10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
EDENlab. Interdisciplinary Research-Action on EDucational ENvironments with Schools
Beate Weyland, Giusi Boaretto
Free University of Bolzano, Italy
Presenting Author: Weyland, Beate;
Boaretto, Giusi
This contribution presents some methodological and operational reflections on a research path started in 2012 at the Free University of Bozen/Bolzano on the relationship between pedagogy and architecture in the design process of school buildings (Weyland, Prey 2020; Weyland, 2022; Weyland & Falanga, 2022), now interpreted by the interdisciplinary laboratory EDEN, Educational Environments with Nature. The laboratory acts along two trajectories: the training of future kindergarten and primary school teachers and the in-service teacher training in a lifelong lifewide learning perspective.
With regard to the first trajectory, a participatory pathway aimed at qualifying the common spaces of the Brixen campus of the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen started in 2017, which led in 2020 to the creation of two Green classrooms, with 100 plants, to carry out teaching activities also in order to comply with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda.
With respect to the second path, between 2016 and 2018 a consultative support activity for schools came into being, combining the need to qualify the school's physical spaces with the need to update teaching practices and develop school organisation. These experiences gave rise to the idea of conveying through the university proposals to support "school development" (Schratz & Steiner-Löffler, 1999) through research-action paths financed by the schools themselves. We work together on the pedagogical-didactical and architectural design process of the environments in which the educational relationship is staged, sharing the perspectives of professionals in education, educational research, architecture and design. Between 2019 and 2022, as many as 24 school communities have entered into research-action agreements with our university. In these processes, school authorities themselves become research commissioners and place teachers in the role of co-researchers in the field, in order to overcome the well-known gap between academic research outcomes and their impact in school-institutional contexts (Zanniello, 2016; Vannini, 2018, Calidoni 2021), With the establishment of the interdisciplinary research laboratory EDENLAB, the intention is to develop this type of research for its methodological flexibility and its ability to affect the motivational (the whys of the research) and relational aspects (the reports, communications, dissemination of results). In addition to sensitising teachers on what Luigina Mortari (2007) defines as the "posture of the researcher" in her daily practice, the effort being developed is in fact to elaborate a research programme that makes the data collected by the different collaborations converge on the three moments that Elisabetta Nigris (2018) describes as central: co-siting the research; identifying the design; discussing and co-constructing the analysis and synthesis of the data, in order to establish the effectiveness of the actions of change undertaken.
The objectives that the LAB pursues are multiple: the first is to document, accommodate and stimulate teaching activities, research and implementation on the subject of educational environments in which plants are also included as mediators that allow us to question the quality of spaces and at the same time to modify teaching and learning in favour of actions of care, well-being and active exploration. Furthermore, we consider it essential to provide scientific validity and widespread recognition to the virtuous encounter between theory and practice in a process of experimentation in which all parties are involved in the creation of beneficial learning landscapes in which plants are also present.
The question that the EDEN project aims to answer is how to better facilitate the co-participative and interdisciplinary design of formal, non-formal and informal educational environments in a lifelong, lifewide, lifedeep learning perspective in order to promote a paradigm shift: from the concept of the traditional school to the development of educational spaces in which to grow through creativity, cooperation, sensory in connection with plants.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe considerations with which this contribution was initiated are necessary to understand the motivations behind the approach and methodology of action identified by the EDENLAB research team. Our methodology is based on a research-training model founded on the implementation of circular reflexivity by all participants. The focus is on the co-construction of pedagogical knowledge not only from an academic point of view, but in accordance with practical-concrete experience. In other words, the heart of the Research-Training work lies in the desire to lay the foundations for a democratic school through the shared rethinking of learning spaces and educational and training relations (Weyland, Leone, 2020).
Specifically, this research takes the socio-cultural constructivist paradigm (Denzin, Lincoln, 2017) and stands at the crossroads between the directions from Educational Action Research (Mertler,2019) and Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Ozer, 2017). The choice of instruments identified for data collection refers to the Participation Choice Point (Vaughn, Jacquez, 2020) and falls into the levels Inform (information is provided to community), consult (input is obtained from community), and involve (researchers work directly with community).
More specifically, our EDENLAB laboratory develops ad hoc tools relating to the identification of needs, the mapping of processes and the verification of results in a combination of quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (logbook, thematic padlets, interviews) methods. The starting point of the action-research paths is a starter-kit, which uses the padlet platform, to document the different meetings, collect semi-informal information, define tasks and to nimbly get teachers into a field data collection perspective. This tool makes it possible to flexibly adapt inputs, information and requests to different contexts. It is accompanied by a logbook for both personal reflection and documentation of the proposed organisational and teaching activities. Monitoring of the research process and sharing are ensured through rhythmic check/check meetings - in accordance with the schedule (every 4-6 weeks). The technique used to conduct this monitoring is coaching, thanks to which the educating community involved can confront each other and have the support of the research group that offers feedback and stimulates reflection and the co-construction of new practical knowledge. It is precisely this posture of the LAB group that enables the realisation of participatory planning and the understanding of how professional competence has a mobile and open and social or intersubjective nature.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe EDENLAB laboratory aims to offer an operational, customisable model of co-participatory and interdisciplinary design of formal, non-formal and informal educational environments in a lifelong, lifewide, lifedeep learning perspective in which plants become mediating and educating subjects.
Through the involvement of the entire community in an exploratory process on the qualities of indoor environments, this is implemented with the aim of achieving greater well-being and appropriation. As indicated by several scholars (Barrett 2015, Huges et al. 2019, Weyland 2022), these are, in fact, the factors that contribute to making schools more effective and capable of affecting the future of new generations.
This contribution aims to present the evidence, corresponding to the above-mentioned directions, gathered during a decade of exploratory research. First and foremost, the analysis of the effectiveness of the methodology used which, although referring to specific frameworks, was customised and enriched by the use of techniques and tools co-constructed by the research team and the research community. Secondly, the analysis of the materials produced by the school-academic community ( principals, teachers, parents, student body) in the research-action. Last but not least, it intends to present the data collected during the EDEN GREEN MIND SET event held on 11-12 November 2022 to launch the laboratory. The conference brought together teachers, managers, architects and designers from the international scene who discussed the possibility of thinking about schools capable of accommodating new educational perspectives and sustainability experienced also through the presence of plants in interior spaces.
The results of these analyses will form the basis for the promotion of systematic research aimed at identifying methodological guidelines and flexible tools that can be used throughout the national and international context.
ReferencesArmstrong, F; (2019) Social Constructivism and Action Research: transforming teaching and learning though collaborative practice. In Armstrong, Felicity and Tsokova, Diana, (eds.) Action Research for Inclusive Education: Participation and Democracy in Teaching and Learning. (pp. 17-30). Routledge.
Barrett, P. (2015). Clever Classroom. Retrieved October 26, 2021 from https://www.cleverclassroomsdesign.co.uk/results.
Calidoni, P., Felini, D., Bobbio, A. (eds.). (2021). Cesare Scurati. Sguardi sull’educazione. FrancoAngeli.
Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (2017). The Sage handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Hughes H., Franz J., Willis J. (2019). School spaces for Student Wellbeing and Learning. Singapore: Springer.
Mertler, C. A. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of action research in education. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781119399490
Mortari, L. (2007). Cultura della ricerca e pedagogia. Prospettive epistemologiche. Carocci.
Nigris, E. (2018). L'evoluzione della ricerca pedagogico-didattica fra teoria e pratica. Quali i ruoli e quali i compiti di ricercatori e insegnanti nella Ricerca-Formazione? In Asquini, G. (ed.), La Ricerca-Formazione. Temi, esperienze, prospettive. FrancoAngeli: 27 – 40.
Ozer, E. J. (2017). Youth-Led Participatory Action Research: Overview and Potential for Enhancing Adolescent Development. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 173– 177. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12228
Schratz, M., & Steiner Loffler, U. (2001). La scuola che apprende. Strutture e processi di sviluppo formativo, Brescia: La Scuola.
Vannini, I. (2018). Introduzione. Fare ricerca educativa per promuovere la professionalità docente. Il “qui ed ora” del Centro CRESPI. In Asquini, G., (ed.), La Ricerca-Formazione, 13 – 24.
Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1). doi: 10.35844/001c.13244.
Weyland B., Prey K. (2020). Ridisegnare la scuola tra didattica archiettura e design. Milano:
Guerini.
Weyland B., Leone T. (2020). Laboratori attivi di democrazia. Milano: Guerini.
Weyland, B., Falanga, M. (2022). Didattica della scuola: spazi e tempi per una comunità in ricerca. Guerini.
Weyland B. (2022). Eden. Educare (ne)gli spazi con le piante. Milano: Corraini
Zanniello G. (2016). La didattica tra storia e ricercar. Roma:Armando
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Toward a ‘New’ Standard of Dissensus for Teacher Education
Stephen Heimans1, Matthew Clarke2
1University of Queensland, Australia; 2University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Heimans, Stephen;
Clarke, Matthew
In this paper we put forward a ‘standard for dissensus’ that seeks to identify the consensus about what counts in and as education and look for ways to think again about these matters. We will delineate what the contents of such a standard might be. Why would we do this? In common with a range of international contexts, some European teacher education systems have embraced teacher professional standards as vehicles for codifying and developing the work of teachers (Koster & Dengerink, 2015; Page, 2015; Pedaste, Leijen, Poom-Valickis & Eisenschmidt, 2019). The putative rationale for developing professional standards is that they provide a shared language for talking about teachers, teaching and learning, and thus serve as a common reference point for pedagogical, professional and promotion-related conversations. At the same time, critical questions have been raised about the potential of standards as vehicles, not just for professional development, but for monitoring and controlling teachers (Sachs, 2003; Taylor, 2022). Concerns have also been raised regarding the degree to which standards inhibit professional autonomy and creativity - as Taubman pithily puts it (2009, p. 117) in his aptly named book, Teaching by numbers, “standards serve to standardize work”. Professional standards can also be seen as part of a trend to turn teaching from a moral, ethical and politically informed practice to a technical matter of implementing official knowledge and curriculum, thereby de-contesting, de-intellectualising and de-educationalizing education (see Biesta, 2021 on the rise of the discourse of learning). Standards also suggest that there is a consensus about what is important in education; that the purposes and practices of education are widely agreed upon and as a result it seems that they cannot easily become subject to debate. In this paper our goal is to offer a resource for teacher educators to be able to question this consensus and to consider what it is that standardised approaches to education are asking of us (and our students)- remembering that standards are designed to be met, not to be brought into question.
We join in the critique of standardisation in education, but we do so taking an ‘additive’ approach (see Savransky and Stengers, 2018) where we develop resources for use with teacher education students that may open up new lines of thinking about the purposes and practices of education. To this end, we also enter into the ongoing discussion about what counts as education and who it is that decides this (see Biesta, 2011; Yosef-Hassidim, 2021). Our work here supports an approach to standardisation ‘from below’ where it is the people whose work is the subject of standards who decide what is to be standardised and how this is to be enacted (with what outcomes, and so on) (see Heimans et al, 2021).
A ‘new’ standard of educational dissensus
1. Knowing the system
Whose interests does it serve?
Who is systemically marginalised?
2. Knowing ‘education’
Where are the ‘edges’ of knowledge about education?
(How) Can you speak about education from an education point of view?
3. Knowing how to change the system
What, where, how and who has been able to change the system before?
How can you organise safe resistance to the system?
4. Knowing education in relation to other governed entities
How is education known about?
Who has control over this and how can this control be contested?
5. Knowing what is sensible and what is not in education
What are the ways in which sense is distributed?
Who is it whose only part in this distribution is none?
How might the part of the no part take one? (Where, when, who- how named?)
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis is a conceptual paper. We base our suggestions for a ‘new’ standard on conceptualisations of dissensus. Our goal is to investigate how we might enter into the relations of governance that standardisation enacts in order to have an effect on and in these relations. Specifically, standardisation in education enacts social orders that, we argue, should not be taken for granted and the resources that we develop and enumerate are designed to fracture the sense of such orders, revealing in the process the arbitrariness of their constitution (see Rancière, 2013). We draw on Rancière (2010) and Verran’s (2015) thinking to inform the development of a standard that teacher educators might use with their students to unsettle what is valorised when education has been standardised. From Rancière, we utilise three concepts; 1. The part of the no part, 2. The (re)distribution of the sensible), 3. The presupposition of equality. From Verran (2015) (whose scholarship involves investigating confrontations between Australian Indigenous, and ‘Western’ ‘scientific’, epistemic practices), we draw on an approach to dissensus which involves “thinking of objects of governance [for example teacher/ teaching practices and their standardisation] as events, as expressions of a collective going-on together in a particular here and now”, which “offers a means to consider the ethics and politics of a particular going-on doing difference together” (Verran, 2015, p. 52). Verran (2015) suggests, “A politics of dissensus, like any politics is concerned with ‘What particular choices present in this here and now?’, ‘What is at stake in those choices?’ ‘How might those choices be made?’” (p. 54). “Unlike the politics of consensus where those questions are ruled out of play after a consensus has been agreed, in dissensus those questions continue to remain active. Assenting here and now in going on together doing this, is limited and contingent. There is shared recognition that what we do together is subject to a continuing and active deferral of the always hovering possibility of withdrawing assent, of stopping things in their tracks” (Verran, 2015, p. 54).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe do not intend to propose how such a standard might be used, but instead offer it as a way to invite speculation about what (and who) counts in, and as, education and why. As Bowker and Starr (1999) remind us “[E]ach standard and each category valorizes some point of view and silences another. This is not inherently a bad thing-indeed it is inescapable. But it is an ethical choice, and as such it is dangerous-not bad, but dangerous”. (1999, p. 5-6). In this paper we have proposed resources for investigating the valorization of some points of view in education and the silencing of others. Our goal rather has been to open up thought about the contemporary desire for practices of standardization in education and suggest a resource that takes the danger of such work seriously.
ReferencesBiesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, culture & society, 19(2), 175-192.
Biesta, G. (2021). World-Centred Education: A View for the Present. Routledge.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
Heimans, S. (2014) Education policy enactment research: disrupting continuities, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 307-316.
Heimans, S., Biesta, G., Takayama, K., & Kettle, M. (2021). How is teaching seen? Raising questions about the part of teachers and their educators in the production of educational (non) sense. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 363-369.
Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety, and Requisite Irony, published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/JessopGovernance-and-Metagovernance.pdf .
Koster, B., & Dengerink, J. (2008). Professional standards for teacher educators: how to deal with complexity,
ownership and function. Experiences from the Netherlands. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 135-149.
Page, T. M. (2015). Common pressures, same results? Recent reforms in professional standards and
competences in teacher education for secondary teachers in England, France and Germany. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(2), 180-202.
Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., Poom-Valickis, K., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2019). Teacher professional standards to support
teacher quality and learning in Estonia. European Journal of Education, 54(3), 389-399.
Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: on politics and aesthetics. Continuum.
Rancière, J. (2013). The Politics of Aesthetics. New York: Bloomsbury.
Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher professional standards: controlling or developing teaching? Teachers and Teaching,
9(2), 175-186.
Savransky, M., & Stengers, I. (2018). Relearning the Art of Paying Attention: A Conversation. SubStance 47(1), 130-145.
Taubman, P. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in
education. New York: Routledge.
Taylor, A. J. (2022). A Foucauldian Analysis of Teacher Standards. In The Palgrave Handbook of Educational
Leadership and Management Discourse (pp. 1-23): Springer.
Verran, H. (2015). Governance and land management fires understanding objects of governance as expressing an ethics of dissensus. Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, (15), 52-59.
Yosef-Hassidim, D. (2021), Advancing Education's Autonomy through Looking Educationally at Philosophy. Educational Theory, 71, 53-73.
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Evidence Inside Out: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice through Informal Learning
Cheng-Yu Peter Pan
NLA Høgskolen, Norway
Presenting Author: Pan, Cheng-Yu Peter
‘Mind the gap’, an automated announcement on the London underground, is often used to highlight the discrepancy between the theory in preservice teacher education and the practice facing teachers in reality. How to better bridge theory and practice has been one critical issue discussed by teacher education institutions and researchers internationally (Beauchamp, 2015; Greenwood & Mabeady, 2021; Kumazawa, 2013; Lohmander, 2015; Pan, 2020).
The existing body of research suggests that, through quality preservice teacher education (evidence from outside), the gap between theory and practice within this context can be better bridged (Ortlieb, 2011; Sharma & Mullick, 2021; Spronken-Smith & Walker, 2010). To date, however, very little attention has been paid to the relation between (student) teacher him/herself (evidence from inside) and competence required for the teaching profession.
In the field of special needs education (SNE), the gap between theory and practice has led special educational needs (SEN) teachers to be more exposed to burnout than their colleagues working for mainstream classes (Lavian, 2012). The conflict between “a sense of idealism” and “the harsh reality” inevitably also leads the SEN teaching profession to a pressing problem with teacher attrition. Based on the two abovementioned contexts, one purpose of this study was to examine the significant role informal learning (teacher lived experience) can play and contribute to in better preparing preservice SEN teachers to work resiliently in the future.
The conceptual starting point applied in this research is the teacher-as-a-person (Goodson, 1991; Hargreaves, 1994; Kenyon, 2017). This perspective highlights the cruciality of informal learning in teacher professionalism. In other words, the teacher-as-a-person places emphasises upon how teachers’ professional competence can be developed through and benefitted from their lived experiences.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA qualitative approach was chosen to allow a deeper insight into the interplay and interweaving of teacher professionalism and informal learning. Eleven SEN teachers across Finland were interviewed. Interview data was further analysed via thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2011).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of the current study show that the teachers’ lived experiences had various considerable positive influences on their professionalism. More specifically, the relevant professional competence required in the teaching profession was developed and improved through what the teachers had learned informally in their previous vocational careers, current workplace and other aspects of private life. For instance, in the realm of private life, romantic partnership or child-raising experience contributed to building up and maintaining better professional relationships with colleagues, pupils and pupils’ caretakers. Furthermore, competences regarding know-why, know-how and know-whom were cultivated through pervious work experiences.
The findings imply that “evidence” can be accumulated, obtained, and demonstrated not merely via reformed structure/content in preservice teacher education but also through exploring, identifying, and transferring from/in (student) teacher him/herself. This study sheds new/alternative light and provides a more all-round view on bridging the gap between theory and practice in teacher education.
ReferencesBeauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: issues emerging from a review of current literature. Reflective Practice: International and Multiplinary Perspective, 16(1), 123-141.
Greenwood, C. T. & Mabeady, L. (2021). Are future teachers aware of the gap between research and practice and why should they know? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(4), 333-347.
Goodson, I. F. (Ed.). (1992). Studying Teachers' lives. Routledge.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publication.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teaches' Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. Continuum.
Kumazawa, M. (2013). Gaps too large: Four novice EEL teachers' self-concept and motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 44-45.
Lavian, R. H. (2012). The impact of organisational climate on burnout among homeroom teachers and special education teachers (full classes/individual pupils) in mainstream schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(2), 233-247.
Lohmander, M. K. (2015). Bridging 'the gap' - linking workplace-based and university-based learning in preschool teacher education in Sweden. Early Years, 35(2), 168-183.
Ortlieb, E. (2011). Improving teacher education trhough inquiry-based learning. International Education Studies, 4(3), 41-46.
Pan, C.-Y. (2022). Special Educational Needs Teachers in Finnish Inclusive Vocational Education and Training. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä]. JYX Digital Repository. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-8335-2
Sharma, U. & Mullick, J. (2021). Bridging the gaps between theory and practice of inclusive teacher education. In U. Sharma, & S. Salend (Eds.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Inclusive and Special Education (pp. 107-120). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1226
Spronken-Smith, R. & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723-740.
|
