UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Questions of value : an inquiry into the nature of research on teacher thinking 1988

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1989_A2 C68.pdf
UBC_1989_A2 C68.pdf [ 7.49MB ]
UBC_1989_A2 C68.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055169.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055169+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055169.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055169+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055169+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055169+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0055169.ris

Full Text

QUESTIONS OF VALUE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF RESEARCH ON TEACHER THINKING by DEBORAH COURT B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974, M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTORATE IN EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Curriculum and I n s t r u c t i o n We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the req u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1988 <c) Deborah Court, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t E a r l y i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n a d e f e n s i b l e conception of teaching i s l a i d out. This conception s p e c i f i e s t h a t there are l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r teaching, whereby teachers do t h e i r best to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g i n students, and that there i s a moral c o n d i t i o n for teaching, whereby teachers accord students d i g n i t y and r e s p e c t . With t h i s conception l a i d out, analyses are undertaken of l i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g . The main purposes of these analyses are to see what conception of teaching i s I m p l i c i t i n s t u d i e s of teacher t h i n k i n g , and to compare t h i s conception with the conception presented e a r l y i n the d i s s e r t a t i o n . As a framework f o r a n a l y s i s of l i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g , Lakatos' idea of a research program i s used. L i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g i s viewed as a research program, the "hard core" of which i s the i m p l i c i t conception of t e a c h i n g . Lakatos' idea of " p r o b l e m s h i f t s " i s used to examine the moves from the study of teacher d e c i s i o n making, to teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge, to teacher r e f l e c t i o n . Studies of d e c i s i o n making and p r a c t i c a l knowledge are found to be based on a conception of teaching which meets the l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s of teaching but not the moral c o n d i t i o n , because these s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t e teachers' knowledge but not t h e i r values and b e l i e f s . i i Several reasons f o r the lack' of I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o values are p o s t u l a t e d and explored, among these the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t values are seen by researchers as t a c i t l y held and t h e r e f o r e i n a r t i c u l a b l e . I n v e s t i g a t i o n of P o l a n y i ' s idea of t a c i t knowing leads to the argument t h a t m a t e r i a l which i s t a c i t l y held can indeed be a r t i c u l a t e d . The concept of values i s then explored and i t i s argued that teachers' values should be i n v e s t i g a t e d . The main reason why t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s important i s t h a t teachers' classroom a c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s are to a large extent motivated by t h e i r v a l u e s . To understand teacher t h i n k i n g , i t i s argued, researchers must understand how teachers' values a f f e c t t h e i r p r a c t i c e . I t i s a l s o argued that to change and improve t h e i r teaching p r a c t i c e , and to meet the moral c o n d i t i o n of t e a c h i n g , teachers must gain i n s i g h t i n t o t h e i r own values. From the study of p r a c t i c a l knowledge, research on teacher t h i n k i n g i s shown to be moving to the study of teachers' r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . Work on r e f l e c t i o n i s i n i t s i n f a n c y , but examination of w r i t i n g on teacher r e f l e c t i o n i n d i c a t e s that t h i s research focus may o f f e r p o t e n t i a l access to teachers' values i n a way t h a t previous research has not. I t i s suggested that i f research i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g includes teachers r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r values, improvement of p r a c t i c e could r e s u l t , and the "hard core" of the teacher t h i n k i n g research program could change to include the moral c o n d i t i o n of teaching. Table of Contents Page Abstract i Table of Contents i l l CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 A. Overview of research on teachers 3 B. Ordinary language analysis 6 C. Inure Lakatos and the evaluation of research programs 8 CHAPTER TWO: A Conception o£ Teaching 17 A. Concepts and conceptions 17 B. 'Teaching' and related concepts 22 C. A conception of teaching 27 CHAPTER THREE: Teachers' Interactive Decision Making 33 A. Research into teacher thinking 33 B. An investigation of the concept of ' s k i l l ' .... 39 C. Review of the l i t e r a t u r e on teachers' i n t e r a c t i v e decision making 42 a) Introduction 42 b) The stimulated r e c a l l method 44 c) studies of i n t e r a c t i v e decision making .... 47 d) The problem o£ dec i s i o n 53 CHAPTER POUR: Analysis of the Decision Making L i t e r a t u r e : The "Hard Core" and Implicit Conception of Teaching 62 CHAPTER FIVE: Teachers' P r a c t i c a l Knowledge 68 A. The nature of p r a c t i c a l knowledge and studies o£ "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" 68 B. Studies of r o u t i n l z a t i o n 89 CHAPTER SIX: Analysis of the P r a c t i c a l Knowledge Lit e r a t u r e 96 CHAPTER SEVEN: Investigation of the Idea of Ta c i t Knowing and i t s Relation to the Study of Teacher Thinking 102 CHAPTER EIGHT: Investigation of the Concept of Values and the Relation of Values to Teacher Thinking 119 CHAPTER NINE: The Role of Refl e c t i o n 139 CHAPTER TEN: Studies of Re f l e c t i o n : New P o s s i b i l i t i e s 157 i v CHAPTER ELEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations .... 162 Appendix One: Teacher I s o l a t i o n as a Hindrance to R e f l e c t i o n on Practice 169 Appendix Two: A Criti q u e of the Work of Donald Schon 173 REFERENCES 179 Chapter One Introduction Research on teachers has been conducted almost as long as there have been schools. This research has moved from early work, which focussed mainly on identifying the traits of effective teachers, to present day studies of teacher thinking. The purpose of this dissertation is to evaluate a portion of that research history, viewing studies of teachers' Interactive decision making, teachers' practical knowledge and teachera' reflection on their practice as parts of a coherent research program on teacher thinking. The idea of a research program comes from the work of Imre Lakatos, whose paper on this topic w i l l be discussed later in this chapter. Lakatos argues that research programs have an unquestioned "hard core" and a changing "protective belt", and that a move from one theory to another within a research program can constitute a "progressive or degenerating problemshift". These terms, mentioned in the statement of purposes below, w i l l be explained in the ensuing discussion of the Lakatos paper. 2 S p e c i f i c a l l y , the purposes of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are : 1) To i d e n t i f y e d u c a t i o n a l norms through the e x p l i c a t i o n of a d e f e n s i b l e conception of teaching, and to use t h i s conception of teaching as the main b a s i s on which s t u d i e s of teacher t h i n k i n g w i l l be evaluated. 2) To examine research on teacher t h i n k i n g and i d e n t i f y the "hard core" of t h i s research so as to determine a) What fundamental, unquestioned assumptions u n d e r l i e t h i s work? b) What c o n c e p t i o n s ) of teaching i s / a r e i m p l i c i t ? c) How does t h i s conception (how do these conceptions) r e l a t e to the conception of teaching e x p l i c a t e d e a r l y i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ? d) What questions do the assumptions and conception(s) i m p l i c i t i n t h i s research a l l o w us to ask and what questions do they discourage us from asking? e) What changes i n the " p r o t e c t i v e b e l t " accompany the moves from the study of d e c i s i o n making, to p r a c t i c a l knowledge, to r e f l e c t i o n , and do these moves con- s t i t u t e "progressive p r o b l e m s h i f t s " ? 3) To generate, based on the f i n d i n g s of these analyses, a set of recommendations f o r futu r e research i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g . One of the main v e h i c l e s f o r "unpacking" the i m p l i c i t assumptions i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e w i l l be examination of the use of language by d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s . Concepts which are i d e n t i f i e d as needing c l a r i f i c a t i o n w i l l f r e q u e n t l y be i n v e s t i g a t e d by o r d i n a r y language a n a l y s i s . I t w i l l be the case on two occasions that a d i s c u s s i o n r e l a t e d to the "main argument, while p e r t i n e n t , i s too lengthy to present i n the main t e x t without d i s r u p t i n g the general flow of argument. In these cases the d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be presented i n an appendix. This i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter w i l l begin w i t h an overview, of research on teachers, followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of o r d i n a r y language a n a l y s i s , and f i n a l l y by a summary of Imre Lakatos' work on research programs. A. Overview of research on teachers From the e a r l i e s t time, the major purpose of research on teachers, whether s t a t e d or unstated, has been to improve teaching p r a c t i c e . Understanding of what s u c c e s s f u l teachers do i n classrooms has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the t r a i n i n g of new teachers and the p r o f e s s i o n a l development of experienced teachers. Much research has been d i r e c t e d to understanding what s u c c e s s f u l teachers do. E a r l y research on teachers focussed mainly on i d e n t i f y i n g the t r a i t s of e f f e c t i v e teachers. Techniques of measurement and a n a l y s i s were few, and researchers o f t e n conducted t h e i r s t u d i e s by asking students to desc r i b e favorable and unfavorable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers they had known. Examples of t h i s type of research can be found i n the l a s t century ( f o r example, K r a t z , 1896) and d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g f i f t y years ( f o r example, Wi t t y , 1947). Researchers have not only sought student d e s c r i p t i o n s of teachers, they have a l s o e x t e n s i v e l y observed and recorded teachers' classroom a c t i o n s . Doyle and Ponder (1975) summarize t h i s work, by sa y i n g , " A f t e r more than s i x t y years of research, i n v e s t i g a t o r s have s u c c e s s f u l l y i s o l a t e d and described the frequency and patterns of a la r g e number of s p e c i f i c behaviors. I t i s now p o s s i b l e to des c r i b e with some measure of confidence the behaviors teachers e x h i b i t w i t h regard to q u e s t i o n i n g p r a c t i c e s , d i r e c t vs. i n d i r e c t v e r b a l I n f l u e n c e , nonverbal communication, pedagogical moves, and the l o g i c of teacher d i s c o u r s e , to name but a few" (p.184). This research has y i e l d e d much v a l u a b l e infor m a t i o n and many ideas f o r improving p r a c t i c e . Ideas now accepted as t r u i s m s , such as t h a t teachers do most of the t a l k i n g i n classrooms, tend to ask questions r e q u i r i n g f a c t u a l r e c a l l , and o f t e n t r e a t g i r l s and boys d i f f e r e n t l y , have a l l been documented through the observation of teacher a c t i o n s . Despite the value of such s t u d i e s , however, t h i s kind of research does not take i n t o account the nature of classroom l i f e . Teacher a c t i o n s do not occur i n i s o l a t i o n . They are expressions of a whole human being a c t i n g i n a context. In the l a s t twenty years people l i k e Jackson (1968), L o r t i e (1975) and Goodlad (1982) have sought to des c r i b e and understand the complex m i l i e u i n which teachers operate. Modern researchers have more s o p h i s t i c a t e d methods of data gathering and a n a l y s i s , but some of t h e i r work i s not d i s s i m i l a r to the e a r l i e s t s t u d i e s of teachers. Current s t u d i e s of 'expert' teachers ( f o r example, B e r l i n e r , 1986), though more complex m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y and having the advantage of knowledge gained through many years of research, are remarkably s i m i l a r i n i n t e n t to much e a r l i e r work. The " P u r s u i t of the Expert Pedagogue" ( B e r l i n e r , 1986) seeks to i d e n t i f y the things good teachers do i n classrooms, and the " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Best Teachers" ( K r a t z , 1896) r e a l l y sought to do much the same t h i n g . I t i s ra t h e r as i f we are v i s i t i n g a f o r e i g n country again and again and g a i n i n g each time a deeper understanding of the l i v e s of the n a t i v e s . We are s t i l l i n t e r e s t e d i n the meals they cook, i n t h e i r p o l i t i c s and t h e i r r e l i g i o n , but now we are able to see these not as c o l o r f u l o d d i t i e s , but as meaningful p r a c t i c e s i n e x t r i c a b l y bound i n the web of c u l t u r e . Our repeated v i s i t s to classrooms have l e d us to much deeper understanding of the l i v e s of the n a t i v e s , both students and teachers. Here the metaphor breaks down, however, for while we would not presume to 'improve' on another country's c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s (the e f f o r t s of m i s s i o n a r i e s and empire b u i l d e r s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g ) , a l l research i n t o teaching should u l t i m a t e l y be seen to improve p r a c t i c e , and indeed, t h i s has been the d r i v i n g force behind the hundred years of research on teachers. Researchers sought f o r many years to de s c r i b e teacher 'behaviors' and then teaching ' s k i l l s ' , w ith the idea that these could be communicated to beginning teachers and to experienced teachers wishing to improve t h e i r t e aching. Only r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t l y have researchers sought to understand teachers' t h i n k i n g , r e a l i z i n g t h a t teachers b r i n g to t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n d i s t i n c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t i e s and v a r y i n g bodies of personal experience. Teachers do not accept u n q u e s t l o n l n g l y suggestions, ideas and c u r r i c u l u m changes which come 'down' to them. B e t t e r understanding of the nature of classroom l i f e and of teachers' t h i n k i n g thus has i m p l i c a t i o n s for the implementation of new ed u c a t i o n a l programs as w e l l as f o r teacher education and p r o f e s s i o n a l development. Researchers i n v e s t i g a t i n g teacher t h i n k i n g are c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h i s understanding. B. Ordinary language a n a l y s i s The conceptual i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l be conducted l a r g e l y through o r d i n a r y language a n a l y s i s , and so a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s method i s i n order. Ordinary language a n a l y s i s , or conceptual a n a l y s i s , i s a u s e f u l method f o r h e l p i n g us to 'step back from* and understand the ways i n which we view the world. We view the world through a set of concepts, a conceptual s t r u c t u r e , and our language Is the p u b l i c embodiment o£ that conceptual s t r u c t u r e . We l e a r n our concepts through l e a r n i n g language, and s t u d y i n g language helps us to study concepts. Conceptual a n a l y s i s has i t s roots i n Wi t t g e n s t e i n ' s l i n g u i s t i c approach to philosophy, and though i t has evolved s i n c e W i t t g e n s t e i n i t can s t i l l be s a i d t h a t conceptual a n a l y s i s assumes b a s i c a l l y t h i s : "For a large c l a s s of statements—though not a l l — i n which we employ the word 'meaning' i t can be defined thus: the meaning of a word i s i t s use i n language" ( W i t t g e n s t e i n , 1953, p.43). There i s not, of course, one meaning for the vast m a j o r i t y of words, but a v a r i e t y of usages and thus a v a r i e t y of meanings and shades of meaning. I n v e s t i g a t i n g the d i f f e r e n t ways i n which a word i s used gives us a ki n d of map of the meanings of tha t word. Conceptual a n a l y s i s i s u s u a l l y only undertaken when we have a problem w i t h some concept: i t would be f o o l i s h to analyze e v e r y t h i n g . In education, many f r e q u e n t l y used words l i k e 'needs' (as i n 'student needs' and 'needs assessment'), ' i n t e l l i g e n c e ' and 'education' i t s e l f are used by d i f f e r e n t people i n d i f f e r e n t ways, wi t h d i f f e r e n t sets of assumptions, and we may i n ed u c a t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e f r e q u e n t l y be t a l k i n g at cross purposes with each other. This does not mean that a n a l y z i n g a concept w i l l make c l e a r what the ' r e a l ' o r ' r i g h t ' d e f i n i t i o n of tha t concept i s . The purpose i s to b e t t e r understand the assumptions and connections which u n d e r l i e our use of words. S o l t i s (1968) s t a t e s t h i s w e l l : "...many of us...would be hard pressed i f asked to s p e l l out i n s i n g l e words the ideas contained i n such o r d i n a r y concepts of education as t e a c h i n g , l e a r n i n g or su b j e c t matter. Yet these very concepts are b a s i c to any i n t e l l i g e n t thought or d i s c u s s i o n about education. Furthermore, I b e l i e v e that an e x p l i c a t i o n of these ideas would i n v a r i a b l y r e s u l t i n the u n v e i l i n g of important nuances of meaning which we unconsciously assume i n our dis c o u r s e and i n our a c t i o n s as students or teachers. As a r e s u l t , we would not o n l y become more s o p h i s t i c a t e d and c a r e f u l i n t h e i r use, but we would a l s o gain a deeper i n s i g h t i n t o education as a human endeavor. This i s the p o i n t of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n a l y s i s of e d u c a t i o n a l concepts" (p.7). In t h i s s p i r i t the concepts of d e c i s i o n , s k i l l s , values and r e f l e c t i o n w i l l be analyzed. These terms merit a n a l y s i s by v i r t u e of t h e i r importance i n the l i t e r a t u r e t hat i s to be examined i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and t h e i r unclear or c o n f l i c t i n g uses i n t h a t l i t e r a t u r e . C. Imre Lakatos and the e v a l u a t i o n of research programs In a now famous paper e n t i t l e d " F a l s i f i c a t i o n and the Methodology of S c i e n t i f i c Research Programmes" (1965), Imre Lakatos argues t h a t s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s cannot be evaluated i n i s o l a t i o n , but should be seen i n r e l a t i o n to the t h e o r i e s which precede and supercede them. Such s e r i e s of t h e o r i e s form what Lakatos c a l l s research programs. Lakatos argues a g a i n s t s e v e r a l i n f l u e n t i a l schools of thought. One idea he d i s c l a i m s i s the p o s i t i v i s t i c n o tion that any c l a i m must be t e s t a b l e and i t s t r u t h provable or i t i s meaningless. For many years i n science t h i s was the p r e v a i l i n g view, and because of i t much c r e a t i v e s p e c u l a t i o n was d i s a l l o w e d . Lakatos claims t h a t Kuhn (1962) and P o l a n y i (1958) argue that s c i e n t i f i c change from one dominant theory to another i s a k i n d of " m y s t i c a l conversion" which i s not governed by the r u l e s of reason but by "the psychology of d i s c o v e r y " . Lakatos c a l l s t h i s " t r u t h by consensus" and attempts to d i s c r e d i t the idea. He shows h i s scorn f o r the " s o c i o l o g y of knowledge", which he says serves as "a cover for i l l i t e r a c y " when he r e t e l l s a s t o r y recounted by P o l a n y i (1958, pp.12-14) about how the audience of s c i e n t i s t s at the 1925 meeting of the American P h y s i c a l S o c i e t y remained f i r m l y committed to E i n s t e i n ' s theory d e s p i t e the remarks of the s o c i e t y ' s p r e s i d e n t that he had overwhelming evidence for the opposing theory of e t h e r - d r i f t . P o l a n y i suggests that p s y c h o l o g i c a l , r a t h e r than r a t i o n a l f a c t o r s were re s p o n s i b l e f o r the s c i e n t i s t s ' commitment to E i n s t e i n ' s theory. Lakatos, however, r e c o n s t r u c t s the s e r i e s of t h e o r i e s of which e t h e r - d r i f t was an e a r l i e r and E i n s t e i n ' s a l a t e r member, and h i s " r e c o n s t r u c t i o n makes the t e n a c i t y of the E i n s t e i n i a n research programme i n the face of a l l e g e d c o n t r a r y evidence a completely r a t i o n a l phenomenon and thereby undermines P o l a n y i ' s 1 p o s t - c r i t i c a l ' - m y s t i c a l message" (p.163). In Lakatos' view Kuhn and P o l a n y i present s c i e n t i f i c r e v o l u t i o n s as something l i k e r e l i g i o u s conversions, with change o c c u r r i n g through the "psychology of d i s c o v e r y " , whereas Lakatos himself agrees w i t h Popper (1959) th a t s c i e n t i f i c change i s r a t i o n a l and occurs v i a the " l o g i c of d i s c o v e r y " . Lakotos s t a t e s t h a t a l l s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s are f a l l i b l e , but that we can n e i t h e r prove nor disprove any of them. This leads to the que s t i o n , i f no theory can be disp r o v e d , then on what grounds can we ever e l i m i n a t e any theory? We must e l i m i n a t e some t h e o r i e s or there w i l l be a c h a o t i c p r o l i f e r a t i o n . Lakatos suggests that to ensure the s u r v i v a l of only the f i t t e s t t h e o r i e s , t h e i r s t r u g g l e f o r l i f e must be made severe and a theory should be considered 'acceptable' or ' s c i e n t i f i c ' only " i f i t has excess e m p i r i c a l content over i t s predecessor (or r i v a l ) , t hat i s , only i f i t leads to the d i s c o v e r y of novel f a c t s " (p.116). Lakatos c a l l s a s e r i e s of t h e o r i e s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r ogressive i f each new theory "has some excess e m p i r i c a l content over i t s predecessor, that i s , i f i t p r e d i c t s some novel, h i t h e r t o unexpected f a c t " (p. 118). He c a l l s such a t h e o r e t i c a l l y p rogressive s e r i e s of t h e o r i e s e m p i r i c a l l v p rogressive " i f some of t h i s excess e m p i r i c a l content i s 11 a l s o corroborated, that i s , i f each new theory leads us to the a c t u a l d i s c o v e r y of some new f a c t " (p. 118). These are d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a than the time- honored e m p i r i c a l demand th a t a s a t i s f a c t o r y theory must accord with observed f a c t s . In Lakatos 1 scheme, the c r i t e r i a f o r judging a s e r i e s of t h e o r i e s i s t h a t each succeeding theory should produce new f a c t s . A s e r i e s of t h e o r i e s i s connected by a c o n t i n u i t y which welds the t h e o r i e s i n t o a research program. A research program may be appraised, even a f t e r i t s e l i m i n a t i o n , for i t s h e u r i s t i c power, th a t i s , how many new f a c t s i t produced and how great i t s c a p a c i t y was to e x p l a i n the r e f u t a t i o n s and anomalies that arose d u r i n g i t s growth. The h i s t o r y of s c i e n c e , Lakatos c l a i m s , has been and should be the h i s t o r y of competing research programs. Lakatos a l s o d i s c u s s e s what he c a l l s the "negative h e u r i s t i c " or "hard core" and the "postive h e u r i s t i c " or " p r o t e c t i v e b e l t " of research programs. These are connected with methodological r u l e s i n the f o l l o w i n g way: the hard core of the program c o n s i s t s of the " i r r e f u t a b l e " , unquestioned assumptions which may not be challenged and which thus t e l l us what paths of research to a v o i d . This i s why Lakatos c a l l s i t the negative h e u r i s t i c . The p o s i t i v e h e u r i s t i c t e l l s us what paths of research to pursue. Since the hard core must be protected "we must use our i n g e n u i t y to a r t i c u l a t e or even invent ' a u x i l i a r y hypotheses' which form a p r o t e c t i v e b e l t around t h i s c o r e . . . I t Is t h i s p r o t e c t i v e b e l t which has to bear the brunt of t e s t s and get adjusted and r e - a d j u s t e d , or even completely r e p l a c e d , to defend the thus-hardened core" (p.133). A research program i s s u c c e s s f u l , Lakatos says, i f a l l t h i s leads to a p r o g r e s s i v e p r o b l e m s h i f t . He o f f e r s as an example of a s u c c e s s f u l program Newton's g r a v i t a t i o n a l theory, the hard core of which was Newton's three laws of dynamics and h i s law of g r a v i t a t i o n . E a r l y on many s c i e n t i s t s gave counterexamples to Newton's t h e o r i e s but "Newtonians turned, with b r i l l i a n t t e n a c i t y and i n g e n u i t y , one counter-instance a f t e r another i n t o c o r r o b o r a t i n g i n s t a n c e s , p r i m a r i l y by overthrowing the o r i g i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s i n the l i g h t of which t h i s 'contrary evidence' was e s t a b l i s h e d " (p.133). To sum up, Lakatos says th a t "The negative h e u r i s t i c s p e c i f i e s the 'hard core* of the program which i s ' i r r e f u t a b l e * by the methodological d e c i s i o n of i t s p r o t a g o n i s t s ; the p o s i t i v e h e u r i s t i c c o n s i s t s of a p a r t i a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d set of suggestions or h i n t s on how to change, develop the ' r e f u t a b l e v a r i a n t s ' of the research-programme, how to modify, s o p h i s t i c a t e the ' r e f u t a b l e ' p r o t e c t i v e b e l t . The p o s i t i v e h e u r i s t i c of the programme saves the s c i e n t i s t from becoming confused by the ocean of anomalies" (p.135). While Lakatos has concerned himself with s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s , he intimates that t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s r e l e v a n t a l s o to the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . The c l a s h between h i s own and Popper's ideas on one hand, and the ideas of Kuhn and P o l a n y i on the other, " . . . i s not about a mere t e c h n i c a l po i n t i n epistemology. I t concerns our c e n t r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l v a l u e s , and has i m p l i c a t i o n s not only f o r t h e o r e t i c a l physics but f o r the underdeveloped s o c i a l sciences and even for moral and p o l i t i c a l philosophy. I f even i n science there i s no way of judging a theory but by a s s e s s i n g the number, f a i t h and v o c a l energy of i t s supporters, then t h i s must be even more so i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s : t r u t h l i e s i n power" ( p . 9 3 ) . Lakatos o f f e r s another way of examining and e v a l u a t i n g successive t h e o r i e s , as l o g i c a l progressions w i t h i n a research program. On t h i s view a new theory should by accepted over an o l d one i f i t p r e d i c t s and leads to the d i s c o v e r y of new f a c t s . This i s what Lakatos c a l l s "the l o g i c of d i s c o v e r y " . I t would probably be exceedingly d i f f i c u l t to apply Lakatos* p r i n c i p l e s to moral philosophy, an area i n which ' f a c t s * are hard to come by, though a l s o , as i n p o l i t i c a l philosophy, an area i n which the adage " t r u t h l i e s i n power" i s o f t e n dangerously accurate. In the s o c i a l s ciences as w e l l , ' f a c t s ' about human experience are u s u a l l y arguable. Even i n science the idea of ' f a c t s ' i s not unproblematic: i n t h e o r e t i c a l p h y s i c s , for i n s t a n c e , ' f a c t s * may not be the best term to use i n d i s c u s s i o n s of waves and p a r t i c l e s that no one w i l l ever see. In t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n the work of a n a l y z i n g s e l e c t e d p o r t i o n s of the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g w i l l be done using a Lakatosian framework; however, some l i b e r t i e s w i l l be taken with Lakatos 1 ideas. The no t i o n of "hard core" w i l l be used l a r g e l y as Lakatos has defined i t , as the b a s i c set of unquestioned assumptions which determines the kinds of questions which can and cannot be asked and which methodologies may be used. The "hard core" of a program of research on teaching w i l l l a r g e l y be the conception of teaching that i s inherent i n the program, and i t i s toward uncovering t h a t conception that much of the a n a l y s i s w i l l be d i r e c t e d . In terms of the " p r o t e c t i v e b e l t " , t h i s w i l l be seen as the s h i f t to new " s e n s i t i z i n g concepts" ( f o r i n s t a n c e , from " d e c i s i o n making" to " p r a c t i c a l knowledge") which change the focus of research and thus a l l o w new questions to be asked, but do not change the "hard core". In the attempt to evaluate whether a progressive problemshift has occurred i n the teacher t h i n k i n g l i t e r a t u r e , c o n s i d e r a b l e l i b e r t i e s w i l l be taken with t h i s n o t i o n . A progressive p r o b l e m s h i f t w i l l not be defined as one which has l e d to the p r e d i c t i o n or d i s c o v e r y of new ' f a c t s ' . Rather, the question w i l l be asked, has the move from the study of d e c i s i o n making, to p r a c t i c a l knowledge to r e f l e c t i o n allowed us to ask new questions which give new i n s i g h t i n t o the ways teachers t h i n k about teaching? Are we l e a r n i n g more about teachers' motivations for t h e i r classroom a c t i o n s , and i f so, w i l l t h i s new informat i o n a i d us i n the improvement of p r a c t i c e ? Lakatos' ideas must be adjusted i n another way f o r use here. While i t does not seem unreasonable to c a l l r esearch i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g a research program, the d i f f e r e n t threads w i t h i n that program, namely d e c i s i o n making, p r a c t i c a l knowledge and r e f l e c t i o n , are not t h e o r i e s i n the way that Lakatos t a l k s about s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s . They are l i n e s of research w i t h d i f f e r e n t s e n s i t i z i n g concepts, and these s e n s i t i z i n g concepts, namely d e c i s i o n , p r a c t i c a l knowledge and r e f l e c t i o n , w i l l be explored as the d i f f e r e n t l i n e s of research are examined. Despite these adjustments to Lakatos' ideas, the framework used i n the d i s s e r t a t i o n i s c l e a r l y L a k a t o s i a n , and t h i s framework was s e l e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y because i t o f f e r s c e r t a i n things u s e f u l f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s that other frameworks do not. The n o t i o n of a research program's hard core which contains unquestioned assumptions and leads researchers away from c e r t a i n research questions i s a c l e a r , w e l l d e f i n e d idea t h a t helps to do the work of uncovering the i m p l i c i t conception of teaching i n l i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g . As w e l l , the notions of p r o g r e s s i v e problemshifts and of changes i n the p r o t e c t i v e b e l t of a research program lend s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n to the a n a l y s i s of movements w i t h i n the teacher t h i n k i n g research program. An a l t e r n a t e framework might have been Kuhn's notions of paradigms and paradigm s h i f t s , but these are vaguer, l e s s e x p l i c i t and l e s s u s e f u l f o r the a n a l y s i s to be undertaken here. The main component of the hard core of the program of research on teacher t h i n k i n g i s the conception of teaching t h a t i s i m p l i c i t i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Before examination of the l i t e r a t u r e begins, the f i r s t purpose of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , s t a t e d at the beginning of the present chapter, must be f u l f i l l e d ; namely, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l norms through the e x p l i c a t i o n of a d e f e n s i b l e conception of t e a c h i n g , so that that conception can serve as the main b a s i s on which to evaluate the program of research on teacher t h i n k i n g . I t i s to t h i s task that the next chapter i s devoted. Chapter Two A Conception of Teaching A. Concepts and Conceptions In the f i r s t chapter of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n an ex p l a n a t i o n was given of o r d i n a r y language a n a l y s i s . Ordinary language a n a l y s i s o f f e r s one way of uncovering the b a s i c uses of terms i n language so that we can understand and use concepts more c l e a r l y . This i s important i n e d u c a t i o n a l d i s course because many of the major concepts i n education are used i n d i v e r s e and unclear ways. Sometimes j u s t the e x e r c i s e of fo c u s s i n g on and examining a concept helps us to gain c l a r i t y . The Oxford D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s a concept as "a general n o t i o n " , and g e t t i n g c l e a r on our use of concepts helps us to understand the general notions t h a t u n d e r l i e and guide our t h i n k i n g . A conception, on the other hand, i s defined as "a t h i n g conceived; an id e a " . I t i s more complex, more f u l l y developed, may be fashioned from s e v e r a l concepts and may vary more i n the ways i t i s used and understood by d i f f e r e n t people. A concept may be seen as a p u b l i c l y - h e l d set of ' r u l e s ' or norms governing the use of a term, and a conception as an i n d i v i d u a l ' s more i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a concept or c l u s t e r of concepts. 181 The concept of education, f o r in s t a n c e , i s a general n o t i o n , although one which needs c l a r i f y i n g i f educators are to d i s c u s s i t p r o d u c t i v e l y . Many of us probably share a b a s i c general n o t i o n of what education i s . But a conception of education w i l l i n v o l v e many more d e t a i l s about how, why and what education e n t a i l s and when and where i t should or does take p l a c e . A conception of, say, ' l i b e r a l education' or ' g i f t e d education' may be an even more complex idea which i s l i k e l y to need co n s i d e r a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n by the person using i t i f i t i s to be understood as he or she intends. Sometimes people f a s h i o n conceptions s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y and s y s t e m a t i c a l l y to do s p e c i f i c jobs, or when they f e e l t h a t e x i s t i n g conceptions are inadequate. This may i n v o l v e c l a r i f y i n g concepts that are vague or confusing and l a y i n g out t h e i r boundaries. Someone might, for i n s t a n c e , want to develop a conception of ' g i f t e d education', a term i n frequent c u r r e n t use, and t h i s would i n v o l v e , among other t h i n g s , c l a r i f y i n g both of the c o n s t i t u e n t terms. In the purposeful development of a conception one lays out and j u s t i f i e s an idea or set of ideas to serve a p a r t i c u l a r purpose. Such a purpose might be the development of a program f o r g i f t e d education. A f i r s t step i n t h i s k ind of conception development w i l l l i k e l y be the conceptual a n a l y s i s of c o n s t i t u e n t terms. I t i s a l s o important to examine the views of d i f f e r e n t authors on the conception and perhaps on the c o n s t i t u e n t terms. As w e l l , one s h o u l d make c l e a r what o r d e r or c a t e g o r y o f t h i n g s a r e b e i n g d i s c u s s e d t o a v o i d c o n f u s i o n . Someone c o n s t r u c t i n g a c o n c e p t i o n o f c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , w o u l d h a v e t o come t o g r i p s w i t h t h e o f t e n c o n f u s i n g d i s c u s s i o n s o f ' s k i l l s ' i n l i t e r a t u r e i n t h i s a r e a ( a r e t h e r e s u c h t h i n g s a s ' t h i n k i n g s k i l l s ' ? ) . Someone i n t e r e s t e d i n " p e r s o n a l p r a c t i c a l k n o w l e d g e " m i g h t n o t i c e t h a t v a l u e s a n d k n o w l e d g e had b e e n c o n f o u n d e d i n p r e v i o u s l i t e r a t u r e , a n d a t t e m p t t o r e c t i f y t h i s i n a new c o n c e p t i o n . I n e d u c a t i o n t h e c o n c e p t i o n one f a s h i o n s s h o u l d be c l e a r a n d c o h e r e n t , c o m p a t i b l e w i t h known e m p i r i c a l d a t a a n d h e u r i s t i c a l l y f r u i t f u l . One o f t h e mos t famous e x a m p l e s o f s e l f - c o n s c i o u s c o n c e p t i o n c o n s t r u c t i o n i s R a w l s ' (1971) c o n c e p t i o n o £ j u s t i c e . R a w l s c a r e f u l l y l a y s o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f v a r i o u s c o n c e p t i o n s o f j u s t i c e a n d i m a g i n e s how a p e r s o n i n t h e " o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n " w o u l d c h o o s e b e t w e e n t h e m . The " o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n " , p o s i t s a p e r s o n f u n c t i o n i n g b e h i n d a " v e i l o f i g n o r a n c e " , p o s s e s s i n g g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e w o r k i n g s o f p e o p l e a n d t h e w o r l d , b u t n o t o f h i s o r h e r own t a l e n t s a n d p l a c e i n s o c i e t y . T h i s a l l o w s a n i m p a r t i a l c h o i c e . R a w l s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x p l a i n s t h e r e a s o n i n g b e h i n d v a r i o u s c o n c e p t i o n s o f j u s t i c e , s h o w i n g t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s a n d f l a w s , a n d t h e n b u i l d s h i s own c o n c e p t i o n . S u c h s y s t e m a t i c , s e l f - c o n s c i o u s c o n c e p t i o n c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s e l d o m d o n e , h o w e v e r . Many w r i t e r s o f f e r t h e i r c o n c e p t i o n s o f i d e a s t h e y s e e a s i m p o r t a n t , b u t t h e s e are o f t e n merely hinted at or i m p l i e d , and may i n f a c t not ever have been c a r e f u l l y thought out. In the l i t e r a t u r e on teachers one f r e q u e n t l y f i n d s such phrases as " c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the teacher as a d e c i s i o n maker". This would seem to have more to do with a conception of teaching than with the concept, or general notion of teaching. Although "teacher as d e c i s i o n maker" i s not a complete or f i n i s h e d conception, when researchers choose to 'conceptualize' teachers as d e c i s i o n makers they are o f f e r i n g a more developed idea than the general n o t i o n . This ' c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n ' w i l l a f f e c t t h e i r choice of research methodology and language. I t was s t a t e d i n the f i r s t chapter that one of the purposes of a n a l y s i n g s e l e c t i o n s from the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g w i l l be to see what conception or conceptions of teaching are i m p l i c i t i n the l i t e r a t u r e . As researchers i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g observe teachers, t a l k with them and w r i t e about the teachers' work, they hold assumptions about what the tasks and purposes of teaching are. The conception of teaching that each researcher works from encapsulates the standards according to which 'good' and 'bad' teaching w i l l be judged. As w e l l , the researcher's conception of teaching may i n f l u e n c e the language he or she chooses to use to t a l k about teaching, the areas he or she sees as worthy of study and the research methodology that i s chosen. Because the conception of teaching t h a t i s held w i l l i n f l u e n c e standards of value, use of language, areas chosen f o r study and research methodology, I w i l l i n examining the l i t e r a t u r e attempt to b r i n g these areas i n t o focus so as to i l l u m i n a t e the conception of teaching that u n d e r l i e s them. That a n a l y s i s w i l l be done i n a l a t e r chapter. P r e r e q u i s i t e to that work, and the purpose of the present chapter, i s the l a y i n g out of a c l e a r , d e f e n s i b l e conception of teaching. The purpose of e x p l i c a t i n g a conception of teaching i s so that t h i s conception can serve as a standard a g a i n s t which to evaluate whatever conception or conceptions are uncovered i n the l i t e r a t u r e . No new conception i s proposed for t h i s purpose. Rather, the conception o f f e r e d here i s drawn from various w r i t i n g s of Paul H i r s t and Richard P e t e r s . H i r s t and P e t e r s ' work was s e l e c t e d because i t appears to o f f e r a more d e t a i l e d and comprehensive conception of teaching than other w r i t e r s . Komisar (1968), for i n s t a n c e , has i n v e s t i g a t e d the concept of teaching but not constructed a conception. John Dewey's conception of teaching can be i n f e r r e d from examination of h i s work, but he has not s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y and s y s t e m a t i c a l l y constructed t h i s conception as H i r s t and Peters have done. Among the strengths of H i r s t and P e t e r s ' conception are i t s c l a r i t y , i t s thorough j u s t i f i c a t i o n at each step, and i t s comprehensiveness. B. 'Teaching* and r e l a t e d concepts •Teaching' would seem to be r e l a t e d to s e v e r a l other concepts, notably 'education', 'schooling* and ' l e a r n i n g ' . I f the person i n the s t r e e t were asked to de s c r i b e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these four concepts, he or she might say something l i k e , "In school teachers teach and students l e a r n , and t h a t ' s how one gets an education." There i s c e r t a i n l y t r u t h i n t h i s , but some f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s should be made. Di s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these d i f f e r e n t concepts w i l l help to lend c l a r i t y to the d i s c u s s i o n of teaching i t s e l f . H i r s t and Peters (1970) s t a t e that education i s "not a s i n g l e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y or process l i k e g a r g l i n g or c y c l i n g " (p.74), but a more a b s t r a c t term l i k e 'reform' or 'improve' which "seems to draw a t t e n t i o n only to the standards to which the c l a s s of a c t i v i t i e s must conform and which give them t h e i r p r i n c i p l e of u n i t y " (p.74). This group of a c t i v i t i e s " a l l c o n t r i b u t e somehow to a c h i e v i n g the general end of an educated person" (p.74). Education n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s l e a r n i n g . Changes brought about i n a person by p h y s i o l o g i c a l maturation cannot be c a l l e d education. Learning i n v o l v e s mastery or achievement of some p a r t i c u l a r X, such as mastering a s k i l l or knowing something one d i d not p r e v i o u s l y know. This mastery or achievement i s brought about as a r e s u l t of one's own experience. The l e a r n i n g that one does under the heading o£ 'education' need have nothing to do with s c h o o l . One can be s e l f - e d u c a t e d or educated i n a v a r i e t y of formal and informal non-school s e t t i n g s . I t seems q u i t e n a t u r a l to say "My t r i p to Japan was a r e a l education", f o r although the major purpose of the t r i p may have been a s i g h t s e e i n g h o l i d a y , the t r a v e l l e r might have learned a good dea l about Japanese language and c u l t u r e . He or she may a l s o have learned how to swear at t a x i d r i v e r s and eat w i t h c h o p s t i c k s , but " i t must be noted t h a t i f a l l e d u c a t i o n a l processes are processes of l e a r n i n g , not a l l processes of l e a r n i n g are processes of education. The value c r i t e r i o n for education c l e a r l y i m p l i e s t h a t much which can be l e a r n t must be excluded from education e i t h e r as u n d e s i r a b l e , f o r instance a sexual p e r v e r s i o n , or as t r i v i a l , f o r instance w i g g l i n g one's ears" ( H i r s t and P e t e r s , 1970, p.76). This values c r i t e r i o n t h a t H i r s t and Peters s t i p u l a t e r e q u i r e s that what i s learned i s valuable according to s o c i e t a l and moral standards. They s t i p u l a t e a l s o a "knowledge c o n d i t i o n " , which s t a t e s that education i n v o l v e s the development of (worthwhile) knowledge as w e l l as depth and breadth of understanding. While there i s a l o g i c a l connection between education and l e a r n i n g , there i s no such connection between e i t h e r of these terms and teaching. Education and l e a r n i n g go on without any teaching. Teaching can, however, c e r t a i n l y help people to l e a r n , and thus to become educated. Teaching i s c e n t r a l to the idea of s c h o o l i n g . As our person i n the s t r e e t s a i d , "In schools teachers teach and students l e a r n , and (we might s l i g h t l y amend the statement) t h a t ' s one way t h a t one can get an education." Teachers don't always teach, of course, and students don't always l e a r n , but by d e f i n i t i o n schools are places where education (and t h e r e f o r e l e a r n i n g ) through teaching i s supposed to take p l a c e . Some of the t h i n g s we want students to l e a r n (and these things stem from our e d u c a t i o n a l values) would seem to r e q u i r e d e l i b e r a t e teaching. Some people, i f l e f t to t h e i r own d e v i c e s , might l e a r n to read and w r i t e and do d i f f e r e n t i a l c a l c u l u s , but most need to be taught at l e a s t some things d u r i n g the l e a r n i n g of these and other e d u c a t i o n a l l y d e s i r a b l e (according to our s o c i e t a l standards) competencies and b i t s of content. In terms of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t e a c h i n g , s e v e r a l things can be s a i d . Komisar (1968) d i s t i n g u i s h e s between three d i f f e r e n t senses of the word 'teaching'. F i r s t , teaching "names an occupation or an a c t i v i t y h a b i t u a l l y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y engaged i n " (p.68). A sentence i l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s sense would be "She has been teaching f o r twenty years." Second, teaching " r e f e r s to a general e n t e r p r i s e , some a c t i v i t y being engaged i n " (p.68). In t h i s sense we might say t h a t Jones i s teaching t i l l noon, although he may engage i n such non-teaching a c t i v i t i e s as opening the window or sharpening a p e n c i l . T h i r d , teaching " c h a r a c t e r i z e s an act or a l l u d e s to an act as being of a c e r t a i n s o r t (belonging to the e n t e r p r i s e of t e a c h i n g ) " (p.68). A teaching act might be demonstrating or e x p l a i n i n g , and demonstrating or e x p l a i n i n g could i n v o l v e t a l k i n g , working a piece of apparatus, w r i t i n g on the board or some more e x o t i c a c t i v i t i e s . H i r s t (1973, p.168) says t h a t teaching i s an i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i v i t y and "The i n t e n t i o n of a l l t eaching a c t i v i t i e s i s t h a t of b r i n g i n g about l e a r n i n g . " Thus i n Komisar's t h i r d sense the a c t i v i t i e s "of a c e r t a i n s o r t " could be s a i d to be the s o r t of a c t i v i t i e s which are intended to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g i n the students. As H i r s t (1973, p.168) says, " I f t h e r e f o r e a teacher spends the whole afternoon i n a c t i v i t i e s the concern of which i s not t h a t the p u p i l s should l e a r n , but, say, the i n f l a t i o n of h i s own ego, then i n f a c t he cannot have been teaching at a l l . " H i r s t makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between the task and the achievement senses of teaching. In the task sense the teacher i s t r y i n g to get the student to l e a r n something; i n the achievement sense success i s i m p l i e d , t h a t i s , l e a r n i n g has indeed taken p l a c e . Teaching, then, i n v o l v e s the i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g . In order that the teaching can r e a l i s t i c a l l y be expected to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g , H i r s t and Peters (1970) make s e v e r a l other s t i p u l a t i o n s as w e l l . The a c t i v i t i e s the teacher chooses must " i f not o v e r t l y , at l e a s t by i m p l i c a t i o n , e x h i b i t , d i s p l a y , express or e x p l a i n to the l e a r n e r , what i s to be l e a r n t . However f i r m one's i n t e n t i o n to teach swimming might be, i t would be absurd to count an a n a l y s i s of E n g l i s h grammatical s t r u c t u r e , or even a p r e s e n t a t i o n of how to solve c e r t a i n equations i n hydrodynamics, as i n f a c t teaching swimming" (p. 7 9 ) . As w e l l , the a c t i v i t i e s chosen must be at a l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the l e a r n e r ' s c o g n i t i v e s t a t e , so that he or she can i n f a c t l e a r n . Given a l l these t h i n g s , i t i s o b v i o u s l y important t h a t a teacher have c l e a r o b j e c t i v e s i n terms of what i s to be l e a r n t , so that the teacher can s e l e c t a ppropriate a c t i v i t i e s and methods and sequence of p r e s e n t a t i o n . Together wi t h the i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g i s the c o n d i t i o n t h a t what i s to be l e a r n t i s not t r i v i a l or u n d e s i r a b l e , but has e d u c a t i o n a l worth as recognized by the standards of our s o c i e t y . S p e c i f i c instances of "educational worth" are probably e n d l e s s l y arguable; n e v e r t h e l e s s , a f a i r l y c l e a r set of standards does e x i s t and teachers and c u r r i c u l u m planners must weigh the l e a r n i n g experiences they s e l e c t a g a i n s t these standards. This s e c t i o n has Involved examination of the concepts of education, s c h o o l i n g , teaching and l e a r n i n g and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . H i r s t and Peters conclude that "educational processes are those processes of l e a r n i n g , which may be s t i m u l a t e d by teaching, out of which d e s i r a b l e s t a t e s of mind, i n v o l v i n g knowledge and understanding, develop" (p.86) and that "though teaching may not be necessary to a l l forms of education and l e a r n i n g , i t i s necessary to s c h o o l i n g " (p. 7 7 ) . Teaching i n v o l v e s the i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g and the s e l e c t i o n , with c l e a r l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s i n mind, of a c t i v i t i e s which express or encapsulate t h a t which i s to be learned and which are appropriate to the developmental stage of the l e a r n e r ( s ) . Since the s e l e c t i o n of appropriate methods and m a t e r i a l s and the gearing of lessons to the developmental stage of the l e a r n e r s are ways of i n s u r i n g , as much as p o s s i b l e , that the i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g i s c a r r i e d out, these w i l l be c a l l e d the l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s for the conception of teaching presented below. C. A conception of teaching Having drawn these important c l a r i f i c a t i o n s , what e l s e i s there to be s a i d about teaching? This conceptual c l a r i f i c a t i o n has l e d us to the l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r a d e f e n s i b l e conception of teaching. One other very important c o n d i t i o n remains to be argued. Before moving to f u r t h e r development of the conception of teaching, however, i t i s appropriate to ask about the use of the word ' d e f e n s i b l e ' . In what ways should a conception of teaching be d e f e n s i b l e ? In the f i r s t p l a c e , the conception must be l o g i c a l l y d e f e n s i b l e i n that i t i s sound and s e n s i b l e and i t s p a r t s work w e l l together. H i r s t and P e t e r s ' c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of teaching and r e l a t e d concepts would seem to s a t i s f y t h i s c r i t e r i o n . In the second place a conception of teaching should be e d u c a t i o n a l l y d e f e n s i b l e , t h a t i s , i t should help to f u r t h e r the g e n e r a l l y agreed upon ends of education. Since the major aim of education i n our s o c i e t y i s the l e a r n i n g by students of worthwhile content, s k i l l s and a t t i t u d e s , and s i n c e H i r s t and Peters* a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s how teachers can b r i n g about such l e a r n i n g , t h i s second c r i t e r i o n would appear a l s o to be s a t i s f i e d . In the t h i r d place a conception of teaching should, s i n c e teaching i n v o l v e s r e l a t i n g to other people, be m o r a l l y d e f e n s i b l e and give an important place to the n o t i o n of respect f o r persons. I t i s to t h i s area that the remainder of the d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s chapter i s devoted. That teaching i s a moral e n t e r p r i s e i s inescapable, not only because working i n c l o s e contact with others i n v o l v e s moral questions of how one ought to t r e a t other people, but because the e d u c a t i o n a l aim of conveying thing s of value means, i n p a r t , conveying by lesson and example moral p r i n c i p l e s such as respect f o r persons. H i r s t and Peters say that "Teaching, as an a c t i v i t y , i s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e unless somebody i s or i s thought of as a l e a r n e r . The view which a teacher has of h i s p u p i l s should, t h e r e f o r e , provide a thread of u n i t y which runs through a whole range of h i s d e a l i n g s with them..." (pp.89-90) These d e a l i n g s i n v o l v e formal lessons as w e l l as i n f o r m a l conversations outside the classroom, and the view a teacher should take of h i s or her students i n these d e a l i n g s , i d e a l l y that students are persons and must be accorded d i g n i t y and r e s p e c t , i s an important component of any d e f e n s i b l e conception of teaching. How the notions of d i g n i t y and respect are i n t e r p r e t e d i n var i o u s s i t u a t i o n s w i l l i n v o l v e many d i f f i c u l t questions and the weighing of d i f f e r e n t s e t s of value s . As w e l l , teachers may hold biases that sometimes i n h i b i t t h e i r a c t i n g on the p r i n c i p l e of respect f o r persons. T r e a t i n g students according to the p r i n c i p l e of respect for persons provides a g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e f or teachers but u s u a l l y does not d i c t a t e how e x a c t l y teachers should a ct i n s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s . They must make many d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s , i n the area of d i s c i p l i n e , f o r ins t a n c e . The teacher's personal and ed u c a t i o n a l values and the values of the school w i l l i n t e r a c t with and sometimes c o n f l i c t with the teacher's o b l i g a t i o n to t r e a t students with r e s p e c t , d i g n i t y and f a i r n e s s . I t i s c l e a r t h a t to e f f e c t i v e l y express and embody the p r i n c i p l e of respect f o r persons teachers must possess c o n s i d e r a b l e understanding of t h e i r own values and the sometimes s u b t l e ways these may be communicated to students. Some values may be held t a c i t l y or even subconsciously and may a f f e c t teachers* classroom a c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s to the detriment of students. I f teachers are to make i n t e l l i g e n t judgements about how best to i n t e r p r e t the p r i n c i p l e of respect f o r persons i n various s i t u a t i o n s , they should r e f l e c t on t h e i r personal values and a l s o on the values t h a t are o p e r a t i n g at the school l e v e l . There are p o s s i b l e 30 c o n f l i c t s between personal and school values t h a t may cause teachers f r u s t r a t i o n and c o n f u s i o n . Another source of p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t f o r a teacher i s t hat he or she must, on the one hand, respect the pride and s e n s i t i v i t y of h i s or her students and on the other hand t r y to f u l f i l l the requirements of the r o l e of teacher w i t h i n an e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , r e s p e c t i n g the subject matter he or she i s meant to convey. A teacher must "have regard a l s o to the values immanent i n what he i s t e a c h i n g . He must not be so overwhelmed with awe at the thought of another expressing h i s innermost thoughts t h a t he omits to point out that they are not very c l e a r l y expressed or s c a r c e l y r e l e v a n t to the matter under d i s c u s s i o n . An a r t teacher who i s content to l e t c h i l d r e n express themselves, without any concern f o r a e s t h e t i c standards, i s d e f i c i e n t as a teacher whatever h i s or her merits as a respecter of persons" ( H i r s t and P e t e r s , 1970, p.92). Respecting subject matter standards i s connected to the l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d e a r l i e r , and to the s e l e c t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l l y worthwhile l e a r n i n g experiences. A teacher must, then, weigh these sometimes opposing s e t s of values i n order to be true both to moral p r i n c i p l e s and to the demands of the r o l e of teacher i n an e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n . The requirement t h a t teachers t r e a t students with d i g n i t y and respect according to the b a s i c moral p r i n c i p l e of respect f o r persons w i l l be c a l l e d the moral c o n d i t i o n . The l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s and the moral c o n d i t i o n together are the components of t h i s conception of teaching. In summary, the conception of teaching developed here from the work of H i r s t and Peters i s l o g i c a l l y , e d u c a t i o n a l l y and m o r a l l y d e f e n s i b l e . According to t h i s conception of teaching the f o l l o w i n g statements can be made: 1) Teaching i n v o l v e s the i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g . 2) The a c t i v i t i e s s e l e c t e d t o b r i n g about l e a r n i n g must i n d i c a t e to the learner, what i s to be l e a r n t . 3) The a c t i v i t i e s and methods s e l e c t e d must be app r o p r i a t e to the l e a r n e r ' s c o g n i t i v e s t a t e , so th a t he or she can i n f a c t l e a r n . 4) The a c t i v i t i e s , content and methods s e l e c t e d must r e f l e c t and be app r o p r i a t e to the teacher's c l e a r e d u c a t i o n a l aims. 5) That which i s to be l e a r n t must not be t r i v i a l or un d e s i r a b l e , but must be e d u c a t i o n a l l y worthwhile according to d e f e n s i b l e standards. These f i v e p o i n t s s p e c i f y the l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s . 6) The teacher should express and embody, to the best of h i s or her a b i l i t y , the moral p r i n c i p l e of respect for persons i n a l l h i s or her de a l i n g s with students. This point s p e c i f i e s the moral c o n d i t i o n . Having a r t i c u l a t e d the d e t a i l s of t h i s conception of t e a c h i n g , we t u r n now to the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher t h i n k i n g , beginning w i t h s t u d i e s of teacher d e c i s i o n making. Chapter Three Teachers' I n t e r a c t i v e D e c i s i o n Making A. Research i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g The f i r s t seven or e i g h t decades of research on teachers was devoted to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teacher behavior, and t h i s research has been f r u i t f u l i n many ways. Teacher behavior i s no longer the major research focus, because teachers' a c t i o n s have been q u i t e thoroughly described and analysed, and t h i s k ind of research does not appear to o f f e r many new i n s i g h t s . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teacher behavior can be seen as a research program which, while i t may not be supplanted, i s at l e a s t r i v a l l e d by a new research program t h a t emphasizes teacher t h i n k i n g . These two research programs have some rather d i f f e r e n t b a s i c assumptions. The teacher behavior program assumes that we can know and understand most of the important t h i n g s about te a c h i n g from observing teachers* overt a c t i o n s . The teacher t h i n k i n g program, on the other hand, assumes th a t we need to ask teachers about t h e i r thoughts as w e l l as observing t h e i r behavior. The teacher behavior program does not give a major focus to the context of t e a c h i n g , assuming t h a t to a large extent teacher behavior can be understood without the d e t a i l s of context and judged according to a standard set of c r i t e r i a . The teacher t h i n k i n g program assumes that teacher behavior can best be understood i n the v a r y i n g classroom context, and c r i t e r i a f o r judging behavior to be e f f e c t i v e or i n e f f e c t i v e , a p p r o p r i a t e or i n a p p r o p r i a t e , w i l l vary according to context. As w e l l , the teacher behavior program assumes that s p e c i f i c teacher behaviors can increase student achievement, and tha t there i s a standard set of teaching s k i l l s , while the teacher t h i n k i n g program takes the view t h a t because teaching and l e a r n i n g are complex i t i s seldom the case that a few p a r t i c u l a r teaching a c t i o n s w i l l c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y with a few p a r t i c u l a r measures of p u p i l l e a r n i n g , and that because teachers b r i n g d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s and experiences to t h e i r t e a c h i n g , they w i l l have d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s and methods and e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s . Having made these statements, they must now be q u a l i f i e d . S e t t i n g up a teacher behavior/teacher t h i n k i n g dichotomy i n t h i s way i s u s e f u l i n th a t i t g i v e s , r a t h e r s t a r k l y , something of the d i f f e r e n t f l a v o u r s of these two research programs. However the p o r t r a y a l i s too s t a r k and i n f a c t people involved i n e i t h e r of these research programs may share many assumptions w i t h each other. Despite the importance given to context i n teacher t h i n k i n g s t u d i e s , f or ins t a n c e , the f a c t remains t h a t there IS a standard set of c r i t e r i a by which we judge e f f e c t i v e and I n e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g . Without standards, no e v a l u a t i o n would be p o s s i b l e . As w e l l , e a r l y research on teacher behavior was simpler m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y than much current r e s e a r c h , and the lack o£ a t t e n t i o n given to context may have been due p a r t l y to the lack of techniques a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s k i n d of study. Nevertheless, while the assumptions of both programs may not be mutually e x c l u s i v e , and while i t may not be e n t i r e l y accurate to s t a t e them as s t a r k l y as was done above, there i s d e f i n i t e l y a b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e at the heart of the two programs. The teacher behavior program seeks to d i s c o v e r what a c t s teachers perform i n classrooms, and so o b v i o u s l y the u n d e r l y i n g assumption i s that these a c t s , or behaviors are of fundamental importance. The teacher t h i n k i n g program seeks to understand the t h i n k i n g that motivates teachers' acts and d e c i s i o n s and the classroom context i n which they take p l a c e , and the u n d e r l y i n g assumption i s that a c t s are, i f not u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , at l e a s t not p a r t i c u l a r l y meaningful or e n l i g h t e n i n g without reference to t h i n k i n g and to context. The f o l l o w i n g review of l i t e r a t u r e examines the major works on teacher d e c i s i o n making and d i s c u s s e s the ideas of w r i t e r s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the major d i r e c t i o n s and p e r s p e c t i v e s w i t h i n t h i s area. The systematic study of teacher t h i n k i n g began about 1970, although some w r i t e r s d u r i n g the 1960's expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the teacher behavior approach. Researchers i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g have used s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t f o c i i n t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . One of these has been the study of planning. L i t e r a t u r e on e d u c a t i o n a l planning s t r e t c h e s back for at l e a s t f i f t y years, but under the auspices of teacher behavior research t h i s l i t e r a t u r e was p r e s c r i p t i v e , d i c t a t i n g to teachers how they ought to p l a n . A f t e r 1950 most p r e s c r i p t i v e planning l i t e r a t u r e was based on the model proposed by T y l e r , advocating that teachers s p e c i f y e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s , plan a c t i v i t i e s designed to achieve those o b j e c t i v e s , and plan a p p r o p r i a t e e v a l u a t i o n procedures. A notable departure from t h i s model occurred when Macdonald (1965) and Eisner (1967) suggested that teachers do not s t a r t with o b j e c t i v e s when they begin to p l a n , and do not proceed through the steps of T y l e r ' s model. They focus f i r s t on a c t i v i t i e s t h a t t h e i r students w i l l enjoy and at which they can be s u c c e s s f u l . O b j e c t i v e s a r i s e i n the context of i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . This was c a l l e d an " i n t e g r a t e d ends-means model" i n I t s l a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n by Zahorik (1975). Studies of teachers' a c t u a l classroom planning remain r e l a t i v e l y few In number. The r e s u l t s of those s t u d i e s t h a t have been done are q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t , agreeing with the f i n d i n g s of Zahorik (1975) that teachers spend most of t h e i r planning time concerned with the s u b j e c t matter to be taught, and on i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and a c t i v i t i e s . A r e l a t i v e l y s m a ll amount of time i s spent on o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i o n . 37- Yinger (1980) i n v e s t i g a t e d the t h i n k i n g of the teacher In h i s study by having her t a l k aloud as she planned. Yinger suggests t h a t i n planning a teacher i s 'problem-finding', d i s c o v e r i n g p o t e n t i a l u s e f u l i n s t r u c t i o n a l ideas and e l a b o r a t i n g on them. He says t h a t problem-finding i n v o l v e s i n t e r a c t i o n among four components: the p a r t i c u l a r planning dilemma c o n f r o n t i n g the teacher, the teacher's knowledge and experience, the teaching goals and the teaching m a t e r i a l s . The acknowledgement t h a t teaching s i t u a t i o n s d i f f e r and t h a t i n d i v i d u a l teachers b r i n g d i f f e r e n t knowledge and experience to t h e i r tasks marks a major d i f f e r e n c e between teacher behavior research and teacher t h i n k i n g research. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of teacher planning d i d not open up as a major area of i n t e r e s t i n i t s e l f , and the number of st u d i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d to planning remains s m a l l . Studying teachers' planning involves i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the d e c i s i o n s teachers make while planning, and many researchers found i t more f r u i t f u l to choose d e c i s i o n as the c e n t r a l focus. Another focus was on teacher judgement. Studies w i t h t h i s s p e c i f i c focus are a l s o few i n number, and have tended to be h y p o t h e t i c a l or l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s . One such study r e q u i r e d teachers to f i l l out q u e s t i o n n a i r e s s t a t i n g t h e i r expectations and the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s they would use f o r students w i t h p a r t i c u l a r backgrounds (Shavelson, Cadwell and I z u , 1977). In judgement s t u d i e s , too, the word " d e c i s i o n 1 was mentioned f r e q u e n t l y . During the 1970's teacher d e c i s i o n making was an area of major i n t e r e s t . In 1973 Shavelson made the statement, much-quoted s i n c e , that d e c i s i o n making i s "the b a s i c teaching s k i l l " . "Any teaching a c t " , he wrote, " i s the r e s u l t of a d e c i s i o n — s o m e t i m e s conscious but more o f t e n not--that the teacher makes a f t e r the complex c o g n i t i v e processing of a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n " (p. 144). Shavelson sees a l i n k between e a r l i e r b e h a v i o r a l s t u d i e s and s t u d i e s of d e c i s i o n making: "This c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n (of the teacher as a d e c i s i o n maker) incorporates previous research on teaching s k i l l s . Such s k i l l s as q u e s t i o n i n g , e x p l a i n i n g , r e i n f o r c i n g and probing represent the teacher's r e p e r t o i r e of a l t e r n a t i v e a c t s from which he must choose at any i n s t a n t i n time" (p. 149). The l i n k which Shavelson p o s i t s between s t u d i e s of teacher behavior and s t u d i e s of d e c i s i o n making seems a p p r o p r i a t e , and i n f a c t d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s share q u a l i t i e s of both the teacher behavior and teacher research programs. The view t h a t there are a v a r i e t y of "teaching s k i l l s " such as q u e s t i o n i n g , e x p l a i n i n g and probing i s not u n l i k e the view t h a t there i s a standard set of teaching "behaviors" from which a teacher s e l e c t s . Studies of overt teacher behavior seek answers to the question "What does the teacher do?" Studies of teachers' d e c i s i o n s ask not only what but when and, most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , they sometimes ask 39 why. "Why d i d the teacher choose t h i s a c t i o n at t h i s time?" This question takes us i n t o the realm of teacher t h i n k i n g . Shavelson i s , however, inaccurate i n l a b e l i n g d e c i s i o n making (or e x p l a i n i n g , or probing) a s k i l l . This i s not a minor p o i n t , but a misunderstanding that has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r how d e c i s i o n s are discussed and s t u d i e d and for how classroom d e c i s i o n making i s approached i n teacher education. The view t h a t there i s a v a r i e t y of "teaching s k i l l s " such as q u e s t i o n i n g , e x p l a i n i n g and probing, and the view t h a t d e c i d i n g which of these to s e l e c t i s i t s e l f a s k i l l , i s not so d i f f e r e n t from the idea that there are a standard s e t of teaching "behaviors" which can be s e l e c t e d from. The • c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the teacher as a d e c i s i o n maker' suggests a conception of the teacher as an a c t i v e t h i n k e r , responsive to changing classroom c o n d i t i o n s , but the d e f i n i t i o n of d e c i s i o n making as a s k i l l does not a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y the t h i n k i n g which u n d e r l i e s d e c i s i o n . To make these claims more i n t e l l i g i b l e i t i s app r o p r i a t e at t h i s time to d i v e r t from the main flow to i n v e s t i g a t e the concept of s k i l l . B. An a n a l y s i s of the concept of ' s k i l l ' ' S k i l l s ' i s a word used f r e q u e n t l y by educators, who s t r i v e to help students improve t h e i r " l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s " , " t h i n k i n g s k i l l s " and "problem s o l v i n g s k i l l s " . Many c l a i m to be able to teach such ' s k i l l s ' as c l a s s i f y i n g , i n f e r r i n g and e v a l u a t i n g . 40 Teachers are supposed to be able to acquire a set of "teaching s k i l l s " . Shavelson's (1973) language i n h i s a r t i c l e "What i s the B a s i c Teaching S k i l l ? " i s t y p i c a l : " S k i l l s such as q u e s t i o n i n g and e x p l a i n i n g represent the teacher's r e p e r t o i r e of a l t e r n a t i v e a c t s from which to choose, while s k i l l s such as l i s t e n i n g and hypothesis generation i n f l u e n c e the q u a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n from which the teacher estimates the student's understanding and the u t i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e a c t s . One i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t teacher t r a i n i n g should include a decision-making component th a t i n t e g r a t e s the other b a s i c s k i l l s " (p. 144). While i t i s not unclear what Shavelson i s t r y i n g to say, such language i s mi s l e a d i n g . A s k i l l i s d e f i n e d by the Oxford D i c t i o n a r y as "expertness, p r a c t i s e d a b i l i t y , f a c i l i t y i n doing something, d e x t e r i t y " . I t i s by i m p l i c a t i o n d i s c r e t e and separable from other a c t i v i t i e s . In an a r t i c l e on the misuse of the words 'processes' and ' s k i l l s ' , Daniels (1975) says that s k i l l s are p a r t i c u l a r f a c i l i t i e s , not general a b i l i t i e s . A recent Canadian e d u c a t i o n a l document l i s t s such ' t h i n k i n g s k i l l s ' as c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , e x t r a p o l a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n and a n a l y s i s . Of the ' s k i l l ' of a n a l y s i s ( f o r example) Daniels says, " I f we choose a s u f f i c i e n t l y narrow range of thi n g s t o . . . a n a l y s e , we may be able to i d e n t i f y p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s to do and e x e r c i s e s to p r a c t i c e to develop the r e l e v a n t f a c i l i t i e s . Thus chemical t e c h n i c i a n s l e a r n c e r t a i n r o u t i n e s f o r s y n t h e s i z i n g products. These r o u t i n e s are procedures that can be learned as s t r i n g s of f a c i l i t i e s , and t r a i n e e s can thus become s k i l f u l a n a l y s t s , e v a l u a t o r s , and so on. But there can be no general s k i l l of a n a l y s i n g or e v a l u a t i n g because c r i t e r i a d i f f e r from one area of a n a l y s i s to another" (p. 253). S i m i l a r l y , such 'teaching s k i l l s ' as q u e s t i o n i n g and e x p l a i n i n g must be suspect. A teacher could be a s k i l l e d q u e s t i o n e r , but i n asking students appropriate questions he or she i s not e x e r c i s i n g one s k i l l . To be a good questioner the teacher must be knowledgeable about the s u b j e c t at hand, must be a r t i c u l a t e , s e n s i t i v e to the a b i l i t i e s and d i s p o s i t i o n s of her students, and must have, as Shavelson says, "...not the a b i l i t y to ask, say, a higher order q u e s t i o n , but the a b i l i t y to decide when to ask such a q u e s t i o n " (p. 144). He or she might be a b e t t e r questioner i n mathematics than i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s , or might be a g e n e r a l l y good questioner of students, when questions are designed to teach, but a poor questioner of the f a m i l y doctor or l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n . I t i s c l e a r that context i s important, and t h a t the s k i l f u l questioner has a number of important s e n s i b i l i t i e s , a b i l i t i e s and p r o p e n s i t i e s , not the l e a s t of which i s the e x e r c i s e of good judgement about the r i g h t time to ask c e r t a i n kinds of questions and to whom they should be asked. D e c i s i o n making i s n e i t h e r a s k i l l nor a set of s k i l l s , and the decision-making teacher, l i k e the q u e s t i o n i n g teacher, i s e x e r c i s i n g judgement based on her knowledge and experience. I t seems l i k e l y t h a t a teacher could improve the q u a l i t y of her classroom d e c i s i o n s not through t r a i n i n g i n " d e c i s i o n making s k i l l s " , but through a n a l y s i s of and r e f l e c t i o n on d e c i s i o n s she has made, and e x p l o r a t i o n of the v a l u e s , b e l i e f s and knowledge th a t u n d e r l i e these d e c i s i o n s . The term ' s k i l l s ' as i t has been discussed here, i s not j u s t a harmless misnomer. Viewing problem s o l v i n g , c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g or d e c i s i o n making as s k i l l s or s e t s of s k i l l s suggests to a teacher c e r t a i n teaching approaches which, s i n c e they are based on a misapprehension of the nature of that which they purport to teach, w i l l l i k e l y be i n e f f e c t i v e and could be counterproductive. Viewing teaching as the e x e r c i s e of a s e t of "teaching s k i l l s " and teacher d e c i s i o n making as a s k i l l i n i t s e l f i s an inaccurate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of what teachers do. C. Review of the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher d e c i s i o n making a) I n t r o d u c t i o n In t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of teachers as d e c i s i o n makers, S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d (1979) d e f i n e a "teaching d e c i s i o n " as "a d e c i s i o n made du r i n g the execution of the p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the teacher" (p. 16) and d i s t i n g u i s h between r e f l e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s , which are "non-immediate, contemplative d e c i s i o n s concerning events i n the f u t u r e " (p.9) and immediate d e c i s i o n s , which "occur as a r e s u l t of forces perceived as a f f o r d i n g no time f o r r e f l e c t i o n " (p.10). This i s an obvious but important d i s t i n c t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher d e c i s i o n making. C l e a r l y planning d e c i s i o n s are of the r e f l e c t i v e k i n d , and d e c i s i o n s made while the teacher i s a c t u a l l y i n t e r a c t i n g w ith students are immediate. Immediate d e c i s i o n s are a l s o r e f e r r e d to i n the l i t e r a t u r e as ' i n t e r a c t i v e ' d e c i s i o n s and ' i n f l i g h t ' d e c i s i o n s . They w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o here as i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s . I n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making has been d i f f i c u l t t o study, because d e c i s i o n s made 'on the spot' d u r i n g teaching occur r a p i d l y and may i n v o l v e l i t t l e d e l i b e r a t i o n or conscious choice between a l t e r n a t i v e s . An observer might not be aware on the b a s i s of the flow of events i n a classroom that many quick d e c i s i o n s had been made by the teacher. Yet because of the u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of students' responses, i t i s l o g i c a l to assume that d e s p i t e t h e i r best l a i d plans, teachers must make many i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s about how to respond to students' behavior and how to a d j u s t lessons to meet students' immediate i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs. Researchers i n t e r e s t e d In teachers' i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making have used the method of s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l to study classroom d e c i s i o n s . A l l of the e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s of teachers' i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s review have used the s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l method. Because of i t s importance i n t h i s r esearch, and because there has been some controversy over the accuracy of r e s u l t s obtained by t h i s method, an examination of s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l i s i n order here. b) The s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l method V i r t u a l l y the only research method i d e n t i f i e d as u s e f u l f o r the study of teachers' i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making has been s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l . A teacher i s audiotaped, or more o f t e n videotaped, while t e a c h i n g , and the tape i s played back to the teacher soon a f t e r the l e s s o n . This i s done immediately a f t e r the le s s o n l f p o s s i b l e , and no l a t e r than the end of the same day. The researcher asks the teacher to i d e n t i f y p o i n t s d u r i n g the lesson at which he or she made d e c i s i o n s , and then questions him or her about those d e c i s i o n s and the c o n d i t i o n s surrounding them. The questions asked by Marx and Peterson (1981) i n t h e i r study are t y p i c a l : 1. What were you doing i n t h i s segment and why? 2. Were you t h i n k i n g of any a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s or s t r a t e g i e s at the time? 3. I f so, what were they? k5 4. How were the students responding? 5. Did any student r e a c t i o n s cause you to act d i f f e r e n t l y than you had planned? While the s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l method has been widely accepted, there has been controversy as to the r e l i a b i l i t y as data of v e r b a l r e p o r t s . N i s b e t t and Wilson (1977) reviewed research which suggested t h a t i n t r o s p e c t i o n does not always produce accurate r e p o r t s . Their p o s i t i o n i s that people's r e p o r t s are based on "a p r i o r i , i m p l i c i t c a u s a l t h e o r i e s , or judgements about the extent to which a p a r t i c u l a r stimulus i s a p l a u s i b l e cause of a given response" (p.231) ra t h e r than on true i n t r o s p e c t i o n . In other words, the research reviewed by N i s b e t t and Wilson suggested that people hold c e r t a i n t h e o r i e s ( ' b e l i e f s ' might be a b e t t e r word) about s o c i a l phenomena, and when questioned they w i l l c a l l up these b e l i e f s r a t h e r than t r u l y examining t h e i r thoughts and f e e l i n g s . E r i c s s o n and Simon (1980) d i s a g r e e , s t a t i n g that when inaccurate r e p o r t s are given i t i s because researchers have asked s u b j e c t s for i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t "was never d i r e c t l y heeded, thus f o r c i n g s u b j e c t s t o i n f e r r a t h e r than remember mental processes" (p.215). This seems to mean that people give inaccurate r e p o r t s of t h e i r own thoughts when they are asked to comment on something they had paid l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o . I t i s not c l e a r , however, how a researcher can know fo r c e r t a i n whether a person i s r e p o r t i n g h i s or her thoughts a c c u r a t e l y . Sometimes we might be imagining r a t h e r than r e c a l l i n g ( i t i s tempting here to say we are ' r e c a l l i n g i n c o r r e c t l y ' , but as Ryle (1949) p o i n t s out, r e c a l l i s a •got i t * verb, and r e c a l l u n s u c c e s s f u l l y or r e c a l l i n c o r r e c t l y are i l l e g i t i m a t e phrases). We may a l s o sometimes purposely give r e p o r t s that make us appear i n a favorable l i g h t . However, common sense would seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t we can i n general r e c a l l and r e p o r t a c c u r a t e l y on our recent thoughts. Such r e p o r t s w i l l not be p e r f e c t , because, as Ryle says, "Aside from the f a c t t h a t even prompt r e c o l l e c t i o n i s s u b j e c t both to evaporations and d i l u t i o n s , however a c c u r a t e l y I may r e c o l l e c t an a c t i o n or a f e e l i n g , I may s t i l l f a i l to recognize i t s nature. Whether yesterday's twinge which I r e c a l l today was a pang of genuine compassion or a twinge of g u i l t , need not be any the more obvious to me f o r the f a c t t h a t my memory of i t i s v i v i d . C h r o n i c l e s are not explanatory of what they r e c o r d " (p. 160). I t seems s e n s i b l e to accept Ryle's view t h a t we do not have p r i v i l e g e d and p e r f e c t access to the workings of our own minds, but we can acknowledge the general r e l i a b i l i t y of r e t r o s p e c t i o n (a more accurate term than i n t r o s p e c t i o n ) and t r e a t v e r b a l r e p o r t s as l e g i t i m a t e sources of data. Even l f we do some I n t e r p r e t i n g as we c a l l up memories of thoughts and f e e l i n g s , and thus do not r e p o r t them e x a c t l y as they were t h i s morning or yesterday, t h i s does not i n v a l i d a t e our r e p o r t i n g . Observers doing s o c i a l s cience research a l s o i n t e r p r e t , and t h i s does not i n v a l i d a t e t h e i r c l a i m to accurate r e p o r t i n g . While the issue i s not e x a c t l y the same, the q u e s t i o n of whether people can a c c u r a t e l y remember and r e p o r t t h e i r thoughts i s somewhat s i m i l a r to the question of whether people can b r i n g i n t o focus and a r t i c u l a t e knowledge, values and b e l i e f s they may hold t a c i t l y . I t w i l l be argued throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n t h a t people can focus and a r t i c u l a t e , and, i t may be added here, remember, i m p e r f e c t l y perhaps, but w e l l enough th a t v e r b a l r e p o r t s can be accepted as accurate. In terms of memory, i t seems reasonable t o say t h a t the longer the time pe r i o d over which one i s asked to remember, the more imagination and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l come i n t o p l a y . Stimulated r e c a l l i n t e r v i e w s are always done as soon as p o s s i b l e a f t e r the l e s s o n , on the same day, minimizing problems t h a t the passage of time might b r i n g to r e p o r t s based on memory. c) Studies of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making During the 1970's the study of teacher d e c i s i o n making was one of the most a c t i v e areas of i n t e r e s t f o r e d u c a t i o n a l researchers. Reports of research i n e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s and papers presented at e d u c a t i o n a l conferences centered f r e q u e n t l y on teacher d e c i s i o n making. Some of these papers r e l a t e d to long term planning d e c i s i o n s , but there was a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n i n t e r a c t i v e classroom d e c i s i o n s . The concept of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making seemed to capture the heart of teaching. This i n t e r e s t reached i t s peak at the end of the decade. The annual meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n i n Toronto i n 1978 saw a s u b s t a n t i a l number of papers presented on t h i s t o p i c . There were fewer s t u d i e s of d e c i s i o n making i n the e a r l y 1980's, and now t h i s s p e c i f i c focus i s seldom chosen by r e s e a r c h e r s , though d e c i s i o n remains an important concept i n the study of teaching. The s p e c i f i c focus on d e c i s i o n has now broadened to i n c l u d e examination of the whole bed of knowledge and experience from which teachers* d e c i s i o n s s p r i n g . Researchers i n t o i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s have sought to understand the content of these d e c i s i o n s as w e l l as the s t i m u l i t h a t may n e c e s s i t a t e making such d e c i s i o n s . Several people have constructed t y p o l o g i e s of teacher d e c i s i o n s , and most of these are q u i t e s i m i l a r . The part of S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d ' s (1979) typology that deals with i n t e r a c t i v e or immediate d e c i s i o n s i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and can be summarized as f o l l o w s : Content of Immediate decisions - a s s o c i a t e d with s u b j e c t matter; the lesson content - a s s o c i a t e d w i t h apparatus and other a i d s , appropriateness of i l l u s t r a t i o n s ; t i m i n g of i n s t r u c t i o n - a s s o c i a t e d with p u p i l s ' behavior, e i t h e r alone or with o t h e r s , i n v o l v i n g v e r b a l behavior, objects or m a t e r i a l s - a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the amendment of the teachers' behavior Classroom s t i m u l i which are precursors of the d e c i s i o n - p u p i l centered s t i m u l i (cues suggesting understanding or misundersanding, d i s r u p t i o n or cooperation, other a t t e n t i o n seeking or communication) - d i s t r a c t o r s t i m u l i (not d i r e c t l y p u p i l caused) - m a t e r i a l s based s t i m u l i S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d developed these c a t e g o r i e s d u r i n g t h e i r study of beginning and experienced teachers. They r e a l i z e d t h a t while some d e c i s i o n s would give r i s e to an observable change i n behavior, a ' n u l l ' d e c i s i o n to continue on a course of a c t i o n would be d i f f i c u l t to monitor. Thus, as w e l l as d i r e c t i n g r e t r o s p e c t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n on the p a r t of teachers as they watched videotapes of themselves t e a c h i n g , the researchers monitored teachers* h e a r t r a t e s and s k i n r e s i s t a n c e , on the grounds that "The value of a measure of teacher s t r e s s l i e s i n i t s p o t e n t i a l as a more o b j e c t i v e technique of i d e n t i f y i n g n u l l d e c i s i o n s " (P.23). They hoped th a t t h i s technique -would " r e v e a l d e c i s i o n p o i n t s where there was no observable change i n teacher behavior" (p.23). Such techniques, prevalent i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l research, are seldom used i n e d u c a t i o n a l research, and while the d e s i r e of these researchers to f i n d an o b j e c t i v e measure of teacher s t r e s s i s understandable, the technique may be somewhat ques t i o n a b l e . For one t h i n g , use of apparatus to measure the p h y s i c a l signs of s t r e s s i s t i e d to t h e i r assumption that ' n u l l ' d e c i s i o n s are accompanied by increased s t r e s s , and t h i s may not n e c e s s a r i l y be the case. Some d e c i s i o n s may not cause an increase i n s t r e s s , and some increases i n s t r e s s may not be caused by the making of a d e c i s i o n . The p h y s i c a l f a c t of being attached to t h i s apparatus while teaching may be a cause f o r some s t r e s s . One of S u t c l l f f e and W h i t f i e l d ' s f i n d i n g s was tha t there was a greater p r o p o r t i o n of Immediate to r e f l e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s f o r inexperienced than f o r experienced teachers. This suggests that experienced teachers may have more w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d plans and r o u t i n e s which make i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s necessary l e s s o f t e n . I t may a l s o be that the increases i n s t r e s s which the researchers measured more of t e n i n inexperienced teachers Indicate that beginning teachers f i n d immediate d e c i s i o n s more s t r e s s f u l , not n e c e s s a r i l y that they make them more o f t e n . S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d a l s o found that s t i m u l i g i v i n g r i s e to d e c i s i o n s were more of t e n a s s o c i a t e d with classroom management f o r inexperienced teachers, and most commands given by teachers, whether experienced or not, caused an increase i n s t r e s s . Morine and Val l a n c e (1975) I d e n t i f i e d three major types of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s : 1) interchanges ( d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d to v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n s ) , 2) planned a c t i v i t i e s ( i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d to previous planning) and 3) unplanned a c t i v i t i e s ( i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s to d i v e r t from the lesson plan). Most of the decisions made by teachers in th i s study were interchange or planned. There was l i t t l e d i v e r s i o n from the basic plan, a finding shared by most researchers. In Clark and Peterson's (1978) study, too, most teachers conducted "business as usual", not considering a l t e r n a t i v e strategies unless the classroom s i t u a t i o n was going poorly, and even then not d i v e r t i n g much from th e i r basic plans. Their i n t e r a c t i v e decision making involved s p e c i f i c responses to students and "fine tuning" of lessons. It is reasonable to assume that there i s a connection between planning decisions and int e r a c t i v e decisions. Teachers who have made car e f u l planning decisions have presumably considered some of the possible student responses to the lesson, and may have b u i l t in some al t e r n a t i v e s , lessening the need for in t e r a c t i v e decisions while teaching. Marx and Peterson (1981) studied teachers' preactive and int e r a c t i v e decisions in a laboratory s e t t i n g , and did fi n d such a connection. They found that "teachers who did the most preactive decision making did the least i n t e r a c t i v e decision making, and those who did the most in t e r a c t i v e decision making did the least preactive decision making" (p.243). This may simply be a statement of the f a i r l y obvious point that teachers who make more preactive decisions are better prepared and thus do not have to 'think on th e i r feet' as much. It may also suggest d i f f e r e n t teaching s t y l e s , with some teachers planning more thoroughly and adhering more r i g i d l y to t h e i r plan, and some teachers responding more to the immediate demands of the classroom. Interestingly, teachers in t h i s study who had t h i s more spontaneous teaching s t y l e and did more i n t e r a c t i v e decision making had students with more po s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s . This i s an i n t e r e s t i n g area for speculation. Studies of l i n k s between student attitude and student achievement have not been conclusive, but there does appear to be some l i n k , and i t would also seem that posi t i v e student a t t i t u d e to school i s a worthwhile goal to s t r i v e for in i t s e l f , regardless of any link with achievement. Teachers with a more spontaneous, l i v e l i e r s t y l e , who are perhaps more responsive to suggestions from students, are probably more fun to be with. C l e a r l y , planning i s also v i t a l , because learning objectives must be met and curriculum content must be covered. While the occasional unplanned lesson can be happily creative and productive, consistent underplannlng would probably lead to inadequate coverage of the curriculum and to classroom chaos. This balance between planning and spontaneity i s explored to some extent in studies of teachers' r o u t i n i z a t i o n of the i r classrooms. These w i l l be discussed in a l a t e r chapter. McNair (1978), l i k e Clark and Peterson (1978), found that teachers' i n t e r a c t i v e decisions mainly involved adjustments to a well established plan. "As long as the fine-tuning a c t i v i t y keeps the i n s t r u c t i o n a l order on a r e l a t i v e l y even keel there are no major changes in d i r e c t i o n . . . T h e content has, g e n e r a l l y , been s e t and the concern i s with the students' engagement with i t . At the point of i n t e r a c t i o n with the c h i l d r e n the teachers ' f e e l ' the responses of the students and make continuous minute adjustments to maintain the flo w of a c t i v i t i e s which has been e s t a b l i s h e d long before" (p.42). None of these r e s e a r c h e r s , with the exception of S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d , addressed the d e f i n i t i o n of d e c i s i o n i t s e l f , seeming not t o f i n d i t problematic. Others such as Marland (1977) have found the idea of q u i c k l y made, almost spontaneous d e c i s i o n s to be at odds w i t h the notions of d e l i b e r a t i o n and the weighing of a l t e r n a t i v e s which seem to be inherent i n the concept of d e c i s i o n . These re s e a r c h e r s , as w e l l as r e p o r t i n g t h e i r f i n d i n g s , grapple w i t h the d e f i n i t i o n of d e c i s i o n . d) The problem of d e c i s i o n Marland (1977) concluded as a r e s u l t of h i s study that teachers do not make many d e c i s i o n s while teaching. He based t h i s statement on h i s f i n d i n g t h a t teachers o f t e n choose lesson t a c t i c s without c o n s i d e r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n . Teachers tend to be ' s a t i s f i c e r s ' , a f i n d i n g shared by Webster (1982) and Clark and Peterson (1978). The s a t i s f i c i n g teacher only looks f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i f a lesson Is going badly. I f a lesson Is going w e l l he or she i s content w i t h t h a t , and does not seek to optimize i n s t r u c t i o n . The term ' s a t i s f i c i n g ' seems o f t e n to be used i n a somewhat derogatory way, even i f t h i s i s not d i r e c t l y s t a t e d . There i s the suggestion i n , f o r i n s t a n c e , Webster's w r i t i n g , t h a t teachers should a t a l l times be attempting to "optimize i n s t r u c t i o n " , but the r e a l i t y of classroom l i f e d i c t a t e s something r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t . I f a lesson i s going w e l l i t would be d i s r u p t i v e f o r the teacher to change the flow or i n t e r r u p t students' work. He or she may f i l e away fo r future use ideas about how to improve a c t i v i t i e s , but s t i c k i n g to the plan of a lesson t h a t i s going w e l l seems (rather o b v i o u s l y ) t o be the best s t r a t e g y to take a t the time. Nor does t h i s statement c o n t r a d i c t encouragement of sp o n t a n e i t y i n one's teaching s t y l e . A teacher w i t h a more f l e x i b l e , spontaneous s t y l e may be more responsive to student suggestions and perhaps more open to d i s c a r d i n g a lesson t h a t i s NOT going w e l l , but i t would be r i s k y a t best to change the d i r e c t i o n of a lesson that i s s u c c e s s f u l i n the hope of making i t even b e t t e r . Because the teachers i n Marland's study d i d not r e p o r t frequent choosing between a l t e r n a t i v e s , he concluded that they were not making d e c i s i o n s . Rather they were performing " d e l i b e r a t e a c t s " , f o l l o w i n g one course of a c t i o n without c o n s i d e r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s . When d e c i s i o n s were made, the teachers i n t h i s study chose from two a l t e r n a t i v e s , r a r e l y three or more. Wodlinger's (1980) d e f i n i t i o n of d e c i s i o n i s s i m i l a r to Marland's. For Wodlinger a d e c i s i o n i s made when a problem r e q u i r e s the i n d i v i d u a l to make a choice of a p a r t i c u l a r course of a c t i o n a f t e r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of two or more a l t e r n a t i v e s . The teachers i n Wodlinger's study reported making d e c i s i o n s more f r e q u e n t l y than d i d those i n Marland's study. Wodlinger i d e n t i f i e d two main c a t e g o r i e s of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s , i n s t r u c t i o n a l and managerial d e c i s i o n s . He a l s o found t h a t more antecedents, t h a t i s , s t i m u l i from students or the environment, were a s s o c i a t e d with managerial d e c i s i o n s than with i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s , suggesting that i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s may be based more on the teacher's e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s and b e l i e f s , r a t h e r than on immediate environmental demands. I n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s were reported more o f t e n (though both kinds occurred i n each lesson) and more pieces of informat i o n were reported as being used i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of each i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n than i n the fo r m u l a t i o n of each managerial d e c i s i o n . Wodlinger a l s o reported t h a t "the vast m a j o r i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s i d e n t i f i e d were r e p o r t e d l y formulated a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of only one course of a c t i o n " (p.225); that i s , teachers considered only whether to do something or not to do i t . In S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d ' s d i s c u s s i o n of the nature of d e c i s i o n , they address the question of conscious choice i n i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making. " I m p l i c i t i n the concept of d e c i s i o n i s th a t of ch o i c e . However, choice i m p l i e s a conscious awareness w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l of a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s , which i n t u r n i m p l i e s an a b i l i t y to d i s c r i m i n a t e amomg them. Decisions may be made without a conscious awareness or weighing of o p t i o n s , even, for example, fo r such overt a c t s as w r i t i n g on the blackboard. Since d e c i s i o n s are not always c o n s c i o u s l y monitored, a d e f i n i t i o n of decision-making which encompasses the n o t i o n of choice i s both i n a p p r o p r i a t e and u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t i n g . S i m i l a r l y , a d e f i n i t i o n which i n v o l v e s the no t i o n of a choice point as the i n s t a n t of d e c i s i o n i s u n h e l p f u l " (pp.12-13). S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d go on to descr i b e a d e c i s i o n i n t h i s way: "A d e c i s i o n has been made by an i n d i v i d u a l whenever he himself or one or more observers acknowledge the a v a i l a b l i l i t y of a t l e a s t one a l t e r n a t i v e behavior to the one observed a t a given i n s t a n t of time. The r e a l i z a t i o n of the ex i s t e n c e of an a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e need not have taken place by the time the behavior i s observed f o r e i t h e r the i n d i v i d u a l or the o b s e r v e r ( s ) . I f the observed behavior c o n s i s t s e n t i r e l y of spoken words, then a d i f f e r e n t phrasing or a r e p i t i t i o n of those words does not c o n s t i t u t e an a l t e r n a t e response... I t i s a necessary c o n d i t i o n t h a t the d e c i s i o n i n v o l v e s , or has involved i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s previous h i s t o r y , the higher c o g n i t i v e processes. Learned r e f l e x e s and b e h a v i o r a l a c t s s e l e c t e d without conscious awareness at the i n s t a n t of response c o n s t i t u t e d e c i s i o n s p r o v i d i n g t h a t conscious processing of a l t e r n a t i v e responses can be s a i d to have taken place at some time i n the past h i s t o r y of the i n d i v i d u a l ' * (p.15). What S u t c l i f f e and W h i t f i e l d seem to be suggesting i s that because conscious processing of inf o r m a t i o n about a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n has taken place i n the past, a teacher's mental operations i n a new but f a m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n may be so f a s t as to be below the conscious l e v e l . Wodlinger (1980) s t a t e s t h a t h i s f i n d i n g s agree with Marland's i n suggesting that the teacher d e c i s i o n making process i s one "of l i m i t e d r a t i o n a l i t y " meaning, presumably, that teacher d e c i s i o n making i s not o f t e n attended by c a r e f u l thought, and t h a t teachers make quick d e c i s i o n s on the ba s i s of l i t t l e more than i n t u i t i o n . Wodlinger o f f e r s as an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n to the not i o n of l i m i t e d r a t i o n a l i t y the idea that many teacher d e c i s i o n s are r o u t i n i z e d through experience, and suggests t h a t an unconscious screening process may e l i m i n a t e some a l t e r n a t i v e s before they r i s e to the conscious l e v e l . He f u r t h e r suggests that " i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s may be more h i g h l y r o u t i n i z e d than managerial d e c i s i o n s ; a c c o r d i n g l y , the consequences of i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s may tend to be f a i r l y c e r t a i n and e a s i l y p r e d i c t e d . On the other hand, the consequences of managerial d e c i s i o n s may tend to be more un c e r t a i n and not as e a s i l y p r e d i c t e d " (p.226). The concept of d e c i s i o n seems to be problematic not o n l y i n r e l a t i o n to s k i l l s , as discussed e a r l i e r ; the very d e f i n i t i o n of d e c i s i o n i s at question f o r many w r i t e r s , and t h i s i s a problem when d e c i s i o n i s a major focus of r e s e a r c h . The b a s i c question seems to be, does d e c i s i o n r e q u i r e the weighing of a l t e r n a t i v e s ? I f an a c t i o n i s performed without p r i o r d e l i b e r a t i o n , can i t be s a i d to be the r e s u l t of a d e c i s i o n ? In terms of teaching d e c i s i o n s , d e c i s i o n s made while planning c l e a r l y a l l o w time f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n and the weighing of a l t e r n a t i v e s . I t i s the s o - c a l l e d "spontaneous" d e c i s i o n s , or i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s t h a t are i n q u e s t i o n . Why does i t matter whether or not these are d e c i s i o n s ? Is t h i s an unimportant p o i n t of semantics? No: c e n t r a l terms must be made c l e a r because the way they are used w i l l a f f e c t researchers' choice of methodology and the way r e s u l t s are i n t e r p r e t e d . Examination of the concept of d e c i s i o n suggests that weighing a l t e r n a t i v e s or d e l i b e r a t i n g about a problem i s i m p l i c i t i n our use of 'decide'. When I say "I have decided to become a doctor", one assumes t h a t I have considered other occupations. D e l i b e r a t i o n , or c a r e f u l thought as a necessary component of d e c i s i o n would seem to e l i m i n a t e spontaneous and very short term d e c i s i o n s . However, i t does seem tha t o r d i n a r y language accepts some uses of 'decide' when the d e c i d i n g i s done on a very short term b a s i s , though perhaps not spontaneously. C e r t a i n l y we do not want to c a l l every a c t i o n we take, i n c l u d i n g p u t t i n g one f o o t In f r o n t of the other when we walk, the r e s u l t of a d e c i s i o n , but i t does not seem unreasonable f o r a teacher to say, " I have decided to l e t you s t a y i n a t recess because i t i s r a i n i n g " , even though the d e c i s i o n was preceded by o n l y a quick glance out the window and the b r i e f weighing of "Should I l e t the c l a s s s t a y i n or not?" He or she does d e l i b e r a t e , i f only f r a c t i o n a l l y . Behind t h a t b r i e f h e s i t a t i o n may be the quick r e c a l l of a number of items from previous experience, such as school r u l e s , how t h i s c l a s s has behaved on r a i n y days i n the past and how other c l a s s e s have behaved. Wodlinger's f i n d i n g t h a t most teacher d e c i s i o n s are preceded by the weighing of only two a l t e r n a t i v e s - - d o t h i s or don't do t h i s — r e f l e c t s the r a p i d l y moving m i l i e u i n which the teacher must operate. Despite the lack of time a v a i l a b l e f o r r e a l d e l i b e r a t i o n , i t does not seem i n c o r r e c t to l a b e l a teacher's choices f o r a c t i o n as d e c i s i o n s because, although such choices may s p r i n g sometimes from a grouchy mood or headache (teachers a r e , a f t e r a l l , o nly human) they (presumably) a r i s e more o f t e n from p r i o r d e l i b e r a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l experience. Even i f we do agree t h a t teachers' classroom d e c i s i o n s a r e , i n f a c t , d e c i s i o n s , the concept of d e c i s i o n i s not e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y as a focus f o r understanding t e a c h i n g . Review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n t h i s chapter has shown tha t as w e l l as answering many questions, d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s have r a i s e d new questions which seem to r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t 60 kinds o£ I n v e s t i g a t i o n . This i s not a bad t h i n g , of course, because new questions lead to new research. The idea of r o u t i n i z a t i o n mentioned by Wodlinger became a s p e c i f i c research focus d u r i n g the 1980's, and t h i s idea can be seen to have l i n k s w i t h d e c i s i o n making. Shavelson and Stern (1981) say that " r o u t i n e s minimize conscious d e c i s i o n making during i n t e r a c t i v e t eaching and...reduce the i n f o r m a t i o n processing load on teachers by making the t i m i n g and sequencing of a c t i v i t i e s and students' behavior p r e d i c t a b l e w i t h i n an a c t i v i t y flow. Hence, conscious monitoring of i n s t r u c t i o n can then focus on p a r t i c u l a r students" (p.482). This statement l i n k s the d e c i s i o n making s t u d i e s of the 1970's wi t h s t u d i e s of r o u t i n i z a t i o n , which became a popular focus i n about 1985. Another focus of the 1980's has been to compare the performance of experienced and inexperienced (or •expert 1 and 'novice') teachers. Housner and G r i f f e y (1985) compared the d e c i s i o n making of experienced and inexperienced teachers d u r i n g i n t e r a c t i v e t eaching and found th a t inexperienced teachers without w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r o u t i n e s focussed most of t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on the i n t e r e s t l e v e l and behavior of the whole c l a s s , while experienced teachers focussed most on i n d i v i d u a l student performance, suggesting that "experienced teachers possess knowledge s t r u c t u r e s r i c h i n s t r a t e g i e s f o r managing students... t h a t enabled them to attend to i n d i v i d u a l student performance and a l t e r t h e i r lessons i n accordance w i t h student needs" (p.45). Housner and G r i f f e y ' s study concerns d e c i s i o n but has a broader focus than e a r l i e r s t u d i e s , e x p l o r i n g to a greater extent teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge. Hargreaves (1979) speaks of "uncovering the common sense knowledge which becomes t a c i t i n the d e c i s i o n making i t s e l f . " The study of t h i s "common sense knowledge" became a major area of i n t e r e s t i n the 1980's. T h i s , however, i s jumping ahead. Having reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e on d e c i s i o n making, s e v e r a l tasks remain before l i t e r a t u r e on teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s examined. These are: a) to see what conception of teaching, however incomplete i t may be, appears to u n d e r l i e s t u d i e s of teacher d e c i s i o n making; b) to see what fundamental, unquestioned assumptions appear to be inherent i n these s t u d i e s ; and c) to determine what questions these assumptions encourage and discourage us from a s k i n g . These tasks are undertaken i n the next chapter. Chapter Four A n a l y s i s of the D e c i s i o n Making L i t e r a t u r e : The "Hard Core" and I m p l i c i t Conception of Teaching I t i s not p o s s i b l e to desc r i b e f u l l y the "hard core" of the teacher t h i n k i n g research program u n t i l other areas of the l i t e r a t u r e have been examined; however, some t e n t a t i v e statements can be made about the view of teaching found i n the d e c i s i o n making l i t e r a t u r e and about research questions asked and unasked i n t h i s work. While the teacher d e c i s i o n making l i t e r a t u r e does not o f f e r a f i n i s h e d or c a r e f u l l y developed conception of tea c h i n g , a c e r t a i n view of teaching and teachers i s i m p l i c i t . The emphasis, as i n s t u d i e s of teacher behavior, i s b a s i c a l l y on the 'doings' of the teacher, but the view o the teacher i n d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s i s more three dimensional, assuming not j u s t a moving mannequin, but an a c t i v e , t h i n k i n g p a r t i c i p a n t i n the classroom environment, i n t e r a c t i n g with students and responding to changing classroom c o n d i t i o n s . Some s t u d i e s , e s p e c i a l l y those which found the idea of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making to be problematic and questioned whether teachers were a c t u a l l y making d e c i s i o n s , found t h a t the teachers s t u d i e d f e l l shor of t h i s i d e a l , " s a t l s f i c i n g " r a t h e r than making frequent 63 i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s . Nevertheless the view of the teacher as an a c t i v e , t h i n k i n g p a r t i c i p a n t i n the classroom i s held as an i d e a l . Without being e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d , the assumption th a t the purpose of teaching i s to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g runs through the d e c i s i o n making s t u d i e s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n of teachers' d e c i s i o n s g e n e r a l l y centers on two areas, i n s t r u c t i o n and classroom management. Decisions r e l a t e d to i n s t r u c t i o n are c l e a r l y d i r e c t e d to improving i n s t r u c t i o n . D ecisions r e l a t e d to methods and m a t e r i a l s are centered on the importance of these items i n improving i n s t r u c t i o n . D ecisions r e l a t e d to classroom management are d i r e c t e d to the s u c c e s s f u l s t r u c t u r i n g of an environment i n which l e a r n i n g can take p l a c e . The questions t h a t are asked i n d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s centre on the areas of i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques, content and m a t e r i a l s and on classroom management. The probing of teacher t h i n k i n g that i s done i l l u m i n a t e s teachers' t h i n k i n g about those areas. Questions are not asked about teachers' personal and e d u c a t i o n a l values, although these are, as we w i l l see, l i k e l y to be c r u c i a l m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r s i n d e c i s i o n s . Thus the focus on d e c i s i o n , while i l l u m i n a t i n g i n some r e s p e c t s , i s too narrow i n others. L i t t l e mention i s given i n any of the r e p o r t s of d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s about what teachers' e d u c a t i o n a l aims and values might be, and how d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e to these aims and v a l u e s . Values and p o s s i b l e clashes between personal and i n s t i t u t i o n a l values are discussed by only a few authors, and b a r e l y h i n t e d at or omitted by most. The q u e s t i o n , "WHY d i d you decide t h i s way?", an obvious question and one which might, w i t h some probing, i l l u m i n a t e v a l u e s , i s never explored i n any depth. The p i c t u r e of teaching t h a t emerges from these s t u d i e s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the conception a r t i c u l a t e d i n chapter two i n t h a t the focus on d e c i s i o n does h i g h l i g h t the b a s i c i n t e n t i o n of teaching as being the i n t e n t i o n to b r i n g about l e a r n i n g i n students. Decisions made by teachers i n these s t u d i e s about content, methods and m a t e r i a l s are c l e a r l y d i r e c t e d to b r i n g i n g about l e a r n i n g i n students. Teachers appear to f a l l somewhat short of t h i s goal i n s t u d i e s such as Marland's and Webster's, where the idea of teachers " s a t i s f i c i n g " and being content w i t h a "good enough" s i t u a t i o n i s h i g h l i g h t e d . Teachers i n these s t u d i e s appear to give a l o t of importance to classroom management and smooth, n o n - d i s r u p t i v e classroom flow. In f a c t there may be value c o n f l i c t s i n v o lved In these s i t u a t i o n s , between, f o r i n s t a n c e , keeping the c l a s s q u i e t or pursuing p o s s i b l y noi s y questions or changes of a c t i v i t y . Value q u e s t i o n s , though sometimes mentioned, are l a r g e l y unexplored i n the d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e , and the second component of the conception of teaching developed i n chapter two, the moral c o n d i t i o n , which s p e c i f i e s that teachers show respect for persons and d e a l w i t h any clashes w i t h i n s t i t u t i o n a l or s u b j e c t matter values that t h i s might e n t a i l , does not f i n d an important place i n the view of teaching presented i n the d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e . Questions which may be r e l a t e d to value clashes a r i s e . The " s a t i s f i c i n g " teachers may, i n e f f e c t , be weighing e d u c a t i o n a l ( l e a r n i n g - r e l a t e d ) values a g a i n s t i n s t i t u t i o n a l (order-keeping) v a l u e s . The p r i n c i p l e of t r e a t i n g students with d i g n i t y and respect may be given short s h r i f t i n the midst of c l a s h i n g standards. These ideas are not explored i n the d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e , and the complex area of teacher t h i n k i n g which i n v o l v e s moral questions i s not addressed. I t may be tha t the c e n t r a l n o t i o n of d e c i s i o n i s simply not adequate f o r d e a l i n g with complex value questions; i t may be tha t the researchers doing d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s do not f i n d value questions as worthy of p u r s u i t as they f i n d questions about teaching s t r a t e g i e s and classroom management; or there may be other reasons for the apparent b u i l t - i n taboo a g a i n s t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of value questions. Some of these w i l l be suggested i n subsequent chapters. I t seems c l e a r t h a t s i n c e p e r s o n a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l and s o c i e t a l values u n d e r l i e both i n s t r u c t i o n and classroom management, research d i r e c t e d to understanding teaching i s incomplete without i n v e s t i g a t i o n of value questions. Studies of d e c i s i o n making had l a r g e l y stopped by about 1980, and now d e c i s i o n as a c e n t r a l focus i s seldom taken. While i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making has been i d e n t i f i e d by many w r i t e r s as the heart of teaching, something of a dead end appears to have been reached i n terms of research. D e c i s i o n t y p o l o g i e s have mapped the content and antecedents of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s , and s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l s t u d i e s have been used to i d e n t i f y p o i n t s d u r i n g teaching when d e c i s i o n s have been made. Teachers have been questioned as t o the number of a l t e r n a t i v e s they considered and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) between i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n s and previous p l a n n i n g . S u r p r i s i n g l y , however, i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the reasons for d e c i s i o n s has never been a major focus, yet t h i s would seem t o be a key issue i n understanding teachers* t h i n k i n g . I t may be, as suggested e a r l i e r , that d e c i s i o n i s not an adequate v e h i c l e f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Reasons f o r d e c i s i o n s a r i s e from the knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that teachers h o l d . Much of t h i s m a t e r i a l may be held t a c i t l y , and researchers would need to help teachers focus on and a r t i c u l a t e t h i n g s they may not p r e v i o u s l y have e x p l i c i t l y formulated. The p a r t i c u l a r mix of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that each teacher holds has been c a l l e d " p r a c t i c a l knowledge" or "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" by some recent r e s e a r c h e r s , and the study of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making would seem to lead almost I n e v i t a b l y to t h i s n o t i o n . I f teachers do have time to weigh a l t e r n a t i v e s , they do so on the b a s i s of t h e i r knowledge, b e l i e f s and va l u e s , and i f they do not have time and must make speedy, i n t u i t i v e choices then t h e i r i n t u i t i o n s must s p r i n g from t h i s bed of knowledge and values. The d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e t e l l s a l o t about classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s , but does not do much i n the way of i l l u m i n a t i n g i n any d e t a i l e d way teachers' "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge". Whether or not the s h i f t from d e c i s i o n making as a major s e n s i t i z i n g concept to p r a c t i c a l knowledge as a major s e n s i t i z i n g concept i s " p r o g r e s s i v e " w i l l be discussed i n chapter s i x . F i r s t , however, the l i t e r a t u r e on p r a c t i c a l knowledge must be examined. This task i s undertaken i n chapter f i v e . Chapter F i v e Teachers' P r a c t i c a l Knowledge A. The nature of p r a c t i c a l knowledge and s t u d i e s of "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" I n t e r e s t i n teachers' i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making leads l o g i c a l l y to an i n t e r e s t i n how teachers decide, and on what they base t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . These questions are not addressed i n depth i n the d e c i s i o n making l i t e r a t u r e , though the l i n k between d e c i s i o n making and p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s suggested by some w r i t e r s . Hargreaves (1979), f o r i n s t a n c e , speaks of "...uncovering the common sense knowledge which becomes t a c i t i n the d e c i s i o n making i t s e l f " (p.75), and s t a t e s that i n making d e c i s i o n s teachers not only use s k i l l s but r e v e a l t h e i r v a l u e s . "Values are embedded i n classroom p r a c t i c e ; but because there i s no simple correspondence between 'abstract* values and everyday p r a c t i c e , i t i s a research task to analyse p r e c i s e l y how values a re, o f t e n t a c i t l y , embedded i n a c t i o n . Here i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of classroom d e c i s i o n making, for i t i s i n d e c i s i o n making that a l l these features f i n d t h e i r p o i n t of a r t i c u l a t i o n " (p.80). While i t i s reasonable to say that teachers' knowledge and values " f i n d t h e i r p o i n t of a r t i c u l a t i o n " i n classroom d e c i s i o n making, the study of classroom d e c i s i o n s does not seem to o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t access to the understanding of knowledge and v a l u e s . The study of p r a c t i c a l knowledge seems more able to o f f e r t h i s access. Hargreaves f u r t h e r suggests t h a t examination of teachers' common sense knowledge, s k i l l s and values, through c o l l a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of teacher commentaries, could provide a b a s i c model of teaching. Such a model might help student teachers bridge the gap between theory and p r a c t i c e , as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g "the experienced teacher with the t o o l s to uncover and r e c o n s t r u c t h i s own common sense knowledge, s k i l l s and values, and thus to change more thoroughly and with self-awareness" (p.81). I f the goal i s the improvement of p r a c t i c e , then the e x p l i c a t i o n of a l l that might be involved i n teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s indeed a worthwhile research task, for the two reasons that Hargreaves c i t e s : to help student teachers become adept and c o n f i d e n t , and to help experienced teachers change t h e i r p r a c t i c e e f f e c t i v e l y through increased understanding. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e on p r a c t i c a l knowledge i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s work i s l a r g e l y d e s c r i p t i v e i n nature. One major stream d e s c r i b e s , using v a r i o u s terminology, the " n a r r a t i v e s " (Connelly and C l a n d i n i n , 1986), or "bio g r a p h i e s " (Butt, 1984) of teachers. Representative of t h i s kind of work are the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" s t u d i e s , which aim to des c r i b e the knowledge gained by experience of i n d i v i d u a l teachers. Elbaz (1981) says t h a t "Teachers are r a r e l y seen as possessing a body of knowledge and e x p e r t i s e proper to them" (p.42) and because they do not have an a r t i c u l a t e d body of knowledge t h e i r s t a t u s i s much lower than that of other p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Elbaz s t r e s s e s t h a t teachers do hold knowledge r e l a t e d to t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n , but much of i t i s t a c i t , gained by experience, and not r e a d i l y a r t i c u l a b l e . W r i t e r s on "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" Include Connelly, Elbaz and C l a n d i n i n , and t h e i r work, which w i l l be examined i n depth, i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the " n a r r a t i v e " p e r s p e c t i v e . I t Is app r o p r i a t e to give a c e n t r a l place to the work of Connelly and h i s a s s o c i a t e s because he i s a major f i g u r e i n t h i s f i e l d . He i s e d i t o r of Curriculum I n q u i r y , a j o u r n a l which i s an Important p u b l i c a t i o n v e h i c l e f o r r e p o r t s of p r a c t i c a l knowledge s t u d i e s . He was one of the f i r s t w r i t e r s on teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge, moving from e a r l i e r work which centered on d e c i s i o n making (Connelly, 1972; Connelly and Dienes, 1982) to work centered on the no t i o n of teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge (Connelly and C l a n d i n i n , 1982, 1985, 1986). Another stream of s t u d i e s , stemming mainly from the domain of e d u c a t i o n a l psychology, seek to e x p l i c a t e the p r a c t i c a l knowledge of 'expert' as opposed t o 'novice' teachers. The "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" work focusses by design on the personal and seeks to show how i n d i v i d u a l teachers express t h e i r own l e a r n i n g and experiences In s k i l l e d performance. The "expert-novice" work does not seek out the per s o n a l , but i s designed so that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s can be made about the kinds of things t h a t 'expert* teachers do i n classrooms. This work comes from a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e than does the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" or " n a r r a t i v e " stream, and has a more s p e c i f i c focus. Nevertheless, i t aims to de s c r i b e how teachers' knowledge f i n d s expression i n the classroom, through r o u t i n e s , and seeks to d e s c r i b e these. Despite the apparent d i s j u n c t u r e some have perceived between the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of r o u t i n e s and other s t u d i e s of teacher t h i n k i n g ( f o r example, Lowyck, 1984), t h i s work i s l i n k e d because s t u d i e s of r o u t l n l z a t i o n do seek to de s c r i b e teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge. The repor t of a recent major study of teachers' r o u t i n e s (Leinhardt, Weidman and Hammond, 1987) appeared i n Curriculum I n q u i r y as part of an ongoing s e r i e s on p r a c t i c a l knowledge. The purpose of t h i s chapter, then, i s to c r i t i c a l l y examine s e l e c t i o n s from the l i t e r a t u r e on teachers* p r a c t i c a l knowledge. This c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n w i l l l e a d , i n chapter s i x , to i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the I n s i g h t s t h i s l i t e r a t u r e gives us i n t o the "hard core" of the teacher t h i n k i n g research program, i n c l u d i n g the i m p l i c i t conception of t e a c h i n g and the questions t h a t are asked and not asked by researchers i n t h i s area. Much has been w r i t t e n on the nature of p r a c t i c a l knowledge, and i t i s not the purpose of t h i s chapter to review t h i s work or to e x p l i c a t e f u l l y the views of d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s on p r a c t i c a l knowledge. However, i t i s u s e f u l t o gain some general understanding of t h i s concept by l o o k i n g at the ideas of s e v e r a l authors. In t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of the nature of p r a c t i c a l knowledge, Sternberg and Caruso (1985) o f f e r t h i s d e f i n i t i o n : " P r a c t i c a l knowledge i s procedural i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s u s e f u l i n one's everyday l i f e . " I t i s "...procedural r a t h e r than d e c l a r a t i v e " (p.134). P r a c t i c a l knowledge i s , according to t h i s account, acquired by doing, and much of i t i s " e i t h e r u n a v a i l a b l e or i n a c c e s s i b l e to conscious i n t r o s p e c t i o n . . . " (p.143) Hartnett and Naish (1976) say that much p r a c t i c a l knowledge " r e q u i r e s knowledge of a kind which cannot be put i n t o p r o p o s i t i o n s " (p.116) and speak of the " t a c i t and u n s p e c i f i a b l e elements In p r a c t i c a l knowledge which can only be acquired by p r a c t i c e " (p.118). According to these authors, then, p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s knowledge about how to c a r r y out various a c t i v i t i e s , and i t Is not and perhaps cannot be formulated i n maxims or r u l e s . Much of p r a c t i c a l knowledge may be learned o n l y by doing the various a c t i v i t i e s . P r a c t i c a l knowledge according to t h i s account may be a k i n to what G i l b e r t Ryle (1949) c a l l e d knowing how, as opposed to knowing t h a t . While the d i s t i n c t i o n between knowing how and knowing that i s c l e a r and reasonable, and while i t i s undoubtedly tr u e t h a t much, or even most p r a c t i c a l knowledge cannot be formulated i n maxims and r u l e s , these ideas and the n o t i o n of t a c i t knowledge must not be used to thwart d i s c u s s i o n about what teachers do. I do not argue for a "science of teaching", with c l e a r l y s t a t e d r u l e s ' w r i t t e n i n s t o n e 1 , but i t i s p o s s i b l e to a l l o w the pendulum to swing too f a r i n the other d i r e c t i o n , m y s t i f y i n g p r a c t i c e and adhering too s t r o n g l y to the n o t i o n that teachers' t a c i t knowledge cannot be a r t i c u l a t e d . The idea that much of teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s t a c i t occurs f r e q u e n t l y i n the p r a c t i c a l knowledge l i t e r a t u r e , and the enthusiasm with which t h i s n o tion i s embraced may be one of the reasons why t h i s work does not seem as focused or as deeply probing as i t might. The idea of t a c i t knowing w i l l be examined f u l l y i n a l a t e r chapter. One author whose ideas have i n f l u e n c e d w r i t e r s on teachers "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" i s Joseph Schwab. Schwab (1969) s t r e s s e d t h a t the f i e l d of c u r r i c u l u m i s a p r a c t i c a l one, "concerned with choice and a c t i o n " . Schwab c o n t r a s t s the p r a c t i c a l with the t h e o r e t i c , s t a t i n g t h a t there i s an I n c o n g r u i t y between the two: "The p r a c t i c a l i s always marked by p a r t i c u l a r i t y , the t h e o r e t i c by g e n e r a l i t y " (p.495). According to Schwab, theory i d e a l i z e s , l e a v i n g out i r r e g u l a r i t i e s and n o n - u n i f o r m i t i e s ("the potholes i n the road"). Because Schwab sees the p r a c t i c a l as concerned with the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s , he says t h a t no theory can ever be adopted wholesale to s o l v e a p r a c t i c a l problem. Schwab's ideas are not unusual. Many other authors have made s i m i l a r remarks. E n t w i s t l e (1982) makes much the same p o i n t when he says "We have to l e a r n not o n l y r u l e s , t h e o r i e s and p r i n c i p l e s , but a l s o how to i n t e r p r e t and apply them a p p r o p r i a t e l y ; t h a t i s , some i n i t i a t i v e i s r e q u i r e d from the p r a c t i t i o n e r i n d i s c o v e r i n g the pertinence of theory t o h i s or her own p r a c t i c e . The job of a theory i s to evoke judgement rather than ro t e obedience"(p.12). Kaplan (1964) d e s c r i b e s theory as standing f o r "the symbolic dimension of experience, as opposed to the apprehension of brute f a c t " (p.294), and says t h a t theory, as w e l l as s y s t e m a t i z i n g and o r d e r i n g f a c t s , has as i t s b a s i c f u n c t i o n making "sense of what would otherwise be i n s c r u t a b l e or unmeaning e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s " (p.302). Schwab's ideas on a p p l y i n g theory were meant to apply to large s c a l e c u r r i c u l u m p r o j e c t s . He d e s c r i b e s the "commonplaces" of the school s e t t i n g as the teacher, the l e a r n e r s , the school m i l i e u , s u b j e c t matter and c u r r i c u l u m development, and suggests cooperative planning by people knowledgeable about the p a r t i c u l a r s of each of these areas. Theories would be chosen as they are judged to be a p p r o p r i a t e ("harnessing a temporary team") fo r s o l v i n g p r a c t i c a l problems. Theories would be readied f o r p r a c t i c a l use by v a r i o u s " e c l e c t i c a r t s " which Schwab enumerates. Michael Connelly, an e a r l y a s s o c i a t e of Schwab's and the progenitor of the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" s t u d i e s , a p p l i e d Schwab's ideas i n h i s own c u r r i c u l u m development work. Influenced by Schwab's reminder that c u r r i c u l u m i s a p r a c t i c a l f i e l d i n which t h o u g h t f u l d e l i b e r a t i o n by p a r t i c i p a n t s i s c e n t r a l , Connelly (1972) focused, as Schwab had not, s p e c i f i c a l l y on the teacher and h i s or her r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m development. He c h a r a c t e r i z e d the teacher as a "user-developer" of c u r r i c u l u m , r a t h e r than as a mere conduit f o r e x t e r n a l l y developed c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s , and became i n t e r e s t e d i n the knowledge u n d e r l y i n g teachers' c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s . Another w r i t e r whose views on theory and p r a c t i c e i n f l u e n c e d w r i t e r s on "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" was Richard McKeon (1952). As Connelly had s t u d i e d w i t h Schwab, so Schwab, e a r l y i n h i s ca r e e r , had s t u d i e d with McKeon. McKeon discussed three "modes" f o r connecting theory and p r a c t i c e . In h i s " l o g i s t i c " mode theory and p r a c t i c e are separate and " t h e o r e t i c a c t i v i t i e s are the province of experts who alone have mastered the formal procedures which they e n t a i l " (Reid, 1984, p.104). I t i s easy to see the merit of t h i s view as f a r as the development of at l e a s t some theory i s concerned: I would r a t h e r have my p s y c h i a t r i s t t r e a t me with the guidance of p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s developed by p s y c h i a t r i s t s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s than those developed by plumbers, o r t h o d o n t i s t s or h i s landlady. McKeon's second "mode" i s a " d i a l e c t i c a l " one i n which theory and p r a c t i c e c o n s t a n t l y I n t e r a c t , "...theory i s r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e and p r a c t i c e r e f l e c t s theory i n a constant c y c l e of d i s j u n c t i o n and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of ideas" (Reid, 1984, p.104). F i n a l l y , McKeon's "problematic mode" hinges on the notion of " i n q u i r y " , c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a " s c i e n t i f i c " problem s o l v i n g process which can be a p p l i e d to the t h e o r e t i c as w e l l as to the p r a c t i c a l . A l l of these "modes" can be seen to have t h e i r usefulness as ways of viewing theory and p r a c t i c e , depending on the s i t u a t i o n at hand. "Personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" w r i t e r s such as Elbaz (1983) and C l a n d i n i n (1986) espouse the " d i a l e c t i c a l mode", and i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to see why. Their concern i s w i t h the immediate p r a c t i c a l problems of classroom teachers, for whom formal t h e o r i z i n g or the study of formal t h e o r i e s are a c t i v i t i e s not o f t e n engaged i n , though they may use formal t h e o r i e s learned about dur i n g t h e i r teacher education i n ways that s u i t t h e i r needs, and may engage i n t h e i r own t h e o r i z i n g about v a r i o u s aspects of t h e i r t eaching s i t u a t i o n . As the " p r a c t i c a l " i n the work of Michael Connelly and h i s colleagues E l b a z , C l a n d i n i n and others can be traced to some extent to Schwab, so the personal r e l a t e s to the work of Michael P o l a n y i , and e s p e c i a l l y to h i s book Personal Knowledge (1958), i n which he champions the idea of " t a c i t knowing". P o l a n y i attempts to o f f e r a s c a t h i n g c r i t i q u e of modern o b j e c t i v i s m , which he says accepts and values only that which we can prove. He grants t h a t the c r i t i c a l p o s i t i v i s t i c stance was a necessary t o o l f or man to l i f t h i mself out of medieval s u p e r s t i t i o n , but he f e e l s t h a t the need f o r t h i s movement has run i t s course, and that we are now being robbed of something v a l u a b l e . P o l a n y i seeks "...to r e s t o r e to us once more the power fo r the d e l i b e r a t e h o l d i n g of unproven b e l i e f s " (p.268). From h i s viewpoint as a s c i e n t i s t t h i s may be a r e l e v a n t b a t t l e to wage, and i n our own l i v e s , i n c l u d i n g our l i v e s as teachers, we want to f e e l free to t r u s t our f e e l i n g s and i n t u i t i o n s about the r i g h t courses of a c t i o n f o r our students, but there i s some danger i n t h i s idea. Whether or not we can a r t i c u l a t e p e r f e c t l y the f a c t o r s t h a t motivate us i n our classroom d e c i s i o n s , i t i s important that we t r y , not o n l y so that we can r e f l e c t on our p r a c t i c e and improve i t , but because we are p u b l i c l y and m o r a l l y accountable f o r our a c t i o n s as teachers. P o l a n y i says t h a t u n l i k e a r t i c u l a t e a f f i r m a t i o n s , t a c i t knowing cannot be c r i t i c a l . "We know more than we can t e l l , and what we cannot t e l l we cannot t e s t , but can only act upon and thus f i n d ourselves having gone r i g h t or wrong" ( A l l e n , 1978, p.171). The idea of t a c i t knowing i s at the heart of P o l a n y i ' s work, and t h i s idea has e x e r c i s e d c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e on the w r i t e r s on teachers' "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge". In Connelly's (1972) d i s c u s s i o n of teachers as "user-developers" of c u r r i c u l u m , he s t r e s s e s the p r a c t i c a l and i n t e r a c t i v e nature of t h e i r r o l e , and suggests t h a t teachers make d e c i s i o n s and adapt new ideas as they perceive t h a t t h e i r s i t u a t i o n demands. Connelly and Dienes (1982) use the term "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" to account f o r the knowledge th a t teachers use to make c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s . They s t a t e that i n d e a l i n g with theory teachers "...attempt to p e r s o n a l i z e — a n d 'make* p r a c t i c a l — t h e o r e t i c a l i d e a s . . . P r o p e r l y used, the process of 'making 1 t h e o r e t i c a l matters p r a c t i c a l and personal i s the way p r a c t i t i o n e r s cope w i t h new ideas and e v e n t u a l l y make them t h e i r own. Undoubtedly the ideas w i l l be g r e a t l y modified when t h i s happens, s i n c e the personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge of one person i s unique to t h a t i n d i v i d u a l " (p.197). This i s a Schwabian n o t i o n , t h a t teachers do not "apply theory wholesale", and i t seems a r a t h e r obvious one. As w e l l i t appears unnecessary to s t a t e , as the authors have done i n t h i s passage, that "the personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge of one person i s unique to t h a t i n d i v i d u a l " , s i n c e t h i s i s true by d e f i n i t i o n . Thus the term personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge may be redundant. The f i r s t of Connelly's graduate students to complete a d i s s e r t a t i o n on "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" was Freema Elbaz (1980). Elbaz used observations and open-ended i n t e r v i e w s i n her study of 'Sarah', a secondary E n g l i s h teacher. Because p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s personal, Elbaz s t a t e s , any study of such knowledge must seek out the p e r s p e c t i v e and p o i n t of view of the person under study. The teacher's p e r s p e c t i v e "... encompasses not only i n t e l l e c t u a l b e l i e f , but a l s o p e r c e p t i o n , f e e l i n g , v a l u e s , purpose and commitment" (1983, p.17). I t i s not a t a l l c l e a r , however, tha t the c o n s t i t u e n t s of " p e r s p e c t i v e " that Elbaz l i s t s should be grouped together. Values and b e l i e f s ( " i n t e l l e c t u a l b e l i e f s " i s redundant) may be s e n s i b l y placed i n the same category, but "perception" and " f e e l i n g " sound very odd i n the same category and need to be e x p l a i n e d . Does "per c e p t i o n " mean how a teacher perceives the world according to her b e l i e f s , values and experiences? Does " f e e l i n g " mean how she f e e l s about the world and her experiences as a teacher? "Purpose" might b e t t e r be c a l l e d "purposes", and "commitment" seems to mean commitment to some i d e a l s or values. The j u x t a p o s i t i o n of a l l these terms without adequate d e f i n i t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n i s t y p i c a l of problems i n w r i t i n g s t y l e and p e r i o d i c lack of focus that occur i n much of the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" l i t e r a t u r e . I would argue t h a t the things Elbaz has grouped under " p e r s p e c t i v e " are a l l c e n t r a l l y r e l a t e d t o v a l u e s , and th a t a r t i c u l a t i o n of a teacher's values (together with the study of how she acquired them and how she j u s t i f i e s them), would be more I l l u m i n a t i n g than t h i s motley assortment of terms a l l o w s . Elbaz attempts to a r t i c u l a t e Sarah's p r a c t i c a l knowledge i n terms of Schwab's (1973) f i v e "bodies" of experience. The content of her knowledge i s described i n terms of her knowledge of s e l f as a teacher, of the m i l i e u i n which she works, of s u b j e c t matter, of i n s t r u c t i o n and of c u r r i c u l u m development. She examines how Sarah's knowledge " i s o r i e n t e d i n a c t i v e r e l a t i o n to her teaching s i t u a t i o n " , i d e n t i f y i n g f i v e " o r i e n t a t i o n s " : s i t u a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n , to the classroom and s c h o o l ; personal o r i e n t a t i o n , a p p l y i n g to the s e l f and g i v i n g meaning to experience; s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n , used to s t r u c t u r e s o c i a l r e a l i t y ; e x p e r i e n t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n , r e f l e c t i n g the experiences through which knowledge has been acquired and g i v i n g shape to experience; and t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . T h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s explained i n t h i s way: "The knower conceives ( i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y ) theory and p r a c t i c e and the r e l a t i o n s between them determines both how he acquires and uses p r a c t i c a l knowledge and how he a t t a i n s t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and e x p l o i t s i t f o r p r a c t i c a l ends" (1983, p.102). While some of t h i s wording seems to demand f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n , the s e c t i o n s on each " o r i e n t a t i o n " do adequately e x p l a i n why Elbaz chose these c a t e g o r i e s , and her i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the i n t e r v i e w data with Sarah are at times q u i t e i n s i g h t f u l . A n a l y s i n g and r e p o r t i n g such data i s never an easy ta s k , and while some of Elbaz' language i s unusual, i t i s b a s i c a l l y s e n s i b l e when read i n context. In terms of the s t r u c t u r e of p r a c t i c a l knowledge, Elbaz has formulated three b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s : r u l e of p r a c t i c e , p r a c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e and image. A r u l e of p r a c t i c e c o n s i s t s of "...a b r i e f , c l e a r l y formulated statement of what to do i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n f r e q u e n t l y encountered i n p r a c t i c e . " (1983, pp.132-133) Most teachers have such r u l e s , l i k e w a i t i n g u n t i l the c l a s s i s q u i e t before speaking. A p r a c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e i s "...a more i n c l u s i v e and l e s s e x p l i c i t f o r m u l a t i o n In which the teacher's purposes, imp l i e d i n the statement of a r u l e , are made more c l e a r l y e v i d e n t . " An example i s that Sarah t r i e s to make remedial students "happy to walk i n t o t h a t c l a s s . " I would suggest again t h a t the c e n t r a l idea i n "purposes" i s the teacher's va l u e s . The not i o n of " p r a c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e " could be u s e f u l i n h e l p i n g a teacher to a r t i c u l a t e her value s . I f Sarah wants students to be "happy t o walk i n t o t h a t c l a s s " she may be expressing the value she places on a school environment which f o s t e r s s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and freedom from p u n i t i v e judgement f o r students. I f she a r t i c u l a t e s these values (or o t h e r s ) , she may be able to see c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n her own p r a c t i c e and ways that she can b e t t e r serve the i d e a l s she holds. An image i s described as "...the l e a s t e x p l i c i t and most i n c l u s i v e of the three. On t h i s l e v e l , the teacher's f e e l i n g s , v a l u e s , needs and b e l i e f s combine as she forms images of how teaching should be, and marshals experience, t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and school f o l k l o r e to give substance to these images" (1983, p.134). Examples of the images Elbaz a t t r i b u t e s to Sarah are "the rhythm of the school year" and her f e e l i n g that teachers can "hide behind" subject matter. The idea of image i s q u i t e suggestive, but there are p o s s i b l e problems with i t . One i s the question of v a l i d i t y . Of course researchers must use t h e i r i n t e r p r e t i v e powers to analyse and make sense of the data they accumulate, but i t i s c e r t a i n l y p o s s i b l e t h a t such metaphoric i n t e r p r e t a t i o n could r e s u l t i n misrepresentations of t eachers' p r a c t i c e . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e , as shown i n some of the images from C l a n d l n l n ' s (1983) study o u t l i n e d below, that the images a t t r i b u t e d to teachers could be so mundane as to o f f e r l i t t l e i n s i g h t i n t o teachers' p r a c t i c e . C l a n d i n i n (1983) developed the idea of image i n her d i s s e r t a t i o n on the p r a c t i c a l knowledge of two teachers, " A i l e e n " and "Stephanie". For Stephanie, some of the images C l a n d i n i n presents are "The Classroom as Home", and an image Stephanie held of h e r s e l f as a "Maker of Things". She saw teaching as a process of "helpi n g c h i l d r e n to be makers". For A i l e e n , some of the images were "The Classroom as a M i n i - S o c i e t y of Cooperation"; A i l e e n ' s f e e l i n g that p r o f e s s i o n a l l y she was "A L i t t l e I s l a n d " ; and "Language as the Key", an image A i l e e n held f o r how c h i l d r e n l e a r n . These "images", while they may capture m e t a p h o r i c a l l y something of what these teachers value and the way they teach, seem f o r the most part t o be ra t h e r o r d i n a r y and i t i s questionable whether they r e a l l y o f f e r much i n s i g h t i n t o the p r a c t i c e of Stephanie and A i l e e n . In a recent paper C l a n d i n i n (1987) de s c r i b e s the f i r s t year teaching experience of "Stewart" and o f f e r s as one of h i s images "Teaching as R e l a t i n g to C h i l d r e n " . Again, t h i s t e l l s us something about Stewart but has the r i n g of a c l i c h e about i t as w e l l . Sanger (1987), who found the idea of metaphoric images a c r e d i b l e one, made a s i m i l a r p o i n t i n h i s c r i t i q u e of C l a n d i n l n ' s work: "Too much may be claimed, i n t h i s case, f o r the data. The c e n t r a l images are a t r i f l e too p r o s a i c and c o n t a i n too l i t t l e of the unpredi c t a b l e and uncomfortable to suggest t h a t the teachers are g r a p p l i n g at a depth beyond t h e i r conscious purchase. There i s l i t t l e of the q u a l i t y of poetry i n the phrases they use to suggest a free enough a s s o c i a t i o n of images to subvert t h e i r conscious understandings. That, of course, may be a lack i n C l a n d i n i n ' s discernment or q u e s t i o n i n g c a p a c i t y . Despite the post-hoc analyses of the data generated, which begin to c a t e g o r i z e teacher images i n terms of t h e i r moral dimensions, emotional • c o l o r i n g * and P e r s o n a l - P r i v a t e dimensions, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to p i n p o i n t much that one might regard as profound i n the f i n d i n g s " (p.381). The c o n s t r u c t of image could perhaps be q u i t e a powerful one f o r g e t t i n g at teachers* values and b e l i e f s t h a t are "beyond t h e i r conscious purchase". Researchers must go beyond the generation of the image, however. Assuming tha t r e a l l y i n s i g h t f u l and ap p r o p r i a t e images could be generated ( t h i s could present f a i r l y s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s ) , these should be viewed as an intermediate step toward h e l p i n g a teacher to make conscious and to c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e the values and b e l i e f s which are ( h o p e f u l l y ) encapsulated i n the image. This a r t i c u l a t i o n could be very h e l p f u l f o r meaningful r e f l e c t i o n and change. C l a n d i n i n f r e q u e n t l y suggests that the "moral dimension" (as she c a l l s i t ) i s Important. Of Stephanie's "image" of "The Classroom as Home", f o r insta n c e , C l a n d i n i n w r i t e s , " In Stephanie's v e r b a l expression of the image, a sense of i t s moral c o l o u r i n g emerged, the image i s not n e u t r a l ; a classroom should be l i k e a home and both classroom and home should have c e r t a i n features...A sense of p o s s i b i l i t y of 'better' or 'worse' a c t i o n emerges" (1985, p.377). However she does not pursue the "moral dimension" i n a systematic way; r a t h e r , i t i s one aspect of the blend of knowledge, experience and values t h a t she c a l l s "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge". S p e c i f i c focus on values i s not, of course, the purpose of her study, and while some general f e e l i n g about these teachers' values comes through i n her work, values are submerged i n the not i o n of "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge". The other c e n t r a l idea i n C l a n d i n i n ' s work and i n her recent work with Connelly ( C l a n d i n i n , 1987; Connelly and C l a n d i n i n , 1985, 1986, 1987) i s " n a r r a t i v e u n i t y " . C l a n d i n i n (1987) e x p l a i n s t h i s idea by sa y i n g , "The method we have developed f o r o f f e r i n g accounts of teachers' personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s a n a r r a t i v e one with a p a r t i c u l a r focus on personal experience. A n a r r a t i v e method has as i t s p r i n c i p a l feature the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of classroom meaning i n terms of u n i t i e s and rhythms i n the l i v e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s " (p.5). Thus two ideas are encapsulated here: the " n a r r a t i v e " aspect has to do with teachers r e v e a l i n g t h e i r "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" through the t e l l i n g of t h e i r " l i f e s t o r i e s " i n tea c h i n g , and the " u n i t y " aspect has to do with "the power of the c y c l i c temporal order i n schools and the d i f f i c u l t y of breaking through the bonds of c y c l i c r e g u l a r i t y " (Connelly and C l a n d i n i n , 1986, p.378). Like "image", t h i s idea has p o s s i b i l i t i e s but a l s o p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . Grumet (1987), who uses the n o t i o n of n a r r a t i v e , though i n a somewhat d i f f e r e n t way than C l a n d i n i n , i n her work with teachers, r a i s e s the same point made i n reference to "image" about the d i f f i c u l t i e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , s t a t i n g that there i s a need fo r c a u t i o n "when an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d as t e l l i n g more about the n a r r a t i v e than i t s n a r r a t o r knew" (p.325). Harking back to e a r l i e r teacher research and the lack of "context" i n which teacher a c t i o n s were d e s c r i b e d , i t can c e r t a i n l y be s a i d t h a t studying teachers' n a r r a t i v e s o f f e r s r i c h personal c o n t e x t , but the dangers of m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n when working with personal s t o r i e s and metaphors cannot be overlooked. Another danger, s i t t i n g r a t her s t r a n g e l y beside the danger of m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i s the danger of underanalysing. Connelly and C l a n d i n i n seem to get r a t h e r . t o o involved i n d e s c r i b i n g the " u n i t i e s and rhythms" of the s c h o o l , without asking where they come from, what e f f e c t they have on p u p i l s and teachers and what can or should be done to change them. Stephanie's "Classroom as Home", i n which Stephanie (who i s Jewish) c o n s i s t e n t l y plans her teaching around the "rhythm" of the school h o l i d a y s of Halloween, Christmas and E a s t e r , was i l l u m i n a t e d more by a communication to C l a n d i n i n from Joseph Schwab than by C l a n d i n i n ' s d e s c r i p t i o n . Schwab wrote, 86 "...the school year being a c y c l e of b i g events, f a l l , Thanksgiving, Halloween, Christmas, snow, and so on. - I would l i k e to ask whether the author might see Stephanie and ask her whether t h i s i s n ' t a r e f l e c t i o n of the way i n which the Jewish r e l i g i o n tends to make Jews th i n k of the year as d i v i d e d by h o l i d a y s . I n c i d e n t a l l y , there are many such and s e v e r a l of the ones the author mentions l i k e Thanksgiving, Christmas and so on have t h e i r Jewish c o r r e l a t e s . So, the f a m i l y Judaism she represents may have been another f a c t o r i n c o n t r i b u t i n g to the images which c o n t r o l her judgements" (Schwab, 1983, quoted i n Connelly and C l a n d i n i n , 1986, p.382). In response to t h i s , Connelly and C l a n d i n i n comment th a t Stephanie " l i v e s out her Jewish c u l t u r a l n a r r a t i v e by c e l e b r a t i n g her own h o l i d a y s " (p.382). This includes t a k i n g two days o f f f o r Rosh Hashanah, even though t h i s occurs a t a time when the school i s r e o r g a n i z i n g and Stephanie's " c u l t u r a l rhythm c o n f l i c t s w ith the school c y c l e " (p.382). Again, the idea of values seems c e n t r a l . The reader yearns fo r more questions to be asked here, but f o r the most part the " u n i t i e s and rhythms" of the school and the " n a r r a t i v e s " of teachers are described without the b e n e f i t of any searching a n a l y s i s . In summary, the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" s t u d i e s , while they o f f e r the suggestive idea of reaching 8 ? teachers* unstated and sometimes unconscious values and b e l i e f s through the formation of metaphoric "images" and the examination of personal " n a r r a t i v e s " have s e v e r a l shortcomings. F i r s t , they s u f f e r from a w r i t i n g s t y l e i n which ideas are sometimes obscured r a t h e r than c l a r i f i e d by wordy d e s c r i p t i o n s . Second, the "images" themselves seem ra t h e r p r o s a i c and not p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s i g h t f u l . T h i r d , there i s a danger of m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the t r a n s l a t i o n of observation and i n t e r v i e w data i n t o "images". Fourth, there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t a n a l y s i s of the data that are d e s c r i b e d . Thus, while these s t u d i e s do appear to r e c t i f y to some extent the lack i n the l i t e r a t u r e on teachers of d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of the context of teaching d e c i s i o n s , they f a i l to o f f e r i n s i g h t f u l analyses of what they d e s c r i b e . As w e l l , i t has been argued throughout the examination of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e that a c e n t r a l idea i n "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge", a c e n t r a l m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r i n teachers' classroom d e c i s i o n s , i s v a l u e s , and that t h i s area remains l a r g e l y unstudied, though the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" work touches on i t and suggests p o s s i b l e research methods. This work ventures i n t o the moral realm more than do d e c i s i o n s t u d i e s ; n e v e r t h e l e s s , values are not a major focus. As a method of h e l p i n g teachers r e f l e c t on t h e i r own p r a c t i c e i t may be h e l p f u l , and i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the teachers i n Elbaz and C l a n d i n i n ' s s t u d i e s gained I n s i g h t Into t h e i r own teaching through 88 d i s c u s s i o n s with the res e a r c h e r s , although h e l p i n g teachers to r e f l e c t was not the s p e c i f i c i n t e n t of these researchers. Oberg (1986) advocates r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r p r a c t i c e by experienced teachers, t h a t they may "achieve a deeper understanding of the b e l i e f s and i n t e n t i o n s which motivate t h e i r p r a c t i c e " ( p . l ) . I n i t i a l l y , Oberg says, t h i s r e f l e c t i o n should focus on a c t u a l classroom i n s t a n c e s , because "These are the overt m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of b e l i e f s and values u n d e r l y i n g teachers' a c t i o n s t h a t are o f t e n i m p l i c i t and d i f f i c u l t to v e r b a l i z e . Many of the teacher's p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i o n s are spontaneous or h a b i t u a l , chosen in s t a n t a n e o u s l y without o p p o r t u n i t y f o r d e l i b e r a t i o n , or r i t u a l i z e d i n the form of r o u t i n e s " (p.3). The a s s i s t a n c e of a second p a r t y , she holds, i s probably e s s e n t i a l i n t h i s r e f l e c t i v e undertaking. The idea t h a t many teacher a c t i o n s are " r i t u a l i z e d i n the form of r o u t i n e s " bears i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and some recent teacher t h i n k i n g research, i n the realm of teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge but rat h e r d i f f e r e n t from the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" s t u d i e s , has looked i n t o the classroom r o u t i n e s that teachers use. Before the p r a c t i c a l knowledge work i s analysed i n the next chapter, these " r o u t i n i z a t i o n " s t u d i e s w i l l be c r i t i c a l l y reviewed. B. Studies of r o u t i n i z a t i o n Studies of "expert" teachers also reveal the p r a c t i c a l knowledge of teachers, but are less personal in nature and do seek to generalize about the "routines, s c r i p t s and schema used by experts" (Berliner, 1986, p.6). Berliner says that such information can be used, for example, to i d e n t i f y "the buggy routine or s c r i p t , or the i l l - f o r m e d schemata, that might be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of less expert or novice teachers", and also to "provide exemplary performances from which we can learn." Experts can, "more than most teachers, provide us with c a s e s — t h e r i c h l y d e t a i l e d descriptions of Instructional e v e n t s — t h a t should form a part of teacher education programs...beginning teachers need such cases of practice to develop t h e i r f u l l understanding of pedagogy" (p.6). Berliner also says that "expert teachers are one of the best sources to see and study examples of defensible action, and...the knowledge gained from such study i s more c o d i f i a b l e than many people think" (p.13). If action i s to be defensible, as indeed i t should be i n the domain of public school teaching, i t i s apparent that teachers must r e a l l y understand why they do what they do, and guided r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r practice, revealing t h e i r values and b e l i e f s , i s again seen to be a s i g n i f i c a n t issue. Berliner's idea of defensible action i s thus an important one, but as in the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" work i t i s an idea not adequately explored i n the expert-novice l i t e r a t u r e , which seldom goes much beyond I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of classroom routines without r e a l l y following up on the thinking that underlies them. This work does o f f e r "detailed descriptions of i n s t r u c t i o n a l events", and these are undoubtedly useful as mirrors for teachers to see themselves i n and as s t a r t i n g points for discussion amongst student teachers. It seems strange, however, that researchers do not ask the teachers in t h e i r studies why they follow c e r t a i n routines and where the routines come from, following up in a more d i l i g e n t way on the notion of defensible a c t i o n . One d i f f i c u l t y in such studies would be what c r i t e r i a to use in the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of "expert" teachers. In Berliner's work he developed a system of i d e n t i f y i n g "expert" teachers using reputation, classroom observations by three independent observers and performance on laboratory tasks. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) i d e n t i f i e d "expert" teachers according to the academic growth of t h e i r students over a f i v e year period. These researchers looked at lesson plans, lesson a c t i v i t i e s and classroom routines of several "experts" and several novices teaching comparable classes. Using the language of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e , educational psychology, they c a l l teaching a "complex cognitive s k i l l " , which "requires the construction of plans and the making of rapid on-line decisions", and state that s k i l l i n teaching rests "on two fundamental systems of knowledge, lesson structure and subject matter" (p.75). Their study focussed on l e s s o n s t r u c t u r e . They found t h a t 'expert* teachers, whom they a l s o c a l l e d s k i l l e d t e a chers, d i d a more d i s c i p l i n e d and q u i c k e r opening homework review than d i d novices, p i c k i n g up inf o r m a t i o n about which students had not done t h e i r homework and who needed e x t r a help. The s k i l l e d teachers had r o u t i n e s i n place f o r t a k i n g attendance, checking homework and responding to students' questions. These w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r o u t i n e s were f l e x i b l e and could be reordered or used only i n p a r t . L i t t l e or no e x p l a n a t i o n was re q u i r e d f o r t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n g . Novices, on the other hand, changed the way they d i d t h i n g s from day t o day, and thus had to e x p l a i n t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s and i n s t r u c t students i n the r o l e s expected of them f r e q u e n t l y . L e i n h a r d t and Greeno found t h a t r o u t i n i z a t i o n of much of the school day was a major d i f f e r e n c e i n the p r a c t i c e of "expert" and novice teachers, and suggest t h a t , "Routines p l a y an important part i n s k i l l e d performances because they a l l o w r e l a t i v e l y l o w - l e v e l a c t i v i t i e s to be c a r r i e d out e f f i c i e n t l y , without d i v e r t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t mental resources from the more general and su b s t a n t i v e a c t i v i t i e s and goals of teaching. Thus, r o u t i n e s reduce c o g n i t i v e load and expand the teacher's f a c i l i t y to deal w i t h the un p r e d i c t a b l e elements of a ta s k " (p.76). In l i g h t of t h i s , i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o see whether teachers whose classrooms are h i g h l y r o u t i n i z e d make fewer short term d e c i s i o n s d u r i n g a teaching day, s i n c e they would presumably have fewer managerial d i f f i c u l t i e s . I t i s also l o g i c a l to hypothesize that the content and antecedents of the short term decisions made by these teachers would d i f f e r from those made by teachers who do not have well established routines. Teachers without well established routines would have to make more on-the-spot decisions about the mechanics of running a c l a s s , and teachers with e f f i c i e n t routines, freed to delve more deeply into content and students' academic needs, would presumably make more i n s t r u c t i o n a l decisions. Whether or not teachers with e f f i c i e n t routines a c t u a l l y do co n s i s t e n t l y focus more on i n s t r u c t i o n , to the benefit of t h e i r students, would make a worthwhile empirical research question. It would also be useful to investigate whether there are any negative e f f e c t s of r o u t i n i z a t i o n , such as lack of spontaneity and ri s k - t a k i n g on the part of some teachers whose day i s heavily routinized. It could even be the case that some unenterprising teachers who have well established routines do not take advantage of the "reduced cognitive load" to concentrate more on students' i n s t r u c t i o n a l needs, but put th e i r students 'on automatic 1, and are not very e f f e c t i v e teachers, though t h e i r classrooms appear to run smoothly. It i s worthwhile here to remember Marx and Peterson's (1981) finding that the teachers in the i r study who made the smallest number of planning decisions also made the greatest number of inte r a c t i v e decisions, and these teachers' students had more p o s i t i v e attitudes than did the students of teachers who made more planning decisions and fewer i n t e r a c t i v e decisions. Obviously more studies of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher decision making and student attitudes would be needed before any generalizations could be made, but i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate on possible reasons for the li n k that Marx and Peterson found. Teachers who make fewer planning decisions are presumably somewhat less prepared and t h e i r classrooms may be less routinized, perhaps less organized and less well managed. It i s possible also that some of these teachers may be more spontaneous, more l i v e l y in t h e i r presentation and more responsive to creative suggestions from students. This is c e r t a i n l y not a 'black and white' Issue (neither " r o u t i n i z a t i o n good, spontaneity bad", nor the reverse), but i t i s one worth investigating for fin e r shades of meaning. Much of a teacher's day may need to be routinized for e f f i c i e n c y ' s sake, but does c r e a t i v i t y and ri s k - t a k i n g sometimes get s a c r i f i c e d i n the interests of e f f i c i e n c y ? Like so many other unasked questions in the l i t e r a t u r e on teachers, t h i s i s a value question. Interesting also is the question of whether (and to what extent) a l l good teachers use routines. Leinhardt, Weidman and Hammond (1987), i n t h e i r study of the establishment of routines at the beginning of the school year, observed s i x teachers i d e n t i f i e d as "experts" by the i r students' unusual academic successes and by nomination from p r i n c i p a l s and supervisors. Only one of these teachers had weak and in c o n s i s t e n t l y practised routines, and she appeared to be s l i g h t l y less e f f e c t i v e than the other f i v e . This study also i d e n t i f i e d what the researchers c a l l "dysfunctional routines", which are negative in e f f e c t but as habitual as functional routines. One teacher stopped the class almost d a i l y to give a lengthy, Impassioned lecture on proper behavior, to which the students did not respond and which resulted in the loss of Instructional time. "Expert" teachers are not perfect, i t would seem, a truism worth remembering l e s t we elevate them to the status of unattainable role models, undermining rather than enhancing the confidence of other teachers. Viewing the "expert-novice" l i t e r a t u r e in terms of values, i t is apparent that the personal values of teachers, while they are revealed to some extent in teachers' routines, are not brought to l i g h t as they are in the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies, but they may say some in t e r e s t i n g things about i n s t i t u t i o n a l values. While classrooms obviously must have order and reasonable quiet for teaching and learning to occur, there i s something to be said for "creative chaos" from time to time, and we may value quiet and e f f i c i e n c y over other seemingly less organized modes which may foster more discovery and s e l f expression by students. As well, as the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies i l l u s t r a t e , each teacher has his or her own body of knowledge and experience which i s expressed in teaching, and the study of "expert" teachers should not lead to an overly r i g i d picture of what a good teacher does. The p r a c t i c a l knowledge work does o f f e r r i c h , d e t a i l e d descriptions of the context of teaching, and thi s i s valuable because t h i s context must be taken into account in any attempt to understand teachers' classroom actions and decisions. However, there i s l i t t l e deep and focused probing of reasons, values and b e l i e f s . Description i s not enough without c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s . Very seldom are teachers asked "Why?" in these studies, a question that might, with the guidance of the researcher, open the door to teachers' examination of t h e i r values and b e l i e f s , as well as the weaknesses and strengths i n t h e i r professional knowledge. Reading accounts based on a more focused r e f l e c t i v e journey would seem to be more useful to an audience of experienced and novice teachers as well. What are the basic assumptions of researchers into teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge, what conception of teaching i s i m p l i c i t i n t h e i r work, and what changes i n the so-called "protective b e l t " have accompanied the move from the study of decision making to the study of p r a c t i c a l knowledge? These questions are addressed in the next chapter. Chapter Six 96 Analysts of the Practical Knowledge Literature It was stated in the analysis of the decision making l i t e r a t u r e that the conception of the teacher in that l i t e r a t u r e was more "three dimensional" than the view of the teacher presented In behavior studies. The decision l i t e r a t u r e , i t was claimed, presents teachers as a c t i v e , thinking participants in the classroom environment, int e r a c t i n g with students and responding to changing classroom conditions. The learning conditions l a i d out e a r l i e r for the conception of teaching are adequately served in t h i s view of the teacher. The questions researchers ask re l a t e to methods, materials and content, as well as to classroom management. The decision making l i t e r a t u r e was seen to f a l l short on the moral condition, sometimes suggesting questions about values but not r e a l l y probing into why teachers might make c e r t a i n decisions. Value clashes between teachers' personal values and i n s t i t u t i o n a l values, which could have implications for how students are viewed and treated, are sometimes implied or hinted at but not investigated. It was suggested that perhaps the concept of decision i s too narrow to give access to t h i s complex area, or that researchers do not judge value questions to be s i g n i f i c a n t enough to merit in-depth i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This and other possible reasons for 97 the seeming taboo against the Investigation of values w i l l be discussed i n chapter nine. In the p r a c t i c a l knowledge area the " r o u t i n i z a t i o n " studies have a d i f f e r e n t focus than decision studies but have some s i m i l a r l i m i t a t i o n s . They demonstrate that classrooms need some routines to keep mundane a c t i v i t i e s running smoothly so that relevant learning can be given more attention; they can of f e r " t i p s " to beginning teachers on how to organize and manage a classroom; and they suggest that there may be some "dysfunctional routines" which are well established but counterproductive. They do not investigate how teachers develop t h e i r routines and they do not pursue the idea of counterproductive routines, the re l a t i o n s h i p between routines and spontaneity, and the extent to which routines related to classroom management are designed to meet i n s t i t u t i o n a l standards for quiet and "good behavior", causing possible c o n f l i c t with teachers' personal values and educational aims. They demonstrate some of the " p r a c t i c a l knowledge" and the "knowing-ln-actlon"—Donald Schon's (1983) term—of teachers, but they delve into the teachers' thinking even less than the decision making studies. The focus on routines may be somewhat more i n s i g h t f u l than the teacher behavior focus on s p e c i f i c , and iso l a t e d , teacher actions, but the intentions of these two streams of research are not d i s s i m i l a r . They both seek to describe what good teachers do in classrooms. Routinization studies do investigate to some extent teachers' thinking about t h e i r classroom routines, but the fact that they do th i s and e a r l i e r behavior studies did not may have as much to do with the development and acceptance of q u a l i t a t i v e research techniques as with the d i f f e r e n t interests of the two groups of researchers. The notion of "good" teachers immediately raises the question of "good" according to what standards? Aside from general s o c i e t a l standards, the conception of teaching held by the researchers d i c t a t e s the standards, and i t i s clear throughout the work on decision and r o u t i n l z a t i o n that the bringing about of learning in students, with a l l the choices of materials, content and methods that t h i s e n t a i l s , together with the a b i l i t y to run and "manage" an orderly classroom are the main features of t h i s conception. In terms of classroom management, i t is clear that a non-chaotic environment i s necessary for learning to take place, and so classroom management relates to the intention to bring about learning, but there seem to be other reasons for "managing" the c l a s s , such as not v i o l a t i n g noise standards of the school, not allowing students to express themselves i n s o c i a l l y unacceptable ways such as swearing, and providing r e l a t i v e peace and quiet for the teacher. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between management, learning and various sets of values is not investigated i n the decision or r o u t i n l z a t i o n studies. The "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies both benefit and suffer from having a much broader focus than the d e c i s i o n making or r o u t i n i z a t i o n work. The benefit i s that "why" questions (and these seem to be the questions that illuminate values)--why did you do t h i s , why d i d you decide t h i s way, why do you f e e l t h i s way about i t — c a n be followed up when they a r i s e without straying too far from a s p e c i f i c research focus such as decision or r o u t i n i z a t i o n . The negative aspect of the very broad focus of the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies i s that too much time i s spent describing the p l e n t i f u l data and not a l o t of analysis gets done. Issues of value which come to l i g h t in these r i c h descriptions are passed over too quickly and one wishes i n the end for more focus on s p e c i f i c questions that a r i s e . The conception of the teacher that is suggested by the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" work i s consistent with the conception offered in chapter two, in that teachers are portrayed as discriminating professionals whose intention i s to bring about learning in t h e i r students and who struggle (Elbaz portrays very well the struggle of "Sarah" to choose the best methods and materials for working with students who came to the "learning centre" for help with English) to choose methods, materials and content that best serve the goal of bringing about learning. Obviously teachers who s t r i v e and struggle in t h i s way hold students' learning as a primary valued goal. Other of t h e i r personal b e l i e f s and values w i l l influence the ways in which they s t r i v e , and moral values w i l l i n t e r a c t with t h e i r ideas about learning. 100 The "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies address teachers* values more d i r e c t l y than any previous work but, f r u s t r a t i n g l y , do not probe value questions, seeking mainly to describe the whole f a b r i c of "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" of which values are a part. The des c r i p t i o n i s a worthwhile task; nevertheless, one wishes for more an a l y s i s . Since values are not a major focus, the "hard core" of the teacher thinking program remains unchanged: knowledge and learning are the concerns of the teacher in t h i s conception; the moral condition i s not adequately met. The mentioning of the "moral dimension" in "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies can be seen as a change i n the "protective b e l t " . It is AS IF value questions have been addressed, but they in fact remain unprobed and the apparent taboo in the "hard core" that disallows the investi g a t i o n of value questions remains unchallenged. Another possible reason for the lack of investigation of value questions may be that since many values are held t a c i t l y they are not e a s i l y accessible to researchers for Investigation. One of the Important ideas in the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies and in other l i t e r a t u r e on teacher thinking i s the notion that much of what we know i s t a c i t and cannot be accurately a r t i c u l a t e d . Adherence to the idea of t a c i t knowing may account for some of the lack of probing in the teacher thinking l i t e r a t u r e . As Trumbull (1986) describes i t , "Because much of t a c i t knowing i s not a r t i c u l a t e d , there i s a danger that practice, a r t i s t i c and r e f l e c t i v e p ractice, can be seen as somewhat mysterious or can become mystified. The master teacher somehow "knows" what the r i g h t action i s , but cannot explain just how (s)he knows t h i s . The processes by which the expert makes sense of complex si t u a t i o n s may seem impenetrable to the novice or less r e f l e c t i v e teacher" (p.118). And to the researcher, we might add. There appears to be some element of t h i s m y s t i f i c a t i o n in the "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" work. Practice i s thoroughly described but the d e t a i l s of teachers' knowledge, b e l i e f s and values, which may indeed be held t a c i t l y , are not probed. Whether material that i s held t a c i t l y can be brought into focus and a r t i c u l a t e d i s thus an important question. Examination of the idea of t a c i t knowing may help to shed l i g h t on the lack of probing into some areas of teachers' thinking. This examination i s undertaken in the next chapter. 102 Chapter Seven Invest I gat fton of the Idea Qt Tacit Knowing and Its Relation to the Study of Teacher Thinking Almost a l l of the l i t e r a t u r e on teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge states that much of teachers' knowledge i s t a c i t . While the idea of t a c i t knowing i s a credible one, questions a r i s e about the nature of t a c i t knowing and e s p e c i a l l y about whether t a c i t knowledge can be made e x p l i c i t . Whether or not the knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that teachers may hold t a c i t l y can be made e x p l i c i t and a r t i c u l a t e d w i l l have implications for the investi g a t i o n of teachers' thinking. If material that i s held t a c i t l y i s viewed as being l a r g e l y i n a r t i c u l a b l e , researchers may t r y to 'get at' t h i s material in non-explicit ways, such as through "narrative", or the t e l l i n g of teachers' " l i f e s t o r i e s " and a l l that those might reveal, or through metaphors such as the "images" that Clandinin uses. It i s clear that a l l our knowledge i s not of the propositional kind, and that we do not have immediate conscious access to a l l that we know, or to a l l of the b e l i e f s and values, possibly acquired at an e a r l y age, which guide us in our l i v e s and i n our classroom decisions. Narrative and metaphor appear to of f e r ways for us to "surface" and talk about knowledge, b e l i e f s and values which we hold t a c i t l y . It may be also that the understanding of t a c i t knowing inherent In some of the teacher thinking l i t e r a t u r e does not adequately r e f l e c t the f u l l scope of Polanyi's writing; nor w i l l , unfortunately, the analysis which follows. What I w i l l attempt to do i s lay out the basic ideas and examples Polanyi uses and discuss these in r e l a t i o n to the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher thinking. The idea of t a c i t knowing bears investigation, for i t may be that much t a c i t material can be brought into focus and a r t i c u l a t e d , and that t h i s i s an important thing for teachers to do. A t y p i c a l d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n of the word ' t a c i t ' i s "unspoken or s i l e n t ; implied or understood without being openly expressed". We speak of a ' t a c i t agreement* as one which has not been verbalized, or has perhaps not been systematically thought out, but which i s nevertheless understood by the concerned p a r t i e s . There i s nothing in t h i s d e f i n i t i o n to suggest that something t a c i t cannot be a r t i c u l a t e d . T a c i t knowing may be another thing, however. Though he c e r t a i n l y did not invent the word t a c i t , Michael Polanyi i s credited with o r i g i n a t i n g the idea of t a c i t knowing. His work, and e s p e c i a l l y his book Personal Knowledge (1958) i s in v a r i a b l y referred to in discussions of teachers' t a c i t knowledge. The thesis Polanyi presents in Personal Knowledge is developed further in his la t e r work, notably the 1966 Philosophy a r t i c l e , "The Logic of Ta c i t Inference", and the 1966 book, The Tacit Dimension. 10k It Is appropriate to centre t h i s chapter around Polanyi's ideas by examining his work in terms of the answers to three questions: What i s the nature of t a c i t knowing? How is t a c i t knowledge acquired? Can t a c i t knowledge be made e x p l i c i t ? About the nature of t a c i t knowing, Polanyi says that i t always involves two things, which he c a l l s the two terms of t a c i t knowing. The f i r s t he c a l l s the proximal term. It i s only " s u b s i d i a r i l y known", while the second, or d i s t a l term i s " f o c a l l y known". In t a c i t knowing a person attends f_r_oja the proximal term fco_ the d i s t a l term. In other words, the proximal term forms a kind of backdrop or context in which we can understand the d i s t a l term on which we are focusing. "We know the f i r s t term only by r e l y i n g on our awareness of i t for attending to the second...In many ways the f i r s t term of t h i s r e l a t i o n w i l l prove to be nearer to us, the second further away from us...It i s the proximal term, then, of which we have a knowledge that we may not be able to t e l l " (1966b, p.10). Polanyi explains t h i s further by saying that in t a c i t knowing an act of integration takes place whereby we s h i f t our focus from p a r t i c u l a r s to the coherent whole that they form. As an example of t h i s , he discusses the way we recognize faces. We do not focus on separate features l i k e eyes or a nose, but attend from the features to the face. We recognize the face, but may be unable to sp e c i f y the features. This i s c l e a r l y a legitimate example of a kind of "knowing", or recognizing which cannot be d e s c r i b e d p r e c i s e l y i n words. As modern p o l i c e a r t i s t s know, people can d e s c r i b e features of faces, and these a r t i s t s are able to draw good l i k e n e s s e s by us i n g the nose and eye "types" that are d e s c r i b e d to them; however, many people's faces could be composed of the same c o l l e c t i o n of feature "types", and we could s t i l l recognize someone we know. This kind of " t a c i t knowing", whereby "we know more than we can t e l l " , i s not, however, d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to many of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t o be done i n teacher t h i n k i n g r e s e a r c h . For one t h i n g , notions l i k e the r e c o g n i t i o n of faces are seldom r e l e v a n t t o questions about t e a c h i n g . Questions about teaching (aside from the obvious "what does the teacher do" questions) have t o do, i n the main, wi t h knowledge (What knowledge i s the teacher demonstrating here? What does she need t o know to do t h i s b e t t e r ? ) and values (What i s important i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? To the teacher? The school? The students?) Questions about teachers' d e c i s i o n s and a c t i o n s may i n v o l v e a whole f a b r i c of knowledge, experience and values which i s not e a s i l y a r t i c u l a b l e , but teachers have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , both p r o f e s s i o n a l l y and p e r s o n a l l y , to e x p l a i n t h e i r a c t i o n s as teachers. I f an observer were to ask a teacher, "Why d i d you make the d e c i s i o n s you d i d regarding Mary and Peter's l a t e homework?", i t does not seem acceptable f o r the teacher to say, " I don't know why I gave Mary an extension f o r her homework and gave Peter a zero. I j u s t followed my I n s t i n c t . 1 It seemed l i k e the r i g h t thing to do." Teachers must act on th e i r Instincts and i n t u i t i o n s , because they do not have time while teaching to constantly question themselves, but during times of r e f l e c t i o n , or when discussing with colleagues, these i n t u i t i o n s and the decisions based on them should be examined in terms of reasons, both the immediate p r a c t i c a l reasons and underlying reasons which may rel a t e to teachers* b e l i e f s or values. The teacher who gave Mary a homework extension and Peter a zero may know from experience with these two students that Mary's lateness i s due to lack of understanding or family d i f f i c u l t i e s . He or she may know that Peter's lateness is a recurring problem and that he w i l l not complete his homework no matter how long he i s given. But the teacher may also be less s t r i c t with Mary because she i s a g i r l , or may be angry with Peter about some other incident. Even i f Mary does seem to 'deserve' an extension while Peter does not, the teacher might benefit from examining the consistency with which he or she exercises various r u l e s , and should be able to explain and defend his or her actions. "Tacit knowing dwells i n our awareness of pa r t i c u l a r s while bearing on an e n t i t y which the p a r t i c u l a r s j o i n t l y c o n s t i t u t e " (1966b, p.61). This introduces another part of Polanyi's d e s c r i p t i o n of t a c i t knowing, the idea of indwelling. To focus d i r e c t l y on something, Polanyi says, i s to e x t e r i o r i z e or alienate i t , thus destroying i t s meaning. He gives as an example of t h i s what happens when one focusses on and repeats a word, out of context, u n t i l i t loses i t s meaning."Knowledge by indwelling", on the other hand, occurs when we attend "from a thing to i t s meaning", thus " i n t e r i o r i z i n g " i t . There i s c e r t a i n l y t r u t h i n t h i s part of Polanyi's argument, as we have a l l experienced how a repeated word can suddenly seem meaningless, and musicians know that by focusing on t h e i r fingers s k i l f u l performance can be paralysed. But i t i s not true that by focusing or concentrating d i r e c t l y on something i t in v a r i a b l y loses i t s meaning. Polanyi says that "...we endow a thing with meaning by i n t e r i o r l s i n g i t and destroy i t s meaning by a l i e n a t i n g i t " (1966a, p.9), and adds that "...when we learn to use language, or a probe, or a t o o l , and thus make ourselves ( s u b s i d i a r i l y ) aware of these things as we are of our body, we i n t e r i o r i s e these things and make ourselves dwell in them" (1966a, p.10). One must be ca r e f u l here not to adhere to Polanyi's statements too l i t e r a l l y . While i t i s c e r t a i n l y d i f f i c u l t (or perhaps impossible) to carry out some performances, such as playing the piano, while concurrently also focussing on the p a r t i c u l a r s of the performance, such as the movement of one's l i t t l e finger, one can, when not performing, r e f l e c t meaningfully on p a r t i c u l a r s . In terms of some a c t i v i t i e s i t should a c t u a l l y be possible to focus on p a r t i c u l a r s while doing. E f f i c i e n t t o o l users may use hammers or paint brushes almost as extensions of the i r 1 0 8 bodies, but i t i s possible also to concentrate d i r e c t l y on the use of a t o o l without forgetting how to use i t or why i t is being used. In terms of language, we usually do speak without awareness of the structure or rules of grammar and syntax, and without r e c i t i n g the d e f i n i t i o n s of words to ourselves. However i t i s possible to focus on one's use of language, as when a poet searches for one perfect word or phrase, without losing the meaning. Focussing on some d e t a i l of teaching a p a r t i c u l a r lesson may make one have to stop, to check the book or lesson plan, for example, and a smoothly flowing lesson i s momentarily disrupted. Focussing on and a r t i c u l a t i n g d e t a i l s i s not impossible, but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to do during a performance. "We i n t e r i o r i z e things and make ourselves dwell In them", says Polanyi. For example, "...as each of us i n t e r i o r i z e s our c u l t u r a l heritage, he grows into a person seeing the world and experiencing l i f e i n terms of t h i s outlook." This much is c e r t a i n l y true, and i t i s an idea f a m i l i a r to anthropologists for many years. Broudy (1979) has characterised i t as follows: " . . . t a c i t covers theories, world views and schemata of a l l sorts insofar as during an in t e r p r e t i v e act they are 'the spectacles' through which we see but which we do not see" (p.451). But i t need not be so, i t seems to me, that I a c t u a l l y "know more than I can t e l l " about the parts of my c u l t u r e . I may not stop to examine the various c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t s , b e l i e f s and prejudices which act as ray "spectacles", but i f c a l l e d upon to do so I may well be able to a r t i c u l a t e them, or, i f someone outside the culture pointed them out to me I may well recognize them. Furthermore, though I undoubtedly do hold many aspects of my c u l t u r a l heritage t a c i t l y — i n that though my thoughts and actions are affected by them I have not examined or verbalized them-- a l l of my c u l t u r a l inheritance can not properly be c a l l e d knowledge. Much of i t would be better characterised as t a c i t b e l i e f and t a c i t values. This Is an important point. Polanyi has not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between knowledge, physical s k i l l , b e l i e f s and values. Most of what he speaks of as t a c i t knowledge seems to f i t G i l b e r t Ryle's category of "knowing how" as opposed to "knowing t h a t " — t h e l a t t e r covering e x p l i c i t or propositional knowledge—and th i s kind of t a c i t knowing may Indeed be i n a r t i c u l a b l e . Such things as learning to ride a b i c y c l e and drive a car, learning to recognize a face and speak a language, learning to give a medical diagnosis and making s c i e n t i f i c d iscoveries, some of the examples Polanyi gives, do seem to be Impossible to describe with any r e a l accuracy. For the bicycle r i d i n g one can talk about pedalling and balance, but a c t u a l l y putting the elements together and r i d i n g cannot be encapsulated. This idea i s important in terms of teaching because teachers cannot explain everything to students in words. Words help, but some s k i l l s , a b i l i t i e s and understandings need to be taught by example as well as precept, and practiced and experienced by students. Seeing the world in terms of a c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l outlook appears to be something rather d i f f e r e n t , however, than knowing how to do something. As I operate i n my culture, wearing my c u l t u r a l 'spectacles', I am not aware of d e t a i l s , but I can become aware of them. As I teach I wear a set of 'spectacles', composed of my personal experience, knowledge, b e l i e f s and values, but there is no reason why I cannot s i t down and think, talk and become aware of these d e t a i l s , so that I can understand and change, weaving t h i s understanding and change into new performance i n which d e t a i l s w i l l again recede. As for the way t a c i t knowledge i s acquired, Polanyi says b a s i c a l l y t h i s : A person can get e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n i n , say, r i d i n g a b i c y c l e or d r i v i n g a car, and w i l l for awhile attend to the p a r t i c u l a r s of the bicycle's handbrakes or the car's c l u t c h , but gradually the p a r t i c u l a r s w i l l be integrated and recede from focus in the smooth performance of the whole. Student doctors are taught e x p l i c i t l y the symptoms of diseases, but to integrate these b i t s of e x p l i c i t knowledge and make a diagnosis, "...the pupil must discover by an e f f o r t of his own something we could not t e l l him. And he knows i t then i n his turn but cannot t e l l i t " (1966a, p.5). E x p l i c i t p a r t i c u l a r s can be taught, but then there must be a personal integration of these p a r t i c u l a r s by the learner. "An e x p l i c i t p r e s c r i p t i o n becomes increasingly e f f e c t i v e as i t sinks deeper into a t a c i t matrix" (1966a, p.7). I l l In other words, when we learn how to do something well we no longer have to attend to d e t a i l s of execution as much, and t h i s allows us to perform more e f f i c i e n t l y and more e f f e c t i v e l y . (Although the occasional b i t of backtracking and purposeful concentration on p a r t i c u l a r s , as in r i g o r o u s l y working on one small t r i l l in a piano piece, can lead to improved performance. Polanyi makes t h i s point.) Imagining what goes into the b r i l l i a n t execution of a Chopin nocturne, the diagnosis of an obscure disease or the f l a s h of insight that leads to a s c i e n t i f i c discovery, one can understand what Polanyi means by saying that "the p u p i l must discover on his own something that we could not t e l l him", but t h i s must not be allowed to become too mysterious and wondrous a thing. There i s a great deal that we can explain and teach without f a l l i n g into the o b j e c t i v i s t trap which Polanyi so decries. In his discussion of how t a c i t knowledge i s acquired, Polanyi uses the psychological term "subception", which he describes as "the process of learning without awareness" (1966a, p.6). The term does r e f l e c t our present understanding of how c h i l d r e n learn to speak t h e i r native language, and for how we absorb much (but not a l l ) of our culture. I t does not, however, seem e n t i r e l y accurate as a d e s c r i p t i o n of how one learns to play the piano or make a medical diagnosis. In these cases one learns the p a r t i c u l a r s very c a r e f u l l y and very consciously, and while the p a r t i c u l a r s may come together i n a marvellous, 112 unselfconscious performance, they have at that point already been learned, and not, at least i n large part, by subception. A f i n a l question about the relevance of Polanyi's work for research into teaching remains to be answered. Can we, according to Polanyi, make t a c i t knowledge e x p l i c i t ? If we "know more then we can t e l l , " does t h i s mean that we can never t e l l i t ? His answer i s that i n fact there i s much that we can never t e l l , and much that we can never even bring into c l e a r focus. We can t r y , but our a r t i c u l a t i o n s w i l l always be "defective". In f a c t , " . . . s t r i c t l y speaking nothing that we know can be said p r e c i s e l y " (1958, p.87). There w i l l always be "i n e f f a b l e knowledge", which "may simply mean something that I know and can describe even less p r e c i s e l y than usual, or even only very vaguely." When we do a r t i c u l a t e there i s s t i l l "a residue l e f t unsaid by defective a r t i c u l a t i o n " , and t h i s is the "unspecifiable part of knowledge" (1958, p.88). To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s he says that even though he knows how to ride a bicycle and how to pick out his macintosh from twenty others, he cannot say c l e a r l y how. "For I know that I know p e r f e c t l y well how to do such things, though I know the p a r t i c u l a r s of what I know only i n an instrumental manner and am f o c a l l y quite ignorant of them; so that I may say that I know these matters even though I cannot t e l l c l e a r l y , or hardly at a l l , what i t is that I know" (1958, p.88). While i t may be true that I cannot p r e c i s e l y describe the physical coordination and balance I exercise in r i d i n g a b i c y c l e , the statement that " s t r i c t l y speaking nothing that we know can be said p r e c i s e l y " does not, o£ course, mean that we cannot communicate well with each other and c l a r i f y things for ourselves. How I came to interpret a c e r t a i n look on a student's face as expressing secret anxiety would seem to f a l l under the heading of "knowing more than I can t e l l " , but that does not mean t h i s topic i s not discussable. I might have been r i g h t or wrong i n my in t e r p r e t a t i o n , and t h i s might be shown only by the res u l t s of the action I chose to take to a l l e v i a t e my student's anxiety. I can c e r t a i n l y talk about these things, as I can about a l l my i n s t i n c t s , i n t u i t i o n s and int e r p r e t a t i o n s . The crux of Polanyi's answer to the question whether t a c i t knowledge can be a r t i c u l a t e d comes in the paragraph below. In i t he mentions several things which bear comment, including the idea of knowing i n pr a c t i c e , which several writers on teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge have used. The passage i s thus worth quoting at length: "Subsidiary or instrumental knowledge, as I have defined i t , i s not known i n i t s e l f but i s known i n terms of something f o c a l l y known, to the q u a l i t y of which i t contributes; and to t h i s extent i t i s unspecifiable. Analysis may bring subsidiary know- ledge into focus and forlmulate i t as a maxim or as a feature in a physiognomy, but such s p e c i f i c a t i o n is in general not exhaustive. Although the expert dlagnos- t i c i a n , taxonomist and cotton-classer can Indicate theiz clues and formulate t h e i r maxims, they know many more things than they can t e l l , knowing them only i n practice, as instrumental p a r t i c u l a r s , and not ex- p l i c i t l y , as objects. The knowledge of such p a r t i c - ulars i s therefore i n e f f a b l e , and the pondering of a judgement in terms of such p a r t i c u l a r s i s an ineffable process of thought. This applies equally to connois- seurship as the a r t of knowing and to s k i l l s as the art of doing, wherefore both can be taught only by aid of p r a c t i c a l example and never s o l e l y by precept" (1958, p.88). Thus, in terms of 'knowing in pr a c t i c e ' , teachers can never f u l l y and with complete accuracy reconstruct th e i r s k i l f u l performances; t h e i r a r t i c u l a t i o n s w i l l always be "defective" and t h e i r knowledge " i n e f f a b l e " . A program of research into teacher thinking which subscribes to t h i s b e l i e f would appear to be doomed, i f not to f a i l u r e , at least to very li m i t e d success. However, such conclusions are unacceptable. If we seek to Improve practice we must believe that reconstruction can be done to a high degree; and the thrust of teacher thinking research i s , presumably, to get teachers to recount t h e i r thoughts and highlight p a r t i c u l a r s . It would undoubtedly be he l p f u l to expert p r a c t i t i o n e r s as well as novices to analyse t h e i r practice and bring "subsidiary knowledge into focus." Only when the p a r t i c u l a r s meet the l i g h t of conscious inspection can 115 practice be I n t e l l i g e n t l y changed. And It should be stressed again that the subsidiary features brought into focus by analysis do not a l l constitute knowledge, but b e l i e f and values as well. It i s c e r t a i n l y true that teaching, l i k e other a c t i v i t i e s , needs to be taught "by aid of p r a c t i c a l example and never s o l e l y by precept." Novice teachers need to see how an expert combines p a r t i c u l a r s into a s k i l f u l performance ( i t i s also h e l p f u l a f t e r an observation for the expert to t e l l the novice e x p l i c i t l y some of the things he or she was doing, because observation of a smooth performance does not always reveal i t s workings), and novices need to practise applying the e x p l i c i t precepts they are taught. Obviously one cannot concentrate on p a r t i c u l a r s (though novices and even experts do bring p a r t i c u l a r s into focus from time to time, reminding themselves, for instance, not to address the class u n t i l a l l noise has stopped) without producing a rather choppy performance. Theories and techniques cannot be c a l l e d up constantly; they recede into a smooth performance. G i l b e r t Ryle, in his book Concept of Mind (1949), says several things that are relevant to the present discussion. " F i r s t , there are many classes of performances i n which i n t e l l i g e n c e i s displayed, but the rules or c r i t e r i a of which are unformulated. The wit, when challenged to 116 c i t e the maxims or canons by which he constructs and appreciates jokes, i s unable to answer. He knows how to make good jokes, and how to detect bad ones, but he cannot t e l l us or himself any recipes for them. So the practice of humour is not a c l i e n t of i t s theory. The canons of aesthetic taste, of t a c t f u l manners and of inventive technique s i m i l a r l y remain unpropounded without impediment to the I n t e l l i g e n t exercise of these g i f t s " (p.30). Ryle goes on to say that rules of correct reasoning were f i r s t extracted by A r i s t o t l e and rules of good angling by Izaak Walton, but men knew how to reason and how to angle before t h i s : " E f f i c i e n t practice preceded the theory of i t ; methodologies presuppose the a p p l i c a t i o n of the methods, of the c r i t i c a l i n vestigation of which they are the products. It was because A r i s t o t l e found himself and others reasoning now i n t e l l i - gently and now s t u p i d l y and It was because Izaak Walton found himself and others angling sometimes e f f e c t i v e l y and sometimes i n e f f e c t i v e l y that both were able to give t h e i r pupils the maxims and prescriptions of t h e i r a r t s " (p.31). It might be added that there have been good teachers since long before the study of teaching, but because teachers teach i n t e l l i g e n t l y and stupidly, e f f e c t i v e l y and i n e f f e c t i v e l y , i t w i l l be h e l p f u l to novices and experienced teachers a l i k e to extract and communicate information about teachers' prac t i c e . This task i s i n no way opposed to the notion of a r t i s t r y in teaching, nor to the recognition that a well conducted, f r u i t f u l mathematics, biology or poetry lesson i s a personal achievement on the part of the teacher. The e x p l i c i t study of the p a r t i c u l a r s of teaching, and the separation of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values in the analysis of teachers' practice, can only help more teachers toward such personal achievements and benefit t h e i r students. If the d e t a i l s of a teacher's professional knowledge are made as e x p l i c i t as possible as he or she works to analyse some incident from or aspect of the teaching s i t u a t i o n , weaknesses and strengths in that professional knowledge should become more evident and thus more subject to change. As well, during such analysis information about how the teacher's values are a f f e c t i n g a s i t u a t i o n may come to l i g h t . Analysis of the teacher thinking l i t e r a t u r e in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n has shown that while values are an important motivating factor i n teachers' classroom actions and decisions, values have not been explored in any rigorous way by teacher thinking researchers. Part of the reason for t h i s is l i k e l y that many values are held t a c i t l y , and d i r e c t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of them does not seem an easy task. Thus the moral condition, an important part of the conception of the 1 teacher l a i d out in chapter two, i s inadequately served by the conception of the teacher which underlies the teacher thinking l i t e r a t u r e described thus f a r . The work done so far in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n has been to lay out a defensible conception of teaching, s p e c i f y i n g both learning conditions and a moral condition; to c r i t i c a l l y review studies of teacher decision making and teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge so as to explicate the conception of teaching which underlies t h i s work and forms the "hard core" of the teacher thinking research program; to evaluate t h i s conception according to the conception l a i d out in chapter two; and to explore the idea of t a c i t knowing as i t applies to research into teacher thinking. The idea of values has arisen again and again, as i t had been demonstrated that the complex area of values, both moral and non-moral, both personal and i n s t i t u t i o n a l , is suggested but not investigated i n teacher thinking research. It has been recommended that values be taken as a focus for research into teacher thinking. It i s time now to focus on the concept of values and to examine some of the many d i f f i c u l t questions which may a r i s e during study of the moral aspects of teaching. The concept of values may need c l a r i f i c a t i o n so that i n v e s t i g a t i o n of values can proceed more e a s i l y . In the next chapter t h i s Investigation i s undertaken, and important research questions related to values are suggested. 119 Chapter Bight Investigation o£ the Concept of Values and the Relation of Values to Teacher Thinking Studies of practical knowledge have extended into the realm of values but have failed to make a clear distinction between knowledge and values. Questions about the factors that motivate and Influence teachers' classroom decisions often lead to the idea of values. Values and beliefs come to light through interviews, observations and analyses of teachers' practice. Teachers' values have not been investigated in any focussed way, however. Several reasons have been suggested in previous chapters for this lack of attention by researchers to values. One reason appears to be that the conception of teaching which underlies the teacher thinking literature presents the teacher's thinking as being devoted basically to the two areas of instruction and classroom management. These are seen as the main areas of concern. Values are not portrayed as being of major importance for teachers. This is less true in the practical knowledge work, which does suggest value questions, but s t i l l these studies do not pursue the value questions they raise. The conception of the teacher within the hard core of the teacher thinking 120 research program generates a kind of taboo which does not allow for the in-depth i n v e s t i g a t i o n of values. Another possible reason may be the d i f f i c u l t y of studying values because teachers' values are "contextualized" and expressed in the classroom in ways that may not match the values teachers e x p l i c i t l y espouse. Related to t h i s i s the idea that many values are held t a c i t l y , and that a r t i c u l a t i o n of them i s d i f f i c u l t and would at any rate give an inadequate representation. Thus there has been l i t t l e empirical work done on teachers' values, and l i t t l e philosophical work on the concept of value i t s e l f , though i t i s a term much used by philosophers. Before examining the li m i t e d empirical work that has been done, Investigation of the concept of values i s i n order. Daniels (1975) found that there are few "recent and competent accounts of the concept of a value although...the terra "value" (and i t s cognates) are frequently used i n philosophical l i t e r a t u r e , i n the s o c i a l sciences and in pedagogical l i t e r a t u r e " (p.31-32). Two accounts that Daniels did f i n d adequate were by Taylor (1961) and Baler (1969). The views of these authors and several others w i l l be referred to l a t e r i n the present account. There are several usages of 'value' i n which the term i s roughly equivalent to 'worth', whether monetary or non-monetary. A l l of the following sentences use value to mean worth: 121 She doesn't know the value of a d o l l a r . What Is the value of his farm? I place great value on our friendship. I have learned the value of regular exercise. In music: What i s the value of a half note i n three quarter time? In algebra: What i s the value of x? 'Value' can be used as a verb in sentences l i k e "I value your company" to mean appreciate or see as worthwhile. There i s also, in philosophical writing, much talk of 'value judgements' and 'value terms' or 'value expressions'. Some frequently used value terms are 'good', 'ought' and 'right', though, as Hare (1952) says, "almost every word in our language i s capable of being used on occasion as a value-word (that i s , commending or i t s opposite)" (p.80). Value terms are words we use to indicate that something has or lacks value according to some standard: A "good" boy i s good in accordance with some set of rules about how boys ought to behave, and " I t wasn't ri g h t for you to treat him that way" refers i m p l i c i t l y to some standards of how one ought to treat other people. In value judgements ( l i k e the two sentences just mentioned) we use value terms to pronounce on the value of things according to some standards. There are moral and non-moral value judgements. In moral value judgements the standards of goodness or rightness referred to w i l l be moral p r i n c i p l e s . Hare (1952) says that "the function of moral p r i n c i p l e s i s to guide conduct" ( p . l ) . In philosophical and educational l i t e r a t u r e people's 'values' are often referred to. 'Values' used in t h i s way i s a c o l l e c t i v e term for those p r i n c i p l e s which one holds dear and which one sees as having worth. Taylor (1961) says that "a person's values include a l l the standards and rules which together make up his way of l i f e . They define his ideals and l i f e goals...They are the standards and rules according to which he evaluates things and prescribes acts, as well as the standards and rules he l i v e s by, whether or not he i s aware of them" (p. 297-298). Baier (1969) says that "...someone holds or subscribes to some p a r t i c u l a r value V (e.g., achievement, work, altruism, comfort, equality, t h r i f t , f r i e n d s h i p ) . When we say t h i s sort of thing of an i n d i v i d u a l or a whole society, we impute to that i n d i v i d u a l or that s o c i e t y a favourable a t t i t u d e toward the r e a l i z a t i o n of various states of a f f a i r s ; we vaguely indicate those states of a f f a i r s by the value name, "V", and we imply that he has t h i s favourable attitude because he expects (more or less e x p l i c i t l y ) that the r e a l i z a t i o n of these states of a f f a i r s makes some favourable difference to someone's l i f e , not necessarily that of the value holder himself" (p.54). 123 i n t h i s way values d i f f e r from b e l i e f s . Values are always (by d e f i n i t i o n ) normative, but b e l i e f s need not be so. Most values could be stated as b e l i e f s ("I believe that abortion i s wrong", "I believe in teaching c h i l d r e n to be independent") but the reverse i s not the case ("I believe that the sun i s a star in the Milky Way" and "I believe that he w i l l return home s a f e l y " ) . There are b e l i e f s related to values, and empirical b e l i e f s . Baier (1969) says that values d i f f e r from b e l i e f s because the subject matter of values i s "the good l i f e " and how to come closer to i t . The concept of "the good l i f e " w i l l be examined more c l o s e l y momentarily. In terms of b e l i e f s , teachers' b e l i e f s , l i k e those of other people, w i l l be related to values and to the empirical world. Value-related b e l i e f s , which In t h i s discussion w i l l be referred to as i d e n t i c a l with the values themselves, might be about the rightness or wrongness of various sorts of punishment, or the Importance of not embarasslng or using sarcasm on a c h i l d . These values, though s i n c e r e l y held, might not be acted on when the stresses of the classroom c a l l up the teacher's anger or Impatience. He or she may s u f f e r from a g u i l t y conscience or f e e l i n g of f a i l u r e . Or these values may c o n f l i c t with i n s t i t u t i o n a l ones. Despite a teacher's b e l i e f i n the importance of childr e n learning cooperation through working in groups, he or she may be concerned that the noise l e v e l in the c l a s s does not meet school standards, and thus might c u r t a i l any group work. To give a more concrete example, t h i s author c l e a r l y remembers, s t i l l with some pain, how the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l entered her classroom and strongly reprimanded and humiliated one of her students for a misdemeanor which neither the student nor the teacher considered at a l l serious. Aware that she was expected not to undermine the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l ' s authority, and aware also that the student had broken a school r u l e , she d i d not speak up for the student, and suffered profound pangs of conscience. As for teachers' empirical b e l i e f s , these could r e l a t e to the e f f i c a c y of d i f f e r e n t methods of i n s t r u c t i o n (Aileen's "Language as the Key" seems to belong here) or they could, perhaps not quite consciously, r e l a t e to the capacities of g i r l s and boys or c h i l d r e n from d i f f e r e n t backgrounds. It is easy to see how, in a teacher's practice, the teacher's empirical b e l i e f s can have ramifications in the realm of values and morality, because his or her actions, motivated to a large extent by b e l i e f s , have profound e f f e c t s on the students. One l a s t point may be made about b e l i e f s , and i t applies also to values. The b e l i e f s of adults are, i d e a l l y , r a t i o n a l l y formed and held. While we 'absorb' b e l i e f s and values as c h i l d r e n , we should as we grow into independent thinkers learn to evaluate the grounds on which we hold b e l i e f s and values. Peters (1974) says that "we can understand r a t i o n a l behavior and b e l i e f as informed by general rules...Rational behavior and b e l i e f spring from the 125 r e c o g n i t i o n , i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t , t h a t c e r t a i n general c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are grounds f o r a c t i o n and b e l i e f (p.121). The r a t i o n a l man "has t o r e s o l v e and remove any p u t a t i v e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s between h i s e x i s t i n g b e l i e f s and assumptions and any d i s c r e p a n t 'incoming' experiences or pieces of in f o r m a t i o n " (p.125). To do such e v a l u a t i o n b e l i e f s and values must be brought forward f o r conscious examination, something t h a t teachers may not o f t e n have the chance to do. C o n s t r a i n t s of time as w e l l as the establishment of r o u t i n e s and h a b i t u a l patterns of behavior may a c t a g a i n s t teachers engaging i n r e f l e c t i o n on the ki n d of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s t h a t Peters mentions. Dewey (1932) gives an e x c e l l e n t d e s c r i p t i o n of the e a r l y a c q u i s i t i o n of v a l u e s , b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s and the l a t e r consequences i f one i s u n r e f l e c t i v e : " . . . h a b i t s of l i k i n g and d i s l i k i n g are formed e a r l y i n l i f e , p r i o r to a b i l i t y t o use d i s c r i m i n a t i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e . P r e j u d i c e s , unconscious biases are generated; one i s uneven i n h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n of esteem and ad m i r a t i o n ; he i s unduly s e n s i t i v e t o some va l u e s , r e l a t i v e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o ot h e r s . He i s s e t i n h i s ways, and h i s immediate a p p r e c i a t i o n s t r a v e l i n the grooves l a i d down by h i s unconsciously formed h a b i t s . Hence the spontaneous " i n t u i t i o n s " of value have to be e n t e r t a i n e d s u b j e c t t o c o r r e c t i o n , to c o n f i r m a t i o n and r e v i s i o n , by personal observation of consequences and c r o s s - q u e s t i o n i n g of t h e i r q u a l i t y 126 and scope" (p.132). Dewey recommends d e l i b e r a t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n as an al t e r n a t i v e to habituated ac t i o n . C l e a r l y r e f l e c t i o n i s linked to such ideas as r o u t i n l z a t i o n , decision making and values. Reflection w i l l be explored in a l a t e r chapter of th i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . To return to Baler's notion of "the good l i f e " , t h i s can be defined as l i f e as i t would be i f s p e c i f i c circumstances and attitudes were generally present. Many people share many values, and my v i s i o n of "the good l i f e " might be quite s i m i l a r to yours. It i s l i k e l y , for instance, that we would both choose for our ideal world the condition that people not be prematurely k i l l e d , p h y s i c a l l y injured or emotionally battered, because we value human l i f e . The sa n c t i t y of human l i f e i s one of our values, a p r i n c i p l e that we would l i k e to uphold and would l i k e others to uphold. We are quick to condemn regimes or persons who f l a g r a n t l y defy t h i s p r i n c i p l e . On other points we might d i f f e r . I might f e e l that the l i v e s of animals are valuable, and be against the k i l l i n g of animals for food, whereas you might agree that animals should not be used i n medical experiments but should be raised for food. Though many (perhaps most) of my values w i l l probably be i n accord with the p r e v a i l i n g s o c i e t a l values, there w i l l frequently be clashes between the values of persons or groups, and the 127 p r e v a i l i n g s o c i e t a l values. Such clashes f u e l p o l i t i c a l discussion. Returning to the p r i n c i p l e of the s a n c t i t y of human l i f e , there are probably few people who would claim not to hold t h i s value, and i f discussion of people's values did not go beyond such general statements of p r i n c i p l e i t might be rather uninteresting. The study of people's values in the context of t h e i r l i v e s , however, suggests c o n f l i c t s between the values held by d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , between in d i v i d u a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l values, between e x p l i c i t l y stated and t a c i t l y or even subconsciously held values, and between the actions that one's values d i c t a t e and the immediate demands of various s i t u a t i o n s . Many d i f f i c u l t decisions may be c a l l e d f o r . To what lengths w i l l I go to uphold the p r i n c i p l e of the s a n c t i t y of human l i f e ? W i l l i endanger my own l i f e for others'? W i l l I, a German c i t i z e n during World war Two, hide a Jewish family i n my a t t i c ? W i l l I, an a f f l u e n t North American in the 1980's, reduce my consumption of food, goods and energy in the in t e r e s t s of t h i r d world people who may be dying because of world economic imbalance? On a more mundane l e v e l , to what extent w i l l I, in my d a i l y interactions, g r a t i f y my ego or choose an expedient course at the expense of another's feelings? What values do I r e a l l y express in my d a l l y l i f e , and to what extent do these coincide with the values which I a r t i c u l a t e and claim to hold? This could be an extremely useful question for a teacher to pose to herself, and an 128 important focus for researchers working in classrooms with teachers to take. It i s l i k e l y that d i s p a r i t i e s would become evident, because the "exigencies of p r a c t i c e " may compel teachers to act on some basis other than t h e i r own values. It i s also possible that teachers a c t u a l l y hold and act on some values of which they are l a r g e l y unaware. Empirical studies of teachers' values are very few in number, p a r t l y , no doubt, because of the d i f f i c u l t y involved in i s o l a t i n g and a r t i c u l a t i n g values. There may also be some reluctance to tackle t h i s topic because values are l a r g e l y seen in our s o c i e t y to be personal, a matter of 'one's own business'. It i s not d i f f i c u l t to fi n d references to teachers and values, but these usually turn out to concern the purposeful teaching of values by teachers, and related e t h i c a l and methodological problems. General discussion of teachers and values often mentions the idea of value c o n f l i c t s . Hartnett and Maish (1976), for instance, say that "the teacher has to be se n s i t i v e to the values of the group he teaches, and to his own values. In addition, he has to consider the values of other teachers in his school, the senior teachers, inspectors, and l o c a l education a u t h o r i t i e s . There may be confusion and c o n f l i c t s within each or a l l of these groups" (p.183). Hartnett and Naish suggest that "What are required are empirical studies of educational organizations which cope at the conceptual and methodological l e v e l s with the 129 i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between knowledge, values, organizational structures, and the Individual l e v e l of a n a l y s i s " (p.188). Another topic discussed under the general heading of teachers and values i s teachers as transmitters of s o c i e t a l values, often addressed in writing on the "hidden curriculum". Teachers* i n d i v i d u a l values and how these f i n d expression in t h e i r teaching are mentioned much less often and very seldom studied. One study that does shed some l i g h t on t h i s area was done by Sharp and Green (1975). They looked at the values teachers professed and compared these with the observational evidence from t h e i r classrooms. They found a considerable gap between the values professed by a group of teachers at a "progressive" English primary school, and the evidence of the classroom practice of these teachers. Sharp and Green see s o c i e t a l forces at work in t h i s c o n f l i c t and through t h e i r study " t r i e d to i l l u s t r a t e some of the structures of the broader context of the teachers' practice which tend to lead to consequences which b e l i e both the moral commitments and the causes they appear to have adopted and profess" ( p . v i i ) . The teachers i n t h i s study professed the b e l i e f that a l l c h i l d r e n should be seen as equal and can learn to work independently and f l o u r i s h i n t e l l e c t u a l l y i n a r i c h educational environment. The teachers claimed to value the teaching of such independence. The study found that i n fact the teachers held strong class biases and treated t h e i r students d i f f e r e n t l y according to t h e i r behavior and the 130 kind o£ home they came from, preventing or hindering the development of educational independence i n many cases. Sharp and Green say that while "the teachers d i s p l a y a moral concern that every c h i l d matters, i n practice there i s a subtle process of sponsorship developing where opportunity i s being offered to some and closed off to others" (p.218). Sharp and Green saw these teachers acting, v i r t u a l l y unconsciously, as agents of t h e i r society's c l a s s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , in spi t e of the b e l i e f in eq u a l i t y that they professed. There i s other l i t e r a t u r e concerning the contribution of schools to s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and the categorization of students by teachers (for example, Breton, 1970; Clcourel and Kitsuse, 1963), and while t h i s l i t e r a t u r e does r e l a t e to the general discussion of teachers and values, i t tends to focus on teachers as transmitters of s o c i e t a l values rather than examining i n d i v i d u a l teachers' personal values. There are, of course, many connections between teachers' i n d i v i d u a l values and s o c i e t a l or school values, and there may well be clashes of value between the personal and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l . McNair (1978-9), i n the conclusions to her study of teachers' " i n f l i g h t " decisions alludes to the clash of teachers' values with i n s t i t u t i o n a l values but, t a n t a l i z i n g l y , these remarks are not elaborated upon. She says, 1 "These teachers are strong and unique i n d i v i d u a l s . As we met with them and talked with them, t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s stood out c l e a r l y . As they taught, however, we had the impression that their actions and th e i r thoughts were constrained by the normative a c t i v i t y of the public school. The currents of society are powerful and within them the tides of schooling ebb and flow. Rarely is the flow disrupted and new currents developed by the p a r t i c i p a n t s " (p.42). McNair seems to be suggesting that these teachers were adhering to values of school and society even when t h e i r own values t o l d them to act d i f f e r e n t l y , and doing t h e i r best to balance these sometimes opposing views. While these "adjustments" may be done almost I n s t i n c t i v e l y , that i s , with l i t t l e r e f l e c t i o n , i t does seem that the c o n f l i c t s McNair suggests would be conscious sources of c o n f l i c t to the teachers; however she does not report questioning them about these c o n f l i c t s . Hargreaves (1979) says t h i s about teachers' values: "When teachers are asked to di s p l a y t h e i r values (to researchers, colleagues, parents, e t c . ) , they doubtless f e e l constrained by that s i t u a t i o n to express t h e i r ideals and to assert a strong degree of coherence, consistency and integration among those values. Practice w i l l not be a simple r e f l e c t i o n of those values because practice arises in a d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n which has a quite d i f f e r e n t structure and set of constraints" (p.80). Hargreaves contrasts the 132 •abstract' values that one might a r t i c u l a t e l y express with the 'contextualized' values which are embedded i n a teachers' prac t i c e . This i s an important i n s i g h t . Clandinin's "images'' seem very suggestive i f we view them as expressions of her subjects' contextualized values, rather than as representations of t h e i r p r a c t i c a l knowledge. "The classroom as home", "Language as the key" (Clandinin 1986) and "Teaching as r e l a t i n g to c h i l d r e n " (Clandinin 1987) c e r t a i n l y have implications for how the teachers to whom they are a t t r i b u t e d w i l l conduct t h e i r classrooms, but rather than encapsulating knowledge these "images" say something about what these teachers value. Elbaz (1981) says as much: "The image i s generally imbued with a judgement of value and constitutes a guide to the I n t u i t i v e r e a l i z a t i o n of the teacher's purposes" (p.61). Later she describes images as a combination of "the teacher's f e e l i n g s , values, needs and b e l i e f s " (1983, p.134). In analysing one's own practice a teacher might well benefit from bringing the values that are embedded in practice into focus, comparing them with expressed values and pondering any disjuncture that might be found. The teacher might also find that there are c o n f l i c t s between personal values and the values of the school. It i s possible that the idea of "image" could be helpful in bringing personal values into focus. The formulation of "images", with the help of an i n s i g h t f u l researcher or fellow teacher, could be an intermediate step, •helping' t a c i t l y or even subconsciously held values come forward in metaphoric expression. Some of the contextualized values that a teacher may reveal in his or her practice may be said to be held t a c i t l y , in that they may never have been s p e c i f i c a l l y formulated or a r t i c u l a t e d , but there i s no reason to assume that they cannot be brought into focus for examination. Indeed, i f a teacher is to c l e a r l y examine and evaluate personal values and b e l i e f s and the grounds on which he or she holds them, c l e a r , non-metaphoric a r t i c u l a t i o n would seem to be e s s e n t i a l . Hargreaves (1979) says that " i t i s a research task to analyse p r e c i s e l y how values are, often t a c i t l y , embedded in a c t i o n " (p.80). No studies were discovered that were designed s p e c i f i c a l l y for t h i s purpose, but the stimulated r e c a l l method, as well as observations and open ended interviews, might prove useful in the design of such studies. Many questions a r i s e i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teachers' values. In what ways do teachers' values clash with i n s t i t u t i o n a l values? In what ways do teachers' 'contextualized* values clash with the 'abstract' values that they openly express? How can contextualized values be made e x p l i c i t so that they can be examined? Do the values teachers hold change with teaching experience, or are they quite stable throughout a teacher's career? If they do change, what factors i n the school or in other areas of teachers' l i v e s act to change them? These are a l l research questions which merit study. If teachers are to r e f l e c t on the i r practice, r e f l e c t i n g on the values they hold and how and to what extent those values f i n d expression i n t h e i r teaching would be a useful vehicle for teachers to change t h e i r p r a c t i c e . Novice teachers could also benefit by such r e f l e c t i o n . Another question that a r i s e s in the general discussion of values and schools i s whether people have the ri g h t to t r y to change or impose upon the values held by others. S p e c i f i c a l l y , do school administrators have the ri g h t to t r y to change teachers' values, or to impose on teachers methods or materials that c o n f l i c t strongly with the values they hold? The r e c i t a t i o n of the Lord's Prayer and d a i l y Bible reading are required by the Public Schools Act in B r i t i s h Columbia, but many teachers do not comply with t h i s law, finding i t to be in c o n f l i c t with t h e i r own values. P r i n c i p a l s tend to "turn a b l i n d eye" and do not attempt to enforce the r u l e . If they d i d a d i f f i c u l t question of values would have to be resolved. Some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s that have a r i s e n in getting teachers to implement new programs may re l a t e to value c o n f l i c t s . Study of s p e c i f i c cases of implementation problems with values as a major focus might prove u s e f u l . As well, philosophical investigation of value questions in schools should be done in a more focused and rigorous way. The question of whether schools have the r i g h t to require students to p a r t i c i p a t e in a c t i v i t i e s that c o n f l i c t with 135 t h e i r values or the values of t h e i r families a r i s e s p e r i o d i c a l l y , but the question of teachers' values i s seldom addressed except when gross v i o l a t i o n of s o c i e t a l values by a teacher comes to l i g h t . The question of how to study teachers' values remains a d i f f i c u l t one. R e f l e c t i o n by teachers on t h e i r p ractice, with the help of researchers or fellow teachers, might help to bring values into focus. Oberg (1986) recommends that s p e c i f i c instances of classroom practice be analyzed. "These are the overt manifestations of b e l i e f s and values underlying teachers' actions that are often i m p l i c i t and d i f f i c u l t to verbalize...When verbalized they sometimes become detached from t h e i r r e f e r e n t i a l actions, and we f i n d a discrepancy between what teachers say they believe and aim for, and the b e l i e f s and aims that are Implied i n t h e i r professional actions. Only a f t e r describing and analyzing actual instances of practice does the teacher begin to delve beneath observable behaviors to the meaning of her actions." (p.3) It might be e s p e c i a l l y useful for teachers to focus on classroom instances in which they experience some c o n f l i c t or dilemma, for here there may be a clash between the teacher's values and those of the school, or between the teacher's values and the immediate p r a c t i c a l demands of the s i t u a t i o n . Or a teacher may experience c o n f l i c t because he or she lacks the knowledge of p r a c t i c a l ways to bring some value to f r u i t i o n in the classroom. The teacher may, for example, want children to become more independent, but not know quite how to structure lessons to help bring t h i s about. The confluence of a teacher's values and knowledge could be a valuable entry point for understanding that teacher's p r a c t i c e . R ealization and a r t i c u l a t i o n of personal values may help teachers to see more c l e a r l y the areas in which t h e i r professional knowledge i s inadequate, that they may remedy t h i s by appropriate study or discussion with other teachers. In summarizing the po s i t i o n established i n t h i s chapter, 'value' i s a term generally used to mean worth. Used as a verb i t can be used to mean appreciate or see as worthy. Value judgements are statements which evaluate according to some standards. There are moral and non-moral value judgements, moral value judgements r e f e r r i n g to moral p r i n c i p l e s about human conduct as standards. 'Values' i s a term used to refer to p r i n c i p l e s held dear or seen as worthwhile by a person or group of people, and they relate to a v i s i o n of "the good l i f e " . Values d i f f e r from b e l i e f s in that a person can have b e l i e f s r e l a t i n g to values and b e l i e f s r e l a t i n g to the empirical world. While we as adults should i d e a l l y hold both our values and our b e l i e f s r a t i o n a l l y , examining the grounds on which we hold them and weighing them against c o n f l i c t i n g incoming evidence, we do not always have the time, i n c l i n a t i o n or motivation to do so. As well, values and b e l i e f s may be held t a c i t l y or even unconsciously, and need to be brought into focus for our examination. Investigation 137 o£ teachers' values may present considerable methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s , but the study of values would seem to be es s e n t i a l i f researchers wish to understand teachers' thinking. As well, a r t i c u l a t i o n of personal values would help teachers to analyse and change t h e i r own pra c t i c e . The concept of decision appears to be too narrow to shed much l i g h t on value questions. "Personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" studies have given r i c h descriptions of teachers' thinking and th e i r l i v e s in classrooms but have tended, though they are very d e s c r i p t i v e , to of f e r i n s u f f i c i e n t a n a l y s i s , f a i l i n g to make the important separation between knowledge, values and b e l i e f s i n the data they report. As well, t h i s work tends to lay too heavy a stress on the notion of t a c i t knowledge, and perhaps for t h i s reason has not asked many of the "Why?" questions suggested by the data. The question seems to be how to get at t h i s t a c i t material and the confusing, contextualized mix of knowledge, values and b e l i e f s which each teacher holds. There i s no current research which takes t h i s focus, but recent attention to the notion of r e f l e c t i o n by teachers on t h e i r practice may represent a methodological advancement which w i l l allow greater access to t h i s material. The idea of teachers r e f l e c t i n g in a focussed way on t h e i r practice and on t h e i r values brings teachers into an equal partnership with researchers in the study of teacher thinking. The people who can shed the most l i g h t on t h e i r thinking is teachers themselves, with the probing and guidance of researchers or fellow teachers. The people who can benefit the most from understanding t h e i r own thinking i s teachers themselves, and ultimately t h e i r students. Only they can change t h e i r own practice, improve the q u a l i t y of th e i r teaching, bring about learning i n t h e i r students more e f f e c t i v e l y and make decisions in the moral realm with greater understanding. As well as having other people t r y to understand them, i t w i l l be productive for them to understand themselves. R e f l e c t i o n as a research focus seems to be a new move in the study of teacher thinking, one which involves the teacher as never before and which has the po t e n t i a l to explore value questions and better serve the moral condition of teaching. Re f l e c t i o n must be focussed to be productive, however. The notion of r e f l e c t i o n bears examination, and th i s task i s undertaken i n the next chapter. 139 Chapter wine The Role of Reflection This d i s s e r t a t i o n began with the la y i n g out of a conception of teaching which entailed the following things: that the Intention of teaching i s to bring about learning; that the content, methods and materials selected must be appropriate to the cognitive state of the l e a r n e r ( s ) ; that teachers' lessons must in some way embody or express to the learner(s) that which Is to be taught; and that teaching i s an a c t i v i t y or occupation which occurs in the moral realm, so teachers' interactions with students must conform to moral p r i n c i p l e s , e s p e c i a l l y respect for persons. In t h i s conception teachers' personal and educational values are of c e n t r a l Importance. This was suggested as an e n t i r e l y defensible conception, and used as a basis for evaluating the conception of teaching which underlies studies of teacher thinking. Investigation of selected studies from the program of research on teacher thinking revealed that at the "hard core" of t h i s research program i s a conception of teaching which accords with the one given above except i n one major way: teachers' values are given only peripheral treatment. Value questions are suggested by much of the research reviewed, but they are not addressed or are addressed in an unfocussed way. There appears to be a b u i l t in taboo against the in-depth i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teachers' values. There are several possible reasons for t h i s : 1) There are serious methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in the study of teachers' values. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these may be exaggerated because of a b e l i e f that since many values are held t a c i t l y , they cannot be a r t i c u l a t e d by teachers and therefore cannot be investigated. 2) Personal values may be seen as a matter of "one's own business", an area into which researchers have no ri g h t to probe. 3) Values may simply be seen as unimportant compared to matters d i r e c t l y related to knowledge and learning. 4) The Importance of values may have been overlooked because of the b e l i e f s which form the hard core of t h i s research program, that i s , that the important things to know about teachers concern i n s t r u c t i o n and classroom management. Any or a l l of these reasons may apply, and there is no empirical basis on which to judge which, l f any, are accurate. With respect to the f i r s t , i t would seem that methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s could be surmounted, given the ingenuity of researchers. The s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and v a r i e t y of research techniques a v a i l a b l e would seem to allow for at least some success In Investigating values, even those which may be held t a c i t l y or subconsciously. However, i f the b e l i e f i s f i r m l y held that t a c i t material cannot be a r t i c u l a t e d , researchers might not even t r y to overcome methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s . The second and t h i r d p o s s i b i l t i e s l i s t e d above, that values may be seen as a matter of "one's own business" or may simply be seen as unimportant, can both be answered with the same argument. Since teaching i s an a c t i v i t y in the moral realm, i n that i t has to do with interactions between people, values are not only important but absolutely c e n t r a l . Furthermore, teachers are accountable to the public for t h e i r actions and they must be able to j u s t i f y them. This does not mean baring one's soul at a town meeting, but i t does mean teachers need to have a clea r idea of t h e i r own and others' value structures, and of what i s involved i n defending value postures, so that they can defend t h e i r actions as teachers i n t e l l i g e n t l y and with understanding. Explaining the basis on which decisions are made w i l l n ecessarily involve values. It w i l l not work to say that teaching can be value-free and that teachers can keep t h e i r values to themselves and not express them in t h e i r teaching. We are the embodiment of our values, as well as our knowledge and b e l i e f s , and our decisions, actions and reactions in the classroom w i l l express our values. As well as being morally and p u b l i c l y accountable, which w i l l involve a r t i c u l a t i n g values, teachers should also be committed to ongoing professional development and growth. An important part of professional development should be focussing on and a r t i c u l a t i n g values so that teachers can understand how values a f f e c t teaching and can thus change with awareness. It was argued e a r l i e r in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n that i f the basic goal of research into teaching i s to improve practice, then investigation of teachers' values should be ca r r i e d out, because values are one of the important factors which motivate teachers' classroom decisions and actions. No matter how much researchers know about what "expert" teachers do or what the content of in t e r a c t i v e decisions i s , no matter how many recommendations from research f i l t e r down into professional day a c t i v i t i e s , i t i s only teachers themselves who can change t h e i r own pra c t i c e . They must be intimately involved i n the research process i f they are to understand what they themselves are doing and why. This might be stated as "teacher thinking from the i n s i d e " . I_ want to understand my own thinking, rather than just describing i t to the researcher so he or she can t r y to understand i t . The notion of r e f l e c t i o n on practice seems to capture t h i s idea, and also to of f e r a way of "getting a t " teachers' values. The remainder of t h i s chapter w i l l investigate the notion of r e f l e c t i o n on pra c t i c e . 143 A. The concept of r e f l e c t i o n Discussions of what teachers know, how teachers can improve t h e i r practice and find more s a t i s f a c t i o n , and how novice teachers can be more e f f e c t i v e l y trained, often include the notion that teachers should be r e f l e c t i v e . 'Reflective' means in c l i n e d toward r e f l e c t i o n , and examination of the concept of r e f l e c t i o n is a useful f i r s t step in exploring the notion of r e f l e c t i o n by teachers on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . The word r e f l e c t i o n and i t s cognates have two basic sets of meanings. The f i r s t set is i l l u s t r a t e d in the following sentences: The sun's warmth r e f l e c t s off the white, south facing wall of my house, giving me the e a r l i e s t tomatoes in the neighborhood. She stopped to look at her r e f l e c t i o n in the department store window. The behavior of those boys at the track meet i s a poor r e f l e c t i o n on the school. Her a b i l i t y i s not r e f l e c t e d i n her marks. I couldn't see his eyes, for he wore r e f l e c t i v e sunglasses. While a l l of these involve somewhat d i f f e r e n t meanings, they do have some q u a l i t i e s in common. A l l Include the idea of an e x i s t i n g state, object or condition, and the 144 r e f l e c t i o n involves some rebounding off or producing an image of t h i s state, object or condition. Another set of uses of the word r e f l e c t i o n involves mental r e f l e c t i o n , and i t i s mental r e f l e c t i o n that is of i n t e r e s t here. What does i t mean to say that teachers need the time and the propensity to r e f l e c t on t h e i r work? What would I do i f I sat down to r e f l e c t on my teaching? Would I simply think about i t ? Is r e f l e c t i n g the same as thinking? Actually i t often seems as i f I think about my work night and day. Thoughts of report cards, Christmas concerts and students' problems crowd my mind unwanted when I brush my teeth or t r y to go to sleep. This sort of random and untidy thinking is not r e f l e c t i o n , though r e f l e c t i o n does involve some sort of thinking. I might, i f I had the time or took the time, r e f l e c t on my work several times a day. This would involve some very "thoughtful thinking". I can remember s i t t i n g at my desk watching my students as they worked, a moment of quiet in a hectic day, and r e f l e c t i n g on how I f e l t about them. E a r l i e r in the day I had been angry at them for excess noise and unfinished work, but a few moments' r e f l e c t i o n brought me to my deeper feelings of a f f e c t i o n and pride, and put that p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t morning into a larger context. An important factor here i s time. Even i f the time amounts to only a few minutes, r e f l e c t i o n i s not done in a hurried way. It involves removing oneself from the action, taking a "time-out" and going on a l e i s u r e l y journey through one's thoughts. As I sat at ray desk r e f l e c t i n g for a short time, the tension of a busy afternoon subsided and I gained a clearer perspective as I brought to mind thoughts and feelings about my students and my work as a whole. Ref l e c t i o n of t h i s sort often helps to solve an immediate c o n f l i c t or problem by placing present events i n a larger context. New connections and associations between ideas may occur. By saying that r e f l e c t i o n involves a l e i s u r e l y journey through one's thoughts I do not mean that i t necessarily takes much time. A sentence l i k e , "Upon r e f l e c t i o n , I decided that the plan was too dangerous" could imply only that I thought for a short time about the plan, but t h i s thinking was focussed and c a r e f u l , and the time I spent on i t was "time out" from whatever pressures were weighing on me. The statement, "I never have time to r e f l e c t on my work" seems to imply that l f I did r e f l e c t i t might help me to solve some problems, resolve some c o n f l i c t , gain understanding or produce some new ideas for acti o n . It might heal some mental unease or confusion. It might also s t a r t or re s t a r t a creative process of connecting and a s s i m i l a t i n g ideas. It seems also that r e f l e c t i o n would be done rather dispassionately, although one might "pass through" feelings of anger or exhultation as he or she looked back on an experience. It does not seem ri g h t to say that he r e f l e c t e d i n a rage, or t h a t she engaged i n e c s t a t i c r e f l e c t i o n . The n o t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n c a r r i e s w i t h I t some sense of d i s c o n n e c t i n g from s t r o n g emotions, seeing "the l a r g e r p i c t u r e " and perhaps working through t o some r e s o l u t i o n . One removes oneself from involvement w i t h the madding crowd i n order to ponder and ga i n c l a r i t y . I f we were to attend the f u n e r a l of our o l d f r i e n d Joe Smith, the m i n i s t e r might say, "Let us r e f l e c t f o r a moment on the l i f e of Joe Smith." We might a l l c l o s e our eyes and r e f l e c t f o r a few minutes i n s i l e n c e , each rev i e w i n g our s p e c i a l memories of o l d Joe, summing up h i s l i f e and our f e e l i n g s about him, and making peace with h i s memory so t h a t we can each i n our own way l a y him t o r e s t . I f the m i n i s t e r begins to speak a f t e r suggesting that we r e f l e c t , he might o f f e r h i s own memories of Joe and recount a few f a v o r i t e s t o r i e s . During h i s t a l k we w i l l make our own mental a s s o c i a t i o n s and c a l l up memories, making the r e f l e c t i o n personal even l f i t i s guided. Indeed, r e f l e c t i o n must always be a personal experience, because we each have our own memories, f e e l i n g s and experiences connected with even a p u b l i c event. R e f l e c t i o n i s personal but i t can be s t i m u l a t e d by d i s c u s s i o n with o t h e r s . The m i n i s t e r a t Joe Smith's f u n e r a l might s t i m u l a t e us t o r e f l e c t more deeply than we might otherwise have done. The sentence used e a r l i e r about the dangerous pl a n could e a s i l y be reworded t o read, "Upon r e f l e c t i o n , we_ decided th a t the plan was too dangerous", implying that as we each did our own focussed, c a r e f u l thinking we also exchanged ideas. Reflection i s personal but discussion with others can make i t more f r u i t f u l . Religious or philosophical r e f l e c t i o n , in which one might r e f l e c t on the nature of God, man and the universe, i s also personal, as we draw upon our own experiences and backgrounds to decide on the tru t h of various r e l i g i o u s or philosophical p r i n c i p l e s . The notion of a r r i v i n g at or at lea s t aiming for some tru t h or some resolution seems to be involved in r e f l e c t i o n . From t h i s discussion several general ideas emerge: mental r e f l e c t i o n can be seen as "thoughtful thinking", and i t involves c a l l i n g up knowledge, fe e l i n g s , memories and opinions connected with a c e r t a i n t o p i c . R e f l e c t i o n i s about something s p e c i f i c ; i t i s not just the free flow of thoughts as in a "day-dream". It i s not random and untidy, though one's thoughts may range quite f r e e l y and new connections may be made. The goal of r e f l e c t i o n may be the so l u t i o n to a problem, the awareness of what action needs to be taken in some s i t u a t i o n , the achievement of peace of mind, the r e a l i z a t i o n of some tru t h or the a r r i v a l at some re s o l u t i o n . The time spent on r e f l e c t i o n could be only a few minutes, but r e f l e c t i n g i s done at an unhurried pace. It i s also done dispassionately, although feelings may be "passed through" during r e f l e c t i o n . Reflection can concern public issues but is always personal because each person draws on his or her own experiences, thoughts and f e e l i n g s . Nevertheless, 148 r e f l e c t i o n can be made more f r u i t f u l by the constructive exchange of ideas with others. It i s not d i f f i c u l t to conceive of a teacher doing many other kinds of thinking. One may experience an endless run-on of non-productive thoughts related to teaching p r a c t i c e . One may engage in s e l f recrimination and g u i l t when things do not go as he or she would l i k e them to. One may fantasize about t e l l i n g off the p r i n c i p a l or daydream about how nice the class would be i f only one or two d i f f i c u l t c h i l d r e n were gone. One may engage in very s p e c i f i c and immediate problem solving, such as how to break up the playground f i g h t or when to move from blackboard explanation to notebook p r a c t i c e . None of these seems to q u a l i f y as r e f l e c t i o n . If a teacher i s r e f l e c t i v e about his or her p r a c t i c e , the personal and professional knowledge and the values and b e l i e f s that guide decisions are subjected to scrutiny and c a r e f u l thought. The necessary r e p e t i t i o n of various actions does not become so routinized as to be unquestioned. Most teachers do undoubtedly engage to some extent in r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r practice, and t h i s r e f l e c t i o n would seem to be a r i c h area for study, of p o t e n t i a l benefit to both teacher and researcher. As a teacher r e f l e c t s he or she c a l l s up knowledge, b e l i e f s and values, though perhaps not in a completely focussed way. Interaction in r e f l e c t i v e conversation with a researcher could help a teacher to focus on s p e c i f i c b i t s of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values, a r t i c u l a t e them and examine them and thus make changes from a p o s i t i o n of greater understanding. Observations of teachers in the classroom would also be h e l p f u l so that they can compare the i r expressed values with those which they are perceived to be acting from. This kind of r e f l e c t i v e conversation may be the best way for both teachers and researchers to gain understanding of teachers' values. B. Can the t a c i t be a r t i c u l a t e d ? If a teacher i s to engage i n c a r e f u l thought about the knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that guide his or her decisions, then he or she must be able to bring these into focus and a r t i c u l a t e them. If r e f l e c t i o n on practice as i t has been portrayed here i s to be a credible idea, then the claim that t h i s can be done must be demonstrated to be a reasonable one. To state that teachers can do t h i s focussing and a r t i c u l a t i n g is an empirical claim, although t h i s author has neither engaged in nor reported research s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to demonstrate i t s truth. Evidence and argument have been offered to support i t , however. Studies of teacher decision making using stimulated r e c a l l and Interview studies of teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge have helped to demonstrate that teachers can report t h e i r thoughts and a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r b e l i e f s and values, though i n a less focussed way than i s suggested here. C e r t a i n l y there i s a respectable t r a d i t i o n which claims (or assumes) that people can and should at times a r t i c u l a t e that which they may know, believe and value t a c i t l y and i m p l i c i t l y , and discussions of r e f l e c t i o n often assume that people have t h i s c a p a b i l i t y . Clark and Peterson (1986), for example, say that "The maturing professional teacher i s one who has taken some steps toward making e x p l i c i t his or her I m p l i c i t theories and b e l i e f s about learners, curriculum, subject matter and the teacher's r o l e " (p.5). Teachers should be no less capable (and may even, because of t h e i r verbal a b i l i t y , be more capable) than others of doing such a r t i c u l a t i o n . If one was to claim that teachers could not bring into focus and a r t i c u l a t e most of t h e i r knowledge, b e l i e f s and values, then the generalization would have to made that no one can, and t h i s seems extremely u n l i k e l y . Much of s o c i a l science research i s based on the assumption that people can do t h i s focussing and a r t i c u l a t i n g , imperfectly, no doubt, but well enough to give an adequate representation of t h e i r thoughts. In his discussion of professional " a r t i s t r y " , i n t u i t i v e knowing and " r e f l e c t i o n - l n - a c t i o n " Schbn (1983) says that "when p r a c t i t i o n e r s r e f l e c t - i n - a c t i o n , they describe t h e i r own l n t u t l v e understandings... It i s true, neverthless, that there is always a gap between such descriptions and the r e a l i t y to which they r e f e r . . . " but "Incompleteness of d e s c r i p t i o n is no impediment to r e f l e c t i o n . . . R e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n does not depend on a d e s c r i p t i o n of i n t u i t i v e knowing that i s complete or f a i t h f u l to i n t e r n a l representation. Although some descriptions are more appropriate to r e f l e c t l o n - l n - a c t i o n than others, descriptions that are not very good may be good 151 enough to enable an inquirer to c r i t i c i z e and restructure his i n t u i t i v e understandings so as to produce new actions that improve the s i t u a t i o n or trigger a refraining of the problem" (pp.276-277). It i s clear that we do not have a l l the d e t a i l s of our knowledge, b e l i e f s and values at our mental f i n g e r t i p s at a l l times, not only because we may not, or at least not recently, have attempted to focus on t h i s material, but because our minds can only deal with a limited amount of material at one time. You can only have ten f i l e s on the desktop, as my word processor might say. It i s c l e a r l y true that we hold much of our knowledge, b e l i e f s and values t a c i t l y , but t h i s i s not to say that a large part of our t a c i t l y held material cannot be made e x p l i c i t . C. Why should the t a c i t be made e x p l i c i t ? " I n t u i t i v e " understandings, as Schon (1983) has described them, are an e s s e n t i a l part of a teacher's practice as he or she moves s w i f t l y through a teaching day, but i f a teacher i s to r e f l e c t on these i n t u i t i o n s , and on the r e s u l t s of following them, they must come forward for examination. These i n t u i t i v e understandings are based on a teacher's p r a c t i c a l knowledge gained through experience and also on his or her b e l i e f s and values. Many values may be acquired at an ear l y age and not c r i t i c a l l y examined in adulthood. In his discussion of moral theory, Dewey (1932) argues against habituation to t r a d i t i o n a l morality in favor of "the r e f l e c t i o n an i n d i v i d u a l engages i n when he attempts to f i n d general p r i n c i p l e s which s h a l l d i r e c t and j u s t i f y his conduct. Moral theory begins, In germ, when anyone asks 'Why should I act t h i s way and not otherwise? Why i s thi s r i g h t and that wrong?'...Any adult enters the road when, in the presence of moral perplexity, of doubt as to what i s ri g h t or best to do, he attempts to find his way out through r e f l e c t i o n which w i l l lead him to some p r i n c i p l e he regards as dependable" (p.5) . These statements could c e r t a i n l y apply to a teacher r e f l e c t i n g on his or her practi c e . Many of the situa t i o n s that cause doubt or anxiety to teachers involve moral questions, or questions of value. In r e f l e c t i n g on a classroom incident a f t e r i t has happened, a teacher may ask, "Why did I react to that student in that way? Was i t the most productive way to react? Was i t f a i r ? What might have happened i f I hadn't gotten angry? What should I do next time a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n occurs?" Of course i t i s not only in the realm of values that such questions are appropriate. Reflecting on, for instance, an unsuccessful lesson, a teacher might ask, "What went wrong? Was my planning inadequate? Did I overestimate the a b i l i t y of my students to do t h i s task? Was my explanation unclear?" And less straightforward questions such as, "Could I have misinterpreted cues l i k e noise l e v e l or the expression on students' faces? Was I r i g h t to stop 153 the lesson when I did?" A successful lesson can also y i e l d useful Information when subjected to such a n a l y s i s . A simple question l i k e , "Why was t h i s lesson so successful?" could be a very useful question for a teacher to ask him or he r s e l f . The point i s that r e f l e c t i o n w i l l involve focussing on and exploring such questions. A r t i c u l a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l : d e t a i l s of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that remain t a c i t or i m p l i c i t are not r e f l e c t e d upon. D. Reflection In the l i t e r a t u r e Several current writers on teaching have described, defined or discussed r e f l e c t i o n , and these discussions are generally in harmony with the notion of r e f l e c t i o n as i t has been discussed here, though none has looked s p e c i f i c a l l y at r e f l e c t i o n as a way to bring teachers' values to l i g h t . Shulman (1987) says that r e f l e c t i o n i s "what a teacher does when he or she looks back at the teaching and learning that has occurred, and reconstructs, reenacts and/or recaptures the events, the emotions and the accomplishments. It is that set of processes through which a professional learns from experience" (p.19). Oberg (1986) says that a teacher's c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n on his or her teaching practices "aims at uncovering i m p l i c i t assumptions on which professional practice is based", and that the understanding r e s u l t i n g from t h i s r e f l e c t i o n " i s a f i r s t step toward agent-oriented 1 and -directed improvement of professional p r a c t i c e " ( p . l ) . Oberg holds that the assistance of a second party i s probably e s s e n t i a l In t h i s undertaking. This second party could be a researcher. The r e f l e c t i v e conversation between teacher and researcher as discussed in t h i s chapter i s no doubt a productive one, but not a l l teachers have a chance to interact with a researcher. Discussion with teaching colleagues can also a i d a teacher in his or her r e f l e c t i o n . Teachers do not, however, appear to engage very often in r e f l e c t i v e conversation with each other. Many writers (for example Goodlad, 1984; L o r t i e , 1975; Tye and Tye, 1984) have documented t h i s lack of discussion and the r e s u l t i n g professional i s o l a t i o n of teachers. This i s o l a t i o n i s l i k e l y to be a major hindrance to r e f l e c t i o n on pra c t i c e . [See Appendix One for a f u l l e r discussion of teacher i s o l a t i o n . ] Another writer on r e f l e c t i o n i s Zeichner.In his writing on teacher education Zeichner (1981-82) draws extensively from Dewey's 1933 book How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Dewey distinguishes between routine action, which is "guided by t r a d i t i o n , authority and the o f f i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n s within a s o c i a l s e t t i n g " (Zeichner, p.5) and r e f l e c t i v e action, which "e n t a i l s a c t i v e , persistent and ca r e f u l consideration of any b e l i e f or supposed form of knowledge in l i g h t of the grounds that support i t and the further consequences to which i t leads" (Dewey, 1933, p.9). Dewey further i d e n t i f i e s three attitudes which are prerequisite to r e f l e c t i v e action. The f i r s t i s openmindedness, which Involves "an active desire to l i s t e n to more sides than one...and to recognize the p o s s i b i l i t y of error even in the b e l i e f s that are dearest to us" (p.29). Openmindedness would require a teacher to examine c r i t i c a l l y not only the culture of the school but his or her own "dearest b e l i e f s " about teaching. The second att i t u d e Dewey i d e n t i f i e s is r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Zeichner says that for a teacher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y means "careful consideration of the consequences to which an action leads. Teachers must "ask why they are doing what they are doing in the classroom and ask in a way that transcends the question of immediate u t i l i t y " (Zeichner, p.6). This w i l l involve examination of personal, i n s t i t u t i o n a l and s o c i e t a l values. The t h i r d a ttitude i s wholeheartedness, by which the other two attitudes are embraced and made an important part of one's l i f e . Dewey was also an important influence on the thinking of Donald Schon, whose 1983 book The Reflective P r a c t i t i o n e r discusses r e f l e c t i o n by p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n several d i f f e r e n t professions. Schon argues that p r a c t i t i o n e r s engage in " r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n " , a kind of creative problem solving in which they compare new s i t u a t i o n s to ones they have encountered in the past, experiment to find the answers to problems and generate and test new hypotheses while they are engaged in p r a c t i s i n g t h e i r professions. (See Appendix Two for a f u l l e r discussion and c r i t i q u e of Schon's work! Schon a l s o recognizes the problem of teachers' p r o f e s s i o n a l i s o l a t i o n . He w r i t e s that "The teacher's i s o l a t i o n i n her classroom works a g a i n s t r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n . She needs to communicate her p r i v a t e puzzles and i n s i g h t s , to t e s t them agai n s t the views of her peers" (p.33). A l l of these w r i t e r s see r e f l e c t i o n and r e f l e c t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n as important f o r teachers who wish to grow p r o f e s s i o n a l l y and make changes i n t h e i r p r a c t i c e . Encouraging teachers to be r e f l e c t i v e and e s p e c i a l l y to r e f l e c t on t h e i r values and how these f i n d e xpression i n the classroom seems to o f f e r a remedy f o r the lack of research i n t o the important area of teachers' v a l u e s . In chapter ten t h i s idea w i l l be explored f u r t h e r , and the move from p r a c t i c a l knowledge to r e f l e c t i o n w i l l be dis c u s s e d . 157 Chapter Ten Studies of Reflection; New P o s s i b i l i t i e s In chapter four an analysis was offered of the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher decision making. In chapter s i x there was a s i m i l a r analysis of l i t e r a t u r e on teachers' p r a c t i c a l knowledge. Each of these analyses involved examination of a body of l i t e r a t u r e i n the l i g h t of the conception of teaching l a i d out in chapter two of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Such an analysis cannot be done on studies of teacher r e f l e c t i o n , because although some researchers are beginning to talk about r e f l e c t i o n , as a research focus i t is very new, and there does not yet e x i s t a body of l i t e r a t u r e which can be assessed. Thus the present chapter, rather than o f f e r i n g an analysis, explores the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for new insight into teacher thinking that research on r e f l e c t i o n appears to o f f e r . It was demonstrated in chapter s i x that the p r a c t i c a l knowledge l i t e r a t u r e adequately meets the learning condition of the conception of teaching l a i d out In chapter two, but f a l l s short on the moral condition. P r a c t i c a l knowledge studies often mention teachers' values, but do not probe into value questions. The submergence of values In the mix of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values c a l l e d " p r a c t i c a l knowledge" or "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge", as well as 158 too-heavy adherence to the notion of t a c i t knowing, appear to be the main reasons for t h i s lack of probing into value questions. The conception of the teacher i m p l i c i t in t h i s work remains rooted in the learning conditions. The move from the study of p r a c t i c a l knowledge to the study of r e f l e c t i o n appears to be a " t h e o r e t i c a l l y progressive problemshift"/ because r e f l e c t i o n as a research focus offers potential access to teachers' values in a way that decision making and p r a c t i c a l knowledge have not. It has been argued throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n that the study of teachers' values i s of central importance because of the moral condition of teaching. If studies of r e f l e c t i o n take the form of a r e f l e c t i v e conversation between teacher and researcher, with a s p e c i f i c focus on values, teachers may be able to focus on and a r t i c u l a t e values and b e l i e f s that they hold t a c i t l y . Such focussing and a r t i c u l a t i n g , i t has been argued here, can and should be done, because teachers are morally and p u b l i c l y accountable for t h e i r actions and because teachers who wish to i n t e l l i g e n t l y change t h e i r practice need to understand the factors which motivate their classroom actions and decisions. Since values are a c e n t r a l motivating factor in these actions and decisions, whatever insight teachers can gain into t h e i r values should help them to change and improve t h e i r p r a c t i c e . It i s important that teachers r e f l e c t not only on values, of course, but on t h e i r knowledge and b e l i e f s as well. Each of the categories of knowledge, b e l i e f s and 159 values form an Important focus for r e f l e c t i o n . These categories Interact, but taking a s p e c i f i c focus seems l i k e l y to o f f e r the greatest Insight. The notion of r e f l e c t i o n captures the essence of teacher thinking, because r e f l e c t i o n on practice is. teachers thinking c a r e f u l l y about t h e i r teaching and about t h e i r thinking about teaching. The notion of r e f l e c t i o n also gives f u l l credence to the fact that teachers must change the i r own teaching, from the inside out, and that t h i s must be done on the basis of understanding. Studies of r e f l e c t i o n could centre on s p e c i f i c classroom incidents, as Oberg (1986) suggests, with value questions being rigorously pursued. Or, r e f l e c t i v e conversations could s t a r t with questions such as "What do you r e a l l y care about in your d a l l y teaching?" A r t i c u l a t i o n of basic values could then be followed by questions such as "How did you acquire t h i s value? Why Is i t worthwhile?" and by classroom observations which could make clear the extent to which stated values find expression in the classroom. The investigation of values through teachers' r e f l e c t i o n on practice should not be the sole property of researchers. By i t s very nature, t h i s kind of work involves teachers as equal participants in the research. Thus a methodological change accompanies the move to the study of r e f l e c t i o n . Reflective conversations could and should also involve teachers, without the presence of a researcher, helping each other to r e f l e c t on values. University educators c o u l d , as w e l l as conducting research w i t h teachers, a c t as a stim u l u s and source of ideas f o r teachers wishing t o engage i n r e f l e c t i v e conversations w i t h each other. U n i v e r s i t y educators could thus help In the development of t r u l y r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i t i o n e r s . In summary, the move from p r a c t i c a l knowledge to r e f l e c t i o n i s " t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r o g r e s s i v e " because r e f l e c t i o n as a research focus o f f e r s p o t e n t i a l access to teachers' v a l u e s , i n c l u d i n g those which may be held t a c i t l y . Values are an important f a c t o r i n teacher t h i n k i n g , and teachers' values have never been adequately I n v e s t i g a t e d . R e f l e c t i v e conversations between researchers and teachers, with values as a s p e c i f i c research focus, may y i e l d new i n s i g h t i n t o teachers' t h i n k i n g . Such work may a l s o help teachers to Improve t h e i r p r a c t i c e , because g a i n i n g i n s i g h t , through focussed r e f l e c t i o n , i n t o the f a c t o r s which guide t h e i r classroom a c t i o n s , w i l l enable teachers t o change with understanding. Focussed r e f l e c t i v e conversations between teachers may thus hold the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r widespread improvement of p r a c t i c e . I f such focussed r e f l e c t i o n i s encouraged by researchers and undertaken by teachers, there may be a genuine methodological s h i f t i n the teacher t h i n k i n g research program, because teachers are equal partners with researchers i n r e f l e c t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , a change i n the "hard core" of the teacher t h i n k i n g research program may come about, such that the moral realm of teaching i s understood and recognized to be o£ c e n t r a l importance teaching. 162 Chapter Eleven conclusions and Recommendations One of the purposes of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n was to explicate a conception of teaching that was l o g i c a l l y , educationally and morally defensible. This was done l a r g e l y through reference to the work of Paul Hi r s t and Richard Peters. This conception of teaching was then used as a basis on which to evaluate l i t e r a t u r e on teacher thinking. A framework based somewhat loosely on the work of Imre Lakatos was used to i d e n t i f y research into teacher thinking as a research program, d i s t i n c t from the program of research into teacher behavior, though sharing with i t some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The conception of teaching that was developed s p e c i f i e d that teaching Involves the intention to bring about learning in students, that appropriate methods, materials and content be selected, that lessons be geared to the developmental stage of the learners so that the intention to bring about learning can most e f f e c t i v e l y be f u l f i l l e d , and that what i s to be learnt must not be t r i v i a l or undesirable. These were c a l l e d the learning conditions. It was also s p e c i f i e d that the teacher should express and embody, to the best of his or her a b i l i t y , the moral p r i n c i p a l of respect for persons in a l l his or her dealings with students. This was c a l l e d the moral condition. 163 Detailed c r i t i c a l examination of the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher decision making showed that t h i s l i t e r a t u r e is almost e n t i r e l y concerned with the learning conditions, and that the conception of teaching which underlies t h i s work portrays teachers as a c t i v e , thinking professionals who struggle with questions of content, method, material and l e v e l of students, as well as with questions related to classroom management. Classroom management, i t was suggested, was related to learning i n that environment a f f e c t s learning, but i s also related to control and to i n s t i t u t i o n a l standards for order. Since no attempt i s made in t h i s l i t e r a t u r e to follow up on the value questions that a r i s e , and since teachers are not questioned as to t h e i r moral values or th e i r non-moral values and b e l i e f s which may have ramifications in the moral realm, i t was concluded that the conception of the teacher underlying t h i s work does not portray the teacher as having a large area of moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and as struggling with value questions. Thus the moral condition i s not met in t h i s conception. Literature on teachers* p r a c t i c a l knowledge was then examined. Studies of r o u t i n l z a t i o n and expert-novice studies have a d i f f e r e n t research focus, or s e n s i t i z i n g concept, than decision studies, but were found to have the same underlying conception of the teacher. Again, questions related to values arose but were not pursued. Studies of teachers' "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" illuminated values more than previous research, but because values were submerged in the mix of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that these authors c a l l e d "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" there was s t i l l no probing done into value questions. The move to the study of "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" could be, i t was suggested, termed a "progressive problemshift" because this work did ra i s e new questions and give, because of the "personal" nature of the data reported, some new insight into teachers' thinking. However the move to the study of "personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge" did not a f f e c t the "hard core" of the teacher thinking program. The conception of the teacher remained rooted in the learning conditions. Since issues related to values were mentioned in t h i s work i t was AS IF some work on values had been done, but in fact there was r i c h d e s c r i p t i o n and l i t t l e a n a l y s i s . Thus t h i s was a change in the "protective b e l t " only, and the "hard core" of the teacher thinking program, which seems to contain a taboo against the investigation of values, remained protected and unchanged. Several reasons for t h i s taboo were discussed: that because values i s such a complex area i t might be too d i f f i c u l t methodologically to study; that too heavy adherence to the notion of t a c i t knowing might make the a r t i c u l a t i o n of values seem Impossible; that values might be seen as a private matter Into which researchers should not pry; and that values might simply be seen as unimportant by researchers. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the not i o n of t a c i t knowing and the concept of values suggested t h a t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teachers' values was both p o s s i b l e and important. I t was argued that teachers can focus on and a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r personal values and b e l i e f s and tha t they should examine where these come from and the grounds on which they are he l d . A r e l a t i v e l y new focus i n research on teaching i s r e f l e c t i o n on p r a c t i c e . This focus appears to hold c o n s i d e r a b l e promise f o r the study of teachers' v a l u e s , and to i n v o l v e not only a "progressive p r o b l e m s h i f t " but a genuine methodological s h i f t , i n th a t the teacher can be seen as an equal partner i n r e f l e c t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the researcher. This s h i f t may indeed change the "hard core" of the teacher t h i n k i n g program, i f researchers acknowledge the n e c e s s i t y f o r encouraging teachers to focus and r e f l e c t m e aningfully on the many value questions which confront them. To understand matters r e l a t i n g to the l e a r n i n g c o n d i t i o n s , researchers need to i n v e s t i g a t e teachers' knowledge and the ways i n which they s t r i v e t o b r i n g about l e a r n i n g i n t h e i r students. To understand matters r e l a t i n g to the moral c o n d i t i o n , researchers need to i n v e s t i g a t e teachers' values and b e l i e f s and the ways i n which these a f f e c t teachers' judgements about how to t r e a t students i n va r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n the moral realm may have a two-fold b e n e f i t . Researchers may gain b e t t e r access 166 to teachers' values and b e l i e f s , some of which may be held t a c i t l y , i f they encourage teachers to r e f l e c t on t h e i r values and b e l i e f s . Teachers w i l l also benefit by doing such r e f l e c t i o n , because gaining understanding of t h e i r own values and b e l i e f s w i l l enable them to change the i r practice to better accord with the moral p r i n c i p l e of respect for persons. Ref l e c t i o n by teachers on th e i r p r a c t i c e , focussed by the basic categories of knowledge, b e l i e f s and values, and informed by awareness of the importance of the moral realm, should be productive, and may form the basis for a new kind of study, the study of teacher thinking "from the inside out". As a r e s u l t of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n the following recommendations can be made: 1) That questions r e l a t i n g to values be rigorou s l y investigated whenever they a r i s e during the course of an investigation into teacher thinking. This can often be begun by asking "Why?" questions of teachers. 2) That teachers' personal values be taken as a s p e c i f i c research focus in studies of teacher thinking; that teachers in such studies be encouraged to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r educational and moral values; that classroom observations be done and r e f l e c t i v e conversations held so that teachers can 167 be t o l d what values appear to be o p e r a t i n g i n t h e i r classrooms and ponder any d i s j u n c t u r e s with t h e i r expressed v a l u e s . 3) That q u a l i t a t i v e s t u d i e s of schools be undertaken w i t h values as the research focus, so t h a t the f a b r i c of p e r s o n a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l and s o c i e t a l values w i t h i n which teachers move can be portrayed. 4) That f a c u l t i e s of education e s t a b l i s h wider and more c o n s i s t e n t communication w i t h teachers i n schools and attempt to help teachers focus t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n ; and, s i n c e on l y a s m a l l number of teachers can or even want to be the s u b j e c t s of research who enter i n t o r e f l e c t i v e conversations w i t h r e s e a r c h e r s , that f a c u l t i e s of education encourage teachers to engage i n r e f l e c t i v e conversations w i t h each other. The u l t i m a t e goal of research i n t o t eaching i s s u r e l y the Improvement of p r a c t i c e . Even though we may sometimes value research knowledge f o r i t s own sake i t seems absurd to deny th a t i t i s the improvement of p r a c t i c e f o r which we s t r i v e , t h a t i t i s the r e a l world of c h i l d r e n i n schools and t h e i r u l t i m a t e good which d r i v e s the e d u c a t i o n a l research i n d u s t r y . Focussed r e f l e c t i o n by teachers on t h e i r own p r a c t i c e , with the help and guidance of a second p a r t y , holds the g r e a t e s t promise f o r teachers t o change and improve, with understanding of the weaknesses and strengths i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge, of the personal b e l i e f s and values t h a t guide them, and of the other s e t s of values, i n s t i t u t i o n a l and s o c i e t a l , which b u f f e t them. As a c t o r s a profoundly moral realm i t i s paramount th a t teachers understand t h i s realm. Researchers i n t o teacher t h i n k i n g have an important r o l e to p l a y i n f u r t h e r i n g t h i s understanding. Appendix One Teacher Isolation aa a Hindrance to R e f l e c t i o n on Practice In Goodlad's (1984) massive study of American schools he found that teachers appeared to function quite autonomously. But that autonomy seemed to be exercised in a context "more of Iso l a t i o n than of r i c h professional dialogue about a plethora of educational a l t e r n a t i v e s " (p.186). Because teachers usually teach alone in a classroom and spend l i t t l e face to face time alone with colleagues, Goodlad found that "teachers perceived t h e i r awareness of one another, communication, and mutual assistance not to be strong. Although generally supportive of t h e i r colleagues, they had only moderate knowledge...about how th e i r colleagues a c t u a l l y behaved with students, t h e i r educational b e l i e f s , and th e i r competence" (p.188). L o r t i e (1975), In describing the i s o l a t i o n of beginning teachers, states that "the c e l l u l a r organization of schools constrains the amount of interchange possible; beginning teachers spend most of th e i r time p h y s i c a l l y apart from colleagues" (p.72). L o r t i e states that lack of adult assistance can make tha beginning months of teaching "a private ordeal". While the gaining of experience and confidence make teaching no longer an ordeal (on most days, anyway!), the professional Isolation L o r t i e describes seems to begin a pattern that continues in a teacher's career. Schon (1983) also recognizes t h i s problem and states that "The teacher's i s o l a t i o n in her classroom works against r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n . She needs to communicate her private puzzles and insights, to test them against the views of her peers" (p.333). Writers on implementation of new programs have recognized the problem of teacher i s o l a t i o n , and there i s a re l a t i o n s h i p between hindrances to change within schools and hindrances to teacher r e f l e c t i o n . Sarason (1971) says that "teachers are alone with t h e i r c h i l d r e n and problems in a classroom, and the frequency and pattern of contact with others l i k e themselves are of a kind and q u a l i t y that make new learning and change u n l i k e l y " (p.107). Fullan (1982) says that change within a school "involves r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Interaction is the primary basis for s o c i a l learning. New meanings, new behaviors, new s k i l l s depend s i g n i f i c a n t l y on whether teachers are working a3 isolated i n d i v i d u a l s , or exchanging ideas, support and posi t i v e feelings about t h e i r work" (p.72). I f , as Tye and Tye (1984) suggest, "...new ideas in education t r a v e l rather randomly through the system, from person to person and from school to school" (p.231), then the implications for educational change of teacher i s o l a t i o n are profound. Surely one of the subjects of a teacher's r e f l e c t i o n w i l l be the appropriateness of new programs and materials and her c a p a b i l i t y at using them. Teachers may avoid using new materials because of feelings of insec u r i t y 171 and simple misunderstandings which could be d i s p e l l e d by con v e r s a t i o n w i t h others. L i k e other human beings, teachers do, of course, harbour i n s e c u r i t y , and many appear to have a deep-seated fea r of c r i t i c i s m . C l a n d i n i n (1983) found t h i s i n her e a r l y work w i t h the teacher she c a l l e d Stephanie. A l l o w i n g another person to watch one teach, or engaging i n frank d i s c u s s i o n of classroom problems which might show that one i s l e s s than p e r f e c t as a teacher, can be very t h r e a t e n i n g . I t may be that as teachers our f e e l i n g s of s e l f - w o r t h are s t r o n g l y t i e d to our jobs, because i t i s d i f f i c u l t to do our jobs without i n v e s t i n g our f e e l i n g s . In c a r r y i n g out our p r o f e s s i o n a l d u t i e s our l i v e s are i n e v i t a b l y entwined w i t h those of our young c l i e n t s , and our perceived f a u l t s and f a i l u r e s s t r i k e a t our very h e a r t s . "You d i d n ' t t r y hard enough. You d i d n ' t care enough" f e e l s l i k e the message of every c r i t i c i s m , and we b u i l d p r o t e c t i v e s h e l l s of i s o l a t i o n , c l o s e our doors and do not share ideas and di s c u s s problems very o f t e n w i t h our c o l l e a g u e s . R e f l e c t i o n i s not impossible i n such circumstances, but i t i s hindered by f e e l i n g s of g u i l t , f r u s t r a t i o n and f a i l u r e which communication with others could help to change. Another f a c t o r t h a t may keep teachers i s o l a t e d i s the i n d i v i d u a l i s m which McNair (1978-79) remarks on and the p r o f e s s i o n a l autonomy t h a t teachers value so h i g h l y . They may guard t h i s autonomy because they sometimes perceive a d e s i r e a t the l e v e l s of school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , school board 1 and government to homogenize and r e g u l a t e teaching and c u r r i c u l u m to too great a degree. Teacher i s o l a t i o n may be what Sarason (1971) c a l l s a " b e h a v i o r a l r e g u l a r i t y " , so deeply engrained i n teachers and In the school system t h a t we do not r e a l l y see i t s causes, r a m i f i c a t i o n s and a l t e r n a t i v e s . P r o d uctive change i n schools and the spread of new ideas can be hindered by lack of communication between teachers. As w e l l , there i s l i t t l e r e g u l a r and widespread communication between p u b l i c school educators and t h e i r u n i v e r s i t y c o u n t e r p a r t s , though each has much to share w i t h the other. One e f f e c t of teacher i s o l a t i o n i s l i k e l y the frequent hindrance of productive r e f l e c t i o n by teachers on t h e i r p r a c t i c e . Caught i n a web of f r u s t r a t i o n and l a c k i n g , through choice or circumstance, h e l p f u l input from o t h e r s , teachers may t h i n k e n d l e s s l y but do l i t t l e r e f l e c t i o n . R e f l e c t i o n on classroom d e c i s i o n s and on the knowledge, b e l i e f s and values that u n d e r l i e them seems e s s e n t i a l i f teachers are t o understand and i n t e l l i g e n t l y change t h e i r p r a c t i c e f o r the b e n e f i t of t h e i r students and f o r t h e i r own s a t i s f a c t i o n . C o n s t r u c t i v e communication with colleagues i s an important p a r t of such r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e . 173 Appendix Two A C r i t i q u e of the Work of Donald Schon The focus t h a t Donald Schon (1983) has taken on the n o t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n by p r o f e s s i o n a l s on t h e i r p r a c t i c e i s a v a l u a b l e one f o r teachers and researchers i n t o teaching to take. Schon has made a worthy c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the improvement of p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e . Because h i s ideas have r e c e n t l y been a major i n f l u e n c e on w r i t e r s on teacher t h i n k i n g , a d e t a i l e d examination of h i s work i s i n order. Schon's conception of r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e Is c l o s e l y t i e d t o h i s understanding of r e f l e c t i o n i t s e l f and h i s n o t i o n of " r e f l e c t i o n - l n - a c t i o n M , an a c t i v i t y i n which he claims t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l s engage while they are p r a c t i s i n g t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n s . He says that r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n i s undertaken e s p e c i a l l y when a p r a c t i t i o n e r encounters a s i t u a t i o n t h a t i s p u z z l i n g , t r o u b l i n g or i n some way unique. He d e s c r i b e s how p r a c t i t i o n e r s compare new s i t u a t i o n s to ones they have encountered i n the past, and how they experiment to f i n d the answers to problems, generating and t e s t i n g hypotheses. Schon's examples seem to i l l u s t r a t e s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t kinds of " r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n M , and most adhere to the c r i t e r i o n presented e a r l i e r t h a t r e f l e c t i o n i n v o l v e s removing oneself from the a c t i o n i n order to r e f l e c t . Thus the term " r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n " has a r a t h e r odd r i n g to i t . Some of Schon's examples seem not to be i l l u s t r a t i v e of p r o f e s s i o n a l s r e f l e c t i n g while a c t i v e l y engaged i n p r a c t i c e . He says, f o r i n s t a n c e , "There are indeed times when i t i s dangerous to stop and t h i n k . On the f i r i n g l i n e , i n the midst of t r a f f i c , even on the p l a y i n g f i e l d , there Is a need f o r immediate, o n - l i n e response, and the f a i l u r e to d e l i v e r i t can have s e r i o u s consequences. But not a l l p r a c t i c e s i t u a t i o n s are of t h i s s o r t . The a c t i o n - present (the p e r i o d of time i n which we remain i n the "same s i t u a t i o n " ) v a r i e s g r e a t l y from case to case, and i n many cases there i s time t o t h i n k what we are doing. Consider, f o r example, a p h y s i c i a n ' s manage- ment of a p a t i e n t ' s d i s e a s e , a lawyer's p r e p a r a t i o n of a b r i e f , a teacher's handling of a d i f f i c u l t student. In processes such as these, which may extend over weeks, months or year3, fast-moving episodes are punctuated by i n t e r v a l s which provide o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e f l e c t i o n " (p.278). While i t i s c l e a r t h a t the p h y s i c i a n , lawyer and teacher de s c r i b e d here would be r e f l e c t i n g on t h e i r p r a c t i c e as they pondered problems of d i s e a s e , b r i e f s and d i f f i c u l t students, i t i s not c l e a r t h a t such r e f l e c t i o n Is o c c u r r i n g i n a c t i o n . Obviously a d e f i n i t i o n of ' a c t i o n ' Is needed, and i t i s i n Schon's d e f i n i t i o n that disputes over the Tightness of h i s claims could a r i s e . Schon says t h a t "A p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s r e f l e c t i o n - l n - a c t i o n may not be very rapid. It is bounded by the "action-present", the zone of time in which action can s t i l l make a difference to the s i t u a t i o n . The action-present may st r e t c h over minutes, hours, days or even weeks or months, depending on the pace of a c t i v i t y and the s i t u a t i o n a l boundaries that are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the pr a c t i c e " (p.62). Reflection O J Q . a ction, for Schon, would not occur i n the "action-present", but af t e r the fact, when action can no longer make a difference to the s i t u a t i o n . This d e f i n i t i o n i s unclear in several respects. Imagining Schon's example of a teacher working over a period of time (a whole school year would not be unreasonable) with a d i f f i c u l t student, there would be incidents or days on which the teacher would r e f l e c t a f t e r the fact, when she could no longer make a difference in that the incident or the day i s over. Her r e l a t i o n s h i p with the student i s ongoing, though, so she can s t i l l make a difference in terms of the larger picture. In Schon's sense t h i s i s s t i l l the "action-present". But r e f l e c t i n g at home on a Saturday night over a cup of tea, or even in conversation with a fellow teacher a f t e r school on the same day as a d i f f i c u l t incident has occurred does not seem l i k e r e f l e c t i n g in action, because the action in which the teacher interacted with the student i s over. Reflecting gji action seems a more appropriate term. As regards s t i l l being able to make a difference, a teacher could r e f l e c t on her r e l a t i o n s h i i p with one student a f t e r that r e l a t i o n s h i p has ended, 176 b e n e f i t t i n g from t h i s r e f l e c t i o n so t h a t she can make a d i f f e r e n c e w i t h another student who may have s i m i l a r problems. The " a c t i o n - p r e s e n t " i s r a t h e r nebulous, and a b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n of ' a c t i o n ' i s needed. I t might seem from the preceding d i s c u s s i o n t h a t i n t e r a c t i n g with c l i e n t s Is the only time when a p r a c t i t i o n e r i s r e a l l y ' p r a c t i s i n g ' . Of course t h i s i s not so; p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e e n t a i l s many a c t i v i t i e s and many phases, some more ' a c t i v e ' than others. But r e f l e c t i o n engaged i n d u r i n g q u i e t moments over a period of days, weeks or months when a problem or case i s being d e a l t w i t h does not seem to earn the t i t l e " r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t l o n " . 'Action' seems t o mean times when one i s ' i n the t h i c k of t h i n g s ' . Schon d e s c r i b e s what seems l i k e a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t y which occurs when people are " i n the t h i c k of t h i n g s " and take a momentary 'time out' to r e f l e c t on a problem a t hand. For i n s t a n c e , "In the s p l i t - s e c o n d exchanges of a game of t e n n i s , a s k i l l e d player learns to give himself a moment to plan the next shot. His game i s the b e t t e r f o r t h i s momentary h e s i t a t i o n , so long as he gauges the time a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f l e c t i o n c o r r e c t l y and Integrates h i s r e f l e c t i o n i n t o the smooth flow of a c t i o n " (p.279). This might more reasonably be c a l l e d " r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n " . r e f l e c t i o n s t i l l r e q u i r e s a 'time out', however, a l b e i t a b r i e f one, and i t d i f f e r s from, say, b r i e f desperate or panicky thought that one might a l s o engage i n . R e f l e c t i o n , 177 i t has been claimed here, i s done d i s p a s s i o n a t e l y , and the t e n n i s p l a y e r , l f he i s r e f l e c t i n g , i s doing so c o o l y . Schon a l s o speaks of times when " r e f l e c t i o n incongruent w i t h a present course of a c t i o n may be maintained through double v i s i o n . Double v i s i o n does not r e q u i r e us to stop and t h i n k , but the c a p a c i t y to keep a l i v e , i n the midst of a c t i o n , a m u l t i p l i c i t y of views of the s i t u a t i o n " (p.281). Such "double v i s i o n " undoubtedly does e x i s t , but i t i s questionable whether i t can l e g i t i m a t e l y be c a l l e d r e f l e c t i o n . I t might be p o s s i b l e to view the r o u t i n i z a t i o n of many of a teacher's tasks i n l i g h t of t h i s idea of double v i s i o n . As a teacher goes about c a l l i n g the r o l l , checking homework and doing other f a i r l y r o u t i n e t a s k s , h i s or her mind may be free to engage i n other thoughts about what i s going on i n the classroom. When one i s engaged i n very demanding mental a c t i v i t y , though, the idea of double v i s i o n seems l e s s p l a u s i b l e . I t would be d i f f i c u l t to maintain two concurrent demanding l i n e s of thought without l o s i n g the t h r u s t of one or both. D e l i b e r a t i o n , which has been i d e n t i f i e d as a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e of d e c i s i o n , i s r e l a t e d t o r e f l e c t i o n . They both i n v o l v e 'thoughtful t h i n k i n g ' , both r e q u i r e a 'time out' from the a c t i o n , and both are d i r e c t e d toward the r e s o l u t i o n of doubts or problems. The d i f f e r e n c e l i e s i n d e l i b e r a t i o n being more focused on a s p e c i f i c problem, more d e l i b e r a t e , one might say, and l e s s free ranging than r e f l e c t i o n can be. Dewey (1932) says t h a t " r e f l e c t i o n when directed to p r a c t i c a l matters, to determination of what to do, i s c a l l e d d e l i b e r a t i o n " (p.134). While some of Schon's examples of " r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n " do not seem t r u l y to involve r e f l e c t i o n , and others which do involve r e f l e c t i o n do not seem t r u l y to involve action, or 'the thick of things', we must, i f we allow that teachers can decide (and thus deliberate) in action, allow also that they can r e f l e c t in action. This i s a grudging admission, made on l o g i c a l terms and not on the strength of Schon's arguments. Deliberation leading to decision i s probably a better term for the thinking that i s done in b r i e f 'times out' from action, because i t i s usually directed to the s o l u t i o n of Immediate p r a c t i c a l problems. The r e f l e c t i n g which Schon describes doctors, lawyers and teachers as doing over days, weeks and months as they work with a c l i e n t is not, i t i s submitted here, r e f l e c t i o n In action, but i t i s quite compatible with the idea of r e f l e c t i o n on practice discussed in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . References A l l e n , R.T. (1978). "The philosophy of Michael Polanyi and i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e for education". Journal of Philosophy of Education. 12, 167-177. Baier, Kurt and Rescher, Nicholas, eds. (1969). Values and the Future. New York: The Free Press. Be r l i n e r , David C. (1986) "In pursuit of the expert pedagogue". Educational Researcher. 15(7), 5-13. Breton, R. (1970). "Academic s t r a t i f i c a t i o n in secondary schools and the educational plans of students". Canadian Review of Sociology and Social Anthropology r 7(1), 17-34. Broudy, Harry S. (1979). "Tacit knowing as a rationale for l i b e r a l education". Teachers college Record, 80(3), 446-462 Butt, Richard L. (1984). "Arguments for using biography in understanding teacher thinking". In Teacher Thinklng f ed. Rob Halkes and John K. Olson. Lis s e , The Netherlands: Swets and Z e i t l i n g e r . C i c o u r e l , A.V., and Kitsuse, J . (1963). The Educational Decision Makers. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merr11. Clandinin, D. Jean. (1983). "A Conceptualization of Image a a Component of Teachers' Personal P r a c t i c a l Knowledge". Doctoral Dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. Clandinin, D. Jean. (1986). Classroom Pra c t i c e : Teacher Images in Action. London: Falmer Press. Clandinin, D. Jean. (1987). "Developing rhythm In teaching" Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association Meetings, Washington, D.C. Clark, Christopher M. and Peterson, Penelope. (1986). "Teachers' thought processes". In Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. M.C. Wittrock. New York: MacMlllan. Clark, Christopher M., and Ylnger, Robert J . (1977). "Research on teacher thinking". Curriculum Inquiry, 7(4), 279-304. Connelly, F. Michael. (1972). "The functions of curriculum development". Interchange r 3 (2,3), 161-171. Connelly, F. Michael and Clandinin, D. Jean. (1982). "Personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge at Bay Street School". Workin Paper, Ontario I n s t i t u t e for studies In Education. 180 C o n n e l l y , F. Michael and C l a n d i n i n , D. Jean. (1985). "Personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge and the modes of knowing: relevance f o r teaching and l e a r n i n g " . In Learning and Teaching the Ways of Knowing. 84th Yearbook of the NSSE, eds. E l l i o t E i s n e r . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Connelly, F. Michael and C l a n d i n i n , D. Jean. (1986) "Rhythms i n t e a c h i n g : the n a r r a t i v e study of teachers' personal p r a c t i c a l knowledge of classroom". Teaching and Teacher Education. 2(4), 377-387. Connelly, F. Michael and Dienes, Barbara. (1982). "The teacher's r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m planning: a case study", i n Studies i n Curriculum D e c i s i o n Making,, ed. Kenneth A. Leithwood. Toronto: OISE Press. Cruikshank, Donald R. and Applegate, Jane H. (1981). " R e f l e c t i v e teaching as a s t r a t e g y f o r teacher growth". Ed u c a t i o n a l Leadership, 38 ( 7 ) , 553-554. D a n i e l s , L.B. (1974). "What Is the language of the p r a c t i c a l ? " Curriculum Theory Network, 4(4), 237-261. D a n i e l s , L.B. (1975). "Psycho-normative concepts and moral education research." In The Teaching of Values i n Education": 2nd yearbook of the Canadian S o c i e t y for the Study of Education. Dewey, John. (1932). Theory of the Moral l i f e . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Dewey, John. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the R e l a t i o n of R e f l e c t i v e Thinking to the Educative Process. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. Dewey, John. (1938). L o g i c : The Language of I n q u i r y . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Doyle, Walter and Ponder, Gerald A. (1975). "Classroom ecology: some concerns about a neglected dimension of research on teaching". Contemporary Education. 46(3), 183-188. El b a z , Freema. (1980) "The Teacher's P r a c t i c a l Knowledge: A Case Study". Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. E l b a z , Freema. (1981) "The teacher's p r a c t i c a l knowledge: re p o r t of a case study". Curriculum I n q u i r y . 11(1), 43-71. E l b a z , Freema. (1983) Teacher T h i n k i n g : A Study of P r a c t i c a l Knowledge. London: Croom Helm. E r i c s s o n , K. Anders and Simon, Herbert A. (1980). "Verbal r e p o r t s as data". P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review 87(3), 215-251. 181 F u l l a n , Michael (1982). The Meaning of Educ a t i o n a l change. Toronto: OISE Press. Gert, Bernard. (1966). The Moral Rules. New York: Harper and Row. Goodlad, John. (1984). A Place C a l l e d School. New York: McGraw-Hill. Grumet, Madeline R. (1987). "The p o l i t i c s of personal knowledge". Curriculum I n q u i r y , 17(3), 319-329. Hare, R.M. (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Hargreaves, David H. (1979) "A phenomenologlcal approach to classroom d e c i s i o n making". In Teacher D e c i s i o n Making In the Classroom,, ed. John Eggleston. London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . H a r t n e t t , Anthony and Nalsh, M i c h a e l , eds. (1976). Theory and the P r a c t i c e of Education, V o l . 1. London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books L t d . H i r s t , P a u l . (1974). " L i b e r a l education and the nature of knowledge". In Knowledge and the Curriculum, by Paul H i r s t . London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . H i r s t , P a u l . (1973). "What i s teaching?" In The Philosophy of Education, ed. Richard P e t e r s . Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . H i r s t , Paul and P e t e r s , R i c h a r d . (1970). The Logic of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . Housner, Lynn D., and G r i f f e y , David C. (1985). "Teacher c o g n i t i o n : d i f f e r e n c e s i n planning and i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making between experienced and inexperienced teachers". Research Q u a r t e r l y f o r E x e r c i s e and Sport. 56(1), 45-53. Jackson, P h i l i p . (1968). L i f e i n classrooms. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Kaplan, Abraham. (1964). The Conduct of I n q u i r y . Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Co. Komisar, P a u l . (1968). "Teaching: a c t and e n t e r p r i s e " , i n Concepts of Teaching, ed. C.J.B. MacMillan and Thomas W. Nelson. Chicago: Rand McNally. K r a t z , H.E. (1896). " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the best teachers as recognized by c h i l d r e n " . Pedagogical Seminary/ 3, 413-418. Kuhn, Thomas. (1965). "Logic of d i s c o v e r y or psychology of 182 r e s e a r c h " . In C r i t i c i s m and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Lakatos, Imre. (1965). " F a l s i f i c a t i o n and the methodology of s c i e n t i f i c research programmes". In C r i t i c i s m and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgraved. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. L e i n h a r d t , Gaea and Greeno, James G. (1986). "The c o g n i t i v e s k i l l of teaching". J o u r n a l of Educ a t i o n a l Psvcnologv. 78(2), 75-95. L e i n h a r d t , Gaea, Weidman, c. and Hammond, K.M. (1987). " I n t r o d u c t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n of classroom r o u t i n e s by expert teachers". Curriculum I n q u i r y , 17(2), 135-176. Leithwood, Kenneth A., Ross, John A., and Montgomery, Deborah J . (1982). "An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teachers' c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n making". In Studies In Curriculum D e c i s i o n Making, ed. Kenneth A. Leithwood. Toronto: OISE Pre s s . L o r t l e , Dan. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Lowyck, J o o s t . (1984). "Teacher t h i n k i n g and teacher r o u t i n e s : a b i f u r c a t i o n ? " In Teacher Th i n k i n g , ed. Rob Halkes and John K. Olson. L i s s e , The Netherlands: Swets and Z e l t l i n g e r . McKeon, Richard. (1952). "Philosophy and a c t i o n " . E t h i c s , 62(2), 79-100. McNair, Kathleen. (1978-79). "Capturing i n f l i g h t d e c i s i o n s : thoughts while t e a c h i n g " . Educational Research Q u a r t e r l y . 3(4), 26-42. Marland, Percy. (1977). "A Study of Teachers' I n t e r a c t i v e Thoughts". Do c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . Marx, Ronald and Peterson, Penelope. (1981). "The nature of teacher d e c i s i o n making", i n F l e x i b i l i t y In Teaching; An Excursion i n t o the Nature of Teaching and T r a i n i n g , eds. B.R. Joyce, C C . Brown and L. Peck. New York: Longman. Morine, Greta and V a l l a n c e , E l i z a b e t h . (1976). "A study of teacher and p u p i l perceptions of classroom i n t e r a c t i o n " . BTES T e c h n i c a l Report 75-11-6. San F r a n c i s c o : Farwest Laboratory f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development. Oakeshott, M. (1967). "Learning and tea c h i n g " . In The Concept of Education, ed. R.S. P e t e r s . London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . 183 Oberg, A n t l o n e t t e . (1986). "Encouraging and r e c o u n t i n g r e f l e c t i o n s on p r a c t i c e " . Paper Presented a t the Annual Meeting of the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Curriculum s t u d i e s , Winnipeg. P e t e r s , R.S. (1974). Psychology and E t h i c a l Development. London: George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . Peterson, Penelope, and C l a r k , Christopher M. (1978). "Teachers' r e p o r t s of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e processes d u r i n g t e a c h i n g " . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l . 15(4), 555-565. Peterson, Penelope and Comeaux, M i c h e l l e . (1987). "Assessing the teacher as a r e f l e c t i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l : new p e r s p e c t i v e s on teacher e v a l u a t i o n " . In The Graduate P r e p a r a t i o n of Teachers r ed, A n i t a E. Woolfolk. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Peterson, Penelope, Marx, Ronald and C l a r k , C h r i s t o p h e r . (1978). "Teacher pla n n i n g , teacher behavior and student achievement". American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 15(4), 417-432. P o l a n y i , M i c h a e l . (1958). Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . P o l a n y i , M i c h a e l , The T a c i t Dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966. P o l a n y i , M i c h a e l . (1966a). "The l o g i c of t a c i t i n f e r e n c e " . Philosophy. 41(155), 1-18. Popper, K a r l . (1959). The L o g i c of S c i e n t i f i c Discovery. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press. Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of J u s t i c e . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. Ryle, G i l b e r t . (1949). Concept of Mind. New York: Hutchinson. Sanger, Jack. (1987). "The inner game of t e a c h i n g " . J o u r n a l of Curriculum S t u d i e s . 19(4), 380-382. Sarason, Seymour B. (1971). The C u l t u r e of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. Schon, Donald. (1983). The R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i t i o n e r . New York: B a s i c Books. Schwab, Joseph J . (1969). "The p r a c t i c a l : a language f o r c u r r i c u l u m " . School Review 78, 1-23. 184 Schwab, Joseph J . (1973). "The p r a c t i c a l 3: t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o c u r r i c u l u m " . School Review 81, 501-522. Sharp, Rachel and Green, Anthony. (1975). Education and S o c i a l C o n t r o l . London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . Shavelson, Richard J . (1973). "What i s . the b a s i c teaching s k i l l ? " J o u r n a l of Teacher Education. 24, 144-150. Shavelson, Richard J . , and S t e r n , Paula. (1981). "Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgements, d e c i s i o n s and behavior". Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 51(4), 455-498. Shulman, Lee. (1987). "Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform". Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. S o l t i s , Jonas. (1968). An I n t r o d u c t i o n to the A n a l y s i s of Ed u c a t i o n a l Concepts. Reading. Mass: Addison-Wesley. S u t c l i f f e , John and W h i t f i e l d , R i c h ard. (1979). "Classroom-based teaching d e c i s i o n s " . In Teacher D e c i s i o n Making i n the Classroom, ed. John Eggleston. London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l . Sternberg, Robert J . , and Caruso, David R. (1985). " P r a c t i c a l modes of knowing". In Learning and Teaching the Ways of Knowing. 84th yearbook of the NSSE, ed. E l l i o t E i s n e r . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. T a y l o r , P a u l . (1961). Normative Discourse. New Jersey: P r e n t l c e - H a l l , Inc. Tomkins, George, Connelly, F. Michael and B e r n i e r , Jean-Jacques. (1981). "State of the A r t Review of Research i n C urriculum and I n s t r u c t i o n " . Canadian S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Education. T u r n b u l l , Deborah. (1986). " P r a c t i t i o n e r knowledge: an examination of the a r t i s t r y i n teaching." J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Thought. 20 ( 3 ) , 113-124. Tye, Kenneth and Tye, Barbara Benham. (1984). "Teacher i s o l a t i o n and the problem of change". Phi Delta Kappan 65(5), 319-322. Webster, Janet. (1982). " I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n Time Needed to Learn: Teacher Coping S t r a t e g i e s " . D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. W i t t g e n s t e i n , Ludwig. (1958). P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t l q a t l o n g . Trans, by G.E.M. Anscombe. 2nd e d i t i o n . Oxford: B a s i l Blackwe11. 185 Witty, P. (1947). "An analysis of the personality t r a i t s of the e f f e c t i v e teacher". Journal of Educational Research, 40, 662-671. Wodlinger, Michael G. (1980). "A Study of Teacher Interactive Decision Making". Doctoral Dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta. Zahorik, John A. (1970). "The e f f e c t s of planning on teaching". Elementary School Journal, 71(3), 143-151. Zeichner, Kenneth M. (1981-82). "Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher education". Interchange. 12(4), 1-22.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 4 0
Russia 4 0
United States 3 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 4 1
Beijing 4 0
Mountain View 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items