any systematic way. Thus, progressive filtering … meant that some ideas had already been lost; problems with boundary crossing meant that others had been detached from their original meanings; and the need to fit in with existing school practices meant that others had been distorted” (p. 258). Unfortunately, as their study suggests, for many students of teaching, the notion that teaching might be underpinned by a useful and meaningful knowledge base of professional practice is far from evident, much less explicitly valued. Being socialized into teaching can dominate (an issue long recognized within teaching, see, Zeichner & Gore, 1990) and so the vision of what teaching “might be” can become quite limited, and the very nature of professional knowledge can simply be reduced to teaching tips and tricks that have immediate practical application. A likely outcome of such a situation is that how teachers might come to envisage their role; how their teacher identity begins to be shaped will be impacted because they: … are keen to be seen as “proper” teachers, yet the idea of what it means to be a “proper teacher” needs to be considered. In an expansive learning environment, being a proper teacher is one in which teachers engage in enquiry on and about their practice; where classrooms are sites for professional learning as well as pupil learning. However, in more restricted environments it seems to be seen as one of not needing help beyond superficial tips; of failing to recognise that learning and developing as a teacher need to continue; and, that learning is merely learning to fit in. In order to learn and develop as a “proper teacher,” at least initially, it seems important that those working with the NQT [and students of teaching], if not the whole school, model what it means to enquire about practice and strive for improvement in that practice. (Haggarty & Postlethwaite, 2012, p. 260)

262

JOHN LOUGHRAN

Understanding and responding to these issues is important if a teacher education program is to make a difference for students of teaching. Challenging the status quo of socialization and creating a vision for professional learning that extends beyond limited views of what it means to be a teacher matter. That also means that a teacher educator’s practice must be such that any invitation to students of teaching to begin to see teaching anew requires the pedagogical purpose to be clear and explicit. Or to draw on the insights of Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzhog (1982) in relation to their work on conceptual change, that which is offered must be intelligible, plausible, and fruitful: intelligible that it makes sense; plausible that it could be reasonably be applied in practice; and fruitful that when used, the results should give value for the effort. A focus on teachers’ professional knowledge of practice is, for me, important in creating a vision for what it means to be a teacher, a vision that that can be recognized and realized in, and through, teacher education as students of teaching begin to develop and refine their identity as teachers.

FORMING AN IDENTITY … identity might be thought of as a tendency toward the good, a quiet desire. … Education is always indirect and its results unpredictable. But in unpredictability resides hope the possibility that something impossibly wonderful might happen, the miracle of learning, of a student accepting our invitation to engagement and becoming over time more interesting, more centred, better grounded …. (Bullough, 2005, p. 256)

The notion of identity has consistently attracted attention in the research literature (i.e., Connelly & Clandinin, 1999; Sachs, 2005). However, a major reason for paying attention to identity is not so much in terms of what it is, but more so in relation to what it might lead to; hence, the importance of knowledge of practice as a way of envisioning what it means to be a teacher. In forming an identity as a teacher, the shift from being a student of teaching to a teacher throws up multiple challenges, all of which are influenced by the nature of those experiences and the ways in which the learning and insights gained are interpreted and acted upon. Seeing into those experiences in ways that might lead to insights into a knowledge of practice can be very helpful for a student of teaching. The following anecdote by a student of teaching illustrates how the thinking about practice in practice can be so important in the understandings of practice and, as a consequence, future

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

263

action. In doing so, the link to knowledge of practice can become tangible and meaningful.

“OH NO! THEY KNOW I DON’T KNOW” Like an eagle circling, waiting to swoop on its prey she would watch me. She always sat in the front; right in the centre. Her eyes would follow me as I moved, waiting, waiting for the mistake that would catapult her hand into the air. “But Miss … how … why?” So far her attacks had been fended off with tenuous links and dubious explanations that had managed to satisfy her curiosity, but I was beginning to think it was only a matter of time. Today’s class was about Antarctica and I was halfway through an explanation about the freezing and melting of Antarctica with the seasons, when out of the corner of my eye I saw that hand shoot into the air. I started to move to the back of the room in the hope that my travelling time with my back to her would be enough to see her give up, but, alas, when I turned around, the hand was still in the air. I had no choice. “Mary.” I began, “Do you have a question?” “Miss, how can Antarctica be 100% fresh water if it melts and freezes? When it refreezes, wouldn’t the surrounding salt water be added?” I think I tuned out half way through the question when I realised that my time had come. My teaching career was over before it had even begun. I was a complete phoney, standing in front of a class pretending to know it all while being shown up by a 14 year old. I was still standing at the back of the room when I felt the other 24 pairs of eyes turn around in judgement of me. Some even worsened my plight with cries of “yeah, yeah.” I racked my brain for an answer as the sweat started to pour down the back of my neck. I felt like a convicted criminal, about to face the firing squad. She had finally caught me. I stuttered enough to alert the entire class to my plight and they seemed to lean forward in eager anticipation of my downfall. I took a deep breath, faced the jury and said it. “I don’t know.” I waited for the explosion, for the cries of disgust as they realised that I was no teacher. Would they throw things at me like a disappointed crowd at a concert or would it just be a verbal barrage? I guess that it was lucky that my supervisor was here as she could just take over the lesson straight away while the principal led me off the grounds. Would I have a chance to collect my things? Oh well, it had been fun while it lasted and there were other things that I was good at. Maybe I could pursue a career in hospitality or I could re-enter the exciting world of fast food full time. This wouldn’t be the end of me completely. That would be a bit of an overreaction to the situation surely! After what seemed like an eternity, I managed to calm down the noises in my head and I realised that the class was in fact silent and, as I glanced around, many were in fact looking as if they were deep in thought about this question. A girl actually called out

264

JOHN LOUGHRAN

her answer which led a few others to put forward their ideas. As the ideas continued to bounce around the room I regained consciousness and realised that my inability to answer the question had apparently gone completely unnoticed. The discussion continued as I began to regain the feeling in my body and when the bell rang I was lucid enough to be able to thank the students for their participation and to dismiss them in an orderly fashion. I walked over to my supervisor to receive my sentence. She looked up at me with a smile. “Fantastic, great to see a student teacher who isn’t afraid to say that she doesn’t know and uses it to draw out such thoughtful discussion. Well done!” (Loughran, 2004, pp. 213 214)

In this anecdote, the student of teaching experienced a situation that clearly catalyzed her thinking about practice. In many ways, it would have been easy for her to have viewed the situation as ending in a “lucky escape.” However, the fact that she reflected on her learning and wrote the aforementioned anecdote, which clearly suggests that insights into teaching emerged for her, illustrates how linking that experience to the development of knowledge of practice might be facilitated. The writing of the anecdote was an element of an approach to encouraging students of teaching to reflect on their practice by revisiting critical incidents (Tripp, 1993) in an organized and structured manner. In doing so, attention is focused on the value of “unpacking” practice at an individual level, then using that process as a starting point for group discussion with their peers in order to attempt to abstract that learning from the specific to the general; both for the author of the anecdote and for the peers with whom that anecdote is shared and unpacked. As a student of teaching, Olmstead (2007) recognized the value in paying careful attention to how he approached his learning about teaching, “learning to teach is not about learning how to mimic … learning to teach is about learning to reframe one’s own practices based on professional conversations” (p. 148). Taking Olmstead’s perspective into account, it is not difficult to see how structuring thoughtful professional conversations based on real life experiences that have already been carefully considered (through the development of an anecdote for example) can lead to reframing. As a consequence, under appropriate conditions purposely created by a teacher educator, linking experience, learning and knowledge of practice can offer a way of scaffolding pedagogical development that goes beyond a series of individual situations and allows for a holistic view of what it might mean to be a professional pedagogue. Therefore, the more that such

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

265

professional conversations are underpinned by an explication of teachers’ professional knowledge of practice, the more valuable they might become in shaping not only what is done in teaching, but also how and why; it offers ways of tapping into the pedagogical reasoning that is often so private, personal, and tacit, and as a consequence, so hidden from view in learning about teaching. Considering the issues in the anecdote, at one level, not knowing an answer could be personally challenging for a student of teaching. However, at a deeper level, learning how to create genuine opportunities for their students to explore ideas, engage in hypothesizing and testing of those ideas, and fostering curiosity and creativity, are more likely when “direct and control” of student learning is relinquished and conditions for inviting engagement in learning are created. Through the anecdote (above), the student of teaching appears to be hinting at such an approach to learning as an outcome of the experience for her own practice. It is therefore not difficult to see how powerful a professional conversation based on “unpacking” her anecdote in a productive learning about teaching environment could be not only for herself, but also her peers. Imagine also how valuable such a professional conversation could be if the “unpacking” was of the shared teaching and learning about teaching situations experienced by students of teaching with their teacher educator. The ability (and value) of tapping into the rich resource of a teacher educator’s pedagogical reasoning during teaching, in concert with the perceptions of learning of students of teaching from their shared pedagogical episodes, offers powerful links to professional knowledge of practice through the active scaffolding of such learning. In that way, the tacit can become explicit, reflection on experience can lead to learning, and creation of knowledge can become concrete, meaningful, and useful. That would indeed be a vision of professional learning as a teacher leading to the development of an identity worth forging. So what might that look in in a teacher education program?

BRINGING PEDAGOGICAL REASONING TO THE SURFACE IN LEARNING ABOUT TEACHING I have been fortunate to have worked with some wonderful mentors and colleagues. There is little doubt that the deep thinking by Jeff Northfield about teaching has influenced my development as a teacher educator and

266

JOHN LOUGHRAN

certainly impacted my thinking about the need for an ongoing and close relationship between teaching and researching teaching in teacher education at a personal level (e.g., Baird & Northfield, 1992; Gunstone, Slattery, Baird, & Northfield, 1993; Northfield, 1988, 1996; Northfield & Gunstone, 1997). In addition to that, I have also had the privilege of working closely with an exceptional colleague at Monash University. Amanda Berry pushed the boundaries of our learning about teaching teaching together as we sought to create meaningful links between knowledge and practice with our students of teaching through our common interest in self-study (Hamilton, 2004; Hamilton, Pinnegar, Russell, Loughran, & LaBoskey, 1998). One way to understand our work together is through the notion of thinking aloud in teaching about teaching which I had been exploring for some time. Thinking aloud about pedagogy was: … an attempt to give students immediate access to the thoughts, ideas and concerns which shape my teaching … I would attempt to demonstrate my thinking about previous lessons, my intention for the upcoming lesson, and what I anticipated for the following lessons, and that these are all linked in a holistic manner … how it occurs and its impact on my teaching needs to be made available to my students if they are to understand my perspective on my teaching and our learning … my view [is that] this thinking during teaching is overtly demonstrated for my students if they are to fully appreciate the complex nature of learning about teaching; even more so if they are to seriously consider [it in relation to] their own practice. (Loughran, 1996, pp. 28 29)

Team teaching with Mandi took the ideas of think aloud to a different level. Working together encouraged us to examine our common concerns about teacher education practices and created a new dynamic in teaching and researching teaching and learning about teaching in ways that may not have been sustainable as individuals. We placed pedagogical reasoning and the development of knowledge of practice to the fore and, in doing so, became better informed about our approach to, and learning from, our teaching about teaching. Having a trusted colleague close at hand meant that different aspects of our pedagogy of teacher education were continually being reviewed and refined as we worked in the role of critical friend for one another (Schuck & Russell, 2005). The value of ongoing collaboration was evident in many things, not least that our learning together comprised much more than the sum of the parts, but also because it gave us the courage to pursue risk taking in teaching that would not have been possible alone. Bringing our pedagogical reasoning to the surface for our students

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

267

of teaching led to many unscripted experiences that became increasingly important to us as teacher educators as we began to explore meaningful ways of creating conditions for learning about teaching that made a difference for our students of teaching (i.e., Berry, 2004a, 2004b, 2007; Berry & Loughran, 2002, 2005). As we came to see, linking reasoning, practice, and knowledge in explicit ways helps to raise what “thinking like a teacher” (Crowe & Berry, 2007) might mean for students of teaching when they begin to purposefully construct their identities as teachers. However, doing so requires a serious commitment on the behalf of teacher educators, to create conditions that invite students of teaching to learn through their shared experiences of teaching and learning about teaching; as opposed to lecturing them on what they should know and telling them why it is important. Therefore, if “a teacher educator needs to be capable of, and actively pursue, making the tacit nature of practice explicit so that the teaching learning relationship is able to be seen, experienced, and inquired into rather than superficially viewed as a simple set of routines and/or procedures” (Loughran, 2013, p. 130), then it is essential that teacher educators trust their students of teaching as independent and active learners. Creating such an expectation requires a genuine belief in: … the capacity and motivation of students to take responsibility for making their own meaning and progress in learning about teaching … that is a process facilitated by teacher educator encouragement and support … it means guiding students’ learning while at the same time being respectful of each learner’s right to direct his or her own self-development. (Berry, 2007, p. 163)

Although the premise that making pedagogical reasoning explicit appears quite straightforward, translating it into practice is demanding because “quality learning requires learner consent.” I would assert that quality learning requires learner consent should be viewed as a fundamental guiding principle in a teacher education program. It is a principle that needs to constantly be recognizable in a teacher educator’s practice so that intent and action are in accord. If that is the case, then it may well be that the principle and the practice will be translated into meaning not only in the expectations, but also the identity of students of teaching; an identity that is encouraged through the modeling of their teacher educators. Working in such a way is one example of how a teacher educator might conceptualize what it means to make clear how knowledge of teaching can emerge from practice and help to direct that practice in a significant way.

268

JOHN LOUGHRAN

KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE: PRACTICE INTO KNOWLEDGE When Munby, Russell, and Martin (2001) examined the topic of teachers’ knowledge, they opened up for scrutiny the diversity of understandings of that knowledge as well as raising questions about the value of it for teachers themselves. In doing so, they helped to focus attention on what it is that teachers seek to have knowledge of in order to perform their role; which is somewhat different to that which Fenstermacher (1994) described at that time, as the formal perspective of teachers’ knowledge held by many members of the (US) policy community. Fenstermarcher described the formal perspective as representing “a limited epistemological perspective on what teachers should know and be able to do” (p. 4) and in many ways, could be thought of as “conventionally more science-oriented.” For many students of teaching, what Fenstermacher characterized as a formal perspective is easily interpreted as a cause-effect methodology, which then dominates their perceptions and is idealized through the expectation of generalizable outcomes. Therefore, the notion of knowledge carries “baggage” for students of teaching that is not always helpful in shaping their understandings of the interplay between research, practice, and knowledge; especially so as they are enmeshed in the experiences of learning to teach. For students of teaching, is not hard to see why issues around what knowledge is, how it is developed and constructed, and the value placed on it in practice, may appear opaque and/or confusing. That situation can be exacerbated by the oft’ bemoaned theory-practice gap, driven by the view from schools about universities as Ivory Towers, and from universities about schools as swampy lowlands (Scho¨n, 1983). However, it need not be that way. If the situation is framed differently, based on the idea of building up from practice and abstracting from theory, rather than as separate and distinct entities, the value of knowledge of practice can be interpreted differently. Berry (2007) illustrated a building-up and abstracting across view exceptionally well through the development of her tensions as a form of knowledge; all of which resonate equally well with teachers as they do with teacher educators, because pedagogy lies at the heart of each tension. For example, her tension between telling and growth captures perfectly the discomfort faced by teachers when seeking to support students in taking control of their own learning while at the same time feeling responsible for that learning. Understanding how that tension might come to be understood as

269

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

Learning to frame practice by noticing

Student of teaching

Developing knowledge of practice

Developing knowledge from practice

Understanding the role of pedagogical reasoning

Fig. 1.

Professional teacher

Influencing Factors in Forming an Identity as a Professional Teacher.

being built up from practice is a crucial aspect of what Mason (2002, 2009) described as “noticing.” Noticing is indicative of the way in which a professional frames teaching as inquiry; and is clearly at the heart of fostering a meaningful identity as a teacher. By the same token, there is clear value in being able to abstract from the message inherent in the tension to practice in order to appropriately consider what is to be done, how and why to pay attention to the pedagogical reasoning underpinning teaching. Hence, conceiving of knowledge of teaching as existing across a continuum (as tensions do) rather than as a dichotomy (theory and practice) is an important realization that makes a difference for students of teaching when thinking about what becoming more informed about, and increasingly expert at, teaching might mean (see Fig. 1 for a schematic representation of the idea). Creating conditions for that to be the case is the great challenge for teacher educators and stands as an invitation that begs a meaningful response for students of teaching.

CONCLUSION It has been over 30 years since Berliner (1986) sought to change the nature of discussion about teaching and the development of expertise. His questioning of what teachers know and how they come to know it has led to changes in research into teaching, and consequently, into the development of teaching and learning about teaching through teacher education programs. It is inevitable that as students of teaching make the transition from

270

JOHN LOUGHRAN

student to teacher that their views about what it means to be a teacher, as well as their developing teacher identity itself, will be shaped by images of teachers and teaching that they have witnessed as students. Teacher educators must challenge the superficial views of teaching that can result from what Lortie (1975) described as the “apprenticeship of observation.” It is far too easy to watch teachers teach and have little or no appreciation for the pedagogical reasoning that underpins their practice. Teacher education is clearly the place to initiate a challenge to such thinking beginning with students of teaching. Through teacher education, knowledge of teaching should consistently be recognizable as meaningful, helpful, and informative in the development of teachers’ professional expertise. When students of teaching see and experience teaching in such a way, their developing teacher identity can be shaped in productive ways and the teaching profession will be positively impacted. Helping students of teaching form identities based on a vision of teaching that goes well beyond teaching as telling and listening as learning must be more than a hope; it must be an expectation for the work that comprises teaching and learning about teaching and the teacher educators responsible for that enterprise.

REFERENCES Baird, J. R. & Northfield, J. R. (Eds.). (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne: Monash University Printing Service. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barnes, D. (1992). The significance of teachers’ frames for teaching. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 9 32). London: Falmer Press. Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5 13. Berry, A. (2004a). Confidence and uncertainty in teaching about teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 149 165. Berry, A. (2004b). Making the private public: Giving preservice teachers access to their teacher educators’ thinking via an electronic journal. Didaktisk Tidskrift: Fo¨r Practiker Och Forskare (Nordic Journal of Teaching and Learning: For Practitioners and Researchers), 14(1), 17 24. Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator. Dordrecht: Springer. Berry, A., & Loughran, J. J. (2002). Developing an understanding of learning to teach in teacher education. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 13 29). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

271

Berry, A., & Loughran, J. J. (2005). Teaching about teaching: The role of self-study. In S. Weber, C. Mitchell, & K. O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are?: Methodologies for self-study in teacher education. (pp. 168 180). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Bullough, R. V. J. (2005). The quest for identity in teaching and teacher education. In G. F. Hoban (Ed.), The missing links in teacher education design: Developing a multilinked conceptual framework (pp. 237 258). Dordrecht: Springer. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Knowledge, context and identity. In F. M. Connelly & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice (pp. 1 5). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Crowe, A., & Berry, A. (2007). Teaching prospective teachers about learning to think like a teacher: Articulating our principles of practice. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (pp. 31 44). London: Routledge. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 3 56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Gunstone, R. F., Slattery, M., Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1993). A case study exploration of development in preservice science teachers. Science Education, 77(1), 47 73. Haggarty, L., & Postlethwaite, K. (2012). An exploration of changes in thinking in the transition from student teacher to newly qualified teacher. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 241 262. Hamilton, M. L. (2004). Professional knowledge, teacher education and self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 1, pp. 375 419). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., Russell, T., Loughran, J., & LaBoskey, V. (Eds.). (1998). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer Press. Heaton, R. M., & Lampert, M. (1993). Learning to hear voices: Inventing a new pedagogy of teacher education. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 43 83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4 17. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Loughran, J. J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modelling. London: Falmer Press. Loughran, J. J. (2004). Student teacher as researcher: Accepting greater responsibility for learning about teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 212 220. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Loughran, J. J. (2013). Pedagogy: Making sense of the complex relationship between teaching and learning. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 118 141. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Mason, J. (2009). Teaching as disciplined enquiry. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 205 223.

272

JOHN LOUGHRAN

Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877 904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Northfield, J. R. (1988, July). School experience in preservice education: Examining some assumptions. Paper presented at the Australian Science Education Research Association, Sydney, Australia. Northfield, J. R. (1996, April). Quality and the self-study perspective on research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York (ED 397034). Northfield, J. R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1997). Teacher education as a process of developing teacher knowledge. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 48 56). London: Falmer Press. Olmstead, M. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of practicum supervision: One student teacher’s experiences of powerful differences. In T. Russell & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 138 148). London: Routledge. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzhog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211 227. Ritter, J. K. (2007). Forging a pedagogy of teacher education: The challenges of moving from classroom teacher to teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 3(1), 5 22. Russell, T. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32 47). London: Falmer Press. Russell, T. (2007). How experience changed my values as a teacher educator. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 182 191). London: Routledge. Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to be a teacher. In P. M. Denicolo & M. Kompf (Eds.), Connecting policy and practice: Challenges for teaching and learning in schools and universities (pp. 5 21). London: Routledge. Scho¨n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107 121. Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329 348). New York, NY: Macmillan.

NARRATIVE-BIOGRAPHICAL PEDAGOGIES IN TEACHER EDUCATION Geert Kelchtermans ABSTRACT Narrative-biographical perspectives have taken on a very prominent role in both the research on and practices of teacher education (both preservice and in-service) over the past decades. This chapter briefly situates and explains this “narrative turn,” and continues with the presentation and discussion of concrete pedagogical applications of narrative-biographical approaches. A storied example of one approach is followed by a general discussion of its educational rationale and the necessary conditions for its use. References are made to narrative language as a genre, its contextualized nature as well as the connection with (student) teachers’ developing sense of self. Keywords: Narrative; biography; reflection; self-understanding; metaphor; critical incident

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 273 291 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022017

273

274

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

SETTING THE SCENE: THE “NARRATIVE TURN” IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TEACHER EDUCATION During the 1980s, researchers in the human sciences developed a growing interest in narrative and biographical approaches and methods (Kelchtermans, 2010). Since “narrative is the discourse structure in which human action receives its form and through which it is meaningful” (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 135), different forms of storytelling and narrative accounts came to be considered as powerful vehicles to unravel and understand the complex processes of sense-making that constitute teaching. As such, it was hardly surprising that educational researchers and in particular teacher educators quickly joined this narrative turn (Carter & Doyle, 1996; Casey, 1995-1996; Clandinin, 2007; Doyle & Carter, 2003; Gudmundsdottir, 1991). Teachers’ talk about their professional lives and experiences in practice is often spontaneously framed in narrative form. When engaging in conversations about their work, teachers tend to use anecdotes, metaphors, images, and other types of storytelling to recall, share, exchange, or account for their decisions and experiences in classrooms and schools. Storytelling appears to be the natural way through which people make sense of the events, situations, and encounters in which they find themselves. “Humans are storytelling organisms, who individually and socially, lead storied lives. The study of narrative, therefore, is the study of the ways humans experience the world” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2). The narrative turn had consequences for theory building on (teacher) education, research methodology, and epistemology, and also for educational practice. Teaching is a complex social process in which different people are interactively engaged. Teachers and students interact based on their interpretation of the situation, their own actions as well as those of the others. Sense-making lies at the very heart of the teaching and learning process. This sense-making, however, has several dimensions (Hargreaves, 1995; Kelchtermans, 2009). First, there is the instrumental concern for developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow teachers to create effective learning opportunities for their students. This technical dimension refers to teachers applying the appropriate means (instruments, handbooks, teaching strategies, guidance, and support) to help their students achieve educational goals.

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

275

Although it goes without saying that the technical dimension in teacher professionalism is important and necessary, there is more to good teaching than skillful performance and efficiently dealing with the “how to” questions. The teacher profession is not just a technical instrumentalist endeavor, even if this concern dominates contemporary educational discourse. Teaching always takes place in a form of inter-human relationship, characterized by a sense of moral responsibility, commitment, and care of the teacher for the student (Kelchtermans, 2011a). So, second, teaching inevitably is a “moral endeavor” (Fenstermacher, 1990). Teaching and being a teacher involve on-the-spot interpretations of and judgments on particular situations as they happen or evolve. Deciding what to do implies dealing with moral dilemmas (“Should I go on to avoid the smart students getting bored or should I give priority to the weaker students and spend some more time providing examples to illustrate …?”) about how to do justice to the students’ needs. Decisions and actions that look technical at first sight, also involve moral judgments as well as a normative stance concerning what constitutes good education and what is “right” for students in a particular situation (i.e., Biesta, 2013). Third, because of the responsibility and moral commitment, teaching is not emotionally neutral or indifferent. On the contrary, teaching often involves strong feelings (i.e., guilt, irritation, insecurity, despair …) (Day & Lee, 2011; Kelchtermans, 2011b; Nias, 1996; Schutz & Zembylas, 2009; Van Veen & Lasky, 2005). Finally, the normative stances on good education and doing justice to the students are often not shared by others and may be contested. In other words, teaching is political. Teachers and teacher educators have to deal with issues of power, interests, and influence. For instance, which norm of good education should guide one’s practice? How does one cope with different competing normative stances, etc.? What if an intern holds different beliefs on good education (and how to enact it) than his/her supervisor in a teacher training institute or his/her mentor (experienced teacher, supporting practical training)? How does one as a teacher educator deal with competing demands like both having to support and evaluate student teachers? Should one enact one’s professional autonomy or obey the prescriptions from the curriculum or a school’s policy? Narratives provide (student) teachers with a powerful language to acknowledge these non-technical dimensions of their job, to systematically bring them into the conversation and to move the professional thinking and action beyond merely instrumental concerns about technical effectiveness (Kelchtermans, 2007).

276

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

OVERVIEW This chapter primarily draws on my own experiences with narrative and biographical methods in my research program as well as in my work as a teacher educator or in-service trainer (professional development) of both student teachers and teacher educators in Belgium. I stress the grounding in my own professional biography, since I do not aim at providing an exhaustive overview of different uses of narratives or biographical methods in teacher education. Rather I take an exemplary approach, presenting and discussing a limited number of practices to illustrate the pedagogical potential of narratives as well as its underlying rationale. In Flanders (Belgium), where most of my work takes place, teacher education is provided by different types of teacher training institutes. Teachers for kindergarten, primary school and lower secondary school are educated in higher institutes of education (Hogescholen). Although almost all staff members of these higher institutes of education have been trained themselves at universities, their key responsibility is preparing future teachers for the profession of teaching, rather than engaging in research. Teachers for the upper secondary schools are educated at the university in a teacher education program parallel with or following their training in a scientific discipline. Teacher educators at universities are supposed to engage in educational research in addition to their teaching responsibilities. Finally, the centers for adult education (Centra voor VolwassenenOnderwijs) are training centers that embrace the idea of lifelong learning. They provide a wide variety of professional training programs. Although their role in teacher education had originally been designed to provide a teacher training for vocational or practice-oriented teachers (for whom no other teacher training existed), they now enroll all types of student teachers. Since the Belgian Constitution states the freedom of education, only the “basic competencies” standards, describing the minimal knowledge, skills and attitudes to be mastered by newly qualified teachers have been legally defined and imposed on educators in Belgium. In terms of curriculum as well as pedagogy used, all teacher training institutes enjoy great professional autonomy, as long as they meet these basic competencies. Although my practical experiences originated from the Flemish (Belgian) context, they have been applied and validated in numerous professional development seminars I have offered in different countries over the years. As a researcher, I mainly have used narrative-biographical methods to reconstruct teachers’ career stories, stimulating them to tell and share their professional biographies as a way to understand their thinking

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

277

about themselves as teachers as well as their professional know-how (i.e., Kelchtermans, 1993, 1994, 2009). In a similar way, the methods are to be used in training contexts. Let us start with a story. Using the critical incident vignette, one particular pedagogical approach that I developed and used in teacher education, I will demonstrate its practical potential, as well as its theoretical grounding.

THE CRITICAL INCIDENT VIGNETTE: A STORIED EXAMPLE The seminar room fills with chatter as about twenty student teachers enter, move around and find a seat in the circle of tables and chairs. Amid the chatter I hear excited comments on their experiences during their recently ended practical training. After a brief welcome, I announce that the exercise I want them to engage in will encompass three phases: an individual phase, a group phase and finally a plenary phase, that will take place during the next meeting in the seminar. As a start, I ask all of them to take paper and pen for an individual autobiographical reflection. They are asked to recall the best or worst teacher (the choice is theirs) they have ever experienced during their lives as a student. The task is to focus on one typical event or experience that characterizes the relationship with that former teacher and write a short narrative account of the event. I also let them know that they will be invited to share that account with some of their peers later on. Ethically it is important to correctly inform the students about the form and level of exposure they’ll be asked to provide for their experiences. A similar, yet different assignment is to have them reflect on their best or worst experience in their school lives as a student. The exercise tries to direct their thoughts to intense moments that have become significant in their memories. I allow them a maximum of 5 minutes to do this, because I want them to capture what pops into their minds, rather than doing a deep search of their memory or a careful balancing between several possibilities. The assignment often surprises the student teachers, some hesitating smiles appear or eyebrows are raised, but they all soon concentrate on their writing. Deep sighs, grim looks, but also bemused smiles can be observed. As most of them are about to end their writing, I ask them to find a catchy title for the piece. The title should both trigger the reader’s curiosity and summarize the key idea that is supposed to become clear from the vignette. Finally, I ask all participants to turn the sheet over and use the back to elaborate in a more systematic and explicit way what the recalled experience has meant to them, what constituted its particular significance and what possible relevance the story has for their actual work as (student) teachers. At the end of the meeting, instructions are given for the second phase of the exercise. The participants are asked to meet in groups of three to perform a “triangle

278

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

discussion.” They should pick a time and place to meet and should allow for about one and a half hour for the discussion. During that discussion the participants are required to perform and strictly stick to one of three prescribed roles: storyteller, sounding board and listener. The first role is that of the “story-teller”: s/he starts with sharing the title and the story, followed by his/her reflective analysis of its actual significance. Once the storyteller has finished, the “sounding board” starts to play his/her role. S/he can ask clarifying questions about context, particular details, etc., which the storyteller then answers or explains. Strictly no comments, appreciations or interpretations are to be shared by the “sounding board.” This is the privilege of the “listener,” the third role. S/he can suggest different interpretations or open up alternative ways of making sense of the experiences from the story. However, all reflections or interpretations have to remain grounded in the story. No noncommittal speculations are allowed. Finally the story-teller gets “the final say,” a chance to react with final comments. Once this round is over, everyone changes roles and the cycle is repeated until every participant in the triangle has performed each of the three roles. The strict distinction between the role of “sounding board” and “listener” may have an artificial feel, but it is deliberately included to force the participants to suppress their spontaneous tendency to almost immediately start interpreting the story against the background of their own experiences. Postponing this interpretation adds to the necessary active listening as well as to a growing awareness about one’s temptation to engage in overhasty comments, which imply that one actually stops listening. The third and last phase in the exercise is a plenary discussion during a next seminar meeting and concentrates on the insights that were revealed through the structured storytelling and analysis. The discussion is guided so that the emphasis is on what the autobiographical storytelling reveals or has revealed about the participants’ actual thinking about teaching and about themselves as teachers. Furthermore, this public reflection should also address relevant elements of the professional context and the relationship between that context and the narrator. A climate of trust and safety is established for the discussion and all stories and reflections are in principle being accepted and valued as thoughtful opinions of the participants. At the same time, however, critical questions are asked, alternative interpretations provided, different types of arguments juxtaposed and commented on. Throughout the discussion, links are made to relevant theoretical perspectives and concepts to (re)frame issues or to deepen the reflective analysis. (based on Kelchtermans, 2010, pp. 610 611)

This brief account of the “critical incident vignette,” as I developed and used it in both preservice and in-service training (Kelchtermans, 2010), is one example of how (biographical) narratives can be purposefully used as teacher education and professional development pedagogies. The exercise permits the participants to experience how the anecdote of a (personally) significant event reveals not only the meaning of that event when it happened, but also and more importantly its relation with the present. Especially when used with experienced teachers or with student teachers in the final phase of their preparation (i.e., after their field-based

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

279

training and internships), the stories from the past are very informative in revealing the way the storyteller thinks about him/herself in the present. Furthermore, the stories also include their perception and understanding of the particular context of the experiences (i.e., other people in the scene, the organizational conditions, the social-cultural environment in and around the school, etc.). The story is always situated in time and space and as such unveils the particular meaning and impact of that context for the storyteller through the emerging picture in the narrative. The different roles have been defined with a clear purpose, and taking them up contributes to an increased awareness of the social, interactive character of the shared sense-making that takes place. Furthermore, the interactions entail the possibility of questioning and confronting takenfor-granted interpretations, providing alternative readings of that past experience and as a consequence of one’s actual situation. This already illustrates that a reflective, open attitude is essential for the people engaging in the exercise for it to have an educational effect.

TOWARD A NARRATIVE PEDAGOGY: PRACTICES WITH STUDENT TEACHERS The actual practices of using narratives and biographical accounts in teacher education are quite diverse. Yet they very often reflect a common underlying rationale, as is illustrated by the example of the “critical incident vignette.” Life stories most often contain references to events that appear to have had a very significant meaning for the narrator. For the storyteller, those events, encounters, and experiences constitute “turning points,” which made them reflect and reconsider taken-for-granted views. These so-called critical incidents are key events in an individual’s life, and around which pivotal decisions revolve. They provoke the individual into selecting particular kinds of actions, which lead in particular directions. (…) Critical incidents are a useful area to study, because they reveal, like a flashbulb, the major choice and change times in people’s lives. (Sikes, Measor, & Woods, 1985, p. 57)

It is important to stress that for an outsider, the critical incidents are often not extraordinary or spectacular. Sometimes they may even look trivial, but for the storyteller recalling and sharing them, they are imbued with meaning.

280

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

The critical incident vignette is one exercise that takes up this idea. The assignment to reflectively recall, narratively share, and analyze a particularly meaningful event may take different forms. However, whatever the form, it always more or less includes the three steps of (a) describing the event, (b) identifying the issue that is raised in or by it, and (c) the student’s sense-making or interpretation of the experience in terms of his/her own process of learning to teach (Carter, 1993). In other words, having people recall and (interactively) share a critical incident triggers a reflective move from the storied event as such to an analysis of its particular meaning and relevance to the narrator’s actual thinking and actions. Alternative narrative techniques or exercises draw on metaphorical thinking. Preservice or in-service teachers are invited to come up with a metaphor that typifies themselves as teachers or to define what in their opinion constitutes the core of good teaching. These personal teaching metaphors (Bullough & Gitlin, 2001) thus represent in a condensed, narrative way their key ideas about themselves as (student) teachers. They may also reveal how these ideas can change over time. As such, it makes sense to engage (student) teachers in exercises with personal teaching metaphors or accounts of critical events at different moments during the process of learning to teach (i.e., as an element in a reflective portfolio, which they compose during their teacher education or as part of a professional diary). Comparing the differences between one’s actual metaphors and the ones developed at earlier stages helps to explore and understand one’s personal learning process as well as the experiences that triggered the changes (What made you choose that metaphor? What has changed since …?). Narrative methods also allow student teachers’ reflections to move beyond the technical and instrumental issues of properly applying knowledge and skills to achieve effective teaching performances (Kelchtermans, 2007, 2009). Very often the student teachers’ reflections as well as the teacher educator’s feedback on practical teaching activities concentrate merely on technical issues of how to improve one’s actions. Although one can understand that the pressure from these “how to” issues is higher and more urgent, learning to cope with the moral, emotional, and political dimensions in teaching constitutes an equally important agenda for teacher education as do the technical issues of teaching skills and (content) knowledge. It is in relation to these non-technical dimensions of teaching that narrative pedagogies are particularly relevant and powerful. Narratively reconstructing teaching experiences allows student teachers to reflectively address their moral puzzlements (i.e., conflicting norms about good teaching), emotional concerns (i.e., the experience of powerlessness or self-doubt when students

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

281

do not show the learning outcomes that one had aimed for), or political actions (i.e., conflicts with colleagues or principals about the most appropriate content or methodology in teaching). Sharing and discussing those dimensions help student teachers to develop a more thorough understanding of the complexities of their job and experiences. It may further help them to come to think of these different dimensions as inherent to the teaching profession and therefore as essential to their sense of self as teachers. Although the variety of possibly useful narrative techniques and exercises in teacher education is rather wide, they mostly share a similar rationale involving two elements (Kelchtermans, 2010). First, the narrative techniques constitute a vehicle that helps the narrators to express their deeply held ideas about themselves as a teacher, their values and beliefs about (good) teaching, motivation, etc. Their power to do so, however, lies in the “indirectness”: when telling a story from the past or in typifying my situation with a metaphor, I am talking about myself, but it does not quite feel that way. The narrative genre in a way makes it look like I am telling about something, somebody at some point in time and as such creates a distance from myself. This distance provides a level of comfort and allows for the story to unfold its inner logic (plot see below). Second, however, this individual, personal storytelling, always needs to be complemented by particular interventions and reactions by others the audience that is, peers and/or teacher educators. Their comments and questions on the publicly shared narrative accounts aim at questioning, probing, challenging, and deepening the reflective analysis. The storytelling in itself is not enough. Several authors stress the need to link storytelling with forms of narrative inquiry, in which the stories and the beliefs they reveal are critically analyzed, questioned, and restoried. Interpersonal dialogue, narrative accounts, and the critical use of theoretical knowledge thus have to go hand-in-hand (i.e., Bullough, 2008; Clandinin, 2007, 2013). In the pedagogy of supporting and guiding these practices of narrative reflection and storytelling, the striving for authenticity as well as the critical probing of the storied accounts constitute two essential and necessary principles. The pitfall to avoid is that the sharing of narratives simply remains a self-affirming practice, simply repeating and strengthening the ideas and interpretations student teachers already hold. For their full educational potential to show, critical and public examination of the narratives is needed. The obvious and self-evident version of the story needs, on one hand, to be accepted and listened to, but on the other, also challenged, questioned, or pushed further to deepen its meaning and relevance. As a

282

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

result, the storyteller may end up either with a more informed, richer understanding and awareness of, and insights into, his/her own ideas, or with a thoughtful reconsideration and rethinking of what was until then taken-for-granted. Parallel to striving for authenticity and critical questioning, the pedagogy of these narrative practices also needs to achieve the right balance of safety and challenge. A supportive, trusting, and positively accepting environment is a necessary condition to allow the sharing of and learning from the narratives to take place. Student teachers need to feel invited and safe to share the stories of their personal experiences. But in order to avoid the trap of uncritical self-confirmation, teacher educators supporting the process need to look for ways to challenge and open the often cherished stories. It is clear that this might cause some feelings of unease and discomfort in the storyteller, but by working step-by-step this does not harm the overall sense of safety and trust. One way of creating and maintaining a productive level of discomfort is when the teacher educators open up to share autobiographical anecdotes with their students and unpack them in their educational value and meaning. As such, the teacher educators or trainers “model” (Loughran, 2006) the revealing potential of autobiographical reflection and narratives, while at the same time, laying the groundwork and building the necessary trust for student teachers to engage in narrative accounts about themselves and their lives. Other techniques include “echoing”: inviting the listeners to retell the story as they have heard or listened to it (see also the critical incident vignette) or to invite the storyteller to imagine him or herself to be five years older and present the story as he/she thinks it will look or sound then. The different approaches all imply that the storytellers develop further distance from the story, allowing it to become “a text” that not only exists in their mind, but that is actually “out there,” in between themselves and their audience, ready to be “worked on” (restoried, analyzed, confirmed, enriched, questioned, etc.). This inbetweeness of the shared stories respects both their content and form (and as such the authorship of the storyteller). It also allows the story to develop and, in its modified form, find its way back to the storyteller’s developing sense of professional self.

GENRE, CONTEXT, AND VOICES It is obvious that teachers’ professional actions are, to a certain degree, determined by policy regulations, institutional environments, and

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

283

organizational settings. Yet, the narrative turn explicitly reminds us that however relevant and important these structural conditions in determining teachers’ work lives teaching and learning to teach still involve agency and sense-making by the actors themselves. (Student) Teachers are competent, social agents engaged in educating children. Teaching thus involves planning, decision making, deliberation, intentional and purposeful intervention, and action. Yet, in spite of all the thoughtful intentions and actions, their actual meaning and impact for the students can never be fully predicted or controlled. In education, there is always both more and less happening than what one planned for (Kelchtermans, 2009). For that reason, the technical and objective or scientific language genres are too limited to capture the full experience of teaching and learning to teach. Narrative language offers possibilities that transcend these limits, because of a series of particular characteristics of its genre. First, a core process in narratives is emplotment: by situating experiences in a narrative, the narrator organizes them in a particular linguistic frame and order (beginning-middle-end) through which the particular meaning of the experiences for him/her emerges (plot). It is the plot that makes a story “work,” that engages the audience (i.e., by adding and sharing one’s own narratives). Second, narrative language performs at the same time a referential and an evaluative function. The referential function describes events and experiences from the past in a temporal order (what happened, when and where?). But the evaluative function links the events with the moment of narrating by revealing what the experiences have meant for the people involved in the present (Labov & Waletzky, 1973, pp. 79 80). As such, an autobiographical story inevitably reflects the narrator’s experience and value-laden sense making. The references to the events in the past are done from the actual narrating situation and draw on the meaning of those past events for the present. Third, narratives thus link past experiences to the actual social context. They even constitute that context, because they reflect a need to communicate, to share a meaningful experience with others (Hoeppel, 1983). Through storytelling, a very particular social setting emerges with different actors and roles. On the one hand, there is the narrator or storyteller who provides the narrative. His/her narrative account allows for the personal, subjective voice to be spoken and heard. Yet, on the other hand, in the telling of the story, there is always an implied audience. Narratives are told or written by someone who always already has an explicit or implicit idea of possible audiences. As such, the narratives are fundamentally intersubjective or interpersonal in nature. This applies to the actual face-to-face act of storytelling as well as to different forms of written

284

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

narrative accounts. Fourth, the contextualizing characteristic of stories, however, not only encompasses the spatial dimension of context (where?), but also and explicitly its temporal dimension (when) (Kelchtermans, 2009). Stories situate experiences both in space and time. This is most obvious in (auto)biographical stories where experiences from one’s personal life are being recalled (life stories). (Auto)biographical stories thus reveal how the narrators construct their understanding of the present, using their interpretation of experiences from the past as well as their expectations about the future. The use of stories and narratives is finally also valued for its emancipatory potential. Narratives allow for the practitioner’s voice to be heard and taken seriously in educational research and theory development. Yet, although acknowledging the emancipatory potential, several authors have rightly warned of the trap of subjectivism or a romantic misconception of that emancipation. Creating a space for the voices that are often silenced in educational research is important, but it is equally crucial that those voices are always interpreted and understood as situated in and thus influenced by political, ideological, institutional, and structural contexts (Goodson, 1992; Smeyers, Smith, & Standish, 2007).

NARRATIVES, BIOGRAPHY, AND PROFESSIONAL SELF-UNDERSTANDING Preservice teachers do not enter teacher education as blank sheets, but rather bring with them about 15 years of personal experiences in schools. They have lived and worked in many classrooms, experienced dozens of different teachers, and thus, inevitably have built a very personal set of ideas and beliefs about what it means to be a teacher, to teach, and to be a student. Lortie (1975) called this the “apprenticeship of observation.” As has been shown in the so-called “teacher thinking” research, this personal set of cognitions influences student teachers’ learning and professional action (i.e., Craig, Meijer, & Broeckmans, 2013). In other words, when entering teacher education, student teachers have built a set of representations and beliefs about teaching and being a teacher that operates as a lens through which they perceive particular situations, give meaning to them, and act in them. For that reason, I have labeled this concept, the personal interpretative framework. Two interwoven domains have been found constitutive for this framework: the professional self-understanding (the ongoing

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

285

process of constructing a sense of one-self as a teacher) and the subjective educational theory (the personal system of knowledge and beliefs operating as the “know how” for teachers to perform their job) (Kelchtermans, 2009). This personal interpretative framework is thus embedded in one’s biography as a (student) teacher. At the same time, the framework is influenced by and develops further through the learning that takes place in the teacher education program. However, in turn, the framework also influences that learning process: it acts as an interpretative lens, mediates and filters the way prospective teachers make sense of the curriculum of their teacher education program, interpret experiences during practical training, etc. As such, it is both an outcome of, and a condition for, this learning. Yet, because of its biographical, experiential, and largely idiosyncratic nature, this framework and the understandings it constructs may be onesided, limited or simply wrong-headed. As such, it may negatively bias student teachers’ learning and sense-making of the formal curriculum and especially of their experiences during practical preparation (i.e., internships). It can be argued that the often observed “washing out” effect of teacher education programs once teachers have begun their career is due to the fact that the implicit personal, interpretative lenses of the student teachers were not deliberately made explicit or discussed. In order to control for possible biases and to ensure a sustainable, in-depth integration of the curriculum by the preservice teachers, the curricula of teacher education programs have to aim at making this implicit knowledge explicit and hold it up for critical scrutiny and discussion (Kelchtermans, 2009; Lyons, 2010). Only this way the validity of student teachers’ personal interpretative framework, as the basis for their professional decisions and actions, can become validated and justified. Narratives and storytelling are particularly suited to play a part in this process of making the implicit knowledge explicit. In order to do so as I already indicated it is of critical importance that work with narratives in teacher education goes beyond the telling and sharing of stories as such. Storytelling therefore has to be linked with forms of narrative inquiry, in which the stories and the beliefs they reveal are critically analyzed, questioned, and restoried (as illustrated in the critical incident vignette exercise). As such,the use of narratives in teacher education is also in line with and contributed to the emphasis on teachers’ reflectivity. Reflection, both as an attitude and skill, refers to people’s capacity to look back on and think about themselves, their actions, and the situation they find themselves in (Korthagen, 2001; Lyons, 2010). Because of the dynamic, highly

286

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

unpredictable, and complex character of teaching and learning processes, reflectivity is a crucial tool for teachers to properly understand professional situations, choose appropriate actions, and learn from these experiences. Through reflection, teachers thoughtfully examine and integrate new knowledge and practical experiences, with deeply held beliefs and opinions. Narratives and different forms of storytelling have proven to be powerful tools to engage preservice teachers in reflection. As argued before, narratives are particularly powerful as triggers for reflection on the non-technical aspects of teaching, such as emotional, moral, and political considerations (Kelchtermans, 2007, 2009). Finally, the narrative and biographical approaches also fully recognize that the person of the teacher is a constitutive part of the educational situation (Kelchtermans, 2009). Nias (1989) has rightly argued that when speaking about their jobs, teachers demonstrate a “persistent self-referentialism,” and this is particularly true because of their preference for the narrative genres. A biographical perspective further stresses that all human action in the present is influenced both by one’s experiences from the past and more in particular by the way one makes sense of them as well as by one’s expectations about the future. The way student teachers make sense of themselves as (future) teachers, their developing self-understanding constitutes a major thread for their learning and development throughout their teacher education. They come to see themselves in a particular way, develop a sense of self-esteem as well as a personal set of deeply held beliefs on what would make them a good teacher. Because of the ongoing, interactive, and constructive character of this process, I prefer the concept of professional self-understanding over the notion of identity (with its more static and essentialist connotations) (Kelchtermans, 2009). (Auto)biographical reflection or narrative accounts are particularly powerful to capture and unpack this process of self-understanding, as well as to critically question its self-evidence. Furthermore, they can contribute to and interfere in its further development. Deep reflection, triggering the further development of one’s self-understanding and subjective educational theory (personal interpretative framework), can be stimulated by (auto)biographical and narrative exercises, such as the one discussed earlier in this chapter.

CONCLUSION Narratives both (auto)biographical and others provide a meaningful and engaging medium for teacher educators and student teachers to

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

287

capture, address, and share their personal experiences in education. In order to use them pedagogically, however, it is helpful to understand them as multi-layered, as one moves from the level of “facts” (reality as it unfolds) to levels of increased interpretation. Fig. 1 (Kelchtermans & Vandenberghe, 1994, p. 51) represents the different layers and summarizes some of the concepts previously discussed. The first level is that of one’s (professional) actions as they take place over time. This is the level of facts that can in principle be observed. The second level still close to the factual is the formal account of one’s acts and experiences over time (i.e., place of birth, start and time spent in school X, followed by school Y from then to then, etc.). One can think of it as a formal overview of one’s career in schools, as it could, for example, be listed in a personal CV (dates, places, etc.). A critical interest at this level would involve checking whether the dates and places are “correct.” However, the third level of emphasis moves from facts to interpretation. The professional biography or career story is the narrative account (text) in which the storyteller represents in the present his/her experiences from the past and their meaning. These are the data produced in the exercises discussed in this chapter. And, by analyzing, unpacking, questioning, and more explicitly

Fig. 1.

Layers in Narrative-Biographical Accounts.

288

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

interpreting the stories of this third level (i.e., identifying and analyzing the critical incidents, phases, and persons), the storyteller can be supported to become aware of his/her personal interpretative framework (selfunderstanding and subjective educational theory) and possibly develop it further. This implies still another level in the movement away from the facts toward an in-depth and critical self-understanding. It is obvious that the pedagogical potential of the narrative-biographical accounts unfolds at levels 3 and 4. The interest is not in the facts, but in the reconstruction, analysis, and possible modification of their meaning. The distinction of the different levels can be used analytically in exploring narrative accounts. The enactment and use of the narrative-biographical methods I discussed does not require any particular practical, legal, or infrastructural arrangements. However, it would have become clear that applying the methods does demand that teacher educators develop a researcher’s attitude, engaging in reflection and seeking to understand their practices, based on careful collection of data and evidence (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Kelchtermans, 2009; Korthagen, 2001; Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004; Scho¨n, 1983). Teacher educators wanting to apply narrativebiographical methods with their students, will be much more skilled and effective in doing so if they have themselves engaged in these pedagogies, based on their own experiences (i.e., Berry, 2007). When doing so, the baseline should be a pedagogical attitude of careful, appreciative, and accepting listening, while postponing judgement. And from that accepting stance, one then needs to move on through thoughtful interpretive commenting and questioning, unpacking the taken-for-granted plotlines, characters, or scenes, and respectfully challenging them through providing alternative readings, opening up possibly new ways of sense-making and interpretation, facilitating the re-storying and a re-positioning of oneself in one’s stories. The skills and attitudes needed from teacher educators to properly facilitate narrative and biographical reflection and exchange therefore do not really differ from the ones necessary to create both a safe and constructively challenging learning environment. A sensitivity for, and understanding of, the characteristics and possibilities of narrative language, however, is a must. Finally, it is obvious that working with narrative approaches requires that teacher educators have sufficient professional autonomy to pick the moments and design the meetings and exchanges. The exact outcomes of narrative pedagogies are neither possible to predict, nor can or should they be reduced to strictly instrumental tools for the effective production of pre-set goals and competencies. Just like the stories themselves, the narrative pedagogies need narrators who sense when to launch or invite

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

289

stories and how to engage an audience, and who themselves are wondering how the story will end. As such, narrative pedagogies are very difficult to align with strict normative prescriptive curricula of fixed competencies and evidence-based teaching methods. Teacher education curricula that desire to use the potential of narrative pedagogies must allow for margins or spaces for teacher educators’ professional decision making and creative design. So in prescriptive policy environments, maybe the first prerequisite for teacher educators wanting to engage with narrative pedagogies is to start unpacking dominant policy narratives. In conclusion as already indicated it needs to be stressed that however rewarding and valuable the pedagogical potential of narratives, engaging with them may also create a challenge or even threat to deeply held beliefs and cherished self-representations and as such constitute a possible source of discomfort. But a thoughtful and ethically careful “pedagogy of discomfort” (Kelchtermans, 2009, 2013), enacted in a positive, accepting, and respectful environment, seems to hold the best promises to develop the necessary openness, awareness, reflectivity and eventually researchers’ attitude that is so essential for teacher (educator) professionalism.

REFERENCES Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching. Developing practice as a teacher educator. Dordrecht: Springer. Biesta, G. (2013). Knowledge, judgement and the curriculum: On the past, present and future of the idea of the practical. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 684 696. Bullough, R. (2008). The writing of teachers’ lives: Where personal troubles and social issues meet. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 7 26. Bullough, R., & Gitlin, A. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching. Linking knowledge production and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5 12, 18. Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narrative and life history in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 120 142). New York, NY: Macmillan. Casey, K. (1995 1996). The new narrative research in education. Review of Research in Education, 21, 211 253. Clandinin, J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clandinin, J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5 28.

290

GEERT KELCHTERMANS

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2 14. Craig, C., Meijer, P., & Broeckmans, J. (Eds.). (2013). From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Day, C., & Lee, J. C. K. (Eds.). (2011). New understandings of teacher effectiveness: Emotions and educational change. Dordrecht: Springer. Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (2003). Narrative and learning to teach: Implications for teachereducation curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 129 137. Fenstermacher, G. (1990). Some moral considerations on teaching as a profession. In J. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 130 151). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodson, I. (Ed.). (1992). Studying teachers’ lives. London: Routledge. Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Story-maker, story-teller. Narrative structures in curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 207 218. Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire. A post-modern perspective. In T. R. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and perspectives (pp. 9 34). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hoeppel, R. (1983). Perspektiven der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Erschliessung autobiographischer Formen der Selbstreflexion (Perspectives for the use of autobiographical selfreflection in educational research). In Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik. 18. Beiheft (pp. 307 312). Weinheim-Basel: Beltz. Kelchtermans, G. (1993). Getting the story, understanding the lives. From career stories to teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 443 456. Kelchtermans, G. (1994). Biographical methods in the study of teachers’ professional development. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions. Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 93 108). London: Falmer. Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Professional commitment beyond contract. Teachers’ selfunderstanding, vulnerability and reflection. In J. Butcher, & L. McDonald (Eds.), Making a difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching, and teacher education (pp. 35 53). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message. Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 257 272. Kelchtermans, G. (2010). Narratives and biography in teacher education. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 610 614). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kelchtermans, G. (2011a). Professional responsibility: Persistent commitment, perpetual vulnerability? In C. Sugrue, & T. D. Solbrekke (Eds.), Professional responsibility. New horizons of praxis (pp. 113 126). London: Routledge. Kelchtermans, G. (2011b). Vulnerability in teaching: The moral and political roots of a structural condition. In C. Day, & J. C. K. Lee (Eds.), New understandings of teacher effectiveness: Emotions and educational change (pp. 65 82). Dordrecht: Springer. Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Praktijk in de plaats van blauwdruk. Over het opleiden van lerarenopleiders [Practice-based instead of blueprint. On the education of teacher educators]. Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 34, 89 99. Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: A biographical perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 45 62.

Narrative-Biographical Pedagogies in Teacher Education

291

Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1973). Erza¨hlanalyse. Mu¨ndliche Versionen perso¨nlicher Erfahrung. In J. Ihwe (Ed.), Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (Vol. 2, pp. 78 126). Frankfurt am Main: Athena¨um. Lortie, D. (1975). The schoolteacher. A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lyons, N. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry. Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry. Dordrecht: Springer. Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking. A study of teaching as work. London: Routledge. Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293 306. Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Scho¨n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. Schutz, P., & Zembylas, M. (Eds.). (2009). Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives. Dordrecht: Springer. Sikes, P., Measor, L., & Woods, P. (1985). Teacher careers. Crises and continuities. London: Falmer. Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (2007). The therapy of education. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Van Veen, K., & Lasky, S. (Eds.). (2005). Emotions, teacher identity and change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 895 1006.

PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY Paulien C. Meijer, Helma W. Oolbekkink, Marieke Pillen and Arnoud Aardema ABSTRACT Research on student teacher learning has identified development of a professional identity as an inevitable focus in teacher education. Accordingly, many teacher education programs have come to include attention for the development of student teachers’ professional identities, but not much research has been done on the (effects of) pedagogies that have such development as their goal. Pedagogies that aim at developing teacher identity share common elements, such as the view that developing a professional identity is an ongoing process and the view that developing a professional identity as a teacher unmistakably includes a combination of personal and professional (including contextual) aspects. This chapter describes pedagogies that focus particularly on the development of student teachers’ and beginning teachers’ professional identity, from different angles, but sharing the views as described above. First, we describe two pedagogies that have “key incidents” in student teachers’ development as focus point. Second, we report on the “subject-autobiography,” in which student teachers describe and develop how their identity is

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 293 309 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022018

293

294

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

shaped in relation to the subject they (learn to) teach. Third, we describe the “at-tension” program, which teachers follow during their first year of teaching, and which focuses particularly on the professional tensions that they experience in their first year of teaching, and how they personally and professionally deal with socialization in the school context. Together, these pedagogies reflect our view that professional identity development is underlying the entire teacher education program. This view implies that only a combination of various-focus pedagogies enables student teachers to develop a full-fledged professional identity. Keywords: Teachers’ professional identity; identity development; key incidents; professional identity tensions; subject autobiography

Research on student teacher learning has identified development of a professional identity as an inevitable focus in teacher education. Accordingly, many teacher education programs have come to include attention for the development of student teachers’ professional identities, but not much research has been done on the (effects of) pedagogies that have such development as their goal. Partly, this is due to the fact that research on teachers’ professional identity has not been able to provide an agreed-upon definition of the concept. Research did reveal how a teacher’s professional identity is inherently dynamic, as it is shaped in the connections between the teacher as a person, his or her pupils (who are developing themselves as well), the school as a workplace, and broader issues such as the personal environment of the teacher, the place of education in the national context, and so on. Based on this, pedagogies were developed that focused on various facets of teachers’ professional identity. They share common elements, such as the view that developing a professional identity is an ongoing process (i.e., Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Lee, 2013) and the view that developing a professional identity as a teacher unmistakably includes a combination of personal and professional (including contextual) aspects (i.e., Alsup, 2006; Day & Gu, 2014; Meijer, Korthagen, & Vasalos, 2009). This chapter describes pedagogies that focus particularly on the development of student teachers’ and beginning teachers’ professional identity, from different angles, but sharing the views as described above. First, we describe two pedagogies that have “key incidents” in student teachers’ development as focus point. One finalizes a one-year trajectory of student

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

295

teaching and uses a storyline method, which we describe in detail and report on the effects of this procedure. The other pedagogy describes how student teachers during one year collaboratively reflect on their key incidents. Essential in these pedagogies is the focus on the “learning-aspect” of the development of a professional identity. Based on several learning theories, Illeris (2002, 2014) described identity learning as comprising transformative learning (i.e., Mezirow, 2009). To be more specific, Illeris (2014) defined transformative learning as “any learning implying changes in smaller or larger parts of the identity” (p. 146). In such learning, “crisis” is seen as an unavoidable element, and learning to deal with crises might be crucial in developing new parts of one’s identity, for example, in the transition to a (new) job, such as becoming a teacher. Second, we report on the “subjectautobiography,” in which student teachers describe and develop how their identity is shaped in relation to the subject they (learn to) teach. Here, the focus is on the subject-relatedness of a teacher’s professional identity and this pedagogy is of particular interest for university-based teacher education programs, where student teachers top-off a subject-related master program with teacher training. Third, we describe the “at-tension” program, which teachers follow during their first year of teaching, and which focuses particularly on the professional tensions that they experience in their first year of teaching, and how they personally and professionally deal with socialization in their school contexts. The chapter combines a number of practices and studies conducted in the Netherlands to provide a broad view of identity pedagogies. This links to our view that professional identity development is underlying the entire teacher education program (i.e., Rodgers & Scott, 2008). This would imply that only a combination of various-focus pedagogies enables student teachers to develop a full-fledged professional identity. This combination reflects the central role that professional identity development plays in the Dutch national standards for all teachers entering the profession. Within these standards, professional development touches upon all other standards, including standards regarding subject matter, pedagogical skills, and relational competences. Together, the standards can be used as a benchmark for new teachers as they shape who they want to be as a teacher. Indicators for development of a professional identity as a teacher include, for example: The student teacher can underpin the importance of being a teacher for himself, and can explain the professional beliefs (i.e., subject-matter related, pedagogical, relational) that underlie his teaching. In doing so, he relates his attitude towards teaching to the identity of the school he works in. (Ministry of Education, 2006)

296

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

PEDAGOGY 1: KEY INCIDENTS IN STUDENT TEACHERS’ IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT Storylines and Key Incidents The following procedure is based on the concept of transformative learning (Illeris, 2014; Mezirow, 2009) as it is applied in the context of teacher education (i.e., Meijer, de Graaf, & Meirink, 2011). This procedure asks student teachers at the end of their first year of student teaching, to reflect on the development of their well-being as a teacher during that year, which “key incidents” (positive as well as negative, labeled by some as crises) they encountered, how they dealt with these and, finally, what teacher they have become so far, in their own view. In describing and stimulating teachers’ development or identity development from the viewpoint of accumulated knowledge or steady growth, the concept “reflection” occupies a central place. For the past few decades, this concept has been emphasized in teacher education as a way of stimulating the development of professional teacher identity. Student teachers are expected to become reflective practitioners and to use reflective tools such as portfolios, and the learning portfolio in particular. In a learning portfolio, student teachers document and reflect on their own learning process and their development as a teacher. In an indepth study of reflection and learning portfolios, Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, and Verloop (2007) analyzed the nature of reflection exhibited in these portfolios, and found that student teachers described their own development as teachers in terms of their (a) performance improvement, or their (b) growing understanding of underlying processes that play a role in the actions of practicing teachers. In their portfolios, most student teachers described their development as an improvement of performance. A minority did so in terms of understanding underlying processes. Student teachers generally appear to view development as being able to do something better, and not as forming an opinion about teaching and education, becoming aware of their own beliefs, changing their beliefs, etc. Mansvelder-Longayroux et al. also found that student teachers tended to be more inclined to look at what had changed (what aspects of their practice had improved) rather than to probe how that change had come about (how their learning process had progressed). This might be related to the portfolio as such, which is mostly viewed as a vehicle for describing what one learns from experiences in (teaching) practice. In the study (Meijer et al., 2011) summarized in this chapter, we examined student teachers’ perceptions of their development as a teacher.

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

297

We used a line-drawing technique (i.e., Orland, 2000) in describing the key experiences, or “key incidents,” student teachers themselves indicated, and how they coped with them. Also included are student teachers’ perceptions of what helped them overcome crisis-like key incidents, as a way of investigating effective support (i.e., Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). This study was carried out at a teacher education institute in the Netherlands in a one-year teacher education program preparing student teachers for teaching in upper secondary education. In this program, students take courses at the institute while concurrently practice teaching in secondary education. All students enter the teacher education program with a Master’s degree in a (school) subject domain. Twelve student teachers representing different school subjects participated in this study. They all did their teaching practice in different schools in the western part of the Netherlands. For the purpose of answering the two research questions, a storyline tool was used in combination with semi-structured interviews. The storyline tool was meant to capture student teachers’ perceptions of their development. Ten student teachers were asked semi-structured questions about the key incidents during their development; two were interviewed using the same questions. A three-step procedure was used for data collection (see Table 1).

Table 1. Assign Student Teachers in their Final Meeting at the Teacher Education Institute the Storyline and Key Incident Procedure. (a) After examining Moir’s line (see Fig. 1), now draw a line of your own development during the past year. It may look the same, it may look quite different: everything is fine. The idea is that your line depicts YOUR view on your development. You may want to label phases or so, that is all up to you. (b) Next, if you can, indicate 1 or 2 “key incidents” on your line (points where the line suddenly go up, or down). Take these key incidents as points of reference for answering the questions below. If you indicated multiple key incidents, choose one that made a change for the worse, and one that made a change for the better. (c) Describe what happened around each key incident: • What did you learn? • What did you think (before, during, after)? • What did you want? • How did you feel? • What caused what was happening? • What did you do that made this happen? • Were there others involved? Who? And what did they do?

298

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL. Phases of first year teacher’s attitude towards teaching Anticipation

Anticipation

Reflection

Survival

Rejuvenation

Disillusionment

Aug Sept Oct

Fig. 1.

Nov Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Developmental Phases of a First-Year Teacher’s Attitude (Vertical Axis) Toward Teaching (Moir, 2002).

In general, we found that student teachers could easily draw the line of their own development as a teacher; in fact, they mostly enjoyed doing so. Most of them indicated that the line helped them think about their own development as a teacher, and all indicated that the lines they had drawn captured their general development as a teacher. With regard to the lines the student teachers drew, four of them drew high initial enthusiasm, then having doubts and being discouraged after a few weeks or a few months, followed by regaining motivation by actively taking control of their development process (i.e., writing and using action plans), and finally developing increased motivation at the end of the first year. Negative key incidents (i.e., incidents after which the line “dropped”) were often related to feelings of uncertainty or feeling “unfit” concerning, for example, classroom management. They felt disrespected by students, for instance, when a student teacher spent a whole evening preparing a lesson and had a class of students who did not even pay attention. This student teacher felt somewhat betrayed by her students, who did not recognize how hard she worked, and that she did so for them. In the particular situation, she (and other student teachers as well) had thoughts such as: “What am I doing it [this work] for?” In addition, feelings of uncertainty and panic were mentioned in connection with such negative key incidents, and

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

299

occasionally aspects of the school as an organization, such as uncertain job perspectives, or panic caused by heavy workload were also reported. After such negative key incidents, the downward slopes of the lines were sometimes steep, suggesting a “practice shock” (Veenman, 1984). In describing what they had experienced, student teachers used terms such as “feeling completely incapable of teaching” and “chaos in lessons,” “shocked by students,” and “I definitely wanted to quit teaching. I felt completely useless as a teacher.” This seems to relate to the “disturbance” reported by Tripp (1994) in his study about critical incidents in learning to teach. Positive key incidents (after which the lines went up) were often related to conversations student teachers had with others, mainly students or supervisors. What follows are some examples from the data that were reported in Part C of the assignment (see Meijer et al., 2011 for more examples): That talk [with my supervisor] turned out to be crucial. Before it, I was so nervous, but I had never expected how much it would help me … I used to think that I could quite well manage on my own … but since then, I ask for help or advice so much more easily. I now see how other people can help in improving as a teacher. (Mark, aged 25) After the long talk [with my supervisor] on the phone, I was so much more relaxed. I realized that this stressful situation [an argument with a colleague] was partly caused by my tendency to avoid confrontations, but I also started to see how I might learn from this particular situation. We discussed what I might do in interacting with that colleague and I did some experimenting with that … Actually it worked out great … It added to my confidence as a teacher, specifically because I am now confident that I can get myself out of difficulties. (Maddie, aged 23)

What is striking is that such conversations were not characterized by a focus on the development of knowledge and skills, but a focus on discussing together what it means to that particular student teacher to be or become a teacher. In addition, explicit attention was paid to the fact that other student teachers also pass through phases of disillusionment. Finally, attention was paid to how the student teachers might cope with possible future phases of disillusionment. What helped them were discussions with their supervising teacher focusing on their personal paths to becoming a teacher, linking their development to the development of student teachers in general, and discussing ways of dealing with possible phases of disillusionment in their future careers. This is a highly personal matter, but by no means is it separate from the professional standards for teachers expected by teacher education institutes, schools, and society. It is the very process of finding a personal

300

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

interpretation of these standards, which makes one a teacher. This is in line with Kelchtermans and Hamilton’s (2004) “being someone who” perspective of teaching. In learning to teach, this entails the cultivation of a “becoming someone who” perspective.

Key Incidents in Collaborative Reflection Meetings Another study (Meijer & Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2009) took student teachers’ learning during collaborative reflection meeting as the object of inquiry, and found the meetings that focused on teacher identity issues, to be most valued by the student teachers. Each collaborative reflection meeting started with a list of the problems or key incidents encountered by the student teachers. One or two problems were then selected for further discussion in keeping with the model of Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, and Wubbels (2001), which suggests four sequential steps for the discussion of problems: recall/describe the situation, formulate the essential aspects, develop alternatives, and choose a solution. In step one, the student teacher recalls a teaching experience s/he wants to analyze, responds to questions from the other student teachers, and describes (factually, without interpretation) what actually happened. In step two, the student teacher focuses on essential aspects: What is the issue behind the experience? In step three, the student teacher formulates possible alternatives in dealing with the experience just analyzed. Finally, in step four, the student teacher selects an alternative for future implementation. The findings of analyzing the content and process of each meeting suggest that the problems encountered by student teachers are typical “beginningteacher problems” and relate to finding their way in the school organization and knowing the boundaries on their responsibilities as a teacher. More intensely than experienced teachers, student teachers deal with what it means to be a teacher in terms of the students and the school organization. Interestingly, when the student teachers talked about the boundaries of their teaching responsibilities, they did not pursue all of the logical steps for the discussion of a problem. Nonetheless, they indicated gaining a greater understanding of teaching in general, which is typically considered “deeper” learning than the learning of practical tips. Such discussions on “boundaries on teaching responsibilities” show a focus on learning to be a teacher. This links to Mezirow’s (2009) description of transformative learning in which developing deep “meaning” is more important than the development of knowledge and skills. Collaborative reflection appears to cause

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

301

student teachers to ask each other questions they normally would not ask of themselves and that, according to Tigelaar et al. (2008), teachers who reflect on teaching experiences collaboratively, appear to discuss their experiences within a wider context, not just their technical dimension, but would also include the moral, ethical, and political dimensions. As such, this pedagogy directly reflects the Dutch national standard in which the development of a professional identity touches upon all other standards that beginning teachers are expected to meet.

PEDAGOGY 2: THE SUBJECT AUTOBIOGRAPHY In secondary education, most teachers rely on their subject in defining themselves as teachers. Meijer and Van Driel (1999) described a subject specific view on teachers’ professional identity, and stated that the core of experienced subject matter teachers’ work is to link subject matter to their students’ learning and, as such, they are not just “teachers,” but “science teachers,” “history teachers,” etc. In becoming a subject matter teacher, how student teachers have come to relate to their subject, is a key facet. For example, in the context of teaching foreign language writing, Lee (2013) described student teachers’ identity formation as “an ongoing process, influenced by a host of factors such as biography, experiences, context, culture and the activity of the learner” (Larson, 2006, p. 331). Thus, identity is context-specific and closely related to, in this case, foreign language writing. The following procedure takes this as a starting point and asks student teachers to write their “subject autobiography.” In this subject autobiography, student teachers take their own experiences in doing in this example history and history education as starting point for explicating and examining their own beliefs about the teaching of history. The subject autobiography serves two goals. First, student teachers need to explicate their view on the subject matter in order to work from this view when they design and develop their lesson. Second, they assume a reflective approach that focuses on themselves (during their history major, they did not do so), and then they link that to theory. In this example, the autobiography is a closing assignment for the three meetings. In these meetings, the students are confronted with three perspectives on the subject they teach: their own experiences as student, an academic perspective, and a societal perspective. For the first meeting,

302

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

the students describe their own experiences with history during upbringing, as a student in school and as a history major. During the meeting, the relation between experiences and beliefs are analyzed using various phases in history education, and key incidents in motivating students to become history teachers are identified. For the second meeting, the students study opinions of scholars on the position of and the goals for the subject. Important questions are how and why students should learn history. Theoretical frameworks for positioning the school subject and domain-specific learning are introduced. In the last meeting, the requirements as detailed by the government and the state exams are analyzed through using the theoretical frameworks from meeting 2. The autobiography explicates a provisional view on teaching history. It is based on the three perspectives presented in the three meetings: the students’ own experience, scholarly views as found in international literature, and perspectives and expectations of (Dutch) society. In the autobiography, the students combine these three perspectives and formulate their provisional beliefs on what, how, and why to teach history. These beliefs can be used in later assignments as a benchmark for charting their development. The autobiography thus also becomes a tool for reflection. What follows are excerpts from one such autobiography in which it becomes clear how personal experiences from the past and the present coincide with this student teacher’s developing view on teaching history in secondary education. Over the last months, I encountered a mess of opinions, examples, theories, and the like, about how one learns history in high school. To develop my own ideas in the midst of this “mess,” I write my own view regarding how I think pupils learn history at high school. I will do this using literature that I personally have given meaning to, and that became (or already were) central in my view on how pupils learn history in school. Next, I will pay attention to the role I think teachers have in that learning process (p. 1). […] (followed on p. 2): Virta’s article describes the elicitation of subject-enthusiasm as the prime motive to become a history teacher, closely followed by learn to think about and to understand the world. Both aspects played major roles in my motivation to become a history teacher. Learning to understand and critically discuss the world around us played a particular crucial role in my Master in Cultural Heritage Studies. […] Our cultural heritage can support and specify historical concepts, improve our understanding of the world around us, address the pupils’ (visual) imagination, link present, history, and future, and is touchable so for pupils easier to recall / remember than mere texts. […] (and on page 3): [in such a lesson, as example] … historical thinking and reasoning, arguing, using “subject matter grammar,” developing an opinion, draw lines with present time, asking historical question, and constructing history, are

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

303

all matters that link to such a debate [about a statute of Jan Pieterszoon Coen]. Such lessons [debating vices and virtues of Coen] get me all enthusiastic, in particular when I see pupils really developing their opinion and applying what they know.

PEDAGOGY 3: AN “AT-TENSION PROGRAM” FOR BEGINNING TEACHERS In a study on tensions in the professional identity of beginning teachers, Pillen (2013) found that beginning teachers need some support in coping with professional identity tensions. An “at-tension” program for teachers who are in their final stage of teacher education or who just started as an independent teacher can contribute to teachers’ well-being and sound professional development. In Pillen’s study, professional identity tensions are considered internal struggles between aspects relevant to the teacher as a person and the teacher as a professional. An example of such a tension is the following from Susan, who just started working as a language teacher at a secondary school. She said: The school wants me to give grades solely based on the performance of the students, but I prefer to take into account their situations as well. Some of them have a difficult home environment or suffer from learning difficulties. It is so important when they show a positive attitude towards me or show that they can work together! I would like to give grades from that point of view and reward them in grades for their behavior.

This example shows that the professional demands opposed Susan’s personal beliefs.

Why an “At-Tension Program?” Pillen’s study showed that professional identity tensions are not an unusual part of the process of becoming a teacher and are mostly accompanied by negative feelings. For some beginning teachers, their tensions had severe consequences for their learning and functioning as a teacher. Here are some examples: • Ivy was a last-year student who decided to relocate to another practice school because she found her mentor’s authoritarian way of teaching quite problematic.

304

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

• Irene quit teaching after she concluded that she could never be the teacher she would like to be. Despite the mainly negative feelings and the, sometimes, severe consequences of professional identity tensions, there were examples of teachers whose tensions had positive consequences for their development as a teacher. For instance, Mary explained that she had tried to consciously “live through” her professional identity tensions in order to develop herself as a teacher. Her professional identity seemed to have developed as well, since she explained that with respect to her tensions, she now better understands what kind of teacher she would like to be. This is consistent with the literature, which shows that tensions can be of great importance for teachers’ professional identity development (Alsup, 2006; Meijer, 2011; Olsen, 2010; Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004). Mary’s example supported the assumption that professional identity tensions can serve as a positive resource for teacher learning. Therefore, the “at-tension” program aims at an educative approach toward experiencing professional identity tensions: it takes the view that tensions must be transformed into learning experiences by making beginning teachers aware of push-and-pull forces and by supervising them in how to cope with lived dilemmas.

The Program The “at-tension” program began with a questionnaire in which beginning teachers were asked the extent to which they recognize themselves in several statements reflecting professional identity tensions (Pillen, Beijaard, & den Brok, 2012). An example of a statement is as follows: “Howard is very concerned about his students’ well-being. He has a hard time accepting that he is not capable of helping his students in the way that he should to fulfill their needs.” If beginning teachers recognize the tension in their own situations, they are asked about their accompanying feelings and preferred ways of coping. Since professional identity tensions are personal and may not automatically come to the surface, completing the questionnaire is seen as a suitable first step in making beginning teachers aware of their own tensions. It enables them to think about their own situations and gives them insights into their own professional identity tensions, feelings, and coping strategies. After completing the questionnaire, students’ professional identity tension(s) are discussed. Supervised by a teacher educator or a mentor in the

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

305

schools, small groups of beginning teachers will go, step by step, deeper into professional identity tensions in successive sessions. Depending on the aims of teacher educators or mentors, the needs and concerns of beginning teachers, and the number and kind of professional identity tensions, this program can be elaborated or deepened. Below is an example of how this program is carried out in five or six sessions. In the first session, the insights that beginning teachers have gained from completing the questionnaire is used as a tool to help them to share their tensions with other beginners. This makes them aware of the fact that they are not the only ones who experience tensions, but that it is, in fact, a common part of the process of learning to teach. In addition, listening to other beginning teachers’ tensions may also make them aware of other difficult situations they may encounter (Ehrich, Kimber, Millwater, & Cranston, 2011). In the second session, sharing tensions will be continued with a focus on the different ways of coping. Coping strategies depend on the kind of professional identity tension and on the kind of person a teacher is, but nevertheless, knowledge about possible ways of coping helps teachers to start working on tensions (sooner). In the third session, special attention is paid to the emotions of beginning teachers that accompany their tensions, because emotions can be strong and of great influence on the process of learning to teach. Given the fact that professional identity tensions usually are accompanied with negative feelings, beginning teachers are guided to give meaning to these feelings (Leijen, Lam, Wildschut, & Simons, 2009). The fourth session focuses on reflection on professional identity tensions. Reflection in relation to teachers’ professional identity development is very important (Alsup, 2006; Ehrich et al., 2011; Sutherland, Howard, & Markauskaite, 2010). Based on the results of the questionnaire, beginning teachers can be categorized as one of the six teacher profiles found in Pillen, den Brok, and Beijaard (2013). For example, if a beginning teacher experiences tensions such as “wanting to respect students” integrity versus feeling the need to “work against this integrity,” and “experiencing difficulties in maintaining an emotional distance,” he or she is likely to be included in the profile “teachers with care-related tensions.” This profile, as well as the other five, can be used as a reflection tool for beginning teachers, since they make it possible to comprehend tensions more easily and to stimulate associations that beginning teachers have with certain tensions (Rickards, den Brok, & Fisher, 2005; Wubbels, 1992). Once the previous sessions have been attended, the sessions then focus on transforming professional identity tensions into learning moments for

306

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

beginning teachers’ development. In brainstorming sessions, in which teachers try to think “out of the box,” they help each other to look for positive approaches toward each other’s professional identity tensions. Teacher educators or mentors in the schools also have an important role to play. They need to be able to recognize the many aspects that may play a part in professional identity tensions, and they need to be creative in order to help beginning teachers to see tensions as possibilities to develop themselves as teachers. Mary, for example, experienced tension when students told her something in confidence, while she felt at the same time that she should ignore the confidentiality of the communication in order to protect the student and/or other people. Mary decided to explain the tension to the student, telling him/her that she would like to share the student’s problem with a colleague in order to give the best possible advice. Afterwards, Mary said that the student understood her position and agreed. By sharing her tension, she coped with her professional identity tension. The process of helping each other to create learning moments out of tensions is an important step toward beginning teachers’ professional identity development. A more developed professional identity might help preservice teachers to better cope with professional identity tensions. Teacher educators or mentors in schools can educate beginning teachers about their professional identity tensions by explaining what professional identity is and why it is important to have a sense of one’s professional identity and responsibilities. The “at-tension program” needs good leadership of the part of teacher educators and/or mentors in the schools. They need to be able to create a safe environment and to support beginners emotionally in discussing their professional identities.

CONCLUSION This chapter describes pedagogies that focus on the development of various aspects of teachers’ professional identity: a learning aspect, a subject-matter aspect, and a professional tension aspect. Central to all of these approaches is the idea that a teacher’s professional identity is in essence dynamic, as in it, teachers come to combine their personal characteristics and the characteristics of teaching as reflected in the Dutch national standards. Teacher education programs sometimes struggle to enact this standard in their curricula as it cuts through all other standards, and not all teacher educators

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

307

feel comfortable in employing identity pedagogies. Also, discussions continue as to whether this standard is actually needed in order to learn to teach since reflection on oneself as a teacher does not seem to be directly related to “good teaching.” For several years, the trend in the Netherlands has been to shorten teacher education tracks so that more people were attracted to become teachers. In these fast tracks, the focus has been on subject matter and teaching skills. But it now becomes clear that although more people entered the teaching profession, they tended to quit after a few years. One of the reasons may be that during their short time in teacher education, they were not always able to fully explore how they relate to the profession and to societal and school specific demands. It might be that many of them leave because the type of transformative learning that is required for developing a teacher’s identity is not addressed explicitly in teacher education. As a result, student teachers have to figure out their new role by themselves without support from teacher educators or even their mentors in the schools. Working as teacher educators with the pedagogies described in this chapter, requires first of all “space” in the teacher education program offerings (i.e., Rodgers & Scott, 2008). Also, it requires knowledge of transformative learning processes and how these processes are manifest in becoming a teacher (i.e., Illeris, 2014). Furthermore, it requires explicit attention to these processes in teacher education, both to prepare student teachers for possible critical moments and to help them to make sense of experiences they encounter during their teacher education programs. Sometimes the regular teacher education curriculum may have to be put aside to pay attention to student teachers’ experiences, and it requires astute teacher educators who know and sense when it is time to pay attention to these processes either in face-to-face conversations and/or in collaborative learning settings. This may also be an important part of teacher educators’ training. For all of the pedagogies described in this chapter, the question for student teachers is to ask themselves what it means, for them, to teach. Being a teacher becomes part of who they are as persons. By no means is this an easy process, which all of the described pedagogies illustrate. There can be frictions and resistances (i.e., Bronkhorst, Koster, Meijer, Woldman, & Vermunt, 2014). But supported carefully and thoughtfully, this process of becoming a teacher can be seen as essential in developing a sense of well-being that might not only help student teachers to find their way into teaching, but also to prevent them from early attrition.

308

PAULIEN C. MEIJER ET AL.

REFERENCES Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308 319. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bronkhorst, L. H., Koster, B., Meijer, P. C., Woldman, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Exploring student teachers’ resistance to teacher education pedagogies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 73 82. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Executive summary: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on resaerch and teacher education (pp. 1–36). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools. Building and sustaining quality in testing times. London: Routledge. Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 173 185. Illeris, K. (2002). The three dimensions of learning. Contemporary learning theory in the tension field between the cognitive, the emotional and the social. Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press. Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. London: Routledge. Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialectics of passion and theory: Exploring the relationship between self-study and emotion. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. Kubler LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 785 810). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Larson, A. (2006). Student perception of caring teaching in physical education. Sport, Education, and Society, 11, 337–352. Lee, I. (2013). Becoming a writing teacher: Using “identity” as an analytic lens to understand EFL writing teachers’ development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 330 345. Leijen, A¨., Lam, I., Wildschut, L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2009). Difficulties teachers report about students’ reflection: Lessons learned from dance education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 315 326. Mansvelder-Longayroux, D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47 62. Meijer, P. C. (2011). The role of crisis in the development of student teachers’ professional identity. In A. Lauriala, R. Rajala, H. Ruokamo, & O. Ylitapio-Ma¨ntyla¨ (Eds.), Navigating in educational contexts: Identities and cultures in dialogue (pp. 41 54). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Meijer, P. C., de Graaf, G., & Meirink, J. A. (2011). Key experiences in student teachers’ development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 115 129.

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

309

Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2009). Supporting presence in teacher education: The connection between the personal and professional aspects of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 297 308. Meijer, P. C., & Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. (2009). Tracing learning in collaborative reflection meetings of student teachers. In C. J. Craig, & L. F. Deretchin (Eds.), Teacher education yearbook XVII: Teacher learning in small group settings. Houston, TX: ATE. Meijer, P. C., & Van Driel, J. H. (1999). De professionele identiteit van docenten belicht vanuit hun praktijkkennis. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 24(4), 451 470. Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ministry of Education. (2006). National standards for teachers [Wet op de Beroepen in het Onderwijs]. Retrieved from http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0016944/ Moir, E. (2002). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In The BEST beginning teacher experience. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Olsen, B. (2010). Teaching for success. Developing your teacher identity in today’s classroom. London: Paradigm Publishers. Orland, L. (2000). What’s in a line? Exploration of a research and reflection tool. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6, 197 213. Pillen, M. (2013). Professional identity tensions of beginning teachers. Doctoral dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Pillen, M., Beijaard, D., & den Brok, P. (2012). Tensions in beginning teachers’ professional identity development, accompanying feelings and coping strategies. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 240 260. Pillen, M. T., den Brok, P. J., & Beijaard, D. (2013). Profiles and change in beginning teachers’ professional identity tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 87 93. Rickards, T., den Brok, P. J., & Fisher, D. (2005). The Australian science teacher: A typology of teacher-student interpersonal behaviour in Australian science classes. Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 267 287. Rodgers, C. R., & Scott, K. H. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 732 755). New York, NY: Routledge. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8 24. Sutherland, L., Howard, S., & Markauskaite, L. (2010). Professional identity creation: Examining the development of beginning preservice teachers’ understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 455 465. Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Meijer, P. C., de Grave, W. S., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2008). Teachers’ interactions and their collaborative reflection processes during peer meetings. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(3), 289 308. Tripp, D. (1994). Teachers’ lives, critical incidents, and professional practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7, 65 76. Veenman, S. A. M. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143 178. Wubbels, T. (1992). Taking account of student teachers’ preconceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(2), 137 149.

PEDAGOGIES OF DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY A¨li Leijen, Katrin Kullasepp and Tiina Anspal ABSTRACT Interest in supporting the development of teachers’ professional identity in preservice and in-service teacher education programs has increased in recent decades considerably, given that teachers’ sense of their professional identity manifests itself in job satisfaction, occupational commitment, self-efficacy, and changes in their levels of motivation (i.e., Day, 2002). In this chapter, we present different pedagogies that have been enacted in the Estonian context to support the development of preservice and novice teachers’ professional identity. The pedagogies have been divided into three groups: pedagogies that facilitate the professional aspect of teacher identity, pedagogies that address the personal aspect of teacher identity, and pedagogies that support the interaction of the professional and personal aspects of teacher identity. Keywords: Professional identity; pedagogies for identity development; preservice teachers; teacher education

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 311 328 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022019

311

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

312

INTRODUCTION In general terms, professional identity refers to the understanding that a person has about himself/herself related to his/her profession (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). Professional identity is formed through the dialogue between the individuals and their sociocultural environment. Along the way, the expectations concerning social (professional) role are internalized and a personal professional self-cognition (i.e., “I as a teacher”) constructed (Valsiner, 2001, 2007). Interest in professional identity has increased tremendously over the last decades. One of the reasons for the growing interest is that a teacher’s professional identity is connected to several other factors relating to professional effectiveness such as job satisfaction, professional self-identification, self-efficacy, and motivation (Day, 2002). In relation to this, several scholars in the teacher education area (i.e., Alsup, 2006; Beijaard, 1995; Kelchtermans, 2009; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) have argued that teacher education programs need to pay more attention to emerging professional identity. Consistent with these developments, the necessity for paying further attention to teachers’ professional development has also been highlighted in several studies carried out in Estonia (i.e., Anspal, Eisenschmidt, & Lo¨fstro¨m, 2012; Leijen & Kullasepp, 2013a; Leijen, Kullasepp, & Ots, 2013; Lo¨fstro¨m, Anspal, Hannula, Poom-Valickis, 2010a; Lo¨fstro¨m, Poom-Valickis, Hannula, & Mathews, 2010b; Poom-Valickis & Lo¨fstro¨m, 2014; So¨o¨t & Leijen, 2012; Timo ˇst ˇsuk & Ugaste, 2010, 2012). In this chapter, we introduce the context of teacher education in Estonia and elaborate different pedagogies that different authors have suggested and implemented in teacher education programs in Estonia to support the development of the professional identity of preservice teachers.

TEACHER EDUCATION IN ESTONIA Most of the schools in Estonia are public schools regulated by local municipalities. Similar to several other European countries, the state statistics indicate that the average age of teachers is rather high and that younger teachers constitute a smaller proportion of the teacher population. This means that in the coming years a large number of teachers will reach the age of retirement. Moreover, there is a shortage of school teachers in several subject areas, especially in the science disciplines. Although Estonian students perform well in international comparison tests (i.e., PISA

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

313

(Program for International Student Assessment), TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey)), the results of PISA and TALIS also indicate that many student do not enjoy attending school and that teachers are often not satisfied with their work. This also reflects public opinion about the status of teachers’ work and might underlie the modest interest in teacher education programs (especially in content area curricula) among university applicants. Where teacher education is concerned, class teachers (Grades 1 4) and subject teachers (5 12) are prepared differently (historically also in different institutions but currently in universities) in Estonia. Class teachers’ education has been more practice-oriented; subject teachers’ education more theory-driven. Class teachers follow an integrated 5-year curriculum; subject teachers are educated in a 3 + 2 system, meaning that their bachelor studies in one subject area are followed by a 2-year teacher education program. Initial teacher education is followed by an induction year when young teachers can participate in a support program to improve their professional competences. Despite some organizational differences, both tracks of teacher education preparation have moved closer together and have common ideologies. On the one hand, today’s teacher education programs are driven by evidence-based decision making and are informed by educational research, and, on the other hand, school practice has moved to the center position of teacher education, and is integrated with theoretical studies in the early stages of teacher education. Because of the above-mentioned problems and challenges, more and more attention has been paid to teacher education in Estonia in recent years. Several studies have been carried out aiming to understand how to attract more candidates to teacher education, and how to provide a teacher education program that prepares students sufficiently for real work, and introduces them to adequate tools for further professional development (i.e., Krull et al., 2013). Also, teachers’ own positions and roles in directing their professional development have become more important in Estonia and, similar to other contexts, this has drawn research attention to questions related to teacher professional identity and its development.

PEDAGOGIES FOR SUPPORTING TEACHER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT In order to distinguish between different pedagogies of identity practised in Estonia, we have adopted an analytical framework based on three different

314

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

variations of professional identity: (a) focus on the professional aspect of teacher identity; (b) focus on the personal aspect of teacher identity; and (c) integration of professional and personal aspects of teacher identity (inspired by Beijaard et al., 2004).

The Professional Aspect of Teacher Identity The first aspect of teacher identity focuses on the “professional” role of teachers. All professionals, including preservice teachers, acquire competences and values associated with a professional via formal and informal ways of learning. Internalization of professional role expectations and advancing one’s competences related to a teacher’s work are crucial processes in becoming a professional and these areas are addressed at length in Estonian teacher education programs. Teacher education courses are designed to provide useful analytical and practical tools for preservice teachers. In addition, the actual experiences of teaching in professional settings seem to have a great impact on the internalization of teacher role expectations and reasoning related to it (i.e., Leijen et al., 2013). Concerning the above, Bromme and Stra¨sser (1991) stress that a teacher’s professional identity is based on his/her professional knowledge. Teachers’ professional knowledge does not comprise only the knowledge of pedagogy and their specialty (including the curriculum), but the interaction of theory and practice also plays an important part. Teachers make their pedagogical decisions using knowledge from different fields and connecting them, which is a difficult task as the values used in scientific disciplines and the ways of argumentation can differ. Similarly, other studies have also pointed out the importance of knowledge accumulation (i.e., Anspal et al., 2012) and the enhancement of pedagogical reasoning (i.e., Lo¨fstro¨m et al., 2010b) as important attributes in professional identity dynamics. Inspired by the survey of Bromme and his colleagues, Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt (2000) proposed that teachers’ professional identity contains three aspects: subject matter expertise, pedagogical expertise, and didactical expertise. First, subject matter expertise entails that a teacher’s work requires specific subject-related knowledge and one of their main duties is to support students’ cognitive development in the subject areas. Second, a teacher requires didactical skills that first and foremost are connected with the preparation and practicality of the studies and also evaluates the work done. Third, a teacher’s work is related to more general pedagogical goals that help to support the students’ broader emotional and moral

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

315

development. To analyze these three aspects of teachers’ professional identity, Beijaard et al. developed a questionnaire. The results of their study revealed that most teachers saw themselves, to a certain degree, as experts in all three areas. According to the opinions of most of the survey participants, their professional identity had changed during their career as a teacher. As novice teachers, the respondents described themselves mostly as subject matter experts, but over the course of time, the value attributed to being a subject matter specialist and didactics expert decreased and the value of more general pedagogical expertise increased (Beijaard et al., 2000). Improving the Analytical Toolbox of a Teacher’s Work The theoretical framework and the questionnaire developed by Beijaard et al. have been applied in several studies that aim to describe the perception of professional identity by teachers in Estonia. For example, Lo¨fstro¨m and Poom-Valickis (2013) and Lo¨fstro¨m et al. (2010b) conducted studies among preservice university teachers; Kirsipuu (2003) investigated vocational education teachers; and Leijen, Linde, and Kivestu (in press) conducted a study with music teachers. Although these studies do not address specific pedagogies that would support the development of professional identity, the devised questionnaire was used as a tool for reflection because respondents were asked to specify how important these three roles of a teacher are for them and how the importance of these different roles has changed over the course of their pedagogical career. Other pedagogies that would support the development of professional identity in this tradition focus on introducing conceptual tools and analytical skills. Although these authors do not associate themselves directly with the tradition of teacher identity research, they often focus on novice teachers’ professional development in a way similar to this research tradition. For example, Krull and his colleagues (Krull, Oras, & Pikksaar, 2010) developed guided sessions to support the development of preservice teachers’ lesson analysis skills. During these sessions, preservice teachers learned to structure teaching events based on Gagne´’s instructional model. This is one example of how we can enhance preservice teachers’ conceptual skills and enhance their understandings of their roles as teachers.

The Personal Aspect of Teacher Identity Although teachers share some similar aspects in their professional identity, there is no uniform professional culture and every teacher develops to some

316

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

extent their own unique teaching style (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Moreover, Connelly and Clandinin (1999) found in their studies that teachers tended to think more about “who they are” rather than “what they know” when they engaged in telling stories of themselves. Therefore, the second variety of professional identity research focuses on the personal aspects of becoming a teacher. Personal conceptions, beliefs, and experiences that influence the professional understanding of oneself are often scrutinized in this research tradition. The notion of the self can be revealed, for example, through personal narratives or life stories (Kerby, 1991; Richardson, 1996; Volkmann & Anderson, 1998). By writing or talking about oneself, the “self” is shaped. In addition, teachers’ identity development involves the notion of the self in a specific context, for example, the school environment. Experiences at school provide important elements for identity development (Beijaard, 1995). Moreover, several studies (Maldarez, Hobson, Tracey & Kerr, 2007; Poulou, 2007; Timo ˇstsuk & Ugaste, 2010, 2012; Van Veen & Sleegers, 2006; Van Veen, Sleegers, & Van de Ven, 2005) suggest that becoming a teacher is a very emotional experience that generates not only positive, but also negative emotions, and these should not be overlooked while aiming to understand the development of professional identity. A useful framework for better understanding the different layers of personal attributes is the “onion model” developed on the basis of Gregory Bateson’s typology (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). The onion model contains six levels, which can influence the functioning of a person. These levels are: the environment, which refers to everything that is outside the person; behavior, which refers to a person’s conduct and actions (both effective and ineffective); competencies, which include a person’s different capabilities; beliefs, which include a person’s different convictions; identity, which refers to a person’s self-awareness; and mission, which refers to a person’s calling and inspirations. On the one hand, Kortahgen and Vasalos suggest that the latter levels influence our actions the most and therefore it is important to understand them. On the other hand, it is essential to connect the inner and outer layers. It is important to interpret one’s mission and calling in relation to a specific behavior so that the inner and outer would become integrated (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). Below we describe three pedagogical approaches that have been used in the Estonian context to support learning about one’s personal attributes for professional identity development among preservice or in-service teachers. Attention to Emotions Timo ˇst ˇsuk and Ugaste (2010, 2012) have investigated the role of emotions in the professional identity dynamics of preservice teachers. Their sample

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

317

consisted of 45 students from different teacher education study programs who had passed their school’s teaching practicum. Both individual and focus group interviews were conducted via semi-structured interviews. The interview questions were designed to reveal information about the four aspects of identity: experiencing, doing, belonging, and learning. The results of Timo ˇstsuk and Ugaste (2012) confirm, as several studies before it did as well (Maldarez et al., 2007; Poulou, 2007; Swennen, Jo¨rg, & Korthagen, 2004), that one’s students are the major source of positive emotions. Preservice teachers felt their most joy when they created positive classroom atmospheres that overcame obstacles and discord while gaining the respect of their students. Positive emotions, in turn, stimulate thought and thus assist them in finding better solutions to problems (i.e., in situations where multiple instructional strategies for teaching need to be chosen). The study confirmed that contentment with career choice is very important and positive emotions were experienced when fears about placement were overcome. The authors concluded that positive emotions provide a good source of information about professional identity and they should be studied more in teacher education to understand preservice students and find ways to support them. Negative emotions, especially disappointment, were mostly related to supervising teachers and university lecturers and were often connected with failed expectations to find role models in them. Furthermore, other sources of disappointment were unrealistic expectations, the student teacher’s own inability to cope with various teaching situations, and problems with student discipline. The authors concluded that although several authors (Brown, 2006; Poulou, 2007; Swennen et al., 2004) consider the negative experiences inevitable, it is very important to address positive experiences more often to learn from them. Therefore, teacher educators should support preservice teachers in recognizing, recalling, and analyzing the positive emotions as a key component of self-regulation. Unlocking Beliefs through Metaphors According to Bullough (1991), metaphors reflect teachers’ beliefs about teaching and the teacher’s role; that is, they illustrate teachers’ professional identities. Several scholars have used metaphors for illuminating personal beliefs (Alger, 2009; Martinez, Sauleda, & Huber, 2001; Saban, 2004, 2010). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) pointed out that a large part of our thinking is carried out using metaphors, and thus, metaphor is a useful tool to help preservice students reflect on their professional role. Metaphors can help teacher educators identify the preservice teachers’ need for support and respond accordingly.

318

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

Studies with metaphor analysis have shown that student beliefs about the role of teachers may shift during teacher education (Saban, Kocbeker, & Saban, 2007), in that, teachers with more teaching experience embrace more teacher-centered metaphors than teachers with less teaching experience who are more student-centered (Martinez et al., 2001). There is also evidence that there are gender differences in the perception of a teacher’s role (Lo¨fstro¨m et al., 2010a; Saban, 2004). Erika Lo¨fstro¨m, Katrin Poom-Valickis, and Tiina Anspal (Lo¨fstro¨m et al., 2010a, 2010b) applied metaphors as a tool to reveal students’ beliefs about the role of teachers. The preservice students in teacher education programs enrolled in different subject areas were asked to complete the statement “A teacher is like …” and to explain why they used the chosen metaphor. It is important to include the explanations because the same metaphor may carry different meaning for different people. In their study, the most common category was the “mother/parent” metaphor, in which the teacher’s capacity to care and nurture is essential. In brief, the authors proposed collecting and analyzing preservice and in-service teachers’ beliefs about their professional role via metaphors and reflecting on the findings in order to support the development of a more balanced understanding of the role of teachers (Lo¨fstro¨m et al., 2010a). Approaching the Core of Being through a Guided Reflection Procedure Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) distinguish between two concepts: reflection and core reflection. When reflection reaches the two deepest levels (identity and mission) in the aforementioned onion model, it is referred to as core reflection. A characteristic of core reflection is the attention to core qualities in people (i.e., empathy, compassion, love and flexibility, courage, creativity, sensitivity, decisiveness, and spontaneity). We suggest that an awareness of core qualities could help novice teachers to formulate “personal pedagogies” (Alsup, 2006), and therefore, better handle critical situations. Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) present a detailed overview of different strategies mentors needed to implement in order to support their preservice students’ successful passage through different phases of reflection. Successful (core) reflection is difficult without guidance and support. Research shows that careful consideration of practice by means of guidance leads to a better understanding of it (Husu, Toom, & Patrikainen, 2008). Anu So¨o¨t and A¨li Leijen (So¨o¨t & Leijen, 2012) developed guided core reflection (see Table 1) based on the notions of core reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) and guided reflection (Husu et al., 2008). The basis of this instruction was the practical model of guided reflection of Husu et al. (2008)

319

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

Table 1.

Methodical Instruction for Guided Core Reflection.

The Stage and Activity According to the Model of Husu, Toom, and Patrikainen (2009) I stage 1. Videotaping the full lesson (focus on the teacher’s action). 2. Examining the videotaped material with the supervisor and STR (stimulated recall interview) max two days after videotaping. The aim is to clarify the situation in the classroom as much as possible and articulate the activity-related thoughts of the teacher. II stage 3. Reflective discussion 1 week after STR.

III stage 4. Written reflection 1 2 weeks after reflective discussion.

5. Teacher’s independent testing of new conduct after guided core reflection.

The Stages and Questions Based on the Model of Core Reflection of Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) 1.1 Experiencing problematic situation (Phase 1). 2.1 Experiencing/problematic situation What kind of problems did you discover or are still questions at issue? (Phase 1).

3.1 Awareness of the ideal situation. What did you accomplish or were able to create? (Phase 2). 3.2 Awareness of limiting factors. How did you repeatedly avoid restrictions (behavior, feelings, image, and beliefs)? 3.3 Awareness of core characteristics/ strengths. What characteristics are necessary to realize an ideal situation and overcome restrictions/obstacles? (Phase 3). 3.4 Actualizing core characteristics/activities. How to utilize one’s strengths? (Phase 4). 4.1 Awareness of the ideal situation (Phase 2). 4.2 Awareness of limiting factors (Phase 2). 4.3 Awareness of core characteristics (Phase 3). 4.4 Actualizing core characteristics (Phase 4). 5.1 Testing new conduct (Phase 5).

that consisted of three stages. The first stage involved videotaping the activity/lesson, in which the activities of the teacher were focused, and was followed by a stimulated recall interview. The second stage included a reflective discussion, and in the third stage, the preservice teacher presented his/her written reflection. The stages and questions of the model of core reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) were combined with the general

320

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

stages described by Husu et al. (2008). Oral and written reflections were carried out using the same questions. The results of So¨o¨t and Leijen (2012) indicated that reflection on all six levels of the onion model occurred and that most observations were made on the level of convictions, followed by identity, environment, competencies, mission, and behavior. So¨o¨t and Leijen found that the devised procedure facilitated novice teachers to reflect on all levels, including the deeper levels that Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) characterized as core reflection. As explained earlier, reaching core reflection helps prospective teachers to handle critical situations better and moving between different layers of reflection is important in becoming a more self-confident teacher.

Integration of Professional and Personal Aspects in Professional Identity Development So far, we have described two somewhat different approaches to professional identity: the professional and the personal. The third tradition (i.e., Beijaard et al., 2004; Boreham & Gray, 2005; Pillen, Den Brok, & Beijaard, 2013) emphasizes the relationship and shared understandings between the two variations described earlier. Several recent studies on the development of teacher identity (i.e., Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Leijen & Kullasepp, 2013a, 2013b; Leijen, Kullasepp, & Agan, 2010; Ligorio, 2011) have argued for dialogical perspectives when seeking to understand how the personal and professional selves are negotiated in the course of becoming a professional teacher. From the sociocultural perspective, construction of an identity can be perceived as a process that is guided by cultural material and processes at the intra-psychological level. The exchange of semiotic material between the person and their surroundings and adaptation of meaning is explained through the processes of internalization and externalization. These processes are involved in the reconstruction of the psychological inner world guaranteeing its idiosyncratic nature and the specific character of one’s becoming as a professional (Valsiner, 2001). Thus, a professional identity that is linked to certain expectations, vernaculars, and characteristic of a specific social role is constructed under the guidance of institutions and personal culture. Still, in addition to the interactions between a person and their sociocultural context, to gain more knowledge about the becoming process, studies on psychological development should shed light on the dynamics at

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

321

the intra-psychological level. One of the options to enable it is to apply the Dialogical Self theory (DST) (Hermans, 2001; Hermans & HermansKonopka, 2010). DST describes the self as the dynamic unity that consists of multiple relatively autonomous I-positions that have emerged through different cultural, social, and historical contexts and are supplied with “voices” that make dialogues between different I-positions possible. Furthermore, the I-positions can be in harmonic or conflicting relations with each other, and they can have different perspectives on the same issue (Hermans, 2001). This means that a person who assumes a social role may or may not correspond to the expectations characteristic of that specific role. For example, a person can have opposing viewpoints concerning particular events. The multiplicity of I-positions and discontinuous nature of identity raise the question of how a multiple self can be experienced as a single and permanent person (Salgado & Hermans, 2005). Hermans and Hermans-Jansen (1995) assumed that personal continuity of self is assured by self-narration that is created through dialogues within the self and with others. These dialogues organize meaningful experiences into one structured narrative system (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 1995). Self-narration is possible owing to meta-positioning (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010), meaning that, at this moment, an “I” is not related to a specific position, but observes them from the outside as an act of self-reflection. Hermans and Hermans-Konopka point out three functions of meta-position: unifying, executive, and liberating positions. In addition to the meta-positioning and self-reflection, the creation of coalitions between different positions should support the integration of different positions and, thus, support the development of individuals. Hermans and Hermans-Konopka argue that “coalitions of conflicting or opposing positions have the potential of creating strong motivation that surpasses the interests of positions in their isolation. Such coalitions create forms of ‘integrative motivation’ emerging in a field of tension between centering and de-centering movements in the self” (p. 373). The above explanation suggests that meta-positioning through selfreflection and the creation of coalitions between different positions should support the integration of personal and professional identity in preservice teachers. This is similar to Alsup’s (2006) suggestion to create borderland discourses. Alsup contends that “it is discourse that allows preservice teachers to bring personal subjectivities or ideologies into the classroom and connect them to their developing professional selves” (p. 37). Similar to Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (2010), Alsup (2006) stresses that

322

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

metacognition and critical consideration of the conflicting positions are prerequisite for creating borderland discourses. In her study, Alsup pointed to three types of tension related to the creation of such discourses: (a) tension between being a preservice student at the university and a student teacher at school; (b) tension between personal convictions, skills, and professional role expectations; and (c) tension between what is taught at university about teaching and learning and what is experienced at the school serving as the teacher education site. Alsup pointed out that “the result of borderland discourse was neither the repudiation of one discourse nor the subsuming of one discourse into another; instead, the result was a new discourse with characteristics of both of the earlier ones as well as new characteristics unique to the preservice teacher herself” (Alsup, 2006, p. 37). Negotiating Tensions through Dialogue Drawing on the theoretical framework outlined above, A¨li Leijen and Katrin Kullasepp (Leijen & Kullasepp, 2013b) developed support seminars for prospective teachers enrolled in preservice teacher education programs that would facilitate: (a) voicing personal positions in the context of a highly prescribed professional situation; (b) identifying tensions between personal and professional positions; and (c) solving tensions between different positions. They designed three seminars (1.5 hours each) for preservice teachers that aimed to activate inner dialogues between I-positions in order to open up the potential for negotiation and development. The first seminar focused entirely on the role of personal characteristics in teachers’ professional practice and aimed to facilitate student teachers to voice their own personal qualities and strengths (specific assignments shown in Table 2). The second and the third seminars focused on resolving tensions between personal qualities and professional role expectations. A specific assignment was designed to practice the formulation of coalitions between positions (see Table 2). After each assignment, a group debriefing took place, led by two facilitators. The seminars were spread over a 10-week school practicum. The assignments carried out in the second and third seminar were collected for further analysis. The results of the study showed that, as expected, preservice teachers presented an extensive array of tensions in the assignments and this allowed us to consider the devised support seminars helpful as written assignments are used in combination with individual or group debriefing that would allow for further elaboration on the written text. While considering the essence of the tensions, Leijen and Kullasepp found that students communicated tensions between (a) personal

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

Table 2. .

323

Themes and Assignments Introduced in the Seminar.

Seminar Theme

Student Assignments

Seminar 1: The role of personal qualities

1. Think about your school practicum and pick out a teacher who stood out in a positive way due to some qualities or characteristics specific to her/him. What were these qualities or characteristics? 2. Thinking about the pupils you met at the practice school, which personal qualities do you think a contemporary teacher should have in order to be a good teacher? 3. Thinking about your school practicum so far, which personal characteristics or qualities do you have that are useful in the teaching profession? Have you been able to utilize these qualities during the school practicum? Could you use these qualities even more? 4. Taking a broader view, what are your personal characteristics that have been revealed in situations outside the teaching profession (at home, sports training) that you could also make use of as a teacher? 1. Thinking about your colleagues or about discussions with colleagues, has the issue of tension between personal qualities and professional role expectations been raised? 2. Have you experienced tension or conflict between your personality or convictions and the role expectations set for teachers during the school practicum? For example: I as a student at university versus I as a teacher at the practice school my personal convictions about teaching versus principles taught at university my convictions about teaching versus principles that work at the practice school pedagogical principles taught at university versus principles that work at the practice school I as a person versus teacher role expectations 3. Please choose the tension that is most important to you for further analysis in a peer assignment. Please take an A4 blank page and divide it into three sections (25/25/50% of the page). First, elaborate on the two opposing positions and write clarifying explanations in the two smaller page sections (one position in each section). Second, discuss the positions in pairs and try to formulate a coalition between the positions or a new situation that would meet the following criteria: (i) the initial tension or conflict is resolved and (ii) one position does not dominate over the other. You can think of this assignment as developing a coalition between two parties. Third, elaborate on the coalition in the remaining section of the page (50%). 1. Have you experienced tension or conflict between your personality or convictions and role expectations set for teachers during the school practicum? (Use the same examples given in assignment 2 in Seminar 2.) 2. Please choose the tension that is most important to you for further analysis in an individual assignment. Students are asked to individually follow the same steps described in assignment 3 in Seminar 2. If time permits, another round of assignments is carried out.

Seminar 2: Solving tensions between positions

Seminar 3: Solving tensions between positions

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

324

characteristics and professional role expectations, (b) expectations about teaching and learning and principles practised at the student teaching school, and (c) pedagogical principles taught at the university and the principles that work at the practice school. Although there was some indication that the tensions in the final category were elaborated less and could relate to the surface layers of professional identity development, further research is needed to explore the function and meaningfulness of different types of tensions in the process of professional identity development. In addition, Leijen and Kullasepp considered the devised support partly functional for solving tensions between conflicting positions. Nearly onethird of the solutions represented coalitions between positions, or established a personal orientation to solve the tensions, as encouraged by the assignments. The researchers found that forming coalitions or personal pedagogies oneself seems to be complicated in the setting of formal education and needs to be supported to a greater degree. Based on these findings, they proposed that the developed support seminars could benefit from additional reflection activities to support the process of “meta-positioning” (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010), given that reflection allows for the creation of knowledge about one’s own cognition and the regulation of that cognition (Simons, 1994).

CONCLUDING REMARKS In this chapter, we have offered exemplars of different pedagogies that have been used in the Estonian context to support the development of preservice teachers’ professional identity. Following Beijaard et al. (2004), we distinguished between the three groups of pedagogies. First, we acknowledged the research tradition that focuses on the professional aspect of teacher identity, namely, on the development of teacher knowledge and analytical skills related to teachers’ work. Two pedagogies that can be used to facilitate identity development from this perspective address (a) reflection on three general teacher roles (subject matter specialist, subject didactics expert, and pedagogue in a more general sense) and (b) developing teachers’ analytical toolbox, for example, lesson analysis skills, based on Gagne´’s instructional model. Second, we presented the research tradition that stresses personal aspects such as beliefs, values, and unique experiences that constitute teacher identity. Following that, we presented three pedagogies that have been used in the Estonian context in relation to this

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

325

tradition, namely, (a) paying attention to and articulating novice teachers’ emotions connected with their profession, (b) unlocking beliefs through metaphors, and (c) implementing a guided reflection procedure for reaching teachers and different layers of teaching. Finally, in line with dialogical approaches to teacher identity, we introduced the third tradition and outlined an accompanying pedagogy that aims to facilitate integration between the above-mentioned professional and personal aspects of teacher identity. Although these pedagogies have been used in Estonia, they are related to more general theories of teacher identity development internationally and are therefore applicable in theory to other contexts. In conclusion, we would like to suggest that enacting such pedagogies have some prerequisites of a practical nature. First, the general ideology of teacher education programs needs to recognize the need to support the development of a person within the professional context (i.e., Alsup, 2006). This is especially important in the second and third groups of pedagogies. Second, live teaching experiences are very important. Preservice teachers need opportunities to practice and to reflect on these experiences in light of the educational theory and didactics (methods) courses in the early stages of their preparation (i.e., Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Leijen et al., 2013). Third, we would like to point out that supporting professional identity development requires time and resources (i.e., mentor teacher guidance, peer-support). This also implies that identity questions are difficult to address in short-term courses and require revisiting over longer periods of time throughout student’s preservice education programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation (No ETF9221) and the European Social Fund.

REFERENCES Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teachers and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308 319. Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career Span. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(5), 743 751. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

326

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

Anspal, T., Eisenschmidt, E., & Lo¨fstro¨m, E. (2012). Finding myself as a teacher: Exploring the shaping of teacher identities through student teachers’ narratives. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(2), 197 216. Beijaard, D. (1995). Teachers’ prior experiences and actual perceptions of professional identity. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 281 294. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107 128. Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749 764. Boreham, N., & Gray, P. (2005). Professional identity of teachers in their early development. Early learning project. Research Report. University of Sterling. Bromme, R., & Stra¨sser, R. (1991). Wissenstypen und professionelles selbstversta¨ndnis. Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 37, 769 785. Brown, T. (2006). Negotiating psychological disturbances in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 675 689. Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 43 51. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Shaping professional identity: Stories of educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 677 692. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505 526). New York, NY: Macmillan. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273 289. Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Towards a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture and Psychology, 7(3), 243 281. Hermans, H. J. M., & Hermans-Jansen, E. (1995). Self narratives. The construction of meaning in psychotherapy. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Hermans, H. J. M., & Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical self theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in a globalizing society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Husu, J., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2008). Guided reflection as a means to demonstrate and develop student teachers’ reflective competencies. Reflective Practice, 9(1), 37 51. Husu, J., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2009). Enhancing student teachers’ reflective skills and thoughtful action. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), August 25 29, 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257 272. Kerby, A. (1991). Narrative and the self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Kirsipuu, E. (2003). Professionaalse identiteedi taju Tallinna kutseo˜petajatel. [The perception of professional identity of vocational teachers.] Bachelor’s thesis, University of Tartu, Estonia. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47 71.

Pedagogies of Developing Teacher Identity

327

Krull, E., Leijen, A¨., Lepik, M., Mikk, J., Talts, L., & O˜un, T. (Eds.). (2013). Projekti ’O˜petajate professionaalne areng ja selle toetamine’ tulemused o˜petajakoolituse teenistuses. [The results of the project ‘Teacher professional development and its supporting’ in service of teacher education.] Tartu: Estonian University Press. Krull, E., Oras, K., & Pikksaar, E. (2010). Promoting student teachers’ lesson analysis and observation skills by using Gagne´’s model of an instructional unit. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(2), 197 210. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Leijen, A¨., & Kullasepp, K. (2013a). All roads lead to Rome: Developmental trajectories of student teachers’ professional and personal identity development. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 26(2), 104 114. Leijen, A¨., & Kullasepp, K. (2013b). Unlocking the potential of conflicts: A pilot study of professional identity development facilitation during initial teacher education. International Journal of Dialogical Science, 7(1), 67 86. Leijen, A¨., Kullasepp, K., & Agan, T. (2010). The dynamics of the professional self of final year leisure time management students. In J. Mikk, P. Luik, & M. Veisson (Eds.), Teacher’s personality and professionality (pp. 87 103). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers House. Leijen, A¨., Kullasepp, K., & Ots, A. (2013). O˜petaja professionaalse rolli internaliseerimise hindamine o˜petajakoolituse esmao˜ppe u¨lio˜pilaste hulgas. [The evaluation of internalisation of teachers’ professional role among pre-service teachers.] Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri [Estonian Journal of Education], 1, 72 96. Leijen, A¨., Linde, R., & Kivestu, T. (in press). Perception of professional identity among the violin teachers of Estonian music schools. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. Ligorio, M. B. (2011). The dialogical self and educational research: A fruitful relationship. In H. Hermans, & T. Gieser (Eds.), Handbook of the dialogical self theory (pp. 439 453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo¨fstro¨m, E., Anspal, T., Hannula, M. S., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2010a). Metaphors about ‘The teacher’: Gendered, discipline-specific and persistent? J. Mikk, M. Veisson, P. Luik (Eds.). Teacher’s personality and professionalism (pp. 105 122). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers House. Lo¨fstro¨m, E., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2013). Beliefs about teaching: Persistent or malleable? A longitudinal study of prospective student teachers’ beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 104 113. Lo¨fstro¨m, E., Poom-Valickis, K., Hannula, M., & Mathews, S. (2010b). Supporting emerging teacher identities: Can we identify teacher potential among students? European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 167 184. Maldarez, A., Hobson, A. J., Tracey, L., Kerr, K. (2007). Becoming a student teacher: Core features of the experience. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 225 248. Martinez, M. A., & Sauleda, N., & Huber, G. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965 977. Pillen, M. T., Den Brok, P. J., & Beijaard, D. (2013). Profiles and change in beginning teachers’ professional identity tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 86 97. Poom-Valickis, K., & Lo¨fstro¨m, E. (2014). Pikiuuring o˜petajaks o˜ppijate professionaalse identiteedi kujunemisest. [Longitudinal study of student teachers’ professional identity development.] Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri [Estonian Journal of Education], 2(1), 241 271.

328

A¨LI LEIJEN ET AL.

Poulou, M. (2007). Student teachers’ concerns about teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 91 110. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In I. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102 119). New York, NY: McMillan. Saban, A. (2004). Prospective classroom teachers’ metaphorical images of selves and comparing them to those they have of their elementary and cooperating teachers. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 617 635. Saban, A. (2010). Prospective teachers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of learner. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 290 305. Saban, A., Kocbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 123 139. Salgado, J., & Hermans, H. J. M. (2005). The return of subjectivity: From a multiplicity of selves to the dialogical self. Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 3 13. Simons, P. R. J. (1994). Metacognitive strategies, teaching and testing for. In T. Husen & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 7). Oxford: Elsevier/Pergamon. So¨o¨t, A., & Leijen, A¨. (2012). Designing support for reflection activities in tertiary dance education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 448 456. Swennen, A., Jo¨rg, T., & Korthagen, F. (2004). Studying student teachers’ concerns combining image-based and more traditional research techniques. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 265 283. Timo ˇst ˇsuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2010). Student teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1563 1570. Timo ˇstsuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2012). The role of emotions in student teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 421 433. Valsiner, J. (2001). Comparative study of human cultural development. Madrid: Fundacio´n Infancia y Aprendizaje. Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies. New Delhi: Sage. Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum studies, 38(1), 85 111. Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & Van de Ven, P. H. (2005). One teacher’s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917 934. Volkmann, M. J., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Creating professional identity: Dilemmas and metaphors of a first-year chemistry teacher. Science Education, 82(3), 293 310.

TEACHER RESEARCHER: AN EPISTEMIC PEDAGOGY FOR RECONSTRUCTING TEACHER PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY IN IRAN Khalil Gholami and Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi ABSTRACT Teacher researcher pedagogy (TRP) is a national-based pedagogy in Iran. This pedagogy has been introduced and adopted to Iran’s teacher education system from 1996. In line with this pedagogy, we studied the narratives of the teachers who were already involved in TRP to understand how it helped them reconstruct their professional identity. We found this pedagogy helped teachers improve their professional consciousness. The teachers with good manners and methods could take obviously significant advantage of TRP and involve in reflective practical research. As a consequence, an epistemological shift happened in the professional life of such caring teachers where they no longer only use the

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 329 351 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022020

329

330

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

knowledge of a third-party person. Such conditions recovered teachers’ professional identity and put them in power position. Keywords: Teacher reflection; teacher practical knowledge; action research; teacher researcher pedagogy; Iran teacher education; contextual epistemology

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, an analysis of teacher researcher pedagogy (TRP) as a new paradigm in Iran’s teacher education system. The main target of TRP is to develop reflective skills and thinking of teachers. We claim that TRP is a promising pedagogy for developing teacher professional identity by providing an epistemological platform for teachers. Iran’s Ministry of Education introduced TRP into teacher education system in 1996. Then after, Iran’s educational policy called for, and supported, an advanced and a new paradigm in which in-service and preservice teachers were provided with an opportunity to engage in reflective and research-based practice and pedagogy. In line with TRP, in-service teachers took the necessary training so as they could involve in educational action research. Even, some limited financial and organizational reinforcements were given to the teachers who engaged in TRP and provided good reports in line with their reflection. Nowadays, TRP has its own formal organization in charge of developing this pedagogy in the whole country. In general, TRP is a significant and particular type of “reflection” in Iran’s teacher education system. The primary focus of TRP was in-service teacher education; however, we argue that TRP should be introduced into preservice teacher education. The reasons for this argument are twofold. First, the “reflection” is an ambiguous and complex term and teacher educators need to have particular pedagogy (and not technique) to help students learn reflective skills and practices. Second, the reflection discourse should be integrated in, and begun from, in-service teacher education since it has been shown as one of the most significant pedagogies to help teachers fill in gap between theory and practice (Kleinfeld, 1992; Liston & Zeichner, 1987). Regarding the first issue, there are good examples of how teacher reflection may be taught in preservice education programs. At the University of Washington, for example, reflective practice is integrated into the University’s preservice teacher education program in the form of coursework and weekly seminars where students have opportunity to work together and understand reflective

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

331

practice and its implication for teaching (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Regarding the second issue raised here, our experience and empirical findings with inservice teachers who engaged in TRP, showed that they could significantly apply theories in practice as a result of their reflection rooted in TRP. We believe that in addition to coursework on TRP and weekly seminars, the preservice students should engage in practical phases of TRP in collaboration with in-service teachers.

WHAT IS TEACHER RESEARCHER PEDAGOGY? As an educational practice, TRP is theoretically in line with reflective practice. As a practical action in the classroom, it is done in the form of an action research by teachers. It encourages teachers to think about their own classroom problems and develop knowledge about it. TRP has several basic organizational and pedagogical steps and tasks. Organizational steps and tasks are conducted by the Institute for Educational Research (IER). IER is the official and governing body of educational research within Iran’s Ministry of Education, which was established in 1996. This institute has a central organization in Ministry of Education and local branches in all provinces in the country. Classroom teachers are involved in doing pedagogical and educational tasks of TRP. In general TRP is conducted in following phases each year: (1) Declaration and training phase: The central and local branches of IER submit the formal and educational regulations and instruction of TRP to all educational administration and schools every year. Even though the main goal is to encourage teachers to conduct an “action research” in line with their own classroom problems, the new and updated ideas are highlighted in the yearly declaration and instruction. Following declaration, there are training plans, workshops, and other possible supports for interested teachers. In this phase, more experienced teachers and experts provide training plans in order to help classroom teachers on “how to conduct an action research.” In addition, the necessary materials and books are provided for teachers in line with the pedagogy. (2) Research phase: Conducting action research by classroom teachers is the core mission of TRP. In this phase, classroom teachers should identify a real and practical research problem in line with their own challenges embedded in the classrooms or schools in which they teach.

332

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

Teachers then need to collect the necessary data on the problem with the help of other colleagues, parents, and students. While reflecting on the data, teachers should propose some ideas or practical solutions to cope with the problem or challenge. Teachers should put the solutions in practice in order to see how they may work. They should afterward evaluate the action and collect the new data in order to see how the solutions were effective and practical. Considering the new data, teachers may revise the actions and put them in practice for the second time. At the end, they must provide a written report on the action research for further use. It should be pointed out not all teachers go through these steps. (3) Documentation phase: In this phase, teachers submit their written reports to local branches of IER in each province. The main goal here is to evaluate the reports by educational experts in order to select the high qualified “research reports” for further use in educational context. The excellent and selected reports are then submitted to the central organization of IER. In the central branch of IER, the selected research reports are again evaluated on a national level. The output of this phase is to select the final excellent research reports. (4) Feedback and organizational support: In this point, IER provides financial and organizational support for selected local and national research reports. The nominated teachers are provided written formal endorsement by local and national official authorities that can be used for organizational purposes, such as promotion. There would also be some feedback for teachers in line with their reports.

LITERATURE BACKDROP Bruner (1985, p. 97) identified two distinguished modes of knowing and argued that: [There are] irreducible modes of cognitive functioning, or more simply two modes of thought, each meriting the status of a “natural kind,” meaning that each one can be recognized by common sense, and involves operating principles and criteria of its own of well-formedness: the “paradigmatic” or logic-scientific and “narrative” modes of knowing.

The paradigmatic mode of knowing gets its epistemic weight from presuppositions embedded in theoria or so-called technical rationality; a narrative mode of knowing, however, originates from phronesis or practical

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

333

rationality. Technical rationality, which is closely related to modern science “puts a premium on ‘objectivity’ and detachment, suppressing the contextdependence of first-person experience in favor of a third-person perspective, which yields generalized findings in accordance with clearly formulated, publicly agreed procedures” (Dunne, 2005, p. 373). Knowledge in this sense is about some objects distinct from the knowing subject (Schwandt, 2005). Practical rationality, however, is “an action-orientating form of knowledge … with the ability to engage in the kind of deliberative process that can yield concrete, context-sensitive judgment” (Dunne, 2005, p. 376). From this perspective, there is no “neat separation between the steps of having knowledge and applying knowledge. Rather … knowledge is always embodied, a kind of confidence-in-knowing-in action” (Schwandt, 2005, p. 323). In teaching contexts, such understanding reflects a significant epistemological shift from “foundational” and “positivistic” epistemology (Eisner, 2002; Van Goor, Heyting, & Vreeke, 2004) to what we call “contextual epistemology.” This epistemological ramification “is about changes in the way we think about knowledge and the kinds of knowledge teachers need to teach well [and it is] the shift from episteme to phronesis and from phronesis to artistry” (Eisner, 2002, p. 375). According to this kind of epistemology, the “good knowing and knowledge” about teaching are embedded in the situational character of the classroom settings in which teachers and students interact and thus teachers are considered “reflective practitioners” (Scho¨n, 1983) who produce practical knowledge to deal with the practical demands of their classrooms. The advocates of this epistemology argue that foundational epistemology is based on what Scho¨n called as “technical rationality” (Scho¨n, 1983), which supports “theory-into-practice” model (the “application model”) in teacher education. Four decades ago, Schwab (1969, p. 1), one of the key figures in American curriculum studies, presented his “practical thesis” and harshly criticized “inveterate and unexamined reliance on theory” in teaching. He remarked that in the classroom situations, “there are thousands of ingenious ways in which commands on what, and how to teach can, will and must be modified and circumstanced in the actual moments of teaching” (Schwab, 1983, p. 245; see also Hlebowitsh, 2012). Other researchers also argue that this traditional paradigm of teaching does not seem to work very well, and thus, preservice teachers graduating from teacher education programs have experienced significant challenges in applying the scientific theories passed down to them in their teacher training programs (Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2009; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Thus, according to contextual

334

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

epistemology, as Carr (1995) has stressed, teaching practice is not the application of a “time-and-place” independent educational theory. Consequently, teachers are not passive users of abstract, technical knowledge produced by others (Carr, 2005; Kemmis, 2005; Ro¨nnerman, 2005; Saugstad, 2005). As a result of this new paradigm, teachers are empowered to develop their professional identities, “protect their personal autonomy, regain their voice[s] in the workplace and (very important to this work) demand a role in the production of the knowledge on which the modern state and its experts ground their authority” (Kincheloe, 2003, p. 23). This new paradigm in teaching has been reflected in rigorous discussions on such topics as warranted assertibility (Boyles, 2006) reflection-in-andon-action (Scho¨n, 1983, 1987), “practical” curriculum (Schwab, 1969, 1983), personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1985), and teacher practical knowledge (Elbaz, 1981, 1991). The core idea in these studies is to position teachers and their knowledge in epistemic territory. Boyles (2006) states that “teachers are in positions of power that they may not fully understand … Teachers can engage actively in epistemological discourse, questioning the views of knowledge implicit in current curricula and classroom practices” (p. 67). For Eisner (2002, p. 381): Teachers are not regarded now as those who implement the prescriptions of others but as those most intimate with life in classrooms; partnerships with professors are possible, but the professor is no longer the boss. Teachers are collaborators in knowledge construction and bring to the table of deliberation a kind of insider knowledge, say, of the second grade that most professors do not possess.

Similarly, Walkington (2005) argued that the professional identities of preservice teachers will develop productively if they have an opportunity to be actively engaged in making pedagogical decisions in their teaching contexts The knowledge claims in teaching and education embedded in contextual epistemology, however, have been subjected to epistemological scrutiny (Fenstermacher, 1994; Gholami & Husu, 2010). Fenstermacher, for example, argued: Both teacher formal knowledge and teacher practical knowledge are subject to evidentiary scrutiny if they are to count as knowledge in any useful sense of the term …. That we claim to have practical knowledge does not relieve us of the obligation to show how it is objectively reasonable to believe what they are contending. (1994, pp. 27 28)

On a different note, Eisner (2002) argued if we consider phronesis as the logic of knowledge claims in teaching, then “how does one learn to become a phronimos?” (p. 382). One possible answer is to argue that

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

335

“contextual epistemology” is not a naı¨ ve and blind understanding of knowledge in which we totally reject the application of “formal knowledge” (Fenstermacher, 1994) in teaching. Both formal knowledge (i.e., theoretical and scientific knowledge produced by external researchers) and “local knowledge” (knowledge produced by teachers) are useful forms of knowledge that can improve teaching and learning environments. Teachers may use formal knowledge as an “inspiring epistemic platform” on which to develop their practice in a “context of discovery.” According to Eisner (2002, p. 382) “a part of the answer is through deliberation with others …. Deliberation is a way of exploring meta-cognitively those possibilities and their likely consequences.” Deliberation, of course, was something that Eisner’s teacher, Joseph Schwab (1969), also argued for in “the practical.” Thus, “teacher as researcher pedagogies” in in-service and preservice teaching education is a possible way to deal with epistemological challenges of the new knowledge claims in teaching. The teacher as research approach is a form of systematic reflection in which teachers develop knowing and knowledge of their perceived problems in the distinctive contexts in which they teach. The “teacher as researcher” stance finds at its root contextual epistemology. In general, “the notion that teachers should engage in critically grounded social inquiry rests on a democratic social theory which assumes that social research is not the province of a small elite minority” (Kincheloe, 2003, p. 25). Action research uses the teacher as researcher stance, but so do other methodologies (i.e., ethnographies, self-studies, narrative inquiries, etc.). In sum, phronesis or practical wisdom is concerned with human action or praxis, and its rationality in dealing with humans’ conducts differs from scientific knowledge and technical skills: “prudence [phronesis] is a truth attaining rational quality, concerned with action in relation to things that are good for human beings” (Aristotle, 1934, pp. 337 339). According to Eisner (2002, p. 381) “phronesis is a kind of morally pervaded practical wisdom {that} [can] be acquired by a phronimos … through experience. Phronesis addresses the particularity of things and situations; it addresses their distinctive conditions so that someone could decide how to move in a morally framed direction.” To conclude, the supporters of contextual epistemology and teacher as researcher stances in in-service and preservice education argue that “generating knowledge about good teaching is not the exclusive property of university researchers, and it recognizes that teachers also have theories that can contribute to a codified knowledge base for teaching” (Zeichner, 1994, p. 10).

336

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

In this chapter, therefore, we argue that Iran’s national-scale project of TRP is in line with underlying assumptions behind “contextual epistemology” and thus can be considered as a significant “epistemic discourse” in its preservice and in-service teacher education system. “Teacher classroom research is a paradigm, which places the major responsibility on the shoulders of classroom teachers by inspiring them to come up with solutions to the perceived problems of their classroom settings” (Mehrmohammadi, 2004, p. 133). Relying on this assumption, we particularly address the following research questions regarding the TRP in Iran: (1) What is the nature of TRP as a reflective practice and how do teachers put it in practice in their own classroom? (2) What is the epistemic consequence of TRP for classroom teachers and how it helps them to reconstruct their professional identity?

TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION IN IRAN Basic education is compulsory for 12 years in Iran, and it is highly centralized and thus governed by the Ministry of Education. It has three different levels of schooling, primary, middle, and high school. Primary school (Dabestan) starts at the age of six for a duration of 5 years and its main goals is to nurture students’ creativity and develop their physical and bodily skills; in addition individual and group health education, writing, reading, counting, and enhancing their social relationships are addressed in primary level. Middle school (Rahnamayi) has a duration of 3 years after primary school and its main mission is to improve mental and moral skills, general experiences, and knowledge of students and particularly to identify their individual capabilities in order to guide them toward further education. High school (Dabirestan) is divided between theoretical (science, mathematics, and humanities) and vocational/technical, each program with its own specialties; in theoretical section, the students go through one year studying as preuniversity course (Cheng & Beigi, 2012). In line with its educational system, teacher education in Iran is also centralized in terms of its structure and curriculum. In the past, there used to be particular teacher education centers responsible to prepare teachers for K-12 education. At the moment, teacher education universities (Daneshgah Farhangian) with their own curriculum and structure are engaged in preparing teachers throughout the country. Each province has generally two separate postsecondary institutions, one for women and one for men,

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

337

which deal with teacher education. For primary and middle schools, teachers must generally have a post-diploma (associate degree, i.e., two years further education after graduating from high school); high school teachers must have a bachelor’s degree in different subject matters (Samiei, 2011). Primary teachers mainly receive pedagogical education to deal with basic subject areas such as science, mathematics, reading, writing, religion, and Persian literature. In order to teach in middle and high schools, teachers, however, must complete both pedagogical and subject-specific education in different subject matters they are supposed to teach.

Background of TRP in Iran One of the main missions of IER is to exercise “a more pluralistic perception of legitimate research, knowledge and knowing within the field of education” (Mehrmohammadi, 2004, p. 138). Consistent with this goal, a “teacher researcher” program was introduced and adopted as a major pedagogy to deal with the new knowledge paradigm acknowledged by IER. The pedagogy was put into action on a national scale in 1997. The country’s practicing K-12 teachers were then exposed to the idea and were encouraged to share and submit their classroom research, by preparing a report based on a standard format supplied by IER. This can be called “documentation” phase of the pedagogy in which policy-makers may use helpful and effective understanding and experiences of classroom teachers (Chaichi, Goya, Mehrabani, & Saki, 2006). In addition to documentation phase, there has been training programs for motivated and interested teachers in the country in order to enhance the quality of pedagogy (Mehrmohammadi, 2004). The training part of the program has been conducted by experts focusing on theoretical and practical aspects of action and classroom research. Since administration of pedagogy in 1997, there has been increasing numbers of research reports to IER each year. For example, there were 914 reports in the first year (i.e., 1997), which increased to 42,779 within 10 years in 2006 (Chaichi et al., 2006). Since the implementation of the TRP, there has been analysis, metaanalysis, and empirical studies to evaluate the quality of the program. Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi, one of the key figures in Iran’s curriculum studies and the current director of the Central Organization of Teacher Education Universities in the country, argued that “the relative success of TRP notwithstanding, the outcome did not match the expectation … [and] also the quality of reports presumably representing the reflective action of

338

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

classroom teachers, did not seem to satisfy criteria such as thoughtfulness, ingenuity and creativity” (Mehrmohammadi, 2004, p. 139). As a consequence of such challenges, IER’s executive council conducted an evaluative study on the TRP. The findings showed a centralized system of education where teachers are almost entirely excluded from the decision-making process, burdened with excessive teaching loads, and subjected to the bureaucratic character of education system. These were discouraging factors that prohibited teachers from conducting solid teacher as researcher studies (Mehrmohammadi, 2004). Other empirical studies also showed that TRP faced with administrative and content challenges. Matin (2004) and Ghasemipuya ( 2004) found that the lack of clear plan for TRP in many provinces of the country, the poor quality of education for teachers concerning research methodologies, the isolation of teacher as researcher pedagogies from teachers’ normal and regular activities, the lack of necessary human and capital sources for developing such pedagogies, the lack of support from schools principals for conducting teacher as researcher pedagogies, and the absence of constructive feedback for teachers engaged in TRP, were constraining factors in improving pedagogy and integrating it in the regular pedagogical activities of teachers. As mentioned TRP was mainly coined in order to develop in-service teachers’ reflection. Along with this, there is still a more important task for Iran’s teacher education system to integrate TRP into preservice teacher education. Reflection plays a central role in the preparation of many new teachers. Its epistemic and professional value has been accepted “for teaching preservice teachers to reflect in many ways teaching them to ‘think like a teacher’” (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 73). It is traditionally argued that authentic knowledge about teaching can be produced by university experts; thus, teachers are only consumers of it. This positivistic paradigm tries to find the “best rules of practice” and thus it is not sensitive to context of teaching. It leads to hegemony of “technical rationality” (Scho¨n, 1983) in teaching, which is somehow a favorite one for many policy-makers. However, reflective practice paradigm introduces a new world to preservice teachers where they have possibility to develop their professional identity in different ways. It helps them to develop a more appropriate image of teaching. Our experiences with teachers who engaged in TRP have also suggested that their professional identity was featured with good characteristics. They were caring, passionate, self-motivated, and active practitioners since they could find themselves in an epistemological position. Professional consciousness and confidence were strongly evident in their discourse and practice.

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

339

As such, we claim that TRP plays two roles. First, it gives teachers professional rights where their voices can be heard in the school community so that they can decide about their local challenges. Second, it put professional responsibilities on the shoulders of teachers where they should care about the future of the students. In line with this, there have been new initiatives in Iran’s teacher education curriculum, organization, and structure to incorporate “reflection paradigm” in preservice teacher education program.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BEARING AND METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE FOR THE PRESENT STUDY In this chapter, we have argued thus far for the epistemic claim that TRP is a promising pedagogy that may help teachers reconstruct their professional identity, moving from being consumer of knowledge to producer of knowledge. To gain insight into this claim, in addition to reviewing the existing background of TRP, we conducted an empirical research in order to collect data from the real context. Relying on qualitative approach, we had particular emphasis on studying the “lived experiences and meaning” of teachers who had involved in the pedagogy. At the same time, semi-structured interview was the main technique for collecting data from the participants. In the interview, we wanted to examine the participants’ personal beliefs on teaching, their experiences and understanding on TRP, the relevance and significance of TRP for improving their professional and pedagogical competency, and the challenges they had experienced during conducting an educational action research. All interviews were recorded and transcribed by researchers in order to analyze and interpret them.

Participants The participating teachers in this study were from the province of Kurdistan, in Iran. In order to choose participants, we went to Kurdistan branch of IER. Searching in the records of the past 10 years of reports submitted to the office, we selected eight teachers who had submitted good research during most recent years. We made such decision since we supposed the practice of these teachers is more likely close to the mission

340

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

of TRP. On contacting these teachers, four of them agreed to participate in the study. All teachers granted permission for us to use their real name in the research and use their interview if needed. We have provided a brief introduction of each participant subsequently. Participant A is a high school female teacher with 18 years of experience of teaching in different schools of Kurdistan, particularly vocational schools. As a teacher, she believed that “the core of education and teaching is to reflect on students’ individual differences.” For her “innovation and bringing creative changes to the typical ways of teaching” are critical to deal with students’ individual differences. Participant B (female) had 15 years of experience of teaching in special education working with students having different learning problems. We found her very kind, peaceful, and calm when we met her in the classroom. She opened her interview with this sentence: “I feel particular peace when I teach these kids.” She mentioned that her immediate responsibility requires daily refection and continuous research in different ways. Participant C (male) had 5 years of teaching and 24 years of administrative experience in Kurdistan Organization of Education (KOE). During his professional career, in addition to teaching and holding top administrative positions in KOE, he has been in charge of Kurdistan branch of IER from 2010. Recalling his own teaching experiences, he accepts as true that “teaching must be teachers’ love and if you have no passion as a teacher, you cannot continue … if you have passion in teaching, you can bring significant changes in your students.” Participant D (female, 18 years of experience) was teaching in elementary schools at the time of the interview. Her first systematic engagement in TRP was working on a student who was not able to recognize letters. She believes “teaching is a very tough profession as the classroom situations are unpredictable and you as a teacher must be always prepared for dealing with changes in the classroom.”

FINDINGS In this section, we mainly report the findings in line with research questions posed in introduction; however, the findings related to research questions are combined in order to develop a promising conceptual framework reflecting the main task of this chapter.

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

341

Practical Reflective Teachers versus Prescriptive Teachers Drawing on interviews with participating teachers, we found two main research approaches among teachers who engaged in TRP in Kurdistan: “practical reflective teachers” and “prescriptive teachers.” Practical reflective teachers conducted educational research considering the ethical bearing of teaching and in order to provide a practical solution to deal with situational and real challenges of “their own classroom.” Prescriptive teachers acted as a third-person participant to conduct a research without particular and clear relevancy to real problems of “their own classroom” and in order to provide general and “prescriptive solutions” for classroom. In this chapter, we will mainly focus on practical reflective teachers and explain it according to the “teachers manner and method” (Fallona, 2000; Fenstermacher, 2001; Richardson & Fallona, 2001) in conducting a classroom action. Manner of Practical Reflective Teachers By manner in teaching, we are referring to a teacher’s virtuous conduct or traits of character as played out or revealed within a classroom context (Fenstermacher, 2001). Practical reflective teachers were caring teachers in terms of manner. We found caring teachers with three significant “background virtuosos.” These virtuosos were somehow idiosyncratic aspects of teachers’ manner that would provoke them from deeper layers of their heart to conduct a good classroom research. The main professional representation of background virtuosos was “teachers’ internal motivation” to put step in TRP. The first dimension of the teachers’ manner was the teachers’ “sophisticated personal beliefs” about different aspects of their job, particularly about students. Engaging in conducting a research to develop creativity in students, Participant A believed “it is not necessary to be born as a creative person; I always tell my students that they can be creative in line with their learning capacity.” Participant B also argued that “for us as teachers it is important to appreciate small changes and learning in students, since it keeps our motivation and hope alive.” “Moral persona” was another factor that we found as a significant background virtuous for teachers to engage in practical reflective classroom research. We found that the teachers’ moral persona was reflected in their “engaged mind” where they were continuously concerned about the “well-being” of the students: “you know, it is difficult for me to

342

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

forget about my students even when I am at home. My mind is usually involved about the problems of these kids and when I see a new problem in the classroom, I start working on how to deal with it. It is my personal promising character and I cannot escape from such sensitive responsibility” (Participant B). Participant A also stated that “every classroom has ethical character as our daily activities involves with the future of the students, and I usually reflect and think about the consequences of my actions and try to make them better with involving in possible and necessary action research.” Such reflection is in line with the concept of “ethical sensitivity” developed by Narvaez (Narvaez & Endicott, 2009; Narvaez, 2006, 2011) that has been found as an important teachers’ competency for conducting moral action (Gholami & Tirri, 2012a, 2012b). The other background competency linked with conducting a practical reflective action research was the teachers’ “personal emotions.” These teachers were found to have passion, enthusiasm, and were very hopeful and optimistic in their daily activates, including a classroom research. For Participant B, the hope and feeling of happiness are important issues that teachers should never forget when they conduct a research in the classroom: “I know engaging in TRP needs a lot of energy and time, and I know and have experienced that I may not receive good and necessary support from authorities; however, I am really hopeful and optimistic about the results of my action. You know, without hope I cannot continue when I see many challenges in my job.” Armed with such good personal background traits, we found that the participated teachers would engage in what we call as a practical reflective research. This showed caring persona of teachers rooted in moral foundation of teaching, and was a necessary professional competency for teachers to be engaged in good educational action research in line with TRP. Methods of Practical Reflective Teachers Practical reflective teachers were found to be involved in TRP in three different but relevant stages: “ongoing engagement,” “initial preparation,” and “systematic action research.” These stages were not simply static but they included intertwined and integrated pedagogical actions directed toward solving everyday’s classroom problems. Ongoing engagement was rooted in changing and demanding learning environment. Teachers believed that we are always facing new demands and challenges that must be dealt with to help classroom run in a good shape. “Teachers’ continuous concern” was at the heart of this stage and it showed that the teachers were continuously thinking about different

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

343

challenges that may happen in their classrooms. Participant D stated that “every day I see and observe the new challenging stories and incidents in my classroom and such condition would always engage my mind toward how to fix them. Sometimes I reflect on a single problem for hours and even days.” We found that these challenges included different issues such as pedagogical or instructional problem, students behavioral and learning problems, new pedagogical demands, teachers’ personal interests, and coping with students individual differences. Among these, students’ individual differences, and behavioral and learning problems were the main grounds for teachers’ ongoing engagement and concerns. Ongoing engagement was a kind of mental reflection encouraging the teachers move toward practical actions to cope with their classroom problems. “Initial preparation” was a significant consequence of ongoing engagement where the teachers involved in clear and necessary activities to deal with a particular problem. In this case, establishing close and friendly relationship with students and their parents, analyzing and personal reflection on the problem in hand, studying more relevant readings to understand the problem, and sharing their ideas with others were main activities that help teachers be prepared to conduct a good educational action research. In the case of Participant A, she was mainly interested in students’ relationship and their individual differences as two important elements for engaging in more systematic reflection: “if students feel that I am their friend, I know them better and thus I can conduct my research in a better way.” It can be said that ongoing engagement and “initial precreation” are necessary reflection-in-action competencies that help teachers involve in more systematic reflective action research. In the third stage, the teachers tried to conduct a systematic action research to deal with their perceived problems identified in the previous stages. Systematic action research included different actions. First, the teachers identified and analyzed a problem that they reflected on in the previous stages. In such cases, identifying a problem does not necessary mean to solve a hard pedagogical situation such as how to deal with inactive students. Even the classroom events run in normal situation; the teachers sometimes wanted to improve the learning environment. In addition, the teachers tried to analyze different aspects of the problem with the help of colleagues or other relevant experts and people. For example, in the case of Participant B, she tried to counsel with her spouse as an expert to gain right insights into the problem. In this stage, the teachers wanted to make sure that they have a right understanding about the problem. In addition to other people, they were found to rely on relevant theories to help

344

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

understand and analyze the theoretical background of the problems. For example, in Participant A’s case, she used multiple intelligence theory to deal with individual differences of the students. And another source of analyzing problem was found to be the teachers’ personal professional experiences. After understanding different aspects of the problem, in the second action, the teachers posed a practical pedagogical plan to deal with the problem. In this step, the teachers put their plan into action in the real situation of the classroom. For example, Participant B administrated a pedagogical plan to deal with students with hyperactivity disorder. This plan was somehow the practical design of action research to deal with problem. In the systematic cycle, and in the third step, the teachers were found to detect and evaluate the effects of their practical pedagogical plan. The teachers stated that they examined the results of their plan in the classroom to see how it helped them solve the addressed problem. The observation in this stage would also help the teachers to reconsider their practical action to follow ongoing conditions of the classroom. We call such important activities as “evaluative and following” actions. These actions show that an educational action research is a “normative and practical practice.” It means, it usually moves toward a better situation than the existing one, and it also provides practical solutions to meet the situational demands of life in the classroom. At the end and in line with TRP, we found that the participated teachers provided a written report covering all stages and pedagogical actions in their systematic reflation and submitted for IER. In addition to practical reflective teachers, we found that many teachers conduct a kind of “prescriptive educational research.” In terms of manner, these teachers were found to have shortcut mentality looking for easy and naı¨ ve actions, competitive and soulless pedagogical mood, and instrumental thinking toward developing their professional tasks. Participant C, Director of Kurdistan branch of IER, argued that “during these years, I have unfortunately seen many teachers who see TRP as a competition and as a tool to get some organizational points for promotion. At the end, we find their research very irrelevant to their own classroom.” Considering the teachers’ manner in conducting an action research, prescriptive teachers choose a general topic that is not usually rooted in their own classrooms’ problems. These teachers used typical research in which the action was not put in practice to see how it improved the classroom situations. However, the results of these reports could provide “prescriptive insights” for teachers. The teachers mainly used online and other similar sources to provide research reports. These teachers were primarily found to seek

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

345

organizational affirmation instead of thinking about improving their teaching and learning environment.

Professional Outcomes of TRP for Practical Reflective Teachers We found that TRP had good professional consequences for teachers, students, and other fellow colleagues. In the first place, TRP provided a significant ground for teachers’ “professional empowerment.” Historically, teachers are ignored in relation to knowledge discourse. The hegemony of university-based and theoretical research in the context educational practice has been a strong source of “power relationship” where teachers are deprived from epistemological position. Considering such picture in Iran’s context, our empirical findings showed that TRP can help teachers participate in epistemological discourse and thus produce practical knowledge to deal with their own local problems. Participant A stated that “The most enjoyable thing for me is to come up with a practical solution to help my students in different ways.” According to Participant B, TRP helps teachers “do wise action with open eyes.” More importantly, the teachers believed that TRP helps them move from “fault self-consciousness” to a healthy understanding of their professional identity since TRP improves their personal self-confidence and self-esteem. Teachers traditionally have the misperception that they are only responsible for teaching through knowledge they received from other third parties. Participant A showed us that “many teachers, particularly elementary teachers, have low self-confidence and do not believe in their capability … but when they engage in doing a research, they say, oh yes! I can do a research as well … believe me it (TRP) even improve the way the teachers are talking, walking and communicating with others.” This can be considered as “professional emancipation” as teachers show higher degree of self-esteem, stronger epistemic position in relationship to other authorities. In Participant B’s words “TRP give meaning to her personal and professional lives.” The participating teachers stated that TRP has also good function for students. According to the teachers, TRP could provide a context in which students enhance their learning mood and become more energetic and enthusiastic about school. The students also trust and believe in teachers as they see consistency between the “saying” and the “practice” of teachers. It was also found, according to teachers, that TRP enhances the teachers’ personal belief system when they gain scientific and sophisticated vision about students, learning, and pedagogy. In addition, the teachers believed that

346

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

engaging in TRP provides a platform where they can share their understanding and solutions with each other. In other words, it could be a good basis for developing learning community in the schools. Participant A explained that during her professional career, it has been a helpful experience for her to use the results of other colleagues in her classroom.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we claimed that TRP is a promising practice in Iran’s teacher education system. Relying on our empirical data, we found this national-scale pedagogy can help teachers improve their professional consciousness through participating in epistemological discourse of educational context. Fig. 1 shows the conceptual map that describes the epistemic value of TRP. According to the figure, teachers with good manners and methods take obviously significant advantage of TRP and involve in reflective practical research. As a consequence, an epistemological shift happens in the professional life of such caring teachers where they no longer only use the knowledge of a third-party person. Such conditions recover their teachers’ professional identity and put them in power position. Manner of reflective teachers in doing TRP Teachers’ backgrounds and experiences provoke them to do practical reflective research

Methods of reflective teachers in doing TRP

Initial preparation for research studies

-Teachers’ professional empowerment and consciousness - improving learning conditions of students -enhancing learning community in school

Fig. 1.

Conducting systematic reflective action research

Implication of TRP for inservice teacher education

Nature of TRP and its Epistemic Outcomes for Reflective Practical Teachers.

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

347

As such, and in line with the findings of our project portrayed in Fig. 1, preservice teachers should capture specific competencies and skills in their training programs in order to become a “practical reflective teacher.” The first dimension is to improve “good manner” in teachers. A central competency here is “ethical sensitivity,” meaning teachers should be reflective about every bit of their own actions and associated students’ reaction in the classroom. Reflective teachers should always care about the well-being of the students. This can be considered as moral foundation of teacher reflection and TRP. Ethical sensitivity enhances teacher reflection and prepares them to engage in TRP that leads to dynamic teaching and learning atmosphere. The second dimension of TRP is to develop reflective skills and methods of preservice teachers. “Problematization” is the first significant competency that teachers should absorb in their training in order to develop their reflective methods. It means teachers should critically examine their teaching and learning context and construct new and meaningful questions for reflection. In this procedure, teachers can open the new missions and vision that promote their professional identify as critical practitioners. This is a significant action helping teachers move from descriptive to normative thinking. Another competency of a featured reflective researcher teacher is to use different systematic strategies to deal with the problems identified in the first step. Different methods of inquiry such as ethnography, narratives, phenomenology, and action research may be used in order to address the problems. In this way, preservice teachers should be exposed to these methods in their teacher education program. And the other feature, and in fact the implication of TRP in preservice teacher education, is to craft an advanced, healthy, empowered, and self-directed professional identify for new teachers. It breaks down the hegemony of positivistic pedagogy in teachers’ lives. In line with TRP, the new preservice program has incorporated a cluster of courses referred to as performance competencies, which are an addition to content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PKC) introduced by Schulman. Student teachers’ action research, lesson study, and extensive student teaching are the components that comprise this programmatic cluster. Fig. 2 shows the outline of preservice teacher education curriculum and how TRP will be implemented into preservice teacher education. Our experiences with in-service teachers show that the new cluster can help preservice teachers develop their own knowledge and practical solutions to deal with the pedagogical challenges of their classroom. In addition to formal knowledge (CK, PCK, PK) embedded in the preservice teacher

348

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

Provides preservice teachers with theories, concepts, foundations and methods of a particular subject matter

Teacher pedagogical knowledge

Proposes different courses regarding topics such as teaching approaches and methods, educational psychology and educational philosophy

Pedagogical content knowledge

Provides preservice teachers with pedagogical knowledge of subject matters (i.e., how to teach math content)

Fig. 2.

This will be a new cluster of curriculum in preservice teacher education. TRP will be incorporated into this cluster in the form of courses such as action research and lesson study.

The new cluster

Performance competencies

Existing curriculum

Teacher content knowledge

The Outline of Preservice Teacher Education Curriculum in Iran.

education curriculum, students enhance their reflective capability as they are engaged in TRP with introducing the new cluster. We, however, need to argue that introducing TRP into preservice teacher program should be integrated with the TRP conducted by in-service teachers. In other words, in-service teachers should provide preservice teachers with what they have learned during conducting different action research in line with TRP. This idea must be supported by local administration of education and other relevant authorities. In line with this, the role of local branches of IER is essential. IER is a formal organization in charge of TRP collecting the previous experiences of in-service teachers with TRP. IER should provide complementary materials and possible training for preservice teachers. It can also provide high qualified reports on TRP to help preservice teachers link between practice and theory.

Challenge of TRP and Implication for Teacher Education Considering TRP has organizational and formal procedure, it makes a significant contribution to teachers’ systematic reflection. Many teacher educators and educational researcher are interested in improving teacher reflection, and it is argued that without particular preservice teacher training and programs, future teachers may not deeply engage in reflective practice. IER as the formal organization responsible for developing action

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

349

research in Iran’s educational contexts, has engaged many teachers to participate in TRP with which they produce local knowledge for their own classrooms. With different training programs for teachers, IER has integrated research and systematic reflection as a part of teachers’ professionalism. However, based on our empirical data and observation, we found that TRP had not significantly penetrated into teachers’ daily activities since it is conducted once a year. We observed that it is sometimes seen as an organizational mandate or competition and not as a professional responsibility by teachers. In order to cope with this barrier, TRP should be organized and conducted in school or at least smaller educational district level where schools are responsible for encouraging, training, conducting, and evaluating action research. In general, we believe that improving teachers’ reflection is an essential part of their professional tasks. In our experience, we found that conducting action research in the form of TRP has significantly improved teachers’ systematic reflection to deal with their situational problems. In a particular way, it has put teachers in epistemological position where they can ease the power relationship in educational context. Thus, we think TRP organized by IER could be a good experience to integrate research discourse particularly action research into teachers’ daily practice, particularly when there is an organization or department in school level to run the TRP.

REFERENCES Aristotle. (1934). Nicomachean ethics (H. Rackham, Trans). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boyles, D. R. (2006). Dewey’s epistemology: An argument for warranted assertions, knowing, and meaningful classroom practice. Educational Theory, 56(1), 57 68. Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In E. W. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 97 115). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Carr, D. (1995). Is understanding the professional knowledge of teachers a theory-practice problem? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29(3), 311 331. Carr, W. (2005). The role of theory in the professional development of an educational theorist. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 333 346. Chaichi, P., Goya, Z., Mehrabani, N., & Saki, R. (2006). Evaluation of the teacher researcher programme in Iran (in Persian). Quarterly Journal of Education, 85, 107 133. Cheng, K. K. Y., & Beigi, A. B. (2012). Education and religion in Iran: The inclusiveness of EFL (English as a foreign language) textbooks. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(2), 310 315.

350

KHALIL GHOLAMI AND MAHMOUD MEHRMOHAMMADI

Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 174 198). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the rationality of practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 367 390. Eisner, E. W. (2002). From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(4), 375 385. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 43 71. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179510 Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers’ knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum, 23(1), 1 19. Fallona, C. (2000). Manner in teaching: A study in observing and interpreting teachers’ moral virtues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 681 695. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3 56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Fenstermacher, G. D. (2001). On the concept of manner and its visibility in teaching practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 639 653. Ghasemipuya, A. (2004). A handbook for researcher teacher. Tehran: LoheZarin. Gholami, K., & Husu, J. (2010). How do teachers reason about their practice? Representing the epistemic nature of teachers’ practical knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1520 1529. Gholami, K., & Tirri, K. (2012a). Caring teaching as a moral practice: An exploratory study on perceived dimensions of caring teaching. Education Research International, 2012, Article ID 954274, 8 pages. Gholami, K., & Tirri, K. (2012b). The cultural dependence of the ethical sensitivity scale questionnaire: The case of Iranian Kurdish teachers. Education Research International, 2012, Article ID 387027, 9 pages. Hlebowitsh, P. (2012). When best practices aren’t: A Schwabian perspective on teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(1), 37 41. Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73 85. Kemmis, S. (2005). Knowing practice: Searching for saliences. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 391 426. Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Kleinfeld, J. (1992). Learning to think like a teacher: The study of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in education (pp. 33 39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Reflective teacher education and moral deliberation. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 2 8. Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory, and practical wisdom in teaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 225 240. Matin, N. (2004). Necessities and demands of teacher researcher programme. Educational Research Letter, 13(9), 12 19. Mehrmohammadi, M. (2004). Teacher classroom research: Reflections on a nation-wide experience in Iran. Journal of Humanities, 11, 133 144.

Epistemic Shift for Reconstructing Teacher Identity in Iran

351

Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 703 733). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Narvaez, D. (2011). Neurobiology, moral education and moral self-authorship. In D. J. de Ruyter & S. Miedema (Eds.), Moral education and development (pp. 31 43). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Narvaez, D., & Endicott, L. (2009). Nurturing character in the classroom, EthEx Series, Book 1: Ethical sensitivity. Notre Dame, IN: ACE Press. Richardson, V., & Fallona, C. (2001). Classroom management as method and manner. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 705 728. Ro¨nnerman, K. (2005). Participant knowledge and the meeting of practitioners and researchers. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 291 312. Samiei, R. (2011). Teacher education in Iran and world (translation). Teacher, 7(1), 18 23. Saugstad, T. (2005). Aristotle’s contribution to scholastic and non-scholastic learning theories. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 347 366. Scho¨n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Scho¨n, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78, 1 23. Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13, 239 256. Schwandt, T. A. (2005). On modeling our understanding of the practice fields. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 313 332. Van Goor, R., Heyting, F., & Vreeke, G.-J. (2004). Beyond foundations: Signs of a new normativity in philosophy of education. Educational Theory, 54(2), 173 192. Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher identity through reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 53 64. Wideen, M.; Mayer-Smith, J.; Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on the learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130 178. Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education. In G. Handal, S. Vaage, & I. Carlgren (Eds.), Teachers’ mind actions (pp. 9 27). Washington, DC: Flamer Press.

DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY IN PRESERVICE EDUCATION: EXPERIENCES AND PRACTICES FROM PORTUGAL Maria Assunc¸a˜o Flores ABSTRACT This chapter draws upon a wider project on the development of teacher identity in preservice education. The aim is to look at the effects of a given pedagogy which was designed and enacted in a Master degree in Teaching. The project draws upon existing international research literature on teacher identity which highlights the dynamic and multifaceted nature of the process as well as the pivotal role of preservice teacher education as a context for identity development. The main themes are explored through student teachers’ own voices (N = 20). Issues such as learning about becoming a teacher; exploring the unknown; making the implicit explicit; initial beliefs and theories about being a teacher; teachers’ role and work; from a student perspective towards a teacher perspective; expectations about teaching as a profession: skepticism and hope; and aspirations as preservice teachers are analyzed. The chapter concludes with insights and recommendations for others who might like

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 353 379 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022021

353

354

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

to try this pedagogy in their respective international teacher education milieus. Keywords: Teacher identity; initial teacher education; student teachers; narratives; reflection

INTRODUCTION As a teacher, and in particular as a teacher educator, I have always asked myself the following questions: What are my students doing in my classes? What kinds of learning experiences do I provide them? How does my work as a teacher educator help my students growing as teachers? These concerns have led me to reflect upon my own work as a teacher educator and to look more deeply into my research agenda. This has led me to analyze in a more systematic way my practice as a teacher educator in line with the selfstudy perspective (Loughran, 2009; Lunenberg, Zwart, & Korthagen, 2010) and of the concepts of pedagogical voice and productive learning in preservice education (Russell & Martin, 2014). I was fortunate enough to work with a colleague who shared the same concerns. This has been crucial for joint work over the years and the collaboration is still ongoing (i.e., Flores, 2006; Flores & Veiga Sima˜o, 2009; Veiga Sima˜o & Flores, 2006, 2010). Later, I have been invited to join a study group in my institution in March 2012. Two colleagues and I would be responsible for coordinating a group of 20 teacher educators who were willing to engage in sharing and discussing our own teacher education programs and practices.1 The group is still active and a number of activities and actions have been put into place. The overarching aim is to develop a research culture on and in initial teacher education and a scholarship of teacher education aiming to better understand and to improve our practices as teacher educators through questioning our rationales and the implications of our work (Flores, Vieira, & Ferreira, 2014). The development of this group has created the conditions for the participants to share and discuss their views and practices in teacher education and to move beyond their comfort zones. The result has been the development of collaborative work in a safe environment (i.e., Flores et al., 2014) and a stimulus for the development of various intervention and research projects (i.e., Flores, 2014a; Vieira, 2013). This chapter draws upon the work that I have been carrying out in this context. As stated above, my concern as a teacher educator has focused

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

355

upon the development of student teachers’ knowledge, skills, and abilities in such a way that they are engaged in a dialogic and ongoing process of becoming a teacher. As I have said elsewhere, learning to teach “is a process that goes beyond the mere application of a set of acquired techniques and skills. Not only does it imply the mastery of practical and more technical issues, but it also encompasses the construction of knowledge and meaning in an ongoing dialogue with the practice” (Flores, 2001, p. 146). As such, over the last years, the focus of my intervention has been the development of student teacher identity in preservice education, particularly after the restructuring process that I will describe later. In this chapter, I look at the views of student teachers on pedagogies that aim to foster the development of their identities in a much more explicit way. I draw upon a broader research and intervention project which includes a longitudinal study on student teacher identity development in preservice education which is currently underway (i.e., Flores, 2012, 2014a). Using existing research literature, the chapter also includes a brief overview of teacher education programs in Portugal, the description of the pedagogies used in teacher education and the analysis of their implications on student teachers’ identity development through their own voices. The chapter concludes with some key features and recommendations for others who might like to try my pedagogy in their respective teacher education milieus.

PRESERVICE EDUCATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHER IDENTITY: KEY ISSUES IN THE INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE The process of becoming a teacher entails the (trans)formation of the teacher’s identity. Sachs (2001a) describes identity as a negotiated, open, and shifting process stating that “for teachers this is mediated by their own experience in schools and outside of schools as well as their own beliefs and values about what it means to be a teacher and the type of teacher they aspire to be” (Sachs, 2001a, p. 154). As such it is neither a stable nor a fixed entity. It is not a “taken-for-granted process nor a product (…) It is a space of struggle and conflict, and of construction of ways of being a teacher” (No´voa, 1992, p. 16). Many researchers have focused on the development of teacher identity in the transition from student to teacher and during the early years in

356

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

teaching (i.e., Flores, 2001, 2013; Flores & Day, 2006; Hong, 2010; Pillen, Beijaard, & den Brok, 2013; Smagorinsky, Cook, Moore, Jackson, & Fry, 2004; Thomas & Beauchamp, 2007, 2011). These studies have drawn attention to the multiperspectival and multidimensional nature of the process of new teachers’ identity development which is driven by a wide array of factors, contexts, and emotions. Existing research literature has also shown that identity development is influenced by personal, social, and cognitive response as it implies an “ongoing and dynamic process which entails the making sense and (re)interpretation of one’s own values and experiences” (Flores & Day, 2006, p. 220). More recently, the need to focus on the identity development of student teachers during preservice education has been identified in the literature (i.e., Flores, 2012; Schepens, Aelterman, & Vlerick, 2009; Timostsuk & Ugaste, 2010). As Bullough (1997) puts it, “midst the diversity of tales of becoming a teacher and studies of the content and form of the story, two conclusions of paramount importance to teacher educators emerge: prior experience and beliefs are central to shaping the story line, as is the context of becoming a teacher” (p. 95). In a study inspired by the tension between being born as a teacher (i.e., based on demographics and personality traits) and becoming a teacher (i.e., based on experience), Schepens et al. (2009) concluded that teacher education preparation context is considered as a crucial aspect in professional identity formation along with issues related to demographics, personality traits, and experience. Also, Sancho, Correa, Giro´, and Fraga (2014) in a broad research project carried out in Spain, using a narrative approach, analyzed the influence of issues such as “becoming a teacher” and “being a teacher;” beliefs about childhood dream of vocation versus discovery and commitment; and the key relevance of building caring relationships with the students. They argue for the importance of investigating more deeply teacher professional identity in preservice education seen as a “process of selfconstruction woven from ongoing interactions with other individuals each one with their biological, biographical, and social backpack educational policies, colleagues, power structures, and power relations found in schools, students, and families” (p. 19) (original emphasis). Also, Timostsuk and Ugaste (2010) in their study of 45 student teachers in Estonia concluded that negative emotions exercised the strongest influence on student teachers’ professional identity and that supervisors neglected the role of positive emotions as a support for learning. The findings also indicate that the most positive emotions had to do with situations involving students. The authors argue for the role of emotions in

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

357

developing student teachers identity and the need to look at and discuss their expectations in greater detail. In a similar vein, Flores (2014b) stresses the importance of developing pedagogies that support the development of student teachers’ identity, particularly in the context of preservice education, namely through the examination of both formal and informal curriculum of teacher education, the explicit pedagogies of teaching of how to teach and how to learn to be and develop as a teacher as well as the role (and identities) of teacher educators. Existing literature on identity is vast, especially over the last decade or so. It has been used as an analytical frame and as an organizing element in (student) teachers’ development as professionals including their beliefs, actions, influences, and contexts of training and working (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Flores, 2013; Flores & Day, 2006; Olsen, 2008; Thomas & Beauchamp, 2011; Zimmermann, Flavier, & Me´ard, 2012). Olsen (2008) views identity as “a label for the collection of influences and effects from immediate contexts, prior constructs of self, social positioning, and meaning systems (each itself a fluid influence and all together an even-changing construct) that become intertwined inside the flow of activity as a teacher simultaneously reacts to and negotiates given contexts and human relationships at given moments” (p. 139). This dynamic view of identity is also stressed by other authors (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Pillen et al., 2013) pointing to the personal and the professional dimensions and to the idea of an ongoing negotiation and reflection about oneself as a teacher in a given context in which identities are shaped and reshaped. Beauchamp and Thomas (2009) argue that “identity development for teachers involves an understanding of the self and a notion of that self within an outside context” and that “a teacher identity is shaped and reshaped in interaction with others in a professional context” (p. 178). Similarly, Day, Kington, Stobart, and Sammons (2006) highlight the “understanding of self to beliefs, attitudes and actions and the kinds and effects of such actions” arguing that there are “unavoidable interrelationships between professional and personal identities as teaching demands significant personal investment” (p. 603). Also, in their review, Beijaard et al. (2004) identified four characteristics of professional identity: (a) it is not a fixed or stable entity, rather it is a dynamic process involving the (re)interpretation of experiences; (b) it entails the interaction between the person and the context; (c) it consists of a set of subidentities that more or less harmonize; and (d) identity development implies teacher agency. Thus, developing teacher identity entails a process of integrating one’s personal knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, norms and values, and the professional

358

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

demands from teacher education institutions and schools (Beijaard et al., 2004). As Sachs (2001b) puts it, “Teacher identity stands at the core of the teaching profession. It provides a framework for teachers to construct their own ideas of ‘how to be,’ ‘how to act,’ and ‘how to understand’ their work and their place in society. Importantly, teacher identity is not something that is fixed or imposed, it is negotiated through experience and the sense that is made of that experience” (p. 15). The formation and transformation of identity is influenced by beliefs and expectations about what a teacher should be able to know and do (Beijaard et al., 2004) and it entails the double transaction between biographical and relational dimensions (Lopes & Pereira, 2012). Thus standards and societal expectations may conflict with the personal expectations of teachers and of their experience about good teaching (Beijaard et al., 2004; Korthagen, 2004, 2009). Existing literature has pointed out to the role of the context of training in the formation of identity although evidence is scarce (Schepens et al., 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2012), in particular the influence of emotions in student teachers’ professional identity formation (Timostsuk & Ugaste, 2010) and the development of self-image as teacher (Sutherland, Howard, & Markauskaite, 2010). Thus, understanding and investigating identity development is a key element in teacher education in order for teacher educators to support better student teachers’ understanding of themselves as teachersto-be (Korthagen, 2004). As Zimmermann et al. (2012) state, student teachers are confronted with and need to make sense of different aspects of their role as teachers, namely the school as an institution, the children and young people as students; teachers’ work with its responsibilities, colleagues, and students’ parents. Teacher education should therefore be able to provide student teachers with guidance and support on how to “become” good teachers involving the personal and professional change rather than in “knowing” about teaching (Schepens et al., 2009).

THE CONTEXT OF PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION IN PORTUGAL: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Like other European countries, Portugal has undergone changes in higher education programs and curricula as a result of the implementation of the Bologna Process (i.e., Flores, 2011, 2014a; Flores et al., 2014). This has had also implications for preservice teacher education.

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

359

The restructuring of teacher education programs in Portugal draws on the Decree-Law nº 43/2007 which stipulates the professional qualifications for teaching (from preschool to secondary education). The new policy is based on a number of assumptions seen by government as key elements in this process: (a) a higher professional qualification for teachers (at a second cycle level, i.e., master’s degree); (b) a curriculum based upon leaning outcomes in the light of teacher performance; (c) a research-based qualification; (d) the importance of practicum (observation and collaboration in teaching situations under the supervision of a mentor/supervisor); (e) school university partnerships; and (f) the quality assurance of teachers’ qualification and of initial teacher education (ME, 2007). The Decree-Law nº43/2007 points to the valorization of subject knowledge, but it also emphasizes an approach to teaching based upon research and teaching practice valuing “educational research methodologies, taking into account the need for the performance of the teacher to be less as a mere doer or technician and more and more as a professional able to adapt to the characteristics and challenges of particular situations in the light of students’ characteristics and school and social contexts” (Decree-Law nº 43/2007). In light of this new legal framework, practicum implies teaching under supervision. In order to become a teacher, a three-year degree (licenciatura) is needed, plus a master’s degree in teaching (usually a two-year program). It implies, therefore, the separation between training in the first cycle (threeyear program called licenciatura) and training at second cycle level (master’s degree which is now needed in order to enter the teaching profession). Recent changes point to an increase of the importance of subject knowledge and didactics along with longer programs for preservice teacher education at Master level (Decree-Law nº 79/2014). The curriculum of preservice education includes now the following components: (a) training in the subject matter; (b) general educational training; (c) specific didactics (for a given level of teaching and subject matter); (d) cultural, social, and ethical education; and (e) professional practice. This new configuration has been seen as a drawback from previous models of teacher education (i.e., the so-called integrated model which included four years of training in which student teachers would benefit from training in educational sciences and subject matter simultaneously from the very beginning of the course, plus one year of practicum in a school). The new model emphasizes the subject knowledge and didactics and the professional practice occurs mainly at universities (which implies less time in schools). This perspective of professional training results in

360

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

reduced time and space for practicum (which occurs only at master’s level) with implications for the pedagogical activities in which student teachers are able to engage. In this context, Moreira and Vieira (2012) argue that “the impact of this structural change is not yet clear; will second-cycle student teachers take teaching more seriously because they had more time to decide to become teachers, or will they take it less seriously because their training is shorter? And will they be able to integrate subject and pedagogical knowledge now that these curricular components are clearly separated” (p. 97)? These are issues that remain to be seen but they have become a concern for teacher educators, particularly in the study group of teacher educators who have been debating processes and practices of teacher education. Under the new Portuguese legal framework, it is therefore important to ask the following questions: What kind of teachers are to be trained? How do the different components of the curriculum articulate and impact on student learning? And, most importantly, how does the new curriculum within this “new” model of training supports student teachers’ identity development? It is within this context that the pedagogies and data reported in this chapter were situated with the explicit purpose of fostering the engagement and transformation of student teachers in preservice education, particularly in difficult times in terms of employment and recruitment as I describe in the following section.

DEVELOPING TEACHER IDENTITY: CURRICULUM, CONTENT, AND STRATEGIES In this section, I present a brief overview of the curriculum, content, and strategies developed in preservice education. The analysis of all the components of the program are beyond the scope of this chapter which focuses upon the strategies developed within the context of a compulsory course in the curriculum of preservice teacher education.

Setting the Scene: Context and Participants As mentioned earlier, the project reported in this chapter was developed under the new legal framework of preservice teacher education in Portugal after the implementation of the so-called Bologna process. It implied a

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

361

two-step model including a first degree (3 years) plus a Master degree in Teaching (2 years). Along with changes in the curriculum of preservice teacher education, it is important to take into account the broader social, political, and economic context in which it is situated. Over the last years, in Portugal teacher surplus and unemployment became two intertwined realities with implications for the recruitment of student teachers in higher education institutions and for new teachers’ job expectations. A severe financial and economic crisis has affected the Portuguese society at various levels (leading to salary cuts and higher taxes), including the teaching profession, with high rates of unemployment, especially for qualified young people. This, of course, has implications for student teacher motivations and expectations before entering a teaching degree and the teaching profession.2 Why do student teachers enroll in preservice teacher education? What are their motivations? How do they see teaching as a profession? These questions were very much present; that is why a diversity of strategies and activities were developed so that being a teacher and teaching as a future profession would be framed in a more critical and engaging perspective. All of the participants in this project were student teachers enrolled in a Master degree in Teaching in their first year first semester of the program. All of them were taking several courses during this semester but the data reported in this chapter relate to “Curriculum development” which is a five-credit mandatory course to all student teachers enrolled in a Master degree in Teaching. In this chapter, data are drawn from one class which included 20 student teachers in the first semester 2013/2014. They were enrolled in a Master degree in Teaching Philosophy and a Master degree in Portuguese and Spanish. Writing narratives, sharing and discussing them was one of the key elements in the designing of the course enabling student teachers to talk about their concerns, their aspirations, their views of teaching and becoming a teacher. Below is a list with some examples of activities that were developed in the course throughout one semester: • personal written narrative about why student teachers have decided to enter a teaching degree and to become teachers motivations, influences, expectations, and aspirations at the entry of the program (these were then shared, analyzed, and discussed in the classroom); • brainstorming and peer activity about teaching, curriculum, and curriculum development with the aim of deconstructing ideas about the role

362

•

•

•

•

•

•

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

of teacher in curriculum development, professional knowledge, and curriculum knowledge; personal written narrative about “my most remarkable teacher,” analyzing why, whom and what in order to explore student teachers’ beliefs and experiences and also analyze key qualities of good teachers and good teaching; listening to students’ voices about their teachers drawing from existing research literature student teachers looked at how students described the good and the bad teachers and a reflection on the influence of teachers and on the views of students was then carried out; reading and exploring letters from (fictional) teachers pointing to different ways of being a teacher and of looking at teaching as a profession (the students were asked to choose the one with which they identify and the one that they would reject and why). This was then discussed in classroom, in pairs and in small groups (exploring the beliefs and the actions of the teachers); organizing and participating in debates in the classroom, about teacher autonomy versus lack of autonomy and formative versus summative assessment (one group would argue for the thesis and the other for the antithesis); developing a project work on a given topic throughout the semester (linking theory to practice, the experience as a student and as teacher-tobe and between university campus and school). This was presented and discussed in the classroom at the end of the semester; personal written narrative about the learning process in the course and its contribution to the development as a teacher.

The rationale for the designing of this course drew upon the following key assumptions: • becoming a teacher entails a personal and reflective process on one’s own beliefs, values, and actions, implying the combination student teachers’ “parts of their past, including their own experience in school and in teacher preparation, with pieces of their present” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1029) and the development of “a sense of purpose for teaching and being a teacher” (Rex & Nelson, 2004, p. 1317); • the context of preservice teacher education is a key element that may foster the development of student teachers’ identity (i.e., Flores, 2012; Schepens et al., 2009; Timostsuk & Ugaste, 2010) through pedagogies that may provide them with opportunities to reflect in a more explicit and systematic way on their process of becoming a teacher;

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

363

• learning about teaching implies a focus on the learner rather than on the curriculum and it may be enhanced by approaches that are modeled by the teacher educators (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006); • modeling productive learning and putting meaning into “reflection” through teacher educators’ own practice may contribute to develop professional identity and enhance professional learning in a more explicit way (Russell & Martin, 2014). This chapter draws on the final narrative written by the 20 student teachers and illustrates the main issues discussed throughout the semester. The development and contribution of the strategies to student teachers’ development is analyzed through their own voices according to the themes that follow.

Learning about Becoming a Teacher: Exploring the Unknown In their final narrative, student teachers looked back on their initial expectations about the Master in Teaching and about the course on “curriculum development” in particular. For most of them, their background did not prepare them for entry into a Master degree in Teaching. They had finished a three-year degree in Philosophy and in Portuguese and Spanish, therefore, focused on the subject matter and, in order to become teachers, they had to do a second-cycle degree at master level for teaching at elementary and secondary education. This two-step logic has to do with the new legal framework for teacher education after the implementation of the Bologna process as described earlier. Thus, it is not surprising that when entering a Master degree in Teaching, most of the student teachers did not hold a clear view about teaching and, more specifically, teaching Philosophy and Portuguese and Spanish. One of the compulsory courses in the first semester is curriculum development and student teachers were asked at the beginning and at the end of the course about their expectations and learning experiences. At the end, most of them spoke of the lack of a clear idea about the course at the beginning. They also highlighted that they had to go through a process of “exploring the unknown” as they have realized the scope and the activities of the course called “curriculum development.” I had no expectations about this course at all. Throughout the semester I have come to realize its importance especially due to the teaching methods used in the classroom. The content was also very useful for me as a teacher in particular in regard to curriculum

364

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

development models, the role of the teacher in developing the curriculum, assessment methods, etc. All of these topics were really important for my development as a teacher. It was possible for me to explore a reality that was unknown to me but at the same time a crucial learning for my future profession. (student teacher of Philosophy) At the beginning of the semester, I had no idea about what to expect from a course called “curriculum development” whatsoever … The name meant nothing to me. I guess the first lessons were really important when, for instance, we discussed the concepts of curriculum and curriculum development and being a teacher … These issues became clearer and more and more interesting during the semester. I’ve never thought how interesting it would be when I first enter the classroom to take this course. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish)

They also emphasized the relevance of the course for their development as teachers-to-be as time went by and as they became more aware of the connection between the topics and course activities and their future profession: When I entered this Master degree, I wasn’t sure about what to expect. I didn’t know what “curriculum development” was all about! But at the end of the first two lessons I got really interested because I have realized that it would be an important subject matter for my future as a teacher. (…) At the beginning I also realized that I didn’t know much about teaching and about what it means to become a teacher. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish) At the beginning I wasn’t aware of the topics and activities that I would be developing in the course. Now I can say that it has opened up new ideas about teaching and about being a teacher, especially in regard to the role of teacher in curriculum development. I have learned about an unknown reality that it is crucial for my development as a teacher (student teacher of Philosophy)

Making the Implicit Explicit: Initial Beliefs and Theories about Being a Teacher Student teachers’ accounts at the end of the course were eloquent when they talked about the opportunities they had to explore their beliefs and implicit theories about being a teacher. They stressed they were able develop their own professional values as teachers. This was possible by making their own views explicit through writing narratives about their experiences as students but also by listening to other students’ voices as well as accounts from teachers about teaching. In their final written narrative, most of the participants spoke of their own experiences as students and the ways in which they had made sense of them by rethinking and revisiting, in some cases, their implicit values and beliefs:

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

365

When I look back at my first days in this course, I feel that now I am a different person. I felt I had made important learning experiences because it was possible for me to become more aware about what kind of student I am and what kind of teacher I would like to be. (student teacher of Philosophy) As a student, when I had to sit for a written test, I had many times thought “oh, if I just could tell the teacher that I don’t feel like doing the test.” But then I thought “this doesn’t matter to the teacher.” And then I couldn’t ever realized that as a student teacher I would be discussing in the classroom about assessment, about the kinds of factors that influence assessment and so on … this was a really discovery for me as a teacher-to-be. (student teacher of Philosophy)

As this last quote illustrates, many participants mentioned experiences related to assessment. It is interesting how they challenge and change their views about it from a student toward a teacher perspective. Issues of complexity and comprehensiveness of teaching and of teacher professional knowledge were very much present in student teachers’ accounts. These were seen as key elements in their development as teachers: The most striking thing for me was curriculum evaluation as it made me questioning many issues and behaviors as a teacher-to-be. It made me realize that teacher’s work is even more complex than I have ever imagined. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish) This course was very important to my education as a teacher-to-be and to my future profession. I want to stress the opportunities to develop pedagogical and curricular knowledge. My first degree didn’t give me the required knowledge and skills to be able to reflect on teaching and on the process of learning. So I thought that the Master degree in Teaching would help me doing that. And this course in particular, with a name that didn’t mean anything to me at the beginning (“curriculum development”), was really important to help me becoming the teacher that I want to become. It has provided me with opportunities to link theory and practice, and to explore my own experience as a student and as a preservice teacher. In particular, it was very important for me to discuss how to evaluate students, how to select the best teaching methods, etc. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish)

Interestingly, many student teachers described the ways in which their participation in debates in the classroom were a key moment of learning because they had the opportunity to talk about their points of view even if they were on the opposite side of their own beliefs as students. The participants had to prepare the debates by looking at relevant literature and empirical work to support their perspective. For instance, they had to either defend the existence of teacher autonomy in curriculum development or the lack of autonomy in the light of existing legal and curricular framework. The second debate entailed the discussion between formative versus summative assessment in elementary education again drawing upon their

366

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

own experience as students, but also on relevant literature and legal framework. Not surprisingly mixed feelings were found in student teachers’ accounts about their participation in the debates. Some of them claimed that they reinforced their own beliefs, for instance, on the importance of formative assessment and teacher autonomy; others, on the contrary, started to question teachers’ autonomy in practice. Others admitted that they have revisited their rather simple and narrow views of assessment that they had as students. For me the most interesting activities were the debates. These enabled me to get to know and to understand better, in a practical way, the key issues of being a teacher and of teaching. The debate about teacher autonomy was really great. As a future teacher I have realized that, in a way, my work as a teacher is very much determined by the legal framework but I also realized that in the classroom I may exert autonomy to work with my students the way I want. I may be flexible, creative and promoting student interaction in the classroom in a more dynamic way … (student teacher of Philosophy) I enjoyed all the activities that I have done throughout this course. But the most interesting one was the debates. My colleagues and I were able to discuss and reflect together on key issues of our work as future teachers. I have learned a lot through inquiry and debating my ideas with my colleagues. I have realized that what I knew about teaching as a student is not exactly the real teaching. Teaching is much more complex than I was expecting. It also depends on how you see yourself as a teacher, for instance, the ways you look at your role in the classroom or in developing the school curriculum. (student teacher of Philosophy)

Changes in beliefs about teaching and about being a teacher were related to a stronger focus on students. The experience of analyzing in more detail the process of teaching and learning from the inside through the lens of both student and teacher-to-be has led to the questioning of some of the ideas held at the beginning. Through learning and, more importantly, through analyzing their learning experience in the classroom, both individual and collectively, it was possible to listen to the student teachers and to stimulate productive learning (Russell & Martin, 2014). This has implied moving beyond their taken-for-granted ideas and to take a step further in a reflective and dialogic process of becoming a teacher. In other words, student teachers were able to identify, challenge, and make their values more explicit and to frame them in a more articulated and consistent way. The following examples are illustrative of this: I can say that it’s unthinkable to look back on my learning without paying attention to assessment. Now I can say that I look at this process in a different way. I am more concerned with the students that I was before, I believe in assessment as learning. And this was developed in my mind throughout this course and the ways in which we conducted all different activities. I guess I was able to experience a lived example of assessment as

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

367

learning as student teacher in this course, namely the techniques for evaluation that we have used, the modes of assessment, the guidelines that we were given, etc. I believe that I cannot be a good teacher if I am not able to assess my students in a fair and adequate way. I cannot be a good teacher if assessment doesn’t help my students to find their way to quality learning. Assessing for punishing them is not the way … and this has become a key learning for me in this course. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish) If you are to be a good teacher you need to understand the philosophy of assessment. This was one of the key messages that I have learned as a student teacher in this course. Assessing isn’t only about doing good written tests. It’s much more than that. It isn’t only about being empathetic or nice to students or to punish them. It is about doing good questions for a written test but it is also about understanding what assessment is all about, and its connection with your teaching and with students’ learning. As a student, I remember when I sat for a written test and I didn’t understand the questions and the teacher wasn’t able to explain what we were supposed to do. Many times I had not so good grades and I wasn’t able to understand why. I have also experienced some unfair situations when it comes to my colleagues’ grades. I guess there were no clear criteria for the teacher. I became skeptical about assessment and sometimes I even had doubts about my own abilities and skills due to the grades that I got. This course made me rethink critically these issues and made me unpack my own experience as student teacher. It helped me to have a clearer idea about what kind of teacher I want to be in the future. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish)

Teachers’ Role and Work: From a Student Perspective toward a Teacher Perspective In the process of challenging and changing their views of teaching, the participants have made sense of their own process of becoming a teacher. Some of the issues were critical in this regard. For instance, the debates about teacher autonomy and the legal framework of teaching have made them more aware of the potential but also of the limitations of their work as teachers. Discovering this reality through inquiry and reading accounts of practicing teachers were of paramount importance in this process of constructing, reconstructing, and deconstructing their own ways of being and feeling like a (future) teacher. The most striking features were bureaucracy in teaching, control over teachers’ work from a legal and curricular point of view (i.e., national exams, national curricula, top-down model of decision making). This course made me think about teachers’ work and I became aware of the amount of paperwork that teachers have to deal with. This “imposed” bureaucracy is not good to the profession and I feel that no matter how good my intentions are as a future teacher, the conditions for teaching will determine the degree of autonomy that I may or may not exert. (student teacher of Philosophy)

368

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

The most striking experience was the ways in which teaching is actually seen in my country. I wasn’t prepared to enter and to live in the “world of being a teacher” at all. I had no clue about what it implies to be a teacher in a Portuguese school nowadays with all the policy initiatives that are going on … (student teacher of Philosophy)

Entering the “world of teaching” was a tough experience for them as they came to realize its demanding nature that did not match their “unrealistic” views. Although some of them were aware of the most recent changes in teaching and teachers’ work, related to a great extent to the financial and economic crisis, through the media and through relatives, for instance, others still held the idealistic view of being a teacher which was associated with a sense of vocation and a sense of purpose for their teaching in order to contribute to the development of their students as active citizens. Their accounts are illustrative of this: I wasn’t expecting that assessment would be so complex and demanding. As a student I thought that it would be an easy task to do, but now as a teacher-to-be I really think that it is much more complex as it involves many variables and it has great implications for teaching and learning. (student teacher of Philosophy) I have learned that despite the demanding and more and more complex nature of teachers’ work, due to the government initiatives that focus on an outcome-driven perspective, as a teacher you can make a difference. You need to comply with bureaucracy but you need to think that students are people, not figures, so you need to support them in their learning. I have understood that teaching has also a political dimension … (student teacher of Philosophy)

Issues about recent school reform were also identified. Even though some student teachers had an idea about the challenges and demands placed upon teachers and schools, which stemmed mainly from the bulk of policy initiatives over the last few years, they acknowledged that they had the opportunity to frame and understand their implications for schools and teachers’ work. Changes related to school curriculum toward a “back to basics” logic, with an emphasis on content knowledge and the reinforcement of subjects such as Math and Portuguese, the introduction of national exams, the merging of schools, teacher evaluation, etc., are but few examples of the policy initiatives with an impact on student teachers’ views about their future work as teachers. However, many of them still believe that they want to try to make a difference as teachers, despite the difficulties: My experience in this course was of great relevance particularly because it made me rethink my prior views of teaching and being a teacher. In particular the ways in which the school curriculum is developed according to different contexts and models were interesting to reflect on my role as a teacher in making possible the real curriculum in the classroom. The analysis of the process of curriculum development was important to

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

369

understand what is going on at various levels: the policy level, the school level and the classroom level. The idea that I had about school curriculum at the beginning has been changed towards a more complex and context-dependent one. But I also realized that teachers’ work is more and more top-down controlled. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish) In this course I have been given the opportunity to become aware of issues of teaching and being a teacher that disturb me a lot and that make me think in the future of the teaching profession. I think that recent curricular and organizational policy directives have been negative and are having negative effects on schools and teachers’ work. My vision is not positive at all, but I still believe that it is worth making an effort to make a difference in my students’ lives. (student teacher of Philosophy)

Having a clear vision about teaching and about education in general, being able to clarify and make professional values as teachers explicit, developing and communicating a sense of purpose for teaching were at the forefront of student teachers’ views of their development throughout the course. This was possible through the opportunities to look back on their own experience as students and to revisit a number of key experiences, in a personal and reflective way, along with the opportunity to discuss and analyze the key elements in their experience in the classroom as time went by. This course made me reinforced my beliefs about teaching. I guess the subjective dimension is one example, especially when it comes to assessment. As a teacher you need to be aware of that. I had the opportunity to look back on my own experience as a student at school and I feel that being reliable and clear is a key issue in developing your work as a teacher. This wasn’t my experience as a student in many cases and I now feel that as a teacher-to-be I need to have clear professional values and to communicate them to my students through my action and attitudes as a teacher in the classroom. I guess many teachers forget that they were students in the past and they do not understand students’ points of view. It was really insightful the way we discussed our own experience as students and our own values as future teachers. (student teacher of Philosophy) I didn’t have a clue about the ways in which the curriculum was built and developed. This was really important to me as a future teacher. Listening to practicing teachers’ voices about that and discussing them in class with my colleagues was a discovery process and a way of unpacking my own hidden or implicit views of being a teacher. I became more and more aware of the dos and don’ts of curriculum decisions in the school with my colleagues and in the classroom with my students. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish)

Expectations about Teaching as a Profession: Skepticism and Hope Not surprisingly, student teachers hold a rather negative view about teaching as a future career, which obviously had an impact on their perspectives

370

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

about their role as teachers. The lack of job prospects, the non-existence of a teaching career, the high rate of unemployment in teaching which has been exacerbated in recent years with the financial and economic crisis, etc., are at the forefront of preservice teachers’ concerns. Many of them talked about the dimensions of teaching that they had discovered but at the same time they acknowledged the opportunity to think about their real job (duties, competencies, tasks, etc.) and feel more prepared to face the difficult times they foresee: Many times I think about teaching as my future career and about what I have to go through to get there. What am I going to find? I guess I will find a jungle out there. You will need to do whatever to find a place … (…) I had the opportunity to take this course which was a good experience for my training as future teacher. Now at the end of the course two things come to my mind: it was a surprise for me but at the same time a disappointment that as a teacher your job is very difficult and that there are matters that go beyond what a teacher should do, for instance paperwork and administrative tasks which keep you away from your work directly with students and this is for me central to teaching. The second point that I would like to make is that this disappointment has made me better prepared to face what is expected of me as a future teacher and maybe I can contribute to a better teaching. (student teacher of Philosophy)

Student teachers were able to identify the challenges they will have to face as future teachers, they were able to discuss the shortcomings of recent policy in Education, they were able to go a step further in the analysis of teaching as a profession and of teachers’ role. In their final accounts skepticism in regard to teaching as a profession emerged but at the same time many of them remain positive and talked about hope in a better future: Today I can say that I am able to see the gaps in education in a different way because I am able now to understand when the school curriculum doesn’t work, especially when it is not flexible and adaptable to the context. Education fails when there is no flexibility and the school, the teachers and the students are those to blame in the first place. When it comes to the rankings, I have realized what is really involved in doing them. (student teacher of Philosophy) I am aware of what I have learned in this course. I have tried to reflect on what I found most intriguing and interesting issues. They made me feel quite anxious about the future of the teaching profession, the future of schools and the future of children and young people. The most striking issue was assessment due to its complexity and implications. If I manage to be a teacher one day the situation is very dark at the moment in terms of job prospects I will try to do my best and to make a difference to my students. This course helped me to go deeper in my reflection about teaching and to better understand my role as a teacher. (student teacher of Philosophy).

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

371

Aspirations as Preservice Teachers: Mixed Feelings In their accounts, student teachers also talked about their aspirations about being a teacher in the future. They have made the decision to enter a degree in teaching and to become teachers in challenging times. Most of them mentioned the difficult times that the teaching profession has been through over recent years among which are the deterioration of the social image of teachers, and particularly the role of the media in disseminating negative features about schools and teachers, the bureaucratization of teachers’ work and, of course, the lack of career prospects, the salary cuts, and the high rate of unemployment in teaching. This picture is clearly described and analyzed in recent research carried out in Portugal (Flores, 2014c) and in Spain (Sancho et al., 2014) with implications for teacher education and the development of the teaching profession, but experiences of resilience were also found. For instance, the interaction with students and the positive relationships with colleagues at school were seen as sources of personal and professional motivation against the odds (Flores, Ferreira, & Parente, 2014). Not surprisingly, the student teachers revealed mixed feelings about their aspirations as teachers. On the one hand, skepticism and lack of motivation emerged from their accounts; on the other hand, issues of hope, selfconfidence and positivism marked their reflections on the ways they would like to see themselves as teachers in the future. In other words, despite the “darkness” and the “insecurity” of teaching as a profession, the participants stressed that they would like to get to schools and to classrooms and trying to give their best as teachers for the benefit of their students: My way to become a teacher may be dangerous and stormy, but I won’t give up without trying to get there. I am aware that escalating for a mountain is not easy when you don’t know your way. I know what is expecting from me and I will try to do my best … (student teacher of Philosophy) In this course I was able to clarify my own ideas about what kind of teacher I want to become. It helped me to remember the good and bad teachers that I had as a student and to rethink the dos and don’ts of a teacher. I feel more prepared to do my practicum and to enter the classroom. But I am also aware that the journey to become a good teacher is long and complex … but I also know that as a teacher I want to try to make the dreams of my students come true. (student teacher of Philosophy)

Other participants referred to the willingness to put into practice knowledge and skills learned in the course in order to be competent, fair, and good teachers. Drawing upon their own experience while at school, some of them spoke of the ways in which they want to make a difference by

372

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

demonstrating different attitudes and behavior from the teachers that marked them in a negative way. As a future teacher I hope I will be able to mobilize what I have learned in this course, namely the key elements in doing a good lesson planning and how to relate the learning outcomes to teaching and learning strategies. (student teacher of Philosophy) As a teacher-to-be I am sure that I will put into practice what I have learned in this course, in particular the techniques to do a good written test and to assess students’ work in a fair way. (student teacher of Philosophy) I was I mean, I am a teacher because I was fortunate enough to teach for a few years when I did my first degree. I am unemployed for six years now. But it is very much present in my mind how difficult it was for me assessing my students’ work. I have tried to be as fair and clear as possible. I now recognize that maybe I was too much focused on quantification and on a summative dimension of assessment. My concern was the product, I mean the grades. I knew from my own experience as a student that teachers sometimes are not fair and I have tried to make a difference. I didn’t want my students to see me that way. I have to admit that after all the debates, the inquiry and the readings throughout this course I don’t feel that I was as fair and clear I thought I was. I have failed, for instance, in the clarification of the assessment criteria and in doing good assessment techniques. As such, I felt that I have grown as a teacher during this semester. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish) Today I am a student teacher and soon I will be a teacher if am lucky enough to find a job. And I do know now that as a teacher I don’t want to have the same kind of attitudes and behavior that I saw in some of my teachers. For instance, I intend to be as fair as possible to my students … (student teacher of Philosophy) As a teacher-to-be I am trying to be as fair as possible. I had no idea about how complex the assessment process was, how many factors influence assessment and their effects on students and on the assessment process itself. As a student I had already discussed this issue with my colleagues many times, but now as a future teacher I have a different perspective. I get worried when I think about myself as a teacher and how fair and just I will be. I would like to have had the answer to the question: what kind of teacher am I going to be? How fair? What kind of difference will I make? (student teacher of Philosophy)

As this last quote illustrates, it is interesting to look at the ways in which student teachers talked about their journeys in the development of their identities as teachers. Issues about what kinds of teachers they will be, about what kinds of teachers they want to be, and about the difference they will make in their contexts of working are few examples of the reflective questions in their final accounts. If some of them are unsure about the answers to these questions, others seemed to be more positive about what kind of teacher they want to be and about the experience

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

373

they want to provide to their students. Again, they draw upon their own experience as students, that they had the opportunity to revisit, but also on their experience throughout the course by exploring and reflecting on the implicit theories, on their beliefs and professional values as teachersto-be. This course was a key moment in my journey to become a teacher. It made me think and feel the complexity of what being a teacher is all about. It also made me reflect on what is involved in being in the classroom and the amount of responsibilities required of me as a teacher. In this course, I became aware of the complexity of the classroom ecology and this made me think how I am going to handle it … (student teacher of Philosophy) As a future teacher I feel more able to identify my mistakes as a teacher. I am aware that my job is complex and that I will be making mistakes but I also know that I can identify them and overcome them and getting better and better. (student teacher of Philosophy) I’ve always wanted to become a teacher. It was a dream and in my dream I wanted to be the best teacher I could. I had the possibility to reflect on my own experience as a student and this was great as I was able to clarify my own values as a teacher-to-be. That is why assessment was a key topic for me as it reminded me my own experience and my teachers’ behavior. (student teacher of Portuguese and Spanish)

FINAL REMARKS This chapter has set out to describe and to analyze the development of a pedagogy which was designed to make preservice teacher identity formation more explicit. Through the voices of student teachers who participated in the course, I have tried to provide an overview of the key moments of reflection and discussion with my student teachers in the classroom. Fig. 1 summarizes the core issues of the pedagogy described in this chapter, namely its key assumptions, examples of strategies, and aims. One of the key issues was the clarification and analysis of their motivations and influences to enter a teaching degree and to become teachers in a context in which the teaching profession is facing adverse times. This has implications for understanding the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations but also student teachers’ recruitment (Flores, 2012; Flores & Niklasson, 2014). Also of relevance were the opportunities for making their beliefs more explicit and revisiting their own experiences as students and to discuss their role by clarifying their sense of purpose for being a teacher. This

374

Fig. 1.

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

Key Features of Explicit Pedagogy for Teacher Identity Development in Preservice Education.

was not an easy task as idealism versus skepticism and negativism versus hope were very much present in the discussions, especially when the idealistic view clashed with the reality of unemployment, lack of valorization of the teaching profession, and all recent policy initiatives implemented over the last few years under the austerity measures. Overall, mixed feelings emerged from student teachers’ accounts: on the one hand, a sense of vocation and the strong belief in the choice of being a teacher, on the other hand, the dark reality and the lack of professional prospects. However, the reflection on the professional values as teachers was of paramount importance whether they drew on their prior beliefs or on their experience as students or on teachers’ accounts on what it means to be a teacher. The reflective accounts revolved around the following questions: How do I see myself as a teacher? What kind of teacher am I going to be? What kind of teacher do I aspire to be? These made them challenge their own beliefs and aspirations influencing teacher identity development seen as a nonlinear process marked by contradictions, tensions, and doubts (Zimmermann et al., 2012).

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

375

In other words, they were able to revisit their views and experiences as students but at the same time to challenge their initial beliefs about teaching and about being a teacher. In a way, their views of becoming a teacher were constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed as they made the transition from a student toward a teacher perspective including moving beyond their comfort zones. Another feature is the redesigning of the course around principles that enable student teachers to have an active role in the process of developing their identities as teachers. This was made possible by the adequate number of students in the classroom and by the assumptions and commitment as a teacher educator to try to make a difference in student teachers’ experiences of learning about teaching. In particular, the focus on the student rather than on the curriculum, the interaction among student teachers, the inquiry based-work, the modeling of teacher educators practice (Korthagen et al., 2006), the pedagogical voice, and productive learning in teacher education (Russell & Martin, 2014) were key principles in designing the course. All the issues described earlier will enable the enactment of the featured pedagogy in other international contexts. It also may well contribute to fill in a gap in existing literature which recognizes the key importance of the context preservice education for developing teacher identity (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Flores, 2012; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Schepens et al., 2009; Timostsuk & Ugaste, 2010) but which also acknowledges the scarcity in terms of research and teacher education practices, programs design, and activities (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Schepens et al., 2009; Zimmermann et al., 2012). For instance, Friesen and Besley (2013) question how teacher education programs operate in order to shape and challenge the potentially idyllic student teacher identity beliefs and they argue that “initial teacher education programs have the potential to facilitate or interfere with identity development at both personal and social level” (p. 31). Also, Beauchamp and Thomas (2009) highlight that teacher education programs seem to be “the ideal starting point for instilling not only an awareness of the need to develop an identity, but also a strong sense of the ongoing shifts that will occur in that identity” (p. 186). As such, developing pedagogies that are supportive of professional learning of how to become and being a teacher by giving voice and space to student teachers to challenge and change their beliefs and experiences, as the example described in this chapter, may contribute to the development of teacher identity in preservice education in a more explicit way.

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

376

NOTES 1. These are examples of the actions taken by the so-called Pedagogical Innovation Group which was created in 2010 under the auspices of the Dean of the Institute of Education in order to promote reflection and professional development opportunities for faculty in our institution. In October 2013, under the support of new Presidency of the Institute of Education, the Group of Study of Pedagogical Innovation was created integrating other members and developing other activities related to the programs currently underway in our institution. 2. A nationwide study carried out over the last three years concluded that the motivation of the majority of teachers decreased along with insecurity and instability, impoverishment, a decrease in the social recognition of teaching as a profession and an increase of intensification and bureaucratization and control over their work (Flores, 2014c).

REFERENCES Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Preparing prospective teachers for a context of change: Reconsidering the role of teacher education in the development of identity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175 189. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107 128. Bullough, R. V. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 13 31). London: Falmer Press. Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and the professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601 616. Decree-Law nº 43/2007. 22nd February, Dia´rio da Repu´blica, 1ª se´rie, nº 38, pp. 1320 1328. Decree-Law nº 79/2014. 14th May, Dia´rio da Repu´blica, 1ª se´rie, nº 92, pp. 2819 2828. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013 1055. Flores, M. A. (2001). Person and context in becoming a new teacher. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(2), 135 148. Flores, M. A. (2006). Being a novice teacher in two different settings: Struggles, continuities, and discontinuities. Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2021 2052. Flores, M. A. (2011). Curriculum of initial teacher education in Portugal: New contexts, old problems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 461 470. Flores, M. A. (2012). A formac¸a˜o de professores e a construc¸a˜o da identidade profissional. In A. M. Veiga Sima˜o, L. M. Frison, & M. H. Abraha˜o (Eds.), Autorregulac¸a˜o da aprendizagem e narrativas autobiogra´ficas: Epistemologia e pra´ticas (pp. 93 113). Natal, Porto Alegre, Salvador: EDUFRN, ediPUCRS, EDUNEB. Flores, M. A. (2013). Be(com)ing a teacher in challenging circumstances: Sustaining commitment or giving up in Portugal? In C. Craig, P. Meijer, & J. Broekemans (Eds.), From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

377

(Vol. 19, pp. 405 425). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Flores, M. A. (2014a). Teacher learning in the workplace in pre-service teacher education in Portugal: Potential and limits from a pre-service teacher perspective. In O. McNamara, J. Murray, & M. Jones (Eds.), Workplace learning in teacher education. International practice and policy (pp. 243 260). Dordrecht: Springer. Flores, M. A. (2014b). The development of teacher professional identity: Influencing contexts and inner tensions. In J. M. Sancho, G. Correa, X. Giro´, & L. Fraga (Eds.), Aprender a ser docente en un mundo en cambio. Simposio internacional (pp. 45 55). Barcelona: Dipo`sit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/ 2445/50680 Flores, M. A. (2014c). Profissionalismo e lideranc¸a dos professores. Santo Tirso: De Facto Editores. Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 219 232. Flores, M. A., Ferreira, F. I., & Parente, C. (2014). Concluso˜es e recomendac¸o˜es. In M. A. Flores (Ed.), Profissionalismo e lideranc¸a dos professores (pp. 217 236). Santo Tirso: De Facto Editores. Flores, M. A., & Niklasson, L. (2014). Why do student teachers enrol for a teaching degree? A study of teacher recruitment in Portugal and Sweden. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(4), 328 343. Flores, M. A., & Veiga Sima˜o, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Aprendizagem e Desenvolvimento Profissional de Professores. Contextos e Perspetivas. Mangualde: Edic¸o˜es Pedago. Flores, M. A., Vieira, F., & Ferreira, F. I. (2014). Formac¸a˜o inicial de professores em Portugal: Problemas, desafios e o lugar da pra´tica nos mestrados em ensino po´sBolonha. In M. C. Borges, & O. F. Aquino (Eds.), A formac¸a˜o inicial de professores em diferentes contextos. Polı´ticas, pra´ticas e perspectivas. Uberlaˆndia: EDUFU. Friesen, M. A., & Besley, S. C. (2013). Teacher identity development in the first year of teacher education: A developmental and social psychological perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 23 32. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273 289. Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1530 1543. Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77 97. Korthagen, F. (2009). A pra´tica, a teoria e a pessoa na aprendizagem profissional ao longo da vida. In M. A. Flores & A. M. Veiga Sima˜o (Eds.), Aprendizagem e desenvolvimento profissional de Professores: Contextos e perspectivas (pp. 39 60). Mangualde: Edic¸o˜es Pedago. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020 1041. Lopes, A., & Pereira, F. (2012). Everyday life and everyday learning: The ways in which pre-service teacher education curriculum can encourage personal dimensions of teacher identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 17 38. Loughran, J. (2009). A construc¸a˜o do conhecimento e o aprender sobre o ensino. In M. A. Flores & A. M. Veiga Sima˜o (Eds.), Aprendizagem e Desenvolvimento Profissional de Professores: Contextos e Perspectivas (pp. 17 37). Mangualde: Edic¸o˜es Pedago.

378

MARIA ASSUNC¸A˜O FLORES

Lunenberg, M., Zwart, R., & Korthagen, F. (2010). Critical issues in supporting self-study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1280 1289. ME, Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o. (2007). Polı´tica de Formac¸a˜o de Professores em Portugal. Lisboa: ME/DGRHE. Moreira, M. A., & Vieira, F. (2012). Preservice teacher education in Portugal. The transformative power of local reform. In J. M. Paraskeva & J. Torres (Eds.), Globalism and power. Iberian education and curriculum policies (pp. 94 105). New York, NY: Peter Lang. No´voa, A. (1992). Os professores e as histo´rias da sua vida. In A. No´voa (Ed.), Vidas de Professores (pp. 11 30). Porto: Porto Editora. Olsen, B. (2008). Teaching what they learn, learning what they live. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Pillen, M., Beijaard, D., & den Brok, P. (2013). Tensions in beginning teachers’ professional identity development, accompanying feelings and coping strategies. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 240 260. Rex, L. A., & Nelson, M. (2004). How teachers’ professional identities position high-stakes test preparation in their classrooms. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1288 1331. Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2014). A importaˆncia da voz pedago´gica e da aprendizagem produtiva nos programas de formac¸a˜o inicial de professores. In M. A. Flores (Ed.), Formac¸a˜o e desenvolvimento Profissional de Professores. Contributos internacionais (pp. 17 39). Coimbra: Edic¸o˜es Almedina. Sachs, J. (2001a). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 148 161. Sachs, J. (2001b). Learning to be a teacher: Teacher education and the development of professional identity. Confereˆncia convidada proferida no Congresso da ISATT, Faro, Portugal, Setembro 21 25. Sancho, J. M., Correa, J. M., Giro´, X., & Fraga, L. (Eds.). (2014). Aprender a ser docente en un mundo en cambio. Simposio internacional (pp. 45 55). Barcelona: Dipo`sit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2445/50680 Schepens, A., Aelterman, A., & Vlerick, P. (2009). Student teachers’ professional identity formation: Between being born as a teacher and becoming one. Educational Studies, 35(4), 361 378. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., Moore, C., Jackson, A. Y., & Fry, P. G. (2004). Tensions in learning to teach. Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 8 24. Sutherland, L., Howard, A., & Markauskaite, L. (2010). Professional identity creation: Examining the development of beginning preservice teachers’ understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 455 465. Thomas, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2007). Learning to live well as teachers in a changing world: Insights into developing a professional identity in teacher education. Journal of Educational Thought, 41(3), 229 243. Thomas, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2011). Understanding new teachers’ professional identities through metaphor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 762 769. Timostsuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2010). Student teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1563 1570. Veiga Sima˜o, A. M., & Flores, M. A. (2006). O aluno universita´rio: Aprender a autorregular a aprendizagem sustentada por dispositivos participativos. Cieˆncias & Letras, Revista da Faculdade Porto-Alegrense de Educac¸a˜o, 40, 229 251.

Developing Teacher Identity in Preservice Education

379

Veiga Sima˜o, A. M., & Flores, M. A. (2010). Student-centered methods in higher education. The International Journal of Learning, 17(2), 207 218. Vieira, F. (2013). The scholarship of pedagogy in adverse settings: Lessons from experience. In M. A. Flores, A. A. Carvalho, & I. F. Fernando (Eds.), Back to the future: Legacies, continuities and changes in educational policy, practice and research (pp. 257 276). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Zimmermann, P., Flavier, E., & Me´ard, J. (2012). L’ identite´ professionnelle des enseignants en formation initiale, Spiral-E. Revue de Recherche en E´ducation, 49, 35 50.

PART V PEDAGOGIES OF MEDIATION AND MENTORING

COLLABORATIVE MENTORING PEDAGOGY IN INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION: LESSONS FROM A SCOTTISH CONTEXT Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe ABSTRACT There is currently an increasing interest all over the world in the improvement of teacher education and the quality of teachers. Teachers are now expected to be lifelong learners in order to strengthen their professional knowledge. Mentoring as a component of collaborative partnership between schools and universities is considered a tool for improving teachers’ professional practice. Essentially, collaboration in mentoring between teachers and student teachers is acknowledged as being pivotal and instrumental to personal and professional development in initial teacher education contexts. However, studies indicate that the enactment of collaborative endeavors in mentoring processes between teachers and student teachers are not without challenges. Thus, this chapter documents collaborative mentoring pedagogy as practiced and experienced in a relatively new teacher education reform context in Scotland. Drawing on what has been learned in the Scottish context, the challenges to effective

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 383 401 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022001

383

384

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

collaborative mentoring pedagogy and the means for strengthening collaborative mentoring pedagogy are discussed. Lastly, a framework for developing and enhancing collaborative mentoring pedagogy in initial teacher education is suggested. Keywords: Teacher education pedagogy; mentoring; initial teacher education; teacher education reform; teachers and student teachers; Scotland

INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on collaborative mentoring pedagogy in initial teacher education (ITE) drawing on a study conducted as part of a teacher education reform project in Scotland. Literature indicates mentoring fosters the professional development of student teachers, early career teachers, and experienced teachers (Aderibigbe, 2013; Aspfors & Bondas, 2013; Kutsyuruba, 2012). It is also reported that mentoring between teachers and student teachers underpinned by collaborative philosophy aids students’ learning (Aderibigbe, 2013). Not surprisingly, collaborative endeavors between teachers and student teachers are seen as an integral component of effective teacher education (Blase´, 2009; Hudson, 2013; Nevin, Thousand, & Villa, 2009). However, Allen (2008) argued that many teachers do not authentically get student teachers engaged in collaborative professional discussions but rather expect them to imitate their pedagogical styles. Similarly, Cosnefroy and Buhot (2013) report that mentors were not flexible in some studies but instead were more directive and student teachers were not expected to ask questions. Explaining this phenomenon further, Aspfors and Bondas (2013) report that some experienced teachers may not be comfortable when their expertise and competence are challenged by others. Hence, this chapter aims at discussing the challenges and measures required to strengthen collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers. The chapter concludes with implications for developing and enhancing a collaborative mentoring pedagogy in initial teacher education contexts.

THE CONTEXT The data reported in this chapter stem from a larger teacher education reform project undertaken in a Scottish context. The project focused on

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

385

restructuring an undergraduate Bachelor of Education program in Primary Education and mentoring was a foundational support structure for preservice and novice teachers’ professional learning. Consistent with American reform initiatives, the project involved research, the engagement of Arts and Social Sciences faculties, and teaching as a clinical practice as the basis for revising the curriculum. As well, the project was built on a collaborative partnership model of teacher education involving a university and six local councils in the northeastern part of Scotland. Drawing on socioconstructivism, the project offered students the opportunity to make sense of professional learning through active engagement with university tutors and practicing teachers in schools (Aderibigbe, 2011). While students learned and students taught in schools, they were also expected to work collaboratively in a mentoring situation alongside with experienced teachers to strengthen their professional skills and development. Essentially, the mentoring is a collaborative learning endeavor aimed at fostering the professional knowledge and skills of both student teachers and experienced teachers in school contexts (Aderibigbe, 2013). Within the framework of the particular teacher education program, students are offered core courses on “how to learn,” “how others learn” and “from learning to teaching” in Years 1 and 2. In addition to theories learned in university, students are also organized in pairs for 1 day per week in school placements over 12-week periods in Years 1 and 2. In these school placements, students have the opportunity to reflect on theories learned in their university classes and how they are related to the learning and teaching process while observing practicing teachers in schools. Preservice students also seize that opportunity to further develop their thinking about teaching profession and to strengthen their understandings of school culture. Consistent with this, Sears, Cavallaro, and Hall (2004) suggest that beginning teachers should have preliminary exposure to schools in order to connect their university courses with school curriculum as lived. Furthermore, preservice students engage in learning conversations with classroom teachers to clarify assumptions and also share their views/ ideas with the teachers. In Years 3 and 4, the prospective teachers are given the opportunity to develop their knowledge further about pedagogy with core courses such as “foundations of learning for professional practice” and “developing professional knowledge.” As well, students are paired with classroom teachers who are expected to support them throughout their extended school placement period. At these stages, students are allowed to teach and put theories learned into practice under the tutelage of the experienced teachers and their university tutors. Regular meetings between

386

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

teachers and student teachers were also encouraged for them to plan and evaluate approaches used in conducting class activities. Additionally, university tutors also visited schools to evaluate students’ performance, providing them with necessary advice and also meetings with the teachers acting as mentors. In short, Years 3 and 4 placed emphasis on pedagogical development and provided a foundation for Years 5 and 6 within the program’s framework. As practiced in the context, prospective teachers’ status changed to those of early career teachers after completing the 4-year Bachelor program and fulfilled the standards for becoming probation teachers. During the 1-year probation period, early career teachers are assigned dedicated mentors. This happens in Year 5 in the context and also has an extended 1-year period seen as Year 6. At these stages, early career teachers are expected to work collaboratively with their mentors and also engage with the university through attendance at continuous development program (CPD) events or at Masters’ degree program offerings. In preparation for the field experience, they are given orientations to field experience and how to relate with the school community while practicing teachers were also invited to attend training/CPD events. At such events, teachers were given training about field experience and mentoring process. In addition, the CPD and orientation programs offered both preservice students and classroom teachers the opportunity to clarify expectations and get updated about the project as changes were research driven. That is, the program was formatively evaluated on an ongoing basis and changes were made with empirical evidence considered. It is also worth mentioning that a partnership office was also established to coordinate students’ field experience and also to serve as an intermediary between the university and the partner primary schools.

THE STUDY The following research questions guided the collection of the data presented in this chapter: • What are the challenges to collaborative mentoring pedagogy between teachers and student teachers in the ITE context under study? • What are the measures required to enact and strengthen collaborative mentoring pedagogy between teachers and student teachers in the ITE context under study?

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

387

A concurrent mixed methods approach using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used to collect data between March and September 2010 in Aberdeen, Scotland. Using the quantitative approach, survey questionnaires were distributed to supporting teachers and student teachers engaged in collaborative mentoring relationships. Questionnaires helped to build a picture of the challenges and means to facilitate collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers in the ITE context. Using the qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were also conducted with teachers, student teachers, and university tutors participating in the project. Specifically, interviews were used to tease out the views of teachers, student teachers, and university tutors on collaborative mentoring relationships between teachers and student teachers. Lastly, data analysis was done using a combination of descriptive statistics and thematic techniques.

RESULTS The findings are consistent with the focus of the study.

Challenges To determine the challenges in collaborative mentoring pedagogy, students and teachers were asked questions related to their mentoring experience in the quantitative phase. In response to the question concerning the reasons why their mentoring experience was not so good, students identified inadequate support from supporter teachers, communication problems, personality clashes, unrealistic expectations of both teachers and student teachers, differences in interests and expectations, and teachers not wanting students to supervise (Table 1). Similarly, when asked about how they feel about supporting student teachers, a good number of the supporting teachers indicated that they would like to learn specific skills in order to support students. Some also said there could be difficulties at times with supporting students while some teachers indicated that they did not have a clear understanding of what is expected of a supporting teacher (Table 2). From the quantitative data, it is apparent that collaborative relationships between teachers and student teachers were challenging as a good

388

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

Table 1. Student Teachers’ Views on the Causes of Less Positive Relationships with Their Supporter Teachers (n = 26). Reasons Given

Number

Lack or inadequate support from supporter teacher Communication problems Personality clashes Unrealistic expectations from teachers and student teachers Differences in interests and expectations Teacher not wanting student Teacher approaching retirement Inadequate time to bond A change of teacher halfway through Teacher’s expectations incompatible with those of university Teacher not wanting change in the class Total

Table 2.

6 5 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 26

How Prepared the Teachers Feel about the Experience of Supporting a Student Teacher (n = 145).

How Prepared the Teachers Feel About the Experience of Supporting a Student Teacher

Percentage

I feel comfortable in my role I would like to learn specific skills to support students I feel there could be difficulties at times with supporting these particular students I would like to practice specific techniques I do not really have an understanding of what is expected of a supporter teacher I don’t know much about it

58 49 27 17 10 0

number of the supporting teachers were concerned about their abilities to support student teachers and that also explained why some supporting teachers would like to learn specific skills to assist students. It is therefore not surprising that some students indicated that their mentoring experience was not good and challenging. The data from the qualitative phase illuminated some challenges reported in the quantitative phase as shown in the emerged themes that follow: inadequacy of time, differences in teachers’ and tutors’ values and opinions, age and experience of teachers and student teachers, personality clashes, and inflexibility and difficulty with stepping back.

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

389

Theme 1: Inadequacy of Time A key finding is that time is a challenge for collaboration to develop in mentoring between teachers and student teachers. A student teacher notes: Time is a huge factor because as a student you can’t help but feel like you’re a bit of a burden, you’re a bit of an inconvenience because everybody is so busy. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 1)

A tutor adds that: Sometimes class teachers either do not have the time or will not give the time to spend with a student talking to them, and that can be a challenge. (Tutor 4)

A supporting teacher also sees time as a challenge but explains that students’ commitment to other activities and distance could also be factors: It probably would be very difficult to implement because with student teachers and teacher because probably of where they live, and a lot of them have jobs and they need to go away so you don’t get the time to sit and discuss things with them. (Supporter Teacher 4)

From the data, the inability of teachers, students, and university tutors to dedicate time to professional conversations due to other commitments can hinder the enactment of collaborative mentoring relationships. Theme 2: Differences in Teachers’ and Tutors’ Values and Opinions The data revealed that differences in the values and opinions of tutors and teachers regarding teaching and learning can threaten collaborative mentoring. This difficulty is articulated in the following comments: There are a lot of times when the University tutor would say one thing and your supporting teacher would say another. (B.Ed. 4 Student Teacher 1)

A tutor acknowledges the variations in the views of teachers and tutors but explains that this could be as a result of the differences in the agendas of schools and university. The systems are there because schools are organised and sit within local authority policy and the school of education sits within a university system with its policies, and the agendas are different sometimes, so that can pose challenges. (Tutor 4)

It is apparent from this finding that collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers may be challenging in situations where views of tutors and teachers are in conflict as a result of differences in their institutional agendas.

390

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

Theme 3: Age and Experience of Teachers and Student Teachers Age and experience of teachers are seen as factors that can pose a threat to the enactment of collaborative mentoring. The following remarks illustrated these viewpoints: When we go in now to schools with new ideas, and maybe these teachers that are near retirement maybe don’t see these things as important to them, because they’ve done it the old way for years and it’s always worked for them. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 4)

Issues of age and experience seem not to be peculiar to the supporting teachers alone. Some of the participants indicate that age and experience of student teachers may also play a significantly challenging role in collaborative mentoring. I find that the slightly more mature students will tend to have a more realistic expectation of what they can expect from a supporting teacher, whereas I think sometimes the younger students who themselves are straight from school are expecting probably more support, in the sense of being really told what to do more, and they don’t necessarily question, to the same extent as perhaps a more mature student would. (Tutor 2)

Reinforcing this view, a student teacher explains that being a young teacher she needs more support from her supporting teacher. … I’m a younger teacher and I don’t have that loud authoritative voice that some teachers do have. (B.Ed. 4 student teacher 1)

From this finding, some supporting teachers who are close to retirement seem to not be willing to cooperate and learn new ideas especially from the student teachers. Perhaps, this may be because of the differences in the kind of teacher education provided to teachers and student teachers. On the other hand, some very young student teachers may also find it challenging to collaborate effectively with their supporting teachers. Theme 4: Personality Clashes The data indicate that personality clashes can hinder the effectiveness of collaborative mentoring relationships as suggested by the participants. There can be barriers I think at the level of interpersonal relations. Personalities … sometimes people just don’t get on. (Tutor 5)

A student teacher explains that her supporting teachers did not relate well with her from the first time she was introduced to her: When I was introduced to the teachers, they didn’t show much interest in having a student, or they weren’t very forthcoming in terms of asking you about things or answering questions that I had for them. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 4)

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

391

She explains further that the personality clashes between her and the supporting teachers may be because they were not trained teachers but nursery nurses. Well my tutor mentioned that she thought it was because the team that I was working with, at that point weren’t actually teachers, they were nursery nurses … and I have heard of other people saying that when the teachers were nursery nurses, and felt a tad threatened. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 4)

This finding suggests that collaborative mentoring may not work as desired in the situations where people find it difficult to bond with one another. This could be because they are not like-minds and can also be as a result of pairing of student teachers with auxiliary staff such as nursery nurses to act as supporting teachers. Theme 5: Inflexibility and Difficulty with Stepping Back The data showed that inflexibility and inability of some teachers to step back for student teachers to try out new approaches can pose a challenge to collaborative mentoring: I know my teacher found it difficult not to sort of interrupt, because she does things a certain way and I might not particularly going to do it in that way. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 4) Some people maybe find it a little bit of a challenge to not do it the way that they’ve always done it. (Tutor 1)

A supporting teacher also acknowledges that it is difficult to step back but that is due to a reason: I have got to take a step back, which is quite difficult because I can see that my class are kind of a bit falling behind in certain areas. So it is quite a worry. (Supporter Teacher 2)

She, however, explains that it may not be an issue for her to step back if a student teacher is not struggling: My student is a good student. She’s not a struggling student by any means but if it was a struggling student then, the behavior goes out the window. (Supporter Teacher 2)

This revelation indicates that inflexibility of some supporter teachers with regards to their preferred teaching approaches could hinder the enactments of collaborative mentoring. However, in order to protect students’ learning, some teachers may find it challenging to step back when a student teacher is not really doing well but struggling.

392

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

Now, measures and conditions required to facilitate collaborative mentoring relationships between teachers and student teachers as gathered in this Aberdeen, Scotland study will be shared.

The Way Forward The accumulated data gathered from multiple sources using different research tools suggest that the challenges to collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers are not insurmountable if certain measures and conditions are put in place. From the quantitative data, the student teachers indicated that the challenges to collaborative mentoring can be brought under control. Most importantly, willingness to spend time together, to learn from one another and giving constructive feedback are considered necessary for collaborative mentoring to be strengthened. They also indicated that good relationships, better communication, honesty and trust, clear understanding of expectations and mutual respect for each others as factors that could strengthen collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers (Table 3). Table 3. Conditions for Collaboration to Develop in Mentoring Relationships between Supporter Teachers and Student Teachers in the Classroom (n = 129). Condition for Collaboration to Develop in Mentoring Allocation and creation of time for discussion Willingness and openness to learn from each other Constructive feedback and reflective conversations Good relationships Better communication Honesty, trust, and reliability Clear understanding of expectations Mutual respect for each other Teamwork Supporter teacher being approachable Supporter teacher wanting student Learning conversation Pre-field experience meetings between tutors and supporter teachers Teachers having knowledge of students’ experience Informal meetings and conversations Relaxed and friendly environment Understanding of school and university ethos Total

Number 30 23 16 11 10 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 129

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

393

Similarly, the teachers’ views of how collaborative mentoring can be strengthened include: clear guidelines as to what is expected of teachers and student teachers, more continuous professional development (CPD) events, provision of placement’s handbook before students’ arrival, provision of tutors’ phone numbers and e-mail addresses, and information about planning and structuring of the planning folder (Table 4). From the qualitative data, some themes emerged with regards to the conditions required to strengthen collaborative mentoring relationships between teachers and student teachers. They include co-planning ahead of lessons, attitudes of supporting teachers and student teachers, School ethos and leadership, better communication and reciprocal arrangements between universities and schools, and a national policy on the selection and training of mentors. Theme 1: Co-Planning Ahead of Lessons Co-planning ahead of lessons is identified by the participants as a key factor that can create opportunity for mutual learning and collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers. I guess if you decide what the aim is and, to plan what the role of both people is going to be and to plan what you’ll be doing. (B.Ed. 4 Student Teacher 2) I think that has to be planned out with the people so that you each know what you’re doing so that you are working together. (Supporting Teacher 2)

This view suggests that efforts need to be made by teachers and student teachers to plan ahead of lessons for collaborative mentoring relationships to be strengthened. Doing this would offer the opportunity for them to clarify their roles and responsibilities to one another while working together. Table 4.

Further Support from University for Collaborative Mentoring Relationships (n = 57).

Further Support From University for Collaborative Mentoring Clear guidelines on university’s expectations of students and supporter teachers More CPD events Provision of placement’s handbook before students’ arrival Phone numbers and e-mail addresses of tutors Information about planning and structuring of the planning folder Information about students’ level of knowledge On-line materials Total

Number 23 10 8 7 5 2 2 57

394

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

Theme 2: Attitudes of Supporting Teachers and Student Teachers Attitudes of supporting teachers and student teachers toward teaching and learning are thought to be an important condition that can facilitate the enactment of collaborative mentoring. A student teacher notes that: There’s no point in the teacher coming prepared and you thinking, I just won’t do that tonight and then you’re not prepared in the morning. You need to be prepared; if she’s willing to put in the hard work then you need to be willing to double the hard work. (B.Ed. 4 Student Teacher 3)

Similarly, a supporting teacher explains: I don’t think I would be doing my job as a teacher if I was so rigid that I couldn’t move from my plan. If she would like to do something slightly differently, I would have to move away from that and we could discuss it and then decide where we would meet. (Supporting Teacher 5)

And a tutor reckons that the enactment of collaborative mentoring may be influenced by the attitudes of student teachers and supporting teachers. It depends on the teachers openness to that collaborative process and the students self efficacy. (Tutor 1)

This finding indicates that the attitudes of student teachers and supporting teachers need to be encouraging and they should be willing to learn from each other at any given opportunity if collaborative mentoring relationships are to be promoted. Theme 3: School Ethos and Leadership Participants indicate that the school leadership’s approach and established school ethos are important conditions for collaborative mentoring to be facilitated: I think it’s the whole maybe ethos of the school and kind of the headteacher, ‘cause our headteacher was quite good and liked having students in and that kind of impacted the rest of the teachers. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 2) I suppose in a school with good ethos, it’s easy to set up the cooperative and collaborative approach and for students to learn from teachers, and teachers to learn from students. (Tutor 3)

Additionally, some participants revealed that it is the responsibility of the school leadership to select supporting teachers who are truly willing to work with student teachers and also monitor the relationships between teachers and student teachers.

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

395

… in choosing who is going to be a supporter teacher, they should ensure that that the person really wants to do it and have some enthusiasm for working with students. (B.Ed. 4 Student Teacher 2) I think it will be helpful if the senior management were to keep an eye on the mentors and discuss so that they can see that what they’re providing is appropriate. (Tutor 3)

From the data, it is clear that school leadership with a collaborative philosophy and established collaborative school ethos are necessary conditions for the enactment of collaborative mentoring between practicing teachers and student teachers. Theme 4: Better Communication and Reciprocal Arrangements between Universities and Schools The participants indicate that effective communication is a key condition for the enactment of collaborative mentoring. This notion is illustrated in the following comments: I think if there was more communication between teacher and university, two way communication rather than just sending them stuff that they have to read. (B.Ed. 3 Student Teacher 3) I think it’s important to know exactly what’s expected of myself as somebody who’s going to be supporting the student. (Supporter Teacher 3)

Reciprocal arrangements where university tutors and supporting teachers exchange visits and share ideas with regards to teaching and learning can also strengthen communication. Consequently, this can enhance the enactment of collaborative mentoring between supporting teachers and student teachers. I think probably if in the long term we were to develop a reciprocal arrangement with class teachers and tutors in here, and that mentors were able to come in and actually experience alongside the students some of the coursework. (Tutor 4)

A student teacher also expresses optimism that the involvement of tutors in classroom activities can strengthen collaboration and can be motivational to children. … obviously your tutor came to watch you and I had Mrs Anthony (Pseudonym), she came in and observed and she took part in my lesson, which was great. (B.Ed. 4 Student Teacher 3)

This revelation implies that more discussion through face-to-face interaction, telephone, and e-mail can potentially strengthen communication through provision of the field experience “book.” Reciprocal arrangements

396

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

between university tutors and supporting teachers are also seen as a necessity to enact collaborative mentoring. Theme 5: National Policy on Selection and Training of Mentors The enactment of a national policy aimed at restructuring mentoring practice is seen as a condition to strengthen collaborative mentoring. A tutor remarks: The policy might be such that there are criteria for selection of mentors and that mentors are trained, mentors are recognised, be that accreditation or whatever, so that there’s a professional recognition and value of the role of mentoring. (Tutor 4)

Another tutor highlights the importance of training for supporter teachers as part of the means to enhance collaborative mentoring practice. The tutor stresses the need for supporter teachers to be given full-scale training instead of CPD events or lectures at university. … what kind of professional development might be helpful to them? Is it one of hit and run lectures or workshops from university? I think a lot of continuing professional development, in-service provision of sort seems necessary. (Tutor 5)

This conception suggests that government policy on how mentors are selected and trained to certification level are indispensable conditions to enhance collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, collaborative mentoring pedagogy as experienced in a Scottish teacher education reform context was documented. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, data were collected and analyzed. The data revealed that challenges for collaboration to develop seem to be inherent in collaborative mentoring between supporting teachers and student teachers (Allen, 2008; Aspfors & Bondas, 2013; Cosnefroy & Buhot, 2013). For instance, lack of time for those involved in mentoring was a huge challenge to the enactment of collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers. Perhaps there was inadequate time because teachers and university tutors were preoccupied with other responsibilities on the one hand. On the other hand, students’ commitment to part-time jobs and having to commute to their school of practice were also hindering factors to the enactment of collaborative mentoring. Without enough time for professional conversation, it is not surprising that differences in values

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

397

held by teachers and university tutors were a challenge to the enactment of collaborative mentoring relationships. The differences and varied priorities set by tutors and supporting teachers may be a result of their institutional affiliations and agendas. However, this would not have been much of a challenge if enough time had been created for professional conversations to take place. The data also underline the need for efforts of universities and students to be intensified if collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers is to be strengthened. On the one hand, universities would need to strive to allocate close-by schools to students for their field experience. Cooperation and support of local councils and schools would be highly necessary for this to be achieved. On the other hand, students would also need to reduce their commitments to part-time jobs when engaged in field experience. Reducing commitments to part-time jobs would in turn help them to focus on their personal and professional development while experiencing the collaborative mentoring process during their field experiences. Further, the data suggest that age and experience of both teachers and student teachers could be a challenge to the enactment of collaborative mentoring. From the data, it seems that senior teachers who are closer to retirement may lack the vigor to learn new things from others, especially the student teachers. This might be the case because they have been using specific approaches which they consider to be working and as a result may not be really keen to try new approaches. Perhaps, this explains why it is reported that some teachers were not flexible or well-disposed to being asked questions by the student teachers (Cosnefroy & Buhot, 2013). This might also be because they have different kind of initial teacher education compared to student teachers with whom they are working. That notwithstanding, it seems apparent that teachers’ willingness to collaborate with others and to provides platforms for student teachers to work collaboratively with them are indispensable for collaborative mentoring. The issue of age and experience as a constraint to collaborative mentoring was not limited to teachers as the data indicate that students who are much younger, with little or no work experience, may find it challenging to actively collaborate with teachers. However, the data indicate that some teachers found it challenging to step back for student teachers to try out new approaches while working together in a mentoring situation. As explained by a supporting teacher, this could be the case especially in a situation where student teachers are considered weak. This is because having weak students coordinating classroom students’ learning could be disastrous and the supporting teachers have to take responsibility for what happens in their class.

398

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

So, the data suggest that skills are required for teachers to be able to understand when and how to step back for student teachers to take a lead role. Student teachers also need to be more committed to mutually agreed plans in order to reassure their supporting teachers of their willingness to cooperatively enhance student learning. Further, the findings indicate that this may not be the case in this context as personality clashes were seen as a challenge to the enactment of collaborative mentoring. As some participants explained, not all relationships are healthy and productive as people may simply not bond together. Thus, the data point to the fact that collaborative mentoring may not work in situations where people are not likeminded with shared orientations and aspirations. More importantly, the data underscore the need for student teachers to be paired with trained and qualified teachers while on field experience. However, the data suggest that collaboration can be enhanced in mentoring between teachers and student teachers when some measures are taken. For instance, co-planning ahead of lessons is thought to be a key factor that can create opportunity for mutual learning and collaborative mentoring. Perhaps, this is because it could provide them with the opportunity to discuss the aims of their actions and roles to be played by each individual. In addition, the participants also believe that attitudes of supporting teachers and student teachers toward teaching and learning can enhance the enactment of collaborative mentoring. Thus, this finding suggests that supporting teachers and student teachers would need to develop positive attitudes toward teaching and learning if collaborative mentoring is to be achieved. Also, the data underscore the need for the student and supporting teacher to see themselves as partners in progress and to be willing to learn from each other. Further, school leadership and ethos are identified as important factors for collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers to be promoted (Cosnefroy & Buhot, 2013; Hudson, 2013). As the participants pointed out, it is the responsibility of the school leadership to choose supporting teachers with the requisite skills who are interested in supporting student teachers. If the school leadership fails to select teachers who are passionate about mentoring student teachers, the relationships may be chaotic and collaborative mentoring could be challenging. School leaderships can also enhance collaboration between teachers and student teachers by providing necessary resources such as well-planned learning and meeting spaces. Thus, the data underscore the need for school leadership to be meticulous in selecting passionate supporting teachers and providing enabling environments for teachers and student teachers to bond. More importantly, the finding underlines the important role of school leaderships

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

399

in promoting a culture of dialogue and collaborative learning (Cosnefroy & Buhot, 2013; Hudson, 2013). Better communication and reciprocal arrangements between university and schools are also believed to be highly essential for collaboration to develop between teachers and student teachers by the participants. As explained, two-way communication between schools and the university would strengthen collaborative relationships between supporting and student teachers. Also important is the involvement of student teachers in discussions between supporting teachers and tutors. Perhaps, this explains why the participants agree that reciprocal arrangements where university tutors and supporting teachers exchange visits and share ideas are necessary for the enactment of collaborative mentoring. Through such arrangements, it is believed that supporting teachers would be able to familiarize themselves with educational theories and be able to clarify assumptions while at the university. On the other hand, university tutors would need to know more of how the school systems work. Thus, the data highlight the need for better communication and reciprocal arrangements between tutors and teachers in order to foster collaborative mentoring. The data also suggest that a national policy aimed at restructuring mentoring practices with emphasis on the training and certification required is a necessity for collaborative mentoring to be enhanced. This was mentioned in a Scottish government document entitled Teaching: Scotland’s Future popularly known as the Donaldson Review (2010). However, the policy document did not clearly show the kind of training and the kind of certificate required to serve as mentors. Therefore, the study underscores the need for these issues to be clearly addressed in future national policy documents in Scotland and elsewhere. As the participants explained, CPD events are useful but a more comprehensive training for supporting teachers would enhance their mentoring skills and also strengthen their collaborative mentoring pedagogy.

Implications for Developing and Enhancing Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy In this chapter, collaborative mentoring pedagogy was explored in order to shed light on the challenges and ways to promote the pedagogy in ITE context. The data gathered highlight some challenges in collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers. Further, the data suggest that the challenges in collaborative mentoring can be surmounted through collaborative efforts and the commitment by all the stakeholders. Thus, the study has some implications for mentoring practices guided by egalitarian

400

Table 5.

Framework for Enhancing Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy between Teachers and Student Teachers.

Student Teachers Attendance at orientation in preparation for field experience

Attendance at training and CPD events

Schools/Leaderships

Selection of mentors that are passionate about Engagement in university supporting course lectures to foster student teachers understanding of some and also open to educational theories learning from Understanding student teachers’ others including expectations and needs student teachers Being open to learning from and university student teachers tutors Stepping back and also observing student teachers in Support for student class while teaching and teachers as and collaborating when necessary when necessary Provision of constructive Promotion of feedback to student teachers collaborative culture in schools

University/Tutor Provision of orientations and trainings for student and supporter teachers

Government Establishment of mentoring policy highlighting the kind of training and certification required to serve as mentors

Provision of ongoing support for student and supporter teachers during the field experience periods Funding of ITE Updating university courses scheme consistently with school curriculum and government policy Engagement in class activities with teachers and student teachers during the field experience periods Making efforts to allocate close-by schools to students for their field experience

SEMIYU ADEJARE ADERIBIGBE

Being open to learning from others including supporter teachers, school leaders, and tutors Honest discussion with supporter teachers about expectations and needs Active engagement in planning and teaching class lessons along with supporter teachers Reduction of commitment to part-time jobs during the field experience periods

Supporter Teachers

Collaborative Mentoring Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education

401

and collaborative principles in the ITE context. Essentially, collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers can be strengthened with a combination of resources and efforts from teachers, student teachers, school leaderships, university tutors, and government as shown in Table 5.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This study was funded as part of the Scottish Teachers for a New Era project in the School of Education at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

REFERENCES Aderibigbe, S. A. (2011). Exploring collaborative mentoring relationships between teachers and student teachers. TEAN Journal, 3(1), 407. Retrieved from http://194.81.189.19/ojs/ index.php/TEAN/article/viewFile/75/155 Aderibigbe, S. A. (2013). Opportunities of the collaborative mentoring relationships between teachers and student teachers in the classroom: The views of teachers, student teachers and university tutors. Management in Education, 27(3), 125 140. Allen, M. (2008). Promoting critical thinking skills in online information literacy instruction using constructivist approach. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 15(1), 21 38. Aspfors, J., & Bondas, T. (2013). Caring about caring: Newly qualified teachers’ experiences of their relationships within the school community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(3), 243 259. Blase´, J. (2009). The role of mentors of preservice and inservice teachers. In L. J. Saha, & A. G. Dworkins (Eds.), International handbook of research in teachers and teaching (pp. 171 181). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media LLC. Cosnefroy, L., & Buhot, E. (2013). Workplace learning impact: An analysis of Frenchsecondary-trainee teachers’ perception of their professional development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(6), 679 694. Donaldson, G. (2010). Teaching Scotland’ future: Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf. Accessed on April 20, 2011. Hudson, P. (2013). Strategies for mentoring pedagogical knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 363 381. Kutsyuruba, B. (2012). Teacher induction and mentorship policies: The Pan-Canadian overview. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(3), 235 256. Nevin, A. I., Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (2009). Collaborative teaching for teacher educators: What does the research say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 569 574. Sears, S., Cavallaro, C., & Hall, S. (2004). Quality early field experiences for undergraduates. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(1), 75 79.

MENTORING AND MEDIATING THE INTERFACE OF MULTIPLE KNOWLEDGES IN LEARNING TO TEACH CHALLENGING CONTENT Steven Z. Athanases ABSTRACT Learning to teach subject matter topics that emerge as challenging for culturally and linguistically diverse students remains a key goal for prospective teachers. Teacher education needs multiple ways to guide preservice teachers (PSTs) for this work. One context for such teacher development is classroom-based teacher inquiry. I describe an innovation in teacher inquiry pedagogy that mentors PSTs in (a) mining multiple sources of knowledge for teaching challenging areas of content learning, (b) systematically analyzing knowledge gleaned from these sources, and (c) mediating through visual representations the overlapping, reinforcing, and sometimes conflicting ideas gleaned from sources, in order to advance conceptions and practice in content-based learning for diverse youth. I describe the pedagogy in practice, then use a case of one PST to illustrate how her knowledge evolved in learning to teach persuasive writing to early adolescent English language learners. It was in the

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 403 426 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022022

403

404

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

knowledge sources interface, mediated by visual representations and written reflections, that this PST’s developing knowledge gained texture and depth. Keywords: Teacher education pedagogy; teacher knowledge; teacher inquiry; teacher research; teacher education; mentoring

Though research on teaching describes a complex knowledge base for effective teaching, which includes both teacher thinking and practice (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013; Zeichner, 2012), challenges remain as to how best to foster and study its development. Some practices cut across content areas, but still salient in the knowledge base are contentspecific issues and how best to teach them. How shall teacher education develop knowledge and practices teachers need to effectively teach complex domains and processes of a subject area? One such learning opportunity is teacher inquiry, which has shown promise in preparing teachers for complex demands including subject-specific issues. Teacher inquiry occurs in many teacher education programs in the United States, the location of the work described in this chapter, and also among teachers in many other nations (Borko, Whitcomb, & Byrnes, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Grounded in reflective practice (Scho¨n, 1983), inquiry includes positioning practitioner as researcher rather than object of study, systematicity in gathering and analyzing data, and development of an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Goswami, Lewis, Rutherford, & Waff, 2009). Some models feature social justice and equity (Fecho & Allen, 2003) or critical perspectives on practice (Scherff, 2012). Documentation of learning from preservice teacher inquiry is scant and needed (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grossman, 2005). Among areas needing attention are documentation and studies of actual pedagogies for teacher inquiry. In this chapter, I describe elements of one such pedagogy. Over the past 12 years, I helped create an inquiry-based teacher credential/MA program at a California research university and have taught a secondary English cohort-based inquiry course for preservice teachers every year. Drawing upon promising practices and challenges, I developed a program of research that examined processes and learning afforded by a particular inquiry model, as well as challenges in the work. I reference findings from the research program in this chapter. Because of this extensive set of experiences and my own ongoing reflections and revisions to my inquiry instruction

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

405

based on findings from the research program, I draw upon my own work to describe pedagogical practices I developed to address a problem that emerged from our research. A persistent need for PSTs is to develop deep understandings about content area challenges for their students, how and why students struggled, what resources and strengths students brought to the class that could be mined for use in learning in the challenging area of subject matter learning, and how to adapt instruction to better meet students’ needs, based on themes emerging from classroom-based inquiry (Athanases, Bennett, & Wahleithner, in press). The fields of adolescent and academic literacies have evolved in recent years, with particular attention to disciplinary literacies, multimodal literacies, and social justice perspectives on teaching English to diverse learners (i.e., Moje, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). The PSTs needed access to new understandings in the field. They also needed access to other “knowledges,” including the wisdom of practice of regional educators who have been exploring and testing innovative practices to meet the needs of diverse youth in the region. Too often PSTs operate in a vacuum, unaware of what others have explored in a particular problem area, unprepared to integrate into their conceptions and practice the knowledge of others and to challenge such knowledge with what they were coming to learn as they engaged with inquiry in their own classrooms. What was needed was (a) explicit attention to mining multiple sources of knowledge for teaching the emerging challenges of content learning, (b) systematic analysis of knowledge gleaned from these multiple sources, and (c) a way of mediating the overlapping, reinforcing, and sometimes conflicting ideas gleaned from sources, in order to clarify and advance conceptions and practice in content-based learning for diverse youth. These concerns catalyzed innovations in my teacher inquiry pedagogy that I describe in this chapter. After describing the pedagogy, its origins, and its purposes, I elaborate on some of the elements in practice. I then provide evidence of some success through documenting how one PST engaged in the process. I end with considerations for those in other nations who might explore similar kinds of pedagogical innovations.

DESCRIPTION OF PEDAGOGY Developing knowledge of content and how to teach it is a longstanding focus of the knowledge base of effective teaching. I begin by describing key

406

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

ideas from this work and how it helps frame what I try to focus on in the pedagogy I describe for preservice teacher inquiry. I then describe other ideas of the pedagogical work and how they inform practice.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Teacher Inquiry Content knowledge for teaching features pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), an amalgam of content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1987). The PCK includes how to sequence subject area topics logically, how to scaffold learning of challenging curricular concepts, and how to predict and address common subject area difficulties, errors, and misconceptions (Ball, 2000; Shulman, 1987). The PCK includes at least two subdomains. The first is knowledge of content and students (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Teachers may ask: What do students understand about this content? What do different students need to know and learn? Such issues call for understanding varied student responses, to know what these indicate for student learning and to anticipate strategies that might best facilitate learning specific content based on present understanding levels. The second PCK subdomain is knowledge of content and teaching (Ball et al., 2008). Through practice, a teacher learns to teach specific content. As PSTs reflect on practice, they may ask: What do I need to know of particular content to teach it? What happens when I do X or Y in my teaching? How do such actions promote or impede content learning? To prepare teachers who can meet the needs of all students, PCK development likely needs to be central in teacher education (i.e., Grossman, Schoenfeld, & Lee, 2005). Certainly methods and courses are a site for such learning. However, these may be insufficient and at times provide little more than direction to resources (Hochstetler, 2007; Totten, 2005). Clinical practice in teaching provides a context to test ideas learned from coursework, supervisors, and others, and supervision conferences offer possibilities to develop PCK. Such conferences, however, often miss opportunities to advance subject matter knowledge development (Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009), directing supervisees to comply with resident teachers’ practices without discussion of why (Soslau, 2012). Also, meaningful critical feedback from resident teachers on preservice teachers’ practice may be minimal and, in some cases, redirects efforts from student-centered teaching to mandated curricula and scripts (Anderson & Stillman, 2010). Learning to teach is complex; new teachers’ concepts of subject matter and its teaching

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

407

follow a twisting path of development (Smagorinksy, Cook, & Johnson, 2003). New teachers need varied opportunities to develop such concepts and practice. Among approaches holding promise in this work is teacher inquiry. To promote PCK development through teacher inquiry and to address the problem I described in PSTs’ work, I revised my teacher inquiry pedagogy to create a learning space that enabled PSTs to deeply explore teaching and learning in a content domain that emerged as challenging for them with their adolescent learners. My practice here has two key dimensions informed by research conducted by my colleagues and me. First, I explicitly mentor PSTs’ engagements with a range of more-expert knowledge sources (detailed later) relevant to a particularly troubling area of content, while PSTs at the same time conduct classroom inquiry to generate their own original knowledge about diverse students and their learning in that same troubling content domain. In this way, I guide PSTs to construct understandings driven by their authentic questions and informed by explicitly and consciously working at an interface of knowledge of others who have examined practice and study in a focal content domain, and in situ knowledge-construction developed in authentic encounters in real classrooms. Due to the simultaneity of engagements with multiple knowledge sources about an emerging problem area of subject matter teaching, PSTs engage with much information in a relatively condensed learning period. For this reason, the second feature of innovation in my practice is the use of visual representations to map developing knowledge of teaching and learning in the target content domain. This use of figure-making enables exploration and articulation of links across sources to deepen understanding.

Model: Responsive Teacher Inquiry The model of preservice teacher inquiry within which this pedagogy occurs is responsive teacher inquiry. By this, I mean that inquiry is responsive to content, context, and professional community. Inquiry in this model needs to target English content. When focused on content, inquiry may provide opportunities to reflect on content-focused teaching and learning to support knowledge development for teaching subject matter (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), a key area for new teacher development. Inquiry also needs to respond to contexts of students and their diverse cultures, languages, and communities, to support one’s

408

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

early-career capacity to attend to diverse learners’ strengths and needs. My colleagues and I have found that this focus enables PSTs to learn about their culturally and linguistically diverse learners through a range of data collection tools and analyses (Athanases, Wahleithner, & Bennett, 2012). Inquiry in this model also responds to professional community, including PST peers, course professor and teaching assistants, resident teachers, and larger communities of educators and researchers whose best thinking is represented at conferences and meetings, at online professional network sites, and in books and journal articles. Explicit use of multiple knowledge sources helps collapse hierarchical structures of knowledge generation. Over several months, preservice teachers of secondary English convene as a cohort to engage in inquiry into teaching and learning of a curricular area that has emerged as challenging to their students. Broadly speaking, the English curriculum in the United States includes the study of literature and informational texts, as well as the language arts of reading, writing, speaking, and listening and, in some cases, critically viewing and visually representing. During this inquiry period, PSTs in this program engage in practice teaching in local middle and high schools serving adolescents roughly aged 12 18. Contexts for their practice teaching are culturally and linguistically diverse classes, in overall high poverty communities, and with many English learners (ELs), students developing English language proficiency while enrolled in content area coursework. PSTs collaborate in topic-alike groups of 4 6 who meet on an ongoing basis for mutual support, feedback on emerging foci, and critical scrutiny to minimize analyses not well grounded in data or not carefully reasoned.

Engaging Multiple Knowledge Sources Much has been written in recent decades about needing to create spaces to connect and explore linkages between theory and practice in teacher education. I wish to complicate this binary of theory and practice slightly. I posit a view of available knowledge sources for teacher learning related to subject-specific work as multiple, potentially mutually reinforcing, and at times conflicting and raising critical questions. In the pedagogical model I describe for teacher preparation, multiple knowledges are explicitly explored, documented, and tapped for use in teacher learning. These knowledge sources are of two kinds. The first kind is what I call moreexpert sources: research articles; interviews tapping the wisdom of practice of regional educators; standards documents generated by professional

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

409

groups; and online practical resources shared by teachers regionally, nationally, and globally in the public domain. The second kind of knowledge arises from original classroom inquiry PSTs conduct in their practice teaching classrooms, particularly attending to learning from one’s students about the challenges, learning preferences, and cultural and linguistic resources students bring to subject matter learning. Inquiry at the intersection of challenging content and diverse students including English learners can focus PSTs on close examination of student work and documenting achievement that is there, in order to build student learning (Athanases, Wahleithner, & Bennett, 2013). To maximize potential for in-depth study of how diverse learners engage with challenging content, the classroom-based inquiry focuses especially on how four focal students (two of them ELs of varying levels of English language proficiency) engage with, struggle with, and understand the content area the group is exploring. In this way, classroom-based original inquiry works intentionally in dialogue with other “knowledges,” and the PST’s developing knowledge for teaching content may be traceable to specific sources and the interface of these sources. Why does such an array of knowledge sources matter for teacher learning as teachers engage in classroom-based inquiry? Teachers often resist academic research as it feels unrelated to K-12 classroom concerns, uses language inaccessible to K-12 teachers, and often positions teachers as the problem with education (Freedman, Simons, Kalnin, Casareno, & The M-CLASS Teams, 1999; McNamara, 2002; Zeichner, 2009). Since inquiry foci often originate in classroom life, many who conduct teacher inquiry do not find it necessary to document where a problem comes from. Also, because many conducting teacher inquiry hold the goal of feeding new insights back into practice rather than sharing it in public forums, they find it unnecessary to situate the work in larger conversations recorded and published. While such a position is compelling, it risks perpetuating a solipsistic effort, in a vacuum, unaware of parallel efforts in other classrooms, other “labs.” Many teacher inquiry reports include few if any references, often with a mere nod. Some miss the potential of linking inquiry to readings for creative leaps in thinking and transformation of understanding (Hubbard & Power, 1999). Still, limiting knowledge sources to published research for teacher inquiry is inadequate and perpetuates hierarchical notions of where knowledge originates in education and who constructs it. Some longerterm inquiries conducted by inservice teachers illustrate novel thinking about kinds of knowledge sources to be tapped for teacher inquiry and

410

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

what such diversity of knowledges can yield for teacher learning. For example, as she tried to understand data she collected about young children’s struggles with literacy and imagination, Gallas (2003) used theoretical and empirical works to shape analyses and provide explanatory power; however, she also tapped other sources including literary authors, social and psychological thinkers, verifiable and retrievable sources from wildly disparate fields, a bank of classroom experiences, and her own life experiences. This rich range of sources helped this teacher to develop and refine a theory of imagination and literacy. Whatever the sources, preservice teachers in particular benefit from learning how the process of situating context-specific classroom details in larger literacy ideas and conversations helps to deepen understanding and also make a case matter to larger communities (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). In this way, the writer abstracts from particulars. This enables moving from reporting what happened to reflecting on what happens (Moffett, 1968).

Mapping and Mediating the Interface of Knowledges As I work with PSTs to mine these multiple knowledge sources in explicit ways, I acknowledge how such practice introduces additional messiness to a developing teacher’s learning process. This practice introduces a complex web of knowledge and practices that can overwhelm. To manage this complexity, I also introduce a process that mediates PSTs’ developing knowledge and enables them to synthesize sources. I mentor PSTs in mapping the interface of knowledges through use of figure-making. Figures offer preservice teachers a means to explore, draw connections, and make sense of the multivocal, multiperspectival approach to making meaning as a new teacher. These tools help display emerging understandings, challenge new teachers to extend their thinking, and serve the metacognitive function of thinking conceptually about what one is coming to learn about teaching. Figure-making is an important mediational process. Beyond representing understanding, different modes actually enable different kinds of understanding, with unique possibilities to shape meaning (Bruner, 1986; Eisner, 1994). Figure-making is meaning-making a creative process of selection, decision-making, and ownership for knowledge-building. Visual tools map how task or problem components interrelate (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Often routinized beliefs prevent teachers from seeing and being receptive to new ideas (Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano, 2005); figure-making enables

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

411

preservice teachers to move past fixity of belief and understanding to flexible engagement with discoveries. On a task plane, learners solve immediate problems; on a tool plane they advance learning for future use (Martin & Schwartz, 2009), material tools mediating interpersonal knowledge to be internalized later (Vygotsky, 1962; Wertsch, 1985). A figure gets reified, “talking back” to its creators with a life of its own, which may help PSTs manage complexity, reveal gaps, draw connections, resolve conflict, reframe a problem, chart more nuanced understanding, sharpen learning targets, and chart inquiry actions and pedagogy. In the next section, I describe in some detail how I guide PSTs through engagements with multiple sources and a process of mapping and reflecting on the interface of multiple knowledges.

THE PEDAGOGY IN PRACTICE Problem areas in teaching English to diverse learners that PSTs select for extended study fall roughly into response to literature, reading comprehension, writing, oral communication, and language structures and mechanics. Specific topics within these broad categories that challenge adolescents have included how to help students move from summarizing plot in literature to analyzing characters and themes, how to help students comprehend Shakespeare’s language, how to generate evidence that supports claims effectively in analytic writing. I mentor PSTs in engaging with diverse knowledge sources that hold potential to deepen their understanding of a troubling area of subject matter content and how to teach it effectively with diverse learners.

Mining Multiple Knowledge Sources Table 1 shows that I extend the notion of teacher inquiry as intentional and systematic (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) by mentoring PSTs to be intentional in data collection from multiple knowledge sources and systematic in their data analyses (far right column on the next page) of a rich range of sources. For teacher interviews, I lead the full cohort in developing questions to adapt to focal content areas and present interview strategies. After PSTs transcribe interviews, I lead a workshop on coding interviews for themes. Group members collect into a single document

Preservice Teachers Researching Multiple Knowledge Sources in a Content Area Domain.

Source of Knowledge and Information Related to Focal Subject Area Domain

Preservice Teachers’ Data Collection Action Regarding Focal Subject Area Domain

Preservice Teachers’ Analytic Actions

Each individual interviews two teachers about their knowledge and practice in the focal domain

• Transcribe interviews • Code for themes • Reflect and write memo on emerging themes • Recognize patterns across teacher interviews in a group • Thematically organize patterns of ideas and elements

Regional or national standards documents

Review documents for relevant information and guidelines

• Distill key ideas • Analyze similarities, differences, trajectories across grade levels, if relevant

Published, relevant research studies

Cull from research studies what is relevant to teaching a particular subject area domain or topic

• Critically read and examine research articles • Raise questions about the research studies • Articulate ways research ideas and findings do and do not relate to one’s teaching context & domain of inquiry

Professional print and online teaching resources

Search print and online professional resources for relevant teacher practices, lessons, artifacts, tools

• Highlight particularly relevant and promising resources • Connect practical field-tested practices to other parts of a developing PCK [knowledge] base for a particular domain of ELA

Students and their learning patterns

Student work samples

• Repeated reading for pattern-finding • Documenting achievement that is there

Students’ reflections on their learning: asking and listening beneath the surface of activity

Surveys with Likert scale items; open-ended questionnaire items; scenario-based prompts; shortanswer reflections on classroom activity

• Counting numerical data and displaying with Tables & Figures • Coding

Focal students

Student work samplesInterviews

• In-depth analyses of writing • Coding of interviews

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

Teacher interviews: Local educators with reputations for effective teaching in the focal subject area domain

412

Table 1.

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

413

the coded interview data across their group (two interviews per group member). In this way the group has a body of interview data from which they report on themes using interview quotes as evidence and support. The same process gets repeated for interviews with focal students (Table 1, bottom row, previous page). For standards documents, group members review documents for information relevant to their focal content area and analyze how specific standards expand across grade levels. For example, how do expectations for participating in class discussions at one grade level gain complexity in later grades? For work with research studies, we spend class time exploring key words and online databases for relevant research from top-tier research journals, and I mentor students about genre conventions of academic research and provide a scaffolding document to help them cull relevant information from often-dense language. The PSTs construct memos that distill article findings, raise critical questions, and provide notes on relevance to English domains PSTs identify as challenging. For print and online field-tested teaching resources relevant to their focal area, I provide print journals and magazines to search, and we do online searching together. Groups co-construct databases of such resources for use in their individual inquiries. For student work samples, I guide PSTs to write field memos, exploring use of text boxes and other highlighting tools to indicate what exactly students are doing and not doing in their writing. For students’ reflections on their learning (Table 1 previous page), I lead a workshop on constructing surveys and questionnaires using selected response items, open-ended items, and scenario-based prompts. We practice collecting data from our own cohort using online survey tools and explore ways to display quantitative and qualitative trends in data. The PSTs construct and deliver PowerPoint presentations that include findings from all of their knowledge sources and how they use this knowledge to frame, understand, and complicate their knowledge development. Even in their first inquiries, PSTs can manage collection of a broad range of data and relatively in-depth data analyses, if supported by instructor and peers (Athanases, Bennett, & Wahleithner, 2013). Each PST chronicles the inquiry featuring especially the learning of four focal students. Slides and notes document inquiry focus; community, school, and class contexts; research questions; and evidence justifying need for a study focus and plan of action. Also included are overview and databased profiles of focal students, methods for data collection and analysis, detailed results and commentary, synthesis of learning through inquiry, and next steps for follow-on studies.

414

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

Mapping the Interface of Knowledges Through demonstration and discussion, I introduce several forms of visual representation that might serve PSTs in mapping developing understandings. These include matrices, webs, tree diagrams, Venn diagrams, and concept maps. In workshop format, we try out using each of these visual structures in pairs to display and make sense of a set of problem-based scenarios. We then discuss as a full group what different visual displays yielded, what kinds of seeing each enabled, and what different structures failed to capture. We discuss potential of less structured, more open, creative forms shaped by emerging understandings and taking on novel images and structures. We then discuss what materials PSTs need to map their conceptions of their focal content area. Some groups opt for large white paper and colored markers, some move right to online tools, others begin drafting visuals with pencil and paper then move to digitized versions of what they map. Each group constructs one or two figures of their current conceptions of key components of their troubling focal content area at this point early in the process. They revisit and critique these first visuals and construct new more fitting visuals two more times: a month or more later, after group explorations into multiple professional sources; and yet another month or more later, after synthesizing learning from 4 to 6 classroom inquiries per group, each featuring 4 focal students. Accompanying each figure-making activity are opportunities for both group and individual oral and written reflections that explore what figures show and, in the case of later figures, how they add clarity since earlier versions. Oral reflections are audio-taped and described in memos by group members to capture how the group discourse shaped figures and meanings and how larger sociopolitical discourses about, for example, diversity, equity, and schooling informed figure-making and teacher knowledge (Orland-Barak, 2010). Written reflections include prompts to articulate links from the visual images to written narration, as text and picture links support learning (Gellevij, Van Der Meij, De Jong, & Pieters, 2002), and integration is key as modes reinforce each other into coherent visual and mental representations (Mayer, 2001). Repeated use of figure-making over time enables PSTs to revisit how in small groups they constructed their conceptions of key components of their focal content area and how their figures need to evolve, expand, or change entirely to better represent newer conceptions. Work products therefore include visual representations that a group mapped of their developing knowledge of an English Language Arts (ELA) focal area.

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

415

EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS: LEARNING TO TEACH PERSUASIVE WRITING TO EARLY ADOLESCENT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS For a first investigation into the innovation with a cohort of 25 PSTs, I asked three research questions: (a) In what ways did preservice teachers engage more-expert knowledge sources? (b) How did they link these to inquiries they conducted in their own classes? and (c) How did they use representational tools to map their developing understanding of a content area domain? Drawing upon a database of all PST work completed, I used qualitative data analysis procedures and the constant comparative method (Merriam, 1998) to answer my three questions. To understand links PSTs forged between more-expert knowledge sources and their own classroombased inquiries, I read data especially for ways ideas, discoveries, and themes were echoed in PST language across datasets. To understand ways PSTs’ constructed visuals represented their developing knowledge of their ELA focal area(s), I repeatedly reviewed all project visuals, claims PSTs made about meanings of these visuals, and PST reflections on values and shortcomings of representations and the process of constructing them. I illustrate some themes from the work, using a case of one PST and her group exploring the challenges of teaching persuasive writing to early adolescent ELs.

Olga and Her Group Focused on Persuasive Writing To illustrate, I selected a group focused on how to help early adolescent English learners produce persuasive letters. Teaching persuasive writing to any student is challenging; teaching it to early adolescents and in classes of exclusively ELs adds complexity. I focus on one group member I call Olga, a White monolingual PST who student taught at a school whose student population spoke more than 30 native languages in their homes. She selected four focal EL students diverse in gender (two males, two females), ethnicity (Latina, Hmong, Vietnamese, Indian), and English proficiency (mid-level to one recently redesignated English proficient). Initial Mapping While many groups create hand-drawn figures in early representations, Fig. 1 shows that Olga and her group created a simple list of counterargument/ rebuttal, analysis, and audience as components they understood to be

416

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

Persuasive Letter: 1. COUNTERARGUMENT/REBUTTAL Common Core: Acknowledge and distinguish the claim from alternate claims Rubric: Counterarguments are realistic and logical 2. ANALYSIS Common Core: Support claims with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text (ANALYSIS) Rubric Sources used correctly and precisely to support opinions 3. AUDIENCE Common Core: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience Rubric: Audience is clearly identified and appropriate for topic. Writer addresses him/her very consistently How does revisiting these specific elements improve content of our students’ writing?

Fig. 1. Olga’s Group Creates Its First Representation of Their Knowledge of Teaching Persuasive Letter Writing to Early Adolescent English Learners.

essential to persuasive writing and that needed explicit focus in teaching. In reflections, they elaborated on what the figure shows: knowledge sources they drew on at this point were the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) recently adopted and widely in use in the United States, as well as rubrics they had collected to guide assessment of persuasive letters. Olga noted of their early investigations, “audience, counterargument, and rebuttal presented themselves across all sources.” Second Mapping after Exploring More-Expert Sources: Focus on Challenges The group’s second figure, after systematic inquiry into multiple moreexpert sources, focused on challenges. From inquiry into these sources, Olga and her group learned of challenges early adolescents, in particular, have in composing standards-level persuasive writing. The group used a matrix (Fig. 2 following page) to chart ways new knowledge informed their understanding of persuasive writing elements they had featured. The figure shows how the pair cited specific sources for each learning target.

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

Counterargument Common Core

Rebuttal

Acknowledge and Acknowledge and distinguish the claim from distinguish the claim from alternate claims alternate claims

Teacher Students find it difficult to Interviews think of alternate opinions.

Trouble supporting opinion with logical, concrete support.

417

Audience Produce clear/coherent writing in which development, organization, & style are appropriate to…audience. “Ss encounter difficulty in their writing when they are writing to an audience they

have never written to before” Research

Students have trouble

presenting a complex argument. Usually they

Practical Resources

state their position and support that position (Ferretti et al., 2000). Bridging personal experience with persuasive writing task helps Ss be aware of opposing opinion. (Voices from the Middle)

Solutions:

Audience Rebuttal Counterargument

“The analysis indicated that

Language is not “pickedup by students, it needs to be

audience awareness goals

taught explicitly.” (Hammond, 2006)

were, in fact, effective in leading students to consider

opposing perspectives.” (Midgette et al., 142) Make the writing authentic (D’Souza)

Directing students with specific goals and indicating the importance of specific audiences results in better persuasive writing. Use activities that allow students to physically move inorder to better understand counterargument. Explicitly teach academic language.

Fig. 2. Olga and Her Group Represent Their Focal Area (Teaching Persuasive Essay Writing to Middle School English Learners) after Exploring and Synthesizing More-Expert Sources.

Words in bold print show how the pair focused especially on challenges for student writers that warranted attention. For example, they noted a key counterargument problem gleaned from teacher interviews: Students find it difficult to think of alternate opinions. Olga elaborated: From teacher interviews and professional resources, we found that students tend to have trouble with counterargument because they tend to stick “within their own mind.” We found that this … linked to problems found in the rebuttal. Students have trouble thinking of alternate opinions, which then makes it more difficult for them to support their opinion.

The problem (they tend to stick “within their own mind”) was salient for early adolescents the interviewed middle school teachers described as

418

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

somewhat egocentric, highlighting a challenge in guiding middle school students to engage opposing perspectives. Olga also identifies how this point aided discovery of a link between two persuasive writing elements they had identified for exploration: Students cannot write effective rebuttals to opposing views if they cannot effectively imagine and embrace what might be viewed as plausible in an opposing position. Olga and her group learned from sources of a second problem area: “identifying and writing to a specific audience.” Teacher interviews again proved illuminating (Fig. 2), supported by other sources: “Ms. Vance highlights that students tend to struggle when they are unfamiliar with their audience. Academic sources reinforced this claim by discussing students’ need for a specific kind of audience awareness when composing persuasive writing.” Olga and her group explored this latter point (Fig. 2) in analyzing a study focused on supports needed as fifth- and eighthgrade students revised persuasive essays (Midgette, Haria, & MacArthur, 2008). A third key idea about persuasive writing challenges that emerged from study of more-expert sources was what Olga called “a common thread of a lack of academic language students might be presented with while learning these genre specific elements.” This point grew especially clear when Olga and her group reported on research on second language learners in Australia studying Romeo and Juliet (Hammond, 2006). The study highlighted several kinds of language a teacher used to support students’ literary and linguistic engagements. A key finding of that study reported in Fig. 2 in the cell of research on rebuttal was that “language is not ‘picked up by students, it needs to be taught explicitly.’” Olga and her group found this research finding resonant and used arrows (Fig. 2) to show how academic language, difficult for crafting a rebuttal, was also key for other persuasive writing elements. Olga and her group also found special relevance, as this study focused on early adolescent ELs, similar to their own student population. Finally, Fig. 2 shows how Olga and her group culled from more-expert sources some solutions for addressing persuasive writing challenges: Based upon the common themes we saw across sources and genre specific elements within persuasive writing, we compiled a list of possible solutions to combat the problems. We believe that these solutions have the potential to aid students in the understanding and implementation of these genre specific elements.

These solutions show how Olga and her group gleaned implications and ideas for actions from an array of more-expert sources.

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

419

Inquiry with Focal Students Interfaced with Other Knowledge Sources Olga worked to understand why her students struggled with persuasive writing elements. She used three datasets to uncover reasons: multiple writing drafts; students’ notes, and sticky notes, indicating changes to make on later drafts based on feedback; and fieldnotes on interviews with focal students. Olga tracked ways students did and did not strengthen evidence, clarify ideas, and formulate effective arguments. Her analysis of patterns in her data deepened her knowledge of content and students regarding middle school ELs writing persuasive letters. There were echoes of more-expert knowledge sources as she reported trends in students’ understanding and performance. The first trend was students not recognizing problems in their writing. Despite Olga’s well-documented instruction and feedback, some students “seem to still be unaware of the problems concerning the audience/solution and counterargument/rebuttal within their essay.” As Olga interviewed focal students, she was startled at how some did not understand the genre terms and did not recall learning about them. Olga speculated: “I believe that difficulty is due (in part) to difficulty with the academic language.” Olga found a strong interface between what she heard in student interviews and what she read through research studies, depicted in Fig. 2. The second trend Olga noted was “application difficulties”: These students seem to understand that there is something wrong with their counterargument or rebuttal, but they don’t know how to change it to improve the content of their essay. For example, in Flora’s example she is aware that her counterargument is incorrect but she still had difficulty writing an effective counterargument. I believe this in part has to do with the students’ trouble thinking from another person’s perspective, as discussed in the teacher interviews … and interviews with my focal students.

Olga heard an echo of teacher interviews she had conducted. One of Olga’s focal students who was working on a persuasive essay on banning of books highlighted this problem area: The counterargument was the most difficult part in this essay for me because my head is thinking one way and I have tons of reasons why, but now I need to think up some ideas that run against my believe in this book should be ban, and it mess me up the whole way.

Olga found these remarks compelling, as teachers she interviewed reported how “students have trouble determining an opinion or side outside of their own minds. This student echoes that sentiment, explaining why this process

420

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

is difficult.” Olga forged links across sources (student and teacher interviews) to illuminate a problem she observed: “I found that this difficulty the teachers had uncovered mirrored students’ understanding of why they did not understand counterargument. This helped me to understand why my students had trouble writing a counterargument.” Olga’s use of mirrored marks an interface of sources. When Olga states this helped me to understand, she speaks to cumulative knowledge she is building due to the message coming to her from distinct sources. In this way she adds texture to her knowledge of content and students, the patterns of challenge early adolescent ELs and perhaps others may have with counterargument. This deepening knowledge of students’ struggle with counterargument enabled Olga to quickly see the pattern with another focal student writing about banning energy drinks in schools. Olga and her group explained how input from focal students (Fig. 3, Student Perspectives and Suggestions) reinforced what they had learned from other knowledge sources: What this figure shows is the consistency between the ideas we found about students’ needs from our various forms of research and our students’ actual suggestions about their own needs. Excerpts from our student interviews support the problems and solutions that we found throughout our data collection. For example, one excerpt shows how the students have trouble with the language, just as Hammond suggested in her article “High challenge, high support.” The focal student Flora states, “I didn’t know what a counterargument was …” This student couldn’t just “pick-up” the academic language.

Referencing Hammond’s (2006) study, Olga appropriates language of an academic researcher whose study was conducted with English language learners in an Australian context, in framing the problem she has discovered with her own students.

Role of Representational Tools in Mapping Themes at the Interface of Knowledge Sources Representations Olga and her group constructed show the care they brought to charting knowledge sources and ways these informed understanding of teaching and learning persuasive writing. A review of three visuals Olga and her group constructed reveals several points. First, their first visual, guided by standards, set a basic structure for their inquiries, organized by genre features of persuasive writing. These features, used in subsequent visuals as column headers, remained entry points for how

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

421

Counterargument

Rebuttal

Audience

Standards

Acknowledge and distinguish the claim from alternate claims

Acknowledge and distinguish the claim from alternate claims

Produce clear/coherent writing in which development, organization, & style are appropriate to…audience.

Teacher Interviews

Students find it difficult to Trouble supporting think of alternate opinions. opinion with logical, concrete support.

Published research

Language is not “picked-up Students have trouble by students, it needs to be presenting a complex taught explicitly.” argument. Usually they (Hammond, 2006) state their position and support that position (Ferretti et al., 2000). Bridging personal experience with persuasive writing task helps Ss be aware of opposing opinion. (Voices from the Middle) “I didn’t know what a “I don’t really know what “No. I don’t know who a counterargument was that is. Instead of saying the senator is. I couldn’t picture when we were writing the word for rebuttal [we that person. So I didn’t first draft.” should] say a phrase.” know what kind of solution “My head is thinking one to choose.” way and I have tons of reasons why, but now I need to think up of some ideas that run against my beliefs…and it messed me up the whole way.” “Seeing other examples would have been helpful, good examples.” “Going through each part of the essay slowly would have helped me.” “The feedback you write is helpful, but only when I have someone to go over with so I know it’s right.”

Practical Resources: journals & online Student Perspectives

Student Suggestions

Audience Solutions:

Rebuttal Counterargument Overall

“Ss encounter difficulty in their writing when they are writing to an audience they have never written to before” “The analysis indicated that audience awareness goals were, in fact, effective in leading students to consider opposing perspectives.” (Midgette, et al., 142) Make the writing authentic (D’Souza)

Directing students with specific goals and indicating the importance of specific audiences result in better persuasive writing. Use activities that allow students to physically move in order to better understand counterargument. Explicitly teach academic language. One-on-one attention Teaching individual parts of the genre Model good writing

Fig. 3. Olga’s Group Represents Their Focal Area (Teaching Persuasive Essay Writing to Early Adolescent English Language Learners) after Integrating Ideas from Multiple Knowledges.

Olga and her group explored persuasive writing with middle school ELs. However, Fig. 2 shows a huge leap in their developing knowledge of content and students, in how, for example, middle school students struggle to consider alternate opinions (teacher interviews) and have trouble

422

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

presenting a complex argument (research), how ELs need to be taught academic language explicitly (research), and how younger students need persuasive writing tasks to be authentic and bridged to personal experience (practical resources). The Solutions box (Fig. 2) also shows Olga and her group developing their knowledge of content and teaching ways to work with students to address problem areas of learning to write persuasive letters. Olga and her group mapped even more nuanced knowledge of their ELA domain in Fig. 3 by adding two rows to their matrix with information culled from their classroom-based inquiries. In their figure, Olga and her group align the first of these rows (Student Perspectives) with the three columns of their matrix (persuasive writing elements), adding specific sample quotations from their focal students that speak precisely to the three genre elements. Here, ideas from other knowledge sources, structured in the matrix by rows, gain texture with authentic student language. Olga notes: “The synthesis of my project is very similar to the themes I have found throughout these different data sets.” Just as they had culled pedagogical ideas from more-expert knowledge sources in their prior visual, Olga and her group add a box of Student Suggestions, concrete tips that deepen their knowledge of content and teaching, again related to writing in general and to persuasive writing with ELs in particular. This nuanced but carefully organized mapping (Fig. 3) demonstrates how Olga and her group have worked to map and make use of the multivocal nature of available knowledge related to the teaching and learning of persuasive writing with middle school ELs. The figure cites particular knowledge sources, uses quotations from a range of voices, and demonstrates how developing PCK for a content area domain can be non-hierarchically and authentically guided by perspectives of local educators, published academic researchers, standards documents, and students within inquiring teachers’ classes.

Suggestions for Educators from Other Countries: Locally Responsive, Globally Connected Much of the pedagogy described translates in some ways to other national contexts. Availability of standards documents may vary, but research articles and databases of teachers’ field-tested practices typically are available to international audiences. Perhaps a key challenge would be conducting teacher interviews with teachers who have expertise in a focal problem area

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

423

of subject matter teaching. In rural areas, PSTs may need to seek out teachers at greater distances and conduct interviews by phone or through technological media. Teacher interviews proved such a rich data source for PSTs in work I described that it seems essential to tap teachers who can speak to teaching challenges, drawing on their wisdom of practice. Also, local sites for practice teaching need to provide adequate opportunities for PSTs to reflect on and critique pedagogies and to explore alternatives in their practice teaching classrooms, in order to realize the possibilities of inquiry and data-based teaching adaptations.

CONCLUSION Despite increasingly complex conceptions of disciplinary knowing and literacies, schools and curricula often work in the opposite direction simplifying content knowledge and process into generic activity, products, and notions of “correctness.” Teachers often get asked to think and decide less about curricula, comply more with scripted curricula and lessons, and relinquish agency as subject matter experts and reflective practitioners (Stillman, 2009; Valli & Buese, 2007). Secondary teachers, in particular, need to enter these contexts, more than ever, with deep knowledge of content and teaching if they wish to be knowledgeable about discipline-specific ways of knowing and teaching, and to push back against generic, one-size-fits-all, test-driven models of curriculum and instruction. It becomes increasingly important for teacher education to develop varied opportunities to develop content knowledge for teaching in all of its complexity. The pedagogy I described demonstrates promise in guiding parallel inquiries into more-expert knowledge sources and classroom-based work. A focus on varied sources helped foster knowledge of persuasive writing elements that challenge learners and middle school ELs, in particular. Sources highlighted varied issues but taken together helped Olga and her group build PCK that was more than generic, tailored to diverse ELs. While some discoveries Olga reported may seem easily transmitted through direct instruction in teacher education, it appeared to be the echoing of themes across knowledge sources that added depth and texture to Olga’s developing knowledge for teaching challenging content. The project shows promise in using visuals to forge links across sources and to organize and display understanding. Such work may promote metacognition about developing PCK, making thinking more transparent and available for

424

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

guidance and study. The work is complex, resisting simplistic accounts of teacher preparation, and holds potential to capture the multisourced and complex nature of teacher development, especially as it relates to learning to teach challenging content area domains to diverse learners.

REFERENCES Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in high-needs schools: Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education, 45(2), 109 141. Athanases, S. Z., Bennett, L. H., & Wahleithner, J. M. (2013). Fostering data literacy through preservice teacher inquiry in English language arts. The Teacher Educator, 48(1), 8 28. Athanases, S. Z., Bennett, L. H., & Wahleithner, J. M. (in press). Adaptive teaching for English language arts: Following the pathway of classroom data in preservice teacher inquiry. Journal of Literacy Research. Athanases, S. Z., Wahleithner, J. M., & Bennett, L. H. (2012). Learning to attend to culturally and linguistically diverse learners through teacher inquiry in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1 50. Athanases, S. Z., Wahleithner, J. M., & Bennett, L. H. (2013). Learning about English learners’ content understandings through teacher inquiry: Focus on writing. The New Educator, 9(4), 304 327. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241 247. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389 407. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J. A., & Byrnes, K. (2008). Genres of research in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 1017 1049). New York, NY: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fecho, B., & Allen, J. (2003). Teacher inquiry into literacy, social justice, and power. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 232 246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normal achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694 702. Freedman, S. W., Simons, E. R., Kalnin, J. S., Casareno, A., & The M-CLASS Teams (1999). Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Mentoring and Mediating in Learning to Teach Challenging Content

425

Gallas, K. (2003). Imagination and literacy: A teacher’s search for the heart of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gellevij, M., Van Der Meij, H., De Jong, T., & Pieters, J. (2002). Multimodal versus unimodal instruction in a complex learning context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 215 239. Goswami, D., Lewis, C., Rutherford, M., & Waff, D. (2009). On teacher inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425 476). Mahwah, NJ: AERA. Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A., & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 201 231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 269 283. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262 272). New York, NY: Freeman. Hochstetler, S. (2007). The preparation of preservice secondary English teachers in writing instruction: A case study of three California colleges’ education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 70 79. Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher researchers. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse. Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teacher’s adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245 255. Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Prospective adaptation in the use of external representations. Cognition and Instruction, 27(04), 370 400. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 20(10), 1 9. McNamara, O. (Ed.). (2002). Becoming an evidence-based practitioner: A framework for teacher-researchers. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21, 131 151. Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1 44. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Learning to mentor as praxis: Foundations for a curriculum in teacher education. New York, NY: Springer.

426

STEVEN Z. ATHANASES

Scherff, L. (2012). “This project has personally affected me”: Developing a critical stance in preservice English teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 200 236. Scho¨n, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40 59. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1 22. Smagorinksy, P., Cook, & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399 1436. Soslau, E. (2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 768 779. Stillman, J. (2009). Taking back the standards: Equity-minded teachers’ responses to accountability-related instructional constraints. The New Educator, 5, 135 160. Totten, S. (2005). Writing to learn for preservice teachers. The Quarterly, 27(2), 17 20. Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304 322. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519 558. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. Zeichner, K. M. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376 382.

USING ACTION RESEARCH TO FOSTER PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTION ON THEMSELVES AS LEARNERS: EXAMINING BELIEFS AND CHANGING PRACTICES Carmen Montecinos, Andrea Ceardi and M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez ABSTRACT Addressing preservice teachers’ beliefs about learning is a key task of initial teacher preparation. In this chapter, we describe and reflect on the use of action research as a learning activity/assessment to address those beliefs within a required course on learning theories. Through this activity, preservice teachers engage in a cycle of observation-reflectionplanning-action-evaluation to change practices deemed ineffective. This use of action research has not been reported in the literature and we discuss our success as well as challenges in its implementation. Keywords: Action research; preservice teachers; preservice teachers’ beliefs; beliefs about learning; teacher education pedagogy

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 427 445 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022023

427

428

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

INTRODUCTION Engaging learners’ initial understanding is critical to how they will come to understand the new concepts and information addressed in a course; preconceptions that are not explicitly addressed will unlikely change (Donovan & Bransford, 2005). Addressing preservice teachers’ (PTs’) beliefs about learning is at the heart of initial teacher preparation (Hammerness et al., 2005; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006). Teachers’ beliefs about learning affect how they enact teaching in the classroom (James & McCormick, 2009). In this chapter, we describe and analyze action research (AR) as a tool for PTs’ reflection on their learning. In our review of the literature on the use of action research in initial teacher preparation, we failed to find papers in which action research is used to engage prospective teachers to examine their learning-related practices in university-based coursework. The premise of this chapter is simple: it is very unlikely that teachers who approach their own learning from a behaviorist perspective will come to teach in a constructivist manner. Stated differently, if I believe that to learn is to memorize the textbook’s content, why would I plan for my students to learn that content through hands-on inquiry? Based on this premise, four years ago, we designed an action research project as a key learning activity/assessment in the course Learning in Educational Contexts. This is a required course for secondary preservice teachers at Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Valparaı´ so (PUCV). Through this project we afforded opportunities for prospective teachers’ development of new understandings of how they approach learning and how they could change learning-related practices they found to be unproductive. Here we use the term practice in its broader sense referring to the behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and social relations enacted when engaging in a learning task (Kemmis, 2010). In what follows, we first describe the institutional context for initial teacher preparation and the course. Next, we outline how the action research project is scaffolded, providing broader information on the course as a whole. Drawing from an analysis of purposefully selected final reports, three patterns of prospective teachers’ engagement with this task are discussed. Finally, we reflect more generally on persistent challenges that may hinder PTs’ opportunities make sense of AR in the way we have intended a tool to promote analysis, reflection, and changes in their learning-related practices that treat knowledge as given rather than as something to be created by the learner. A more ambitious goal, achieved by few, is that by

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

429

problematizing their own learning PTs’ draw implications that may orient their understanding of teaching and future practice. We conclude by highlighting what we believe others internationally should consider if they were to enact our chosen pedagogy in their contexts.

PERSPECTIVE ON ACTION RESEARCH Action research in teacher education has been used extensively to integrate theory and practice, to develop an inquiry stance, and skills for lifelong learning in the workplace (Ax, Ponte, & Brouwer, 2008; Cochran-Smith, Barnatt, Friedman, & Pine, 2009). Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (2007) define action research in the field of education as: “‘insider’ research done by practitioners using their own site … as the focus of their study. It is a reflective process … deliberately and systematically undertaken and generally requires that some form of evidence be presented to support assertions” (p. 2). Action research, however, is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of practices which share some epistemological assumptions (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Noffke, 2009). According to Anderson et al. (2007), action research differs from other research approaches because it generates knowledge at the same time that it helps to resolve a problem in its context. Martı´ (2008) identifies three axes that differentiate among action research traditions: (a) orientation toward the individual versus the group; (b) whether the objective is transformation or improvement of practices and contexts; and (c) the level of participation of the various actors involved in the social situation researched (participatory AR). Location on these axes signals the kinds of learning/teaching practices which are encouraged or discouraged as the object of scrutiny; a point we address in the conclusions. Using Martı´ ’s criteria, the approach used in the course Learning in Educational Contexts is individual, aiming at transforming PTs’ learning practices and does not involve the participation of other actors directly involved in the learning situation (i.e., the professors’ practices or classmates if the project focuses on group work). Grundy (1982, in Leitch & Day, 2000) proposed a typology to distinguish between technical, practical, and emancipatory models of action research. Following this typology, in this course prospective teachers are asked to engage in the practical model of action research. As summarized by Leitch and Day (2000), researchers using this model are concerned with the process as well as the product of the investigation. The problem to

430

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

be investigated is framed by the moral and practical judgment of the researcher and by their capacities to identify problems that are salient in their professional contexts (in our case learning context). Reflective processes within this model focus upon building PTs/teachers’ capacities to self-assess through a cycle of observation-reflection-planning-actionevaluation. The aim of action research, within this model, is to improve the quality of actions within a situation, and the theoretical/pedagogical/moral reasoning that sustain judgments about quality.

INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION AT PUCV In Chile, most initial teacher education is the responsibility of universities. The PUCV is a high quality university, thus most students come with a history of academic success. At PUCV, all initial teacher preparation programs use a concurrent model. In the current chapter, we discuss the use of AR with examples drawn from a course section that is restricted to secondary preservice teachers pursuing a teaching degree in History, Geography and Social Studies (HGSS) for grades 7 to 12. The HGSS major is the responsibility of the History Institute and faculty within that department define the outcomes and the curriculum for this major. The curriculum encompasses 59 courses, of which 66% are courses focused on disciplinary knowledge. Among the remainder courses, three are practicum courses, two specific didactics courses, five professional education courses, and three general studies. The psychology department offers three required courses: adolescent development, social psychology, and learning in educational contexts. The AR project we discuss here is a learning/assessment activity within the last course. The course is scheduled for the fifth semester of the 10-semester program of studies and is taught by a lead instructor and a teacher assistant. Typically, enrollment in this course ranges from 30 to 40 students. This course meets once a week for a 180-minute session, for 18 weeks. Additionally, the instructors provide individual consultations to students at least twice in the semester.

THE COURSE: LEARNING IN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS The course has two overarching learning goals. The first is for prospective teachers to develop an understanding of how people learn in general and in

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

431

the area of their specialization. It covers theoretical approaches to learning and motivation including association, cognitive, and sociocultural perspectives. This content is accessed by students through readings, instructor-led lectures, and in-class activities. Knowledge of the theories covered is assessed through two exams and two research projects. The second goal is the development of research and reflection skills through the design and implementation of two research projects. One project asks PTs to develop a research question and produce data to understand school students’ motivation, understanding, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs when studying HGSS. The second is the Action Research Project (ARP).

The Action Research Project The ARP is an individual task. Collaboration among peers, however, is embedded throughout the process. PTs are asked to think of a learning problem they encounter in concurrent courses, or this course, that they would like to address through AR. The process is structured into four iterative phases. The trajectory through these phases is not linear as the outcome of one phase orients what to do next. For example, they may go through several iterations of the problem identification and supporting evidence phases before developing an intervention plan. 1. Problem identification to address the overarching guiding question: What could I change to improve my learning? This entails reflection based on evidence in order to identify a problem. 2. Production of evidence to refine the problem, translating it into a specific guiding research question. To determine what evidence is relevant, PTs are encouraged to use learning theories as well as deductive reasoning. Prospective teachers (PTs) are encouraged to use literature to identify appropriated tools for collecting evidence, to use several data sources, and use theory to analyze and reflect on the evidence produced. In this phase, PTs work collaboratively with peers to develop a meaningful interpretation of the data, seeking to understand alternative causes of the topic they have defined as problematic. 3. Definition and implementation of an intervention plan to change what has been defined as problematic. The actions need to be aligned with a theoretical perspective on learning and logically linked to the cause(s) identified as most probable in the preceding phase. PTs do a short

432

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

literature review to learn how other people have defined and address a similar problem. Throughout implementation, they continue to collect evidence to determine if the hypothesis needs to be revised. 4. Evaluation of the implementation, and reflection on the process and its outcome, drawing implications for teaching.

Key Teaching and Learning Strategies The ARP must be completed in approximately four months (an academic semester). During the semester, six class sessions address the concept and processes of action research. In these sessions, PTs engage in the activities described below designed to provide opportunities for rich classroom dialogue and formative feedback to guide improvement. To this end, reports developed by PTs in previous years and rubrics are provided and analyzed in class (Black, McCormick, James, & Pedder, 2006). To work on the various in-class learning activities, PTs are randomly divided into groups of four. Assigned Readings When selecting the readings, we attempt to address a key question in our preservice teachers’ mind: Why would they need to reflect and improve how they approach their own learning? These are students who have experienced success; they achieved good grades in high school and performed well in the college entrance examination to be accepted in this selective university. In addition to reading published action research studies conducted by teachers on teaching, as we have not found AR studies focusing on teachers’ learning-related practices, we invite a high school teacher who uses AR as a guest speaker. A second goal for the reading assignments is to understand how AR may operate at the methodological level, recognizing the highly contextual nature of the choices entailed. The readings include book chapters, published action research studies, and exemplary annotated ARP reports developed by PTs taking the course in previous years. To assess understanding of the texts, PTs may take a group quiz or write an annotated summary to be discussed in class. Mind Mapping as a Tool to Help Define the Problem A mind map is a visual representation, diagram, through which key concepts, ideas, tasks, or drawings, are displayed around a key word or

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

433

concept. According to Davies (2010), an advantage of mind mapping over concept maps is its unconstrained structure to represent associations among the elements, thus promoting creative thinking. In this course, we use mind maps at the phase in which PTs are defining the problem for their ARP. The instructor first explains and provides examples of the mind-mapping technique. The PTs draw their map based on brainstorming their learningrelated practices as well as characteristics of the learning situation in which the problem is evidenced (i.e., sitting in class lectures, reading an assignment). Next, they order these elements according to their level of importance, establishing associations among elements and any evidence they have produced to characterize the problem. Later, PTs take turns to analyze each other’s map. Peers are encouraged to ask questions about the map rather than give advice on how to organize the elements. They are also encouraged to “read” the map as a way of giving feedback on what meanings about the problem are being conveyed to their peers. In the final stage, each candidate writes a summary statement of the problem and research question. Critical Friends Group Protocol The Critical Friends Group Protocol (Dunne, Nave, & Lewis, 2000) was originally developed as a professional development tool to support collegial learning among teachers as they examined students or teachers’ work.1 In the context of the course, it has been adapted to structure conversations among peers to address issues related to the intervention plan. As explained by Dunne et al. (2000), the word “critical” means addressing an important issue through collaboration by developing norms for giving feedback, questioning, and problematizing practices and taken-for-granted assumptions. Through a four-phase process, the group works to deepen reflection that enables new understandings on the nature and relevance of the problem, the data gathered, and possible solutions. For example, a PT initially might claim that the problem is that she cannot concentrate when the professor is lecturing because she is sleep deprived. Through this process, she might come to understand that the problem is not the amount of time sleeping but how she engages with the lecture. The protocol is used twice in the semester, each time for 90 minutes. The protocol asks that one of the group members acts as the facilitator, monitoring the adequate adherence to the protocol, and time for each phase. Next, PTs take turns presenting an issue to the group, raising questions they would like the group to address. To this effect, after the presenter

434

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

finishes, the remainder members ask clarifying questions, seeking to understand what is at stake for the presenter. Next, they will talk about what they heard, without making judgments or giving advice. In this phase, the presenter only listens, thus “observing” the problem as an outsider. In the fourth phase, the presenter reports back on what he or she learned or the new insights developed from listening to their peers’ discussion. In the last phase, there is an open conversation that promotes reflection on what was learned through the process. After the process is completed, there is a whole class discussion on the use of the protocol as a method for engaging in collegial learning with peers. We have found that it is difficult for PTs to engage in this type of structured conversations. They will tend to give advice, make evaluative judgments, or spend too much time in a given phase, thus unable to work through the full process. To address these issues, the instructor will circulate among groups, signaling the transition to next phases, gently reminding the norms or prompting the facilitator to keep the group on task. The PTs report that this is a valuable activity; they benefit from listening to the new ways in which their peers frame the issues with which they have been struggling. Analysis of Examples of Journals and ARP Reports This activity is designed to help PTs understand the task as well as what a quality journal/report might look like. Three examples of journal entries (or an ARP report) representing three levels of achievement are analyzed. After individually ordering these examples from the most to the least developed, group members compare their ordering and develop the criteria used to assess the samples. Next, the same samples are provided but this time they have inserted comments that provide formative feedback from the instructor. The criteria developed by the group, is then contrasted with what instructors have defined.

Products Developed by PTs Journals Throughout the semester PTs keep a journal where they write the developing problem statement/question, learning context, the evidence that supports/refutes the problem/question and possible resolutions entailing changes in their learning-related practices. Journal entries are structured around three types of records (a) observational notes, (b) theoretical notes,

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

435

and (c) methodological notes (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973, in Valles 2003). Under observational notes, PTs describe the what, where, who, and why of the situation. They are provided with examples of the situations in which to examine their learning-related problem: in class, doing group work inside or outside the classroom, studying for an exam, or doing a research paper for a course. Under theoretical notes, they write the interpretations, inferences, relationships, hypothesis, and new insights regarding their understating of the situation in which the problem emerged. Under methodological notes, they identify potential actions to address the learningrelated problem. About four weeks into the semester, at least two journal entries need to be submitted to the instructors for feedback. In the final report at least eight journal entries must be included as an appendix. These entries may also be shared with classmates or be requested by the instructor during individual consultation sessions. AR Reports The PTs are required to prepare for grading, two reports. The preliminary report requests a definition of the problem/evidence, guiding question(s), and an action plan. The expectation is that the problem statement and intervention plan are justified through the use of literature, learning theory, and evidence. The PTs are given the rubric through which the level of development of the ARP is assessed (below minimum expectations, meets minimum expectations, fully meets expectations). The instructors provide detailed feedback and orientations on what needs to improve and pose questions to prompt further reflection. In the final report, PTs need to incorporate an appendix that explains how they addressed the feedback received in the preliminary report. The final report includes the following sections: (a) problem statement supported by evidence and literature, and the description of the context of the problem, briefly outlining the cyclical process for defining the problem; (b) intervention plan supported by a theoretical perspective and description of its implementation; (c) results; (d) discussion, conclusions, and reflection; and (e) references cited.

Instructors’ Feedback One of the most important roles of the instructor is to provide feedback to praise the good work and support the development of aspects that are

436

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

weaker. The feedback is provided through informal interventions during a lecture session in response to PTs’ questions, through formal instances such as the formative assessment of the journals and the preliminary report, and through individual consultation meetings requested by the candidate or the instructor. There are five categories of feedback. First, feedback is framed in the form of questions to prompt reflection. These questions can address motives, objects, objectives, unstated assumptions, strengths for learning, alternative ways of framing the issue, areas that they think need to improve, and so forth. The second type of feedback involves questions to highlight missing evidence or insufficient connections between the evidence gathered and the problem defined. The feedback may question the cause and effect relationship that has been hypothesized to develop the action plan. A third type of feedback provides concrete suggestions or advice on how to proceed. For instance, they may be prompted to produce a specific kind of data to support their hypothesis, to consider a specific action in the intervention plan, or to reword the question in order to make it researchable. The fourth type of feedback involves evaluation through a rubric developed for the research reports. Finally, at times, feedback relates to the PTs’ negative dispositions, which are reflected in behaviors such as repeatedly turning assignments late, missing class, or not using feedback.

PATTERNS IN PTS’ RESPONSES TO THE ARP ASSIGNMENT Through the years we have come to identify three patterns of PTs’ responses to this assignment. The first group includes PTs who complete the project without making sense of why and for what purpose their instructor is asking them to problematize how they learn and find out how they can learn more and better. They come into the course believing they are good student; they get good enough grades so they do not have a problem. The PTs will do what is required, as described in the rubric, often submitting a report that gives them a passing grade. This group echoes Ax et al. (2008)’s concern that PTs may come to see action research within initial teacher education (ITE) as “just pretending,” will not be committed to it, and will regard it as just one last difficult feat that they have to pull off to get their diploma” (p. 70). This pattern is exemplified in Table 1 through selected excerpts from a final ARP report submitted by a candidate during the fall semester of 2013.

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

Table 1.

437

Excerpts from a Final Report Exemplifying PTs Who do AR as “Just Pretending.”

Initial Problem: Motivation The situation I want to improve is my limited commitment with the course Environmental Geography. This is expressed in my [low] attendance and [not] performing complementary study activities to what is covered during class sessions. The situations just mentioned are mainly due to motivational problems with this course. (…) To date, I have passed all of the geography courses, in fact with grades above a 5.0 [grading scale at PUCV is from 1 7]. Looking at these data it could be inferred that my performance in the geography courses has shown responsibility, discipline, and commitment. But, that is not the case. Research Question How can I improve my motivation toward the course Environmental Geography in order to obtain better academic results and improve my responsibility towards this course? Intervention Plan: Comply with the external requirements and change behaviors To optimize the motivation needed toward the geography courses, it will be necessary to organize the minimum requirements that now I am not fulfilling, thus guaranteeing learning and understanding. The first objective is to fully know the course, to develop a wide perspective on what this course wants me to accomplish. For this, I will read, study, and analyze the plan for this course [syllabus] (…) The third objective, improve my concentration, will be achieved when the record of how many times I get distracted is reduced to half of the baseline value. Evidence of Implementation and Its Impact I read and analyzed the [syllabus] (…). Drawing conclusions about its relationship to my vocation and integrity as a future teacher. (…) Once I understood the close link between education and environmental pedagogy, I feel more committed to the course’s learning goals and to learn the content. Knowing what this course expects from me and its relationship to my everyday life and my environmental awareness, in addition to its relationship to my future work as a teacher, I now feel that it is highly important (…). My class notes did not improve much as the teacher sent to our email the PowerPoint used in class. I did order my class notes, achieving a chronological and thematic sequence of the notes I had (study techniques). I also got a complete notebook from a classmate known for his responsibility and academic order, in that way adding more notes and fully organizing them. Reflections on Implications for Teaching The crux of this issue is that in the future I will be a teacher who has lives in his hands (…). The formation of these people is determined to a large extent on my quality as a teacher. That is why a holistic performance and thorough knowledge of the history curriculum is more than necessary, it is vital. This is one of the motives, if not the most potent and determining one, for deciding to do my action research process within this course.

Bryant and Bates (2010) identified three reasons for teachers’ resistance to the action research course they taught in the context of a Master of Arts in Teaching program: lack of understanding of the what and why of action research; a discomfort with the emphasis on process over product and the

438

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

associated investment of time required; and unwillingness to embrace transformation as part of learning to teach. Among PTs in our course, we find that they may know the how, at the technical level, but through the course they never come to share the purpose of action research. Their initial problem statement and ending problem statement stay at a behavioral level, focusing on issues such as time and place where they study. Their reflections tend to be based on generalizations that never get to question the underlying assumptions, such as that grades are good, or even the only, valid and reliable indicators of learning. They collect evidence or design their intervention plan based on common sense ideas instead on learning theories. Selfassessment is superficial. For example, when writing how they would approach an ARP differently, they note that they would procrastinate less (without questioning why they procrastinate). These PTs also identify vague implications of what was learnt for their future teaching. If PTs cannot make sense of the ARP, it is likely that they will not engage in reflective thinking, self-assessment, and shift their intentions when learning. The second group includes PTs who show an interest in engaging in reflection and self-assessment but who experience difficulties when systematizing the process in writing. In this group, PTs may start with a problem defined in behavioral ways, like amount of study time, but end up establishing a connection between time and cognitive or affective components of learning. For example, they may come to question their intrinsic motivation toward becoming a teacher as a cause for not spending enough time studying. As the process for reframing the research problem was not linear, perhaps this shift in learning paradigm creates additional challenges when narrating the process in the linear format of a research report. In this group, PTs tend to use the rubric as a prescription and often over describe, repeating the same information throughout the report. The third group of PTs represents those who evidence an interest in taking a reflective stance toward their learning, self-assessing in a systematic way, achieving the expected outcomes of the course (see Table 2). This group will start the project by asking questions regarding how they process information rather than focusing on the amount of time they spend reading the text. They ask questions about their metacognitive skills and or the meaning of learning and use literature to expand their knowledge about these topics and design their intervention. They use the rubric as a guide rather than a prescription. Some PTs in this group make explicit the implications of how their new understanding about learning translates into how they will approach teaching from a constructivist perspective.

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

439

Table 2. Excerpts from a Final Report Exemplifying PTs’ use of AR to Improve Reading Comprehension and Retention through a Coherent and Consistent Cycle. Initial Problem: Reading Comprehension and Retention I do not retain the information from the texts beyond the test. Frequently, I cannot remember the author who developed the thesis. However, the grades on the test of these readings are not bad, ranging from 4.5 to 6.0. (…) I have become aware that it is not fruitful for my learning that after the test I forget the content I should have learned, evidencing a more stimulus-response type of learning as explained by Woolfolk, A. (1999) and Ahumada (2005). My learning is superficial; I memorize facts that will be forgotten as they are not meaningful. Research Question How can I improve my reading comprehension and retention of knowledge to create meaningful learning? Intervention Plan In the four scales of the ACRA test, I obtained a score below the 40th percentile, which led me to consider the suggestions provided by Mayor, J., Suengas, A. y Gonza´lez, J. (1993) for addressing low scores on HEA [Tests that assess metacognitive skills and deep/superficial processing] Evidence of Implementation and Its Impact First test: Implemented the plan almost completely and re-signified the content when completing the assessment, obtaining a grade of 6.0 The action plan was first applied in relation to a reading for a test in the course Hispanic America. As can be observed in Journal #8, I did steps 1, 2, 3 and 4, but not 5, because of time constraints ( … ). With respect to step 5, assessment and feedback, I showed a classmate my network and he said it was good. The TA also gave us feedback and said “the network is perfect and is the most complete and the best”. Reflections on Implications for Teaching: Importance of teaching information processing skills From the perspective of a future teacher it is important to acquire, elaborate, and communicate knowledge, so that as a facilitator my students acquire knowledge. My job is to teach them information processing skills that they can use when studying. Doing this AR helped me understand the learning processes one uses, not remaining at the acquisition and repetition of knowledge, but moving toward higher order thinking, which entails developing models and a re-elaboration of this knowledge.

PERSISTENT CHALLENGES TO CONSIDER WHEN ENGAGING PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN AN ARP The articulation of the goal of developing an understanding of major learning theories and the AR project remains a challenge. The sequence in which

440

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

learning theories are discussed in this course tends to follow the development in the field (behaviorist-cognitive-sociocultural), thus the theoretical references available early in the semester might be reinforcing a behavioristic view of learning. At end of the semester we find that a majority has moved toward cognitive explanations for their learning-related problem. This suggests further studies to examine the impact of the order in which learning theories are presented on PTs’ conceptualization of the AR problem. A second challenge is the feasibility of doing a well-developed ARP within the confines of a semester. The PTs must move through the different phases of the AR cycle mostly based on the calendar than on their development and mastery of the tasks/products required in each one. Class time for addressing the ARP is limited and not sufficient to meet the needs of the three groups described earlier. Some authors have raised questions about the possibilities of developing an authentic inquiry process in action research projects that are part of a course requirement and evaluation in teacher preparation (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). From our experience, time constraints could negatively affect the possibility of developing a recursive process of action and reflection, capturing the messiness of authentic action research. Additionally, given the fact that there are between 30 to 40 students per class, the amount of feedback the two instructors provide is probably insufficient two journals, two reports, plus individual consultations. Levin (2008) describes classes with large enrollment (50) as a “structural obstacle” for educating action researchers at the doctoral level because it reduces the possibilities of communication between instructors and students. Third, this course asks PTs to shift from a focus on teaching that pervades the education courses they have taken up to that point in the program of studies to a focus on themselves as learners. We find that through the previous education courses PTs have acquired the constructivist language. They will talk about the importance of meaningful learning, about mediation, the need to make content relevant to students’ everyday life, the importance of hands-on, minds-on learning activities, and so forth. This language, however, cannot be adequately used to analyze their learning. For example, by active learning, they usually mean the teaching strategies rather than what students will do and think in the learning situation. This focus on teaching fosters in an external attribution pattern which leaves little room to question internalized factors such as beliefs about what it means to learn or how one knows that one learned. This challenge, partly, evidences the fragmentation of the curriculum as faculty from one

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

441

department tends to be unaware of the teaching and content students experience in other components. At our institution, for example, faculty who teach didactics and learning do not meet. In contrast, DarlingHammond (2006) mentions that exemplary teacher preparation programs are learning-center and learner-centered, they have a clear and cohesive vision, and they have an inquiry approach to combine theory and practice. Additionally, Cochran-Smith and Lytle assert (2009) that inquiry as stance is not a project but a perspective. If a student teacher has one experience during the teacher preparation program, this could be insufficient to develop an inquiry stance. Maimon (2012) attributed a special importance to the role of her teacher preparation in learning to be a practitioner researcher; every course and assignment needs to be related to inquiry. Lastly, how do instructors acknowledge the emotional dimension of PTs’ apparent resistance to reflect on themselves as learners? Leitch and Day (2000) have critiqued cognitive approaches to teacher reflection that fail to engage the deep emotions that may arise when one is involved in a change process. Asking PTs in the context of a research project to unveil their feelings and emotions to an instructor crosses acceptable institutionally sanctioned professional boundaries. The three co-authors have all been trained as psychologists and this issue has important implications for our ethical commitment to the profession as well. When we have found ourselves working with PTs struggling with personal issues that call for the intervention of a psychotherapist, we counsel them to seek help. However, we still grapple with how much should instructors push PTs who, for whatever reasons, do not want to reflect on themselves as learners, particularly when this reflection is an assignment in a group setting, such as the Critical Friend Protocol.

CONCLUDING REFLECTION The challenges we have identified exceed the confines of our classroom and of Chile as they reflect ethical questions, problematize the structure and culture of ITE, and broader policies in which we prepare prospective teachers. Asking PTs to examine their learning practices is asking them to examine how their professors create conditions for learning. In our case, PTs describe extensively what other professors do as they provide evidence of the situation deemed as problematic. This creates an ethical dilemma as we have made a conscious choice to not transgress, by questioning how our colleagues teach and the norms of collegiality that faculty owe to peers

442

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

within the university. Although PTs are asked to think critically about the contexts in which they learn, we have circumscribed it as a personal space. That is, they are not encouraged to question the broader institutional context in which they learn, as would be the case of asking them to question professors’ views on learning or how the ITE curriculum frames learning tasks/situation in which “their” problem is constructed. As their professors are not participants in the research process, it is unethical to turn them into an “object” of study. It is why we ask that PTs focus on their own practices. We understand that in doing so we are limiting AR to the personal dimension of AR, ignoring the professional and political dimensions (Noffke, 1997, cited in Somekh & Zeichner, 2014). When the “ecology” of PTs’ learning practices are not subject to critical scrutiny, the risk is that we are preparing and mentoring teachers to adapt rather than change the conditions of their work as learners now and teachers once they enter the workplace. To address the political dimension perhaps PTs could be asked to analyze policy documents to uncover the conceptions of learning promoted by policies. This may help understand how their own ideas are connected to wider discourses. For example in countries, such as Chile, where the conception of learning is narrowed to scores on the national testing system, PTs could examine if, and how, this impacted their learning-related practices. In their critique of the practical model of action research Leitch and Day (2000) argue that by placing too much emphasis on the self and self-exploration, personal growth may become the whole focus and purpose of action research. Kemmis (2010) pointed out that the practices of the individual or of a community are related to the practices of other individuals and communities. Therefore, the learning-related practices we ask our PTs to scrutinize and change are not all of their own making. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) argued that practitioner research challenges the culture of universities. One of the “constructive disruptions” of practitioner research in teacher preparation programs is the conception of pedagogy: “inquiry pedagogy contrasts sharply with the more impersonal and transmissionoriented pedagogy that is typical of many university courses” (p. 108). Taking this ecological perspective, we wonder if PTs are served by taking a constructivist approach to learning if they will be assessed by professors who see learning as students’ adoption of authoritative explanations. This issue may be particularly relevant to teacher educators working in countries in which concurrent ITE programs take place in institutional settings characterized by a disconnect between university faculty in the arts and sciences

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

443

and faculty members in education. On this issue, our perspective is that learners need to develop a broad repertoire and strategically draw from this repertoire in relation to the learning task at hand. By reflecting deeply about their learning, they can become strategic. More broadly, at issue is the interaction between university culture and practitioner research. This is a topic that has not been profusely researched (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). This could be an interesting aspect to explore for other teacher educators, in collaboration with arts and science professors, considering their particularities, examine how learning is enacted across the curriculum. Influenced by neoliberal policies, education is experiencing an era of increasing accountability where the goals of education and teacher education have been reduced to the achievement of K-12 students on standardized tests (Cochran-Smith, 2002; Noffke, 2009; Zeichner, 2008). This has influenced the emphasis on preparing prospective teachers who can serve all students, within the intensification of standardized assessment and a standardization of the curriculum (see Rex & Nelson, 2004 , for a U.S. analysis). This context deepens a persistent problem in teacher education: Are we, and need we, prepare teachers to adapt to how policies envision teachers’ work (professors envision learning) or programs need to focus on helping prospective teachers’ transform the conditions in which they work (what and how they are asked to learn)? Although we may think we need to do both, ultimately in practice we end up doing it in an unbalanced way, based on our personal convictions. This dilemma sits at the heart of the issue of working to change PTs’ learning-related practices without asking them to address questions about the conditions faculty, institutions, and larger teacher education policies, create for learning to teach.

NOTE 1. see http://www.nsrfharmony.org/faq.html

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The reports that were analyzed came from 12 students who granted permission for us to use their work in the preparation of this chapter.

444

CARMEN MONTECINOS ET AL.

REFERENCES Ahumada, P. (2005). Hacia una evaluacio´n aute´ntica del aprendizaje. Mexico: Paidos. Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (2007). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ax, J., Ponte, P., & Brouwer, N. (2008). Action research in initial teacher education: An explorative study. Educational Action Research, 16(1), 55 72. Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119 132. Bryant, J., & Bates, A. (2010). The power of student resistance in action research: Teacher educators respond to classroom challenges. Educational Action Research, 18(3), 305 318. Cochran-Smith, M. (2002). Inquiry and outcomes: Learning to teach in the age of accountability. Teacher Education and Practice, 15(4), 12 34. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Friedman, A., & Pine, G. (2009). Inquiry on inquiry: Practitioner research and student learning. Action in Teacher Education, 31(2), 17 32. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 41(12), 1667 1676. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lesson from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62, 279 301. Donovan, M. S. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups: Teachers helping teachers to improve student learning. Research Bulletin Online 28. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research. Retrieved from http://www.school reforminitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Dunne_et_al_2000.pdf Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23 34. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358 389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 973 982. Kemmis, S. (2010). What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action Research, 18(4), 417 427. Korthagen, F. A., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020 1041. Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179 193. Levin, M. (2008). The praxis of educating action researchers. In P. Reason &. H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 669 682). London: Sage. Maimon, G. (2012, February). How inquiry saved my life as a teacher. Course lecture at Boston college, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Examining Beliefs and Changing Practices

445

Martı´ , J. (2008). De las pra´cticas locales al conocimiento pu´blico: La investigacio´n accio´n como contribucio´n cientı´ fica. Ensayo: Kathryn Herr & Gary L. Anderson. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty [46 pa´rrafos]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2), Art. 2. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs080320. Accessed in 2009, 2011. Mayor, J., Suengas, A., & Gonza´lez, J. (1993). Estrategias metacognitivas. Aprender a aprender y aprender a pensar. Madrid: Editorial Sı´ ntesis. Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education, 22(1), 305 343. Noffke, S. (2009). Revisiting the professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 5 18). Washington, DC: Sage. Rex, L. A., & Nelson, M. C. (2004). How teachers’ professional identities position high-stakes test preparation in their classrooms. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1288 1331. Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2014). Action research for educational reform: Remodeling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5 21. Valles, M. S. (2003). Te´cnicas cualitativas de investigacio´n social. Reflexio´n metodolo´gica y pra´ctica profesional. Madrid, Espan˜a: Sı´ ntesis S.A. Woolfolk, A. (1999). Psicologı´a educativa. Mexico: Prentice Hall. Zeichner, K. (2008). Action research in teacher education as a force for greater social justice. A revised version of a keynote address presented at the annual meeting of the Collaborative Action Research Network: Umea University, Sweden. Retrieved from http://globalsouthnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Action-Research-in-TeacherEducation-as-a-Force-for-Greater-Social-Justice.pdf

INTERNATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION: PROMISING PEDAGOGIES CONCLUDING CHAPTER Cheryl J. Craig and Lily Orland-Barak ABSTRACT In this chapter, Cheryl Craig and Lily Orland-Barak, editors of International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A), expound on the traveling pedagogies theme as well as the theory practice chasm, and conclude the edited volume with a model capturing the nature of fruitful, contextualized international pedagogies. Throughout the discussion, they highlight connections between and among potentially promising pedagogical approaches documented by the contributing authors whose countries of origins differ. As authors of this chapter and editors of this book, they claim that promising pedagogies have the potential to “travel” to other locales if their conditions of enactment are locally grounded, deliberated, and elaborated. This contextualization adds to the fluidity of knowledge mobilization to contexts different from the original one. Furthermore, all of the pedagogies have a praxical character to them, which means they strive to achieve a dialectical relationship

International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 22, 447 462 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720140000022025

447

448

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

between theory and practice. At the same time, they address local complexities in a reflective, deliberative, and evidence-based manner while acknowledging connections/contradictions in discourses and daunting policy issues/constraints/agendas. Against this “messy” backdrop, a model for traveling international pedagogies is proposed. The model balances a plethora of complexities, on the one hand, with the seemingly universal demand for uniformity, on the other hand. Through ongoing local, national, and international deliberation and negotiation, quality international pedagogies of potential use and value become readied for “travel”. Keywords: Promising pedagogies; traveling pedagogies; praxical nature of pedagogies; ontological nature of pedagogies; integrative model of traveling pedagogies; international teacher education

Given that the opening and closing of this volume are bookend chapters authored by us (the editors [Lily Orland-Barak and Cheryl Craig]), we will expound on one emergent theme that developed as the chapters unfurled from beginning to end and one big idea culled from our opening chapter in this concluding chapter. The second Schwab (1969)-fueled, big idea, which is introduced in the chapter “International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies Introduction,” is “enhancing the connections between theory and practice.” The first big idea is a theme that developed as the chapters unraveled: the notion that promising pedagogies are “traveling stories” (Olson & Craig, 2009) that fruitfully move with mindful contextual and cultural transplanting from place-to-place. Many of this book’s chapters offer evidence within them of this phenomenon already taking place. Furthermore, the intent of this entire volume is to draw attention to productive pedagogical sources, while acknowledging considerations that need to be kept at the forefront when borrowing and seeding pedagogies from other cultural, political, and historical milieus. At all times, we must remember, as John Lougran emphasized in his chapter, “pedagogies … [are] not … a teaching strategy or procedure but rather the conditions created to ensure that teaching and learning genuinely exist in a synergistic relationship i.e., where teaching purposefully influences learning and learning purposefully influences teaching.” We begin with our analysis of the traveling stories theme, move on to our interpretation of the theory-practice theme and end with a model capturing the nature of promising contextualized international pedagogies.

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

449

THE “TRAVELING” NATURE OF PEDAGOGIES Olson and Craig (2009), in the Teachers College Record article, “Traveling stories: Converging milieus and educative conundrums,” introduced traveling stories as a term to capture what happens when prospective and practising teachers carry ideas from one educational milieu to another in ways not involving “authoritative knowledge deposits” (p. 1084). Based on the preservice and inservice teacher exemplars they created, Olson and Craig concluded that much could be done in the field of teacher education and in the policy arena to increase the “fluidity” of knowledge mobilization by examining “the conditions” underlying successful borrowing and seeding of pedagogies (p. 1084). After reading the authors’ chapter contributions in this book, we, as editors of this volume, realized these chapters also involve “traveling stories” albeit of a slightly different kind. The traveling narratives in this book are international pedagogies that have the potential to be vicariously transported from one cultural and contextual milieu to another. Indeed, we found plenty of evidence in the authors’ chapters which indicated that movement of sound pedagogies from place-to-place was already organically occurring. Edward Howe and Masahiro Arimoto from Japan particularly demonstrated this phenomenon in their chapter. Edward Howe “borrowed” the literacy narratives pedagogy for his preservice special education students from Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker in Canada, shared it with his co-author, Masahiro Arimoto, who works at a different Japanese university, who, in turn, shared it with English teacher Ishimori-sensei, also in Japan. While the exemplar letters Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker includes reflect contemporary issues preservice teachers face in the Canadian context, Howe’s, Arimoto’s, and Ishimori-sensei’s versions of the literacy narratives pedagogy uphold important values in Japanese culture, namely kankei (inter-relationships), kizuna (bonds), and kizuki (with-it-ness). Howe and Arimoto underline that “these are important, integral, and tacit elements of Japanese teachers’ practices because they embody the ‘mind and heart’ of their personal practical sense of knowing,” a purpose not unlike Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker’s with a distinctive cultural twist. A different connection also emerged for us between Howe and Arimoto’s chapter and Hafdı´ s Ingvarsdo´ttir’s chapter. Readers will recall Howe kicked off the chapter from Japan by borrowing and seeding a pedagogy he learned in Canadian Michael Connelly’s curriculum course, annals, chronicles, and narratives, which Howe and Arimoto also adapted to the Japanese culture. That pedagogy very much resembles the rivers of life/life

450

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

story pedagogy that Ingvarsdo´ttir featured and analyzed, which revolved around two teachers relatively new to employment as language teachers in Iceland. In a culturally appropriate manner, Ingvarsdottir’s chapter fittingly included illustrations. Also, the Finnish autobiographical writing chapter by Estola, Heikkinen, and Syrja¨la¨, tells of KerToi, a peer group mentoring model. The autobiographical writing experience somewhat resembles Ingvarsdo´ttir’s Icelandic rivers of life pedagogy, but has as its aim preservice teacher identity development rather than the excavation of a preservice teacher’s continuum of life. What is interesting about Estola, Heikkinen, and Syrja¨la¨’s pedagogy is that it is a European Paedeia Cafe´ pilot study. Paedeia, an acronym for Pedagogical Action for a European Dimension in Induction Approaches, is a preservice teacher induction initiative that is being piloted in Finland, Turkey, and Sweden. Each of the selected sites have entered into the European Commission project with two school partners because the resultant mentoring is to extend beyond the countries’ teacher education programs to beginning teachers’ induction years in the schools. After Denmark and Portugal have provided constructive feedback to the three countries’ projects, the work, which presumably is part of the Bologna Agreement, will become a lived, adapted European-authorized pedagogy for teacher induction. Having already discussed the chapters from Finland and Japan, nations that highly respect teachers, it is instructive for us to note as well that both highly favor preservice teacher reflection and research. We did not, however, anticipate that respect for teacher research and teachers’ voices informing educational policy had traveled to Iran as was evident in Khalil Gholami and Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi’s chapter on TRP (teacher research pedagogy). Not only was the TRP they described used and supported in teacher professional development but also it is on the verge of being introduced to preservice teacher education practices and policy as well. Issues, though, exist in Iran with some teachers making their inquiries “authoritative knowledge deposits” in order to be promoted. Nevertheless, Gholami and Mehrmohammadi make it clear that educators in that country are increasingly acting on the authority of their own knowledge and less on the authority of third persons. We privately wondered whether Mehrmohammadi’s degree, conferred in the United States, and Gholami’s doctorate, completed in Finland, had perhaps influenced not only their choice of the pedagogy but also the spread and institutionalization of the pedagogy in Iran. Without a doubt, both researchers have played central roles in the development of the pedagogy with inservice teachers. Also,

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

451

both are in excellent positions to argue its central importance as a preservice education pedagogy. In the chapter he contributed, Tom Russell (Canada) provides one of the most thorough rationales for reflection and shows how it repeatedly informs his teacher education pedagogies. Speaking from the education of teacher educators’ perspective, his chapter joins those authored by Stefinee Pinnegar and Mary Lynn Hamilton (United States) and (United States), John Loughran (Australia) and Hafdı´ s Ingvarsdo´ttir (Iceland) in evidencing and championing the self-study of teachers and teacher educator as a defensible preservice teacher education pedagogy. As an aside, Russell’s “ticket out of class” bears a close resemblance to Howe and Arimoto’s (Japan) “ID-card” opener to their narrative pedagogy. Also, Russell’s “What do I know today that I did not know yesterday” approach had a universal quality to it, given its portability to almost any nation’s learning milieu, providing the learning is not of too political a nature. Further evidence of traveling pedagogical stories is found in Korthagen’s core reflection model from The Netherlands, which already is showing signs of becoming “a classic.” Korthagen’s pedagogy is referenced in several chapters in this volume, but is especially enacted in the Estonian context of A¨li Leijen, Katrin Kullasepp, and Tiina Anspal. Educators in Estonia, we furthermore learn, are enjoying heightened status due to the country’s standing in the PISA tests. The elevated status of teachers was particularly prominent in JeongAe You’s chapter from South Korea, Jason Loh’s chapter from Singapore, and Edward Howe and Masahiro Arimoto’s chapter from Japan. The Finnish chapter contributed by Estola, Heikkinen, and Syrja¨la¨, along with the Estonian chapter by Leijen, Kullasepp, and Anspal, were the only Western chapters expressing similar sentiments. It would be remiss of us not to note the multiple instances the critical incident pedagogy appeared as part of the shared preservice teacher education exemplars. The critical incident pedagogy was deeply embedded in Geert Kelchterman’s (Belgium) autobiographical pedagogy; firmly rooted in John Loughran’s (Australia) self-study pedagogy; alluded to in Jason Loh’s (Singapore) narrative work, and a close cousin to Paulien C. Meijer, Helma W. Oolbekkink, Marieke Pillen, and Arnoud Aardema (The Netherlands) “at tensions” preservice teacher identity pedagogy. Additionally, critical incident pedagogies are often part and parcel of Critical Friends work. Hence, it was not surprising that Carmen Montecinos (Chile), Andrea Ceardi (Chile), and M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez (United States) also argued for the use of particular Critical Friends protocols in their action research

452

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

pedagogy in preservice education. As editors, we furthermore noted that how they used the pedagogy was akin to Geert Kelchterman’s role for students in his autobiographical pedagogical approach. Montecinos, Ceardi, and Ferna´ndez furthermore used original sources in their pedagogy, a feature present also in Steven Athanases’s (United States) chapter. It did not come as a surprise to us that both chapters involved preparing teachers to instruct in settings where teachers and/or students are English as a Second language learners. Athanases also championed the use of a visual organizer in his pedagogy. In McGraw’s (Australia) chapter, she presents a valuable visual piece of evidence that prefaces her laying out of her dispersed narratives pedagogy. We, as editors, also favored the use of visuals in the organization and design of this book. From the outset, we invited all chapter authors to include one or more figures or tables of their choosing with their chapter. Most naturally assumed the task, others, however, worked hard and long to accommodate our request. In the end result, all of our authors/author teams were pleased with their visual contributions to this book. Where dialogue was concerned, it transcended several chapters as a preservice teacher education pedagogy. It was strongly apparent in Stefinee Pinnegar and Mary Lynn Hamilton’s self-study of becoming a teacher educator in the United States and a vital component of Arie Kizel’s professional development schools in Israel so much so that he elevated the word, dialogic, to the naming of the professional development schools and the title of his chapter. Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe (United Arab Emirates), who focused on the Scottish Schools for a New Era initial teacher preparation project, involved sustained relationships with school partners very much like Arie Kizel’s dialogic professional development in schools. Furthermore, like Kizel, the mentoring that occurred in Aderibigbe’s Scottish exemplar was “dialogue-based.” This similarity reminded us that innovations in one locale may be standing traditions in another. Authors dealing directly with a content knowledge pedagogy were John Clarke and Jean Murray from Great Britain and Steven Athanases from the United States. Along with JeongAe You from South Korea, they specifically associated their pedagogies with Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge conceptualization. Other major terms that proved foundation to numerous pedagogies were D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly’s notions about teacher as curriculum maker (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992) and personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1985). Teacher as curriculum maker informed

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

453

Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker’s literacy narratives pedagogy and was vitally important to the vision of the “good teacher” in You’s pedagogy of teacher selection. Personal practical knowledge was also associated with the selfstudy pedagogy described by Pinnegar and Hamilton and essential to the work of Loh (Singapore), Howe and Arimoto (Japan), Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker (Canada), and McGraw (Australia). Two chapters involved pedagogies that led to narrative responses to course offerings. The two authors, Maria Assunc¸a˜o Flores from Portugal and Jason Loh from Singapore, however, used the reflective responses for different contextual reasons: Flores to promote hope in economically challenging times in Portugal and Loh to draw out Singaporean students’ voices in a highly prescriptive policy environment, which was not unlike what McGraw termed the “contact zone” in Australia. So, what are our preliminary findings about promising international pedagogies from a traveling stories perspective? One of the first things we can say is that when we grouped the pedagogies (selection, reflection, narrative, identity), the categories leaked. However, we believe that if we reordered the sequence of the chapters, they would continue to leak because promising pedagogies defy boundaries. Furthermore, they can be used for different purposes as we see in the example above how differently narrative responses to coursework were used. Perhaps more importantly, the promising international pedagogies tended to cluster. The pedagogies were not, as John Loughran underlined, discrete activities. Neither were they what Xu and Connelly (2010) termed “portable variables.” Rather, they are a symphony of considerations seen and unseen that need to be taken into account. They are, as the chapter contributors demonstrated over and over again, “contextualized artifacts” (Xu & Connelly, 2010).

ENHANCING THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE The Praxical Nature of Pedagogies The traveling pedagogies in this book, whether of selection, reflection, mentoring, or narrative, are all of a “praxical” character, underscoring the complexities inherent at the meeting between ideologies and actions in a particular institutional, cultural, and historical context. Grounded in reflective and collaborative approaches to professional learning (Wenger, 1998),

454

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

the pedagogies stress the development of a reflective, deliberative, and evidence-based stance towards practice, emphasizing informed understandings that are tuned to specific concrete cases and complex or ambiguous situations. The role of the teacher educator in these pedagogies is, then, not that of an external agent providing solutions to educational problems, but of a participant, facilitator, and researcher/inquirer. Such a stance is voiced in various chapters: Stefinee Pinnegar and Mary Lynn Hamilton see teacher educators as providing a model of reflection for the teachers they educate. Stressing an insider’s perspective to conducting research, they describe a S-STEP research as pedagogy which integrates what participants and their teacher educators have experienced, have learned, the actions they have taken, reflections, problem solving, and thinking. Geert Kelchtermans stresses the importance of teacher educators’ personal engagement in the pedagogies they espouse. Teacher educators as facilitators, he suggests, need to engage in careful, appreciative, and accepting listening which postpones judgment and moves on through “thoughtful interpretive commenting and questioning.” Steven Athanases elaborates on the dual dimensions of his practice as teacher educator and researcher collaborator. He explicitly mentors student teachers by engaging them with a range of expert knowledge sources in a troubling content area while, at the same time, conducts classroom inquiry to generate their own original knowledge about diverse students and their learning in that same troubling content domain. John Loughran reminds us that teacher educators need to serve as models for student teachers in how they themselves develop a professional identity that reflects coherent links between thought, talk, and action. Teacher educators’ conceptualizations of how knowledge of teaching can emerge from practice and help to direct that practice in a significant way is, for him, a key process. Tom Russell stresses the role that teacher educators play in promoting Schon’s reflective turn, by adopting a commitment to listening to teacher candidates’ experiences and a willingness to connect their reports of their experiences to the teaching and learning that occur in one’s own education classroom. The praxical pedagogies in this book call for educating reflective practitioners to make meaningful connections between theory and practice, while framing and reframing problems, and evaluating the gaps and contradictions that emerge between personal theories and beliefs, and practice or actions in the classroom. Reflection in this sense is, by and large, defined as a dialectical process of looking inwards at one’s thoughts and outward at how these play out and often contradict each other in the actual situation. To this end, Tom Russell underscores the importance of the teacher

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

455

education classroom as a space for generating contradictions between what one is teaching and how one is teaching. Being intrigued by the challenge of recognizing and avoiding such contradictions, he contends, is an important condition for adopting a pedagogy of reflection. Fred Korthagen also stresses the idea of a working process, within the tension between ideals and obstacles, a perspective which is often not a common habit in teachers’ work. Such a view moves us away from rationalistic, dichotomous orientations to “levels” of reflection stressing, instead, the situated and embedded character of activity in action, through simultaneous connections between the planned and the immediate (Fendler, 2003; Yinger, 1990). Studying one’s own practice systematically in order to understand gaps and potential sources of tensions and improve it, is, as Stefinee Pinnegar and Mary Lynn Hamilton contend, an ontological commitment whereby one tries to make explicit what is. Hafdı´ s Ingvarsdo´ttir’s in-depth “rivers of life” interviews demonstrate how reflecting on one’s life stories may play an important role in exposing impasses, changes, and tacit beliefs informing pedagogical practices and hence their attitudes to change. In the context of preservice education, Steven Athanases guides PSTs to construct understandings driven by dialogues aimed at complicating teaching-learning processes, through authentic questions at the interface between codified knowledge in a focal content domain, and in situ knowledge-construction developed in authentic encounters in real classrooms. The dialectical nature of these dialogues is made transparent through the design of learning environments as communal spaces that encourage systematic experimenting and inquiry into models of best practices, alongside constructivist modes of participation in activity. John Clarke and Jean Murray’s exemplar of teaching subject knowledge demonstrates how student teachers’ systematic and critical exploration of their initial understandings of particular aspects of mathematics learning are reconstructed while developing “relational understanding.” The pedagogies presented in the various chapters, although different in scope, design, and enactment processes have, therefore, common ontological underpinnings. They forward a view that everything is related and interconnected , and nothing can be understood in isolation from the historical, social, cultural, and institutional conditions, that every opinion inherently possesses a contradiction, uncovering multiple and contrasting voices (Bakhtin, 1981) which are, in turn, required for transformation and change (Gadotti, 1996); that everything is transformed and nothing is static, and that understandings are dynamic and grounded in continuous reflection through ongoing deliberation. The praxical pedagogies also engage the

456

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

learner in dialectical process of looking inwards and outward at one’s thoughts, personal theories, beliefs, and actions; often forwarding thoughtful and ethically careful pedagogies of discomfort, as Kelchtermans suggests, enacted in a positive, accepting, respectful environment; to develop the necessary openness, awareness, reflectivity, and attitude that is so essential for professionalism.

Intersections within and across Discourses The praxical character of the different pedagogies also surfaces complex intersections between established teaching discourses and the fine granularity and singularity of professional learning in activity. The pedagogies in the book expose connections and contradictory messages between formal curricular agendas and the idiosyncratic forms and meanings that these take in a particular educational context. Some chapters unfold and discuss intersections between pedagogical reasoning of idiosyncratic cases, personal ideologies, ethical and codified knowledge, and the historical, social, cultural, and institutional conditions, and discourses that inform a particular practice. The work by Carmen Montecinos, Andrea Ceardi, and M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez reflects some of these intersections. Their work on pedagogies of reflection connects the particularities of the Chilean teacher education context, the formal pedagogical and curricular orientations of the teacher education program, and broader ethical questions and policies designed to prepare prospective teachers. They ask PTs to examine their learning practices as reflective of the conditions for learning created by their professors. The ethical dilemmas they describe push the debate around norms of collegiality that faculty owe to peers within the university. Taking into account the multicultural educational space of preservice education in Israel, Arie Kizel analyzes a pedagogy of reflection in the context of a community of learners that engages in educational dialogue. The pedagogy aims at surfacing tensions, complementary and contradictory messages between the formal teacher education curriculum and its enactment in the particular school context. A¨li Leijen, Katrin Kullasepp, and Tiina Anspal describe dialogical approaches to teacher-stated identities as subject matter specialist, subject didactics expert, and pedagogue as shaped by the traditions of the Estonian context. Taken together, the different pedagogies in the book reflect a vision of the curriculum as entrenched in multiple discourses of theory and practice.

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

457

Within these intersections, they stress the centrality of inquiring, cultivating, mediating, and developing a wisdom of practice (Shulman); to promote rich ways in which practitioners can draw upon their theoretical understandings, their values and commitments, their practical experience, the interests of their stakeholders, and a variety of other sources to reason about their options and make their decisions. Intersections within and across discourses are mediated, in many chapters, through narrative artifacts and ways of knowing. For example, Khalil Gholami and Mahmud Mehrmohammadi’s Teacher Researcher Pedagogy (TRP) in Iran, studies the narratives of the teachers to understand how it helped them to reconstruct their professional identity in the strict context of teaching and schooling. Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker’s chapter explores literacy narratives in the discourse of a Canadian education foundation course which focuses on story and experience as told and retold through letter writing correspondence among teacher candidates. Kelchtermans’ (auto) and biographical narratives are seen as pedagogical artifacts for capturing, addressing, and sharing personal experiences in education. A pedagogical approach to these narratives, he contends, implies using them as multilayered, as one moves from the level of “facts” (reality as it unfolds) to levels of increased interpretation. In doing so, intersections, connections, and gaps are surfaced. McGraw’s chapter on spoken, written, and visual narratives are described in the complex, dynamic contexts of school in Australia, surfacing ethical, pedagogical, and relational interactions. Narrative inquiries which focus on stories told from diverse perspectives and formed in the complex, dynamic contexts of school, she suggests, reveal much about our ethical, pedagogical, and relational interactions, establishing meaningful directions based on inquiry and ongoing connections between theory and practice, as the basis for effective professional learning. Jason Loh, in the context of the personal cases and stories of practice, highlights the importance of the cultural settings in which the experience is situated, as a way to understand the connections that are created between theory and practice, personal and professional. Understanding the background of the experience seems crucial, in his view, for examining how theory is applied and where adaptations can be deliberated upon. Estola, Heikkinen, and Syrja¨la¨ feature exemplars of narrative pedagogies in teacher education in Finland which speak to the notion of “participant knowledge,” whereby emotional, expressive, and deliberative understandings of the world are represented. They conclude that narrative pedagogies in Finnish teacher education offer an excellent environment that links theoretical, spectator knowledge to participant knowledge. Maria

458

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

Assunc¸a˜o Flores’ chapter also focuses on the connective nature of narratives from the perspective of student teachers’ reflective accounts of their professional values and their link to prior beliefs and experiences. Arie Kizel discusses a pedagogy of reflection that aims at connecting between theory and at various dialogical, reflective, and professional levels. His pedagogy engages student teachers in continual response to diverse situations, relating to dialogue both from a theoretical, historical context as well as by way of practical examples.

Praxical Pedagogies at the Backdrop of Educational Policy The various promising pedagogies are strongly contextualized at the backdrop of policy issues, constraints, and dominant agendas. For example, the standardization of teacher preparation and how it affects pedagogy is discussed in JeongAe You’s chapter, describing the highly competitive nature of the Korean teacher selection system. The chapter questions the burden, stress, time, and money to prepare for the teacher employment tests, suggesting that the highly centralized system of teacher employment tests might be a possible source of constraint. Issues related to alternative licensing and fast tracks for the recruitment, selection, and retention of new candidate teachers to the profession is also an issue of concern for various countries. Paulien C. Meijer, Helma W. Oolbekkink, Marieke Pillen, and Arnoud Aardema discuss the ongoing trend in The Netherlands to shorten teacher education tracks so that more people are attracted to become teachers. In these fast tracks, Meijer and her colleagues claim, the focus is on specific subject matter issues and technical teaching skills. However, as they furthermore mention, although more people enter the teaching profession, they tend to quit after a few years. The author team attributes this phenomenon to the fact that, during their short time in teacher education, candidates are not able to fully explore how they relate to the profession and to societal and school-specific demands. It might be then, Meijer, Oolbekkink, Pillen, and Aardema argue, that many of them leave because the type of transformative learning that is required for developing a teacher’s identity an aspect which is not addressed explicitly in “instant” teacher education tracks. In this respect, A¨li Leijen, Katrin Kullasepp, and Tiina Anspal underscore the importance of voicing a general ideology in teacher education programs, which recognizes the need to support the development of a person within the professional context. This implies acknowledging that supporting professional identity development requires time and resources,

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

459

which is not always available or given prominence in fast-track programs and short-term courses. The discourses voiced in the various chapters argue against the discourse referred to as an “outcomes” issue (Cochran-Smith, 2001), directed by market forces driving education policy and excluding more democratic agendas for public education and social justice. To this end, the homogeneous, product-oriented character of teacher education pedagogy is seen as undermining teacher education programs grounded in reflective, process-oriented pedagogies. Carmen Montecinos, Andrea Ceardi, and M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez lay open a strong and provocative claim on this matter. They contend that there is an emphasis on preparing prospective teachers who can serve all students, due to the intensification of standardized assessment and a standardization of the curriculum. They raise the question of whether we need to prepare teachers to adapt to how policies envision teachers’ work (professors envision learning) or whether programs need to focus on helping prospective teachers’ transform the conditions in which they work (what and how they are asked to learn). In this respect, they argue that when the “ecology” of PTs learning practices are not subject to critical scrutiny, we risk preparing teachers to adapt rather than change the conditions of their work as learners now and teachers once they enter the workplace. In order to address the political dimension of teachers’ work, the author team suggests asking PTs to analyze policy documents to uncover the conceptions of learning promoted by policies. This may help understand how their own ideas are connected to wider discourses. On the issue of bridging educational policy and subject matter pedagogy, John Clarke and Jean Murray outline the importance of Enhancement Courses for preparing and selecting teachers to meet the imperatives of teacher recruitment and high quality subject teaching in England. Enhancement Courses of any kind, they contend, can offer the chance to enhance and deepen subject knowledge while, at the same time, challenging beliefs about teaching ingrained in traditional models of apprenticeship of observation. JeongAe You describes a major change from the old system to the new system, focusing on the integration of several areas (such as logical thinking skills, problem-solving skills related to educational contexts, and the ability to be reflective) into the final essay test at national level. She describes how universities in South Korea need to attend to this policy dictate by developing special programs for teacher candidates around the writing of essays, lesson planning, and skill tests, and how they conduct pilot tests for interviewing and for their teaching demonstrations. Amanda

460

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

McGraw writes that powerful pedagogies exist in spaces where personal realities are shared and examined in public spaces. To this end, she, as an Australian, attempts to develop school/university partnerships based on mutuality, trust, and reciprocity that have been highly successful.

TOWARD AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF TRAVELING PEDAGOGIES Driven by globalization market forces, teacher education is, more than ever before, challenged to define standards of “quality teaching” and “quality teacher education,” and to have a concrete say as to what teacher education is, what purposes it serves, and how it is best enacted. These challenges are also influenced by the high dropout rate of teachers at relatively early stages of their career, provoking critical questions on the preparation and professional support of prospective and novice teachers. Yet beyond policy calls for uniformity and the legitimate and authentic urge to clarify and propose a detailed examination of the “work of teaching” (Ball & Forzani, 2009), there is also a strong call to pay attention to complexity and diversity, while attending to relevant connections between theory and practice. By and large, it is widely agreed that teaching integrates multiple domains of knowledge, and develops through dynamic interactional processes in a variety of contexts (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Putnam & Borko, 2000). The multifaceted networks of interactions that define teachers’ work in activity create, then, important challenges for teacher educators (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Eraut, 2004) both in the design, enactment, and study of curricula. We are challenged, then, to develop innovative pedagogies that attend to how a variety of processes unfold in interaction with one another. The “messy” settings of teachers’ professional learning (Tillema & Orland-Barak, 2006) call for pedagogies that allow for critical exploration of the variety of professional encounters that take place between student teachers, teacher educators, and mentors, at the intersection between their personal theories, codified knowledge, institutional constraints, and pedagogical actions. The “traveling pedagogies” described in the chapters of this book take up the challenge of integrating complexity with uniformity. Although context-sensitive, the pedagogies all seem grounded in similar approaches and orientations to professional learning and in similar principles of curricular design. In Fig. 1, we illustrate these shared areas of (1) context and policy,

International Teacher Education: Concluding Chapter

461

-Standardization of teacher preparation -‘Fast tracks’ product-oriented pedagogies -Performance assessment -Standards reform -No single-handed answers -Cultural identities of countries and regions

-Recurring patterns of activity -Codified and contextually embedded practices -Direct experiences -Studying students systematically -Integrative tasks -Core reflection activities -Habits of analysis -Stories of practice and cases -Examining instances of dissonance

-Praxical connections -Reflective, deliberative and evidence-based stance -Teacher educator as facilitator and inquirer -'Reflective practitioners' -Dialectical and dynamic processes -Looking inwards and outwards -Situated activity, surfacing contradictions and contrasting voices

Fig. 1.

Traveling International Pedagogies.

(2) approach, and (3) design as a way to bring this volume, International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies, Part A to a fitting close. At the same time, we invite readers to follow this three-book series to International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies, Part B and Part C that will closely follow.

462

CHERYL J. CRAIG AND LILY ORLAND-BARAK

REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497 511. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American educational research association (pp. 363 401). New York, NY: Macmillan. Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy, practice and pitfalls. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(11), 11. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching ways of knowing: The eighty-fourth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 174 198). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16 25. Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectical philosophy of education. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Grossman, P. L., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184 205. Olson, M. R., & Craig, C. J. (2009). Traveling stories: Converging milieus and educative conundrums. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1077 1085. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 4 15. Schwab, J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 1 23. Tillema, H., & Orland-Barak, L. (2006). Constructing knowledge in professional conversations: The role of beliefs on knowledge and knowing. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 592 608. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Xu, S., & Connelly, M. (2010). Narrative inquiry for school-based research. Narrative Inquiry, 20(2), 349 370. Yinger, R. J. (1990). The conversation of practice. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston., & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and program. New York, NY: Teacher College Press, Columbia University.

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND THE AUTHORS Editor Biographies Cheryl J. Craig is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Houston, USA. Her research centers on the influence of context on beginning and experienced teachers’ knowledge developments, identities and communities of knowing. She was named an American Educational Research Association (AERA) Fellow in 2011 and was honored with the Division B (Curriculum) Lifetime Achievement Award from AERA in 2012. Lily Orland-Barak is Dean of the Faculty of Education at Haifa University, Israel. Her research interests are mentoring, professional learning, curriculum development, and teacher education. She has received Outstanding Book Awards from AERA 2010 (Division K) and from the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching ISATT 2010. She serves on numerous editorial boards and is an Executive Editor of Teachers and Teacher: Theory and Practice.

Author Biographies Arnoud Aardema worked as a history teacher in different schools for secondary education in The Netherlands since 1998. For the last nine years, he has been employed as a Teacher Educator at the Teacher Education Department of Radboud University Nijmegen. He specializes in pedagogies that stimulate students’ historical thinking and has (co)authored several books that teachers use in their classroom teaching. Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe completed his Ph.D. study in the School of Education at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at the American University in the Emirates, Dubai, U.A.E. Semiyu is a member of such professional organizations as the British Educational Leadership, Management 463

464

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND THE AUTHORS

and Administration Society (BELMAS) and the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT). His research interests are mentoring and coaching, educational leadership, teacher education and citizenship education. Tiina Anspal is a Ph.D. student at the University of Tartu, Estonia. While working as a science teacher, she developed an interest in issues of teacher development and learning. In her Ph.D. research, she focuses on student teachers’ professional identity development, exploring links between identity and characteristics of the teacher education program. Masahiro Arimoto is a Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Tohoku University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Curriculum Evaluation from Osaka University. His research draws mainly on curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy. He visited Hanoi, Vietnam as a JICA expert. He uses a mixed methods research design for a “whole-school approach.” His main research interests are educational assessment and international education cooperation. His teaching focuses on school-based lesson study, pedagogy, classroom assessment, and educational leadership. Steven Z. Athanases is a Professor in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis. He has received numerous teaching awards and recognitions at both high school and university levels and received postdoctoral fellowships from the McDonnell and Spencer Foundations. In his research, Athanases focuses on diversity and equity in teaching, on strengthening teaching and learning of English at schools in low-income communities, and on developing new teacher scholars through teacher education. He has published widely on these issues, receiving distinguished research awards from the Association of Teacher Educators and the National Council of Teachers of English. He is co-editor of Mentors in the Making: Developing New Leaders for New Teachers (Teachers College Press). Andrea Ceardi is an Adjunct Instructor at Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Valparaı´ so, Chile. She teaches Educational Psychology courses for teacher education majors and undergraduate psychology majors. Her current areas of research are teacher learning and development, with a focus on cooperating teachers’ work with preservice teachers. Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Brock University, Ontario, Canada. Her commitment to narrative inquiry methodology is mirrored by her deeply felt passion for

Biographies of the Editors and the Authors

465

literacy, critical literacy, and narratives of experience. Her current area of study is literacy and literacy narratives as they relate to diverse issues in teacher education. She was an administrator, literacy resource-consultant, and elementary teacher in Toronto for over 15 years before joining Brock University as a professor. She obtained her Ph.D. from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT) under the supervision of Michael Connelly. John Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in Initial Teacher Education in the Sir John Cass School of Education at the University of East London, England. Prior to taking up his university post, John taught mathematics for 25 years in a wide variety of secondary schools. John is a doctoral student and has written extensively on his research about developing mathematical subject knowledge for students in schools and for preservice teaching candidates. He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Chartered Mathematics Teacher. He also holds a University Teaching Fellowship. Eila Estola is Professor of Early Childhood Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Oulu. One of her research interests deals with teachers’ narrative identities. She has been developing narrative and action methods for peer groups and used those methods in different courses in preservice and inservice teacher education. She is also a representative of the University of Oulu in the Osaava Verme program. M. Beatriz Ferna´ndez is a Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Candidate at Boston College, USA. She has worked as an in-school consultant, lecturer, and coordinator for principal and teacher professional development programs. She has researched and published on teachers’ participation in the implementation of accountability policies and action research in teacher education. She is currently researching educational policy and social justice issues in teacher preparation. Maria Assunc¸a˜o Flores is an Associate Professor with qualification at the University of Minho, Portugal. She received her Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. Her research interests include teacher professionalism and identity, teacher education and professional development, teacher appraisal, and change. She has published extensively on these topics both nationally and internationally. She is currently the Chair of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT) and an Executive Editor of Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice.

466

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND THE AUTHORS

Khalil Gholami is an Assistant Professor and has worked as a faculty member in the Department of Education at the University of Kurdistan for 5 years. He also has 8 years of teaching experience in high schools. He completed his Ph.D. and Post-Doctoral Studies in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Helsinki. His main research interests focus on teachers’ knowledge, thinking, and beliefs. His research is published in such international journals as Teaching and Teacher Education, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, and other relevant publishing venues. Mary Lynn Hamilton is a Professor in Curriculum & Teaching at the University of Kansas. She is a co-editor of The International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (2004) and a co-author (with Stefinee Pinnegar) of Self-Study of Practice as a Genre of Qualitative research: Theory, Methodology, and Practicer. Her research interests combine teachers’ professional knowledge, issues of social justice, and the self-study of teaching practices. Hannu L. T. Heikkinen, Adjunct Professor, works as a Senior Researcher at the Finnish Institute for Educational Research at the University of Jyva¨skyla¨. He is responsible for the Finnish Network for Teacher Induction, Osaava Verme, a national program that supports new teachers through peer group mentoring. He has also contributed to international networks related to early career teachers. Edward Howe is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum Studies in the School of Education at Thompson Rivers University, Canada. Prior to that, he worked at Utsunomiya University and elsewhere in Japanese higher education for more than a decade. His research draws mainly on narrative inquiry and reflexive ethnography. He uses “comparative ethnographic narrative” as a means to better understand teacher acculturation and other educational phenomena. Dr. Howe’s main research interests are teacher education and comparative and international education, with a focus on East Asia. Hafdı´ s Ingvarsdo´ttir is a Professor of Education in the School of Education at the University of Iceland. She began her career as a secondary school teacher but has been involved in teacher education for the last three decades. She was Head of the Teacher Education programme at the university for a number of years. Her main research interests are teacher education and teacher growth with special emphasis on foreign language teaching and learning. At present she is involved in two main research

Biographies of the Editors and the Authors

467

projects: a nationwide project on the status and use of English in Iceland and a project investigating pedagogical practices in upper-secondary schools. Geert Kelchtermans studied Philosophy and Educational Sciences at the University of Leuven, where he obtained his Ph.D. degree in 1993. He is now a Professor in Education at that same university, where he chairs the Centre for Educational Policy, Innovation and Teacher Education. In his research he aims at untangling the complex relationship between individual professionals (teachers, principals, teacher educators) and their professional development on the one hand and the organisational working context they are working in on the other. More specifically, his research has focused on topics like teacher development, teacher induction (new teachers), pedagogy of teacher education, school improvement, micropolitics of schools, emotions in teaching, and qualitative research methodology. Arie Kizel is Head of the Department of Learning, Instruction and Teacher Education at the Faculty of Education, Haifa University (Israel). His research interests include narratives of social/religious/professional groups, philosophy of education, philosophy with children and research of curriculum and textbooks. Since 2010, he has been the Academic Head of the Israeli-German Commission for Textbook Research in History, Geography and Civic. Among his publications are Subservient History: A Critical Analysis of History Curricula and Textbooks in Israel, 1948 2006 (Hebrew) and The New Mizrahi Narrative in Israel (forthcoming in 2014). Fred A. J. Korthagen is Professor Emeritus of Teacher Education at Utrecht University, The Netherlands. He has published many articles and books on the professional development of teachers and teacher educators. He is a co-developer of the Core Reflection approach and has worked with many educational institutions on the use of this approach. He has received numerous international awards for his scientific work, including recognition from the American Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) and the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Katrin Kullasepp is an Associate Professor at Tallinn University (Institute of Psychology) in Estonia. She completed her Ph.D. (Dialogical becoming: Professional identity construction of psychology students, 2008) at Tallinn University. Her research interests concern mainly professional identity development.

468

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND THE AUTHORS

A¨li Leijen is a Senior Research Fellow at Tartu University in Estonia. Her academic background is Educational Sciences. Her Ph.D. thesis, The reflective dancer: ICT support for practical training (University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2008), explored possibilities for innovation and change in arts education. Her current work is mostly focused on teacher education. Her current research themes include supporting student teachers’ reflection; development of professional identity; ICT as means for supporting pedagogy and implementing innovations. Jason Loh has worked as a Teacher Educator at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, since 2009 and held a Visiting Academic Appointment at the London Institute of Education (IOE) in June 2013. Prior to that, he worked as a teacher in primary, secondary, and tertiary education. He has also held leadership roles in the different schools. While helming the English Language department in his last school, he spearheaded the implementation of the Picture-Word Inductive Model (Calhoun, 1999) and a literature-based curriculum. Loh has published in Teaching and Teacher Education, The Qualitative Report, Waikato Journal of Education, The Reading Teacher, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, and Reading in a Foreign Language. John Loughran is the Foundation Chair in Curriculum and Pedagogy and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. John was a science teacher for 10 years before moving into teacher education. John was the co-founding editor of Studying Teacher Education and is an Executive Editor for Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice and on the International Editorial Advisory Board for a number of journals including Teacher Education Quarterly, Journal of Reflective Practice and the Asia Pacific Forum for Science Teaching and Learning. Amanda McGraw is a Senior Lecturer who coordinates the Master of Teaching (Secondary) program at Federation University, Australia. The professional doctorate she completed in 2010 examined the nature of deep professional learning for teachers. Prior to that, she taught for nearly 20 years in state and independent schools. She has been awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence at Federation University and received an Australian Government Higher Education Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning. Her research interests include narrative pedagogies and research, teachers’ professional learning, teacher education, and literacy learning.

Biographies of the Editors and the Authors

469

Mahmoud Mehrmohammadi is a Professor of Curriculum and Instruction in Tarbit Modares University, Iran. He completed his Ph.D. program at the University of Southern California in 1988. A key figure and theoretician in Iran’s curriculum studies, he has been engaged in educational policy-making and curriculum development for several years. In 2013, he was appointed as the Rector of the central university for teacher education in the country. This university has 96 branches throughout Iran. Paulien C. Meijer is a Professor and Scientific Director at the Radboud Graduate School of Education, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. After finishing her Ph.D. on teachers’ practical knowledge in Leiden in 1999, she worked as a social sciences teacher in secondary education, and as a teacher educator and Associate Professor in Leiden and Utrecht. In 2013 she returned to her Alma Mater (Nijmegen). Her research interests focus on teacher identity, teacher education, and experienced teacher learning. Carmen Montecinos is a Professor of Educational Psychology at Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Valparaı´ so, Chile. She is also a Principal Investigator at the Center for Advanced Research in Education (CIAE). She has conducted extensive research on teacher learning and development, particularly on topics related to initial teacher preparation. Most recently, she studied how school leadership teams and inservice teachers participate in the preparation of teacher candidates. Jean Murray is a Professor and Research Leader in the Sir John Cass School of Education at the University of East London, England. Her research focuses on the sociological analysis of teacher education policies and practices internationally, with a particular interest in the identities and career trajectories of teacher educators. Jean has written extensively on these issues and has run a large number of educational research projects. She has taught at all levels of higher education and acted as an educational consultant on professional learning for governments, NGOs and universities across the world. Jean is also a National Teaching Fellow for the UK University sector. Helma W. Oolbekkink is an Assistant Professor at the Radboud Graduate School of Education in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She completed her Ph. D. thesis on teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated learning at Leiden University in 2006, and then moved to Nijmegen. Presently, her work

470

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE EDITORS AND THE AUTHORS

focuses on teacher research and teacher identity and involves close collaborations with teachers in secondary education schools. Marieke Pillen started studying Orthopedagogy in 1999 at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. After obtaining her Master’s degree in 2003, she enrolled in a teacher training program and worked as a teacher in primary education for several years. In 2008 she started her Ph.D. research on professional identity tensions of beginning teachers and defended her work in September 2013. Since August 2012 she has worked as a Teacher Educator and Researcher at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands. Stefinee Pinnegar is a Teacher Educator in the McKay School of Education at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Her research interests focus on teacher thinking along with S-STTEP and narrative methodologies. In examining the development of teacher thinking, she has a particular interest in the development of practical memory in teaching. She co-authored Selfstudy of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice with Mary Lynn Hamilton, is the Series Editor for the Advances in Research on Teaching (Emerald Publishing), and is Acting Dean of Invisible College for Research on Teaching. Tom Russell is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University, where he has taught since 1977. From 2007 2010, he held a Queen’s University Chair in Teaching and Learning. His teaching includes a graduate course on action research, a physics curriculum methods course for preservice teachers, and supervision of teacher candidates during practicum placements. His research focuses on how people learn to teach and how teachers improve their teaching, with special reference to learning from experience. Since 1986 he has held seven multi-year research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tom is Co-Editor of a number of books and has been a Co-Editor of the journal, Studying Teacher Education, since 2005. Leena Syrja¨la¨ is Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Oulu. She is one of the pioneers in Finland who has used biographical and narrative methods in teacher research. She is a leader of the research group, “Living Stories,” in which narrative and multidisciplinary approaches have been used in research on teachers’ identities and wellbeing in the practice of teacher education.

Biographies of the Editors and the Authors

471

JeongAe You is a Professor in the Department of Physical Education at Chung-Ang University (CAU) in Korea. Currently, she is Editor-in-Chief of the Korean Journal of Sport Pedagogy (KJSP) and serves as a VicePresident of the Korean Association for Sport Pedagogy (KASP) and the Korean Association for Women and Girls in Physical Education and Sport (KAWGPES). Recently, she became Director of CAU’s Physical Education Laboratory, a research laboratory with a nine-year history of funding from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF). Her research interests include curriculum development and teacher education in physical education.