This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 09:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Talking Teaching and Learning: UsingPractical Argument to Make ReflectiveThinking AudibleRobert Boody a , Katheryn East a , Linda M. Fitzgerald a , Melissa L.Heston a & Annette M. Iverson aa University of Northern Iowa , USAPublished online: 06 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Robert Boody , Katheryn East , Linda M. Fitzgerald , Melissa L. Heston & AnnetteM. Iverson (1998) Talking Teaching and Learning: Using Practical Argument to Make Reflective ThinkingAudible, Action in Teacher Education, 19:4, 88-101, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.1998.10462894

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1998.10462894

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Action in Teacher Education Wink.. i998, Vol. XIX, No. 4. pp. 88-101

Talking Teaching and Learning: Using Practical Argument to Make Reflective Thinking Audible

Robert Boody, Katheryn East, Linda M. Fitzgerald, Melissa L. Heston, and Annette M. Iverson

University of Northern Iowa

Abstract According to Fenstermacher (1994), simply engaging in reflection is an inadequate way

to facilitate change in teaching practice. Practitioners must work together to consider whether their practicealigns with their intent. Faculty teachinga diverse variety of teacher preparation courses (child development, early childhood curriculum, classroom evaluation, educational psychology, classroom management, and school, community and family relationships) met regularly to discuss their beliefs regarding educational philosophy, teacher education, constructivist pedagogy at the college level, and authentic assessment. The structure of these discussions required us to make our reflections public and subject to review by the empathetic, but critical, others in the group. In this paper, we will describe the process we have used to explore our thinking about our teaching practiceand student learning. We also discuss how this process has made an impact on our practice and how we think about our practice. Implications for teacher educators are suggested.

Introduction In ancient Greece, knowledge was seen as a tripartite structure: a) the theoretical,

the understanding of abstract principles; b) the technical, the ability to use appropriate techniques to solve particular concrete problems; c) the practical, the process of reasoning about human action (Aristotle, 1947). In terms of teaching, each of these forms of knowledge plays a critical role. However, teacher preparation programs often seem to emphasize theoretical and technical knowledge (e.g., specific teaching skills and strategies), while giving relatively little attention to the practical personal and shared meanings that undergird teaching behavior.

Over the past year, we have engaged in a shared search for this practical knowledge, the often implicit and unconscious reasoning that informs our own teaching. This search has led to the creation of a small interdisciplinary community of teacher educators who talk critically about teaching and learning. We have used the process of practical argument (Fenstermacher, 1994) as a springboard for developing a reflective dialog (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995) about the fundamental nature of the beliefs that guide our teaching decisions and classroom actions. In this paper, we describe the process through which our group came into being and the impact that our shared work has had upon our thinking and practice as teachers.

In the Beginning The group that participated in the process discussed here had its origin in two

88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

overlapping faculty groups. Two streams of participants separately pursuing examinations of their teaching practices and activities gradually merged to become one. In retrospect, it was a painful time for us. Some group members came primarily to socialize which annoyed those who wanted to ”work.” Extended discussions were held in which participants described their goals for attending. In terms of a community-building process, this was a time of storming (Peck, 1987) which eventually resulted in the formation of a group norm explicitly oriented toward actively studying our own teaching practices and producing scholarly work. Although one member of the group viewed its function as meeting her personal needs for social interaction, this member eventually ceased to attend, as did members who were interested, but less motivated in pursuing a research agenda. The group achieved a stable membership, began to search for a methodology which would be useful to our efforts, and continued to meet with renewed interest and energy.

Group Membership Group members range in age from their 30’s to a’s, and possess a wide variety

of background experiences. For example, A has extensive experience as a school psychologist; K has a background and teaching experience in special education; L has extensive involvement in school reform efforts and in studying early childhood programs in urban settings; M has a background in developmental psychology and early childhood education; and R has a background in philosophy and instructional technology. It is, in many ways, a rather heterogeneous group bound together by our shared interest in enhancing our teaching and improving the quality of teacher education in general.

The participants represent the content areas of developmental psychology (2), classroom evaluation (l), classroom management and school psychology (l), and early childhood education (1). Only one participant is tenured, and one participant is an adjunct instructor. Four of the participants are female, which actually caused some consternation among many male faculty members. There is a general perception that this is a “women’s group,” and that men are not welcome, despite the fact that one member is indeed male; other men have been invited to join but have expressed regrets that workloads prevent their regular participation.

Practical Argument Rather than looking for a formula we could follow, we searched for a way to

structure our sessions which would allow us to continue using the strategies we had devised to date which worked well for our particular community. Anumber of options were explored and discarded when they clashed too significantly with our already established norms. Finally the group settled on Fenstermacher ’s (1986) practical argument as a way to structure our sessions.

In 1986, Fenstermacher proposed the use of practical argument, based on Green’s discussion of practical reasoning in teaching (1976), as a way of studying teaching and discovering how teaching can be done better. Practical argument, as presented, is based on practical rationality-the assumption that people engage in a particular action because they believe that action will lead to a desired result (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993). Practical argument then is a way to understand and explain

89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

particular actions or sets of actions. The process “lays out a series of reasons that can be viewed as premises, and connects them to a concluding action” (p. 103).

The process of actually conducting a practical argument is based on a series of post hoc discussions about an action or series of actions. The conversations take place between the actor, in this case a teacher, and the Other or Others. Because of the nature of the discussion in terms of personal beliefs, it is imperative that the Other or Others be individuals trusted by the teacher.

The discussion takes place over time and moves through two stages which wrap around one another and are not easily teased apart. Phase One is called elicitation. This is where the Other is drawing out from the teacher exactly what happened as well as why the teacher chose that action. Elicitation can be based on oral narrative, audio tape, or video tape, teaching artifacts, student products, and so on. The important thing is to make explicit the sequence of actions in all of its nuances. In this phase, the teacher explains to the Other what happened, what the desired goal was, and why the teacher thought this action would lead to that goal. Without judgment, the Other questions and probes the statements made by the teacher until the targeted instance is clear and consistently represented.

Phase Two is the reconstruction phase. At this point either the teacher or the Other begins to evaluate critically what has been laid out regarding rationale and action. This phase may be initiated by either participant and frequently is begun by the teacher in a self-evaluative vein. The role of the Other is to push the teacher for a full and consistent articulation of the argument as to what beliefs caused the teacher to feel the action taken would result in the desired goal. At this point, the role of the Other shifts somewhat to more pointed questioning. The role becomes one of exposing inconsistencies and helping the teacher bring the explanation and beliefs which led them to light. Here also, the Other and teacher raise potential explanations or extend the rationale as identified by the teacher. These explanations may be from a variety of sources (theory, research, and experience) as long as they are ways of giving meaning to the rationale.

As one can imagine, based on the complexity of teaching and teaching decisions, the process is not a straightforward one. In fact, the process is time consuming and messy. It most certainly is not a linear march to the “truth,” but rather an exploration of the development of teachers’ personal understanding of their teaching decisions. This understanding coupled with the introduction of current knowledge and theory is what takes practical argument beyond understanding teaching to understanding how teaching can be improved.

Our Basic Process Our discussions begin with ”business” information that may be of interest to all

of us. In particular, calls for papers, relevant readings that we’ve come across since the previous meeting, and plans for pursuing small grants are shared. We audiotape each meeting and these tapes are transcribed, and edited for accuracy (e.g., ”It’s Vygotsky, not Gotsky.”). Copies of the transcripts are distributed to the members of the group. 90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The focus of each meeting is identified in advance and we have established a pattern in which we take turns preparing, circulating, and informally presenting course syllabi, descriptions of assessment techniques, examples of learning activities, and brief thought pieces on a variety of topics. Because we have talked with each other so much both during regular meetings and in other contexts, we have developed fairly clear understandings of what we each do in our classes. Thus, during discussions, group members can act as informed Others, asking questions which challenge the presenter to clarify terminology., conceptual positions, and the ways those positions match the presenter’s actual practice.

We have a relatively implicit set of group governance rules. As is the case in many communities, these rules become evident to us only when they are violated. Our first rule is that the presenter and his or her material are the focus of the meeting. When we act in the role of informed Other, we ask questions, listen, and identify and describe ideas in the presenter’s discussion which seem particularly important to the presenter. Second, our goal is to help the presenter reflect further on his or her own practice in ways that he or she finds useful. We generally try to follow the lead of the presenter, pursuing his or her line of thought rather than our own. And third, we try to maintain the focus on helping the presenter make explicit the assumptions implicit in the written or oral text of the presenter, rather than on helping the presenter ”solve a problem” in practice.

Despite conscious efforts to maintain the focus on the presenter, the transcripts often show that some point made by the presenter, or questions posed by the others, will trigger reflective statements by another group member about his or her own practice. What might look at best like a digression, or at worst “stealing the floor” from the presenter, actually serves an important purpose in the group. Rather than being violations of the practical argument roles, one can see these idea-sharing episodes as the group thinking together.

The thinking in our group meetings does not go on inside our individual heads but in the open space in the middle of the group. This socially shared cognitive space (Resnick, Levine & Behrend, 1991) is one of the causes of the resistance we have had to a completely faithful implementation of the Fenstermacher model of a teacher and the Other(s). Rather than completely ceding the floor to the teacher with the Others speaking only to ask clarifying or focusing questions, and rather than the Other leading the teacher to higher understanding, the teacher and the Other work together. We envision ourselves as gardeners of a community plot. Sharing an oral or written text about his or her own practice, the teacher/speaker/ gardener brings that session’s supply of sun, water and plant food to the plot, where everyone’s intellectual seeds, not just those of the teacher are growing. The questions, personal examples that extend the discussions, and citations of relevant literature are all methods of cultivating our community garden of thought and reflection.

In order to elicit the sharing necessary for a practical argument and fullest possible cultivation of our teaching and learning garden, trust among all participants

91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

is essential. We all risk sharing information which makes us vulnerable, and this sharing provides a foundation for such trust. Although we often ask each other questions that could seem highly threatening in other circumstances or among other people, these questions in this atmosphere of trust play a critical role in the creation of our shared cognitive space. And when, in the course of posing a critical question to the presenter, the questioner or one of the Others turns the question on himself or herself, it becomes even clearer that the focus is on the question and the practice rather than on the person. In the process of such sharing, a community of practice (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1996; Camburn, 1996) is built, which can support the hard work of changing our individual practice, and provide the energy to sustain the change as resistance and rough spots are encountered. Our collaborative sharing serves as a catalyst for the changes we make as we transform our practice. We grow individually and collectively through our participation in shared cognitive space.

An Example Hearing about the process of doing practical argument, and the specific

approach our group has followed, may be helpful. But it might also be helpful to see a small bit of one day’s discussion to get a richer feel for the process. Please take note: we do not offer this piece necessarily as a perfect example of how discussion should be done, nor as representative of every discussion.

When this segment picks up, one of our members, A, has the floor for the day to describe things which she was doing in authentic assessment in one of her courses, a course in classroom management. A brought her course syllabus which includes a number of authentic assessment components, as a catalyst for discussion. The particular assessment being discussed at this point is her midterm, which is not a paper-and-pencil test, but rather involves role playing a classroom management problem in class followed by an interview with each student. Aspects of her assessment were discussed prior to this segment, and more followed the segment given here as well.

The part of the discussion given below was taken from a transcript of the tape we made of the discussion. Portions have been edited slightly to promote readability.

K

[Note: K is asking A to unpack her rationale for the type of assessment she is using. The type of assessment is identified in the syllabus, but the rationale for its use is not.] A

That’s my other question about this: why you chose to do face-to-face interviews with each student?

Instead of written? It’s because I hold some assumptions about what students will do in an interview. Based somewhat on research, if you ask open, non-leading questions, adults and children will tend to answer you truthfully. Actually, young people (younger than our students) will answer more truthfully than adults will even if it makes hem look bad, if it’s negative. Another assumption I have is that I almost always have a good

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

relationship with my students. Once in awhile, I don’t have a good relationship with a student. I think that because I have a good relationship, that will enhance their being honest about their answers.

[Note: A tries, in response to the question posed to her, to unpack her rationale and associated assumptions. ] K As I recall, you weren’t pleased about their answers. What did you say that

day when you brought them and reread them and you said something about not being satisfied? When I said “What are you learning in class so far?”, I wanted richer responses than I received. My question would be, why not give them those questions and send them home with some time to think about it, and write about it, and even write about it anonymously? Even though I trust my students to be honest, too, I know that they tell me different things than they would write to me anonymously.

[Note: K is departing somewhat here from the full Fenstermacher model-although she is asking a question which is related, she suggests an alternative approach as well. This may seem like straying from the fold, but it is important to how our group operates. Part of the reason this seems to work for us is that the community of practice which we have built helps keep such comments from being interpreted as criticism or implied superiority, which would tend to choke off the discussion.] A You’re measuring two different things. When you have them write, you’re

giving them a chance to look through the materials. To me, that’s measuring something different. I wanted to see what they could articulate on the spot. I’m getting a feel for the problem here. When I have kids in class, I always have to give them time to think without pressure on thinking right there. Letting them go home and write takes that pressure off. But I also understand your position that then they have more time to think about ”what kind of answer might she be looking for, where might I find x,” reviewing, throwing in the jargon, trying to be impressive. Then you have to have them write anonymously. After they know the questions and have had time to think, and then you say ”if anybody has thought about it and has something more they want to say. . . .” I could do that. I’m more interested in if they went into an interview situation and the building principal and team of teachers that were interviewing them said ”what do you know about managing discipline problems?” or “what do you know about classroom management?” I’m getting more of a feeling how they would respond to something like that.

[Note: Here A is further explicating her underlying purpose for the assessment piece, and a new element of her thinking comes out regarding the outcomes she expects her students to reach.] K M

A M

A

K

M

L

A

You want to know what they have instantly available? Actually, it sounds like you’re using this again as an assessment technique. What they said here about what they’ve learned. (Referring not to the specific interview question previously mentioned, but to the entire interview experience) You’re not grading them and you’re using

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

it as formative feedback for yourself. It still sounds to me like it’s fundamentally an assessment technique.

Part of it is formative feedback for me so that I can judge myself what I’ve been able to do with them based on what they can do in a face to face interview. But, I also use it for an opportunity for them to tell me what’s helped in class and what they would like me to do differently.

[Note: M pushes A to further define the intentions behind her actions.] A

[Note: A lays out her premise about how what she has chosen to do affects teacher- student relationships.] K A

You said you were disappointed in their responses. No, no, I wasn’t disappointed. The only thing I was disappointed in was number 1, ”What have you learned in class so far?” I wanted richer responses. The fact that they weren’t richer, what does that tell you? It tells me that the schema they have about classroom management is pretty skeletal, pretty bare bones. What else could it mean?

Again, that’s feedback. To me, it’s continuing to develop the relationship. It’s deepening the teacher-student relationship. It communicates an openness to their ideas, about respecting what they tell me because I try to incorporate it later. I think that’s a real important question, what else could it mean? Is there another way to interpret these apparently limited responses-what you’re viewing as inadequate responses on their part and using to claim that their schema for classroom management is inadequate. How might the structure of the context in which they’re being asked to do this have impacted their responses?

[Note: M is probing for alternative explanations. These are often hard to elicit, but constitute one of the most valuable things a critical other can do for one.] A

K A

K [Note: K pushes A to considered varied interpretations.] A

M

OK. I see what you’re saying. Maybe they’re feeling uncomfortable, intimidated; they’re under the gun and it’s hard for them to really say what they mean.

I don’t know if they feel intimidated so much. Sometimes when people ask you a question and you need time to think about it, what comes out is much more shallow, superficial answer than if you had another 5,10,15 minutes to think about what you really know. Maybe if they had the questions before the interview? Have you thought about that? Or what if you didn’t have this question first? This is pretty much the heavy duty question. I’m sure you’re right, that they have a more developed idea than is coming out. But it’s the first question, and here we are, and I’ve got to say something, right?

A I don’t know. K It’s not meant in the critical way. I’m trying to understand what you were

thinking when you did this. [Noet: K attempts to soften a comment that could seem threatening or critical.]

[Note: A ventures her interpretation of the alternative views being suggested.] M

K

94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

R Things we’ve learned about interviews is that it helps if you have more general first and more specific later, so you don’t narrow their thinking prematurely; and more controversial later after you build a rapport. There are ways of asking questions that push students to give rich response instead of to come back with a quick feeling.

[Note: R begins “telling” A as if to give her instruction on how to conduct an effective interview. He sounds a bit like a professor lecturing his students. We have found ”telling” in this sense is not particularly helpful in our discussions of our practices.] K But R , the game we’re playing here is to try to understand A ‘s thinking,

not to give herinformation. Well, you don’t know because you just came in. We’re trying to practice a practical argument and try to understand where A was, and what grounds her thinking; why she did it this way. I will say that I didn’t put a lot of thought into my interview questions because, although this is a tool that has assisted me in the past, it isn’t like a big weighty thing that I do. I first started out doing it to build rapport with the students. My ulterior motive-this sounds terrible-is I thought it would improve my student evaluations.

Why is that terrible? Isn’t that one of the things you guys have to do? You’re under the institutional gun to do that. The first time I did it, I had two classes; same class, 2 sections. I did it for one class and Ireceived higher evaluations in that section. Which may or may not have been because of that. After I did it the first time,even though it seemed toimproved my evaluations, I also felt that it gave me helpful feedback for my own teaching. To me, the general question is: ”What have you learned in class so far?” I tell them they can take their time to think about it. If they tell me one thing, 1’11 write it down and I’ll say T a n you think of anything else? or ”Is there anything else that you’d like to share?” It’s very low key. I feel like when I get into “what have we done in class that assisted you in your learning”, specifically number three: ”What would you like me to do differently?” Those are much more personal questions that they have a harder time answering right out of the chute, because it seems like they’re critiquing you to your face. That would feel very socially inappropriate here.

A

[Note: She feels safe enough to make herself vulnerable to her peers.] K

A

K A

M [Note: M Is comment reflects the understanding of our students’ norms for appropriate student-professor interactions. Our students tend to be particularly sensitive to the inequity of the power relationship between students and professors, rather in awe of their professors, and very hesitant to engage in any dialogue that could generate emotional discomfort.] A “What could you do differently to assist (your learning)?” just about has to

come last. For the questions that I have at this point, they’re asked in the order they need to be.

As you continued on reading these, did you find that the initial answers were not as rich as you were hoping but that they came up with other ideas

[Note: A reflects on her decision in light of the alternatives suggested.] M

95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

later on? Like they were part of their schema, but they didn’t flow right out with the very first question?

A Not too much. L When you’ve done this before, have you done more than one interview a

term? A I did midterm and final. L How did those compare? A Finals are briefer-they’re about outa there. I feel midterms have been

more helpful to them and to me in building our relationship and helping structure the last half of the class.

[Note: A revisits her premise regarding how her actions affect teacher-student relationships.] L If you’re doing it to build your relationship, does it even matter that much

what the questions are? It’s sort of an excuse for having a face to face. [Note: L seeks to push A further on her premise regarding what affects teacher- student relationships.] M Can you tell me some real specific ways in which you use this then? What

kind of adjustments did you make during the second half of the class? So I can see how the connections you were making.

[Note: M asks for concrete details which would support A ’s contention that she uses the midterm interview for formative assessment purposes and changes her instruction accordingly.] A Anything that they are confused about is integrated into the second half

and we go over it some more. I’ve been previewing the syllabus more, telling them how to prepare for the next unit, because we got behind, and then they loose track of where we are, what do you want me to be reading? We’ve done more brainstorming. They believed that they needed more practice with communication so on Monday, they all pulled a situation out of a hat and all the situations dealt with communication between them and the student, where the communication was going awry and they were in conflict with the student and getting upset. So today, they had 2 days to prepare for their situation and they came back and stated how they would handle it and we did some brainstorming about other ways they could handle it. We put theirs up on the board, brainstormed other ways, what way would be better. I’ve incorporated a lot of things-things they would like to spend more time on. Not everything.They want me to make more connections between the book and what we’re doing and it became very clear to me that I hardly use the book at all, so I shouldn’t have them buy it anymore.

M That’s interesting. A I hardly ever make connections to the book except to say ”read this for

background as we go into the next unit.” I don’t make connections to it, because it’s irrelevant. The background information is too general and it is hard for me to pull it into what we’re doing. So, does this reflect the common problem we all run into, that the books that we use are written in such broad, general terms, that they really don’t have connections. They’re just intellectual background filler. If they can

M

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

make sense of it, they don’t need it; if they need it, they can’t make sense of it. So you’re not going to use the textbook?

Next time I teach this class, I will use my printed packet, which is about 150 pages long. I’m writing a textbook in that area that will incorporate my printed packet, plus the background knowledge that I feel ties into what we‘re doing. You talked about your midterm evaluation technique;. how do you think you might do things differently at the final? Other than the change you talked about, which is asking students about their management style. That is the only thing I think I’m going to do differently. What did you really like about this? Everything. It felt very authentic. It had them performing real-life thinking that they’ll have to do in a classroom, that are management focused, and that clearly reflect management concerns.

[Note: A is asked to make explicit her own feelings and perceptions about this assessment and evaluation activity.] M [Note: M probes for definitions to make sure we are operating out of a shared understanding.] A

K [Note: M and K explore A ’s position regarding use of text.] A

M

A M A

Tell me what you mean by management.

By management I mean leading, facilitating, and structuring the environment for optimal student performance, whether it be through managing the physical facility, managing the lesson, managing behaviors that could disrupt the environment, managing relationships between students and students-teachers and managing relationships with the home and with teaching peers and administration. Some relationships are pretty far-reaching. All those relationships impact on that student’s performance in the classroom.

This brief transcription represents just a small portion of the very rich discussions which we have enjoyed and through which we have grown over the past 18 months. Our group has effectively used practical argument to structure our discussions, give them depth, and push our consideration of the relationship between our teaching practice and our thinking. In closing, we would like you to hear from each group member regarding the effect that our meetings have had.

A Speaks As a high task oriented person, I tightly structure my time both in and outside

of the classroom. In the classroom, I historically was an efficient dispenser of what I deemed to be the critical body of knowledge students needed. I was a “teller.” After several semesters of doing my best “telling,” it became clear that my teaching methods did little to nothing to prepare students for performing and reflecting during their field experiences.

I knew that I needed to shift from a content focus to a thinking/learning focus. It was unnerving to transition to instructional methods that appeared to be messy

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

and time-consuming or “inefficient.” That was my impression from observing my colleagues in their Talking Teaching group. I was not a member; the group was not task oriented enough for me. However, I felt compelled to change my teaching practices and to have a support group during the process. I joined the group at the right time for me, when they entered the phase of a focused, working group.

As a result of our group work, I began to make substantive changes in how I went about the business of teaching - one class and one semester at a time. I did not do fruit basket upset but, rather, phased in instructional changes gradually. For example, I maintained my lectures because I was good at them and it provided stability while I developed skills in performance-based assessment and set traditional assessment methods aside ( e.g., multiple choice tests). Students in my classroom management courses reported that they found role plays for their midterm unnerving but high quality learning experiences and this bolstered my confidence during the change process.

The second phase of change was to create learning activities in which students were both hands-on and minds-on. It was very difficult to give up the control of lecturing and providing answers to questions. I continue to struggle with this and need group members’ ongoing modeling and questioning of each other to promote my continued experimentation. At this point, I gleefully can say that the time spent in reflection with my colleagues about our teaching practices is one of the best instructional decisions I have ever made. This was a deliberate decision to engage in messy, seemingly ”inefficient” teaching and learning, both in and outside the classroom.

K Speaks It is difficult to say specifically how this experience has affected me because

the effect has been so pervasive. I have, of course, gathered specific tips or strategies that have been tried in my class and those that were useful or worked for me have become part of my teaching repertoire. This, however, pales beside the perspective that participating in this group has given me. Now, instead of just the experiences of K , I draw upon the teaching experiences of myself and four others. These experiences are sometimes far different from mine and certainly more experiences than one person could have in a single teaching lifetime. In addition, knowing four others and their approach to teaching so well allows me to ask myself the same questions I know they would ask were I to pose to them a teaching dilemma that I might find myself in at any given time. It’s as if I am standing in my classroom surrounded by a group of friendly critics who keep me on the path to improved teaching. Both my action in teaching and my perspective of teaching have been enriched.

L Speaks Just as I bring my class with me into our weekly discussions, I bring our

discussion group with me into my classroom. Far from the image of the teacher isolated behind a closed door, I feel that I am assisted by my team of Critical (but friendly) Others as I take risks in changing my practice. The passionate commitment

98

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

of my groupmates to what we understand to be more authentic and/or more effective ways of preparing teachers for the challenges they will face in the twenty-first century gives me the courage to keep going. Courage is not too strong a word, because sometimes considerable negative emotion is unleashed in students when their expectations of the usual ways of succeeding in the traditional-inauthentic, if you will-classroom are violated. And yet it is not foolhardy courage, because the critical questions of the Others that I anticipate having to answer when next we talk keeps me making choices that I can justify. Whatever the “posted” agenda might be for the next meeting, I know that I will be able to get timely feedback on attempts that have gone awry, and mutual celebration and suggestions for making even better those pedagogical experiments that do succeed. As we continue to meet, I rejoice that there seem to be more of the latter in all of our classrooms, for which we can congratulate each other with a piece of chocolate, and resolve to continue on to the next challenge as we grow together in our practice.

R Speaks Being part of this group has made a difference in the way I teach. This difference

has not been a night and day switch - from teaching one way to teaching completely differently. Rather, I would describe it as similar to the difference that the use of quality ingredients and skillful spicing makes in cooking. A true chef and a simple cook might make a similar meal; these two meals might even appear and taste reasonably similar. However, for those with a discerning palette, there is a world of richer taste and texture in the chef’s work. I do not mean to suggest by this analogy that I am a true chef - that would be sheer arrogance in one so inexperienced as I - but I mean to say that participation in this group has acted in a chef-like manner to alter my thinking about, and practice of, teaching in small, subtle ways which seem to me to have developed more inviting richness and satisfying texture in the broth which is my teaching.

Simply having a safe spot to air my ideas has been part of it. But just venting does not appeal to me except in the height of emotional distress; it has been more important that these others have been willing to be both critical and supportive, and also to share from their practice- not telling me what to do, and not trying to put themselves in the best light - but as in sharing in a community of truthful dialogue.

M Speaks Participating in this group has had a major impact on how I think about the

fundamental nature of teaching-and-learning. I came to the group with a set of verbalizations which seemed to reflect a commitment to constructivist educational processes; however, I had only a rather vague notion of how to think about actually doing constructivist education within the college classroom. Through the gentle questioning of my think-mates, I came to realize that three fundamental beliefs are increasingly important in the structure of my teaching practices. First, I have an extremely strong belief in the value of frustration within the learning process. Second, I have come to recognize that my students’ errors in thinking reflect the nature of their cognitive structures, rather than problems of either motivation or intellectual

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

competence. Thus, just as I work to transform my understanding of my students’ thinking, I must also work to transform their understanding of their own and others’ thinking. Finally, I have come to realize that I believe it is more important to help my students recreate positive emotional frameworks for learning in general than to cover a large amount of content. Thus, in many ways, my teaching is no longer about the content, but rather about my students’ thinking and learning. For me, working with the group has allowed me to practice those very elements of critical reflection upon my teaching practices and understandings of students that I hope my students will develop.

Our work has also led me to think much more deeply about the importance of building a classroom community in which students feel comfortable taking authentic intellectual risks. In a sense, I seek to help my students create the same kind of shared cognitive space which we have created as a small group. In turn, I hope my students will come to value both the challenges and the joys of living in a community of thinkers who question, reflect, share, encourage, and learn together.

Conclusion Five faculty used Fenstermacher ’s (1994) practical argument to guide their

reflective dialogue in a shared search of the beliefs that guided their teaching decisions and classroom actions. Each of the group members reported their individual perspectives on important outcomes of the year’s experience. Three members’ summaries focused on the changes in their own thinking and teaching. Two members focused on changes in their thinking, especially as such changes related to changes in their students’ thinking and learning. Two themes were noted across all participants’ narratives. One theme was the importance of community support in staying each one on the path to improved teaching. A second theme was the definite sense that there were rich and pervasive effects on each participant’s teaching as a result of the shared, structured reflection process of practical argument. These themes support Fenstermacher ’s (1994) contention that practitioners must work together to consider whether their practice aligns with their intent rather than simply engaging in reflection - an inadequate way to faciliate change in teaching practice.

Implications of the action research findings are two-fold. Faculty may expect greater benefits from a group process approach to reflection on their teaching practices than from an exclusive reliance on individual reflection. Likewise, faculty may expect students to benefit when they are guided in their own shared reflections of teaching behaviors.

Author’s Note: This work was supported in part by a grant from the Graduate College of the University of Northern Iowa.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Robert M. Boody is an assistant professor of research and evaluation. His professional interests include teacher development through collegial processes, including program evaluation and small group dialogue.

Katheryn East is a collaborative special education teacher at Price Laboratory School and adjunct professor in the Departments of Special Education and Educational Psychology.

Linda M. Fitzgerald is an assistant professor of early childhood education and a research fellow in the Regents Center for Early Developmental Education. She is co- author of Children at Home and in Day Care.

Melissa L. Heston is an associate professor; she teaches courses in child development for preservice teachers. Her primary research interest is in teachers’ self-study of their pedagogy.

Annette M. Iverson is an associate professor and coordinator of the school psychology program. She teaches psychological assessment and interventions and co-authored Schoolwide and Classroom Management: The Reflective Educator- Leader.

References Aristotle. (1947). Nichomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), Introduction to

Aristotle (pp. 308-543). New York: Modern Library. Bryk, A.S., Camburn, E. & Louis, K. (196, April). Professional community in Chicago

elementa y schools: What supports it and what are its impacts? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y.

Camburn, E. (1996, April). Professional communities as supportive contextsfor teacher learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, N.Y.

Fenstermacher, G.D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed., p. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.

Fenstermacher, G.D. (1994). The place of practical argument in the education of teachers. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the stafidevelopment process (p. 23-42). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fenstermacher, G.D., & Richardson, V. (1993). The elicitation and reconstruction of practical arguments in teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25, 101-114.

Green, T.F. (1976). Teacher competence as practical rationality. Educational Theory,

Kruse S.D., Louis, K.S., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In Karen Seashore Louis and Sharon D. Kruse (eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives in reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

26, 249-258.

Peck, M.S., (1987). A difierent drum. New York Simon & Schuster. Resnick, L.A., Levine, R., & Behrends, A. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared

cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

36 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014