|
Is this a
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices? or Another Oz-dacious
Journey through Kansas! Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Conference, Seattle, 2001 Questions to consider while reading this paper.
I'll sing a song
of Ozland.......where magic is a science and where no one shows
Surprise. If some amazing thing takes place before his very eyes...
Education either
functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate...conformity
or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and
women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to
participate in the transformation of their world. I first visited the Land of Oz early in my career. At that time I was drawn in by the cyclonic forces of academia, tossed about by contrary ideas, visited by winged monkey demons (or so they seemed), and supported by a land of friends -- mostly outside my academic Kansas home. In my early writings I discovered that teachers are researchers, theory is practice, and voice brings strength. Now, to assist me in presenting my ideas in this paper, I will again, walk along the yellow-brick road in search of the Emerald City. Long before there was Harry or Larry or Lyra or many other magical children, there was Dorothy. The Wizard of Oz texts generate story and embellish unique characters -- but I do not select to use Baum's texts metaphorically as a backdrop for that reason. I select them because of magic, Kansas, and how well Dorothy's experiences mirror those of my own and the SIG (that is, the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group). Over the next few pages, using this metaphor as a tool I will explore our history, definitions of self-study, methodologies and our work in relation to issues of reform. To do that I will weave the story and the ideas together. For ten years I have studied my development as a teacher educator and member of the academy. Using letters, journals, e-mail communiqués, and other related documentation, I have honed individual and shared stories of my development as a teacher educator and have revised my definitions of teacher knowledge from a self-study perspective. This paper addresses my next step in the analysis of my experience - a retrospective look at my work as a member of the SSTEP community. With my presentation I hope to engage participants in a conversation about the growth of the self-study of teacher education practices SIG as well as offer myself as a representation of the work done by the SIG as a point of critique. Setting Context
I myself speak
the language of the Munchkins.....language of the Emerald City...But
you, I suppose, speak the language of the Pumpkinheads?
There is no text
without context. When I first visited Oz, I walked with Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and the Lion into the luscious landscape. Less familiar to the general audience are the further tales of Dorothy where she visits her friends, battles for justice, and generally tries to save the world (of Oz). During Dorothy's many adventures she exchanges experiences with the Shaggy Man, the Patchwork Girl, the Glass Cat, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, a Woozy, Ojo, Button Bright, Mr. Hip-Hopper, the Horners, and more. Always walking, in her many tales she visits the land of the Winkies, the Quadlings, the Gillikins, and the Munchkins. These are terrains of color, light, and experience. They are also the lands of adventure - around every corner things are not as they appear to be. Yet, this is the landscape of acceptance, where people are embraced for who they are, not expected to be themselves, are offered kindness, and are shown respect. Throughout the texts, she can be seen as a child, an accidental protagonist and/or an indomitable spirit. Over time Dorothy maintains her child-like, optimistic, hopeful qualities. She is at once "just a girl" and a fierce warrior unafraid of whatever confronts her. More than that, she is from Kansas -- the land of prairies and conformity. But, Dorothy never fit into this context. Instead, she was marked for challenge and adventure as she explored the many textured layers running through Oz. (For the moment we will put aside Baum's misogyny and racism and retell his tale in a postmodern form.) As the diviner of this tale, who am I? I am a white woman raised in an Americo-European tradition by working class parents. Intellectually they accepted what they learned in school and looked no further than high school. Spiritually, they were not seekers beyond the organized religion of their childhoods. Through their rearing, I experienced the search for betterment (the American dream?) and developed a commitment to social justice. Politically, my parents claimed democratic views while espousing republican notions of inclusion and diversity. In response to them, I learned Democracy as a way of thinking. So, when I use Dorothy as a tool to explore my experience, the endeavor challenges me to question and consider the many issues important to the work we do. Into this Land of Oz we will venture. Rather than swirling storms and rippling time, there are more subtle panoramas to traverse, many of them along an interior trail. In this paper, I will use Dorothy, her friends, and the Emerald City to explore the experiences of our Special Interest Group and myself over the past ten years. To do that, I identify four major topics to explore: history, definitions, methodologies, and re/form. These topics emerged as I reviewed my own writings over the past years as well as the writings of others in our Group. An Interesting History
Now, that is
very interesting history.....and I understand it perfectly - all but
the explanation. When I dare to be powerful -- to use my strength in the service of my vision - it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid. Audre Lorde In the many tales of Oz, Dorothy is often asked about her origins. Most often the askers want to know whether or not she is royalty. She responds with an emphatic "NO", until she does become royalty in Oz. An example of a typical query occurs when a Princess asks "are you of royal blood?", to which the indomitable Dorothy replies "Better than that...I came from Kansas." Just as people want to know Dorothy's origins, SSTEP SIG members have been asked the same question...how did this group originate? It is my recollection that ideas about self-study emerged as much from a discomfort with traditional scientific approaches to research as a desire to change the ways that people think about research in teacher education. At that time qualitative research had only been a part of the educational research terrain for a few years and qualitative dissertations were relatively infrequent. I can unearth the memory from my experience of Tom Russell offering the Arizona Group a challenge (April, 1990). He challenged us to study our own teaching practice and our own experience. Prior to that time Lee Shulman (January, 1990 in a National Holmes Group address) clearly stated that teacher educators needed to look at their own practice to make an impact on the practice of novice teachers. At the same time, other researchers interested in challenging the status quo also engaged themselves in inquiry into teacher education by adapting approaches from outside the norm. Cochran-Smith and Lytle explored the notion of teacher as researcher (1990); Clandinin and Connelly ( ) initiated their work on narrative and professional landscapes; Cole and Knowles wrote letters about their teaching and scholarship (1991); Whitehead examined living contradictions (1993); Zeichner continued his work on teacher inquiry ( ); Beth Ann Hermann looked at mutuality ( ); Russell ( ) probed the relationship among reflection, teaching, and action; and Northfield and Loughran ( ) investigated reflection in their own classrooms. Evidently the paradigm was shifting and we were in the right place at the right time. As in any hero's tale, understanding how the journey begins sets the context for the adventure. Dorothy's tales always start with a seemingly innocent turn - a trip to Australia, a walk along the road, or in place during a conversation among friends. As the tale moves forward, the history of the characters unfold to add substance to the story. A history of our group will help provide an understanding of our development. Since 1991, there has been a burgeoning interest in self-study. In the early 1990s teacher educators realized that to genuinely reach their students, they needed to examine their own practices. Walking their talk - matching belief with practice - became a critical element for those committed to powerful teacher education. The Self-Study of Teacher Education Practice Special Interest Group was born of this commitment. In 1991, I am aware only of the Arizona Group papers looking at our experiences as teachers and teacher educators. In 1992, I am again only aware of our papers continuing to further address our experiences and teachers and teacher educators. However, after that presentation, which drew a greater than capacity crowd, Beth Ann Hermann suggested that we get together to discuss creating a special interest group. She had already begun a special interest group at the National Reading Conference and thought that we could link the work and the researchers together. At our meeting we created the name (Fred Korthagen, Stefinee Pinnegar, Beth Ann and I met) and planned for future work. Over the next year, Beth Ann and I strategized about calling a meeting at AERA. In 1993, we organized and held a meeting where approximately 75-100 people joined us in a discussion about where to go from there. At that time, Beth Ann was elected as the first Chair of the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Special Interest Group. In 1994, our SIG sponsored thirty-three papers, plus a performance, and a town meeting. Our papers explored teacher education from an intimate perspective. Our work demonstrated our commitment to alternative representations. We represented our understanding of teacher education from a different perspective. Further, we used alternative strategies to explore our work. We had choral readings as well as a very risk-taking performance (Finley, Cole, & Knowles, 1994). (We also organized our sessions differently, by casting aside the traditional "hiding behind the chair" arrangement.) A significant aspect of our work is the international flavor of the work. Just as Dorothy draws together people from the many parts of Oz, SSTEP has included colleagues from many countries. In 1995, our group and our presentations grew to forty papers plus a town meeting. At this conference, Tom Russell invited the SIG members to consider the possibility of holding a conference where we might focus solely on self-study. The fact that we could hold it in a Castle in England helped SSTEP members consider the possibility. Many had attended the Bergamo conference where colleagues could come together to discuss curriculum with others of like interests in an intimate setting. So, in 1996 we had 46 papers presented at AERA with an exciting introductory speaker for our business meeting. Additionally we held the first Castle Conference that summer where ninety members attended and made many presentations. In 1996, the first conference sponsored by the SIG marked the initial development of self-study of teacher education practices as a concept. At that time, Douglas Barnes suggested that the work of self-study took an essentially humane approach. Further, he identified the conditions needed for the success of any example of self-study: reframing, collaboration, and openness (Barnes, 1998). Using these categories, self-study researchers reframe their situations, collaborate with colleagues and attempt to do so with openness. The work of SIG members reflected that. Of course, because our work is organic and because SIG members are committed to moving our ideas forward, we grew. Using the work of Barnes and others we worked toward the design and presentation of studies that clearly represented the self-study of teacher education practices. 1997 - I am missing this information. (Will be filled in soon.) Just like Dorothy along the yellow-brick road, in 1998 we continued to explore definitions, methodologies, and ideas. There were 30 papers presented at AERA that were sponsored by the SIG. Never comfortable with the ways we presented ideas or the ways that people questioned our work, we forged ahead into new territiories. We queried the characteristics of self-study and the ways to study teaching experience. The second conference in 1998 saw more innovations along with more attempts to design and enacts the best possible self-studies of teacher education practices. In 1999, the SIG sponsored 21 paper presentations at AERA. Interestingly, at the Division K Vice Presidential address, Ken Zeichner labeled self-study as the "single most significant development ever in the field of teacher education research (p. 8)." At that point we knew we had made an impact on teacher education, even if many of our colleagues were put off by the work we did. In 2000, the SIG sponsored 35 papers during the AERA conference. Perhaps more significantly Division K added a section to their Program called Self-study. At that point it became apparent that more and more people were identifying their work as self-study - but was that truly self-study? More importantly, if self-study was experiencing a ground swell of interest, why was it so difficult to publish our work? In this year we also held our third Castle Conference. After our third conference we, as a group, seem clearly ready to move beyond seeking/designing studies toward sharing them with the larger academic community. We are ready to invite critique to explore the ways in which our work contributes to the generation of knowledge. Erickson (2001) recognizes that we are a community of practice that demonstrates caring and generates discourse. Importantly, he suggests that we step out into the world beyond the community safety nets and push our work into the larger academic community. Others suggest that regarding methodology, those involved in the self-study of teacher education practices need to look carefully at how our practices relate to values and how we might make our ideas and our values more explicit in our work. In a culminating conference session John Baird proposed another way to consider the work of the SSTEP. This would entail a look at one's work from a phenomenological perspective employing five aspects: (1) purpose (How do I teach? Why do I teach this way? How well do I teach? How should I teach? How can I improve my teaching?), (2) focus (What are my values? What are my beliefs? What are my theories?), (3) method (How do I examine my work?), (4) data (What are my data? Are my data credible?), and (5) benefits (What are the benefits involved?). Further he suggested that the nature of the quality in teaching might center upon the extent of coherence among these aspects in our own teaching. Clearly, this work takes us beyond the first SSTEP conference from both a theoretical and practical perspective. Yet, has the work of the SIG members developed accordingly? Has my own? Our continuous inquiry into the work we do mirrors the journeys of Dorothy. Along her many paths she seeks truth - as she sees it, she wishes for understanding, and she looks for the best way to talk about her experiences with people in her world. For her, inquiry evolves and builds. She and her friends remain curious and interested in learning all that they can learn. Further, their understanding of their context helps to propel them along their path. Definitions
The more one
knows, the luckier he is, for knowledge is the greatest gift in life.
When you climb a
ladder, unless you abandon the lower step, you will not be able to
climb to a higher one. Knowledge is like that. If you are not ready
to let go of your knowledge, you cannot get a deeper knowledge of the
same thing. Whether Dorothy is in the air or in the water or in the forest or in the desert or in a palace, she is always looking to understand what she sees. She asks questions, she explores, and she persistently tests her notions about conclusions. She does not rest until she feels comfortable with the knowledge acquired. Magic and acceptance of both the rational and non-rational worlds help Dorothy travel along with some degree of solace. The SSTEP group has also sought this solace. Often we have queried about definitions and the many aspects of our work. We have troubled about perspectives, we have worried about methodology, and we have complained about the non-acceptance of our ideas by the mainstream educational researchers. Similar to Dorothy, we will not feel rest until we find our place within the educational community. Just as Dorothy approaches life with certainty and confidence, our SSTEP SIG has attempted to follow that approach. And just like Dorothy, we have only been stopped from time-to-time. As Dorothy often queries and questions, we have asked ourselves about our directions, our values, and our concerns. We want to define self-study. We want to know what makes it up. We want to know whether a work is a self-study simply because the author calls it that. And we fret about the explosion of claims about self-study. What makes a self-study a self-study? Yet, like Dorothy the adventure appears in the study of the place. Things are not always as they appear. For example, on one adventure Dorothy says, "Something very curious has happened. I ought to know by heart every step of this journey, yet I fear we have already lost our way." Fortunately, she does not waver from her quest. Instead she perseveres and finds her way. As we have followed our path in self-study, we may have stumbled along the way, but each dip in the road has contributed to our knowledge. Historically, research in teacher education has concentrated on the process of teacher development and the learning-to-teach process, but researchers from outside the classroom have done this work. Research on teacher educators has been more limited and has, again, been done by those outside the experience. As a result, most of our wisdom about the development of teachers and teacher educators has not been embedded in the practice or experience of the classroom. This trend shifted with the emergence of self-study and teacher research. Recently, in teacher education, studies have attempted to capture the process of teaching in academia from "within" -- presenting the students' and the teacher educators' perspectives. Some of these attempts have arisen from Schon's (1983) notions about reflection on practice, while others (Guilfoyle, 1994; Hamilton, 1994; Pinnegar, 1994; Placier, 1994; Russell, 1994; ADD MANY MORE for example) seem to center on the power of personal theorizing in the development of knowledge about teaching and learning. What is self-study? When we initiated the SSTEP SIG we generally defined self-study as the teacher educator's look at practice centering that work on the self rather than using someone else as the focus of the work (CHECK ARIZONA GROUP...1991...). Whitehead (1993) suggests that when involved in self-study, teachers examine their beliefs and actions within the context of their work as educators (CHECK THIS...). Hamilton & Pinnegar define self-study as the "study of one's self, one's actions, one's ideas, as well as the 'not self'. It is autobiographical, historical, cultural, and political and it draws 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 gathered. These are investigated for their connections with and relationships to practice...(1998, p. 236.)" Additionally Zeichner (1999) recognizes self study work as a "disciplined and systematic inquiry into one's own teaching practice (p. 11)." For me, in doing a self-study I explore both who I am and who I am not, taking a personal, honest look at my life including my history, my cultural influences, and my political notions. Beyond that, this work attempts to create praxis between a person's personal theory and the practice they undertake. From this perspective, the texts I have read, the people who have influenced my thinking and the ideas I have explored would be an important aspect of my study. Importantly, this is not a narcissistic voice, but a voice that is willing to honestly explore possibilities. In academia some of us have more willing colleagues than others. Some of us must, to some degree, become dependent upon our selves and must remain open and questioning, rather than just self-absorbed. A look at self can be approached in a variety of ways. A psychological perspective might claim that the self is the essence of everything with a vital process of revelation of individuality (Bohm, for example). Anthropologists explore the division of self/non-self with a cultural standpoint that includes looking at the influences of the culture into which a person is born (Holland & Levinson, 1996). Philosophically, there are many views that we may consider. Heidegger suggests that locating self involves a return to a place before we experienced influence from outside elements. Foucault describes an imagined self. Gadamer encourages a constructive way of understanding self. Derrida calls for deconstruction of what we call self to analyze the invisible conditions. Some educators focus on the situational self (Bullough, Knowles, & Crow, 1991, for example). Yet, the self-study of teacher education practices is not just a philosophical study of self. Rather, the work of SSTEP researchers represents the space between the philosophical aspects, the pedagogical issues, the contextual elements, and the personal/social/political elements. As we explore our questions we develop and then fine-tune a critical, questioning voice. This voice helps us ask astute questions that push us forward in our work. So, what makes up self-study? How do we know when our work is self-study? Further, in what ways was the self involved in the study? Let me first make a distinction between action research and self-study because too often these research approaches have been confused. In action research the researcher's work results in an action of a particular sort. Usually this work centers in the classroom, is undertaken by practitioners, and undertakes a cycle of identifying a problem, decides on a plan, implements the plan, evaluates the results, and then begins the cycle again. Often, if not always, this work includes an observable change in practice. On the other hand, self-study may result in an action, but of a less obvious sort. More often a shift in perspective is the result of self-study rather than a change in practices or an action of another sort, although it may lead to that. Over and over Dorothy and her friends search for meaning. Often they search together, always they ask questions that will deepen their understanding of their context. Sometimes they generate new knowledge of the situation. When young Ojo must find the components of the powder of life to save his uncle, the quest involves a troop of critical friends. Even when Ojo breaks the rules of behavior in a desperate act to quicken the process, rather than admonish him, his friends provide him the opportunity to learn from his experience. This careful support and study is a part of the work we, as the SSTEP SIG, do. To be a self-study, what must the work look like? Must it fit some definition of traditional research? Must our work look like all others? Must the work be generalizable in some traditional way? In the next few paragraphs I would like to explore what self-study work looks like. Then I would like to initiate a conversation about the methodologies used to undertake self-study. In the methodologies section I would like to consider: Is self-study only individual? Is it only collaborative? Is it only used in a classroom setting? Just how does it fit into the work that teacher educators do as they explore the development of professional knowledge? Taking a nod from postmodern work, I would like to suggest that the interest in self-study emerged from a dissatisfaction with the work of traditional research. We wanted to be more political. We wanted to invite other voices, including teachers, to join in the world of teacher education reform. We were also more conscious about the nature of the work previously done where natural settings were avoided rather than invited. This work had been done in the classroom by people who claimed to be experts. The new scholars in teacher education were not satisfied with that. We sought to understand the classroom from our own perspectives as well as the perspectives of the teachers in the schools. Like Dorothy, I have attempted to make connections between what I see and what I know. To do that, I have reviewed my own work and the work of others, it would seem that several perspectives about self-study emerge. [For the sake of getting this draft on the web, I am not going to spend time adding the citations that belong here. They will come in the last draft -- after the April conference.) There is the microscopic look at one's individual self and one's individual practice with teaching. This look is on the individual, although the methodology may involve a collaborative look at individual work. (See the next section for further elaboration on this issue.) Professional knowledge delineates the understandings that people have about their profession. Research on professional knowledge can simply be a demonstration of the understanding of the profession and/or the creation of knowledge about that profession. Self-study is the study of one's practice in teacher education - at the level of individual, profession, or institution. Some work focuses on the learning-to-teach process and ways to best address that process with students. While some of this work does not push to explore beyond a look at an experience, some of the work does generate knowledge. Researchers in self-study focus not as much on what they are as how they come to understand teaching and the knowledge needed to undertake the teaching of students. They chose this so that they might be able to convey the process and the learning experience to their students. In every case the focus is on the development of professional knowledge - at the individual, the programmatic or the institutional level. There are some researchers in the SSTEP SIG that propose that our work needs to focus specifically and only on an individual or collective look at self-study teacher education practices. For the most part, that seems to be defined as strategies and activities in the teacher educator's classroom. I suggest that the self-study of teacher education practices is broader than that. I suggest that rather than hold a narrow view, the definition of the self-study of teacher education practices needs to expand to include practices: within the classroom, practices within the role as a teacher educator (that might be in the classroom or within the context of the department), practices that fit within the context of making a difference in the world of education, and practices that occur with the academic community. Each of these perspectives influences the teacher/teacher educator and affect how they carry out their work. Sometimes the research done will only be informative on an individual level and sometimes that research will generate new knowledge about teaching and our profession. I have identified self-study work in several different forms: What it means to be a teacher? What it means to be a teacher educator? What it means to make a difference? and What it means to be a member of the academic community? While they are set out in a progressive fashion, the reader should not assume that this implies that one form is necessarily better than another. However, one might argue that one level may be more complex than another. (And, of course, that may or may not be true.) What it means to be a teacher In self-study of this sort a researcher attempts to explore, understand, and address pedagogical questions. Shulman (1986) suggests that good instruction requires that instructors have pedagogical content knowledge. In this form of self-study, researchers look at their experience as teachers, sometimes focusing on a particular use of strategy, sometimes focusing on a certain manner. Often in this form of self-study, researchers begin the self-study as individuals. Sometimes, however, researchers expand the study to become more collective in nature. (An example of this form of the work would be my 1994 AERA paper.) What it means to be a teacher educator When undertaking self-study of this sort, a teacher/researcher in the classroom focuses on their understandings of teaching teachers. Not only do the teacher/researchers look at their classroom strategy or plan or activity, but the teacher/researchers also look at the learning-to-teach process and their participation in it. For example, in what ways, if any, do the activities undertaken influence the development of novice teachers' professional knowledge? Further, how might that be represented? Work like this may be done individually or collectively - with colleagues or the students in the classroom. (An example of this form of the work would be my 1991 and 1992 AERA works.) What is means to be a change agent Researchers engaged in this form of self-study look to make an impact of teacher education, looking to a larger context than the classroom. Using this form of self-study, researchers recognize their role in change agency. Here researchers look at teacher education reform and ways of moving toward the views of teacher education that surround the work they do. At this level some researchers may choose to undertake a self-study of their program. This could be individual or collective. (An example of this form of the work would be my 1996 AERA paper that looks at the Power of Words.) What it means to be a member of the academic community Reform of the institution can be another form of the self-study researcher. This form engages the researcher in the work by looking at the environment within which the teacher educator must function. Often self-study researchers have looked at their tenure experiences and the ways that does or does not support the work they feel they need to do. (Examples of this form of the work would be my 1995; 1997; 1998 AERA papers.) As we have attempted to figure out our world, our work, our challenges, our obstacles, and our gifts, so did Dorothy as she ventured through the Land of Oz. She always sought to define her world as we try to define ours. Dorothy and her friends always encourage each other with a smile or a nudge - even those who might at first glance seem recalcitrant or arbitrary. That is how we should continue to proceed. As I have described them, there are many forms of self-study, and probably some I have not included. We need to remain open to possibilities rather than enclose ourselves with self-imposed notions. So, here we sit with definitions. At this point questions of methodology arise. Once we know we are going to undertake a self-study, what will we do? How will we explore our selves and our work? Methodologies
In an emergency
it is always a good thing to pause and reflect...please excuse me
while I pause and reflect....
Authentic help
means that all who are involved help each other mutually, growing
together in the common effort to understand the reality which they
seek to transform. Throughout Dorothy's many adventures, she and her friends must figure out how they are going to accomplish their tasks. Will they walk down the road, talk with the witch, watch the celebration, witness the situation, or ask for help from friends? For them, these are never easy questions. Instead, they must talk together and consider what they want to accomplish and how they might do that. In the end, they are always satisfied with their outcomes. For example, on one adventure the friends hope to visit the Emerald City. Their problem? They must cross the Deadly Desert. While they thought they were on the proper path, they found themselves wondering who mixed up the roads. While they do not resolve that query, they do consider possible ways to solve their difficulty. Crossing the desert in a traditional manner was not a choice. It was not called the Deadly Desert for no reason. In their process, they move beyond the proverbial box and decide that they must build a boat in which they can sail across the hot sands. Floating above the path is the only way to succeed. They look to each other to figure out how to proceed. They have a plan, but they do not know how to enact it. As they realize this, they call in a critical friend to help them bring the plan to action. Their friend helps them identify the problem, clarify their strategy, and construct boat they need to sail across the desert. As it is for Dorothy and her friends, it has been, it would seem, for us within the SSTEP SIG. Once we identify the work we want to do and the questions we hope to explore, we must struggle to figure out how we can undertake our work. We might ask ourselves:
For the next few paragraphs, I would like to initiate a conversation about the methodologies used to undertake self-study. Is self-study only individual? Is it only collaborative? Is it only used in a classroom setting? Just how does it fit into the work that teacher educators do as they explore the development of professional knowledge? Fitting our work into the traditional world
We are
here&ldots;.but where the here is, I don't know&ldots;. Perhaps in the beginning we felt an urgency to conform to certain standards. These feelings might have emerged because of a desire to attain tenure - the penultimate zenith of the academic world. However, I believe we looked beyond that personal focus to a larger goal - to shift the ways that research was valued within/without academia and the ways that the work of teachers - ourselves included - was viewed by the academic community. Part of working outside of the traditional paradigm means that you are undertaking work beyond the constructs of what is currently acceptable. Consequently, in a postmodern world where multiple realities brush against each other and subjectivity is not a curse to be hidden from view, definitions of acceptability must shift. In this position along the rim, we worry about validity and trustworthiness and ways to express our work - mostly to fit the notions that the traditional researchers have about how research should be done. We are trying to fit our square peg into their round hole. So, rather than reshape our work for the legitimacies or illegitimacies, we plunged forward. Sort of. Actually we wondered about how to publish our work and worried about who might read our work because even as we stepped out into our New World, we sought the comfort of the old one. Traditional researchers sometimes accuse us of whiny self-absorbed narcissism. Partly because they didn't read the work, partly because we presented our work in a nonconforming fashion - down to rearranging chairs in the meeting rooms. We lessened the distance between....time and again the worry is expressed about how we (the SSTEP community) can see our work published to make its mark in the larger community of educational research. We have worried that the lack of a systematic method for conducting self-study research reduces the likelihood of its acceptance as a legitimate form of scholarly inquiry. Perhaps we need to shift our view. As square pegs, we might be better off seeking our own fit in a variety of places. With one person, one idea, one experience at a time we can generate the shift in thinking to which we are committed. Allowing our disgruntlement with the status quo to bog down our work may simply be a waste of time. Perhaps the better question is - how can we implement the best possible research? While what is your evidence is an interesting question, it does not begin to query the power of the research. Indeed, there are ways that that question attempts to nudge us back again in the traditional paradigm. A better question might be - how could I best present my research as a teacher/teacher-educator to push forward our knowledge of our own teaching and the general learning-to-teach process? What do our readers, our students, our colleagues, and the community-at-large need to know about that work? If we accept the ways of thinking about self-study work offered above, I think we can best represent the work we do by engaging in good research. Importantly, the self-study of teacher education practices is NOT a methodology. Rather than serving as just a strategy with which to explore teaching practice, it involves a stance taken in the ways to enact [usually] qualitative strategies to explore identified issues or concerns. We must employ strong research strategies that answer the questions we pose. How can we do that? In the next few paragraphs, set within the context of the ways of thinking about self-study offered in the last section, I am going to look at the methodologies that might be used in self-study work. To do this, I will use my own work as examples. However, before I provide those examples, I will briefly explore the strategies used to engage in self-study. Individual work A barrier that's not a barrier.....that wall.....is what is called an optical illusion. It is quite real while you have your eyes open, but if you are not looking at it the barrier doesn't exist at all. It's the same way with many other [experiences] in life; they seem to exist and yet it's all seeming and not true. L. Frank Baum When scholars decide to do a self-study of their teacher education practices, they may decide to take an individual approach. Now these researchers, by the nature of the classroom setting, are engaged with others in that setting, but the work can be centered on self - and what that person is doing in the classroom. If that person has set out a methodology that asks good questions of self, the scholar can provide a good examination of practice. Is a critical friend necessary? Sometimes. Will that scholar also generate knowledge? Sometimes. When studying the effects of body movement on the electrical output generated by a body, scientists have discovered that subtle movements generate more than 100 times the output than the larger movements. Keeping this in mind, sometimes an understanding of a simple behavior or belief-action connection can create a broader influence on classroom occurrence - which may, in turn, affect a person's entire way of looking at the education of a child. Some of my own work has been individual self-study. As a qualitative researcher, feminist pedagogy, critical theory, and a constructivist view of learning, teaching, and researching inform my work. When I write I attempt to push the boundaries of educational inquiry by taking seriously the knowledge created through my work as a woman, a teacher, and a scholar in teacher education (Lather, 1991). I engage in a form of participatory research, using data and findings not only to inform but also to educate and change (Maguire, 1987). As a qualitative researcher, I emphasize the importance of meaning and process to the understanding of human action (Bogdan & Biklin, 1982). To do this, I use evidence from personal journals, letters and e-mail notes, field notes, interviews with those involved, and formal and informal documents from my institution to examine my practices. I respect the constructed worlds of each participant, and attempt to build theory through a deep understanding of those worlds. The Space Between
Always be
willing to look at things from a different perspective.... we must
turn over a new leaf....I have noticed that those who continually
dread ill luck and fear it will overtake them, have not time to take
advantage of any good fortune that comes their way... As a self-study researcher I have not found colleagues at my institution with which I can share my work. Fortunately I have been able to engage in e-dialogues with scholars around the world. While this is an opportunity for which I am enormously grateful, sometimes this is not enough. Sometimes I need to have interaction beyond a distanced word. Consequently, I have adapted a way to be in the presence of absent friends - using collage. Certainly collage is an art form and an alternative way to represent ideas, but it is more than that. For me, the collage canvas affords the opportunity to explore imagery, words, and symbols that convey my ideas. As I select these pieces to represent my work I am forced to consider what might best represent my ideas, what might challenge me, what symbol will convey the complex thinking involved in the work. And how does this represent my text? And does it reach others? I have used collages to support the organization of my work (after I have collected data) and I have used them to support the interpretation process. As I select the pieces I include on the work, I ask myself how that piece fits with what I am attempting to convey. This is the same process my closest colleagues have taken me through when I am in their presence. Now, I am not suggesting that we substitute good colleagues with collages. However, the use of collage can support a scholar through the process. Collaborative work
All donkeys are
born wise.....so the only school we need is the school of
experience....books are only fit for those who know nothing, and so
are obliged to learn things from other people. Collaborative work offers scholars to examine their work in concert with each other. Having a critical friend to propel them through the process can foster new questions. NEED TO SAY MORE... I have examined my own early socialization in the academic role individually (Hamilton, 1991) and with the support of the Arizona Group using different conceptual lenses (Guilfoyle, 1991; Pinnegar, 1991; Placier, 1991, etc...). Each analyzed the discourse of letters and journals recounting our first two years as assistant professors on four different campuses. We examined the texts for patterns and themes related to our own questions and theoretical frameworks, for both explicit and implicit meanings (Bogdan & Biklin, 19??; Price, 1987). To triangulate our findings we consulted other colleagues from our institutions and beyond to affirm/disconfirm our perspectives (Borman, LeCompte, & Goetz, 1986). As we developed as researchers we wrote individual and shared texts of our experiences. EXAMPLES
For experience
has taught me that I can do anything if I but take time to think it out&ldots;.. My own work as a scholar engaged in the self-study of teacher education practices seems to mirror the development of the SIG. As Barnes proposed in the early days of the SIG, I focused on the reframing, collaboration and openness - almost in a naive way. I collaborated with colleagues to reframe my work as a teacher and as a member of the academic community. For example, when I wrote:
I was engaged in reframing my situation as a teacher educator in academe, I was working in collaboration with others, and I was attempting to be as open toward an understanding of the situation as I could be. Is this self-study? In retrospective, I suggest that this is an interesting, passionate, yet superficial analysis of data gathered. I believe it is self-study, of the sort that looks at becoming a member of the academic community. Two years later using a narrative construction I focused more deliberately on my teaching practice:
My own experience examines confronting self at a different level. For me, aligning my beliefs and actions remains the most critical element for teaching. I do battle with demons on every trip to the classroom. In my journal I suggest:
Again, I think that my work is self-study. This time my work was of the sort that looks are becoming/being a teacher educator. Using Barnes or Baird I think that this work holds up as the self-study of teacher education practices. Needs a conclusion/summary Reform/Re-Form
Your world
pleases me, for it's a queer world, and life in it is queerer still.
that which we
are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts,...strong in will, to
strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. Strong among the aspects that make up the SSTEP SIG is the commitment to reform teacher education and a desire to re-form relationships and understandings of academia in general. Rather than simply accept the status quo of teacher education in the ways that we teach and work with our novice teachers, we are willing to challenge the system and the ways of research, of teaching, or presenting our work. Further, we are willing to take the necessary action to encourage change. Of course, change does not occur quickly. We have been accused of shallow work, we have been called navel-gazers, we have been identified of lacking theoretical perspective, and more. Yet we have resisted. I suggest that our commitment to powerful teacher education to empower those young children (OBLIGATIONS....) in the schools surpasses our worry about how we might be perceived by others. Personally, I am less worried about fitting my work into the standard community resources. I understand that changing paradigms means shifting from the way it was to the way it will be. How can we do that? Community The little band of friends Ozma had gathered around her was so quaintly assorted that much care must be exercised to avoid hurting their feelings or making any one of them unhappy. It was this considerate kindness that held them close friends and enabled them to enjoy one another's society... L. Frank Baum One significant aspect of the SSTEP SIG is the shared sense of community. In Oz, community, kindness, a willingness to step up to confront "evil" (as defined by them), being role models for others was a part of the community practice. According to more than one character, it is kindness that makes one strong and brave. While I can not talk about the courage and bravery of all members, I can discuss the empowerment of group support. As Dorothy and her friends would never think of working individually, we often experience synergy within our group. We are willing to step forward and challenge traditional perspectives, which generates a cycle of stepping out and support. When Dorothy said "We'll all go together...for that way we can help each other...if you went alone, something might happen to you...." she expresses the support of the entire community. In turn, our SSTEP SIG offers the same support and comradery. Over the years, what we have created is a wonderfully strong community built on kindness, heart, passion, and inclusion. Our community encourages voice, difference, and creativity. Throughout Dorothy's adventures these things, too, remain constant. In Oz, you might find Polychrome, daughter of the Rainbow who dances through her life asking questions and remaining vibrant in the face of any danger. You might find the hungry tiger whose conscience must remain in good order so as not to eat his friends. This conscience rules him like a tyrant and causes him to exclaim "I can imagine nothing more unpleasant than to own a conscience" but he continues to protect his friends. You may find the Shaggy Man who has a love magnet that hangs around his neck drawing people to him to be loved and loving. Yet undervalued because of how he looked. You may find the Patchwork Girl who is an original and incomparable. Of herself she says , of "all the comic, absurd, rare and amusing creatures the world contains, I must be the supreme freak." She is also willing to be an example of difference in the face of pressures to fit into the situation. You may find UNC, who never speaks more words than he was obliged to do and his nephew called Ojo the unlucky...or is that the lucky? These individuals are willing to support each other and transform the situation to look again at how things are perceived. You may Button-bright who is a at once smart and stupid, yet he forces people to listen to themselves, observe the ways they are seeing the situation, and what they were saying. You may find the Scarecrow reminding Ozians to think about this or that, or the Tin Man reminding Ozians to be kind, or the Lion reminding Ozians to demonstrate their courage. Or you may find the Glass Cat or the Woozy or Ozma or many, many others. Do any of these people sound familiar? One theme in the Oz texts is difference. According to citizens of Oz, difference" doesn't matter as long as they are&ldots;friends&ldots;" I think that our community is strong because of our larger commitment. We are fortunate to have the support, encouragement, and courage necessary to promote the best teacher education possible. Conclusions
You are very
foolish to go back into that stupid, humdrum world again...
We are the ones
we've been waiting for. Dorothy and her friends are valiant and thoughtful and always willing to move along the path toward a peaceful enriched life. In some ways the world of Oz insulated Dorothy and her friends from the harshness of the world that includes the invading Nomes, the Scoodlers, the Flatheads, and other sorcerers. Dorothy and friends could always disappear into the Emerald City where life is perfect. In fact, at some point in Dorothy's adventures, Glinda the Good invokes a spell that will render Oz and the Emerald City invisible. This cloak will hide the place and the citizens from invading forces and ideas. So it is that the SSTEP SIG community has offered us connection and protection. Many is the time I have heard SSTEP colleagues state emphatically that our group brought them to or brought them back to the annual AERA conference. This is no small accomplishment. To some degree we have woven a of invisibility for ourselves. We have stepped back from the world found in the traditional world, not because we are afraid, but because we sought to perfect the work we do. Unlike Oz, which never lost its cloak, it is time to shed our cloak of invisibility so that our work reaches the mainstream. We must recognize the shift in the paradigm that we have created and proceed to make the difference we need to make. TEMPORARY BIBLIOGRAPHY... Incomplete...Incomplete... Do not be dismayed if I have left out an important person....they are sure to be included in the final draft.......... Arizona Group Baird, J. (2000) Barnes, 1998 Frank Baum texts (Bogdan & Biklin, 1982). Borman, LeCompte, & Goetz, 1986 Bullough, Knowles, & Crow, 1991, for example). Clandinin and Connelly (1990; 1991) Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990, 1991); Cole and Knowles (1991); Derrida Finley, Cole, Knowles Foucault Guilfoyle, 1991 Guilfoyle, 1994 (Hamilton ,1991) Hamilton, 1994; Hamilton, M. L. (1998) Hamilton & Pinnegar 1998 Heidegger Beth Ann Hermann ( ) Holland & Levinson, 1996). P Lather, 1991 (Maguire, 1987). Northfield and Loughran ( ) Pinnegar, 1991 Pinnegar, 1994; Placier, 1991 Placier, 1994; Price, 1987 Russell ( ) Russell, 1994 Schon, D. (1983) Shulman, L. (1990) Shulman (1986) Whitehead (1993); Zeichner ( ) Zeichner, K.. (1999) Castle 1996 Castle 2000
|
©2001 Mary Lynn Hamilton. All rights reserved. Website content questions? Mary Lynn Hamilton. Website design questions? Janel Hinrichsen