Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Collaboration in elementary science teaching : a case study of teachers' appreciative systems Marin, Patricia Margaret 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A2 M37.pdf [ 10.65MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055295.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055295-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055295-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055295-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055295-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055295-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055295-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055295-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055295.ris

Full Text

COLLABORATION IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS' APPRECIATIVE SYSTEMS by PATRICIA MARGARET MARIN B . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o / 1974 M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f M a t h e m a t i c s and S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1988 ( g ) P a t r i c i a M. M a r i n , 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. P a t r i c i a M. M a r i n Department of M a t h e m a t i c s and S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This was a natura l is t ic investigation of the nature of elementary science teaching pract ice. The main purpose of the study was to portray, through description and comparison of teacher appreciations, now four elementary teachers of science perceived the i r worlds of pract ice. This study was based on the assumption that persons construct the i r r e a l i t i e s and that teachers, as pract i t ioners, also make the i r worlds of pract ice. Following Vickers (1983) and Schon (1987), "appreciation" was therefore used as a construct for exarrdning and depicting key features of the teachers' pract ice. Appreciations of the teachers became the basis for exploring the nature and signif icance of their collaborative teaching. Findings of th is exploratory study indicate that each teacher had a coherent but d is t inc t set of appreciations of practice which included perceptions of professional ident i ty and of preferences for pract ice . These appreciations appeared to colour a teacher's "style" of practice and expectations of se l f and of pupi ls . While the dist inct iveness of a teacher's appreciations suggested that each teacher had a unique style of pract ice , teachers with similar or d i f f e r ing appreciations of practice engaged i n productive, col laborat ive relationships with colleagues. Based on the i r appreciations of practice, teachers i n the study seemed to have three major areas of concern and these were related to their instructional services to pupi ls , unit design and professional self-renewal. It i s being suggested i n th is investigation that teacher collaboration was a strategy used by these teachers to enable them to handle their concerns practicably and e f f i c i e n t l y . The implications of these findings are presented i n terms of contributions to the practice of teaching and to theory and research on teaching/ in particular studies of the "culture" of teaching. I V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t i i Acknowledgement X 1 C h a p t e r 1 N a t u r e o f t h e S t u d y 1 1.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n ^ 1.1 Background ^ 1.2 E x p e r i e n t i a l P e r s p e c t i v e 4 1.3 R e s e a r c h - b a s e d P e r s p e c t i v e 1.3.1 A T e c h n i c a l View o f T e a c h i n g 8 1.4 C o n c e p t u a l P e r s p e c t i v e ^ 1.4.1 T e a c h i n g as P r o f e s s i o n a l P r a c t i c e 1.4.2 T e a c h e r s as P r a c t i t i o n e r s 12 1.4.3 P r a c t i c e as R e f l e c t i o n - i n - A c t i o n 12 1.4.4 Teachers as R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i t i o n e r s 1.4.5 A p p r e c i a t i v e Systems as a R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f 14 P r a c t i c a l Worlds 1 5 1.5 Summary o f P e r s p e c t i v e s 16 1.6 R e s e a r c h P r o b l e m 1.6.1 O v e r v i e w 17 1.6.2 P r o b l e m Statement 18 1.6.3 R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s 19 1.6.4 C o n t e x t 20 1.7 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study 20 1.7.1 C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o P r a c t i c e 2 1 1.7.2 C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o T h e o r y 22 1.8 L i m i t a t i o n s 1.9 O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n 24 1.10 D e f i n i t i o n s 2 5 V C h a p t e r 2 Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e 2 7 2.0 O v e r v i e w 27 2 8 2.1 C o g n i t i v e P e r s p e c t i v e s o f T e a c h e r s ' Worlds 2 8 2.1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 2.1.2 Trends i n R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g 2 9 32 2.1.3 P r e a c t i v e T h i n k i n g and P l a n n i n g 2.1.A Academic Work and I n t e r a c t i v e T h i n k i n g 35 2.2 P r a c t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o f T e a c h e r s ' W o r l d s 3 9 39 2.2.1 P r a c t i c a l Knowledge 2.2.2 P r o f e s s i o n a l Knowledge 4 0 42 2.3 N a t u r e o f Worldmakmg 2.4 T e a c h e r s ' W o r l d s i n t h e Making 4 7 2.5 C h a p t e r Summary < 53 55 C h a p t e r 3 R e s e a r c h and A n a l y t i c P r o c e d u r e s 3.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n 55 3.1 S e t t i n g o f t h e S t u d y 55 3.2 E v o l u t i o n o f t h e S t u d y 5 6 59 3.3 Data C o l l e c t i o n 3.3.1 Phases o f Data C o l l e c t i o n 5 9 3.3.2 The T e a c h e r s 6 0 3.3.3 C o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e T e a c h e r s ^ fi 3 3.3.4 O b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e T e a c h e r s O J 64 3.3.5 O t h e r Records 3.4 Data a n a l y s i s 3.4.1 Phases o f Data A n a l y s i s 6 4 3.4.2 O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g " A p p r e c i a t i o n " 3.4.3 I d e n t i f y i n g T e a c h e r A p p r e c i a t i o n 6 7 v i 3.A.A. T y p i f y i n g T e a c h e r A p p r e c i a t i o n 69 3.4.4.1 P r o f e s s i o n a l I d e n t i t y 71 7 ? 3.4.4.2 P r e f e r e n c e s f o r P r a c t i c e 73 3.4.5 Teacher A p p r e c i a t i v e Systems 74 3.5 C h a p t e r Summary C h a p t e r 4 T e a c h e r s ' A p p r e c i a t i o n s o f S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 7 6 4.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n ^ 4.1 Teac h e r A p p r e c i a t i v e System - DICK 7 8 7 ft 4.1.1 P r o f e s s i o n a l I d e n t i t y / 0 4.1.1.1 A L o v i n g , Demanding I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S t y l e 7 8 4.1.1.2 S e e i n g P r a c t i c e as " I n p u t - O u t p u t " 7 9 4.1.1.3 Knowing What t o E x p e c t from P u p i l s 8 ^ 8 5 4.1.2 P r e f e r e n c e s f o r P r a c t i c e 4.1.2.1 " S t e p p i n g I n " and D i r e c t i n g 85 4.1.2.2 More S o c i a l S t u d i e s : L e s s S c i e n c e 8 7 4.1.2.3 W o r k i n g w i t h C o l l e a g u e 8 9 4.1.2.4 D e s i g n i n g t h e C o n t e n t 9() 4.1.2.5 C o v e r i n g t h e F a c t s 9 2 4.2 Teac h e r A p p r e c i a t i o n System - DONNA 9 ^ 4.2.1 P r o f e s s i o n a l I d e n t i t y J J 4.2.1.1 As Manager/Choreographer 9-> 4.2.1.2 B e i n g a G e n e r a l i s t 9 6 4.2.2 P r e f e r e n c e s f o r P r a c t i c e 9 9 q q 4.2.2.1 C l a s s r o o m as a C o l l e c t i v e ^ 4.2.2.2 W o r k i n g w i t h a C o l l e a g u e 1°4 4.2.2.3 H a v i n g " I n c i d e n t a l S c i e n c e " i ° 7 4.2.2.4 D e s i g n i n g t h e C o n t e n t 1 ° 8 v i i A . 3 T e a c h e r A p p r e c i a t i o n System - JACK H 2 A . 3 . 1 P r o f e s s i o n a l I d e n t i t y H 2 A .3.1.1 As D e l e t t a n t e 1 1 2 A .3.1.2 B e i n g a S p e c i a l i s t 1 1 4 A . 3 . 2 P r e f e r e n c e s f o r P r a c t i c e 1 1 5 A .3.2.1 P r o v i d i n g V a r i e t y 1 1 5 A .3.2.2 Working w i t h a C o l l e a g u e 1 1 6 117 A .3.2.3 C o d e s i g n i n g t h e C o n t e n t A . A T e a c h e r A p p r e c i a t i o n System - JESSICA 1 2 0 12 0 A . A . I P r o f e s s i o n a l I d e n t i t y A . A . 1.1 A " S e a t o f t h e P a n t s " S t y l e 1 2 0 A . A . 1 . 2 B e i n g a P r o f e s s i o n a l 1 2 2 A . A . 2 P r e f e r e n c e s f o r P r a c t i c e I 2 4 A . A . 2 . 1 Moving t h e C l a s s r o o m O u t d o o r s I 2 4 A . A . 2 . 2 P u p i l s as C o - I n v e s t i g a t o r s . . 1 2 6 A . A . 2 . 3 Working w i t h a C o l l e a g u e i 2 9 A . S C h a p t e r Summary 1^1 C h a p t e r 5 C o m p a r a b i l i t y o f T e a c h e r s ' A p p r e c i a t i o n s : The N a t u r e o f T e a c h e r C o l l a b o r a t i o n I - * 2 5.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n I - * 2 5.1 Predominance o f Teacher C o l l a b o r a t i o n 1 3 3 5.2 N a t u r e o f T e a c h e r C o l l a b o r a t i o n : S y n e r g y o r C o o p e r a t i o n 1 3 5 5.3 C o l l a b o r a t i o n as S ynergy: DICK and DONNA 137 5.3.1 I n d i v i d u a l o r Group 1 3 7 5.3.2 " C o n c r e t e " o r " A b s t r a c t " 1 4 1 5.3.3 M a s t e r y and Coverage 1 4 5 5.3.A R e c i p r o c i t y and Compromise 1 4 6 5.3.5 C u r r i c u l a r Autonomy 1 4 8 v i i i 5.4 C o l l a b o r a t i o n as C o o p e r a t i o n : JACK and JESSICA 1->-L 5.4.1 C o o p e r a t i v e Program D e s i g n 1 5 1 5.4.2 L e a d i n g and F o l l o w i n g 1 5 3 5.4.3 M a s t e r y and Coverage 1 5 4 5.4.4 C o m p a t i b i l i t y and S t y l e I 5 7 5.4.5 C u r r i c u l a r Autonomy 1 5 9 5.5 C h a p t e r Summary 16 3 C h a p t e r 6 T e a c h e r s ' Concerns About T h e i r S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g and t h e S i g n i f i c a n c e o f C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n T e a c h e r s ' H a n d l i n g o f T h e i r Concerns 1 6 4 .6.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 6 4 6.1 T e a c h e r s ' Concerns About T h e i r S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 1 6 7 6.1.1 Concern 1: P r o v i d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n To a P u p i l C l i e n t e l e .. 1 6 8 6.1.2 C o n c e r n 2: D e s i g n i n g U n i t s o f S c i e n c e I n s t r u c t i o n 1 7 2 6.1.2.1 E s t a b l i s h i n g and M a i n t a i n i n g C u r r i c u l a r Autonomy 1 7 3 6.1.2.2 A s s e s s i n g P e r s o n a l R e s o u r c e s f o r S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 1 7 6 6.1.2.3 The A c t u a l P r o c e s s o f "Making" a U n i t o f S c i e n c e 1 7 8 6.1.3 Co n c e r n 3: O b t a i n i n g P r o f e s s i o n a l S e l f -Renewal I 8 3 6.2 O v e r v i e w o f t h e S i g n i f i c a n c e o f C o l l a b o r a t i o n 1 8 5 6.3 C h a p t e r Summary 1 8 7 C h a p t e r 7 Summary, C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s 1 8 9 7.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n I 8 9 7.1 Summary o f t h e S t u d y 1 8 9 i x 7.2 C o n c l u s i o n s 1 9 0 7.2.1 T e a c h e r s ' A p p r e c i a t i o n s o f P r a c t i c e 1 9 1 7.2.2 C o m p a r a b i l i t y o f T e a c h e r s ' A p p r e c i a t i o n and t h e N a t u r e o f T h e i r C o l l a b o r a t i o n 1 9 3 7.2.3 T e a c h e r s ' Concerns About T h e i r P r a c t i c e and t h e S i g n i f i c a n c e o f T h e i r C o l l a b o r a t i o n 19 6 7.3 I m p l i c a t i o n s 2 0 0 7.3.1 F o r T h e o r y 2 0 0 7.3.2 F o r P r a c t i c e 2 0 1 7.3.3 F o r R e s e a r c h 2 0 3 7.3.4 C o n c l u d i n g Comments 2 0 4 B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 0 6 A p p e n d i c e s A S e l e c t i n g an A p p r o p r i a t e M e t h o d o l o g y f o r t h e S t u d y 2 1 6 B Background I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e T e a c h e r s 2 1 8 C S c h e d u l e o f T e a c h e r I n t e r v i e w s 2 2 2 D Sample P r o t o c o l - I n t e r v i e w I 2 2 3 E Sample P r o t o c o l - I n t e r v i e w I I 224 F G u i d e l i n e s f o r C l a s s r o o m O b s e r v a t i o n 2 2 5 G Sample O b s e r v a t i o n N a r r a t i v e and Specimen F i e l d N o t e s 22 6 H M i s c e l l a n e o u s R e c o r d s o f Work and T e s t s f o r t h e U n i t ( s ) Taught 237 I Specimen I n t e r v i e w T r a n s c r i p t 2 4 9 X L i s t o f T a b l e s T a b l e 2.1 C o g n i t i v e A s p e c t s o f T e a c h e r s ' W o r l d s 33 2.2 P r a c t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o f T e a c h e r s ' W o r l d s 38 4.1 Tea c h e r A p p r e c i a t i v e System - D i c k 77 a,b,c 4.2 Tea c h e r A p p r e c i a t i v e System - Donna 94 a,b 4.3 T e a c h e r A p p r e c i a t i v e System - J a c k I l l a,b 4.4 T e a c h e r A p p r e c i a t i v e System - J e s s i c a 119 a,b,c 5.1 Comparison o f Key A p p r e c i a t i o n s o f D i c k and Donna; J a c k and J e s s i c a 134 6.1 Summary o f A p p r e c i a t i o n s and Concerns o f D i c k , Donna, J a c k and J e s s i c a 166 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My s i n c e r e t h a n k s t o t h e members o f ray committee, D r s . E r i c k s o n , G a s k e l l , Housego and D'Oyley. W i t h o u t y o u r e x p e r t i s e and m o r a l s u p p o r t , I c o u l d n o t have come t h i s f a r . G a a l e n , words f a i l me. To f a m i l y and f r i e n d s who have s t o o d by me so s t a u n c h l y , I c a n n o t t h a n k you enough. I am g r a t e f u l t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , O t t a w a , t h e C e n t r e f o r t h e S t u d y o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n a t The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , and t o t h e Vancouver S c h o o l B o a r d f o r f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t . CHAPTER 1 NATURE OF THE STUDY 1.0. Introduction Practitioners differ from one another... but they also share a common body of explicit, more or less systematized professional knowledge and what Geoffrey Vickers has called an "appreciative system" (Schon, 1987, p. 33). The problem of this study was to explore and to describe the nature of elementary science teaching practice for certain teaching professionals. It is said that, from a teacher's viewpoint, there are personal (conceptual) as well as practical (contextual) aspects to teaching (Clandinin, 1985; Doyle, 1982). While i t is the teacher who is a central figure in teaching, both of these aspects of teaching come into play when a teacher reflects-in-action and makes a world of practice (Schon, 1987). Yet, the nature of teaching practice is such that the personal-conceptual and practical-contextual elements are integrated, not independent (Yinger, 1987). Both contextual and personal dimensions of teaching can be represented by the construct, appreciation. According to Schon (1987), a person's appreciative system comprises "the set of 2 values, preferences and norms in terms of -which professionals make sense of practice situations, formulate goals and directions for action and determine what constitutes acceptable professional conduct" (p. 33). An appreciation therefore, is considered in this study to indicate an integrated element of an appreciative system which colours the way in which a teaching practitioner understands and deals with practical situations. Following Vickers (1983), the term, appreciation, embodies the complex interweaving of both "thinking" and "doing" spheres of practice. Hence, teacher appreciative systems and the appreciations of which they are made, have been selected as a means of searching out and describing the dynamic between the personal and the contextual in teaching practice. In this study, the teacher appreciative system has been used as a construct for examining and depicting key features of elementary teachers' science teaching practice. This has been a naturalistic investigation of how four elementary teachers perceive the reality of their teaching of science, individually and collectively. It is based on assumptions that persons construct their realities and that teachers, as practitioners, also build their own worlds of practice (Goodman, 1984? Schon, 1987). Four elementary teachers drawn from two different schools 3 cooperated in this project/ the purpose of which was to explore and portray how each of these teachers individually and collectively appreciated their own science teaching. Once a teacher's appreciations of science teaching were identified, one teacher appreciative system could then be compared with that of another. In cases where teachers collaborated with each other in teac±drig, comparing their appreciative systems revealed the distinctiveness and overlap between their appreciations of science teaching and such information could then be used to gain further insight into the nature of their elementary science teaching practice. By further looking into the character of teachers' collaboration and i t s significance in their practice, elementary science teaching practice could be portrayed, not only as a practical task but also as a professional endeavour. In this chapter the perspectives from which the research problem is drawn, are presented. These are the perspectives which have grounded the conceptual framework from which the research questions have emerged. 1.1. Background Three personal perspectives have contributed to the selection and fraitiing of this research problem. They are as follows: (1) my personal experiences of teaching and teacher 4 supervision, (2) my perception that a view of teaching consisting of preactive and interactive components is an inadequate conception of teaching practice, and (3) my preference for an alternative view of teaching as professional practice, in which "practitioners differ from one other...but they also share a common body of explicit, more or less systematized professional knowledge and what Geoffrey Vickers has called an 'appreciative system'" (Schon, 1987, p. 33). In the following discussion, each perspective is briefly reviewed in order to indicate how i t has contributed to the background for the research problem. 1.2. Experiential Perspective For about ten years I have taught various subjects in elementary and secondary schools from grades one to twelve. In the last four years or so, I have supervised student teachers. Because of my own experience and knowledge of teaching, I hoped that I could assist novice teachers to prepare themselves for classroom teaching. My primary method of coaching these novices was based on a variant of Goldhammer's (1980) model of clinical supervision. 5 During many hours spent in classrooms with experienced cooperating teachers and beginning student teachers, there has been ample opportunity to compare the ways of the "expert" with the ways of the "novice". It appeared that experienced teachers seemed well able to "think on their feet". In so doing, they appeared to initiate practices that were successful in their classroom contexts. Observations of such expert and novice cases were shared with student teachers and used as points of discussion or in role plays. The intent was that, through these exemplars and a comparison of them with personal field experiences, novice teachers could be prompted to consider and implement options for teaching, which were not immediately obvious to their own inexperienced eyes. Many of these students are now practising classroom teachers. Despite their "good grades", i t is difficult for me to t e l l whether the brief coaching they received from me in seminars and practica was influential in changing the nature of their teaching practice to any considerable extent. Teacher supervision is challenging and enjoyable but the ambiguous nature of the faculty supervisor's role can be discomfiting for student teachers and for faculty. There is no "rule book" or "prescribed bedside manner" for teachers or teacher' supervisors. Integrating the theory and practice of teaching is 6 necessary, but using current research on teaching with beginning teachers is not easy. It involves helping novices to s i f t out relevant and useable aspects of research and to recognize when and how to apply these to instances they face in their own practice. It seemed that the more teaching experience a student teacher got, the easier i t was for that student to reflect on and come up with viable alternatives for use in practice. However, my position as faculty advisor required that I fluctuate between the "knowing-in-action characteristic of competent practitioners in a professional field" and the form of professional knowledge disseminated at a faculty of education (Schon, 1987, p. 40). Seeing myself as a practitioner therefore lent even more ambiguity to my role. Cooperating teachers display a kind of "know-how" of teaching that novices do not have or come by easily. It is almost as though many years of teaching have enabled teachers to carry in their heads, so to speak, a mixed bag of knowledge, techniques, perceptions and "gut feelings" about teaching. These appreciations of teaching would emerge with ease at the appropriate moments in the classroom. Such on-the-spot expertise, student teachers do not usually have. As a supervisor, I felt that i t should be possible to reveal to beginning teachers some of the many elements of this "smorgasbord" of expertise that experienced teachers hold, in 7 order to help novices identify and try out what might suit their own practical teaching circumstances. With guidance/ student teachers could then, over time, transform these selected exemplars of practice into integral parts of their own professional repertoire. As a supervisor, my dilemma was finding ways to enable any student to recognize which aspects of these practical cases could be formative for that particular student, at that point of professional development. The nature of the knowledge communicated to student teachers in faculties of education is of a particular kind (Lortie, 1975). Traditionally, professional training has been technically oriented (Turner, 1975; Beyer & Zeichner, 1982). For instance, teachers in training are encouraged by faculty to concentrate on techniques such as writing "good" lesson plans (Tabachnick, Popkewitz & Zeichner, 1980). Yet, these plans, often based on sound theoretical notions, rarely seem to "work out" in the classroom as planned. "Technique was treated [by teacher training faculty] as an end in itself and not as a means to some specified educational purpose or goal" (Tabachnick et al, 1980, p. 22). Are student teachers placed in a situation of conflict when they have to negotiate between a university-based professional school and experienced practitioners in the field? The knowledge of teaching that novice teachers receive in training implies that, in practice, teaching is a two-step 8 process, with a preactive planning phase followed by an interactive mode. In other words, fi r s t a teacher thinks and plans; then a teacher works according to the plan. However, competent practitioners seem to think that novices need field experiences to develop practical s k i l l (Lortie, 1975). Novice teachers in the field have to cope with a dynamic complexity of teaching practice which is not necessarily compatible with a technical, university-based conception of teaching (Spencer-Hall, 1982). A close look at how experienced teachers work in class would be needed to see what they do and to explore how they reflect on their practice in order to change i t . This sort of information could ultimately provide a practical knowledge base of teaching that might be of use to teacher educators as well as to student teachers. 1.3. Research-based Perspective 1.3.1. A Technical View of Teadxinq Several studies of teacher thinking have treated teaching as a dichotomous activity with a preactive, planning phase and an interactive phase in the classroom (Borko & Shavelson, 1983; Doyle, 1982; Marx & Clark, 1978; McCutcheon, 1981; Morine, 1976; Zahorik, 1975). While this dichotomy may be a useful methodological and analytical device, i t has limited applicability for those who are practitioners in the classroom. 9 Findings of some preactive teacher thinking studies are not consistent with the pattern of findings for certain studies of interactive teaching. For instance in their summary, Borko and Shavelson (1983) say that the interactive phase of teaching seems to function for teachers mainly to implement previously designed tasks. In front of the class, teachers seem to make few decisions. These are impetuously made, in response to unanticipated events. On the other hand, in preactive planning, teachers appear to be prolific thinkers, deliberate and creative in their thinking, willing to select certain tasks and juggle a number of goals to achieve a "reasonable" balance for instruction. The quality of teacher thinking implied by each set of findings is different and therefore confusing. Together, these findings may present a disjointed picture of teacher cognition. Practitioners who are reported as being creative, preactively, appear to be somewhat deficient in their thinking interactively (McCutcheon, 1981; Borko & Shavelson, 1983). What could account for such inconsistency in the quality and substance of teacher thinking before and during instruction? Should the same purposefulness and rationality of the preactive thinker not be evident in interactive teaching practice? Or, are those findings an artifact of looking at teaching in two discrete phases; one of thinking and one of doing. If so, is i t really 10 appropriate to view the practice of teaching as a cUchotomous process? Such a conception may not adequately account for the "artist r y " which practitioners are said to display when they operate i n practice (Elbaz, 1983; Dillard, 1987; Yinger, 1987). Another view of teaching might allow for a conception of teaching practice as a whole with many integrated elements. 1 .4. Conceptual Perspective 1.4.1. Teac±iinq as Professional Practice In an analysis of the work of various professionals, Schon (1983, 1987) claims that professional practice i s indeed marked by complexity and spontaneity. Yet, he argues, the professions and professional schools through which this knowledge i s conveyed, s t i l l remain entrenched i n a "positivist view of knowledge". The formal knowledge of professional schools i s r i g i d and unyielding to the nuance and uncertainty of the practitioner's world. It does not allow for the "spontaneity and complexity" that Schon ascribes to practitioners i n action. But, the accepted traditional, "technical rational" doctrine of professional knowledge, to which Schon refers, i s so firmly embedded i n academic culture that i t has shaped even how the professions are conceived. Technical rationality seems prevalent i n faculties of education and also i n research on teaching. A natural consequence 11 of the technical rat ional view of professional knowledge i s that professional schools seek to package and deliver professional knowledge as though i t were precise s k i l l s and techniques. Consequently/ practi t ioners/ who see their work in the f i e l d as "experience, t r i a l and error, in tu i t ion and muddling through/" come to think that their ways are in fe r io r . For Schon (1983), th is s i tuat ion c a l l s for a new epistemology of practice/ one that i s more applicable to the rea l i ty of pract ice. 1.4.2. Teachers as Practit ioners Schon's descriptions of professionals- in-action imply that there i s merit i n thinking of teachers as practi t ioners. A posit ion such as Schon's enables teaching i t s e l f to be viewed as pract ice/ "chunks of act iv i ty / d iv is ib le into more or less familiar types, each of which i s seen as ca l l ing for the exercise of a certain kind of knowledge" (Schon, 1987, p. 33). With th is proviso, teaching practice can be seen to be one complex but h o l i s t i c arena of operation with various features. To think of teaching as though i t were a preact ive- interact ive process i s a remnant of the technical - rat ional perspective of professional knowledge. I wish to argue i n th is dissertat ion that i t i s important to provide an al ternat ive conceptualization of teaching, one which focuses on the creat ive, ins ight fu l routines of teaching practice. 12 1.4.3. Practice as Reflection-in-Action According to Schon (1983), ref lect ion-in-act ion i s the mechanism by which professionals construct their pract ica l rea l i t y . When practising professionals appear to respond in tu i t ive ly to pract ical problems, their response i s not as automatic as i t seems. The ac t i v i t y of the moment causes the practit ioner to re f lec t back upon previous similar happenings and in tu i t ive understandings of "new" situations surface. These are then interpreted and re-interpreted to f i t existing circurnstances. This process of determining what i s a problem i n practice and inventing a solut ion, "on the spot" i s ca l led by Schon, re f lec t icn - in -ac t ion . He explains further that: When someone re f lec ts - in -act ion , he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He i s not dependent on the categories of theory and technique but constructs a new theory of the unique c a s e . . . .He does not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interact ively as he frames a problematic si tuat ion. He does not separate thinking from doing, ratiocinating h is way to a decision which he must later convert to act ion. Because h is experimenting i s a kind of action, implementation i s bu i l t into h is inquiry (Schon, 1983; p. 68). 1.4.4. Teachers as Reflective Practitioners Just as ref lec t ion- in -act ion i s prevalent i n the practice of architects and engineers, so too i t i s a part of teaching practice (Schon, 1983). Through ref lect ion- in-act ion, teachers cone to see 13 new classroom events in the light of previous experiences with which they have dealt. There is a constant stream of unpredictable moments in a teacher's practice and so a teacher builds a repertoire of dealings-in-practice within which the uniqueness of each case is crucial; predesigned plans need not apply. Schon (1987) has given much attention to analyzing exemplars of reflective practice of professionals other than teachers. In view of the discrepant findings of a preactive-interactive model of teaching, i t may be worthwhile to examine teaching practice from the viewpoint of the teacher as a practitioner. Schon's theory of reflection-in-action provides for a conception of practice that presupposes another kind of link between thinking and doing in teaching practice—one other than that implied by a preactive-interactive view. Classroom teaching need no longer be considered merely responding to a preordained plan. Instead, reflection-in-action supports a view of practice in which the elements of teacher thinking and doing in teaching practice are created but they are integrated and not merely a consequential, "means-ends" dichotomy. If teachers think-in-action in classrooms and experiment in their teaching within a classroom context, i t would be useful to know how they describe the motions they go through. Indeed, such a study may contribute to the knowledge of teaching practice, by-elaborating on how practitioners see their own work. 14 1.4.5. Appreciative Systems as a Representation of Practical  Worlds Ref lection-in-action is considered a mechanism by which professionals construct their (practical) worlds (Kelly, 1955; Goodman, 1984). A basis of this construction is the practitioner's own appreciative system (Vickers, 1983; Schon, 1983). An appreciative system is defined as a "set of values, preferences and norms in terms of which professionals make sense of practice situations, formulate goals and directions for action and determine what constitutes acceptable professional conduct" (Schon, 1987, p. 33). Therefore, one way of representing the related set of views which direct a teacher's practice is by means of an appreciative system. Teachers' appreciative systems are used in this study as a conceptual device for capturing and representing teachers' ideas on their worlds of practice. For ease of expression, the elements of a teacher appreciative system are described in this dissertation as teacher appreciations. Whether or how these function as "norms" or "values" is not important to the particular aims of this study. What is crucial is that a teacher appreciative system incorporates elements of constructing, reconstructing and reacting to a situation of practice, which do not imply that a teacher operates mainly by applying a preconceived plan. 15 1.5. Summary of Perspectives The three perspectives discussed above have contributed to the way in which the research problem has been framed for inquiry. To indicate their relevance to the research problem, they are summarized here. Personal Experience; The nature of teaching practice for novices is different from that of their experienced, cooperating teachers. Experienced practitioners seem to construct their practice in action and so, changing the practice of novice teachers appears to involve much "learning by doing". But, the prevalent epistemology of practice in faculties of education takes limited account of such a position. There is need to find out more about the intuitive ways in which experienced practitioners generate their practice. This sort of information would be of use to those who prepare beginning teachers. Research on Teaching; Teaching has often been described in the research literature as a thinking-doing or preactive-interactive process. Such a dichotomy relegates much of what constitutes teaching to a "non-thinking" interactive mode and teachers to the status of simple doers and relatively passive thinkers. There 16 ought to be a reasonable alternative to such a position, one that may well be based upon another view of what constitutes teaching practice. Teaching as Practice: Teaching can be viewed as . professional practice. What occurs in teaching is not unlike what happens in the practice of other professionals. Teachers are practitioners. They construct their own practical reality. In order to find out more about the nature of teaching, i t is important to explore how teachers represent the worlds of practice they construct. The previous summary has attempted to present the perspectives which have contributed to the manner in which the research problem has been framed for study. The following discussion relates these perspectives to the concepts used to frame research questions for this investigation. .1.6. Research Problem 1.6.1. Overview Teachers are professionals but they are also practitioners. The world of teaching is a complex, interwoven net of the personal (conceptual) dimensions of teaching coming from the teachers themselves, as well as the contextual (practical) demands of the job with which teachers must routinely deal. 17 As practitioners, teachers are continually engaged in thinking and re-thinking their views and experiences of practice. This is done through reflection-in-action which is often spontaneous and intuitive. Reflection is a means by which the teaching practitioner can express professional commitment and refine strategies for handling perceived contingencies of the job. Thus, teaching practice can be viewed as a spontaneous, dynamic, intuitive experimenting by teachers, in practical situations (Schon, 1983). A basis of practical reflection-in-action i s the teacher's appreciative system. Appreciative systems resonate between the personal and the contextual in teaching practice. Hence, teacher appreciative systems are being used in this inquiry as a lens through which to view teachers' construction of their worlds of practice from their perceptions of themselves and their settings. The elements that make up a teacher appreciative system are called appreciations and the term, appreciation, is itself used to represent the integration of elements of thinking and doing that may be said to characterize professional practice. 1.6.2. Problem Statement The overall purpose of the study was to explore and articulate how four elementary teachers appreciated their individual worlds of practice and to find out the extent to which these appreciations were snared by the teachers with whom they chose to collaborate i n teaching science. Specifically, this inquiry investigated the nature and comparability of four elementary teacher appreciative systems of science teaching practice. Out of these purposes stemmed three sets of questions for research. 1.6.3. Research Questions The f i r s t set of questions deals with how teachers appreciate their own practice and what these appreciations appear to be: (1) How do elementary teachers describe their own practice of teaching science? More specifically, (a) What appreciations of their identity as practitioners do teachers of elementary science hold? (b) What preferences for the practice of elementary science teaching do these teachers seem to have? The second group of questions explores the extent to which features of teacher appreciative systems are shared by other practitioners. (2) Given that teachers have appreciative systems of practice, how does the appreciative system of 19 one teacher compare with that of another teacher? (a) What common features and what differences exist between the professional identity and practical preferences of teachers who collaborate in their teaching of elementary science? (b) For the teachers who collaborate in the teaching of elementary science, what is the nature of the collaborative relationships they share? The final question of the study directly addresses a major purpose of this inquiry: (3) In view of the nature and comparability of these teacher appreciative systems, what major concerns about their science teaching do teachers have and what is the significance of teacher collaboration in their handling of these concerns? 1.6.4. Context The major intent of this study was to explore how elementary teachers viewed their world of science teaching. Teacher appreciative systems were used as a conceptual device with which to search out and represent teachers' ideas about their science teaching practice. 20 Four teachers participated in this investigation. They came from two elementary schools, located a few kilometers from each other, within a large urban district in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Two teachers taught the primary grades and two taught the intermediate grades. Data were gathered on one unit of science instruction for each teacher. 1.7. Significance of the Study The ultimate goal of the study was to examine and document the way that teachers seemed to approach the teaching of elementary science. This was done by examining and describing how experienced teachers appreciated aspects of their practice. Since teachers were being viewed as practitioners, i t was important to obtain their own insights of their work in classrooms and to try to picture how they see their own practice. In so doing, the study has significance in terms of its potential to contribute to a better understanding of practice as well as theory. 1.7.1. Contributions to Practice There was merit in dealing with this type of problem because i t was an attempt to: (a) engage teachers i n reflections and discourse on their practice, a task which, though d i f f i c u l t , has the potential to be of benefit to them as professionals. (b) uncover the basis of how teachers represent to themselves and resolve practical situations—information which supervisors of teachers may find useful. (c) articulate case knowledge about the teaching of science which other practitioners may find interesting. More importantly, the general problem relates to teachers' professional experiences and practices. Discussions of this nature could be of interest and value to other practitioners. 1.7.2. Contributions to Theory By attempting to probe "inside teachers' heads", so to speak, and see the extent to which individual appreciative systems of practice are shared by other teachers, this study should contribute to a relatively new f i e l d of research on the cultures of teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Any insights gained here may be of use i n future investigations on the theory of the culture of teaching. Also, this enquiry i s based on a constructionist perspective 22 of now individuals "see" their world and how this vision shapes and colours what they do (Schon, 1987). Some researchers of teacher thinking reccmmend that research efforts be directed to constructing a "taxonomy of critical teaching decisions" (Shavelson & Stem, 1981). Others point to the need for a new epistemology of practice (Erickson, 1987). In order to accomplish such ambitious, but diffuse, goals, an i n i t i a l step is required. It is necessary to find out how aspects of the practical contexts of teaching interact with and relate to teachers' thinking-in-practice. This study has identified teacher appreciations and these have spelled out how teachers viewed their practice. To that extent, these findings have the potential to enhance current work on the theory of teacher cognition. 1.8. Limitations This study has the following limitations: (1) Only elementary science teaching was looked at. Interviews and observations of teachers occurred only in their science classes over one unit. No data were gathered on the teaching of other subjects. (2) For the purposes of this study, teaching and learning were taken to be separate. The study dealt only with issues of teaching practice and teachers were considered to be the ones who build 23 their own practice. No obvious attempts were made to pupil learning, except to the extent that pupils were elements in each teacher's practice. (3) Though derived from a limited set of data, the classes observed, the interviews conducted and the appreciations drawn from these data sources were considered typical of the teachers who participated in this study. (4) The concerns that have given rise to this research problem have come out of the researcher's own practical experiences as a teacher and a teacher of teachers. It is inevitable that this subjective stance would colour the intents, methods and findings of the study. (5) This is an exploratory investigation of practice, with a small select sample. Caution must be exercized in generalizing these findings to other practical situations. The most recent edition of the Handbook of Research on  Teaching (1986) contains a new chapter on the cultures of teaching. The authors claim that there are few of these studies and that they are not easy to do because certain problems are endemic to this type of inquiry: focus on operative The problem of making inferences about beliefs and knowledge was one factor that led to the flight from 24 behaviorism. While the benefits of behaviorism proved too costly"/ the complexities of cognitive research have not vanished. Research on the culture of teaching is labour intensive.... Even well-supported studies can seldom go beyond a small sample of teachers. The variation in teaching cultures limits the generality of conclusions from any one study (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, p. 523). This exploration of teachers' practical worlds is not exempt from any of the limits identified above by these authors. 1.9. Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation contains seven chapters. In the fi r s t chapter the perspectives that form a backdrop for the general research problem and the way in which they frame the specific research questions are discussed. This is followed by a review of selected theories and research studies, which substantiate and extend the position outlined in the fi r s t chapter, from which the research questions originated. In Chapter 3 the procedures for gathering and analyzing the data are presented. Then there are three chapters of findings, Chapters 4, 5, and 6, each representing a progressively more descriptive/interpretive response to each of the three major research questions posed in Chapter 1. The final chapter contains an overview of the purposes of the study, with implications for a few broader issues of the theory and the practice of teaching, which have emerged from a study of these particular cases of elementary science teaching. 1.10. Definitions Appreciative System: According to Schon (1987, p. 33), "the set of values, preferences and norms in terms of which professionals make sense of practice situations, formulate goals and directions for action and determine what constitutes acceptable professional conduct". In this study, an appreciative system represented a coherent collection of teacher appreciations of elementary science teacrhing practice. Emphasis has been placed on characterizing teachers' appreciations of their identities as practitioners and their preferences for science teaching practice, as opposed to "values" or "norms". Appreciation: an integrated element of an appreciative system that permits a teacher to understand or rethink while reacting to a practical situation (after Schon, 1987). Collaboration: the particular form of practice and the professional relationships which emerge when two teachers choose to share their expertise and practice while they teach elementary science, s t i l l rrainteining the integrity of their own classrooms. Content: the subject matter of science as taught in the units of science instruction included in this study. 26 Interactive: cxxrirnonly used to refer to the phase of teaching in class when pupils are present and the teacher interacts with them to deliver the content. Practitioner: one for whom practice is central to the work of the profession. Preactive: commonly regarded as the planning phase of teaching which occurs before the teacher's actual interaction with pupils in class. Reflection-in-action: spontaneous, intuitive experimenting which occurs in practice (after Schon, 1983). Teaching Practice: "made up of chunks of activity, divisible into more or less familiar types, each of which is seen as calling for the exercise of a certain kind of knowledge" (after Schon, 1987, P. 3). CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.0. Overview In the previous chapter, the purposes of this study were stated to be an examination and comparison of four teachers' appreciations of their worlds of practice, with the intent of understanding how these teachers construe their practice. These specific aims are, however, linked to broader perspectives of the way in which individuals perceive and respond to experiences in their worlds. For instance, to investigate how teachers see and make their worlds of practice, i t would be useful to refer to the manner in which other persons make their worlds. The intents of this project then, generally relate to the subject of worldmaking (Goodman, 1972; 1984). Presumably, the nature of the worldmaking processes of others can shed light on the way that teachers appreciate their own practice. As background to this inquiry, the following aspects of literature have been examined: (a) cognitive perspectives of teachers' worlds, (b) practical perspectives of teachers' worlds, (c) the general nature of worldmaking and its implications for investigating teachers' worldmaking. Selected findings of recent studies on these three topics w i l l be presented i n this chapter. These findings w i l l i l l u s t r a t e the relative importance of what i s known about the cognitive and practical dimensions of teachers' worlds from these studies as well as from a consideration of the way i n which persons are generally said to "make" their worlds. 2.1. Cognitive Perspectives of Teachers' Worlds 2.1.1. Introduction Much of what i s known about the worlds of teaching practitioners comes not only from research on teaching but also, to some extent, from studies of schooling which form a body of literature that has evolved considerably i n the last decade (Shulman, 1986). The studies which are the focus of this review are those which have delved into the practical aspects of teaching, i n particular those which have examined practitioners' viewpoints about their own classroom teaching. Selected studies w i l l be discussed i n this section to provide insights into the shape of the world of teaching practice and into the manner i n which teachers have personally viewed their business of teaching. 2.1.2. Trends in Research on Teac±iinq Teaching is about knowledge and cxmrunicating knowledge. Traditionally, studies of teaching have sought to link identifiable teacher attributes to measureable educational outcomes. This process-product orientation implied that changing teaching outcomes or improving quality of teaching was simply a matter of specifying appropriate changes in teacher behaviour (Gage, 1978). This view, however, cannot adequately define or explain a l l that is involved in teaching. A most important indicator of what is learned has been shown to be the classroom teacher (Peterson, Marx & Clark, 1978). From a different angle, studies of curriculum implementation have indicated that teachers are resistant to using in class ideas that are innovative when they are developed externally (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977). In practice, teachers seem unwilling or unable to produce consistently on demand, the actions prescribed for certain curricular outcomes (Gage, 1963). Other researchers have not readily accepted arguments of teacher deficiency and have sought to explain perceptual differences between teachers and curriculum developers from alternative perspectives (Smith & Sandelbach, 1979). Variants of this type of research on teaching have recently emerged. Yet, a number of these studies seem to develop progressively less of a focus on the effectiveness of teaching and more of a desire to look into the texture of classroom l i f e , as well as the cognitive processes of teachers and of students (Jackson, 1968; Flanders, 1970; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Good, Biddle & Brophy, 1975; Doyle, 1983; Mackay & Marland, 1978; Winne & Marx, 1982). Such research efforts have provided avenues for looking in-depth into the way teachers think about their teaching and how they actively cope with the practical demands of their work (Elbaz, 1983; Shavelson, 1983). The result has been a new genre of research on teaching based on starting points and methods, which concentrate on description of teaching more than on prescription for teaching. Among these are studies of teacher thinking, most of which seem to draw on elements of cognitive psychology. This newer research agenda base on teaching as cognition acknowledges the inherent intricacies of the teaching process and supports the need for closer examination of teaching, as i t is viewed and experienced by practising teachers (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Instead of paying attention to identifying teacher behaviour, close scrutiny of the mental structures of individual teachers is done. This assumes that the process and content of teacher thought play a role in the way teachers teach and that knowing something of how teachers think and feel could contribute worthwhile information about teaching itself (Peterson, Marx & Clark, 1978; Conners, 1978; Munby, 1983). While i t has been productive to look at teacher cognition, exairdrdng cxxjnitive dimensions of teaching has been quite a different research venture from experimental investigation of teacher performance. Clark and Peterson (1986) in Chapter 9 of the Handbook of Research on Teaching point out that: Because this research is so new, each study seems to break new ground... Researchers have also tended to focus on relatively discrete and isolated aspects of teachers' thoughts and actions, rather than on the whole process of teaching... the time seems right for more comprehensive study of the f u l l variety of teachers' thought processes in relationship to teachers' actions and their effects on students... researchers would do well to work simultaneously on descriptive models of teacher thought processes and on descriptive models of the tasks of teaching (p. 292). The research problem, assumptions and methods of this study are not congruent with the process-product position which encouraged a focus on teacher behaviours. The questions of this inquiry have emerged,from concerns about the "whole process of teaching". They are questions about the interplay between personal (conceptual) aspects of teachiing and contextual (practical) features of teaching. Such concerns acknowledge and support a view of teachers as thoughtful professionals who bring some degree of reflection, metaphorical expressions of practical knowledge and personal beliefs to their practice (Olson, 1981; Munby, 1983; 1987; Morine-Dershimer, 1987). This stance also recognizes that reflection is a critical ingredient of teaching and that reflection in teaching is somehow related to "indeterminate zones of [teaching] practice" (Schon, 1983; Erickson, 1987, Grimmett et a l , 1987; Russell, 1987). Acknowledging that reflection can play a role in teaching allows for exploration of both professional and personal dimensions in teaching, be they cognitively or practically oriented. Details of actual findings of selected studies on teaching practice are presented in Tables 2.1. and 2.2. as a convenient summary of those aspects of the literature which are relevant to this research problem. The contents of these tables are meant to give some indication of salient features of teachers' worlds of practice and, accordingly, to act as referents for the ensuing discussion in which specific findings from these tables are examined, in the light of the research questions of this study. 2.1.3. Preactive Thinking and Planning Research on teacher thinking supplies many insights into the nature of teaching practice. Work on teacher thinking has followed a trend to conceptualize teaching as a process with discrete phases of preactive and interactive activity (Jackson, 1968). With this prototype, in the last decade, researchers have tried to reconstruct how teachers think, often modelling what teachers do on information processing and classifying teachers' information processing abilities as decision making or problem solving (Newell & Simon, 1972; Shavelson, 1976). This literature indicates that T a b l e 2.1: C o g n i t i v e A s p e c t s o f T e a c h e r s ' W o r l d s 33 P r e a c t i v e T h i n k i n g and P l a n n i n g T h i n k i n g - t e a c h e r s have b e l i e f s , p r i n c i p l e s , p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , c o n c e p t u a l systems and p e r s p e c t i v e s w h i c h u n d e r g i r d t h e i r t e a c h i n g ( M a r l a n d , 1977; C o nners, 1978; D u f f y , 1977) - o r i e n t i n g b e l i e f s o f t e a c h e r s r e l a t e t o (a) p r i o r i t i z i n g c u r r i c u l u m demands (b) t a k i n g a c c o u n t o f p u p i l needs (c) f o s t e r i n g p u p i l c h o i c e (d) p r o m o t i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n ( B u s s i s , C h i t t e n d e n & A m a r e l , 1976) P l a n n i n g - c o n s c i o u s c h o i c e s ; l o n g term, and s h o r t t e r m : by l e s s o n , u n i t , day, week, month, t e r m and y e a r , ( Y i n g e r , 1977) Use o f P l a n n i n g - mechanics o f c u r r i c u l u m t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ; e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n work r o u t i n e s ; match t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s w i t h a v a i l a b l e t i m e ( Y i n g e r , 1977; C l a r k &. Y i n g e r , 1980) P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s - more d i r e c t l y c o n n e c t s t o d e t e r m i n i n g c o n t e n t and a c t i v i t i e s t h a n t o s p e c i f y i n g o b j e c t i v e s ( Z a h o r i k , 1975; P e t e r s o n , Marx &. C l a r k , 1978) - i n t e r r e l a t e d w i t h e x p e r i e n c e and knowledge ( Y i n g e r , 1977) - m e n t a l i m a g e r y ; o f t e n n o t c o m p l e t e l y w r i t t e n out b u t b a r e l y o u t l i n e d on p a p e r (McCutcheon, 1981) - composed o f e s s e n t i a l " l e s s o n images" on how o r what t o t e a c h - p l a n s r e a d i l y r e l i n q u i s h e d i n c a s e o f i n - c l a s s d i s r u p t i o n ( M o r i n e , 1976) - i n s c i e n c e , h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d b y t e a c h e r s ' g u i d e s and p l a n n i n g images r i g i d l y a d h e r e d t o ( S m i t h & S a n d e l b a c h , 1979) Academic Work and I n t e r a c t i v e T h i n k i n g Academic Work - shaped by " e c o l o g y " o f c l a s s r o o m - p u p i l s d e v e l o p c o p i n g mechanisms w h i c h a f f e c t what c o n s t i t u t e s academic work - t e a c h e r s use " p r e f e r r e d p r a c t i c e s " . ( D o y l e , 1982) I n t e r a c t i v e T h i n k i n g ' - s p o n t a n e o u s , " o f f - t h e c u f f " d e c i s i o n making - l e s s d e l i b e r a t i v e ( S h a v e l s o n & S t e r n , 1981) P r o c e s s o f I n t e r a c t i v e T h i n k i n g - e s s e n t i a l l y w e i g h i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s i n r e s p o n s e t o u n a n t i c i p a t e d e v e n t s - l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h o u g h t on l e a r n e r a b i l i t i e s , c o n t e n t , t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s ; much l e s s t o o b j e c t i v e s ( M a r l a n d , 1977; C o n n e r s , 1978; Marx & P e t e r s o n , 1981) - r e s o r t i n g t o " r o u t i n e s " t o s i m p l i f y u n c e r t a i n t y and a m b i g u i t y ( S m i t h and S a n d e l b a c h , 1979) - h e a v i l y d r i v e n b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f p u p i l s s u c h a s , c o m p e n s a t i o n , l e n i e n c e , power s h a r i n g , p r o g r e s s c h e c k i n g , l e s s t h o u g h t t o c o n t e n t ( M a r l a n d , 1977) - shaped by (a) p r o f e s s i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s : s u p p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s , t e a c h e r a u t h e n t i c i t y and (b) p e d a g o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s : c o g n i t i v e l i n k i n g , i n t e g r a t i o n , c l o s u r e , g e n e r a l i n v o l v e m e n t , e q u a l i t y o f t r e a t m e n t ( C o n n e r s , 1978) teaching is a complex mental activity, with teachers operating as deliberate and rational thinkers (Halkes & Olson, 1984). After'Jackson (1968), research on teacher thinking has been classed into studies of preactive teaching and studies of interactive teaching. The former dwell on how teachers think and prepare for teaching, more or less in the planning or preactive phase of teaching. The latter focus on what actually occurs during classroom interaction, the interactive phase. The preactive phase of teaching has been considered distinct from the interactive phase and has, until recently, tended to be investigated separately (Shavelson, 1983). Knowledge of either phase contributes to knowledge about worlds of teaching practice. It appears that in the preactive phase of teaching, teachers are problem solvers. They are said to use problem solving to define and elaborate their mental plans and activities for a lesson. Findings in Table 2.1. indicate that these plans are used to set the stage, so to speak, for the actual lesson (Zahorik, 1975; Morine, 1976; Yinger, 1980; McCutcheon, 1981). The basic unit on which teachers build their mental plans is said to be the "task" and out of tasks come teachers' goals for instruction. In the course of generating mental plans, teachers seem to juggle multiple goals in order to achieve "a reasonable balance" for instruction. Some teachers appear to concentrate exclusively on the subject matter of instruction; others appear to use the subject mainly as a channel for attaining their own "motivational goals" (Borko & Shavelson/ 1983). 2.1.4. Academic Work and Interactive Thinking Quite a different picture of teacher cognition appears to obtain in the study of actual teaching practice, when the teacher is in face-to-face contact with pupils in class. By analyzing teaching as i t occurs on-the-spot in class and focussing exclusively on the tasks of academic work, Doyle (1982) has examined the academic tasks of teaching, from a pupil's viewpoint; not from a teacher's perspective. His findings are interesting. Academic work, he says, is shaped by the complex ecology of the classroom setting. Both teachers and pupils develop and use interactively, systems for coping in class which colour what passes for academic work in class. Doyle's (1977, 1982) findings imply that the plans and activities which teachers construct before going into class are not played out in class, as conceived. Students develop their own systems of viewing and coping with teachers' academic task demands. While Doyle's work has identified the complex nature of pupil involvement in instruction, i t has not dealt with teachers' parallel perceptions of their own classroom lives. Studies of interactive teaching summarized in Table 2.1 also indicate that in class, teachers are cognitivelv active as decision makers. They are driven to implement well-formulated preactively conceived plans but, they experience some difficulty in so doing (MacKay & Marland, 1978; Peterson, Marx & Clark, 1978). Decisions made in class are shaped by teachers' perceptions of their pupils, the content and strategies of teaching, their own professional principles and to a limited extent by objectives for teaching (Marland, 1977; Conners, 1978). These findings raise questions about how teachers view their work and the nature of their motives for operating as they do. Why would experienced practitioners make plans that they intend to disregard in class? Similarly, why would experienced teachers f a i l to recognize and accommodate the uncertain features of practice which they perceive to characterize their workworlds? Though selective in its focus, research on teacher 1±dnking has been innovative and significant. This knowledge of teachers' mental processes has served to emphasize the ambience of teaching and its complexity. It is true that teachers engage in different sorts of activities before and during instruction. But, to say with Shavelson (1983), that "teachers' behaviour is guided by their thoughts, judgements and decisions" and to ground this assertion in a limited preactive-interactive model of teaching, is to posit a linear, consequential relationship between thought and action in teaching, which excludes the dynamics of the practical context of teaching. In a major review of the literature, i t has 37 been said that models of interactive decision making have two major drawbacks (Clark & Peterson, 1986). First, teachers' in-class choices should also be considered to be deliberate, not merely responsive. Second, i t is important to indicate antecedents of teachers' interactive choice making, other than the students in their classes. Indeed, as i t is with other professionals, teachers' perceptions must also contribute to their instructional choices (Schon, 1983; Benner, 1984). One can then speculate that the press of the classroom environment may have the potential to dominate teacher thinking and to influence the quality and process of teacher thinking throughout teaching. In the face of evidence of a reflexive, improvisational, practical world of teaching, this would not be an untenable position to hold (Elbaz, 1983; Dillard, 1987; Yinger, 1987). Studies of teachers' practical knowledge and their professional practice, also shed some light on the nature of teachers' worlds. These findings are summarized in Table 2.2. and they will be discussed below, as they too add form to the picture of the world of a teaching practitioner. 38 T a b l e 2.2: P r a c t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o f T e a c h e r s ' Worlds PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE TYPE - r u l e s , p r i n c i p l e s o f p r a c t i c e and images o f p r a c t i c e ( E l b a z , 1981) CONTENT c u r r i c u l u m , s u b j e c t m a t t e r , i n s t r u c t i o n , s e t t i n g , s e l f ( E l b a z , 1981) ORIENTATION - s i t u a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , p e r s o n a l , e x p e r i e n t i a l , t h e o r e t i c a l - t e a c h e r s have and use p r a c t i c a l knowledge w h i c h emerges from t h e i r i n t u i t i v e b l e n d i n g o f r e f l e c t i o n s , e x p e r i e n c e s and images o f i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n m i l i e u o f o p e r a t i o n ( E l b a z , 1981; 1983) - t e a c h e r p r a c t i c a l knowledge i s a s p e c i a l , p e r s o n - c e n t r e d , b l e n d o f t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l k i n d s o f knowing e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t o f t e a c h i n g ( E l b a z , 1983) - "embodied images" such a s , " c l a s s r o o m as home" have m o r a l and e m o t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n s t h a t a r e e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e ( C l a n d i n i n , 1985) PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE - f o u r t y p e s o f c o n c e p t i o n s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e p r e v a l e n t among t e a c h e r s : (a) t h e more e x p e r i e n c e d a t e a c h e r i s , t h e more t h a t t e a c h e r a t t e n d s t o p u p i l t h i n k i n g r a t h e r t h a n t o t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g (b) knowledge o f t e a c h i n g i s c u m u l a t i v e and d e v e l o p m e n t a l , much l i k e l e a r n i n g by " t r i a l and e r r o r " (c) w i t h t i m e , t e a c h e r s move from a f o c u s on t e a c h i n g o f f a c t s t o t h e t e a c h i n g o f p r i n c i p l e s (d) i n t i m e , t e a c h e r ' s work becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y r o u t i n i z e d ( L a r s s o n , 1987) PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ( c o n t d . ) - t e a c h e r s have a language of of p r a c t i c e : "a s e t o f i n t e g r a t e d p a t t e r n s o f t h o u g h t and a c t i o n " , w h i c h i s r e s p o n s i v e t o and dependent on t e a c h i n g c o n t e x t , h o l i s t i c , p e r s o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d and grounded i n common s e n s e , e x p e r i e n c e and p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n i n g ( E l b a z , 1983; Lampert, 1985; C l a n d i n i n , 1986; Oberg, 1987; Y i n g e r , 1987) - s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h i n g c a l l s f o r " o f -the-moment" r e s p o n s e s t o c l a s s — i m p r o v i s a t i o n - s k i l l i n t e a c h i n g can be l i n k e d more c l o s e l y t o t h e e x i s t e n c e and use o f t e a c h e r i m p r o v i s a t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e t h a n t o d e c i s i o n making models w h i c h i m p l y adherence t o p r e d e s i g n e d c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n ( D i l l a r d , 1986; 1987; Y i n g e r , 1987) - i n t h e t e a c h i n g o f math and s c i e n c e , t e a c h e r s ' c o n t e n t knowledge, c l a s s -room o r g a n i z a t i o n a l knowledge and knowledge o f p u p i l s ' p r e c o n c e p t i o n s , and t e a c h e r s ' b e l i e f s a b o ut t h e n a t u r e o f s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g were c r i t i c a l i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h e i r p r a c t i c e ( S m i t h & N e a l e , 1987; P e t e r s o n e t a l , 1987; C a r p e n t e r e t a l , 1987) - i n math c l a s s e s , t e a c h e r s a t t e m p t t o d e v i s e " s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s " so t h a t t h e y c a n t a k e a c c o u n t o f t h e q u a l i t y o f p u p i l s ' t h i n k i n g about t h e s u b j e c t , even t h o u g h t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s o f t e n compete i n c l a s s w i t h o t h e r " p e r s o n - d i r e c t e d s u p e r s c r i p t s " w h i c h g u i d e t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e (Lampert, 1987) 39 2.2. Practical Perspectives of Teachers' Worlds 2.2.1. Practical Knowledge Elbaz (1983) has done a detailed examination of the world of one teacher. She argues that teachers have and hold practical knowledge. This is described as a kind of knowledge which includes, "first hand experience of students' learning styles, interests, needs, strengths and difficulties, and a repertoire of instructional techniques and classroom management ski l l s , ... the social structure of the school and what i t requires, ... the immunity of which the school is part, ... informed by the teacher's theoretical knowledge of subject matter..." (p. 5). According to Elbaz, there are three major forms of practical knowledge. They are rules of practice, principles of practice and images, a l l of which are used by teachers to make and give meaning to their practice. It would seem that the knowledge which teachers use in practice is comprehensive. It embraces dimensions of experience as well as practical and pedagogical expertise, a l l embedded in teachers' perceptions of the context. As such, the practical knowledge of teachers is complex -but coherent, "a contextually relative exercise of capacities for imaginatively ordering our experience" (Johnson, 1984, p. 467). 40 Elbaz's (1983) study paints a picture of the teacher as a professional, operating in a dynamic, two-dimensional world of practice, one that is not only personally-defined but also, contextually grounded. This work stresses how productive i t might be to investigate teachers' entire worlds of practice instead of phases of teaching. Also, Elbaz provides a means of weaving teachers' implicit theories, beliefs, self-knowledge and principles of teaching, into the complex ecology of classroom l i f e , to make the rich tapestry that is teaching practice. 2.2.2. Professional Knowledge Very recent studies of teaching have prompted further understanding of the complexity,, yet oneness, of teachers' worlds. It has been proposed that teachers have views of practice that are developmental, responsive to and dependent on the teaching context and that these guide their teaching (Lampert, 1985? Clandinin, 1986; Larsson, 1987; Oberg, 1987; Yinger, 1987). The literature also attests to the role of improvisation and reflection in teacher decision making and to the prevalence of "person-directed superscripts" which influence teaching practice (Dillard, 1986; Smith & Neale, 1987; Lampert, 1987). This area of study is new and warrants further inquiry. The following conclusions may be drawn from the studies cited above: (1) The teacher's world of practice is complex and intricate, but coherent in itself and each individual teacher is instrumental in cognitively creating a world of practice. (2) Teachers have certain understandings of themselves, the teaching context, pupils and subject matter, a l l of which contribute to the making of their worlds of practice. (3) In a teacher's world there are two broad domains; professional, personal perceptions and practical, contextual concerns, both of which are interwoven, not discrete in a teacher's world of practice. The discussion that follows will deal with the nature of worldmaking itself and the implications of this knowledge for the nature of teachers' worlds of practice. 42 2.3. Nature of Worldmaking For teaching practitioners teaching practice can be thought of as a process of construction or worldmaking (Erickson, 1987; Grimmett et al, 1987; Oberg, 1987). The term "worldmaking" has been made popular by Nelson Goodman (1972). But, the idea that persons actively engage in their own construction of reality has been the topic of discussion by many a theorist (Wittgenstein, 1953; Kelly, 1955; Arendt, 1971; Vickers, 1984). To describe how teachers make their worlds of practice, i t is necessary to have a general knowledge of the nature of worldmaking itself. This section will outline Kelly's (1955) and Goodman's (1972, 1984) positions on how persons construct their personal realities and "make" their worlds. These references will provide a useful backdrop against which to speculate on how teachers engage in their practical worldmaking. Kelly's (1955) Personal Construct psychological theory states that persons construct their realities and that individuals make sense of their worlds, through networks of abstract convictions called personal constructs, which are derived from personal experience. A construct is defined by Kelly (1955) as a bipolar abstraction through which a person, like a scientist, sees, builds and rebuilds personal reality. Constructs are therefore revised in the light of new personal experiences. For Kelly, this 43 exploration, construction and reconstruction of reality i s an ongoing individual process but, groups of individuals who have common experiences may also happen to share some constructs. Kelly's Personal Construct Theory is particularly relevant to the aims of this investigation of teaching practice. Each teacher operating in a classroom brings into play personal constructs and experiences and these can account for the variability of teaching practice. But, despite the individual, autonomous nature of teaching practice, teachers are likely to have some professional perspectives in common. Whether and how these are influenced by teachers' sharing in certain elements of practice, from teacher training or from teacher socialization is an issue of some debate (Lortie, 1975; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1983; Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Lortie (1975) would say that, "such convergence can arise from the diffusion of a subculture. On the other hand, i t may derive from common responses to common contingencies" (p. 162). Looking at the worldmaking processes of individual and or collaborating teachers is one way of finding out the extent to which a particular group of teachers do share certain constructs. Therefore the general problem of this study is an application of, not only Kelly's (1955) principles of personal construct theory, but also Goodman's (1984) ideas on worldmaking. In one of his early works, Problems and Projects, Goodman (1972) contends that, to think about the way the world i s , i t is 44 necessary to include thoughts of the following: (a) the way the world i s given, (b) the way the world i s to be seen, and (c) the way the world i s to be described. Goodman's line of reasoning above i s worth mentioning i n this dissertation, which i s neither philosophical i n origin nor i n intent, because the substance of i t can be a useful referent for this inquiry. Major points i n Goodman's conception of worldmaking are outlined below. What he has to say about "the way the world i s to be seen" i s of particular interest i n this study since i t i s an exploration of the way i n which teachers perceive and make their worlds of practice. There i s , Goodman (1972, 1984) claims, no single "way the world i s " but many ways and many worlds. He affirms that there i s merit i n probing "the world as i t i s given" to us through experience. There are nevertheless practical constraints or influences on experience. /According to Goodman (1972): The issue i s not what i s given but how i t i s given. Is i t given as a single whole or i s i t given as many small particles? (p. 26). Goodman's consideration of "the way the world i s seen" i s directly relevant to an inquiry into teaching practice which has 45 both personal and contextual influences. There are, he affirms, many ways of seeing, whether they are taken to be real or to be distorted. Even "distorted" images draw attention to an aspect of reality previously unrecognized or ignored, For the ways of seeing and picturing are many and various; some are strong, effective, useful, intriguing, or sensitive; others are weak, foolish, dull, banal, or blurred. But i f a l l the latter are excluded, s t i l l none of the rest could lay any good claim to be the way of seeing or picturing the world the way i t is (p. 29). Similarly, this study aims to capture and report one of the many possible ways of viewing practice, in the hope that such knowledge can only enhance understanding of the complexities of teaching practice. As to "the way the world is to be described", the central question, Goodman (1984) says, is whether any description of the world can "faithfully depict" that world. But, in any event, he quips, even the "truest" description could not faithfully reproduce the way the world is for, ... i f we say that a l l true descriptions and good pictures are equally unfaithful, then in terms of what sample or standard of relative faithfulness are we speaking? We have no longer before us any clear notion of what faithfulness would be. Thus I reject the idea that there is some test of realism or faithfulness in addition to the tests of pictorial goodness and descriptive truth. There are very many differing, equally true, descriptions of the world and their truth is the only standard of their faithfulness... None of them tells the way the world i s , but each of them tells 46 us a_ way the world is....Since I am concerned with the ways the world is, my response must be to construct one or many descriptions (p. 31). According to Goodman (1972, 1984), individuals make their own worlds and there are many versions and many worlds made. This suggests that there is worth in describing truthfully any version of any of these worlds for no single description of any world can be judged on its precision. Nor would i t be possible to say precisely how adequate any description of another's world might be. Any faithful version or description of a way the world i s , should therefore be as acceptable as i t is revealing. Goodman (1984) is himself "convinced that there is no one way of describing or picturing or perceiving the world, but rather that there are many equally right but conflicting ways—and thus, in effect, many actual worlds..." Both Kelly's Personal Construct Theory and Goodman's stance on worldmaking, suggest that one basic claim can be made here, namely that a constructivist epistemology is an appropriate and productive way of conceptualizing teaching practice (Schon, 1983; Erickson, 1987). It seems reasonable that persons build their own views of reality; create their personal worlds. This investigation of teaching practice is founded on this fundamental tenet. This study is an attempt to explore and portray teachers' worlds. Teachers' professional and personal views are known to be 47 a basis of the practice and culture of teaching (Jackson 1968; Lortie, 1975, Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Goodman's stance is a useful one on which to base this study of teaching, not only because i t implies that the world of teaching is neither fixed nor unchanging, but also because i t attests to the value of capturing, portraying and understanding any version of the many possible worlds of teaching practice. From the viewpoint of practitioners, worlds of practice are indeed dynamic and changeable (Benner, 1984; Schon 1983, 1987). It is not reasonable, therefore, to claim to depict, with any degree of certainty, the way the world is for teachers, but certainly, i t is possible to picture a way the world is for teachers. This enquiry is an attempt to portray one version of teachers' worldmaking—one snapshot of one of the many ways in which each of the four teachers in this study engaged in making their worlds. 2.4. Teachers' Worlds in the Making To take and display snapshots of another's world, a good lens is necessary for viewing that world. But, using a lens for viewing and representing worlds involves knowing something of the processes of worldmaking. Worldmaking is a mental process of construction (Kelly, 1955; Goodman, 1972, 1984). It must have cognitive dimensions. The writings of Sir Geoffrey Vickers can shed some light on the mental processes and systems associated with worldmaking. According to Geoffrey Vickers: The mental models which we build, representing the situations in which we conceive ourselves as acting, contain (at best) as much verified facts and rational deduction as are relevant and available; but they necessarily contain so many assumptions that, i f action based on them should f a i l to have the result expected, we can seldom say which assumption has failed us. And i f the facts behind the assumptions are themselves changing historically, we cannot be sure that a model which works today will work tomorrow—unless we can understand or control the process of change itself (1984, p. 48). In the words of Vickers, this study will attempt to witness how teachers "build their mental models" of teaching practice. As professionals, teachers find themselves in many different kinds of situations in class which, routinely, they manage to decipher and work through. As practitioners, i t is in the course of their teaching that they construct the principles on which their practice is founded (Elliott, 1976; Elbaz, 1981; Clandinin, 1986). Any concern about the nature of teachers' practice ought to include consideration of how teachers construe their practical situations, as a prerequisite to making a worthwhile representation of what teaching is, from a practitioner's perspective. In the course of teaching, according to Vickers, teachers would be engaged in mentally building and rebuilding models of their practice. Practice changes constantly and the assumptions behind "mental models" change with events, situations and concerns that teachers experience daily in their classrooms. Yet, Vickers 49 (1983) would affirm that teachers, like other professionals, have appreciative systems and so teachers, through their own appreciative systems of practice, are likely to bring to a practice in flux, some measure of consistency and coherence. Vickers (1983) has elaborated on the way in which humans come by their "mental models" through appreciative systems. He deliberately uses the word "system" to describe facets of the human psyche because he says that they are interrelated in one way or another, as well as coherent in themselves: Systems are tools of understanding, devised by human minds for understanding situations, including situations in which human beings appear as constituents. They are not arbitrary constructs. They must include the rniroinum number of relationships needed to constitute the situation which is to be understood. But this is defined by its relevance to the concerns of some human minds... Systems are nets of relations which are sustained over time...(p. 17) An appreciative system, he discloses, is a pattern of concerns and the situations which relate to these concerns. Appreciation itself includes "the power of representing to ourselves situations relevant to our concerns and comparing these situations with standards defining what we should expect them to be and, i f different, what we should like them to be" (p. 57). Problems originate in "concerns" and the likely response to these concerns is to make a mental "representation of the situation which is relevant to that concern." Professionals are therefore constantly engaged in a process of re-evaluating and refining or changing concerns: I regard an appreciative system as a work of art, both personal and social, one that is constantly revised or confirmed by the three needs. First, i t should correspond with reality sufficiently to guide action. Second, i t should be sufficiently shared by our fellows to mediate communication. Third, i t should be sufficiently acceptable to ourselves to make l i f e bearable. It is thus a mental construct, partly subjective, largely intersubjective, that is based on a shared subjective judgement, and constantly challenged or confirmed by experience (Vickers, 1983, p. 55). Vickers' (1983) concept of an appreciative system is fundamental to this study for an appreciative system is a useful lens through which to discern, examine and make sense of teachers' worldmaking in practice. Vickers' theory of appreciative systems would imply that teacher appreciative systems operate in the following manner. A teacher experiences a practical situation and has certain appreciations of i t . In accord with any of these appreciations, responses are devised, evaluated and re-evaluated by the teacher "with the aid of criteria set by other concerns." A web of concerns begin to be "set" as a problem. Finally, "a problem begins to emerge. Solutions are sought. Action may or may not follow" (p. 55). In other words, an individual experiences a concern, frames that concern within a web of other concerns and based on a set of 51 personal c r i t e r i a originating i n those concerns/ proceeds to see and formulate an appropriate problem for resolution. Deciphering concerns does not always mean that action i s required and appreciation i t s e l f does not necessarily involve action. Appreciation i s not solely either thinking or doing. A teacher appreciative system incorporates elements of understanding, rethinking and reacting to a situation i n practice. Teacher appreciation can contribute to the definition of a practical problem as well as to the decision to dismiss or solve that problem. There are three reasons for the use made of appreciative systems i n this investigation of teachers' practical worlds. F i r s t l y , appreciative systems are applicable to the work of teachers. Teachers are practitioners (Schon, 1983, 1987; Erickson, 1987). Elements of teaching expertise are b u i l t during the practice of teaching (Elbaz, 1983; Connelly & Clandirdn, 1984). Despite claims about teachers' lack of professional knowledge and the absence of a teaching culture ( Jackson, 1968; Lortie, 1975; Sara son, 1982), i t has been established recently that teachers have and use various forms of personal and practical knowledge which do not arise i n isolation of the teaching context (Lampert, 1981; Elbaz, 1983; Lightfoot, 1983; Buchmann, 1984). Possibly, the practical dilemmas that some teachers are said to face, are not simply an outcome of the isolation of their work (Lortie, 1975). Examining teachers' appreciative systems of practice could lead to identification of what is personal and what is shared within the practice of teaching. The limits of any professional common ground that teachers may share can be mapped by exploring and comparing the appreciations of teaching practitioners within a context. Similarly, the existence of this common ground may point to the potential of identifying a "culture" of teaching. Secondly, the concept of an appreciative system signifies that i t is necessary to depict the concerns that teachers recognize in their practical situations. From these concerns may stem clues as to how teachers understand and frame problems and use their convictions to work through practical problems. Again and again, teachers are said to have implicit theories and conceptual or belief systems about their work (Bussis, Chittenden & Amarel, 1976? Olson, 1981; Munby, 1983). They have also been recognized as thoughtful, reflective professionals (Schon, 1987; Munby, 1987; Erickson, 1987). But for the most part, teacher thiriking has been examined in discrete phases, preactively (Yinger, 1980; McCutcheon, 1981) or interactively (Marland, 1977; Conners, 1978) and i t is s t i l l not clear what role teachers' preconceived convictions play in their teaching acts (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Teacher appreciative systems may provide an opportunity of investigating the thoughtful processes of teaching practice as an organized whole. Thirdly, elements of an appreciative system, as Vickers (1984) outlines them, form an appropriate alternative framework within which to conceptualize and analyze teaching. There are, he says, three essential elements of appreciation, rationality, contextual understanding and empathy. Rationality is much like logical deduction or reason. It is a given of a human system, the sort of thinking that matches teachers' preactive planning moves (Morine, 1976). Contextual understanding parallels the creativity and intuition which practitioners are said to apply to deciphering and responding to uncertain practical events (Clandinin, 1985; Buchmann, 1985; Larsson, 1987; Dillard, 1987). Empathy refers to the extent to which personal appreciations of a situation can be shared with others who have "experienced the thoughts and emotions which we attribute to them." Again, this aspect of teaching practice has not yet been fully explored but as an element of teachers' worldmaking, i t does have the potential to highlight possible aspects of a "culture" of teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). 2.5. Chapter Summary The previous discussion has served to emphasize the following points: (1) Worldmaking is a process of personal construction and creativity. (2) As a professional activity, worldmaking can contain elements that may be held i n common by teachers. (3) Worldmaking i s a mental process and therefore cannot be seen directly. For i t s investigation, a "lens" i s necessary. (4) Appreciative systems are an appropriate lens for examining teachers' making of their worlds of practice. In the f i r s t chapter the problem of this study was said to be one of investigating teachers' worlds of practice, as they see them. In this chapter, the literature was reviewed to indicate that teachers do indeed construct their own practical worlds and that there are two major dimensions of these worlds, the personal and the contextual. Teachers' views of r e a l i t y are reflected i n their worlds of practice. Their r e a l i t i e s revolve around their practical knowledge, their implicit theories and their teaching techniques, whether deliberative or improvisational. Teachers' thought processes, feelings, perceptions of themselves, their pupils, the subject matter and the manner i n which they respond to the day-to-day contingencies of teaching, a l l contribute to their worlds of teaching practice. In the following chapter, the procedures for looking into teachers' worlds i n the making are presented. 55 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH AND ANALYTIC rjROCEDURES 3.0 . Introduction This study investigated the nature of the practice of teachers of elementary science at the primary and intermediate grades. The contents of this chapter focus on the procedures used by the researcher to witness/ search out and represent how these teachers perceived their teaching practice. 3 .1 . Setting of the Study Data for the study were collected during a period of economic and political "restraint" when the climate for teachers and schools in the province of British Columbia was quite turbulent. There was no intent, however/ in this study to focus on the annoyances of the time, except to express gratitude to teachers for volunteering to give their cooperation and support to this project so willingly, despite their difficult circumstances. Four different cases of science teaching were investigated. Each case was the study of one teacher and that teacher's class during the teaching of one unit of science. Two teachers from each 56 of two elementary schools in the Lower Mainland participated. Both schools were located close to a university campus and drew their pupils from the neighbouring community. 3.2. Evolution of the Study The researcher had previously worked with teaching staff at each of the two schools in the study, as a supervisor of student teachers prior to the start of the study. For the purposes of this project, contact was f i r s t made with one teacher at each school, Dick and Jack. These two teachers had been sponsor teachers for student teachers under the researcher's supervision. One teacher, Dick, regularly taught a l l subjects to a split grade three/four. The other, Jack, was an intermediate grade science specialist at the other elementary school. Originally, i t was thought that Kelly's Personal Construct Theory (1955) could form the major analytical framework for collecting and analyzing teachers' views. During the pilot study, i t became evident that this methodology was not guite appropriate for the intents of this investigation and so i t was rejected. The Triadic Grid Elicitation, based on Kelly's Personal Construct Theory, was tried but i t did not facilitate the natural flow of teachers' conversations and a conversational technique seemed preferable for collecting teachers' views. Attempts to generate a more suitable procedure for this investigation led to an acceptance of the construct of appreciation. It is important to stress that in the i n i t i a l stages of this study, starting with the pilot phase, general theoretical assumptions were seen to guide rather than dictate a particular methodology. The researcher, therefore, came to see that these teachers had certain "appreciations" of their teaching practice and this conception of teachers as having appreciations, became a central feature of the data gathering and analytic procedures. More information on this topic of selecting an appropriate methodology is provided in Appendix A. Discussions about the study were held separately with Dick and Jack to explain the aims of the study and to seek their cooperation. It was felt that teachers should be well informed about the research intents so that they could have firm grounds on which to base their decisions to participate. After ample time for consideration, both Dick and Jack willingly agreed to volunteer for the project and the extent of teacher involvement was then discussed with their principals. Pilot interviews were conducted with each of them. During these i t became evident that in each case, the teacher worked closely with a colleague at his school in the teaching of science. For Dick and for Jack, the practical reality was that each of them had previously made a professional decision to work in conjunction with a colleague at the school in teaching science. Yet, each teacher retained exclusive control of his/her class. This was not team teaching, but most decisions on science instruction seemed to be jointly rather than independently made by the teachers in the sample. Although this situation had not been anticipated when the study was conceived and designed, i t was felt that no exploration of either Dick's or Jack's teaching practice could be complete in this event, without including studies of each of the teachers with whom they worked. The inguiry which had been originally intended to be two cases of science teaching became four cases of science teaching. Furthermore, in exploring the appreciations of each teacher for elementary science, the nature of their collaborative efforts with another teacher also came under scrutiny. Each teacher approached his partner about participation and both of the partners agreed to participate. The interviewer subsequently met with each partner separately, to discuss the purposes and methods of the study and their involvement. This exploratory inquiry was planned as two in-depth case studies of science teaching. During the course of the inquiry itself, i t evolved into four case studies of science teaching with the added dimension of examining how, in each case, individual teacher appreciation contributed to the fabric of voluntary teacher collaboration which existed in the teaching of elementary science. 3.3. Data Collection 3.3.1. Phases of Data Collection As conceived and pursued, the present study f a l l s within the naturalistic paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The research process set about to trace events as they unfolded in their natural setting. A report on this shifting, evolving research path can only portray to a limited extent, the actual events. The phases of data collection are presented below. But, i t i s important to mention that these phases would not have been readily recognizable during the actual process of data collection. Data gathered in this study consisted of teacher conversations, teacher observations and observer field notes. Documents, such as teacher notes and tests, used by the teachers in their teaching of units observed for this study, were also collected. There were three major phases of data collection: Phase 1 - Pilot conversations and teacher observations during one week of science classes. Phase 2 - Formal reflective teacher conversations with each teacher and observations of a l l classes during teaching of the unit (two weeks equalling six classes in each case) . Phase 3 - Formal interpretive teacher conversations with each pair of teachers. 3.3.2. The Teachers The sample consisted of four elementary teachers drawn from two schools in the Lower Mainland. Each teacher had a rrrinimum of five years and not more than ten years teaching experience. They were willing to give of their time to the project for interviews, were agreeable to being observed in their rooms teaching and were in agreement with the general purposes of the study. The researcher previously had a professional working relationship with two of the teachers and they were invited to participate because of this and because they had a reputation of being "good" teachers. Two teachers, Dick and Donna were generalists, teaching a l l subjects to their classes. The two other teachers, Jack and Jessica were specialists. Jack and Jessica were at a school where a "platooning" system enabled a teacher to develop and teach a specialty. These teachers, Jack and Jessica, shared the teaching of science to a l l the intermediate grades. Background information on each teacher is available in Appendix B. 3.3.3. Conversations with the Teachers Formal and informal conversations were held with each teacher over the two-year period i n which data were collected. A schedule of interviews was designed to match the av a i l a b i l i t y of the teachers i n the sample. (Refer to AppendixC). Notes of informal teacher conversations were kept as part of the researcher's f i e l d notes. To maintain the conversational mode, formal conversations were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis. There were two types of formal conversations, reflective and interpretive. These conversations were held with individual teachers as well as with each pair of teachers who collaborated. In reflective conversations, teacher observation narratives were used to anchor and focus the discussion. The main purpose of the reflective conversations was to enable the teacher to express personal views as well as to extend and c l a r i f y them. Conversations were held at various points throughout the unit depending on when the teachers were available. The f i n a l conversations were interpretive. These were held with each pair of teachers i n a face-to-face discussion with the researcher, as a f i n a l communication with the teachers and also for the teachers to voice their own impressions of the researcher's preliminary interpretations of their appreciations. These conversations were also audiotaped. 62 Dialogues with teachers were considered to be conversations rather than interviews because they followed the natural pattern of conversational flow and had less of the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of structured interviews. However, teacher conversations in this study were purposeful in that they ultimately pursued answers to the research questions, while allowing for the flexibility and spontaneity of natural conversation. The fact that teachers were very fluent and lengthy in their discourses with the researcher seemed to support this choice of technique. For each conversation the researcher had a l i s t of open-ended questions. Sample protocols are presented in Appendices D and E. Each conversation took its own shape and had its own flow. Conversations of this nature are an acceptable technique of holistic ethnography (Jacob, 1987). In naturalistic studies of this kind conversational techniques have been viewed as an effective medium for tapping into another's world and in particular into teachers' worlds: Such conversations can bring to f u l l awareness neglected perspectives on teaching, its complexity and richness as a practical art. They can give teachers a chance to think, to reflect not so much on what will be done tomorrow but on what has been done and is too easily forgotten. (Yonemura, 1982, p. 241) Including those of the pilot, at least four sets of formal conversations were held with each pair of teachers during this investigation. A l l of these served as data for the study. 63 3.3.4. Observations of the Teachers Observations of two units of science teaching were made in each case. The f i r s t set of observations belonged to the pilot phase. The second set were observations of lessons in the unit taught during the period when the reflective teacher conversations were held. The observer did not participate in class activity during observation of teachers. The activity and words of the teacher became the focus for observation narratives, following guidelines suggested by Doyle et al (1982) in Appendix F. Observations were intended to provide a rich ground for discussions with teachers and a means of providing the researcher with contextual clarification of the substance of teacher conversations. The narratives were prepared with three questions in mind: (1) What personal principles seemed consistently to drive a teacher's practice? For example, how did the teacher relate with pupils? (2) To what extent did a teacher implement these principles in the light of a collaborative plan with a partner? (3) What were each teacher's comments on the teaching of that unit in light of the collaboration? A sample observation narrative is available in Appendix G. 3.3.5. Other records Field notes were kept daily. These consisted mainly of the researcher's personal queries, descriptions and impressions of the events under study. Initially, these insights were particularly important in the formulation of appropriate questions to generate and maintain the flow of the conversation. Later on, these notes were useful checkpoints in analysis. Other documents were also gathered. These dealt mainly with the subject matter content of the lessons being taught. Both pairs of teachers covered units on the Systems of the Human Body during this study. Specimens of teachers' scripted plans, students' work and other information used by the teacher in the unit were collected and samples of these are included in Appendix H. 3.4. Data Analysis 3.4.1. Phases of Data Analysis Underlying analysis of the data was a desire to move away from the data progressively, in order to counteract "overidentification of the inquirer with the cultural values that characterize a group" 65 (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; p. 177). Consequently, various levels of analysis have been employed and these have occurred throughout the phases of the study shown in Appendix C. In order to respond to the major research questions of the study, which focussed on finding out what appreciations of practice teachers had, analysis of the interview data was conducted in the following phases: (1) operationalizing "appreciation", (2) identifying appreciations of science teaching for each elementary teacher in the sample, (3) typifying these teacher appreciations, (4) indicating the types of teacher appreciations which comprise a teacher's appreciative system, (5) comparing teacher appreciative systems so as to describe their common and distinct features, and (6) discussing the significance of these common and distinct features in terms of the ways in which these teachers handled the complexities of their worlds of practice. 66 3.4.2. Cperaticmlizinq "Appreciation" The intent of this investigation was to portray what i t was like to be an elementary teacher of science, and in so doing, to understand the way in which practising teachers appreciated certain aspects of their science teaching practice. Appreciation has been used as a conceptual tool for describing teachers' practice. This results from the assumption that, for teaching practitioners, there is an element of thinking in their doing which makes i t inappropriate to consider teaching practice exclusively as a preactive-interactive operation. Rather, practice incorporates elements of (personal) thought and (contextualized) action whose connection is not necessarily consequential, but integrated (Schon, 1987; Yinger, 1987). The conceptions of appreciation and appreciative systems used in this study are derived primarily from the works of Schon (1983, 1987) and Vickers (1983). Schon has defined an appreciative system as the "set of values, preferences and norms in terms of which professionals make sense of practice situations, formulate goals and directions for action, and deterirune what constitutes acceptable professional conduct" (p. 33). For Vickers (1983), what he means by appreciation is this: Under appreciation I have included the power of representing to ourselves situations relevant to our concerns and comparing these situations with standards defining what we should expect them to be and, i f this 67 be different, what we should like them to be. Even where these exercises do not invite covert action, they involve understanding, which is also an activity (p. 57). Appreciation, as defined by Vickers and Schon, i s a construct that is central to this enquiry for i t involves how persons make meaning of and represent to themselves their personal understandings of the world. Their meanings of appreciation imply that when teachers appreciate practice, they form their own understandings of the situations they see and operate in. In fact, according to Vickers, when teachers see and represent to themselves instances of practice, they would be engaged in "activity", though not necessarily observable "activity", and so he calls this "covert action". Vickers' "covert action" is equivalent to Schon's "reflection-in-action". Using the construct appreciation, and systems of appreciation in this study i s an attempt to deemphasize a linear, consequential relationship between thinking and doing in practice and to explore the importance of reflection-in-action or covert action in teaching. However, in the course of the study, the construct of appreciation itself evolved and this is discussed in Appendix A. 3.4.3. Identifying Teacher Appreciations After teacher conversations had been transcribed, the transcripts were examined and broken into segments. Each segment of the transcript which referred to a situation in practice was used to 68 identify how that teacher appreciated some aspect of science tea<^hing practice. Such a segment was then paraphrased into a shorter summary statement to convey the meaning of comments in that portion of the transcript. Each summary statement was taken to be an appreciation. Thus, a teacher's, appreciations are considered to be that teacher's contextual understandings of practice. For example, while reflecting on how she dealt with a particular pupil, Donna remarked that: ...there are no limits being set or have been set in his l i f e — t h e limits he is learning, he is learning here, so, you'll see me deal with him in a very direct manner... He i s super bright. He finds i t difficult to carry through tasks but he has a lot of curiosity and ability. Again, that has never been channelled that much. Now in this group, he may have his success... It is just a question of having lots of ideas, lots of dreams, lots of plans and some come to fruition. He is able, has lots of enthusiasm, lots of curiosity and a great general knowledge. He is a good reader. He loves science... I would say that I'm after him to submerge some of those characteristics and bring them into the group... The following appreciations were drawn from this excerpt: (1) Dealing with difficult pupils in a direct manner. (2) Setting limits for classroom conduct. (3) Channelling individual pupil curiosity and ability into success for the class as a group. (4) Helping an able but difficult pupil bring more of his ideas to fruition. 3.4.4. Typifying Teacher Appreciations The l i s t of teacher appreciations for the sample was carefully examined and i t was found that teacher appreciations referred either to teachers' views of their professional identity as practitioners or to their preferences for practice. Thus, a teacher's appreciative system was taken to include teacher appreciations of two kinds: (a) Professional Identity, and (b) Preferences for Practice. This investigation was concerned with exploring how teachers saw and interpreted their worlds of practice. It was therefore necessary to characterize the teacher appreciations that related to a teacher's practice. Typifying teacher appreciations was necessary in order to obtain answers for the research questions and also to serve the following purposes: (1) t o make t e a c h e r s and t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n s more amenable t o d e s c r i p t i o n and c o m p a r i s o n i n t h i s r e p o r t , (2) t o show how t e a c h e r s ' a p p r e c i a t i o n s m i g h t i m p i n g e upon s i t u a t i o n s o f p r a c t i c e , and (3) t o f a c i l i t a t e a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f b r o a d e r i s s u e s i n t h e s e c a s e s o f e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g t h a t , f r o m a p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s v i e w p o i n t , have t h e p o t e n t i a l t o a c t a s o p t i o n s f o r , o r a s c o n s t r a i n t s o n , t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e . S u c h a t y p i f i c a t i o n c a n n o t be s a i d t o a p p l y t o a l l t e a c h e r s ' a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f p r a c t i c e o r e v e n t o a l l o f t h e a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f t h e t e a c h e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . B u t , t h e s e a p p r e c i a t i o n s h a ve emerged f r o m t h e t e a c h e r s ' own comments and r e f l e c t i o n s o n t h e i r p r a c t i c e . As s u c h , t h e s e a p p r e c i a t i o n s do c o n s t i t u t e one v e r s i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s w o r l d o f s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g , and t o t h i s e x t e n t , t h e y c a n p r o v i d e a u s e f u l s n a p s h o t o f t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e , w h i c h may c o n t r i b u t e t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t e a d i i n g o f e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e . 3.4.4.1. Professional Identity Teacher appreciations of identity did not necessarily pertain to any one specific aspect of teaching practice. They concerned the teacher's view of self and perception of the role of a teaching practitioner. Appreciations of identity represented a form of "appreciating-me-as" for the individual teacher. Some examples of the ways in which teachers characterized themselves in teaching roles, follow: (a) Liking science is the key to good teaching. (b) Being satisfied with the job I do. (c) Not being afraid to face new challenges. (d) Believing that knowledge automatically has a spin-off in terms of understanding and therefore in being able to cope with the world. Generally, these appreciations were personal convictions about the practice of teaching in a particular context. 3.4.4.2. Preferences for Practice Other appreciations appeared to be a means of construing the context in which the practitioner was operating; a way of " appreciating-the-situation-withHTie-in-it-as11. These appreciations seemed to reflect the teacher's way of judging and shaping situations of practice. Appreciations of preference seemed to relate to a teacher's view of the options or reactions seen as being available to that teacher. Here are some examples of appreciations that have been categorized as "preferences for practice": (a) For kids, being in a science room for science changes their reaction to the subject. (b) Finding the right balance when handling a topic in science is important. (c) Devising activities that facilitate learning science outdoors. (d) Always looking for resources that are "hands-on", interesting, good for the age level of the students and f i t into science. (e) Ensuring that kids are not paired in class on more than one occasion with the same "pain-in-the-neck". (f) Selecting strong leaders to ensure group guidance and more potential for success of the group and of the class. In the process of analysis, some of these appreciations appeared to have a bearing on the ways in which these teachers ran their classes. On the whole, these appreciations were more likely to be consonant with the teacher's personal construal of the limits of a practical situation. Frequently, they seemed to point out criteria that were used by the teacher for shaping instruction. Generally, appreciations of professional identity or of preferences for practice expressed teachers' contextual understandings of their practice. 3.4.5. Teacher Appreciative Systems Transcripts of teachers' interview data were analyzed in order to select teachers' appreciations of their science teaching. Two types of teacher appreciations were inducted. These were either of identity or of preference. These two types of teacher appreciations and their relatedness to particular aspects of teaching practice, constituted a teacher appreciative system. A profile of the teacher appreciative system of each teacher is presented in the next chapter. Appreciative systems of teachers 74 are compared in the chapter after that. The teacher appreciations which comprised the appreciative system of each teacher are listed in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Key elements of these systems are discussed in the narratives that follow. This is done to indicate how teacher appreciative systems were seen by the researcher to have some bearing on each teacher's view of the context of practice. It is considered important, in the course of discussing how teachers appreciated their practice, to use their own words to substantiate how teachers really expressed these appreciations. Excerpts of the actual conversations with teachers are therefore included in the reflective narratives in this chapter. Readers are encouraged to use these excerpts to compare their own views of these teachers' appreciations with those expressed here by the author. A specimen of an interview transcript is also appended for reference. 3.5. C h a p t e r Summary This was a naturalistic exploration of teachers' worlds. It has to be emphasized that in a study of this nature, the gap between the processes of research and the reporting of these processes is recognizable. The research process is dynamic, three-dimensional and changeable, varying its path and patterns of investigation with the ideas and events that mould i t s evolution. The research report, on the other hand, has to be uni-dimensional and static, l imited i n the extent to which i t can r e a l i s t i c a l l y portray the sharpness of those images which i t attempts to describe. Lincoln and Guba (1985) claim that " i t i s the function of the case s tudy . . . to provide the essential judgemental information about the studied context" (p. 217). Taking the above mentioned considerations into account/ attempts have been made in th is dissertat ion to present enough "judgemental information" for the reader. Following the suggestion of Lincoln and Guba (1985), th is has been done through description. Chapter 4 follows. It contains descriptions of the teacher appreciative system of each of the four teachers in the sample. Each teacher appreciative system i s coloured by key appreciations which seem to characterize that system i t s e l f . Case descriptions of the four teacher appreciative systems are presented as narratives i n Chapter 4. The contents of Chapter 5 focus, not on the nature of teacher appreciation as in Chapter 4, but on the comparability of teachers' appreciative systems, making the theme of teacher collaboration a dominant part of the discussion i n Chapter 5. CHAPTER 4 TEACHERS' APPRECIATIONS OF SCIENCE TEACHING 4.0. Introduc±ion T h i s c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f e a c h o f t h e f o u r c a s e s o f t e a c h i n g s t u d i e d . Case d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d a s f o u r n a r r a t i v e s , one f o r e a c h o f t h e f o u r t e a c h e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y and e a c h n a r r a t i v e p o r t r a y s t h e k e y e l e m e n t s o f a t e a c h e r ' s a p p r e c i a t i v e s y s t e m shown i n T a b l e s 4.1. t o 4.4. I n e s s e n c e , a n a p p r e c i a t i v e s y s t e m i s a c o h e r e n t c o l l e c t i o n o f a t e a c h e r ' s i d e a s a b o u t p r a c t i c e , t h a t m i g h t s i g n i f y t h e k i n d s o f k n o w i n g - i n - a c t i o n and r e f l e c t i o n - i n - a c t i o n t h a t e p i t o m i z e s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e f o r t h a t t e a c h e r . However t h e s e a s p e c t s o f t e a c h i n g a r e a p a r t o f t h e r e a l m o f a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e i v e d r e a l i t y . T h e r e f o r e , i n t h e c o u r s e o f a t t e m p t i n g t o d e s c r i b e p e r c e i v e d r e a l i t i e s o f t h e s e t e a c h e r s t h r o u g h a p p r e c i a t i v e s y s t e m s , i t h a s t o be acknowledged t h a t " r e a l i t y f o r a n i n d i v i d u a l — o r g r o u p o r e v e n a d i s c i p l i n e — i s a t b e s t o n l y a p a r t i a l p i c t u r e o f t h e w h o l e , and w i l l c o n t i n u e t o r e m a i n s o . B u t , ... t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a l i t y o u t t h e r e " ( L i n c o l n & Guba, 1985, p. 8 3 ) . Hence, t h e p o r t r a y a l s p r e s e n t e d h e r e a r e n o t i n t e n d e d t o be t h e c o m p l e t e p i c t u r e , b u t o n l y one o f t h e many p o s s i b l e T a b l e 4.1 TEACHER APPRECIATIVE SYSTEM - DICK PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY A LOVING, DEMANDING fINDIVIDUAL STYLE h a v i n g a d e f i n i t e p h i l o s o p h y and s t y l e h a v i n g an agenda t h a t "he i s l e s s f l e x i b l e a b o u t " f e e l i n g t h a t he i s a good t e a c h e r b u t a l s o r e c o g n i z i n g s h o r t c o m i n g s SEEING PRACTICE AS "INPUT-OUTPUT" w o r k i n g w i t h a c e r t a i n " s t r u c t u r e " p u t t i n g i n " l o v e , s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and s k i l l s " " g e t t i n g out what you p u t i n " h a v i n g c o g n i t i v e g o a l s c o n t i n u i n g t o work i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t s t u d e n t s g a i n a c e r t a i n amount o f knowledge w a n t i n g t o t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g d o i n g h i s b e s t t o "draw i n f o r m a t i o n o u t o f p u p i l s " KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT FROM PUPILS n o t e x p e c t i n g t o g e t a n y t h i n g w i t h o u t demanding " s t u f f " f r o m p u p i l s h a v i n g i n d i v i d u a l l y t a i l o r e d p u p i l e x p e c t a t i o n s n o t e x p e c t i n g t h e " u n a b l e " t o do so m e t h i n g beyond t h e i r means g a t h e r i n g p e r s o n a l b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n on p u p i l s e x p e c t i n g p u p i l s t o "do" t h e work e x p e c t i n g p u p i l s t o r e a d t h e t e x t , draw o u t f a c t s and t h e n do t a s k s h o p i n g h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e h i g h and t h a t a l l p u p i l s w i l l g e t an "A" 7 7 ( b ) T a b l e 4.1 ( c o n t d . ) PREFERENCES FOR PRACTICE "STEPPING IN" AND DIRECTING p r e f e r r i n g a " t e a c h e r - d i r e c t e d " mode i n c l a s s c o n c e r n e d about n o t " t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e " b u t " t e a c h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s k i l l s t h r o u g h s c i e n c e " s p r e a d i n g o u t " t r o u b l e makers" knowing p u p i l s and t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l a b i l i t y -s e t t i n g c e r t a i n l i m i t s f o r w h o l e - c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s p l a c i n g p u p i l s who need h e l p w i t h o t h e r s who c a n h e l p them MORE SOCIAL STUDIES; LESS SCIENCE s c i e n c e i s n o t t h e same as r e a d i n g f i n d i n g t i m e f o r s c i e n c e among o t h e r c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s h a v i n g "huge" s o c i a l s t u d i e s t h a t y e a r and d o i n g l e s s s c i e n c e WORKING WITH A COLLEAGUE n o t b e i n g a b l e t o work and someone who i s " s l a p d a s h " m e a s u r i n g h i m s e l f a g a i n s t Donna h a v i n g t h e same commitment t o p r e c i s i o n s p e a k i n g about i d e a s and s h a r i n g i d e a s f o r a u n i t u s i n g i d e a s more b r o a d l y s h a r i n g commitments f o c u s i n g on c o n t e n t f i n d i n g t o p i c s and d e v i s i n g f o r m a t s f o r c o v e r i n g t o p i c s a n t i c i p a t i n g how i t w o u l d a l l work o u t h a v i n g a s t r o n g image o f s e l f and f o c u s i n g on s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t and s e l f - c r i t i c i s m T a b l e 4.1 ( c o n t d . ) DESIGNING THE CONTENT o n l y u s i n g t h e t e x t b o o k sometimes a l w a y s t r y i n g t o i n v o l v e f i e l d t r i p s w o r k i n g on w r i t i n g up and r e c o r d i n g e x p e r i m e n t s u s i n g a c h e c k l i s t as a " f o r m a l " l e s s o n p l a n d o i n g w o r k s h e e t s p r e f e r r i n g t o have e x p e r i m e n t s d o i n g a l o t o f " i n f o r m a l p l a n n i n g " w i t h Donna COVERING THE FACTS e x p e c t i n g s t u d e n t s t o "know t h e f a c t s " h a v i n g p u p i l s a b s o r b t h e f a c t s f e e l i n g t h a t p u p i l s h a v e n ' t g r a s p e d f a c t s t o t h e e x t e n t he had hoped w a n t i n g t o see h i s c o g n i t i v e o b j e c t i v e s met shapshots—one possible perspective of each teacher's system of appreciating practice. This discussion of teacher appreciative systems follows a synopsis of the way in which appreciations were elicited from the raw data, presented in the previous chapter. Descriptive narratives of teacher appreciative systems contain as far as possible the teacher's own words. This is done to reflect the extent of the reality captured in conversations with the teachers and also to allow the reader to make independent judgements of the meaning that can be ascribed to such appreciations. 4.1. Teacher Appreciative System - DICK 4.1.1. Professional Identity 4.1.1.1. A Loving/ Demanding, Individualized Style Dick has a well-formed image of himself as a teaching professional. He points out that he has a definite philosophy and style of teaching. His philosophy is that "education is a process in which students gain knowledge, understanding and skills." This, he claims is an "agenda that I am less flexible about" but i t is a fairly "simplistic way of fitting i t a l l into a nice box": My definition of education is having knowledge of and understanding about the world and being able to cope 79 with i t . Therefore pupils have to know the facts of the digestive system in order to have knowledge of i t . That's the knowledge. They would have to be able to explain i t . That would be the understanding. And they would have to have some experiment or hands-on activity which would show that they were able to cope with i t to some extent. He is definite about his role as he sees i t and painstakingly explains how his "philosophy" is different from his "style": My style is me—me as an actor/ as a person, a being. My philosophy is me as a thinker, as a form of intelligence. I suppose they are indivisible.... I have a style that is loving, demanding and individualized. But I have not decided that the best way to promote knowledge or understanding is through a teaidoing style that is loving, demanding and individualized. It would appear that when he uses the term, "philosophy", he does so to refer to his collective appreciations of teaching, in an ideal sense. Style would be his collective appreciations of his teaching in the setting where he works. Possibly, he has always had this philosophy. But over time, and with changing experience, he has operationalized certain aspects of this philosophy into a style which looks like the one he currently uses. Style is the way he implements his philosophy in his current work environment. 4.1.1.2. Seeing Practice as "Input-Output" At f i r s t , i t seems that this teacher has' a somewhat mechanical1 view of practice. If he can "put in" love, scientific knowledge and skills; demand understanding and treat pupils as individuals, he will "get out" of them as information, the knowledge they have assimilated. This will demonstrate that they can cope with the world. He will have done his part. His appreciation of teaching may be considered "simplistic". Apparently, he views his role as one of instilling the knowledge and understanding of science into his pupils and this appreciation dominates his practice. As the unit progresses, i t becomes evident that his adherence to this mechanical way of framing practice, dictates how he sees what he does, how he looks back on what he did, and how he reflects on the level of success he has achieved with pupils. On the other hand, his views may not be as superficial or simplistic as they are pragmatic. Here is a professional who has an appreciation of his work which i s strong and personally motivating. He has a clear vision of the work to be done as well as his own role as a provider of knowledge and skills. The teaching context demands that he serve the whole group of about thirty pupils in his class and that he give each of them an equal opportunity to assimilate the knowledge and skills he communicates. Yet, he remains committed to catering to the individual pupil, though he willingly acknowledges that his students have unique and different capacities to receive and use . the information he provides. To bring a l l these individuals to a similar level of proficiency must be risky for him. He may or may not be successful. In this respect, he realizes how uncertain his practice is . To survive and continue to regard himself as a professional capable of doing his work well, he has to persist in thinking that what he does is of value. His intervention as a teacher may make a difference to the knowledge of science held by certain individuals in his c l a s s — i f not to the entire group as a class. He expresses the extent of his professional commitment in this manner: I've never really analyzed or evaluated what I do in terms of student learning.... I have no knowledge of whether or not their own science understanding has enlarged over the long term. I don't really know whether their understanding of the world and ability to cope with the world has been increased but I certainly continue to do my work in the belief that i t has and I feel certain that a l l the students have gained a certain amount of knowedge. By working with a certain "structure", he increases his chances of reaching the whole group and at the same time achieving his own personal agenda for reaching and developing the potential of each individual in his class. Besides, he has cognitive goals in mind. He wants "facts" from them a l l and he seeks to get from them evidence of their having the facts. Such a view of teaching prompts him to delimit the work and structure i t so that he can obtain the personal rewards he needs to feed his practice: I went around the room yesterday and asked a few questions. I pulled out my cards [which are used to randomize his questions] and asked everyone two questions and i t ranged from one or two students who couldn't answer a question to some who really had a good grasp of what the body has to do with starch in order to be able to absorb i t , and therefore how the digestive system works. So the range is there but I feel though that, generally speaking, although I haven't asked them this, they a l l know the body has certain systems at work and there are certain different jobs that each system does. I would say the majority of them can give a few facts about each of the systems, given perhaps a few clues.... That was important to me. His cognitive goals are a tangible expression of his "structure" for operating. Through these goals he can realistically deal with the risk and ambiguity of his practice. He sees himself as the one who has to create the structure, to supply the knowledge out of which, hopefully, will come the "spin-off" of pupils' understanding and their being able to cope with the world. But in class, demands are such that he is unable, from moment to moment, to ascertain with rigour whether his pupils are achieving what he wants for them. He has to rely on his intuitive "feeling" that they are, as individuals, making those gains. The press of classroom l i f e is such that he cannot ascertain with any rigour whether each and every one of his pupils achieves what he wants for that pupil. He has to rely on his own "feelings" of competence. He resorts to his own self-judgement and the wealth of information he has collected on each of his pupils, to reinforce his potential to achieve his goals for teaching. 4 1.1.3. Knowing What to Expect from Pupils As a consequence of this way of appreciating his work and in keeping with his cognitive intents, he knows what to expect from his pupils. First of a l l : You won't get anything out of kids unless you demand something from them or expect stuff from them. At the same time, kids only produce what you want them to produce i f you are a "Tartar" and don't have any compassion. Then, of course expectations have to be realistic and so he tailors them to suit the particular individuals in his class: It is no point expecting the unable to do something beyond his/her means. So my expectations for each child are individually tailored so that I give able students a worse time i f they haven't produced what I expected them to be able to do, than I would someone who was less able but produced the same as someone who was able. In science, my individualization comes in the form of expectations and explanations to the kids and the handling of the kids. They pretty well are expected to do the same sort of thing but the output within that would vary. I would expect different amounts and different quality from different kids.... Part of me hopes that my expectations are high and I do believe that a l l kids can come up with "A".... I do expect them to do the work and therefore, hopefully, that helps. Also, I do feel that I know my students really quite intimately.. .trying to understand them in ways beyond the mere classroom and academic things. This coherent system of devising what to i n s t i l l and knowing what should obtain from his teaching seems connected to his view of himself as one who can judge the output of his teaching in terms of the achievement of his professional goals as a practitioner. Two factors contribute to his ability to make such a judgement. Firstly, he views himself as having considerable expertise in the subject matter of science. Secondly, he has gathered enough information on his pupils so that he knows them well. His "individualized style" means collecting information about pupils, finding out about family backgrounds and personal experiences, not explicitly, but "in terms of quiet talks" with students. Every time he deals with a pupil, he can be aware of that child as a person. In practice, his dealings are therefore a mix of "loving", "demanding" and "drawing out" again what he has deemed worthwhile for them to know. Throughout Dick's practice, the theme of individualizing instruction for pupils is dominant. His pupils are individuals and he is painstaking and conscientious in dealing with them as persons with different backgrounds, perceptions and abilities. His vast knowledge of their personal interests and backgrounds enables him to place them in those situations that he perceives will facilitate their optimum levels of learning. "I've always tried", he claims, "to put Sam next to someone that can help him. I try to get them to help each other i f possible." He thinks i t his responsibility to foster the growth of each pupil as an individual. It is not only difficult to accomplish this, but also somewhat paradoxical in the reality of a classroom world with a group of 28 such individuals. Furthermore, he thinks i t i s his job to monitor the progress of each of them: I have some students who have really gone and done some more. Jim has gone out and got some books. Donna really got interested in i t [the unit]. She has brought her own books from home and she has read quite a lot from them. And, I think people are listening to tapes quite carefully. But I haven't seen anyone experimenting....what I'm saying i s , that's an absolute "A" and I would like to get everybody up there and so this is where my frustration comes. The top five or six or seven are up there but my concern is that, for example, Kathy is bright but this is a l l we've got for the respiratory system. This is basic stuff and she has the capacity to get up to Harry's level. Finding solutions to this sort of dilemma is no easy task. As a professional, he has to make choices that are "right for him". But, his search for the appropriate compromise can cause him much frustration and stress. Focussing on individual, cognitive growth for each pupil in science is an admirable ideal but to do so and at the same time, try to move the entire class ahead, as a group, is a practical predicament for Dick. 4.1.2. Preferences for Practice 4.1.2.1. "Stepping In" and Directing At various points in the unit on Systems of the Body, Dick expressed anxiety and frustration about how things were going. The content and techniques he used for teaching this unit had been jointly negotiated and agreed upon by him and Donna. During the unit they kept in constant contact, monitoring each other's successes and failures, learning from each other. Yet Dick was unhappy. On reflection, he reveals the basis for his discontent and what he would prefer to do himself: In this case they were supposed to be giving their presentations. I suspect that Donna's kids did run i t a l l but I very much did step in with my kids and I asked questions and prompted and told kids who had not said very much to say more. So, i t wasn't really their presentation. To that extent i t was s t i l l quite teacher directed in some ways. I feel more exportable with this sort of thing. He is unhappy because the techniques that he has jointly negotiated for practice with a colleague do not really f i t his own personal appreciative system of practice. He sees himself as one who concentrates on personal understanding. This contract assumes that he cater to the class as a whole. He has to assume a new role, one with which he is not comfortable. Not only that, his expectations of pupils would have to change and he is not quite prepared for that. To make the colleagial contract work for him, he would require a structure different from his own. He said previously that his was an "inflexible agenda". Indeed, that would seem to be the case. Though he has some difficulty expressing i t , he sees things working this way for him: ... I can neither t e l l how I will make this decision nor can I t e l l the decision that has to be made. The decision that has to be made is whether I have to do i t the teacher-directed way, go through i t step by step. Read about such and such. Make notes on such and such. Everybody look at the model of so and so and then explain i t . Give them a diagram and have them copy the key words. Do an experiment based on that idea. If I were to do the same thing as that, I would probably start off with a smaller activity, maybe the same groups, but I would have one group demonstrate. I might have one group give a talk on something they agreed on. We might talk about a tree. Someone might bring a seed and plant i t . So we'd take a relatively small scale item and we would have a group working around i t . In this way they would get the idea that they have to bring material, they have to plan what they are going to say. It is evident that although he is seeking to retain control of the whole class, he s t i l l struggles to serve individual pupil needs. The "group" to which he refers is merely a device to enable him to cover the content and s t i l l maintain his own structure and direction. Through the group, he can monitor and reach each individual. He deals with pupils as individuals and they are a l l equal in his eyes for he is the one with information on them a l l and this information places him in a relatively secure position from which to control the class. Consequently, he is uncomfortable . and reluctant to try out a system other than his own "teacher-directed" one which works well for him. 4.1.2.2. More Social Studies: Less Science Seeing science as one of the many subjects that he has to teach, limits his options for designing and implementing science teaching practice. One block of time is set aside for both science and 88 social studies and this time is then divided between the two subjects. Science and social studies are treated as though they are interdependent. If he manages to do three units of science in a year, he may have to cut back on his social studies in order to get the science in. That year, Dick and Donna had been involved in piloting materials for social studies. The time for this was longer than expected. He found himself in May with time for only one more unit of science, having done one previously. The more social studies he teaches; the less science he can do. He is able to articulate and rationalize his appreciation of science as an elementary teaching subject quite readily: I envisage science and social studies in the same way because of the assignments and topics covered. The materials used are pretty much the same. It is not the same as reading, where you have three groups and you give different groups of students different materials to use. Science has been fairly osmotic, coming out of circumstances such as, knowing the kids.... We've done this year a physical unit on Machines and one on the Body. The thing is that our social studies has been huge this year because we prepared things for the district which we then had to t r i a l run. This aspect of programming science in a block with social studies probably operates to limit when and how much science is done in a school year. The reality of teaching elementary science, as a teacher of a l l other subjects too, i s that science is locked into a balance with social studies. The more social studies one teaches, the less science one is able to teach, and vice versa. No other subjects seem to influence this equilibrium. 4.1.2.3. Working with a Colleague Dick chooses to teach science and social studies in collaboration with his colleague, Donna, across the hall who also teaches a split grade three/four class. He himself teaches a split three/four grade. They have worked as a team in this way for the last three years and he values their partnership highly: When we work together, we certainly feel as though the ideas I have are being used more broadly. And teachers like to have their ideas used—get things over to other people. I think I come up with more ideas, at least, more ideas actually get into practice [with a partner] because they don't f l y by. They get spoken about, added to and I think the pressure is on to meet (commitments, whether they are to the other person or to the program. However, he has selected this working partner carefully. He chooses not to work with another teacher of three in that school as a partner because, he doesn't have quite the same commitment to precision. I don't know whether he would think through things as tightly as Donna and I do. Donna and I think through things tightly in terms of what the actual work would be and whether or not we would include a particular question on a worksheet and whether an activity will or will not be included. I couldn't work with someone who was "slapdash" about some of those things and who was not prepared to think through things to that extent. Such careful selection of a partner might indicate that there. quite grade 90 is more than one reason for the partnership. While the major intent of the relationship is to enrich and extend the ideas for science instruction, i t is also valued for acting as a constant yardstick against which to measure his own professional competence: I do measure myself against Donna, perhaps more than I should. I have a strong suspicion that when she did the second lesson, which was getting the groups to go step by step through the main points, she might have identified those steps more clearly than I did, so that everyone in her class knew what was expected of them more clearly. Part of me wants to excuse myself by saying that she does have a different mix of kids; that her kids as an overall class are more able to do that than my kids, but she has very difficult kids. It follows, therefore, that he would choose someone whose calibre of practice he perceives to match or complement his own. 4.1.2.4. Desicp-iinq the Content Together they negotiate what tactics, content and activities comprise the unit. The process for designing the unit is fairly routine now. The protocol is simple. It works like this: We're probably quite good now at saying that we'd like to do this topic, that within his topic there are either these activities or there are these sub-topics. Having established those, we look at the relationship between the sub-topics and the textbooks to see how these are covered and whether or not there are experiments to do or so. Then, we're into the writing of worksheets. For me, the worksheets serve an organizational role and they also provide my lesson plan—I don't really do formal 91 lesson plans. We do a lot of informal planning through Donna saying, "Well, this really works". And I'd run off and do a checklist. There are three significant steps in their process of designing a unit of science teaching. The f i r s t is purely mechanical and i t involves identifying the piece of content to be covered. This is pretty straightforward. The selected topic usually coincides with the teachers' interests or the pupils' interests or both. Major events in classroom l i f e , especially field trips can play an important role. For example, before the students go camping each year, they do a unit on Erosion. The second step is slightly more complex. It involves a hunt for ideas and for a means of rationalizing which ideas are included and in what form they are to be delivered. The text play's a role here. It serves to delimit the content. Perhaps too, the textbook is viewed as a substitute for the of f i c i a l curriculum document. In any event, using the text is one option for selecting acceptable topics as content which can then be embellished, discarded or treated in part. The final stage of this design process would appear to be the teachers' joint anticipation of how the tactics they have chosen, are likely to f i t into their context. This step allows for a sharing of their practical expertise and experiences, as well as reflections on the value of these in the light of the task at, hand. This is where the sharing of ideas that Dick values highly/ occurs. What at f i r s t glance seems to be an essentially mechanical design process is really a fairly complex exchange of professional but practical "know-hew". The "formal lesson plan" that they produce in the form of a checklist, reflects l i t t l e of the intricate process through which i t has evolved. 4.1.2.5. Covering the Facts This teacher, Dick, thinks i t essential to cover the "facts" of science. Cognitive goals are important to him. When he judges his own professional performance, he does so in terms of his ability to get across to his pupils the facts. He searches for evidence of his having accomplished this task, as though the mere provision of facts ought to result in the pupils' assimilation and regurgitation of those facts: We talked about that first lesson. I felt i t was unsatisfactory, but nevertheless, I did, in the hour or however long i t took, go over the facts of at least the skeleton. I mean things did get done... By the end we had covered a l l four topics. Either by me drawing i t out or by them providing i t , the topics had been presented. We had some experiments done and everybody had done a write-up on each of the systems. Time had run out and I wanted to stop and most of what I wanted to do was done. Pupils are expected to read the text and draw out the facts. When they f a i l to measure up to this standard, he is frustrated. At f i r s t , he attributes the failure of the f i r s t lesson in the unit to the way in which this lesson was approached. They, the teachers, should have done i t with the whole class, step by step, he says. Then he relents because i t seems that some of the facts did reach the pupils after a l l and he was able to "draw them out". Much of his interaction with the pupils in science is geared to promote cognitive goals. He wants them to "know" science. They always do worksheets, experiments and work on writing up the experiments. They also try to "involve field trips but these are nearly always based on soinething in the text." He seems to have varying degrees of success getting pupils to "know" and finding out what they "know". This causes him some frustration: I do feel I'm a good teacher but I often f a l l short and part of this is [that] when I do give tests, and I admit these are often. These tests I'm talking about are written quantitative things—not one to one discussions. When I give these tests, I am generally disappointed with the scores that come up. I feel that the children haven't grasped at least the factual information to the extent I would have expected or hoped. It would appear that Dick is trapped between his desire to individualize his teaching and to realize cognitive goals for teaching science to the whole group as a content-based discipline. He expects a certain level of knowledge in his pupils. He is their director and he ought to know how much they can or cannot do. T a b l e 4.2 TEACHER APPRECIATIVE SYSTEM - DONNA PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 9 4 ( a ) AS MANAGER/CHOREOGRAPHER b e i n g c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h e y a r e a l l " d o i n g t h e work" b e i n g " k i n d e r g a r t e n t r a i n e d " f e e l i n g t h a t " u s i n g paper o n l y f a i l s t h e k i d s " d e f i n i t e l y c h o o s i n g f o r s u c c e s s — a i m i n g t o make t h i s e x e r c i s e s u c c e s s f u l g e t t i n g t h e j o b done; c h o o s i n g group l e a d e r s who w i l l e n s u r e t h a t t h e j o b i s done i n t e r c h a n g e between p u p i l s i s r e a l l y i m p o r t a n t b e i n g c o n c e r n e d w i t h " t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f something and how i t i s g o i n g t o go" BEING A GENERALIST r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p l a n n i n g and t e a c h i n g a l l t h e s u b j e c t s knowing what t o do f i r s t , second and t h i r d as a g e n e r a l i s t . . . t h e r e j u s t i s n ' t t i m e f o r s c i e n c e and s o c i a l s t u d i e s advantageous t o know t h e p u p i l s v e r y w e l l b u t "you c a n ' t do a l l o f t h a t , t h a t w e l l , e v e r y day" PREFERENCES FOR PRACTICE CLASSROOM AS A COLLECTIVE g r o u p i n g p u p i l s t o b r i n g out t h e i r b e s t m o n i t o r i n g each group u s i n g p e e r p r e s s u r e w i t h i n groups f o r p r o d u c t i v i t y e x c l u d i n g o b s t a c l e s t o group s u c c e s s h a n d l i n g t h e mechanics o f g r o u p i n g h a v i n g a s c i e n c e a r e a i n t h e c l a s s r o o m f i n d i n g b e t t e r ways t o i n c r e a s e p u p i l i n v o l v e m e n t and commitment m a x i m i z i n g s u c c e s s f o r t h e c l a s s as a whole 94 T a b l e 4.2 (c o n t d . ) WORKING WITH A COLLEAGUE s h a r i n g t h e w o r k l o a d w o r k i n g w e l l t o g e t h e r h a v i n g r e a l t r u s t and a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r each o t h e r r e c o g n i z i n g and s u p p o r t i n g e a c h o t h e r ' s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses b e i n g one s t e p ahead o r one s t e p b e h i n d each o t h e r and i m p r o v i n g on e a c h o t h e r ' s work h e l p i n g e ach o t h e r , f e e d i n g on each o t h e r , p r o m p t i n g e a c h o t h e r h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t ways o f w o r k i n g i n c l a s s and " p l a y i n g a r o l e f o r each o t h e r " h a v i n g a c o l l e a g u e l e a r n from h e r m i s t a k e s HAVING INCIDENTAL SCIENCE i n t e g r a t i n g s c i e n c e and o r a l language and i n c l u d i n g t h a t i n t h e r e p o r t c a r d " i n c i d e n t a l s c i e n c e " a t a s s e m b l y t i m e each day e n c o u r a g i n g p u p i l s t o do s c i e n c e o u t o f s c h o o l and b r i n g i t i n DESIGNING THE CONTENT u s i n g a f i e l d t r i p as a " g r a b b e r " o f t e n w o r k i n g i n g r o u p s i n s c i e n c e c h a n g i n g when t h e p l a n i s n o t w o r k i n g p r e p a r i n g t h e c l a s s f o r c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s g e n e r a t i n g e x c i t e m e n t about l e a r n i n g s c i e n c e n a r r o w i n g t h e f o c u s o f what i s t o be done - " e v e r y t h i n g c a n n o t be done" 95 4.2. Teacher Appreciative System - DONNA 4.2.1. Professional Identity 4.2.1.1. As Maraqer/Choreoqrapher Donna sees herself as the manager of her class and choreographer of a l l classroom events. She is the person in control in the class. It i s therefore her job to ensure that each child i s provided -with an equal opportunity to achieve success. She i s after success for the group as a whole. First she sets that as her target. She knows what she wants to achieve and is able to talk about her goals, concretely and determinedly: My aim is to make this exercise successful. I mean, getting the job done. I want people who will ensure that the job gets done. There will be something to present. Perhaps they would not be people that I will always choose but that was really deliberate. I want a presentation from them. She is committed to her professional role as she sees i t . Her job is to see that a l l of her pupils experience success with the science activities they do in class. When a pupil asks her how to go about preparing for a presentation, this is her reply: You are going to be the teacher. You are going to make an agenda. When I present the skeleton or the muscular system, I sometimes l i e awake at night and I plan how I am going to present i t . I have to know what I'm going to do f i r s t and what I'm going to do second and what I'm 96 going to do third. Be the teacher. You're presenting this to everyone. They know very l i t t l e about i t . Her reply reflects her own sense of her job. She is the one who has to "package" the content for delivery to students. Hers is not necessarily to hold that knowledge herself but to organize how i t should be presented and to choreograph its delivery in such a way that a l l of her pupils can make the best of what they receive. She is quite humble about what she knows but she takes the credit for being a person who likes to organize things, so that pupils can achieve their best: I think I am more concerned with the organization of something—how i t is going to go. I want the management and how the pupils will carry through. And follow-up, I am really concerned about that—how to look in books and, will they get i t ; that they understand how to set up an experiment and really, really reach the conclusions. I want i t followed up. I want to finish i t and I want i t done well. She displays a quiet presence in class. Her pupils are generally very excited and enthusiastic in science. The atmosphere is one of a well-oiled machine with smooth activity routines. There i s a feeling that pupils want to "do" far more science than the meagre allotment which the timetable provides. 4.2.1.2. Being a -Generalist" She thinks of herself as a "generalist". This label reveals her 97 vision of her professional limits. She struggles to overcome the constraints of that position so that she can aim for the success which she thinks a l l of her pupils must have: I call myself a generalist because we are responsible for a l l the planning and teaching of a l l the subjects. A big plus i s that you really know the pupils and so you have clear expectations for them and what they can achieve. The con is that you cannot do a l l of that and do i t well, every day. From her vantage point as a generalist, time is a major problem. It is impossible to prepare and deliver two "special" programs as science and social studies at the same time. They have to be handled alternately. At one time in the year she teaches social studies; at another, she teaches science. Problems related to being a generalist teacher, she explains indignantly, make her feel limited professionally: How do you plan five or six subjects the next day and get out of here before six at night. I really want to cut down on the planning. I am fed up with the amount of time that, as a generalist, I'm spending at school. These larger classes mean that marking is onerous; this year I have seven to nine pupils more than in the past. This just cuts down the amount of time I can find. I'm even leaning to moving away from being a generalist, to having not so many subjects to teach, because I don't feel I can do that good a job. Clearly what she perceives she can accomplish in any one subject such as science, is circumscribed by her responsibility to teach a l l of the subjects. Having to teach split grades and provide for the needs of two different levels of pupils in one classroom contributes to the difficulties of being a generalist teacher. One way of managing this problem i s to set aside a block of time in the year for each subject. When she is teacrhing science, she is not having to deal with social studies as well and vice versa: We have both for a number of years taught split grades, so we have integrated — sacrificed doing two programs. I find i t impossible to plan and collect materials and have two programs at the same time. As generalists, I do not know where anyone would find time to do socials and science at the same time in a week, i f you are doing other subjects, there just isn't time. She is not as confident about her science teaching as she is about her teaching of social studies. She is not as comfortable about science. According to her, science is the weakest part of her program. She does not see herself as being "scientific". Yet, she i s excited about teaching science and, as though to compensate for her personal difficulties with the subject, she manages to devise ways of teaching science as "incidental science", integrated with other subjects throughout the timetable. Incidental science occurs in addition to the regular units of science that are timetabled throughout the year: This school year, we've done two major units, Machines, physics and this one, Bodyworks. We found ourselves in a position where we were piloting some socials and so that took more time than we normally give. We normally cover three areas of science including physics and chemistry. But this year we piloted two huge social studies units. We had no idea i t would be so demanding. It was very successful but we had to present i t to teachers and so on and this science unit has been shortchanged. To compensate for the drawbacks of being a generalist teacher, Donna has developed well-honed organizational skills. She is proud of the way she organizes and manages her pupils and the subjects in the time she has. Developing particular techniques and strategies is her way of getting the many jobs of a generalist done well. As a result, despite the constraints, she is able to enjoy her science teaching: My science and socials programs are often more interesting than my math program, more involving. That is probably because I like them better. I think I try more varied methods in science and socials and I feel more prone to take risk, whereas in math, I figure I know what the objective i s . There isn't much risk involved and that doesn't seem interesting to me. 4.2.2. Preferences for Practice 4.2.2.1. Classroom as a Collective Her major management tool is grouping pupils. For science, pupils are arranged in small groups or pairs. Each group can then cover a different part of the lesson content and share this with the whole class. In this manner she aims to cover a breadth of science content and also to enhance the ability of each pupil to cooperate with others in class, thus providing an opportunity for them a l l to be successful. Cooperation increases group productivity in terms of work done in a certain time. Increasing productivity for the class as a whole brings her closer to her goal for them, namely, that of having the larger group achieve success. In her drive for success, i t is necessary to remove individuals who interfere with achievement. She is rather ruthless but fair about this. First she clearly establishes limits for classroom conduct. For example, with a difficult pupil, she claims that he relies on her to 5 establish limits for him. Whatever self restraint he is learning, he learns in her class. Although she tries to capitalize on his brightness and his enthusiasm for science, she will not let him "take hold" and she often has to rernind him that she is the teacher. She is really after him to "submerge his [unruly] characteristics and bring these into the group". Others who cannot conform have to be removed. She explains how this works: Alan left. He was preventing things from being done. So he left for a while. I'm very strict about that. John went to the office. That had already been set up. He has a severe behaviour problem. Anna [another pupil] spoke to him. She verbalized that he was preventing them from getting their success. So, then I spoke to him. Anna spoke to him again. He went to the principal's office. He was here after school. As a rule, he has the option of getting back in. But i f he is preventing the job from being done, then he loses the privilege of being in. This pattern she adheres to, for rraintaining a productive environment for the majority of pupils in class. Even "when she forms groups, she ensures that "discipline problems aren't together". She readily admits that as the teacher, she is least effective at getting them to work i f they are not interested in the task. Grouping accomplishes for her what she cannot easily do with the entire class. Selective grouping remains for her a useful technique for structuring and keeping a productive classroom environment. She attempts to provide opportunity for a l l of them to achieve success in her class. Aside from grouping them appropriately, she also uses peer pressure as a powerful tool to manipulate her students into a position of compliance to her will as well as cooperation for their own good. Through her vigorous application of these two techniques, her classroom appears to function as a collective. As far as she is concerned, pupils will respond more readily to their peers than to her demands. It is also her belief that interchange between pupils is important and desireable. In her own words: Some pupils do work that is just neat. Others can help them clarify their ideas, especially when doing experiments, getting results and reaching conclusions. I hope that those kinds of things happen rather than just, working on their own—when their own ideas are reinforced. There are definite gains working with someone else. Obviously expectations go up i f you are working with someone who is responsible and neat. 1 0 2 Such interaction need not occur only in large groups. She also uses a "peer-tutoring" system quite often. Her inspiration for this system came from some research on the topic that she read. She then decided to try the system. It was difficult for her to manage this at f i r s t . Pupils were unwilling to work with others but she persevered and they a l l now share the rewards: I insist that they work together. I take them aside and I say,"Look, I put him with you because I know you can handle this. I wouldn't have given this person to someone else. I couldn't. I know it' s frustrating but I know you can do i t . Do i t . " And they do to the best of their ability.... As a result, some kids surprise other kids. Take for example, Nigel, he came in late in the year severely discouraged and learning disabled. A boy like that just working on his own doesn't get anything down. He can't write. He can't see i t on the board. But, i f he can talk about i t , his strengths will come out. Whomever he is working with learns that and they help him get i t down. He has great ideas. She knows her pupils quite well as individuals. Being a generalist and spending most of the school day with them facilitates this level of familiarity. She aims to use her knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses to advance her personal goals of having them achieve success as a group. Pupils do not work in the same groups a l l the time. Sometimes they are grouped on a purely mechanical basis. For example, in this unit there were seven body systems and so the 28 pupils were divided into four groups of seven each. It is then her responsibility to monitor how each group is doing and anticipate and provide them with the assistance required: I want to meet with that group in the itiorning to make sure that they have a fair chance of succeeding in the afternoon. It is a very short time to be ready for me by tomorrow... If they don't want to call on me and they want to work i t out, that is fine. But i f they're just—nothing is happening, and they are defeated, I ' l l step in. Getting pupils to work cooperatively is a difficult goal to achieve. She has been working on this a l l year, particularly in science and social studies. As she persevered, there was less grumbling from pupils about working with unlikely partners and they settled down to cooperate. In the end i t became for her an "excellent system, with less kids staying in after school on their own to finish up. There was more pressure on them to be on task and I guess the pressure came from their peers." Now, she is able to do a unit on the Systems of the Body based on group presentations. Had they not been prepared, she recognizes that the unit would not have worked. She could not have done this at the beginning of the year; i t would have been a "huge failure". Now that students know each other, her chances of succeeding with the method she has chosen for teaching this unit are higher. Had they not been prepared to work as a collective group, this unit would not have worked. They would have experienced l i t t l e success with 104 i t . She has carefully considered the field of options open to her and finds the best options, even though the choices for her as a generalist are not many. 4.2.2.2. Working with a Colleague Donna has a longstanding partnership with Dick in teaching social studies and science. Their collaboration in science boosts her feelings of insecurity, of not being "scientific". Their relationship helps her to compensate for the idea she has, that science is the weakest part of her program. It is also convenient for them to work together because their classrooms are across the hall from each other and they have taught the same split grades for a few years. She relates how they work together: We normally work together. At the beginning of the year, we propose a plan for social studies and science for the year. We present this to the parents at the fi r s t meeting of they year... We have a history of doing this together. I felt that science was the weakest part of my program. We said, when he [Dick] moved across the hall, "Why don't we cut down our work by doing some stuff together. We can get the stuff together and we would have better programs." We both have better science programs and do more science over the last few years because we've worked together. We help each other. We feed on each other and prompt each other. Their partnership is reciprocal. Each partner contributes a different set of sk i l l s . In working together, they discover and share personal strengths and weaknesses: 105 I think I'm more concerned with the organization of soirething, how i t is going to go. He is more concerned with the big ideas. I want [to focus on] the management and how the kids will carry through and follow up — I'm really concerned about that, how they look in books, will they get i t — that they understand how to set up an experiment, really reach conclusions. I'm not saying that is not important to him too. But, I want i t followed up and I want to finish i t and I want i t done well. I put pressure on him. That keeps him on track. It is peer pressure, colleagial pressure. He knows I'm different from him. I know he is different from me. Our strengths and weaknesses support each other's and we help each other. She thinks that they can draw from each other like this because their relationship is trusting. They have "real trust and a real appreciation for each other's strengths." The bond of trust between them is as strong personally as i t is professionally: That he could come in and be changing my words as he goes and that 1s not bothering me at a l l . . . . One person is always one step ahead of the other or one step behind and you race over and in a few minutes you talk about how you would have improved i t . It is that kind of feedback where one person can admit their human frailty to the other and not feel threatened by that. Through their partnership, they reflect on and analyze their teaching together, thus providing each other with feedback to which isolated classroom teachers would not normally have access. Being able to share in this type of reflection, even under the press of time, is of considerable value to Donna as a science teacher. Mthough Donna's methods of science teaching in class vary 106 from Dick's, she has the same overall curricular intents. They also have similar goals for teaching the subject. She admits that, "he says when you get down to i t , we want the same things but we go about i t in a different manner." But she also recognizes the potential that exists for each of them to change direction mid-stream, perhaps on account of their differing personal appreciations of science teaching: I feel our objective was much smaller than i t has become. Because of his responsibility to cognitive learning, he is making more of i t . Really, I think the word "exposure" was very clear in my rrdnd, exposure to the systems. While their partnership is collaborative in nature, there i s ample room for flexibility. In their collaborative partnership, one teacher tries to measure up to the other. They both recognize and complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. For instance, Donna makes a suggestion or has an idea. She tells i t to Dick. He uses the essence of her idea, but changes her words and the context of i t to suit his experience and his preferences. That does not bother her at a l l . One of them is always ahead of the other so that through reflection and communication, the other can refine and improve on what was done. In this way each partner provides the other with a kind of non-threatening feedback, through which they both grow as professionals. As she admits, " i t is that kind of feedback where one person can admit human frailty to another/ and not feel threatened by that." 4.2.2.3. Having "Incidental Science" Aside from the major part of the science program which she designs and implements in collaboration with a partner, she makes up for her not being "scientific" by having what she calls "incidental science" in her class in the mornings at assembly time. Before the schedule of work for the day, the whole class meets with her for about twenty minutes or so. Incidental science emerges from her tendency to run "somewhat of an Integrated Day". An integrated day allows her to bypass rigid timetabling guidelines for teaching subject by subject at particular scheduled times in the day. "If sorrething links up [for the pupils] and it's clicking together, let's say they are using materials and I'm doing some reading, I ' l l call that Language Arts and Science." For Donna, conventional subject labels have less importance in face of the interests and knowledge which her pupils wish to pursue. Each day three pupils are responsible for presenting ideas and activities on a certain topic. The topics are science related; Fingernails, Ant Colonies, Architecture, Monkeys, Starlings, Colour. Each pupil has a turn once every three weeks. The group of three is expected to speak to a main idea and to organize the talk around that idea, using a visual aid or experiment or demonstration with the class. Sometimes, the outcome of the demonstration or experiment is edible and that is alright. But she keeps a record of the topic for each pupil and writes a comment on this "incidental science" activity in each pupil's report card. It is her feeling that this sort of exercise has prepared them for a more major presentation such as this unit on Body Systems. Also, i t enhances their oral language development, which is of considerable importance to her. Furthermore, by integrating science into the regular language arts program, she is finding more time for science, a task which she acknowledges is difficult for any generalist like her. 4.2.2.4. Designing the Content On three days per week during the weeks that are set aside for science, because they are not doing social studies, science is done for an hour to an hour and a half each day. Pupils are grouped and each group is responsible for presenting information and activities on a system of the human body. Two weeks before the time to start this unit, she and Dick decided to have a planning session. This time they used the textbook; sometimes they do not use a text at a l l . First they made up a time line and "put down how much we could get covered in that time." For them the problem is that, with this unit on the systems 109 of the human body, they have about two weeks in which to cover four systems. This is partly why they decide to have the pupils present to the class an "overview" of the material. In designing a unit in science, they tend to use a field trip as a "grabber". This field trip is planned long in advance and is usually included in their presentation to the parents. For this unit, the trip is to the Arts, Science and Technology Centre. However, they were disappointed with the way this v i s i t went. Pupils had an opportunity to view demonstrations and displays of the systems of the body. However, there was l i t t l e explanation offered to pupils on the actual systems and their questions were not appropriately answered. They agreed that there was l i t t l e the teachers could do to guarantee the usefulness of the field trip experience, beyond what they had actually done in this case. Nevertheless, by providing each pupil with a worksheet on the displays seen and discussing those sheets in class, they hoped to compensate. For Dick and Donna the process of designing their science program is one that evolves. They begin with a "desire to free ourselves from the curriculum in science and socials and do more or less, what we want and by that, I mean, following the pupils' interests, our interests." With this commitment, they then follow up on the topic, which was chosen earlier on in the year. Usually, there is a balance between biological, physical and earth science topics throughout the year. Resources are brought in and the unit is designed around the resources and the field trip: The science program has changed from last year to this year. I think our planning has become clarified because we really learned to do i t , or because I learned how to do i t in the course of designing a curriculum in social studies. Having to present that to teachers gave me a lot of time to think about i t . I now know from the ground up, how to design a curriculum whereas before, I used to rely on Dick to get the momentum going. If I don't work with him next year, I know how to do i t . I'm worried about how I will find the time, though. For Donna, this unit has changed considerably from plan to practice. She thinks that when they f i r s t talked of this unit, they conceived of an overview of the systems of the human body. Partly because of the enthusiasm of the pupils and because of her partner's OTimutment to cognitive intents, she thinks that the unit has grown to be more substantial. But, this unit has worked well for her. Her class was accustomed to working together in groups, to presenting information orally and demonstrating their ideas experimentally or visually. This unit was no different. She ran around from group to group modelling what was to be done, ensuring that they were on target, reinoving obstacles and manipulating them into achieving and demonstrating success. For her, the payoff was the excitement and the enthusiasm of her pupils in the course of their doing this unit. 1 1 1 ( a ) TABLE 4.3 TEACHER APPRECIATIVE SYSTEM - JACK PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY AS DILETTANTE a t e a c h e r ' s s t y l e i s a t e a c h e r ' s s t y l e , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s u b j e c t l i k i n g s c i e n c e i s t h e k e y t o good s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g h a v i n g a d e f i n i t e a p p r o a c h t o s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g t h a t i s n o t t e x t - b o u n d no t e a c h e r i s t o t a l l y u n i q u e ; t e a c h i n g i s b o r r o w i n g i d e a s b e i n g a b l e t o g e n e r a t e one's own keenness and e n t h u s i a s m f o r s c i e n c e l i k i n g s c i e n c e and f i n d i n g i t e a s i e r t h a n most o t h e r s u b j e c t s BEING A SPECIALIST l i k i n g t h e i d e a o f b e i n g a b l e t o s p e c i a l i z e i n s c i e n c e d i f f i c u l t t o t e a c h a l l s u b j e c t s and t e a c h s c i e n c e w e l l n o t t e a c h i n g s o c i a l s t u d i e s and t h e r e f o r e h a v i n g more e n e r g y t o t e a c h s c i e n c e k nowing enough t o g e t a l o n g w i t h o u t t h e t e x t h a v i n g p r e v i o u s l y t a u g h t a l l h i s p u p i l s s c i e n c e i n t h e f o r m e r g r a d e PREFERENCES FOR PRACTICE PROVIDING VARIETY s e e i n g t h e program as a "smorgasbord" o f o f f e r i n g s i n v a r i o u s f i e l d s o f s c i e n c e o v e r f o u r y e a r s h a v i n g a f o u r y e a r program a l l o w s t h e t e a c h e r more v a r i e t y w a n t i n g t o c o v e r t o p i c s i n d e p t h f u l f i l l i n g p u p i l s ' c u r i o s i t y i n s c i e n c e c a t e r i n g t o p u p i l s ' need f o r v a r i e t y h e l p i n g p u p i l s t o a r r i v e a t t h e " r i g h t b a l a n c e " i n t h e i r l e a r n i n g o f s c i e n c e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n i s t h e k e y l o o k i n g a t s c i e n c e d i f f e r e n t l y from o t h e r s u b j e c t s 111(b) T a b l e 4.3 ( c o n t d . ) c h a n g i n g t h i n g s d u r i n g t h e y e a r because what works w i t h one group o f p u p i l s does n o t work w i t h a n o t h e r o v e r t h e y e a r s , "weeding o u t " what does n o t work WORKING WITH A COLLEAGUE h a v i n g a s i m i l a r a p p r o a c h t o t h e t e a c h i n g o f s c i e n c e as h i s c o l l e a g u e b o r r o w i n g from h i s c o l l e a g u e and a d d i n g t o i t i f he l i k e s i t s h a r i n g and i m p r o v i n g on e a c h o t h e r ' s i d e a s h e l p i n g e ach o t h e r w i t h equipment d e c i d i n g c u t - o f f p o i n t s b y grade o r program c o n t e n t f e e l i n g t h a t w o r k i n g w i t h a p a r t n e r e n r i c h e s t h e program b y b l e n d i n g i d e a s k e e p i n g i n t o u c h a l l t h e t i m e CODESIGNING THE CONTENT making t e s t s t o g e t h e r s e t t i n g up t h e program, n e g o t i a t i n g l i m i t s f o r p u p i l s , g r a d e l e v e l s and d e t e r m i n i n g c o n t e n t d e c i d i n g on t h i n g s l i k e how many marks something i s w o r t h and what t o deduct marks f o r knowing " i n t h e back o f o u r head where we a r e g o i n g and j u s t d o i n g t h e f i n e t u n i n g " n o t h a v i n g t h e same program w i t h o u t any one o f them d e v e l o p i n g p e r s o n a l t e a c h e r and p u p i l i n t e r e s t s i n s c i e n c e 112 4.3. Teacher Appreciative System - JACK 4.3.1. Professional Identity 4.3.1.1. As Dilettante Jack likes science and therefore he enjoys teaching i t . His mission is to subvert his pupils so that they too have the same enthusiasm for the subject that he has. He is also confident that his store of scientific knowledge is more than adequate and therefore he does not hesitate to use his interest and background in science to extend his pupils. This approach is particularly apt for students at a school with what he perceives to be an "academic orientation". He readily admits that while many teachers may teach the same material, each teacher has a unique approach: I guess what I'm saying is that I put my personality into teaching. I present i t the way I am comfortable with i t . For example, take Teacher A and Teacher B, they are both going to light a bulb. The kids are basically the same but each teacher says i t differently and the kids react to the personality. As a professional, in his eyes he stands out because of his strong liking for the subject which evidently colours his views of the subject and the goals he seeks to accomplish in teaching 113 science at the intermediate grades: My main objective is to show that science can be looked at in a totally different way from the other academic subjects. I think the whole idea is that when a pupil says he has had science, he associates something different with i t than just another textbook and another assignment. Science is not just language arts or social studies. It is a subject where you learn by experimentation and interaction with other pupils. Yet he also sees himself as a designer, one who enjoys finding scientific ideas and using them to create an exciting program. For him, "teachers are great stealers of ideas. A l l [his] ideas come from somewhere else." A l l that is unique about teaching is the teacher's style which persists regardless of the subject being taught. Science is special to him, though, because he likes the subject and wants to teach i t : I guess I like the subject. That's the key thing. ' I'm more involved in i t because I'm interested. If you like something, you put more time into i t . The task is never hard i f you like i t . . . . I've always liked science and I enjoy teaching science. Because of that I work harder at i t and I show I like i t . I think pupils pick up the vibrations that I like what I'm doing. They are also good the other way.. .to pick up something I'm really resisting. It really goes back to interest. Because he likes science, he wants to teach science and liking and wanting influences how he teaches the subject to pupils and how as a result, they perceive the subject itself. this his 114 4.3.1.2. Being a Specialist He i s also i n the fortunate position of not having to devote time and energy to teaching subjects for which he does not have a similarly strong OTmrrtitment. He does not teach subjects such as physical education and social studies. As he explains: You see, now I don't teach social studies, so the extra energy I can put into science. But i f I had to teach both, with a s p l i t class, I know that I'd rea l l y be swamped. Furthermore, the "platconing" at his school enables him to be a science "specialist". He can therefore pursue his own interests and his pupils' interests i n science. It i s more advantageous for him to be a specialist teacher of science rather than for him to be a generalist. As science teachers of the intermediate grades, he can say of himself and his colleague: We're i n a unique situation. There are two of us teaching a l l the intermediate science. The two of us plan everything from grade four to grade seven. So, instantly, that gives us the whole run of the entire curriculum at any level at any time. 115 4.3.2. Preferences for Practice 4.3.2.1. Providing Variety As a science teacher, he feels that i t is his job to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of his pupils for the subject by offering them variety. The variety he can provide for them in science he cannot, in other subjects: I guess I see i t just as variety. I teach math and math is basically seatwork. Language Arts is basically seatwork. So, to me science is a whole different world; it' s my chance to do something different. I see the other stuff as quietly going through page by page of a textbook. I see science as a total escape from that. It is "hands-on" with variety. It's not structured. I don't have to start on page one and go on.... It's just a totally different approach to a subject. Yet, even for a professional like him, with the bright ideas and the liking of the subject, finding the right balance through which to provide "variety" in the subject is perplexing. This i s what he says: If you spend too long on one topic, eventually you lose interest. And I think i f you spend too l i t t l e , then you don't get as much out of i t as you can. So, it's a matter of at what point in the year you feel that they have had as much as they need and then you push on to the next topic... It is not his aim merely to cover a variety of topics. Because of his view of the subject, he thinks he ought to be able to use science to match pupils' curiosity and in so doing, help them develop thoughtful ways of dealing with uncertainty: Answers aren't always there in science. In another subject, you would go to the textbook and there i s an answer on a certin page and you give that back to the teacher. With me, I'm giving them the material, some of which there is no answer for around them. They have to find an answer through discussion. Or, I may say there isn't any one answer. Maybe they have to think up a reason for that. In order to f u l f i l l his personal goals and expectations for pupils, they have to be able to use appropriate thinking strategies. He claims that they actually find i t difficult to "think". They seem to go so far in their thinking and then they stop and look for a clue or an indication of further direction. He sees himself as the one to urge them on so that they can define precisely just what their conclusions are and how these have emerged from their observations. For him, science i s the appropriate ground for redressing this disability. He presents puzzles in science class. His pupils are encouraged to solve these practical puzzles without any input from him. Then he seeks their solutions and by s k i l l f u l , probing questions, he leads them to evaluate their own solutions and recognize other plausible ones. 4.3.2.2. Working with a Colleague While the program has evolved since he came to that school, he readily admits that i t i s far more d i f f i c u l t to in i t i a t e a worthwhile program than i t i s to maintain one. He was not the teacher to i n i t i a t e this program. His colleague d id . She was at that school before him. But he i s now involved i n shaping and extending the program. He now shares i n designing units within the program but acknowledges that some of the ground rules were or ig ina l ly l a i d down by his colleague. However, their goals are compatible because they have a similar approach to the teaching of science. They monitor each other, share ideas, equipment and tests when appropriate. Indeed, their partnership i s not competitive; i t i s collaborative. They create the program together. They share the teaching of the program. The two of them manage the teaching of a l l the science from grades four to seven at that school. The school has an academic orientation, with a t radi t ion of a "strong science program"; he sees himself as upholding, constructing and shaping th is t radi t ion, through his science teaching. 4 . 3 .2 .3 . Co-designing the Content Both Jack and his colleague, Jessica, work very closely to design the content of the units and lessons they teach. But his ideas for lessons come from various sources, Jack admits and both teachers share i n these: I'm very open to ideas from others, from various sources. I've done photograms in the darkroom with pupils and one of them asked me what would happen i f I put Lugol's solution in. I told him to try i t . Somebody else wanted to tie-dye and we made coloured photograms. They were fantastic. I asked Jessica i f she had ever tried colour. She tried i t and her kids loved i t . His personal interests also colour what he chooses to teach and how i t is taught. In this respect, he carries the job of science teacher far beyond the limit of the classroom into his own personal l i f e . This is not unusual for him: Travel is one of my interests. My wife is the same and she is a teacher too. So, we're always picking up things. For instance, now I'm teaching dams in B.C. I went to see the W.A.C. Bennett dam. I went there because i t was in the science program and I was around there anyway. It was on my route. Now that I've gone there, I'm even more enthusiastic about teaching about dams. So I guess I take my experiences and integrate them into my teaching.... We were doing volcanoes, recently. When I passed out to the class, the photos of Mt. Saint Helens that I had taken when I was there, I could see they were more interested. So, it's experience, sharing experience... Jack and Jessica plan the science program together. Together they monitor i t and they also have similar standards for teaching. Yet these collaborative efforts cannot guarantee how things are likely to "work" in each teacher's class: When I teach something the f i r s t time I have a certain expectation of how i t ought to go but I never know how i t is going to go until I actually do i t . After i t is done, I turn around and say to myself that maybe I should have done this or that differently, or this a bit earlier. I think you have to look at the ability of the 119(a) TABLE 4.4 TEACHER APPRECIATIVE SYSTEM - JESSICA PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY A "SEAT OF THE PANTS" STYLE w a n t i n g t o g e t somewhere and knowing where and b e i n g w i l l i n g t o change t o g e t t h e r e n o t t e a c h i n g e x a c t l y as she d i d f o u r y e a r s ago al w a y s on t h e " l o o k - o u t " f o r i d e a s o t h e r s do n o t see what does n o t work; i t i s thrown o u t no t f e e l i n g t h a t I know much s c i e n c e no h e s i t a t i o n i n s a y i n g t o p u p i l s , " I d o n ' t know" p l a n n i n g i n mind a l e s s o n w h i c h i s no where n e a r what r e a l l y happens i n c a l s s g o i n g w i t h what comes up; even a d i g r e s s i o n h a v i n g d e f i n i t e i d e a s about want i s a p p r o p r i a t e h a v i n g f u n i n s c i e n c e f e e l i n g t h a t "you a r e f i r s t o f a l l a t e a c h e r and t h a t t h e s t y l e goes w i t h y o u , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s u b j e c t " i m p o r t a n t t o c o n c e i v e o f how som e t h i n g c o u l d work i n c r e a s i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s e a c h y e a r BEING A PROFESSIONAL t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e f o r about n i n e y e a r s g i v i n g workshops f o r o t h e r t e a c h e r s o f s c i e n c e a p p l y i n g i d e a s from workshops i n c l a s s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d " s c i e n c e e x p e r t " by t h e s t a f f c o m p e n s a t i n g f o r "what you a r e u n c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h " b u i l d i n g t r a d i t i o n s t h a t new p u p i l s have t o a c c e p t 119( T a b l e 4.4 ( c o n t d . ) PREFERENCES FOR PRACTICE MOVING THE CLASSROOM OUTDOORS r e c o g n i z i n g t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t e x t s e s s e n t i a l t o have equipment t o d e s i g n a u n i t u s i n g t h e e n v i r o n m e n t as a r e s o u r c e f o r u n i t d e s i g n a l w a y s l o o k i n g f o r r e s o u r c e s t h a t a r e "hands-on", i n t e r e s t i n g , good f o r t h e p u p i l s and t h a t " f i t i n t o s c i e n c e " d e v i s i n g a c t i v i t i e s t h a t i n v o l v e w o r k i n g out o f d o o r s f o r s c i e n c e h a v i n g a making equipment f o r o u t d o o r a c t i v i t i e s u s i n g t h e b e a c h "as a c l a s s r o o m " PUPILS AS CO-INVESTIGATORS b e i n g f l e x i b l e enough t o f o l l o w p u p i l s ' i n t e r e s t s and d i r e c t i o n s h a v i n g a w i d e range o f c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s , d i s c u s s i o n s , p r e s e n t a t i o n , w r i t i n g and "hands-on" a c t i v i t i e s i n s c i e n c e f e e l i n g t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e happy i f t h e y know "X" and can do i t w e l l , t h e r e f o r e an academic o r i e n t a t i o n i s uppermost o f t e n f e e l i n g t h a t t h e p u p i l s know more t h a n t h e t e a c h e r g e t t i n g p u p i l s t o a n a l y z e t h e i r own work w i t h o u t b e i n g d e f e n s i v e d o i n g t h i n g s p u r p o s e l y t o g e t p u p i l s t h i n k i n g and q u e s t i o n i n g w a n t i n g p u p i l s t o l i k e s c i e n c e and w a n t i n g t o " t u r n them on t o " s c i e n c e b e i n g p r e p a r e d t o "go on f o r e v e r " w i t h a p u p i l who i s " o f f - t h e - m a r k " a l l o w i n g p u p i l s t o g e t t h e i r own r e c o g n i t i o n t h r o u g h s p e e c h e s , a p a r t from t e s t s p r o v i d i n g p u p i l s w i t h a v a r i e t y o f ways o f w o r k i n g i n s c i e n c e WORKING WITH A COLLEAGUE s e e i n g a p a r t n e r as someone she c o u l d g e t a l o n g w i t h and someone who l i k e s s c i e n c e T a b l e 4.4 ( c o n t d . ) h e l p i n g e ach o t h e r f i n d ways o f d o i n g good u n i t s and w i t h t h e l e a s t "wear and t e a r " n e e d i n g t o work w i t h someone who l i k e s s c i e n c e s t i m u l a t i n g e ach o t h e r g e t t i n g t o g e t h e r t o p l a n a r e v i e w and c h a n g i n g t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r ' s p r e v i e w t o s t a r t w o r k i n g o u t some v e r y good l e s s o n s , t a l k i n g about them and t h r o w i n g away t h e p a r t s t h a t don't seem w o r k a b l e t r y i n g o u t and i m p r o v i n g on e a c h o t h e r ' s i d e a s p u p i l s t h i n k o f them as a team, a " u n i t " w a t c h i n g h i m "work out t h e l o g i s t i c s " w i t h a new u n i t and making a l o t o f h e r own m o d i f i c a t i o n s 120 kids too. I can give a test one year and the kids can handle i t but not another year... The way I discipline, l i t t l e things that I do during the year, change because what works well with one group doesn't with another. The content of the science program is therefore not static but dynamic, changing from grade to grade, from year to year and from class to class, with personal interests of the teacher and with circumstance. 4.4. Teacher Appreciative System - JESSICA 4.4.1. Professional Identity 4.4.1.1. A "Seat of the Pants" Style Jessica describes herself as having a "seat of the pants" style. While this is her attempt to focus on the improvisational nature of her teaching practice, i t also characterizes the creative spark with which she ekes the best out of a teaching moment for her pupils. She has had several years teaching science, many of them at that same school and she also lives in the neighbourhood. Although she humbly admits that she does not know much science, i t is hard to imagine a teacher with more drive, enthusiasm and practical knowledge about her work. She wants a l l round excellence from her pupils, not inconsistent with the "academic orientation" of her school. This 121 means that whatever she undertakes to do with pupils, she expects them to do to the very best. One of the highlights of her science program is a series of talks or speeches which the grades six and seven present in the latter part of the school year. The idea of having pupils become adept at presenting information orally, came out of a personal experience she had some time ago: I started this because I went to a political meeting and I noticed that the only people who stood up were people with British accents. I asked myself what i t was about a country whose people would not stand up and speak in public. I immediately came back to the classroom and started formal speeches. It started in grade seven and we have used i t and used i t . . . . The funny thing is that I had a grade eleven pupil come back and he said that he had had me for grade four, five, six and seven science and that he couldn't remember a single thing that we had studied in science. But he remembered doing two talks in grade seven and that had carried him through school. He told me that was the best thing I had ever done in science. The speeches that her pupils prepare and deliver have become a part of her science program that i s valued highly by the students themselves and by her too. Other aspects of the program also relate to these speeches. Research skills become important and pupils learn to write up a bibliography, take notes and deliver an oral presentation from their notes without memorization. She has set for herself and her pupils goals that are wide-ranging. They encompass much more than a focus on the content 122 of science curriculum. Perhaps this is because she sees herself to have a role that is wider than that of a mere provider of science curriculum content. The pupil who leaves her class must have the potential to be a well-rounded, productive citizen. She is there to facilitate this kind of personal development in her pupils. Science is a fertile medium through which she can realize these motives and she is pleased to say that her pupils themselves recognize and applaud her goals for them. 4.4.1.2. Being a Professional The "seat of the pants style" that she humbly ascribes to herself is a deceptively casual expression of her own carefully thought out agenda for science teaching, at the intermediate level. This agenda reflects appreciations of her professional identity that are many-sided. To her, elementary schooling is an important preparatory step, not only for secondary school, but for l i f e . Therefore elementary science is not just "play", as secondary teachers might say. It is the medium through which her pupils leam to explore their worlds, to confront meaningful environmental issues of the day, to frame questions and seek for themselves relevant answers. She would have them do a l l of these things in her science classes and her role is moulded by these ambitions. 123 She is humble about her subject knowledge but she thinks that her knowledge of the discipline enables her to feel comfortable with the subject, even when she is being innovative: I figure to be a science teacher, you should know a fair amount of science to be comfortable with i t . I think that is a problem with most elementary teachers. They are not comfortable with the subject because they have not had any science. I know to myself that I have had one year of Oiemistry and one year of Zoology in university. Certainly, that is enough to carry me through. But i f you haven't even had that much, I would think you would feel as I feel about physics, inadequate... We probably lean more to Biology. But we carefully try to put in some physics, some chemistry and some astronomy — very conscious about balancing the needs of our pupils. She herself would like to have a more extensive knowledge of the disciplines within science. She misses no opportunity for her own professional development. She attends workshops for that purpose and the information and ideas she gets from them are played out in her teaching: Certainly I love workshops. The Science Symposium has contributed to the classroom in so many ways, as well as other workshops and professional days. The professional days have added a lot to my career. What other way i s there to get new ideas? ... This school is very strong. We sit in the staff room and we talk over everything. In pursuing her own growth, she misses no opportunity to incorporate other interests and information into her teaching of science. Often, this means that her search for ideas extends 124 beyond the school: Oh, I heard a tape by the Workmen's Compensation Board. It had something to do with the ear. I came back to school and I told Jack about i t . We had to do the ear so we decided to use that as a base. We keep our "feelers" out for good, hands-on, interesting material that suits the age level and f i t s into science. We feel that the textbook provides a lot of scope. I remember having a principal who said that whatever I do, I should be able to justify i t . We always find something in the book that says that what we're doing is elementary science. Yet, i t has not been easy for her to gauge the professional status of her own teaching. She laments the isolation and uncertainty of her early years. For years she worked alone in her room, not really knowing how she was doing: I'm not doing anything differently really, from what I was doing before when I was so worried whether i t was o.k. I imagine there are a lot of teachers who might be doing good jobs who don't know i t . Now, after nine years, she has a well-articulated view of her own professional competence. She knows that she is doing a good job of science teaching. 4.4.2. Preferences for Practice 4.4.2.1. Moving the Classroom Outdoors 0 She encourages pupils to use the environment outdoors as their learning ground for science. Often, their investigations progress outside of the classroom to the schoolyard: One year I had the pupils bring coat hangers and nylon stockings and we made nets and they're s t i l l here. We'd go down (to the beach nearby) and dig in the mud and see what we find. Now we're planning a unit on Orienteering. We'll teach them map reading and plant identification together. I ' l l go down before school and I ' l l put up fluorescent stickers with numbers. Pupils have to take the map, read the map, find the sticker and identify the plant. Again, she recounts how on one occasion the grade fives were doing with her a unit on measurement in science. They had to move to that part of the schoolyard outside of their room to do some measurements. A group of pupils needed to verify a claim that some of their peers had made. She was, of course, enthused at their commitment and intrigued by the challenge. The class went along and they did a number of measuring activities outside in teams. Another teacher at the school complained of the "noise". She was indignant. How could pupils be expected to pursue learning that was spontaneous and relevant to their interests, in silence. To capitalize on the rare moments of excitement in learning is important to her. For this she would risk admonishment from her peers. 4.4.2.2. Pupils as Co-investigators Jessica's view of her role as a teacher is critical to her interaction with pupils. She is the one who anticipates issues and questions of interest to students and introduces these into her classroom, in an atmosphere which allows pupils to pursue discussion and search for their own answers. With her gentle guidance and open-mindedness, they a l l engage in an enjoyable search for the knowledge they want, she with them. But she is also there to keep them on track, quietly encouraging and supporting them as they work towards personal excellence. She is there to stimulate and to facilitate as much learning as her pupils can accommodate. This is how she talks about her science teaching: It's fun and I like doing the activities because they're fun. I like discussing plate-tectonics and ecology and saving the environment with them and how we ? solve these problems. That to me is the bonus of the job. I have definite ideas about what is appropriate or not; they may not be a l l that clear-cut to the kids... It is her style to "go with the flow" and let her pupils benefit from the pursuit of their own interests, with her guidance to extend them. Science seems to her the right "breeding ground" for this type of interaction. Yet, she appreciates that following personal directions contributes not only to their knowledge but also to her own professional growth in the subject: I have no hesitation in saying to the children, "Let's find out" or [admitting] that they know more than I do. And, I feel I'm learning a l l the time. If I get interested in an area, i t ends up in the unit because i f I'm going to do the reading and work, I have to do i t for my own interest, to learn something. Then I'm excited enough to share i t and that may be another unit. That is how a lot of units get started. For example, I live in this area and I was so excited when Jericho was turned over to the city, I started wandering through i t and thinking out how I could use i t as a classroom. Allowing pupils to head in their own directions does not lessen her responsibility to provide them with interesting avenues for learning about science. Her own interests too are woven into that fabric for learning science. She uses as wide a range of material and events for science instruction as she can, dedicating herself to the task of imintaining the excitement of personal discovery for herself and her pupils, open to improvement and change: I know I want to get somewhere and I know where I want to get and I'm willing to change to get there. I can't say that this year I ' l l teach exactly as I taught four years ago or that in four years I ' l l be doing what I'm doing now because I may s t i l l be doing what I'm doing now because I may s t i l l have the same goal—but I may also have changed. In keeping with her desire to enhance her own personal and professional growth in the subject as well as that of her pupils, she encourages them to take the responsibility to join with her in the pursuit of their scientific knowledge. But she also takes into account their own needs: 128 I would say that I'm trying to be sensitive to the pupils to the point where, i f I felt that their interests were leading them somewhere worthwhile, that I could go off in that direction. I would not be so rigid that I would aim for point B, no matter what. So, very often I plan in my mind a lesson and then i t is no where near to the lesson that actually happens in the classroom. If there is a discussion that cartes up and I think i t is a learning experience—it may be a different topic; i t may be a digression; i t may be something I would have taught another time—I will try to capitalize on their interests, on their knowledge. I see i t as a willingness to go in directions you didn't plan but they are keen to learn and science is quite conducive to that. By the same token, she insists that they a l l meet the demands that she sets for them. This is part of her wanting them to "take responsibility for themselves and their work" but also to gain status and build confidence in themselves. She explains, for example, that at f i r s t not a l l students were enthusiastic to present their speeches: I s t i l l have some [pupils] to go. There is one g i r l who does not like doing speeches. She tried i t and i t was one sentence, one sentence, one sentence. And the class just said that was not acceptable; one and a half minutes was not a speech. I did not have to say anything. The kids just said that. So, I then said that there would have to be a two minute talk and the group would have their diagrams and the talk prepared. Then, they were going to come up to the standard of everyone else. The one g i r l who gave the talk said that she hated giving speeches. She has been up twice. She does not have enough material. She got 47/50 on her exam. She is my best reader. She wants to take a 0/10 on this because she sees a very low value for this. I'm prepared to go on forever. Her demands of pupils are stringent but consistent and she is prepared to work along with them towards their goals. The program of science i s wide-ranging in content and in strategies for cx)mmunicating that content. Even when pupils are presenting their own material, the atmosphere is one of questioning and tolerance for many viewpoints. Few questions come from the teacher? the action is played out around her, almost as though she were a player herself. Occasionally, they look to her to resolve a dispute. In her classes, learning is happening and they are a l l participating in that happening: I don't think i t is accidental. I do some of these things on purpose, to get them questioning and thinking. I mean I'm trying to get a thinking productive citizen. If you're thinking about i t in grade four, fish ladders versus damrrdng a river versus no fish or whatever, you'll always think about things. Thinking, that's the name of the game. Hers is to nurture not only to provide? to facilitate not merely to control? to develop a whole person, seeing science as the tool and opportunity for achieving these ends. 4.4.2.3. Working with a Colleague It is clear that she recognizes the professional strengths of her colleague. They share programming and designing content and activities of science. They also have a similar approach to the teaching of science, which makes this collaboration possible. They 1 3 0 are both keen and excited about science personally, wanting to pursue their own interests in the subject in the course of their tea<^hing. For both of them the subject seems conducive to discussion of issues and experimentation. Each year, she prepares plans for the ODming year. As well, she carries throughout the year an intuitive sense of the extent to which these can be modified, adjusted or extended to include the magic moments that emerge in class out of her own interest in pursuing pupils' directions. Because of her "seat of the pants style", any partnership she engages in has the potential to be somewhat confining for her. Yet, in her readiness to "try out" new ideas, her main criterion for a partner is "anyone I could get along with, somebody who likes science and wasn't doing i t because i t i s a job, who by choice, would go to the Science Symposium and lectures and like to read about scientific things, somebody who was really keen." Consequently she and Jack share ideas, techniques and experiences through which they enrich the content of the program for the beneficiaries of i t , their pupils. This is how she appreciates their relationship: We're helping each other find ways of doing good units at the least expense and "wear and tear" also... I think that's what teaching i s . Somebody keen on a subject or area fires up somebody else. We tend to stimulate each other. 4.5. Chapter Summary In this chapter there are four descriptions, each one focussing on the way in which one of the four teachers in this study appreciated practice. These descriptions of teacher appreciative systems are themselves narratives which portray each teachers' appreciations. Each narrative is organized around the key elements, which appear to characterize a teacher's science teaching. It is important to mention here that the narratives are intended to present the reader with a flavour of the distinctness of a teacher's appreciative system as well as to allude to the practical considerations around which a teacher's appreciations coalesce. The descriptions in this chapter, therefore, are presented in response to the fi r s t set of research questions on the nature of teachers' appreciations of their practice. The following chapter, seeks to respond to the second set of research questions of this study. In Chapter 5, teachers' appreciative systems are compared but this is done through the medium of one key appreciation common to the sample of teachers, collaboration. It was observed in the study that each teacher voluntarily sought out and developed a working relationship with a colleague in the same school, in order to teach science. What follows is an exploration and analysis of teachers' collaborative relationships with each other in the light of the comparability of their appreciations of elementary science teaching practice. 132 CHAPTER 5 COMPARABILITY OF TEACHERS' APPRECIATIONS: THE NATURE OF TEACHER CDIZABORATTON 5.0. Introduction The general intent of this study has been to portray what i t was like for four teachers to teach elementary science. The teacher appreciative system has been used as a construct for depicting key features of an elementary teacher's science teaching practice. Individual appreciative systems of each of the four teachers in the study were described in response to the f i r s t set of research questions. The resulting narratives were presented in the previous chapter to provide the reader with snapshots of those teachers' appreciations of their practice. The second group of research questions sought to investigate the extent to which teacher appreciative systems were comparable. In response to the latter set of research questions, this chapter will dwell on the comparability of teacher appreciative systems. However, this discussion is anchored in the common theme of teacher collaboration which has emerged from this comparison of teacher appreciative systems. 5.1. P r e d o n i n a n c e o f T e a c h e r C o l l a b o r a t i o n T h i s h a s been a n i n q u i r y i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r a c t i c e o f t e a c h i n g e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s ' a p p r e c i a t i v e s y s t e m s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e s e t e a c h e r s s h a r e d a common p r e f e r e n c e f o r w o r k i n g a l o n g w i t h a c o l l e a g u e i n s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g . I n t h e s t u d y , t h i s p r e f e r e n c e h a s been c a l l e d t e a c h e r c o l l a b o r a t i o n , u n d e r s c o r i n g t h e f a c t t h a t e a c h t e a c h e r sampled, happened t o have v o l u n t a r i l y c h o s e n t o work w i t h a n o t h e r t e a c h e r i n t h e t e a c h i n g o f s c i e n c e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e n t i o n t h a t i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n , t h e t e a c h e r s m a i n t a i n e d r e g u l a r t i m e t a b l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g i n t h e i r own c l a s s r o o m s . They were n o t team t e a c h i n g ; t h e i r work r e l a t i o n s h i p s c a n a p t l y be d e f i n e d i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n a s " c o l l a b o r a t i o n " . T h r o u g h c o l l a b o r a t i o n , t e a c h e r s r e f l e c t e d t h e i r own a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f r e a l i t y . Y e t , d e s p i t e t h e common p r e f e r e n c e t o work w i t h a c o l l e a g u e i n t e a c h i n g o f s c i e n c e , e a c h o f t h e two i n s t a n c e s o f t e a c h e r c o l l a b o r a t i o n between t h e f o u r t e a c h e r s i n t h e s t u d y seemed d i s t i n c t i v e i n c h a r a c t e r . I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i v e s ystems a r e compared by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r and e x a m i n i n g t h e s e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n l i g h t o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h e a c h p a i r o f t e a c h e r s engaged. The c h a p t e r t h e r e f o r e a d d r e s s e s t h e c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f t e a c h e r s ' 134 T a b l e 5.1 C o m p a r i s o n o f Key A p p r e c i a t i o n s o f C o l l a b o r a t i n g T e a c h e r s D i c k and Donna J a c k and J e s s i c a I n d i v i d u a l o r Group L e a d i n g and F o l l o w i n g D i c k : f o c u s s i n g on p u p i l i n d i v i d u a l i t y Donna: p r o v i d i n g f o r s u c c e s s o f t h e group o f p u p i l s w a n t i n g t o "do more s c i e n c e " f o l l o w i n g e a c h o t h e r ' s l e a d The " C o n c r e t e " and t h e " A b s t r a c t " C o o p e r a t i v e Program D e s i g n Donna: s e e i n g l i m i t s and " n a r r o w i n g t h e f o c u s " D i c k : s t r i v i n g f o r a l l p u p i l s t o have c e r t a i n " s c i e n t i f i c " knowledge p l a n n i n g a f o u r - y e a r program t o g e t h e r a i m i n g f o r e x c e l l e n c e and d i v e r s i t y i n programming M a s t e r y and Coverage M a s t e r y and Coverage b o t h e x c h a n g i n g e x p e r t i s e and knowledge o f s c i e n c e t o enhance i n s t r u c t i o n demanding more o f p u p i l s t h a n mere knowledge and s k i l l s o f s c i e n c e R e c i p r o c i t y and Compromise C o m p a t i b i l i t y and S t y l e j o i n t l y a n t i c i p a t i n g and w o r k i n g on u n i t s and l e s s o n s j o i n t l y r e f l e c t i n g and w o r k i n g o u t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r a c t i c e g i v i n g and g e t t i n g n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g , c o n s t r u c t i v e f e e d b a c k r e c o g n i z i n g e a c h o t h e r ' s s t r e n g t h s and needs h a v i n g f l e x i b i l i t y and t o l e r a n c e C u r r i c u l a r Autonomy C u r r i c u l a r Autonomy o p e r a t i n g as " d e s i g n p r o f e s s i o n a l s " w o r k i n g as a team m a i n t a i n i n g i n d e p e n d e n t c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n s w o r k i n g as a team o f " e x p e r t s appreciative systems by examining the nature of teachers' collaboration i n science teaching, as i l lus t ra ted by the four teachers who took part i n th is study. 5.2. Nature of Teacher Collaboration; Synergy or Cooperation The descriptions of practice i n Chapter 4 indicate that, while teachers had similar perceptions of science teaching, their appreciations were dis t inct i n certain crucial aspects. This warrants special mention of the way i n which pairs of teachers dealt with each other, the nature of appreciations expressed for each other and the influence of these on the dynamic which characterized their interaction i n science teaching. The collaborative relationship which Dick and Donna shared, bore earmarks of being different from that which Jack and Jessica shared. Considering the uniqueness of each teacher's appreciative system, as described i n Chapter 4, i t i s not surprising that the manner i n which a pair of teachers related with each other at thei r school was d is t inc t . Dick and Donna's partnership has therefore been characterized as synergy, while the nature of interaction between Jack and Jessica i s better described as cooperation. Dick and Donna have quite differing appreciations of elementary science teaching. For instance, Dick's practice i s 136 dcardnated by his "individualized style". Donna, on the other hand, aims for individual pupils to submerge [unruly] characteristics and bring these into the group." Such dissimilar commitments have not prevented them from having a productive and enjoyable partnership. Indeed, each teacher brings to their collaboration contrasting appreciations which are themselves responsible for the form of teacher collaboration existing between that pair of teachers. Teacher collaboration i s characterized by a tension to which each teacher contributes, based on personal appreciations. What emerges i s a reciprocal, dynamic relationship i n which each teacher gives and each benefits. Donna herself has aptly described the synergistic nature of their partnership when she said i n Chapter 4, "We help each other. We feed on each other and prompt each other." And Dick has agreed that, "When we work together, we certainly feel as though the ideas I have are being used more broadly. . . . I do measure myself against Donna, perhaps more than I should. . . . " Jack and Jessica also collaborate, but their al l iance i s recognizable for i t s cooperative nature. In Jessica's words, "We're helping each other find ways of doing good units at the least expense and "wear and tear" . . . . We tend to stimulate each other (Chapter 4 ) . From the discussion of teacher appreciations i n the previous chapter, part icularly from the descriptions of each teacher's 137 preference for "Working with a Colleague", the flavour of teacher collaboration in each pair of teachers has certain remarkable features. Dick and Donna's relations reflect reciprocity; Jack and Jessica's, easy compatibility. The rest of this chapter attempts to illustrate and substantiate this position by describing how the nature of Dick and Donna's collaboration can be seen as synergy and how Jack and Jessica's relationship functions as cooperation. 5.3. Collaboration as Synergy: DICK AND DONNA 5.3.1. Individual or Group Dick and Donna work together to design instruction in science. Yet, as mentioned in the previous chapter, they seem to differ in their personal views of themselves as science teachers. For Dick, i t i s important to foster the cognitive development of each individual pupil in his class. He himself says, "I often think of my major driving force as being what I want to get over to the kids..." With his focus on pupil individuality, this tends to be achieved at the expense of efforts to develop the cohesiveness of his class as a group. He readily admits: I could think more carefully how I manage situations. For example, i t never occurred to me to clean up the way that Donna cleans up. [And again, ]... I do find i t harder to get Ken to do what everyone else is doing when I know he will find i t hard to do what everyone else i s doing! And that undermines everything in a way. I mean I know. 138 Donna, on the other hand, sees herself as a provider of opportunities for success for the group of pupils in her class. Therefore she promotes group activities and uses peer pressure to ensure that expressions of extreme individuality are "submerged and brought into the group", thus affording each person in class an equal opportunity to contribute to the success of the class as a whole: At the beginning of the year I start... and they become more homogeneous in that sense. I have a certain level of behaviour that I expect everybody to reach... Dick is concerned that each of his students "knows something scientific". They need to know as much of the content of science as they can hold. Their written work should reflect what they know. But, in marking their work, he does not apply the same standard to a l l of his students. Though he aims for them a l l to "know" science, he makes allowances for their individual abilities: I'm aware that I would perhaps give a "C" to Jane; and I might give a "C+" to Pam that might only be a "C" for Jane... But my reaction to their papers [worksheets] and the feeling I want them a l l to have when the paper comes back with my mark on i t , is a reflection of the ability they have and what they've actually achieved. His criteria for marking are based on his own judgement of each student's personal ability and progress, rather than some hypothetical average for the whole class. He expects his marks to reflect a pupil's actual ability and achievement. Indeed, he concedes that he would mark some pupils "very good" on work that might well be marked "poor" for others. Donna recognizes the pupils in her class through their identification with the larger group in which they operate. She works at raising standards for the class, expecting each individual to measure up to group standards for behaviour and cognitive achievement. She works at getting them to progress as a group. They help each other to improve and as the class moves ahead, each pupil shares the pride and the success of the group. Dick and Donna recognize and acknowledge their differing appreciations of practice. This excerpt of one of their conversations reflects how, in their collaboration, each accomodates to the other's position: Donna: I think it ' s the dilemma of the group versus the individual. I would see i t that way. I'm holding both. If the Circulatory System has to be done, the group has to find a way to make that happen and I do praise the group for having done i t . Dick: I find that really interesting because I've always felt that your classes are more coherent and I've attributed that to a number of things. I've attributed that to your style. I think you love working on getting the group together. You do the "student of the week" and I think you do, at the end of the day, bring everyone together and you have a nice ending to each day. Donna: We're different, very different. I appreciate the differences. You're seeing what I'm missing. Hopefully, I'm doing something that you appreciate. And you do t e l l me. 140 Despite these inherently different personal appreciations of their professional roles, Dick and Donna have an effective, reciprocal professional relationship. In the teaching of science, they complement each other. Donna sees the whole; Dick focusses on the parts. Donna emphasizes method; Dick, content. Donna has long range vision, seeing how a lesson will contribute to the success of the whole unit and managing the lesson to f i t into overall intents for the unit: Interviewer: But, when you conceived of this unit,, what was i t that you intended to happen? Dick: Well, I had got these cognitive goals in my mind. Donna: And I'm feeling quite differently. I feel that our primary objective when we started, given the amount of time we had, was to give the kids an exposure to these four systems... I feel our objective was much smaller than i t has now become. Because of your responsibility to cognitive learning, you are now making more of i t . Really, I think the word "exposure" was very clear in my mind. We could have rethought that ... but I think that was our goal. And i f you look at this, that certainly i s substantiated. Dick wants to perfect each lesson, concentrating on how i t will work for him and for certain pupils in the short run. Donna's practice seems to be driven by general, long term goals for the unit and for class success. Dick, operating lesson by lesson, tries to vary the lesson to suit individual pupil needs and in so doing, his own vision of class accomplishment dims and his long range hopes for the unit become remote. Consequently, he experiences more frustration than Donna, often feeling that he is not acxx^lishing as much as he had hoped. She recognizes that he has a tendency to be overly critical of his own performance. While reflecting on the unit and its progress, they exchange views, each attempting to explain and justify personal appreciations of their practice. Through this dialogue, their relationship helps Dick to objectify his view of his competence, enabling him to be less idealistic and to take more account of the practical limits of his position. 5.3.2. "Concrete" or "Abstract" Although Donna aims for success for the class by the end of the unit, she continually looks for concrete indications of that success and measures her own progress in small increments. She is pragmatic about the breadth of work she can handle. Recalling how they planned the unit, she says, "I guess I was thihking in the amount of time, what could be, how much could really be accomplished." She sees her limits, narrows the focus of what she can do, and draws reinforcement for her subsequent steps from small gains she makes along the way. Teachers such as Donna who see themselves moving between the many concrete, day-to-day demands that mark science teaching as only one of the many jobs they must do, seem to count their achievements in the short term. Perhaps they maintain self-esteem by acknowledging the small steps they make along the long road to the success they seek. Donna sees i t as her task to bring the whole class success. She concentrates on moving them along together and casts aside with fierce determination any resistance to that goal, which they themselves as individuals may offer. She pats herself on the back, so to speak, when she makes a small gain: There's a variety—like your kids, there's a variety of levels of commitment to reading the text. But I'm reacting to [their] getting involved in the material... Kids have been staying in after school, whipping up experiments. They're using words that they've never used before, a vocabulary they've never had... It isn't exactly what we set out to do, but it's very exciting, what's going on. In measuring her professional gains, she acknowledges the limits or constraints of her teaching situation. But because she reflects on what she accomplishes step by step along the way, in the short run, she finds the fuel to energize further activity and so she maintains self-esteem and a healthy professional outlook. Yet, the limits of her position are nevertheless real. She does not have much "specialist" knowledge of science and as a "generalist" teacher, neither does she have unlimited time for any subject, even science: I t e l l the kids, "I don't know. Go to the library. Go to the library and find out and t e l l me." So, that's the base. If they're going to do the Circulatory System, I'd put the book by my bed and read i t the night before... It is anxiety producing but it's a l l I can do in my busy 143 l i f e as a teacher. I don't know i t a l l and I feel stronger in other areas. But, as mentioned in the previous chapter, she compensates for these personal drawbacks by exposing students to a breadth of practical, scientific ideas in what she calls "incidental science". She concedes that she does not hold a l l the content herself; she concentrates on motivating students to search out scientific knowledge themselves and works along with them as they search. On the other hand, Dick is an idealist. His scientific knowledge base dictates for him what his pupils ought to know in science. He concentrates on delivering this information to them, emphasizing what is crarimonly called "the scientific method" of doing and writing up experiments. He strives to have his own idealistic goals achieved by each student in his class, within the confines of pupils' individual abilities. As any practitioner would, Dick experiences minor setbacks in his practice: It has turned into sorrething else, so that I did not have these other goals in mind... I'm sure they'll come out with the information. It's just that I don't see i t there yet. That's why I say I'm halfway down the tunnel. Yet, he pursues his vision of individualization and cognitive 144 achievement, apparently satisfied that in the long run, these goals will be achieved. He tends to neglect the small successes he has along the way. In the long term, he doubts his own ability to realize fully his own goals. Cn his own, he is quite crit i c a l of himself. In Dick's collaboration with Donna, he meets with her to discuss plans for the unit and they keep track of each other's progress. As they reflect together on experiences with the unit in their respective classes, they exchange evaluative comments on what each teacher has achieved so far. Through this process of reflection with his colleague, Dick comes to reframe his role in what has been transpiring in his class during that unit. Despite his i n i t i a l worry about his pupils' lack of information, he reluctantly acknowledges to Donna: I mean i f you f i t what has actually happened into my very simplistic model of education, then the knowledge and understanding they're getting is how to collect and organize information and how to work within a group and how to prepare and the ability to cope with the world, and once you've got this information, how to present i t . And these are a l l very important. His partnership with Donna has enabled him to recognize the small gains he has made and this enhances his own self-esteem and improves his professional outlook. 5.3.3. Mastery and Coverage In spite of a tendency to view practice differently, Dick and Donna have a similar approach to the teaching of science and this contributes to the trusting, sharing nature of their alliance: Dick: We're along different tracks...although I mean i f we actually had to work in the same room, we'd s t i l l be able to manage quite well, I think. Donna: I think we like ideas and we have enthusiasm for what we're doing. And we like change—trying different things. On that basis, there's common ground. We like developing units and talking about them. They work hand in glove to design instruction in science. The unique repertoire of pedagogical and content skills that each has been said previously (Chapter 4) to bring to the design and teaching of science units, enables them, as a team, to design instruction in science which aims not only for mastery but also for coverage. It has been said that teachers are continually faced with the dilemma of aiming either for mastery of content or for coverage (Webster, 1982). Donna has been described as having good skills in the organization and management of the subject matter and pupils. Dick, on the other hand, has specific competence and knowledge in the skills and processes of science. These aspects of their individual abilities have a favourable impact on their collaboration. Not only are they able to provide adequate coverage of the curriculum but also, they encourage their pupils to reach mastery of scientific concepts. By working together and pooling 146 their strengths throughout their science teaching practice, this couple manages to strengthen the individual performance of each one of the partners. 5.3.4. Reciprocity and Compromise Their relationship, though complementary, requires compromise. They jointly decide what they are to teach, the content to be covered and techniques for pupil mastery. But each teacher is able to implement that design in keeping with personal appreciations of professional identity and prevailing circumstances in class. What occurs in each science class is consonant with the teacher's own sense of self, the subject and personal pedagogical aims and experiences. However, their joint operation provides a channel for each one to express and justify, i f called upon to do so, personal aspects of classroom practice. By jointly anticipating how lessons and units ought to work, by analyzing together how these lessons did work and reflecting on ways of modifying or discarding elements of their practice, each teacher creates an unusual, but valuable, opportunity for sharing views and expertise in teaching with another professional who works in the same setting. Through joint reflection on practice, their collaboration provides ground for comparing and measuring one against the other: 1 4 7 My biggest worry at the time was that he [Dick] was doing a better job of getting the content across... I thought, "Oh no, they'll know more about the Circulatory System than my kids will know." And yet, he was feeling the same at one point. As argued in Chapter 4, had they been working as individual teachers without collaborative contact, there would be l i t t l e scope for this kind of self-critique or exchange of professional expertise. Working alone offers l i t t l e chance for a teacher to receive feedback from a colleague with a similar level of expertise, in a non-threatening, constructive manner (Jackson, 1968; Lortie, 1975). The reciprocal but dynamic tension that holds this partnership together relies on good communication. Their joint reflection on practice allows for cxsmmunication that enriches and strengthens their collaboration. Through reflection, each teacher can divulge and work out differences in their appreciations of professional identity and they can then negotiate compromise. Thus, joint reflection on practice is able to enhance professional growth for each teacher. In practice, collaboration affords Dick and Donna rare moments for such reflection; moments which would otherwise not exist for them working independently of each other; 148 5.3.5. O o r r i c u l a r Autonomy The c o l l e a g i a l c o n t r a c t t h a t D i c k and Donna s h a r e r e q u i r e s f r o m them f l e x i b i l i t y and compromise b u t i t a l s o a l l o w s them a s a team t o h a v e a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f autonomy i n c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n m a k i n g i n s c i e n c e . By p o o l i n g t h e i r r e s o u r c e s / t h e y c a n e s c a p e b e i n g " s l a v e s t o t h e t e x t " . W o r k i n g t o g e t h e r i n s c i e n c e , t h e y c a n p u r s u e t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s and t h e i r p u p i l s ' i n t e r e s t s . A f i e l d t r i p o r a s i m i l a r a c t i v i t y i s o f t e n t h e f o c a l p o i n t a r o u n d w h i c h t h e t e a c h e r s ' i d e a s c o a l e s c e i n t o a u n i t . D i c k a n d Donna c a l l t h e s e s t a r t i n g p o i n t s " g r a b b e r s " , b e c a u s e t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s have t h e p o t e n t i a l t o c a t c h , o r i e n t and d i r e c t t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e i r p u p i l s on a c h o s e n u n i t . I n D i c k ' s o p i n i o n , he a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e want a n " e x c i t i n g f i e l d s t u d y t o s p a r k t h e i n t e r e s t [ o f p u p i l s ] o r s u s t a i n i t o r t o c l o s e i t o f f and a b a l a n c e [ o f t h e s e " g r a b b e r s " ] t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r . " I t i s a l m o s t a s t h o u g h t h e i r p u p i l s , t r a p p e d a t f i r s t i n t h e n e t o f a n e x c i t i n g " g r a b b e r " , l a t e r have l i t t l e c h o i c e b u t t o c h a n n e l t h e i r e n t h u s i a s m i n t o t h e o t h e r t e a c h e r - d e s i g n e d a c t i v i t i e s f o r s c i e n c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r . I n e s s e n c e , D i c k and Donna o p e r a t e a s d e s i g n p r o f e s s i o n a l s . S c h o n (1987) d e s c r i b e s d e s i g n i n g "as a k i n d o f making" and he r e m a r k s t h a t t h i s k i n d o f m aking i s n o t o n l y c o m p l ex b u t a l s o 149 involves synthesis: In contrast to analysts or critics, designers put things together and bring new things into being, dealing in the process with many variables and constraints, some initially known and some discovered through designing. Almost always, designers' moves have consequences other than those intended for them. Designers juggle variables, reconcile conflicting values, and maneuver around constraints—a process in which, although some design products may be superior to others, there are no unique right answers (p. 42). Just as designers give shape to their products, so too, Dick and Donna, through their collaboration, give shape to the science instruction they design, weaving common curricular ingredients with personal commitments, interests and circumstances. For them, science instruction operates as a process of collaborative design: Donna: My problem with what has happened so far is that a l l the "A" students can do that better than I can, explain those systems and have a better knowledge of them than I have... My concern is that they're doing a l l the work. If anything, I'm worried about the others. Dick: And I want to get everybody up to there and so my frustration comes about because the top five, six or seven are up there. I get back to the same organizational thing as you in the long run. Donna: There is a definite concern there and we both have i t ... But even the actual involving of a pupil in something, i f we find better ways to increaase ccmrdtment and involvement or better yet, i f the group does, i f we give them the skills to do that, then I feel we've done something. I agree, I have anxieties too. You are a very self-critical man. I feel I have to t e l l you a l l the time what's going well. I did i t today. Dick: The funny thing is that, that might suggest that I was paranoid or seme thing, but I have a strong image of myself. I feel that I could be a lot better teacher but I have no doubt I am a good teacher. 150 As collaborating science teachers, they draw less scrutiny about their work from the school administration than they would as individual teachers. They function as a team i n science, snaring the workload, recognizing their strengths and compensating for any professional weaknesses. The principal recognizes their teamwork, sees the enthusiasm of their classes for science and feels secure that the job i s well done. Above a l l , science i s being taught and the teaching of i t i s well-managed and orchestrated. Dick and Donna's collaborative efforts are aptly described as synergistic. In their partnership, one teacher reciprocates the contribution of the other and both of them benefit. According to Donna: I don't know i t a l l and I feel stronger i n other areas [than science]. And part of the reason that I encouraged this relationship with Dick was that I perceived science was a real weakness. I have an enjoyment of i t . I l i k e i t . I l i k e what the kids do with i t but I found somebody who could help me run a better program because I acknowledge he knows more about i t , how to teach i t . . . how to plan i t . . . But, when he says w e ' l l do i t a certain way, right away I am thinking, "How many? Where? With what?..." You see, because I've taught Kindergarten, I have to be organized. I t ' s my whole orientation. Each practitioner benefits from the collaboration i n which they participate. As mentioned i n Chapter 4, Donna i s able to share i n Dick's "big ideas" for science. But she also feels that when he "goes off i n too many directions", she i s able to keep him on track and lessen his frustration by reminding him of the realistic goals which they have negotiated. Dick's comments capture the reciprocity of their collaboration: In the long run, it's funny. You know you [Donna] were worried about your kids getting behind. I was worried about managing my kids. So, I was worried about the thing you are good at and you were worried about the thing that's my strength. What emerges from their union is more than the sum of their individual efforts, coloured somewhat by the subtle compromises through which their partnership flows. 5.4. Collaboration as Cooperation: JACK AND JESSICA 5.4.1. Cooperative Program Design In the case of Jack and Jessica, each makes an equivalent, not reciprocal, contribution to the collaborative relationship they share. Both teachers have equal control of the entire intermediate program in science at their school. By working together, they maintain control of, not just a year's planning at a particular grade level, but of the four years of the intermediate science program. Jointly they determine what students learn in science from year four to year seven. They agree that: There are schools in which i t seems that the happiness of the child might come f i r s t . In our case, I think we'd 152 say that i f the child knows something and can do i t well/ he/she will be happy and instead of saying, "How do we make the children happy", we think, "How can we get them to know this and this and this and then they'll be happy!" Programming over such a long period affords them flexibility in use of time for coverage of curriculum topics. The program is not broken up into four parts; i t is considered a whole, with each year building on the last. Through their cooperation, these teachers manage to design and implement a science program that aims for excellence in outcome and diversity in scope. Thus, they prepare students in the fi r s t year for the rigours of their expectations of the subsequent years: We just keep raising the standards so that what we identified this year, what we measured and said was good this year, isn't quite as good next year. We have to do better. They readily admit that because of this approach, less time is spent disciplining kids and more time is available for teaching the content or skills of science in those years. Programming over such a long time period allows these teachers to maintain traditions within their program, which strengthen how they are viewed by their colleagues and how the program is seen and received by their students. They have a reputation of running a strong, interesting science program. According to Jessica: A friend of another teacher told me this. Her friend had a daughter who's taking science at U.B.C. now. She took science in Grade 7 at this school and she was so turned on in Grade 7 science that she's taking science now at U.B.C. After that grade seven year they couldn't turn her off. No matter what the high school did, she was s t i l l interested [in science]! And i f the parents give credit for that years later, then they carry with them [the feeling that] this was a strong program and they are telling people. And i t does come back [to us here]. 5.4.2. Leading and Following Both Jack and Jessica have been teaching science for more than five years and each has a considerable background in the disciplines of science. Perhaps because of this background and their expressed love of the subject, they dedicate themselves to communicating that same love of the subject to their pupils. They readily admit that despite the "smorgasbord" of exciting offerings in their program, they would willingly extend i t to include other topics and activities. They are always "wanting to do more science". Their working relationship is smooth. Negotiating compromises is not obvious. Directions emerge and are then pursued by them both. It might be expected that because Jessica initiated the program at the school, she would take a leadership role. But this is not apparent. They have a similar approach to the teaching of the subject and have worked with each other long enough to recognize each other's lead and follow each other's cues for c h a n g e , i n t h e c o u r s e o f d o i n g a u n i t o r d i s c u s s i n g l e s s o n s . Y e t , t h e y a l s o m a i n t a i n a l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l i t y n e c e s s a r y t o k e e p t h e p r o g r a m i n t e r e s t i n g and v a r i a b l e f o r t h e i r p u p i l s . J e s s i c a ' s comments a r e : I f we d i d e v e r y t h i n g s i m i l a r l y , t h e y [ p u p i l s ] w o u l d n ' t have any v a r i a t i o n f o r f o u r y e a r s . H o p e f u l l y , t h e y g e t h i s b e s t and t h e y g e t my b e s t . . . We a i m f o r a n a m i c a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p where we c a n s u r v i v e and l i k e e a c h o t h e r d u r i n g t h e y e a r . C o n t i n u i n g c o n t a c t w i t h e a c h o t h e r between l e s s o n s h e l p s them work h a n d - i n - h a n d . J a c k s a y s : When I t h i n k I'm g e t t i n g b e h i n d , I do s o m e t h i n g t o g e t ahead. I f she g e t s t o o f a r ahead o f me, s h e ' l l s l o w down... I w h i p t h i n g s a l o n g . I t i s t r u e t h a t demands an d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f p u p i l s a r e p l a y e d o u t d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s , b e c a u s e o f what t h e y c a l l a d i f f e r e n c e i n " s t y l e " . However, e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e p r o g r a m w h i c h t h e y j o i n t l y d e s i g n , r e m a i n t h e same. 5.4.3. M a s t e r y and C o v e r a g e B o t h t e a c h e r s want t o p r o v i d e a v a r i e t y o f t o p i c s and a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o s c i e n c e . By p r o v i d i n g f o r d i v e r s i t y i n s c o p e and e x c e l l e n c e i n a c h i e v e m e n t , J a c k and J e s s i c a p u r s u e n o t o n l y c o v e r a g e o f s c i e n c e t o p i c s b u t a l s o m a s t e r y o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d science concepts. At the same time, they t ry to capi ta l ize on the enthusiasm and imagination of their pupi ls . Standards required of pupils are therefore high and rigorous, consistently demanding that they participate act ively at their own levels of excellence: The thing i s that I t ry to keep a balance of knowledge. They have to know some things because you are not an educated person i f you don't know anything. I don't agree with testing and kids' memorizing in order to write tes ts . But, they have to know something. On the other hand, they don't rea l ly remember much, anyway. If they learn anything from us, t h e y ' l l never know where they got i t . They ' l l just know that they know i t , whereas we want to get an attitude of loving science and being interested i n inquiry, interested i n dif ferent approaches to the science subjects. I think i t ' s my job to turn kids on to science. I think there should be some knowledge learned that a person owns, but to me, the major thing i s turning kids on to science so that they f i n a l l y l i ke i t . Much of the science Jack and Jessica teach does not come d i rec t ly from a text. Current events and controversial issues are dealt with through science content. Students therefore have to invest themselves, their values and opinions i n their learning of science. Resources in the l ibrary , the media, the environment are a l l drawn i n . And there i s an almost uncontrollable excitement among pupi ls . To present, question and evaluate each other's ideas on a system of the human body i s excit ing for students. Teachers subtly suggest questions for discussion and investigation, praise the i r students' ef forts while encouraging creat iv i ty , f a c i l i t a t i n g , arbitrat ing where necessary but in the long run exacting the very best from them a l l . When pupils give their speeches, teachers take notes. At the end of that uni t , tests are given, based on the teachers' notes. But the results of such tests cannot rea l ly ref lect the richness of pupi ls ' experiences during the unit or their understandings of sophisticated concepts covered through their presentations. (A sample of one test i s appended for reference). Students are tested only on basic factual information from the speeches given. Jessica expects that: Students should know something and know i t w e l l . . . . They should leave the school and be rea l ly competent at wr i t ing, reading, speaking, [and] at the s k i l l s i n science that they're going to need when they get to high school. However, the f u l l extent of students' s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and understanding cannot be accurately reflected in tes ts . The processes which these teachers work to develop i n their students cannot be eas i ly evaluated i n a short paper and penci l tes t . What students actually do and how they think i n class i s of greatest worth to them and to their teachers. Paper and penci l tests can eas i ly cover the basics in the science curriculum; far more i s required of these pupi ls . This i s i l lus t ra ted by Jessica when she relates how she has dealt with one pup i l ' s anxious query about the mark he got for a speech: I told him that I gave him 9 1/2 out of 10 because he questioned the audience. His technique of using a question to the audience was quite diffferent. He also put a lot of humour into his talk, well-thought out humour, not just nervous humour. But I lost track of his organization and so I took off 1/2 mark. These kids are polished enough that they should be getting a ten out of ten, but they may not even get a nine i f I can't follow the organization of their thinking. Clearly, Jessica thinks highly of her pupils' abilities and she urges them to strive for excellence. The qualities that she and Jack foster in their students through science cannot be easily tested. Their program demands more than having mere knowledge and skills of science. These teachers value clear thinking, well-formulated and supported opinion, confidence as well as humour and organization in oral presentations. Jack and Jessica encourage their pupils "to gain status, show confidence, build morale, especially for those who do not do so well on tests". They both agree that what they want from pupils i s : Liking science and using scientific techniques to face problems and solve problems so that they [pupils] look at science not as sonething separate from their lives—and just a course in school! 5.4.4. Compatibility and Style A most dcminant characteristic of Jack and Jessica's relationship is their compatibility. Granted, each displays a different personal "style". In class Jack is brisk and business-like, using humour to encourage pupils to conform to his demands. According to Jack, he "goes into more detail" while Jessica "goes in and out of topics faster". Jessica has a quiet, nurturing manner in class and she is tolerant of difference in her pupils. Yet, both teachers are consistent in their demands of students and their approach to teaching science, preferring to aim for overall excellence in pupils as well as variety and balance in their well-rounded program: Jessica: Well, every year my expectations go higher. Jack: I mean, I push yours up and you push mine up higher. Jessica: As we've gone on, we keep raising standards... They are able to recognize each other's strengths and needs and accommodate to these comfortably and amicably, without protracted negotiation: When I came here, I only knew one grade and I'd never taught them a l l . So at f i r s t , I borrowed a lot of her [Jessica's] script. I went along with i t and i f I liked i t , I added to i t . Basically I liked i t . There was lots of variety and so I was able to add something. I'd say, for example, "You've never done blood typing?". And she'd say, "Oh, what would you do? Let's try i t . " And we decided that i t might work and we did i t . We were teaching grade six together once and we put i t into their program then. Now, when we teach grade six [science], we just do i t without even thinking. They have extensive knowledge of each other's practice. The students they teach have had either of them for science in each of the four years of intermediate science. It is likely that from year to year Jack and Jessica have been able to grow more familiar with each other's personal classroom practice through their dealings with various groups of pupils in the intermediate grades. They have come to "know" each other therefore, not only through their direct interaction with each other in the course of co-creating science instruction, but also through the pedagogical experiences they have shared with the same groups of pupils over time. As specialists in the teaching of science, they are to their peers at the school, the "science experts". Students too view them as a team. Both of these perceptions acknowledge the cooperative nature of their alliance. However, this cooperation seems to result from their own flexibility and tolerance of each other's differing appreciations of classroom practice and also from a mature knowledge and recognition of each other's style and competence in the teaching of science. 5.4.5. Curricular Autonomy As in the previous case of teacher collaboration, because of their partnership and joint management of the science program, the adrrunistration seems to "leave them alone". They are able to "free themselves from the curriculum" but, with their combined expertise and knowledge of the curriculum, they can readily draw connections between what is mandated and what they do in the program: 1 6 0 But you see, because we do a l l the science, we don't have to stay with STEM or Laidlaw. We can say, "How can we build a good program?", and we come to grade seven and we say, "These kids should know a fair amount of anatomy ...It is a good time to do i t — i n grade seven—because that's the year when they're very interested in their own bodies. Thus they are able to justify the more "eclectic" aspects of their program. It is important to them to be able to justify what they do, recogrdzing that collaboration strengthens their position of controlling the intermediate school science program. As a team, they are autonomous and independent in curriculum decision making and instructional design in science. The program is therefore a rich amalgam of topics and activities geared to encourage students to master sophisticated scientific concepts which are relevant to their daily lives: Jessica: They will each know one system well. They will have touched on other systems. So they will have a general discussion of the body and some of i t at a rather high level... Jack: See, the thing is, we have to distinguish between [a student] who can memorize and one who can take someone else's information and think about facts which no one has really clarified [for the student], and organize them. There is even a difference between that and giving them [students] an experiment and asking them to figure out what's going on. Jack and Jessica aim to produce well-rounded pupils, with a breadth of exposure to the disciplines of science. Their program includes rigorous discussion and critique of popular social issues related to science, such as environmental control and protection of endangered species. During the four years in the program pupils learn such things as: (a) taking notes accurately, (b) formulating and presenting informed opinions, and arguments with clarity in a speech, (c) orienteering and using the environment outdoors for scientific investigation, (d) raising questions and seeking answers through cri t i c a l thinking, "hands on" enquiry or the use of models, (e) analyzing their own experimental methods and evaluating their answers. Furthermore, very l i t t l e of this comes from a text; much of the content flows out of the personal interests and resources of teachers and students. Information from various sources is blended into the program. As Jessica remarks: Our librarian has books and information on the systems [of the human body] and because this topic lends itself to [using] various sources, we can't use a textbook. They [pupils] have got to be able to go to more... We don't need to use the text; we've got enough. It's so limited. In this way, these teachers generate and maintain a challenging program for students and they too are able to preserve, not only cxurricular autonomy but also a high level of professional excitement about science in their teaching of the subject. Both pairs of teachers appear to find their collaboration in science workable and productive. But the basis of collaboration in each pair seems different. Dick and Donna do not have similar appreciations of their identity as teachers of science but, through their partnership, each teacher can rethink and re-examine personal appreciations of practice, eventually negotiating a compromise. With Jack and Jessica, teacher collaboration i s equally effective. However, despite different "styles", their comparable knowledge base and a shared approach to the teaching of the subject reduces the need for negotiation. Their partnership is more equivalent than reciprocal and Jessica expresses this quite well when she says: Jack and I teach [with] different styles. We made up different tests because our pupils covered different information. The results of the tests, and we made them both out of 50, the results of the tests showed that we were within one point. Our top pupils were within one point. Mine was 47/50. His was 46/50. The bottom youngsters were within a couple of points. We both had the same number of failures, within a person or so. It's not amazing to me that in that science test we were so close. We do this a l l the time in a l l the units... which makes me think [that] as teachers, we know what we're doing. 5.5.. Chapter Summary The discussion in this chapter has focussed on the nature of the collaborative relationships between the teachers in the study. In spite of appreciative differences, these four teachers voluntarily formed productive partnerships. Whether based on a synergistic relation as with Dick and Donna, or on a cooperative alliance as in the case of Jack and Jessica, these collaborative partnerships in science were purposive and beneficial. Collaborative science teaidiing prompts teachers to determine jointly the direction and emphasis for their science instruction. Collaboration also provides teachers the opportunity to develop more extensive and enriched treatment of science topics, making i t possible for them to achieve better mastery and coverage of the content of science. When they work as a team, teachers become more autonomous in deterrrdjoing the content and appropriate techniques for their science instruction. The appreciations of these teachers suggest what their major concerns about teaching elementary science might be. Furthermore, teacher collaboration would seem to be a significant preference for handling these concerns. In the following chapter, teachers' concerns are reviewed to indicate the significance of collaboration as a means of enabling these teachers to handle their concerns. 164 CHAPTER 6 TEACHERS' CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR SCIENCE TEACHING AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COLLABORATION IN TEACHERS' HANDLING OF THEIR CONCERNS 6.0. Introduction In an attempt to gain better understanding of the nature of teaching practice/ th is study set about to examine how teachers construe their worlds of pract ice. The preceding chapters contain descriptions and comparisons of teachers' appreciations of themselves and their science teaching/ with a focus on the nature of the collaborative relationships shared by teachers in th is study. In th is chapter, the col lect ion of teachers' appreciations and the forms of teacher collaboration are again looked at , i n order to identi fy general concerns about science teaching practice which th is group of practit ioners routinely address. The word, "concern", i s being used here to indicate a domain of practice on which these teachers consistently focussed, one that was the subject of considerable teacher attention and i n i t i a t i v e throughout the study. By considering such concerns, th is chapter i s intended to respond to the th i rd research question which asks: "In view of the nature and comparability of these teacher appreciative systems, what major concerns about their science teaching do teachers have and what is the significance of teacher collaboration in teachers' handling of these concerns? Various claims have been made in the literature about the isolation of classroom teachers and the lack of opportunity teachers have for colleagial support (Jackson, 1968; Dreeben, 1970; Carew & Lightfoot, 1979). Despite these allegations, i t is s t i l l not clear how pervasive a phenomenon teacher collaboration is or indeed, whether teachers favour isolationism over collaboration (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). However, this inquiry was not designed to address issues of isolation versus collaboration in teaching. But, teacher collaboration was found to be a key feature in the science teaching practice of the four teachers studied here and in this case, collaborative teaching has to be considered an outstanding feature of these teachers' worlds of practice. These teachers voluntarily chose to establish and maintain collaborative relationships with peers, throughout their teaching of science. Their partnerships involved them in joint reflection on various aspects of their practice. In the course of their reflection, individual teachers articulated and justified their own appreciations of their roles as teachers of science and expressed their ideas about how science should be taught in their classrooms. Teachers' expressions of their practical and professional concerns about science teaching and their views of 1 6 6 T a b l e 6.1 Summary o f t h e A p p r e c i a t i o n s and C o n c e r n s o f D i c k , Donna, J a c k and  J e s s i c a 1. P r o v i d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n t o a P u p i l C l i e n t e l e r e f l e c t i n g t e a c h e r i n t e r e s t s and commitment p u r s u i n g p u p i l i n t e r e s t s c a t e r i n g t o s t u d e n t needs b e i n g s a t i s f i e d a t p u p i l s ' achievement g e n e r a t i n g e x c i t e m e n t and e n t h u s i a s m o f p u p i l s f o r s c i e n c e 2. D e s i g n i n g U n i t s o f I n s t r u c t i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g c u r r i c u l a r autonomy - w o r k i n g as a team - n o t r e l y i n g on t h e t e x t b o o k - i n c l u d i n g t e a c h e r and p u p i l i n t e r e s t a s s e s s i n g p e r s o n a l r e s o u r c e s f o r t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e g e n e r a l i s t o r s p e c i a l i s t c o m p l i m e n t i n g each o t h e r ' s " s c i e n t i f i c " knowledge t h e a c t u a l p r o c e s s o f "making" a s c i e n c e u n i t s e t t i n g t h e t a r g e t - h u n t i n g f o r i d e a s - t r i a l and e r r o r f i n e - t u n i n g and f o l l o w - u p 3. O b t a i n i n g P r o f e s s i o n a l S e l f - R e n e w a l c o n s t a n t l y s e a r c h i n g f o r ways o f i m p r o v i n g p r a c t i c e e x c h a n g i n g e x p e r t i s e and knowledge i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h a c o l l e a g u e handling these concerns were therefore a natural part of their collaborative relationships. What follows is a discussion of the major practical and professional concerns of these teachers. It is suggested that teacher collaboration can be viewed as a strategy used by these teachers for acxxmmodating and efficiently handling their concerns. 6.1. Teachers' Concerns about their Science Teaching Tables 4.1. to 4.4. as well as Table 5.1. illustrate the clusters of appreciations of teaching practice which these teachers held individually and collaboratively. Table 6.1. summarizes teachers' key appreciations to show how these pertain to three major areas of concern. It is evident from Table 6.1. that these three areas of concern are as follows: (1) how to provide a level of instructional services which they find suitable for their pupil clientele, (2) how to design units of instruction, appropriate for their pupils and compatible with their own views of practice, (3) how to obtain ongoing professional development or self-renewal "on the job". Each concern is outlined below, along with an examination of how 168 these teachers deal with their concerns through collaboration. 6.1.1. Concern 1: Providing Instruction to a Pupil Clientele As practitioners, Dick, Donna, Jack and Jessica seek to provide their clients, the pupils, with the level of instructional services they think, not only appropriate to their students' needs but also compatible with their own appreciations of science teaching. This desire to supply the right level of instruction for a particular group of individuals has been of major concern to them a l l . Jessica expresses her concern in this manner: Anyway you read in the newspapers, especially from the U.S.A, where there are complaints that people look at science as a category outside of real l i f e and they don't look at things as a part of science and i t i s said how terrible that i s . I often think when I see that, "Oh, good! That is not happening in my classroom." [And also]... I want kids to like science. My goal is to turn children on to science, [for them] to be excited by i t and [for them to] think it's a part of their everyday l i f e and that everything that shows up in the news and the paper is a part of science. Interest, that's the main thing. A l l the extras, the knowledge and skills come second to liking i t and wanting to do i t well and having i t as part of their thinking. Similarly, Donna expresses her satisfaction at what her pupils have achieved in this unit. In her own words, she remarks on, ... the excitement of the kids, the fact that I can say, "Bring some material in." The interest after school, the begging me to go to the science room. It's 169 the enthusiasm of the kids. These oral reports, how they feel about science, that i t is integrated into kids' lives in the classroom.... there is an enthusiasm for science. I feel good about i t when I see that there is that enthusiasm for science! ... I think it's encouragement. I feel we give kids the encouragement to do science and to observe i t and bring i t in. It's a l l around us here and they are encouraged... Generating excitement and enthusiasm for science as a discipline i s for both of these teachers an important feature of their science teaching practice about which they are concerned. They desire not only to have students do the curricular activities of science and familiarize themselves with the content of the subject, but also to have students invest themselves in the joy of learrdng science. This adds another dimension to their jobs as teachers of science. These teachers do not see themselves as mere providers of scientific information; they are also dedicated to transmitting their personal appreciations of science, say, as a worthwhile, exciting endeavour, through their teaching of science. The instruction which they provide to their students is a reflection of such appreciations and the nature of their commitment to science teaching. In catering to their pupils, each teacher brings into play a personal "style" of teaching (previously mentioned in pp. 99 -103; 120 - 122). These teachers' instruction to students is thus mediated by their individual appreciations and expectations of pupils. The one, Donna, operates her classroom as a collective and often uses grouping to enable and encourage her pupils to work 170 cooperatively with each other so that the class as a whole can experience a high level of success with instructional tasks. "My concern", she says, " i s that they are a l l doing the work." The other, Dick, admits his overriding concern for the flowering of the individual student and he operates accordingly. But by working together i n science, both come to recognize their differences and together they have the opportunity, within a colleagial setting, to consider change. Collaboration imposes on both teacher participants the requirement that, i n planning and working together on instruction i n science for their classes, that they share personal preferences. For instance, when Dick and Donna work with each other i n science, their partnership encourages them to come to terms with their own personal pedagogical preferences and views of their students, which are openly discussed among themselves. This process of divulging personal elements of teaching style i s part of joint reflection on practice which occurs naturally when teachers decide to teach i n collaboration: Dick:... So, for example, i t never occurred to me to clean up i n the way that Donna does... In my room I say, "Before recess, we're going to clean up this room." So on the board I write up," #1: Clean top of the desk. #2: Put a l l possessions i n a bag. #3: Put anything that's not school on the floor. Then when you've finished that, work." I l i s t e d a whole l o t of things to be done. So, what happened; i t did actually work. They a l l cleaned up their desks and that went fine u n t i l about 10 o'clock, they a l l clustered around me saying that they had nothing to do! Donna: Weren't they doing their work? It said on the board, "Do your work." Dick; I know but by th is time of the day. Anyway i t was the last day. Donna; But Dick, th is year you d i d , you said at the end of last year, there were some things you weren't sa t is f ied w i t h . . . And I saw you very systematically th is year, become i n quotation marks, more organized i n some areas. Dick; Yes. yes. Donna; And you've had a much smoother y e a r . . . But the important point i s that you have made some signi f icant changes.. . Dick; It got better th is year and I had more 15 minute recesses th is year. Despite differences i n perception, both teachers agree that Dick can benefit by honouring h is coimitment to himself to work on h is organizational s k i l l s . The capacity of professionals to re f lec t on their pract ice , as exemplified above, i s said to characterize the essence of their professional expertise (Schon, 1983; Banner, 1984; Schon, 1987). If the a b i l i t y of teachers to re f lec t on their practice i s connected to teachers' potential for self-improvement, then the joint ref lect ion on practice which i s part of collaboration i s also l i k e l y to enhance the kind of service teachers provide their pupi l c l ien te le . Many recent studies attest to the importance of determining the nature and quali ty of teachers* ref lect ive thinking i n practice (Marin, 1986; Erickson, 1987; Grimmett, 1987; Haley-Oliphant, 1987; MacKinnon, 1987; Riecken, 1987). Although these studies do not ident i fy the precise role of re f lec t ion i n teaching pract ice/ they suggest that ref lect ion i s benef ic ia l to pract ice. It i s c lear , from studies of the practice of Dick:, Donna, Jack and Jess ica , that collaboration promotes re f lect ion on the personal bases of the i r pract ice. Through collaboration these teachers, especial ly Dick/ tend to become less self-centred i n personal preferences for practice and more amenable to appreciating the merits of other "styles" and pedagogical approaches to handling pract ica l concerns. In th is sense, collaboration has enabled the teachers i n th is study to improve on the level of professional services -which they wish to provide to students. 6.1.2. Concern 2: Designing Units of Science Instruction As a major concern, unit design includes a set of related sub-concerns, which also require consideration. These are: (1) establishing and maintaining curr icular autonomy, (2) assessing personal (special ist versus generalist) resources for teaching the subject matter of science, and (3) the actual process of "making " a science uni t . Each of these three sub—concerns w i l l be reviewed separately below. 1 7 3 6.1.2.1. Establishing and Maintaining Curricular Autonomy By working together i n science/ collaborating teachers i n this study can maintain a considerable degree of autonomy i n curricular decision making i n that subject. For example, Dick and Donna jointl y decide the times i n the year when science i s to be scheduled, topics to be covered at these times, techniques for conveying the subject matter to their pupils and for checking how well pupils are receiving this information. In Donna's words: I think because Dick and I decided to free ourselves from the curriculum i n science and socials, we more or less do what we want and by that I mean, the kids' interests and our interests. I t i s really personally-based science and we get excited about i t . We don't feel that any one i s t e l l i n g us what to do i n science. I t i s up to us. As indicated previously i n Chapter 5, the four teachers i n th i s study feel that they are subject to less scrutiny from the adrdnistration of the school (p. 150). While collaborating, they can decide to for f e i t reliance on a prescribed text as a primary source of ideas and look to the sharing of their own expertise, ideas, personal and pedagogical experiences as resources for teaching science. As Jessica says: I think of wanting to use the swamp, so we make up units to get us out of the classroom to the swamp. Mount St. Helens went off and the newspapers were f u l l of information and the school board gave us some 174 information and the kids were interested and we were interested. That became a uni t . Thus, they are able to pursue their pupi ls ' interests and their own interests i n the subject as wel l . Instances of these aspects of their col laboration have been presented i n de ta i l ear l ie r on i n th is dissertat ion (pp. 91, 105, 110, 150). The following excerpt, i n which Dick and Donna jo int ly ref lect on a unit and how i t started, i l l u s t r a t e s how eas i ly these two colleagues are able to rei terate together their intents to monitor and control a l l aspects of a unit of science instruct ion: Dick: Wel l , we sat down. F i rs t of a l l , we decided we'd do something on the Body. And then we decided how we'd do i t . We f i r s t of a l l telephoned the Ar ts , Science and Technology Centre and asked what shows they had on. They said [that] they had "Bodyworks". We'd already decided to do sorrething on the human systems by th is t ime. . . Donna: We looked at the date. We knew our start ing date and our c losing off date. We were start ing on a Monday and we knew we were going [there] on a Wednesday. So they had to have some exposure, we f e l t , to the skeleton and the muscular system and so the modelling and the getting ready for the f i e l d t r i p happened on those two days, Monday and Tuesday. Dick: Right, the intention was i n fact t h a t . . . each group was to produce, to do a good copy of th is sheet and then . . . give a f ive minute presentation. On Thursday morning, we were going to review the f i e l d t r i p . . . Jack and Jessica are just as autonomous i n making their decisions about their science teaching. However, as mentioned previously, because they share the teaching of a l l the science at the i r schcol , from grades four to seven, the i r autonomy extends 175 beyond just one year's classes to the entire intermediate science program at the school (p. 114). Jessica explains how certain aspects of the i r program have come about: I went to the high schools and asked them what they wanted from the children here and they said [things l ike] graphing. So, I b u i l t programs [ in science] based around [pupils] having to be knowledgeable i n certain areas when they l e f t and [giving them] a body of knowledge that f i t s into those areas. As colleagues/ these teachers consider that they have an exclusive responsibi l i ty to determine what the content of science instruct ion i s to be and which topics are most important for the i r pupi ls . Jack himself affirms that: . . . i t ' s a matter of which one we want to do. That's what i t rea l ly boi ls down to . There's the eye. There's the ear. There are food chains. There's photosynthesis. There's anatomy. There's the microscope. There's chemistry. A l l we have to do i s s i t down with a piece of paper and write down a l l the dif ferent areas of science and f i r s t say, "When are we going to do th is and t h i s ? " . . . Every second year we do a chemistry unit and we do i t with a l l the grade sixes and sevens at the same time because they can handle i t . . . . Well , Chemistry should be taught somewhere, as far as I'm concerned but mainly at the higher leve l because the kids are then interested i n i t . By pooling their resources i n collaborative teaching of science, Dick and Donna, Jack and Jessica are able to run their science programs according to their own agenda for science. The nature of collaboration i s such that, i n considering what content to del iver to pupils and i n selecting appropriate strategies for tea<±dng, 176 they can decide not to rely totally on a textbook. Instead, they look to the sharing of their own ideas, experiences and expertise as resources for teaching science and these are coloured by their appreciations of the subject itself. Eiy forging together and moulding a joint practice of science teaching, they draw the attention of the school adrrdnistration to their joint, not individual, efforts and the former efforts receive tacit approval while the latter draw less scrutiny than is usual. Their units of science remain stamped with their unique imprint and they are able to provide pupils with enriched content and innovative, challenging and interesting activities. 6.1.2.2. Assessing Personal Resources for Science Teac±dnq Each of the teachers in this study has personal views of his/her ability to teach science and these appreciations seem to be related to these teachers' perceptions of their personal store of scientific knowledge. For instance, Donna considers herself to be a "generalist", one with l i t t l e of the specialized knowledge of science and this appreciation influences how she approaches the teaching of science (p. 97). Seeing herself as one who is not "scientific" and just "two pages ahead" of her pupils colours how she teaches science and how much time is given to science in her class. She attempts to compensate for her perceived lack of personal 177 resources in the subject matter of science in two ways, individually and collaboratively. Firstly, she herself studies the content when she has to teach a particular topic and aside from her regularly scheduled science classes, she also teaches "incidental science". Thus, her pupils have more than the normal exposure to science as a classroom activity. Also, in her approach to teaching science she is not hesitant to ask pupils to research an answer to a question that she does not know. Often she works along with them as a partner and guide and, her pupils are very interested and excited about science. Secondly and more importantly, she has developed a collaborative working relationship with Dick whom she perceives to be more "expert" in science than she i s . Being a generalist teacher who has to teach a l l of the subjects also places severe demands on her time and expertise. Her collaboration with Dick can be seen as her attempt to compensate for her own lack of personal "scientific" resources. She acknowledges that as a generalist she has a drawback. She does not feel equally competent in a l l the subjects that she teaches (pp. 98, 99). For subjects such as social studies and science, which are considered to involve specialized content and skills, i t is difficult for teachers like Donna to have enough time and energy to provide themselves with the background and skills necessary for personal competence in the teaching of specialized subject matter. 178 It has been suggested that because of their perceived lack of specific knowledge of science, teachers feel untrained and uncomfortable and so they are reluctant to teach elementary science (Stake & Easely, 1978). This is not the case with Donna; her collaboration with Dick accounts for the difference. She admits (on p. 150), "I found somebody who could help me run a better program because I acknowledge he knows more about i t [science], how to teach i t , ... how to plan i t . . . " Through the reciprocity of collaboration, she is able to supplement her perceived deficits in content knowledge. /Also, as mentioned previously, she has in her colleague a concrete referent against which to measure her own science teaching practice (p. 147). 6.1.2.3. The Actual Process of "Making" a Unit of Science Considering the collaborative efforts of Dick and Donna and Jack and Jessica mentioned in Chapter 5, these teachers can be said to operate as "design professionals". Essentially, they "make" and test their own science curriculum in the course of their collaboration. This kind of making is viewed by Schon (1987) as designing. Science teaching, for the four teachers in this study, operated as a type of collaborative unit design. It is commonly acknowledged that teachers are the ones directly responsible for translating curriculum into the particular frame of instruction appropriate to their settings and their pupils (Shavelson, 1976; Bussis, Chittenden & Amarel, 1976; Dillard, 1986; Lampert, 1987). Teachers design their own instruction. But, design is a process of conceptualization and conceptualizing instruction requires time and expertise. For the teachers who were studied, the practical embodiment of their strategy for conceptualizing science instruction i s evident in their collaborative design process. Their design of instruction seems to occur in cycles or waves of activity, namely, setting the target for instruction, hunting for ideas, t r i a l and error and fine tuning and follow-up. These are discussed in more detail below. Setting the Target. Conceptualization of science instruction appears to begin when teachers decide to do their yearly plans and perhaps submit these to the principal. They outline a course of action, delimit topics to be covered in particular blocks of time. At this point of the design, process, there is a tendency for teachers to draw selected topics from disciplines of science such as biology, chemistry and physics. According to Jack: We say that they have to have a l i t t l e bit of a dab of biology. Have they had a dab of chemistry? Do they know what physics is? Do they know what chemistry is? Do they know what volcanology is? Do they have a well balanced scientific diet before they leave? 180 Hunting for Ideas. The time for the f i r s t unit draws close and about two weeks before, teachers get down to work. A f rant ic search for ideas begins. The prescribed text was not the chosen source of ideas for these teachers though Jack admits that ideas are col lected from various sources. Ideas may come from other teachers, materials, texts, the media and from h i s colleague. In h is opinion: Teachers are great stealers of ideas. I don't think there are many of us who say, "That's rea l ly my idea." A l l my ideas come from somewhere e lse , either through the university or other teachers or a textbook, whatever... I present them [in] the way I am comfortable and I guess that makes the d i f ference. [Again] . . . Because I work on a school board comrrdttee for science, I get ideas from there . . . I meet with them maybe once a month or s o . . . I mean I get ideas from them that I won't normally have . . . Isn ' t teaching borrowing everybody e l s e ' s ideas anyway! For Jess ica , personal interests add to her sources of ideas for designing units of science instruct ion. She says: I fee l I'm learning a l l the time. And i f I get interested i n an area, i t ends up i n the unit because i f I'm going to do the reading and the work, for my own interest , [I have to] learn something. Usually I'm excited enough to share i t and that 's how alot of these units get started. [And a l s o ] . . . . For science I think [about] what we can do that 's "hands-on", what are we interested i n . Then we make up the unit and we go after the equipment... As Dick says ear l i e r on (p. 89), teachers place high value on the collaborative search for ideas since i t provides an avenue through which they can "have their ideas used . . . and more [of their ] 181 ideas actual ly get into practice." T r i a l and Error . From their ideas teachers negotiate a frame for a uni t of instruct ion. It i s the unit / not the lesson, that i s the i n i t i a l focus of teacher attention. Lessons contribute to achievement on a dai ly bas is , of p r i o r i t i e s which teachers have already set for the uni t . Having determined direct ions/ start ing points are found; past experiences/ expertise and resources are shared. Ideas from old units are revi ta l ized/ embellished or rejected. Together/ teachers envisage how much they can cover/ what they want to get out of that unit / how interesting i t can be made for a l l concerned. Among the four teachers there i s a def in i te preference for creating new uni ts . There i s also a feel ing that units are best perfected through t r i a l and error . According to Donna: I think i t i s our way. I f ee l very uncomfortable about repeating anything i n socia ls and science. If I d id the same thing next year/ I'd be bored . . . So we normally don't repeat a uni t . Of course i t [the same unit] wouldn't go the same every time because you're learning and you're making mistakes and you're actually r ight on the spot developing i t , to improve it, and then/ there i s the group of kids you're teaching. Jack also explains his view of a " t r i a l and error" approach to uni t design. In Chapter 4, he asserts that he cannot ever guarantee how a lesson " is going to go", even though he usually has f irm expectations of what ought to happen (p. 118). 182 Fine-tuning and Follow-up. Ideas for a unit are actual ly reframed i n class as they are played out. The teachers then meet to compare what happened i n the i r respective classes. A lesson i s replayed for a colleague and together, the teachers r e - s i f t and sort ideas about pupi ls ' a b i l i t i e s , their own s k i l l and the content of the lesson i t s e l f , rerouting i t s path to meet the i r personal investment and professional corrirdtments. Reflecting on this part of the process, Jessica relates: We've worked out some very good lessons and we've talked about them and we've thrown away the parts that didn' t seem workable.. . either i t was too d i f f i c u l t [ in content] or i n materials or whatever, or the lesson didn' t go anywhere, or i t was a tota l d isaster . The c r i t i c a l path in th is collaborative design process i s the teachers' "hunt for ideas". At th is point, "two heads are better than one" i s the operative idiom. Together, teachers use old ideas to generate new ones. Ideas about content are sorted for their appropriateness to the task. Ideas about pupils and their a b i l i t y to handle proposed concepts are exchanged. The discussion i n Chapters 4 and 5 indicates that, for these teachers, joint conceptualization of the unit enriches the content knowledge base of each teacher and helps each of them update and consolidate their own content ideas and pedagogical knowledge of the subject (pp. 104; 145-151). Collaborative unit design also serves to enrich the repertoire of instructional s k i l l s available to each 1 8 3 teacher for a part icular unit of instruct ion/ stimulating exchange and analysis of relevant pedagogical experiences. Teachers' joint choice-making and re f lec t ion , prompt them to re-evaluate and improve on their pract ical s k i l l s . 6.1.3. Concern 3; Obtaining Professional Self-Renewal Dick, Donna, Jack and Jessica attach great importance to the work of teaching science but they are constantly i n search of ways of improving their own pract ice. This self-imposed pressure for improvement i s personally driven but i t appears to be strengthened by the ref lect ive nature of their collaborative relationships. Dick explains what h is desire for self-improvement i s l i ke : . . . o r saying, "I'm going to do something. Now how can I go about doing i t . I have to teach th is unit on the body. Now how can I go about teaching i t ? " If everything went swimrningly and I couldn't think of different ways to do i t , or how to change i t or whatever, I mean, you know one of my whole reasons for being would have disappeared. So, I have to be c r i t i c a l [of myself]. I have to think of , "What can I do better? What can I think of next? I don't l ike that, so I'd better change that." Because that 's how I operate a l l the time, I think. Each teacher in a collaborative partnership helps the other to draw closer to some desired level of professional improvement. Collaboration f a c i l i t a t e s an exchange of expertise within the actual context of practice and this i s valued by the pract i t ioner. Whether collaborating teachers share similar views of their 184 identity and similar preferences for practice or whether they have differing appreciations of practice, that i s , regardless of whether collaboration is cooperative or synergistic, the collaborative relationship is one of mutual trust. Both pairs of teachers in this study attest to the flexible, trusting and productive character of their professional relations. Donna illustrates how she and Dick prompt improvement in each other's practice: I showed Dick six steps I learned for putting kids into groups. I told him, "Now you wouldn't do i t exactly like this but maybe this would be useful [to you]." So he is sitting and I'm explaining and he is writing. But he is changing i t to what he wants as he is doing i t . That doesn't threaten either of us because he is very different from me and we operate differently... this makes us really able to criticize each other. I'd say, "I'd never do this this way but you can do i t that way; I ' l l do i t my way. Mine will be more structured and you can allow more of this, more freedom in this area." And I think we learn from each other. Especially in the case of generalist teachers, such as Donna, without a "good science background", collaboration in science teaching can offer a measure of professional security which ameliorates concerns for personal deficits in content knowledge. Through oolleagueship such teachers can improve their own content knowledge base in the subject without the pressure of participating in a formal, evaluative structure. It is important to mention that, in this study, teachers' collaborative efforts at professional self-renewal were voluntary, self-motivated, self-regulated, occurring naturally within the context of their 1 8 5 current practice. This kind of collaboration provided for enhanced professional growth and probably contributed to better design of innovative units of science instruction. Other studies of teaching lend support to this finding (Lanier & Little, 1986; Smith & Neale, 1987). 6.2. Overview of the Significance of Collaboration In Putting i t a l l Together, William Rothschild (1976) examines corporate success and argues that successful corporations have strategy and that moreover, their determination of strategy accounts for their success. Strategy, he affirms, is a "statement of an organization's investment priorities, the management thrust and the ways that i t will use its strengths and correct i t s limitations to pursue the opportunities and avoid the threats facing i t . " In the business of teaching, teacher collaboration is strategy. It is through collaboration that teachers devise a flexible game plan for prioritizing personal and instructional goals, jointly working out ways for smoothly managing their practical and professional concerns. The views and experiences which teachers in this study brought to their collaboration have been typified in their appreciations described in foregoing chapters. Yet, even teachers who varied somewhat in their appreciations, were able to 1 8 6 collaborate productively. This might imply that these teachers viewed collaboration as a useful and productive strategy. Strategy i s more than mere planning. Granted/ the game plan that teachers negotiate contributes to their strategy. But/ as implied by Rothschild (1976) i n h is discussion of corporations/ collaboration as strategy includes a comprehensive investment of personal and professional p r i o r i t i e s so that teaching colleagues delimit and manage their sphere of operation ef fect ive ly / within i t s context. The game plan i t s e l f i s f l ex ib ly held by each colleague. It i s not an indel ib le path? i t i s a recognition of one's own personal and professional l imi ts i n teaching a part icular aspect of subject matter. This has to be so for i n the classroom/ certain features of the context material ize. The press of these contextual demands operates to change di rect ions, as though dictated by the pragmatics of the moment. Besides, each partner has a certain s ty le through which the game plan i s implemented appropriately i n h i s or her c lass . As strategy, collaboration does enhance professional development. Teachers who collaborate take the responsibi l i ty of sharing their personal appreciations and experiences with a colleague. They consult with and support each other. Joint p r i o r i t i z i n g of goals and sharing of resources act as a buffer 1 8 7 against work over lead. They coach each other i n content. The feedback that they give to each other in re f lect ing on their practice i s systematic/ rigorous and non-threatening but invaluable for personal and professional growth. Teachers express great commitment to their work and often they le t professional work encroach upon the private te r r i tory of the i r l i v e s , seeing the expression of their l i ves through the demands of their profession and v ice versa (Lort ie , 1975; Clandinin, 1985). But through the conditions of work and weighty pract ica l demands of the i r job, their comndtment can sometimes wane. Though they cannot normally rely on inst i tu t iona l support to boost their morale, they seek to enjoy their practice and not merely to survive i t . Collaboration lessens the i r i so la t ion , bringing them into regular contact with peers with whom they can eas i ly and regularly share the joys and disappointments of pract ice, without fear of repr isa l . 6.3. Chapter Summary In th is chapter teachers' concerns for their practice of science teaching were ident i f ied and discussed to indicate the signif icance of collaboration i n enabling the teachers i n th is study to handle these concerns. Teachers had three main areas of concern, oriented to the design of instruct ional un i ts , provision of c l ient services to pupils and their own search for professional 188 improvement and s e l f - r e n e w a l i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r p r a c t i c e . I n summary"/ v o l u n t a r y t e a c h e r c o l l a b o r a t i o n seems t o : (1) e n a b l e t e a c h e r s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e who s e e t h e m s e l v e s a s g e n e r a l i s e s , t o g e t t o g e t h e r and s h a r e t h e work o f t e a c h i n g a s p e c i a l i z e d s u b j e c t s u c h a s s c i e n c e . (2) e n a b l e t e a c h e r s , e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e who p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s t o be s p e c i a l i s t s , t o be i n n o v a t i v e i n t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n , t o e n r i c h b o t h c o n t e n t a n d c o v e r a g e o f s c i e n c e and a l s o t o p r o v i d e a l e v e l o f s e r v i c e t o t h e i r p u p i l c l i e n t e l e t h a t i s c o l o u r e d b y t h e i r own a p p r e c i a t i o n s . (3) p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t e a c h e r s t o work w i t h a c o l l e a g u e t o w a r d s s e l f - i r r p r o v e m e n t and t o compensate f o r p e r c e i v e d p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l i n a d e q u a c i e s . (4) p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t e a c h e r s t o r e f l e c t o n and a n a l y z e t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r a c t i c e and s o a m e l i o r a t e t h e i s o l a t i o n o f t h e i r j o b s and p r o v i d e o n g o i n g s e l f - r e n e w a l . The f i n a l c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s an o v e r v i e w o f t h e s t u d y and i t s f i n d i n g s a s w e l l a s t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s b a s e d o n t h e s e f i n d i n g s . CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 7.0. Introduction In this chapter, the original purposes, questions, methods and major findings of the study are briefly reiterated. This overview of the study is intended to summarize what has been acxxxnplished by this investigation of teaching practice. Briefly revisiting the perspectives, questions and findings of the study can provide an appropriate background against which to make certain tentative conclusions and speculate on the implications of these. Finally, recxarimendations for further study of the theory and practice of elementary science teaching are suggested. 7.1. Summary of the Study This was a naturalistic exploration of the nature of elementary science teaching practice. The main purpose of the study was to portray, through teacher appreciative systems, how four elementary teachers perceived their worlds of practice. This study is based on the assumption that practitioners routinely engage in the itaking of their own worlds of practice. The construct, "appreciation" was advanced as the embodiment of the intricacies 190 of teaching practice which involve teaching practitioners in negotiating between the personal, professional domains of practice and the more pragmatic, contextual demands of teaching. Teacher appreciation has been used as a heuristic for objectifying the process of investigating teachers' worlds of practice, according to the basic assumption of the study. The specific purpose of this inquiry was to investigate and compare four teacher appreciative systems of practice and then to use this information as a basis for exploring the nature and significance of their collaborative teaching of science. Three research questions stemmed from this purpose and these pertained to the nature of teachers' appreciations, the extent to which teachers' appreciations were comparable and the concerns about practice which teachers' collaboration seemed to indicate that they shared. Findings that provide responses to these questions are summarized below. 7.2. Conclusions In response to the research questions of this small-scale exploratory study, a number of tentative conclusions can be drawn. These, however, must be considered in the light of the limitations of this study mentioned in Chapter 1. Granted, this was a study of four specific cases of science teaching and therefore the generalizability of conclusions that may be drawn from this one inquiry is somewhat limited. On the other hand, conclusions of this study may well serve as hypotheses to be tested in further studies. The knowledge of science teaching available in this study is also likely to be of interest to practitioners and teacher educators. Insights gained from knowledge of this kind has the potential to enhance understanding of teaching practice. 7.2.1. Teachers' Appreciations of Practice Conclusion 1; Each teacher has a coherent, distinct set of appreciations of science teaching practice that include perceptions of professional identity and views on preferences for practice. Each teacher had a distinct view of himself or herself as an elementary teacher of science and these appreciations seem to find concrete expression in various aspects of the teacher's practice. Where, for instance, a teacher felt that he should be concerned about the cognitive development of each pupil in his class, that teacher saw himself as being the director of instruction, providing the necessary facts and skills from which his students could then draw understanding. This type of perspective was distinct from that of the teacher who, seeing herself as choreographer of classroom learning and activity, encouraged her students to engage in the pursuit of learning science and she organized and engineered opportunities for them a l l to have equal chances of success. Conclusion 2; These personal appreciations and pract ica l preferences seem to contribute to a teacher's individual "style" of practice and these appreciations and preferences colour a teacher's goals for teaching and a teacher's expectations of se l f and of pupi ls . Teachers are able to recognize and art iculate what they see as the i r individual styles of pract ice. Style appears to be the expression of the i r appreciation/ experience and commitment within a part icular context. In interpreting contextual demands teachers use the i r own style of pract ice . Through individual styles and personal agenda for teaching, the teachers in th is study were able to "personalize" their science teaching, stamping instruct ion with a unique, personal imprint. The four teachers were found to have what they ca l led the i r own sty le of teaching pract ice. Style i n s t i l l e d their practice with enthusiasm and v i t a l i t y . Implicit i n the term, "style" i s a consideration of emotional, personal dimensions i n their appreciations of pract ice. Both Elbaz (1983) and Clandinin (1985) have emphasized the personal dimension in teachers' knowledge. When Clandinin (1985) discusses the nature of teachers' images, she indicates that teachers' images are embodied i n their experience and that, "their embodiment entai ls emotionality, morality/ and aesthetics and i t i s these af fect ive , personally f e l t and believed meanings which engender enactments" (p. 363). Teachers' images, as described by Clandinin, attest to the recognition by teachers of the manner in which the i r personal appreciations influence and are played out through the i r teaching pract ice . 7.2.2. Comparability of Teachers' /Appreciations and the Nature of  Their Collaboration Conclusion 3: While the distinctiveness of a teacher's appreciations suggest that each teacher has a unique style of pract ice , th is does not preclude teachers from engaging i n productive collaborative relationships with the i r peers i n teaching science. In th is study, pairs of teachers established collaborative relat ions with each other i n their practice of teaching science. This process of teacher collaboration i t s e l f stimulated discussion and analysis of pedagogy and this contact seemed to enhance a teacher's a b i l i t y to recognize professional sty le and negotiate how to acxxxnmodate to various constraints of the set t ing. This suggests that collaboration i s benef icial to teaching pract ice. It i s said that successful teaching c a l l s for "of-the-moment" responses i n class and that th is kind of expertise i s characterized moreso by improvisational technique than by r i g i d adherence to previously planned routines (Di l lard , 1986; 1987; Yinger/ 1987). Schon (1983) would make connections between what he c a l l s the " intuit ive ar t is t ry" of teaching/ that i s , the improvisational nature of teaching and the capacity of a professional to re f lect on act ion. His elaboration of the moments of the re f lect ive process are presented elsewhere (Schon/ 1983; 1987). It might be suggested that the teachers i n th is study did re f lec t on their teaching as individuals i n their rooms and i t i s possible to speculate that their own sty les of practice could well be connected to their in -c lass re f lec t ion . But/ more importantly/ each teacher was able to share ref lect ions with a chosen colleague/ by having opportunity for th is i n a collaborative re lat ionship. It would seem that sharing ref lect ions and having an opportunity to reconsider personal re f lec t ive thinking with a peer, may be a valued part of teachers' professional l i v e s . Some recent studies substantiate the view that teachers value col laborat ion. Cavers (1988) i n an empirical study of teacher e f f icacy and school conditions offers support for the importance of teacher co l l eg ia l i t y to teacher e f f icacy . His findings indicate that there i s a difference i n the way in which isolated and collaborative teachers treat students. Furthermore the more co l leag ia l a teacher was, the less custodial that teacher was l i k e l y to be with pupils and the more l i k e l y i t was that the teacher would use ef fect ive teaching techniques. Riecken (1988) has shown that teachers tend to value for themselves the "learning" that comes out of teachers "putting the i r heads together, f inding the best methods of getting the concepts and lessons across." Conclusion 4: The nature of teachers' collaborative relat ionships can be influenced by the extent to which they share simi lar or d i f fe r ing appreciations of pract ice. In th is investigation, where a pair of teachers shared certain appreciations of pract ice , their collaboration was essent ia l ly cooperative. Where these teachers held d i f fer ing yet compatible appreciations, the i r collaborative relationship was described as reciprocal and synergist ic . However, i n ei ther case, collaboration conferred on teachers def in i te professional and pract ical advantages. Through col laborat ion, these teachers could compensate for personal d e f i c i t s in subject matter knowledge and enrich their pool of pedagogical preferences for instruct ion. Through col laborat ion, teachers could escape the isolat ion of their jobs and f ind colleagueship with a peer of similar status. 1 9 6 7.2.3. T e a c h e r s ' C o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e i r P r a c t i c e and t h e  S i c r n i f i c a n c e o f t h e i r C o l l a b o r a t i o n C o n c l u s i o n 5: I n c o l l a b o r a t i o n t e a c h e r s a p p e a r t o s h a r e t h r e e m a j o r a r e a s o f c o n c e r n w h i c h r e l a t e t o t h e i r s e r v i c e s t o t h e i r p u p i l s , u n i t d e s i g n and o n g o i n g s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t . T e a c h e r s ' a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f p r a c t i c e seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e were t h r e e m a j o r a r e a s o f c o n c e r n f o r t h e t e a c h i n g o f s c i e n c e . F i r s t l y , t h e t e a c h e r s who t o o k p a r t i n t h i s s t u d y t r i e d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e y p r o v i d e d t h e i r s t u d e n t s w i t h a l e v e l o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e r v i c e s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i r p e r c e i v e d n e e d s . S e c o n d l y , t h e s e t e a c h e r s were c o n c e r n e d a b o u t d e s i g n i n g u n i t s o f s c i e n c e g e a r e d t o meet t h e i r p u p i l s ' needs and i n t e r e s t s , t h e i r own p r a c t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . C o l l a b o r a t i n g t e a c h e r s t e n d e d t o o p e r a t e a s d e s i g n p r o f e s s i o n a l s . T h i r d l y , t h e s e t e a c h e r s c o n s t a n t l y s o u g h t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h e i r own p r o f e s s i o n a l s e l f - r e n e w a l i n t h e i r day t o d a y c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o n t a c t . C e n t r a l t o a l l o f t h e s e c o n c e r n s was t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a t e a c h e r saw h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f a s a h o l d e r o f t h e s p e c i a l i z e d k nowledge o f s c i e n c e . C l e a r l y two v i e w s were p r e v a l e n t i n t h e s a m p l e , namely, t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e a s a g e n e r a l i s t and t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e a s a s p e c i a l i s t . The s p e c i a l i s t was s e e n t o h ave a s a t i s f a c t o r y l e v e l o f t h e s p e c i f i c s k i l l s and c o n c e p t s o f s c i e n c e 1 9 7 unlike the generalist who had a drawback in this respect. It can be argued that teaching is about communicating and exchanging ideas. Teaching deals with conceiving, displaying and presenting ideas to an audience for whom this information may be new and not easily grasped. Teachers therefore need to have a rich source of ideas from which they can draw in teaching. But, where are these ideas to come from? Often a textbook is the ultimate teacher resource. This tends to be true especially in the teaching of a subject such as science, where so many elementary teachers consider themselves to be poorly prepared and recitation from the text is a prevalent mode of instruction (Stake & Easely, 1978; Goodlad, 1984). "Theoretical knowledge provides another source of influence on classroom [teachers'] curricular choice" (Hawthorne, 1986; p. 25). However, in teacher collaboration, the most immediate and valuable resource is likely to be a colleague's own knowledge of the subject matter and related pedagogy. This blend of knowledge is not equivalent to "theoretical knowledge". It is much more valuable for i t involves pedagogical knowledge and experience. Both categories of knowledge are essential to good practice (Shulman, 1986). Shulman (1986) has outlined various categories of the knowledge base which he tJiinks teachers should have and he 198 concludes that the "teacher has special responsibilities in relation to content knowledge, serving as the primary source of student understanding of subject matter" (p. 9). He expects that teachers would also have "depth of understanding of the structures of subject matter". Yet, i t may be unrealistic to make such demands of teachers and in particular of elementary teachers. Many elementary teachers are trained as multi-subject generalists. They teach a variety of subject matter, a small part of which can be considered their specialty. Those who teach science feel uncomfortable with the subject and tend not to devote much time to science (Schmidt & Buchmann, 1983). Much of their repertoire and expertise of teaching is pedagogically oriented and for the most part learned on-the-job (Lortie, 1975; Buchmann, 1983). Teacher training has repeatedly been criticized for not being rigorous enough and in general of low standard and decideiy unintellectual (Borrowman, 1965; Lortie, 1975). The lack of opportunities for on-the-job advancement or effective continuing teacher education is readily acknowledged too (Spencer-Hall, 1982; Sykes, 1983; Goodlad, 1984). Though research-based reform has been advocated, the question s t i l l remains, in the face of this mounting evidence of the inadequacy of professional preparation and support for teachers, what knowledge base can teachers be realistically expected to have and use (Housego & Grimmett, 1984)? 199 With weak preparation and inadequate institutional support teachers, specifically science teachers, are said to resort to over-reliance on curriculum materials to supply their knowledge deficits, making textbooks their "de facto curriculum" (Stake & Easely, 1978). It can be argued though, that because of the complexity and context-dependent nature of teaching, having content knowledge is not enough. What teachers need is an opportunity to translate and enrich whatever content knowledge base they bring into teaching, to meet their practical demands. Collaborative teaching has provided such a chance for the teachers in this study. Conclusion 6: Teacher collaboration is a self-initiated, self-regulated strategy through which teachers can satisfactorily address their practical and professional concerns. Lanier and Little (1986), in the most recent edition of the Handbook of Research on Teaching, report that "colleagial work adds to the pool of available ideas and materials, the quality of solutions to curricular problems, and teachers' own confidence in their collective and individual ability to refine their work" (p. 562). From the findings of this exploratory st:udy, there is indication that in the absence of overwhelming educational or institutional support, teachers themselves recognize the need for ongoing self-irrprovement and they create strategies to counteract their professional deficits. Teacher collaboration is one such 2 0 0 strategy. 7.3. Implications 7.3.1. For Theory Planning. The findings of this study suggest that planning occurs and recurs throughout the collaborative design process, as i t becomes intertwined with the process of joint reflection on practice. This might indicate that teacher planning can be considered a reflective, intuitive process and not merely a deliberate, mechanical one. To say that teachers appreciate their science teaching in a certain manner is to suggest a wholeness about teachers' worlds, which the notion of preactive (planning) and interactive teaching phases does not convey. However, this was a study of a few specific cases of science teaching. More studies of teaching would be needed to find out the extent to which collaboration can enrich teachers' planning and moreover, whether a new focus on collaborative planning in teaching can have a direct bearing on the teacher's ability to improve mastery and coverage of instructional material. Teaching as Worldmaking. The study has, by using the construct of appreciation, attempted to examine teaching as a whole, as a process of worldmaking, disregarding the tendency to divide teaching practice into preactive and interactive components. This 201 attempt was productive and therefore supports the conclusion that worlds of teaching are indeed intricate and cognitivelv complex. Much more extensive study of teacher cognition within a collaborative setting is likely to contribute valuable knowledge about teachers' worlds of practice. An Epistemology of Practice. The ultimate goal of this study was to uncover and portray teachers' appreciations of practice, individually and collaboratively. It would appear that teachers valued those opportunities for reflection on practice occurring in collaboration. Such occasions allowed teachers to bring forward their own intuitive understandings of their work. Collecting teachers' intuitive understandings of their worlds of practice has the potential to contribute to an epistemology of practice that i s less "technical-rational" than that which prevails in many educational institutions today (Schon, 1985). Practitioners are likely to find a less technically-oriented and more practically-based epistemology useful (Schon, 1987; Erickson, 1987). 7.3.2. For Practice Professional Development of Teachers. It is true that experienced teachers themselves feel that they are in the best position to help each other (Yonemura, 1982). According to Peterson & Clark (1986), "the maturing professional teacher is one who has taken 2 0 2 steps toward making explicit his/her implicit theories and beliefs about learners, curriculum, subject matter and the teacher's role" (p. 292). Collaboration seemed to enable the teachers in this study to accomplish these ends. More opportunities for voluntary collaboration should be afforded classroom teachers. From this study, i t is evident that teacher collaboration can become a natural avenue for professional development and for continuing education of teachers. While i t is s t i l l unclear how prevalent teacher collaboration i s , there is indication that collaboration is of benefit to teaching practice and that peer coaching and cooperative teaching are useful models of school-based innovation (Cavers, 1988; Riecken, 1988). More institutional support should be given to teacher collaboration and this could also enhance the professional status of experienced teachers (Lanier & Little, 1986). Teacher Preparation. The fact that teachers in this study did collaborate raises questions as to whether teacher isolation is as widespread now as i t has been taken to be (Lortie, 1975). If on the other hand, collaboration is found to occur most often in the teaching of specialized subject matter such as science, this may imply the need for special programs designed to prepare teachers of such subjects. However, the instances of collaboration studied here were voluntary, between teachers of similar experience and expertise. Institutionalized collaboration may have different 2 0 3 results (Gaskell, 1988). 7.3.3. For Research- Motives for Collaboration. Further research is needed to establish what are teachers' motives for collaboration. While this study has given some indication of what these motives might be, more detailed study would be required so that, for example, school adirrinistrators might take such factors into account in staffing schools and providing for school-based professional development activity. The Culture of Teaching. Insight gained from this exploratory study of teachers' practical and professional worlds of teaching would imply that there i s merit in pursuing further studies of this nature. These are likely to contribute to a body of knowledge indicating that there might well be a "culture" of teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Deal (1987) defines culture as "a construct which helps explain why classrooms and schools exhibit common and stable patterns across variable conditions." "Internally", he says, "culture gives meaning to instructional activity and provides a symbolic bridge between action and results. It fuses individual identity and collective destiny" (p. 6). In particular, studies of collaborative relationships have the potential to point to the cxxnmon vision of their worlds that teachers share and the strategies and tactics they exchange in 2 0 4 order to manage and resolve their professional concerns. Teachers Researching Teaching. Teachers should be encouraged to cooperate with researchers in examining their own professional, collaborative relationships. This kind of action research has the potential to be of practical import to teachers and school aditdnistrators as well as to inform theory of teaching. Context. Mthough not a specific focus or finding of this study, i t is likely that certain features of the institutional context made i t possible for the teachers in this study to collaborate. In a climate of active social change, i t i s commonplace for professionals to desire security. Further exploration of the connection between institutional setting and prevalence of collaboration is needed. What characteristics of school or administrative settings appear to facilitate, reward or hinder productive, voluntary teacher collaboration? Gender. Collaborating teachers in this study happened to be male and female, each pair. To what extent is gender a significant variable in collaboration? This remains to be known. 7.3.4. Concluding Comments If what was seen in the worlds of these teachers is any indication of what exists in the worlds of other teachers, then this study points to the possibility of teasing out what may be called a "culture" of teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). Views from various professional worlds of teaching can be woven into a version of a culture of teaching. This sort of perspective on teaching would be crit i c a l information for policy makers in education and for teachers themselves/ who tend to feel that the scope of their practical knowledge has been neglected and not fully utilized (Elbaz, 1980). Yet, because this is s t i l l uncharted territory, so to speak, the findings of this kind of study s t i l l pose the danger of speaking for practitioners in a voice that might "confuse cultural description with prescription" (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986; p. 505). 2 0 6 A r e n d t , H. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The L i f e o f t h e Mind V o l . 1 : T h i n k i n g . San D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a : H a r c o u r t B r a c e J o v a n o v i c h . Benner, P. (19 8 4 ) . From N o v i c e t o E x p e r t : E x c e l l e n c e and Power i n C l i n i c a l N u r s i n g P r a c t i c e . C a l i f o r n i a : A d d i s o n - W e s l e y . B e y e r , L.E. , and Z e i c h n e r , K.M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T e a c h e r t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n s : A p l e a f o r d i s c o n t e n t . J o u r n a l o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n , 33(3) , 18-23. B o r k o , H., and S h a v e l s o n , R . J . (1983). S p e c u l a t i o n s on Teacher E d u c a t i o n : Recommendations from R e s e a r c h on T e a c h e r s ' C o g n i t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n f o r T e a c h i n g , 9 ( 3 ) , 211-224. Borrowman, M.L. ( E d . ) . ( 1 9 6 5 ) . Teacher E d u c a t i o n i n A m e r i c a : A documentary h i s t o r y . C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s . Buchmann, M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The Use o f R e s e a r c h Knowledge i n Teacher E d u c a t i o n and T e a c h i n g . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n , 9 2 ( 4 ) , 421-439. Buchmann, M. (198 3 ) . R o l e Over P e r s o n : J u s t i f y i n g Teacher A c t i o n and D e c i s i o n ( R e s e a r c h S e r i e s No. 135). E a s t L a n s i n g : M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g . Buchmann, M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . What i s I r r a t i o n a l About Knowledge U t i l i z a t i o n . - C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 1 5 ( 2 ) , 153-167. B u s s i s , A.M., C h i t t e n d e n , E.A., and A m a r e l , M. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Beyond S u r f a c e C u r r i c u l u m : An I n t e r v i e w S t u d y o f T e a c h e r s ' U n d e r s t a n d i n g . C o l o r a d o : W e s t v i e w P r e s s . Carew, J.V., and L i g h f o o t , S.L. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Beyond B i a s : P e r s p e c t i v e s on C l a s s r o o m s . Cambridge: Howard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . C a v e r s , L. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T e a c h e r E f f i c a c y : I t s R e l a t i o n s h i p t o S c h o o l L e v e l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n s and T e a c h e r Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . U n p u b l i s h e d 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 o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 207 C l a n d i n i n , D.J. (1986). C l a s s r o o m P r a c t i c e : T e a c h e r Images i n A c t i o n . New Y o r k : The Falmer P r e s s . C l a n d i n i n , D.J. (1985). P e r s o n a l P r a c t i c a l Knowledge: A S t u d y o f T e a c h e r s ' C l a s s r o o m Images. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 1 5 ( 4 ) , 361-385. C l a r k , C M . , and P e t e r s o n , P.L, ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T e a c h e r s ' Thought P r o c e s s e s . I n M.C. W i t t r o c k ( E d . ) . Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , (pp. 255-296) ( T h i r d E d i t i o n ) . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n . C o n n e l l y , F.M., and C l a n d i n i n , D.J. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . P e r s o n a l P r a c t i c a l Knowledge a t Bay S t r e e t S c h o o l : R i t u a l , P e r s o n a l P h i l o s o p h y and Image. I n H a l k e s , R., and O l s o n , J . ( E d s . ) . T e a c h e r T h i n k i n g : A New P e r s p e c t i v e on P e r s i s t i n g P roblems i n E d u c a t i o n . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t u d y A s s o c i a t i o n on T e a c h e r T h i n k i n g . L i s s e : Swets & Z e i t l i n e r . C o n n e r s , R.D. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . An A n a l y s i s o f Teacher Thought P r o c e s s e s , B e l i e f s and P r i n c i p l e s d u r i n g I n s t r u c t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d 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 o f A l b e r t a . D e a l , T.E. (1987). L e a d e r s h i p : E x a m i n i n g t h e E l u s i v e . I n L.T. S h e i v e & M.B. S c h o e n h e i t ( E d s . ) . 1987 Yearbook o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and C u r r i c u l u m Development. V i r g i n i a : A l e x a n d r i a . D i l l a r d , J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T e a c h e r T h i n k i n g : An A n a l y s i s o f a R e a l T e a c h e r ' s D e s i g n P r o c e s s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g o f t h e Midwest E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s . D i l l a r d , J . (1987). G e t t i n g I n t o t h e B a r g a i n : A S t u d y o f T e a c h e r s ' I n t e r a c t i o n a l T h i n k i n g and I m p r o v i s a t i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. 2 0 8 D o y l e , W. (1983) . Academic Work. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 5 3 ( 2 ) , 159-199. D o y l e , W. (1982) . Academic Work. ( R & D R e p o r t . No. 6179). A u s t i n : R e s e a r c h and Development C e n t e r f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t A u s t i n . D o y l e , W. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . L e a r n i n g t h e C l a s s r o o m E n v i r o n m e n t : An E c o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n , 28, 51-55. D o y l e , W. , S a n f o r d , J . P . , and Emmer, E.T.. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Managing Academic Tasks i n J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l . Background, D e s i g n and Me t h o d o l o g y . R &. D R e p o r t No. 6185. R e s e a r c h and Development C e n t e r f o r T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t A u s t i n . Dreeben, R. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . The N a t u r e o f T e a c h i n g . G l e n v i e w , I L : S c o t t , Foresman. D u n k i n , M., and B i d d l e , B. (1974) . A Study o f T e a c h i n g . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n . E l b a z , F. (1981) . T e a c h e r s ' P r a c t i c a l Knowledge: R e p o r t o f a Case Study. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 11, 43-71. E l b a z , F. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T e a c h e r T h i n k i n g : A Study o f P r a c t i c a l Knowledge. New Y o r k : N i c h o l s . E l l i o t t , J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . D e v e l o p i n g Hypotheses about C l a s s r o o m s from T e a c h e r s '  P r a c t i c a l C o n s t r u c t s . Grand F o r k s : N o r t h D a k o t a S t u d y Group. E r i c k s o n , G.L. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o n s t r u c t i v i s t E p i s t e m o l o g y and t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l  Development o f T e a c h e r s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. Feiman-Nemser, S., and F l o d e n , R.E. (1986). The C u l t u r e s o f T e a c h i n g . I n M.C. W i t t r o c k ( E d . ) . Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g . T h i r d E d i t i o n . 2 0 9 (pp. 505-526). A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n . F l a n d e r s , N.A. (1970). A n a l y z i n g T e a c h e r B e h a v i o u r . M a s s a c h u s s e t t s : A d d i s o n - W e s l e y . F u l l a n , M., and P o m f r e t , A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . R e s e a r c h on C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n . Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 4 7 ( 2 ) , 335-397. Gage, N.L. (1978). The S c i e n t i f i c B a s i s o f t h e A r t o f T e a c h i n g . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s . G a s k e l l , P . J . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . P e r s o n a l Communication. Goldhammer, R. (1980). C l i n i c a l S u p e r v i s i o n . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n . Good, T.L., B i d d l e , B . J . , and Brophy, J . E . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . T e a c h e r s Make a D i f f e r e n c e . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n . G o o d l a d , J . J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A P l a c e C a l l e d S c h o o l : P r o s p e c t s f o r t h e F u t u r e . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l . Goodman, N. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Of Mind and O t h e r M a t t e r s . Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Goodman, N. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Problems and P r o j e c t s . New Y o r k : B o b b s - M e r r i l l . G r i m m e t t , P.P., R i e c k e n , T . J . , E r i c k s o n , G.L., and MacKinnon, A.M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Review o f R e s e a r c h on R e f l e c t i o n i n T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . D r a f t p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Working C o n f e r e n c e on R e f l e c t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f H o u s t o n , T e x a s . H a l e y - O l i p h a n t , E.A. (1987). T e a c h e r T h i n k i n g - i n - A c t i o n R e g a r d i n g t h e Use o f  H y p o t h e t i c a l Q u e s t i o n s i n a S c i e n c e C l a s s r o o m . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. 2 1 0 H a i k e s , R., and O l s o n , J . (Eds.) ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Teacher T h i n k i n g : A New P e r s p e c t i v e on P e r s i s t i n g P r oblems i n E d u c a t i o n . The I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t u d y A s s o c i a t i o n on Teacher T h i n k i n g . L i s s e : Swets & Z e i t l i n g e r . Hawthorne, R.K. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . C l a s s r o o m C u r r i c u l u m : A Case S t u d y o f T e a c h e r C h o i c e . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . ERIC Document ED270416. Housego, I . E . , & Grimmett, P.P. (Eds.) (1984). T e a c h i n g and T e a c h e r  E d u c a t i o n : G e n e r a t i n g and U t i l i z i n g V a l i d Knowledge f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l  S o c i a l i z a t i o n . C e n t r e f o r t h e S t u d y o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . J a c k s o n , P.W. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . L i f e i n C l a s s r o o m s . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n . J a c o b , E. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Q u a l i t a t i v e R e s e a r c h T r a d i t i o n s : A Review. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 5 7 , ( 1 ) , 1-50. J o h n s t o n , M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Review o f T e a c h e r T h i n k i n g : A S t u d y . o f P r a c t i c a l Knowledge. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 1 4 ( 4 ) , 456-468. K e l l y , G.A. ( 1 9 5 5 ) . P s y c h o l o g y o f P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t s : A T h e o r y o f P e r s o n a l i t y ( V o l . 1 ) . New Y o r k : W.W. N o r t o n . Lampert, M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A t t e n d i n g t o S t u d e n t s ' T h i n k i n g i n Math C l a s s e s : T e a c h e r s ' P e r s p e c t i v e s . A p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. Lampert, M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . How Do T e a c h e r s Manage t o Teach? P e r s p e c t i v e s on Problems i n P r a c t i c e . H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 5 5 ( 2 ) , 178-194. L a n i e r , J . E ., and L i t t l e , J.W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . R e s e a r c h on T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . I n M.C. W i t t r o c k ( E d . ) . Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , T h i r d E d i t i o n (pp. 527-569). A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n . 211 L a r s s o n , S. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . L e a r n i n g from E x p e r i e n c e : T e a c h e r s ' c o n c e p t i o n s o f changes i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e . J o u r n a l o f C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 19(1) , 35-43. L i g h t f o o t , S.L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The Good H i g h S c h o o l : P o r t r a i t s o f C h a r a c t e r and C u l t u r e . New Y o r k : B a s i c Books. L i n c o l n , Y.S., and Guba, E.G. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . N a t u r a l i s t i c I n q u i r y . B e v e r l y H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. L o r t i e , D. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . S c h o o l t e a c h e r . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s . MacKay, D.A., and M a r l a n d , P. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Thought P r o c e s s e s o f T e a c h e r s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o . MacKinnon, A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Toward a C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f a R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i c u m i n S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g . I n J.D. Novak ( E d . ) . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e Second I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on M i s c o n c e p t i o n s and E d u c a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s i n S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s . I t h a c a , N.Y.: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . M a r i n , P.M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I n f l u e n c e o f T e a c h i n g C o n t e x t on Teacher D e c i s i o n s i n New ( J u n i o r ) S e c o n d a r y S c i e n c e i n J a m a i c a . F i r s t and Second I n t e r i m R e p o r t s t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development R e s e a r c h C e n t r e . Ottawa, Canada. M a r l a n d , P.W. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . A S t u d y o f T e a c h e r s * I n t e r a c t i v e Thoughts. U n p u b l i s h e d 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 o f A l b e r t a . McCutcheon, G. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l T e a c h e r s ' P l a n n i n g f o r S o c i a l S t u d i e s and o t h e r s u b j e c t s . T h e o r y and R e s e a r c h i n S o c i a l E d u c a t i o n , 9 ( 1 ) , 45-66. M o r i n e , G. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A S t u d y o f Teacher P l a n n i n g . B e g i n n i n g T e a c h e r E v a l u a t i o n S t u d y . T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t 76-3-1. San F r a n c i s c o . F a r West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h and Development. 212 M o r i n e - D e r s h i m e r , G. (1987). Arguments o f P r e s e r v i c e T e a c h e r s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. Munby, H. (1987). M e t a p h o r i c a l E x p r e s s i o n s o f T e a c h e r s ' P r a c t i c a l C u r r i c u l u m Knowledge. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. Munby, H. (1983). Q u a l i t a t i v e S t u d y o f T e a c h e r s ' B e l i e f s and P r i n c i p l e s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , M o n t r e a l , Canada. N e w e l l , A., and Simon, H.A. (1972). Human P r o b l e m S o l v i n g . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l . O b erg, A.A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The Ground o f P r o f e s s i o n a l P r a c t i c e . I n J . Lowyck, C. C l a r k and R. H a l k e s ( E d s . ) . T e a c h i n g T h i n k i n g and P r o f e s s i o n a l A c t i o n . L i s s e : Swets & Z e i t l i n g e r . O l s o n , J . (1981). T e a c h e r I n f l u e n c e i n t h e C l a s s r o o m : A c o n t e x t f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g c u r r i c u l u m t r a n s l a t i o n . I n s t r u c t i o n a l S c i e n c e , 10, 259-275. P e t e r s o n , P.L., and C l a r k , C M . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T e a c h e r s ' Thought P r o c e s s e s . I n M.C. W i t t r o c k ( E d . ) . Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , T h i r d E d i t i o n (pp. 255-296). A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n . P e t e r s o n , P.L., Marx, R.W., and C l a r k , C M . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Teacher P l a n n i n g , T e a c h e r B e h a v i o u r and S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 1 5 ( 4 ) , 417-432. R i e c k e n , T . J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T e a c h e r s ' R e f l e c t i v e T h i n k i n g i n a C o n t e x t o f S c h o o l Improvement. D o c t o r a l p r o p o s a l . C e n t r e f o r t h e Study o f Teac h e r E d u c a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 2 1 3 R i e c k e n , T . J . (1988) . P e r s o n a l Communication. R o t s c h i l d , W. (1976) . P u t t i n g I t A l l T o g e t h e r . New Y o r k : A m e r i c a n Management A s s o c i a t i o n . R u s s e l l , T.L. (1987) . L e a r n i n g t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l Knowledge o f T e a c h i n g : Views o f t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p between "Theory" and " P r a c t i c e " . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. S a r a s o n , S.B. (1982) . The C u l t u r e o f t h e S c h o o l and t h e P r o b l e m o f Change. (Second E d i t i o n ) . B o s t o n : A l l y n and Bacon. Schon, D.A. (1983) . The R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i t i o n e r : How P r o f e s s i o n a l s T h i n k i n A c t i o n . New Y o r k : B a s i c Books. Schon, D.A. (1987) . E d u c a t i n g t h e R e f l e c t i v e P r a c t i t i o n e r : Toward a New D e s i g n f o r T e a c h i n g and L e a r n i n g i n t h e P r o f e s s i o n s . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . S h a v e l s o n , R . J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . T e a c h e r s ' D e c i s i o n M a k i n g . I n N.L. Gage (Ed.) The  P s y c h o l o g y o f T e a c h i n g Methods. Yearbook o f t h e N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e S t u d y o f E d u c a t i o n . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s . S h a v e l s o n , R.J. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Review o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h e r s ' P e d a g o g i c a l Judgements, P l a n s and D e c i s i o n s . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 8 3 ( 4 ) , 392-413. Shulman, L.W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Those Who U n d e r s t a n d : Knowledge Growth i n T e a c h i n g . E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r , 15, 4-14. S m i t h , E.L., and S a n d e l b a c h , N.B. (1979) . Teacher I n t e n t i o n s f o r S c i e n c e I n s t r u c t i o n and t h e i r A n t e c e d e n t s i n Program M a t e r i a l s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o . 214 S m i t h , D.C, and N e a l e , D.C. (1987). The C o n s t r u c t i o n o f E x p e r t i s e i n  P r i m a r y S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g ; B e g i n n i n g s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C S p e n c e r - H a l l , D.A. (1 9 8 2 ) . T e a c h e r s as P e r s o n s ; Case S t u d i e s o f t h e L i v e s o f Women T e a c h e r s . F i n a l R e p o r t . W a r r e n s b u r g : C e n t r a l M i s s o u r i S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . S t a k e , R.E., and E a s e l y , J.A. (1 9 7 8 ) . Case S t u d i e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n ( V o l . 2 ) . Wa s h i n g t o n , D.C: U n i t e d S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . S y k e s , G. (1983). P u b l i c P o l i c y and t h e P r o b l e m o f Teacher Q u a l i t y : The Need f o r S c r e e n s and Magnets. I n L.S. Shulman G. Sykes ( E d s . ) . Handbook  o f T e a c h i n g and P o l i c y (pp. 97-125). New Y o r k : Longman. T a b a c h n i c k , B.R., P o p k e w i t z , T., and Z e i c h n e r , K. (1 9 8 0 ) . T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n and t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o f S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s . I n t e r c h a n g e , 1 0 ( 4 ) , 12-29. T u r n e r , R.L. (1 9 7 5 ) . An Ov e r v i e w o f R e s e a r c h i n T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . I n K. Ryan ( E d . ) . T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 7 4 t h y e a r b o o k o f t h e N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study o f E d u c a t i o n . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s . V i c k e r s , G. (1 9 8 4 ) . The V i c k e r s P a p e r s ( E d . ) . The Open Systems Group. London: H a r p e r and Row. V i c k e r s , G. (1 9 8 3 ) . Human Systems a r e D i f f e r e n t . London: H a r p e r and Row. Winne, P.H., and Marx, R.W. (1 9 8 2 ) . S t u d e n t s ' and T e a c h e r s ' V i e w s o f T h i n k i n g P r o c e s s e s f o r C l a s s r o o m L e a r n i n g . E l e m e n t a r y S c i e n c e J o u r n a l , 82, 493-518. W i t t g e n s t e i n , L. (1 9 5 3 ) . P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , ( t r a n s . G.E.M. Anscombe). New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n . W i t t r o c k , M.C. ( E d . ) . (1986). Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g ( T h i r d  E d i t i o n ) . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n . New Y o r k , M a c M i l l a n . Y i n g e r , R . J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A Study o f T e a c h e r P l a n n i n g . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 80, 107-127. Y i n g e r R . J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . By t h e Seat o f Your P a n t s : An I n q u i r y i n t o I m p r o v i s a t i o n and T e a c h i n g . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. Yonemura, M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Teacher C o n v e r s a t i o n s ; A P o t e n t i a l S o u r c e o f t h e i r own P r o f e s s i o n a l Growth. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 12(3), 239-256. Z a h o r i k , J.A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . T e a c h e r s ' P l a n n i n g M o d e l s . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 33, 134-139. 216 A p p e n d i x A S e l e c t i n g an A p p r o p r i a t e Methodology f o r t h e S t u d y The c o n c e p t o f t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n e v o l v e d f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g t o t h e end o f t h e s t u d y and as t h e s t u d y wore on, i d e a s f o r t h e c o n c e p t emerged and d e v e l o p e d . I s t a r t e d o f f w i t h a c e n t r a l g o a l o f c h a r a c t e r i z i n g how e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s o f e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e make se n s e o f t h e i r p r a c t i c e . By o b s e r v i n g how t h e y o p e r a t e d i n c l a s s and by h a v i n g v a r i o u s i n f o r m a l and f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h them t h r o u g h o u t , I s e t o u t t o g a t h e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s t h a t seemed t o u n d e r p i n t h e es s e n c e o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e . What I needed was an a p p r o p r i a t e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e v i c e f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s s u c h t h a t t h e v i e w o f them w h i c h I p r e s e n t i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w o u l d r e f l e c t what o c c u r r e d i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e . Because o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i v i s t p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t u n d e r p i n s t h e c o n c e r n s o f t h i s e n q u i r y , I f i r s t t u r n e d t o t h e r e p e r t o r y g r i d t e c h n i q u e as a means o f c o l l e c t i o n t e a c h e r s ' a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f t h e i r p r a c t i c e . I u s e d a t r i a d i c method o f c o n s t r u c t e l i c i t a t i o n . T h at d i d n o t work v e r y w e l l . The t e a c h e r c o n s t r u c t s e l i c i t e d f o r t h e r e p e r t o r y g r i d d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y f i t b i p o l a r c o o r d i n a t e s . T e a c h e r s d i d n o t r e s p o n d w e l l t o t h e t e c h n i q u e and i t was v i e w e d as b e i n g more l i m i t i n g t h a n f r e e i n g . T h e r e f o r e , t h e g r i d was d i s c a r d e d . What drew me t o t h e c o n c e p t o f t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n was my c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f Schon's t h e o r y o f r e f l e c t i v e p r a c t i c e t o t h e p r o b l e m a t hand. However, i n h i s f i r s t book, Schon has n o t d e v o t e d much t i m e and a t t e n t i o n t o d i s c u s s i n g t h i s c o n s t r u c t . I , t h e r e f o r e , s t a r t e d o f f w i t h a n o t i o n o f a p p r e c i a t i o n as e s s e n t i a l l y t h e embodiment o f t h e l e v e l o f "know-how" w h i c h e x p e r i e n c e d p r a c t i t i o n e r s d i s p l a y i n p r a c t i c e . The c r i t i c a l p o i n t f o r me was t h a t a p p r e c i a t i o n c o n t a i n e d e l e m e n t s o f t h i n k i n g and d o i n g i n p r a c t i c e t h a t were n o t assumed t o be c o n s e q u e n t i a l o r l i n e a r , b u t w h i c h c o u l d be i n t u i t i v e o r l o g i c a l . I had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s t h e p r o b l e m w i t h Schon h i m s e l f who r e f e r r e d me t o V i c k e r s and h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f a p p r e c i a t i o n . So, I r e s o r t e d t o a s t u d y o f V i c k e r s ' n o t i o n o f a p p r e c i a t i o n . V i c k e r s (1983) p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n on t h e i d e a o f a p p r e c i a t i o n and a p p r e c i a t i v e s y s t e m s . H i s i d e a s p r o v i d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l base f o r f r a m i n g and u s i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n as m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e v i c e . A p p r e c i a t i o n t h e n became a means o f t e a s i n g o u t , t y p i f y i n g and d e s c r i b i n g t h e ways i n w h i c h t e a c h e r s r e p r e s e n t t h e i r w o r l d s o f p r a c t i c e . C o n c e p t u a l l y , a p p r e c i a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o " k n o w i n g - i n - a c t i o n " and f o r a t e a c h i n g p r a c t i t i o n e r . T h i s " k n o w i n g - i n - a c t i o n " i s m i n g l e d w i t h p e r s o n a l i n t u i t i o n and i s i n f o r m e d by c a s e s and examples o f pedagogy, "gut f e e l i n g s " , p r e f e r e n c e s and c o n c e r n s and s e l e c t s t r a t e g i e s , a c c u m u l a t e d t h r o u g h p r a c t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e t e a c h i n g c o n t e n t , s t u d e n t s and c o l l e a g u e s . The t e a c h e r ' s a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e i s i n a s e n s e , t h e canvas on w h i c h t h e s e many b r u s h s t r o k e s m i n g l e t o pro d u c e t h e u n i q u e m a s t e r p i e c e t h a t i s t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r ' s p r a c t i c e . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , a p p r e c i a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s o p e r a t i o n - i n - p r a c t i c e . 217 Out o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has come a c o n c e p t i o n o f t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n d e r i v e d f r o m Schon and V i c k e r s b u t one w h i c h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s s t u d y . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t h e o r y t h a t p e r s o n s c o n s t r u c t t h e i r own r e a l i t i e s , a t e a c h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n i s "a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e n t i t y and p r a c t i c a l p r e f e r e n c e s o f a t e a c h e r , drawn f r o m i n t u i t i o n , e x p e r i e n c e and t h a t t e a c h e r ' s own u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . " A p p e n d i x B  Background I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e T e a c h e r s  T e a c h e r P e r s o n a l H i s t o r y 218 B i o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Name D i c k S c h o o l X Age 38 Sex M TEACHING CREDENTIALS/DEGREES (Date) (Degree) ( I n s t i t u t i o n ) 1970 B.A. E n g l a n d C e r t i f i c a t e i n E d u c a t i o n E n g l a n d 1977 M.A. U.B.C. OTHER COURSES/WORKSHOPS/SEMINARS Gr a d u a t e Course on R e s e a r c h S o c i a l S t u d i e s Workshops i n E d u c a t i o n S c i e n c e Workshops TEACHING EXPERIENCE TOTAL 10 y e a r s (GRADES) 2, 3, 4, 5 AT THIS SCHOOL IN THIS DISTRICT 4, 5, 6, 7 O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) T e a c h i n g A s s t . (SUBJECTS) a l l  a l l b u t Mu/Art S o c i a l i s s u e s i n E d u c a t i o n NON TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES ( s c h o o l , d i s t r i c t , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , community ...) E x e c u t i v e o f Candjata S i n g e r s  S u p e r v i s i o n - l u n c h h o u r s / r e c e s s e s / 1 h r . / v k .  D i s t r i c t s c i e n c e committee 2 1 9 A p p e n d i x B ( c o n t d . ) B a c k g r o u n d I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e T e a c h e r s  T e a c h e r P e r s o n a l H i s t o r y B i o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Name Donna Age 39 Sex F S c h o o l X S c h o o l Y  TEACHING CREDENTIALS/DEGREES (Date) (Degree) ( I n s t i t u t i o n ) 1971 D i p l o m a ( E a r l y C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n ) B.C. OTHER COURSES/WORKSHOPS/SEMINARS S. S. Workshop  TEACHING EXPERIENCE (GRADES) \ (SUBJECTS) TOTAL 10 y e a r s AT THIS SCHOOL 1-4 A l l IN THIS DISTRICT K i n d e r g a r t e n  O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) NON TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES ( s c h o o l , d i s t r i c t , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , community ...) S u p e r v i s i o n ( l u n c h - 1 h r . ) ; r e c e s s - 15 min. p e r week  H o u s i n g C o o p e r a t i v e Member  Swimming  P a r e n t 2 2 0 A p p e n d i x B ( c o n t d . ) Background I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e T e a c h e r s  Teacher P e r s o n a l H i s t o r y B i o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Name J a c k Age 30-40 Sex M S c h o o l Y '  TEACHING CREDENTIALS/DEGREES (Date) (Degree) ( I n s t i t u t i o n ) 1971 B.Sc. ; B.C. OTHER COURSES/WORKSHOPS/SEMINARS 5 t h Y r . P r o f e s s i o n a l C e r t i f i c a t e 1973  B.C. TEACHING EXPERIENCE (GRADES) (SUBJECTS) TOTAL 9 y e a r s AT THIS SCHOOL 5/6/6  IN THIS DISTRICT Other ( s p e c i f y ) NON TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES ( s c h o o l , d i s t r i c t , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , community ...) A u d i o - v i s u a l committee  C o n s u l t a t i v e committee D i s t r i c t s c i e n c e committee A p p e n d i x B (c o n t d . ) B a c k g r o u n d I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e T e a c h e r s  T e a c h e r P e r s o n a l H i s t o r y B i o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Name J e s s i c a Age 40-50 S c h o o l Y TEACHING CREDENTIALS/DEGREES (Date) (Degree) ( I n s t i t u t i o n ) 1966 B.A. B.C. 1971 M.A. B.C. OTHER COURSES/WORKSHOPS/SEMINARS S c i e n c e Spectrum - Y e a r l y 1973 M a r i n e B i o l o g y PD workshops TEACHING EXPERIENCE (GRADES) (SUBJECTS) TOTAL 9 y e a r s AT THIS SCHOOL A, 5, 6, 7 IN THIS DISTRICT s e v e r a l O t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) NON TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES ( s c h o o l , d i s t r i c t , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , community ...) G i v e s PD w o r k s h o p s / d i s t r i c t  D i s t r i c t Language A r t s / S c i e n c e Committees  2 2 1 Sex F 2 2 2 A p p e n d i x C  Sc h e d u l e o f Teacher I n t e r v i e w s S c h o o l X Phase T e a c h e r Type o f Formal C o n v e r s a t i o n Time U n i t 1 D i c k s i n g l e - s u b j e c t F e b r u a r y - Y e a r 1 Machines 2 Donna D i c k s i n g l e - s u b j e c t r e f l e c t i v e s i n g l e - s u b j e c t r e f l e c t i v e June - Y e a r 2 June - Y e a r 2 Systems o f t h e Human Body 3 D i c k and Donna D i c k and Donna m u l t i - s u b j e c t i n t e r p r e t i v e m u l t i - s u b j e c t i n t e r p r e t i v e e a r l y June - Y e a r 2 l a t e June - Y e a r 2 Systems o f t h e Human Body S c h o o l Y Phase T e a c h e r Type o f Formal C o n v e r s a t i o n Time U n i t 1 J a c k s i n g l e - s u b j e c t J a n u a r y - Y e a r 1 V o l c a n o e s 2 J a c k J e s s i c a s i n g l e - s u b j e c t r e f l e c t i v e s i n g l e - s u b j e c t r e f l e c t i v e May - Y e a r 2 May - Y e a r 2 Systems o f t h e Human Body 3 J a c k and J e s s i c a J a c k and J e s s i c a m u l t i - s u b j e c t i n t e r p r e t i v e m u l t i - s u b j e c t i n t e r p r e t i v e l a t e May - Y e a r 2 l a t e June - Y e a r 2 Systems o f the' Human Body 223 APPENDIX D SAMPLE PROTOCOL — INTERVIEW LI Teacher X School Y 1. I have heard you talk about "your way" of teaching science. T e l l me a l l about your way. What i s unique about it? Probes: Use/development of: programme; planning and preparation; curriculum objectives, topics, materials; conducting this class and others, routines, rules, procedures, expectations, tasks, work; other considerations. 2. How does your way of teaching science compare with your way of teaching other subjects? Why? 3. How did you arrive at this particular way of teaching science? Probes: What kinds of things do you think of before this class? How do you decide what to do before class, in class, with this particular group..? Which aspect of your teacher training programme has been most valuable for your present job as a science teacher? 4. How do you feel about your science teaching? What works well? Not so well? When? Why? Probes: Why do you think this an appropriate way to teach science? What do you hope to accomplish by teaching this way? Are you usually able to achieve these goals? Why? Why not? 5. When you think of yourself as a science teacher, what do you consider to be your job? 6. What i s i t like to teach (science) at this school? Probes: Are there persons at this school who have input in your science teaching...Are there factors here that make your science teaching > especially pleasant, unpleasant...Any special problems? (resources, equipment, texts) 7. What do you expect of your students? Probes: Do your expectations d i f f e r for different students? How? Are there "special" students in your science class? How do you cope? How do you get them to do what you expect of them? 22 APPENDIX E SAMPLE PROTOCOL ~ INTERVIEW I I I T e a c h e r X S c h o o l Y T h i s i n t r o s p e c t i v e - i n t e r p r e t i v e i n t e r v i e w d i f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y f rom I n t e r v i e w I. The f i r s t i n t e r v i e w i s in tended, t o p r e p a r e t h e g r o u n d , so t o speak , f o r t h e s e c o n d . In t h e l a t t e r t h e i n t e r v i e w e r i s more f a c i l i t a t i v e , a t t e m p t i n g t o o r i e n t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n so as t o a s s i s t t h e t e a c h e r t o e x e m p l i f y , c l a r i f y , e x t e n d and i n t e r p r e t t h e r e s p o n s e s p r o v i d e d i n t h e f i r s t phase o f i n t e r v i e w s . C o n s e q u e n t l y t h e p a t t e r n o f i n t e r a c t i o n between i n t e r v i e w e r and r e s p o n d e n t i s no t o n l y l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e t h a n t h a t o f I n t e r v i e w I b u t a l s o q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ^fr-enf each r e s p o n d e n t . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e i n t e r v i e w e r hopes t o v e r i f y t e a c h e r c o n s t r u c t s which u n d e r p i n t h e s e two b r o a d q u e s t i o n s : How do you b a l a n c e p e r s o n a l and o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n p r e p a r i n g f o r y o u r s c i e n c e c l a s s e s ? To what e x t e n t do y o u r l e s s o n s r e f l e c t y o u r p e r s o n a l b i a s , t h e c l a s s e s y o u now t e a c h and t h e s c h o o l y o u ' r e a t now? 2 2 5 A p p e n d i x F G u i d e l i n e s f o r C l a s s r o o m O b s e r v a t i o n o f T e a c h i n g B e g i n n i n g Where does t h e l e s s o n o c c u r ( c l a s s r o o m , l a b o r a t o r y , out o f d o o r s ? ) How a r e t h e s t u d e n t s o r g a n i z e d f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s : (Whole C l a s s — How a r e t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g t o t h e t e a c h e r ? Group — S t u d e n t s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o s e p a r a t e groups w i t h t h e t e a c h e r moving between g r o u p s . I n d i v i d u a l — S t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d i n i n d e p e n d e n t work w i t h t e a c h e r g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e f o r h e l p . O t h e r — c o m b i n a t i o n s o r u n i q u e s i t u a t i o n s . ) How does t e a c h e r i n d i c a t e s t a r t o f a c t i v i t y and move s t u d e n t s i n t o p o s i t i o n ? [ — S y s t e m a t i c ? — S t u d e n t s used? — T i m e used? ( d e l a y s ? ) ] What i s t h e g e n e r a l s u b j e c t f o r t h e l e s s o n ? What i s t h e s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t ? ( e l e c t r i c i t y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l i v i n g t h i n g s . . . ) M i d d l e What method i s chosen f o r i m p a r t i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n ? ( d i s c u s s i o n , l e c t u r e , group p r e s e n t a t i o n , e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , o t h e r ? ) What i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s o c c u r w i t h i n t h e l e s s o n ? ( T e a c h e r - S t u d e n t ; S t u d e n t - S t u d e n t ) (Are s t u d e n t s s e l e c t e d randomly, i n any s p e c i f i c o r d e r , o r a r e v o l u n t e e r s chosen? A r e any s e c t i o n s o f t h e c l a s s i g n o r e d ? ) What i s t h e e f f e c t o f t h e above on t h e p r o g r e s s o f t h e l e s s o n ? End What i s t h e method f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h e l e s s o n ? ( t e s t , summary, d i s o r g a n i z e d b r e a k u p , e t c . ) .. . a d a p t e d f r o m D o y l e e t a l , (1982) APPENDIX G - Sample Observation Narrative and Specimen F i e l d Notes Classroom Observation Specimen N a r r a t i v e Record Teacher X School Y Twenty-five Ss enter n o i s i l y . Teacher i s standing arms f o l d e d , against the blackboard near T4. This c l a s s i s being held i n the l a b . (See specimen plan of room f o r p o s i t i o n of T4 [ t a b l e 4 ] , Teacher announces i n a loud, pleasant v o i c e , t r y i n g to i n d i c a t e s u r p r i s e , "Oh, are we noisy! I'm going to use your bodies today i n science. I want you to cooperate." Ss move more q u i e t l y to t h e i r t a b l e s . S t i l l n o isy. T - "Are we ever n o i s y . I'm not doing anything u n t i l the  tone drops. F i r s t of a l l , about the time-table next week...." By t h i s time Ss are a l l s e t t l e d at t h e i r t a b l e s and l i s t e n i n g to T who has moved towards the middle of the room near to the T desk. "...We go o f f time-table on F r i d a y . We w i l l lose more than two periods by next F r i d a y . What I'm l o o k i n g at i s your work. You should be at around 19 or 20 then. How many people would be there by the end of today?" A few Ss put t h e i r hands up (about 5 or so). T --"Let's take one second to go through your notebooks, j u s t i n case you lose your notebooks i n January...Make sure you don't leave i t here or lose i t . Put i t away safely...On January 3 when you come back I ' l l say, one week from now I 227 Appendix &, con't. want your notebook. I f you lose your notebook, what happens?" Sg at Ti puts hand up and answers (not c l e a r ) . T "Well, y o u ' l l get to do Lab 2 again." No complaints. Ss q u i e t . S t i l l apparently l i s t e n i n g a t t e n t i v e l y . T then s t a r t s to review h i s expectations of t h e i r work f o r questions 1 to 20. T -- "Number One, you should have a nice diagram drawn. I t should be l a b e l l e d what?" T c a l l s on Jane No response g i v e n . T says to J , "Look at the lab sheet. (Apparently Jane was not f o l l o w i n g onj Then T asks B r i a n who l i s t s Lugos s o l u t i o n , microscopic f i e l d , power (400). T then asks c l a s s , "What would be wrong w i t h w r i t i n g 'x 40'" (uses b.b.). T gets one c o r r e c t answer and repeats, "Yes, that could be low power." He then reminds Ss to use h i s "mystery code, X" f o r l a b e l l i n g any part of the onion block which has been seen under the microscope but not c l e a r l y recognised. He a l s o s t r e s s e s that l a b e l l i n g must be done i n ink and students  must be sure to u n d e r l i n e the heading f o r that l a b . He then b r i s k l y moves on to Question 2. What does h.w. mean, homework or h a i r width? Q.5. Ss must remember to use complete sentences. Same f o r 7 and 8. T gives example of answer f o r Q.9 -- "When I added Lugos s o l u t i o n to I n o t i c e d . . . . " T then reminds them to use t h e i r microscopes p r o p e r l y (focus, s t a i n s ) . Q.11, 12 s t r e s s e s again that complete sentences must be used and answers include d e t a i l s . Re: Q.12 T -- "Write a l l the things you could 2 2 8 Appendix con't. t h i n k of...Obviously water won't work as a s t a i n . Why not?" Takes a few r e p l i e s -- Ss seem to get the meaning but are using layman's language. T frowning -- "What are the words we used i n Gd 4....We talked about t r a n s l u c e n t and " S -- "Transparent." T -- "And?" S "And opaque." T -- "What's opaque?" T gets s a t i s f a c t o r y answer and moves on. Q.13 -- diagram of one block. Q.14 -- complete sentence ..."What I saw i n p l a n t E was..." Q.16 -- "What I think i s moving i n p l a n t E i s . . . " Give i t a name or describe i t ! Q.17 -- There are three c o r r e c t a l t e r n a t i v e answers that he's l o o k i n g f o r . Q.18, 19 -- Asks f o r a show of hands to f i n d out how many Ss could come up with answers to those d i f f i -c u l t ones. Q.20 -- Be sure to e x p l a i n why i t moves one way or another. "Don't say, because i t ' s F r i d a y . . . . " (Some S's amused.) "You have to give good s c i e n t i f i c reasons. Don't say i t moves because I saw i t move. What's wrong with t h a t ? " ( R h e t o r i c a l ) "You've got to say something. You've got to  f i g u r e out a s c i e n t i f i c reason. I f you're f i n i s h e d at the back w i l l be my f a n t a s t i c experiment. This w i l l work f o r about s i x hours i f I did i t p r o p e r l y . Try to f i g u r e out why they go up? What are the things i n the j a r , everything?" He then t e l l s Ss that h e ' l l give them "the code" next Thurs-day. I t seems that he expects them a l l to have looked at the 229 Appendix c o n ' t . j a r by then and have f i g u r e d out i t s contents and a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e i r behav iour . The j a r i s a l a r g e covered jam j a r c o n t a i n i n g a green l i q u i d w i t h whi te spheres f l o a t -ing up to i t s l i d and then down a g a i n . I t i s now about 11:00 and he f i n a l l y moves i n t o the day ' s a c t i v i t y . Ss are suppl ied ' w i t h t o o t h p i c k s , to scrape o f f the i n s i d e s of t h e i r cheeks and make three d i f f e r e n t mounts of the cheek c e l l s . T humourously reminds them to use the b lun t end of the too th-p i c k to avoid h u r t i n g themselves. He a l s o demonstrates us ing s l i d e and cover s l i p . He encourages those Ss who need to , to spend the next hour ot so on Q.18, 19 i n order to get a " f a n t a s t i c mark" s i n c e he i s "more concerned ' tha t you do q u a l i t y work." He i n v i t e s quest ions from the c l a s s and sends them o f f to work. Four or f i v e Ss ques t ion T near d o o r . . . . (This c l a s s ended at 12:00 noon). 2 3 0 Appendix G-, c o n ' t . Specimen F i e l d N o t e s / O b s e r v a t i o n Day One - - Memo - - Teacher X - - S c h o o l Y I en te red the room a f t e r the b e l l , about 3 minutes a f t e r the p u p i l s . Took a few minutes f o r me to s e t t l e down i n my c o r n e r and o r i e n t m y s e l f . T h i s put me at a d i s t i n c t d i s a d v a n -t a g e . I shou ld have "cased the j o i n t " b e f o r e the b e l l , " s e t up shop" and s t a y e d there to see them e n t e r . o b s e r v e r needs some time to "wind down" a f t e r each s e s s i o n . Teacher i s anx ious to chat d u r i n g o b s e r v a t i o n . Comments are of s u b s t a n t i a l v a l u e - - about c e r t a i n s t u d e n t s , a s p e c t s of the l e s s o n and how t h e y ' r e h a n d l i n g what he wants them to d o . Have to f o c u s my o b s e r v a t i o n more. D i f f i c u l t to c a p t u r e even in o b s e r v a t i o n no tes the f u l l n e s s of the s t u d e n t s ' remarks to each o t h e r w h i l e they work, t h e i r engagement, the t e a c h e r ' s movement and h i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h them. Seems tha t he moves l i k e a w h i r l w i n d . How does he manage to check on each t a b l e r e p e a t e d -l y , chat w i t h s p e c i a l s t u d e n t s , handle problems w i t h equipment and s u p p l i e s , and chat w i th me - - f r e q u e n t l y a l l i n the same c l a s s . The s t u d e n t s seem so e x c i t e d and busy r e a l l y work ing Note: L a t e r on in the -S-HA^'J these memos became more r e f l e c t -i v e , i n c l u d i n g i n s i g h t s , f e e l i n g s , r e a c t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n s , hunches and q u e s t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from the r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i th the s e t t i n g and the p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e m s e l v e s . t h i s m o r n i n g . Seems that the t o o ! 2 3 1 Appendix G-, c o n ' t T e a c h e r X Schoo l Y Specimen D e s c r i p t i o n of C l a s s r o o m / L a b C l a s s e s a re conducted i n the s c i e n c e l a b o r a t o r y r e g u l a r l y . T e s t s , d e b a t e s , l e s s o n s t h a t i n v o l v e no specimens o r s p e c i a l -i s e d equipment a re h e l d i n c l a s s . T h i s room i s l a r g e , b r i g h t and sunny . I t i s s h a r e d by two t e a c h e r s a t t h a t s c h o o l . There a r e p o t t e d p l a n t s h a n g i n g from the c e i l i n g s and a l s o on the s h e l v e s near the windows. Some o f them are i n b loom. On the w a l l above the b o o k s h e l v e s t h e r e i s a l a r g e c o l o u r e d pho tograph o f a f a m i l y o f f o x e s . Around and above t h a t t h e r e a r e p o s t e r s b e a r i n g the names o f the d i s c i p l i n e s t h a t c o m p r i s e s c i e n c e , each i n a d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r f o r , e g . , Bo tany , B i o l o g y , Z o o l o g y , P h y s i o l o g y , P h y s i c s . The room i s f u r n i s h e d w i th 6 l a r g e t a b l e s , moveable s t o o l s and c h a i r s , a t e a c h e r ' s desk , two s i n g l e desks near the t e a c h -e r ' s desk and s e v e r a l b o o k s h e l v e s . Textbooks and m i s c e l l a n e o u s t e x t s are s t o r e d on the s h e l v e s . A long the c o u n t e r s t h e r e are j a r s o f p r e s e r v e d specimens and boxes f o r g l u e , p l a s t i c beak-e r s , f u n n e l s , e t c . At the back o f the room t h e r e a r e f o u r l a r g e c o l o u r e d photographs o f a n i m a l s . On tha t c o u n t e r , s e v e r a l m i c r o s c o p e s a r e s t o r e d , i n t h e i r p l a s t i c hoods , some o f them c o v e r e d i n p l a s t i c shopp ing b a g s . A human s k e l e t o n hangs on the west w a l l above the c o u n t e r , l a b e l l e d , "Observe the s k e l e t o n w i t h o u t Appendix Or, con't. touching." There are more animal photos on that wall, coloured and black and white. A b u l l e t i n board hangs on the wall i n the corner near the T desk. It seems to be well used with up-to-date newspaper clip p i n g s , various l i s t s , a calendar. Some coloured "photo-grams" are posted i n that corner too. A podium and microphone stand against the west window not far from the skeleton. The f l o o r i s clean (usually before and af t e r class 1). The room i s tidy , warm and pleasant. Appendix G-, con't. 2 3 3 HrtiL W A V \ Specimen Plan of the Room Teacher X School Y DOOR o CP o o X r < a r. J Ben Justine Trina Jessica David Chris Graham Michael Christine John Peter Tina Pia Laura Sarah Colin Shauna Sam Steven 0 r . W I M t> G w S N T^ — Tg = Tables W S 2 3 4 A p p e n d i x G ( c o n t d . ) Specimen F i e l d N otes My View o f D i c k ' s C l a s s I remember w e l l t h e sense o f m i l d chaos t h a t a l w a y s g r e e t e d me i n t h i s room. I have t o acknowledge r i g h t away t h a t my t o l e r a n c e f o r n o i s e i n c l a s s r o o m s i s somewhat low. I am w i l l i n g , however, t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between t h e many s o r t s o f n o i s e one h e a r s i n a c l a s s r o o m , between t h e b u z z o f a group a t work, t h e d i n o f an u n r u l y bunch coming i n o r l e a v i n g o r c h a n g i n g f r o m one a c t i v i t y t o a n o t h e r and so on. D e s p i t e t h e d i f f e r e n t groups o f k i d s t h a t i n h a b i t e d t h i s room d u r i n g t h e t i m e I s p e n t w i t h t h i s t e a c h e r , t h e n o i s e s i n t h i s room seemed t o s t a y much t h e same. There seemed t o be so much g o i n g on t h a t I d i d n o t f e e l t o o g u i l t y s l i p p i n g i n and o u t . They t r e a t e d me as t h o u g h I d i d n o t e x i s t . Perhaps t h e y had grown accustomed t o so many i n t e r r u p t i o n s t h a t I d i d n o t have t o work t o o h a r d a t b e i n g u n o b t r u s i v e . Most o f t h e t i m e , t h o u g h , t h e r e was a smooth c o n s t a n t rhythm o f a c t i v i t y . K i d s w o r k i n g q u i e t l y , t h e n g e t t i n g up t o c h a t w i t h a f r i e n d , t o l e a v e t h e room, f o r some r e a s o n o r t h e o t h e r . Some p u p i l s t e n d e d t o move aroun d more t h a n o t h e r s . I n e v e r d i d f i g u r e o u t how t h a t was r e a l l y c o n t r o l l e d o r whether i t was meant t o be. But t h e r e was an atmosphere o f t o l e r a n c e , and so I f e l t a t ease t h e r e . Y e t , a t t h e end o f many a s e s s i o n i n t h a t c l a s s I was t i r e d and i r r i t a b l e , more so t h a n i n any o t h e r room and I d i d n ' t f e e l t h a t I c o u l d come up w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n f o r my i r r i t a b i l i t y . I o b s e r v e d two u n i t s o f s c i e n c e i n t h i s room, t h e f i r s t on M a c h i n e s and t h e o t h e r on t h e systems o f t h e Human Body. T h i s c o u n t e d f o r a l l t h e s c i e n c e done i n t h a t grade t h a t y e a r . You won't see rows o f d e s k s i n t h i s room and i t i s r a r e t o see t h e t e a c h e r s i t t i n g a t h i s desk. The room i t s e l f i s l a r g e , a i r y and f u l l o f l i g h t . There a r e windows a l l a l o n g t h e l o n g w a l l w i t h a door t o t h e p l a y i n g f i e l d i n one c o r n e r . The o p p o s i t e w a l l i s b r o k e n by two d o o r s , one a t each end, l e a d i n g t o t h e c o r r i d o r w h i c h c o n n e c t s t h e p r i m a r y w i n g t o t h e main b u i l d i n g . A c r o s s t h e h a l l i s a Grade t h r e e room. That i s h i s c o l l e a g u e ' s room. He h i m s e l f has a t h r e e / f o u r s p l i t . The desks a r e a r r a n g e d i n c l u s t e r s f a c i n g t h e b l a c k b o a r d . T h e r e i s a c a r p e t e d a r e a i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e room i n f r o n t o f t h e b l a c k b o a r d . F o r s c i e n c e , when t h e y a r e d o i n g a c t i v i t i e s , t h e y work i n groups a t t h e a r t t a b l e a t t h e b a c k , i n t h e r e a d i n g c o r n e r and on t h e c a r p e t . On t h e w h o l e , t h e r e i s an a i r o f c o m f o r t , t h e s o r t o f warm, c l u t t e r e d , l i v e d - i n f e e l i n g o f a t e e n a g e r ' s room. T h i s c l a s s i s a h i v e o f a c t i v i t y . They a r e a l l b u s y d o i n g s o m e t h i n g . I t i s a t f i r s t q u i t e d i f f i c u l t t o c l e a r l y see what. O f t e n t h e y a r e n o t a l l w o r k i n g a t t h e same t h i n g b u t t h e y a r e a l l b u s y , s e r i o u s l y engaged d o i n g w h a t s o e v e r i t i s . The t e a c h e r can f r e q u e n t l y be f o u n d k n e e l i n g a t t h e desk o f one p u p i l o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e e n q u i r i e s o f one o r two n e a r t h e c a r p e t . He, t o o , i s b u s y , moving c o n t i n u a l l y among t h e desks c h e c k i n g , c h a s t i s i n g o r o f f e r i n g a s s i s t a n c e . A p p e n d i x G ( c o n t d . ) I s i t i n c l a s s r o o m s o f t e n , m a i n l y t o o b s e r v e and h e l p b e g i n n i n g t e a c h e r s improve t h e i r p r a c t i c e . Sometimes, i n a new room b e f o r e I b e g i n t o r e c o r d h a r d d a t a on what I am t h e r e t o o b s e r v e , I j u s t s i t and " t a k e i n " my s u r r o u n d i n g s . I remember once t h i n k i n g how much l i k e a s h e p h e r d a t e a c h e r o p e r a t e s . The whole h e r d o f sheep i s e a s i l y d r i v e n a l o n g b u t t h e s t r a g g l e r s t e s t t h e s h e p h e r d ' s s k i l l and e x p e r t i s e i n h e r d i n g . R e a l l y , t h e t a s k i s t o keep t h e s t r a g g l e r s o n - s t r e a m w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e h e r d . T h i s i s t r o u b l e s o m e . D o i n g i t w e l l seems t o r e q u i r e more t h a n a s h a r p eye and q u i c k r e f l e x . A good s h e p h e r d has eyes a l l around. He " s e n s e s " r a t h e r t h a n " s e e s " t h e s t r a g g l e r a l m o s t a t t h e moment he d e c i d e s t o wander o f f - t r a c k . By a q u i c k , s k i l l f u l maneouver t h e s t r a g g l e r i s b r o u g h t i n t o t h e m ainstream. The j o b i s t o keep t h e h e r d a l l moving a l o n g t o g e t h e r , a n t i c i p a t i n g and " n i p p i n g i n t h e bud" any t e n d e n c y t o s t r a y o f f - c o u r s e . W i t h o u t t h e s t r a g g l e r s , t h e j o b m i g h t be r o u t i n e . So, t o o , i n t h i s c l a s s r o o m c e r t a i n p u p i l s "jumped o u t a t me" when I o b s e r v e d t h e l a r g e g r o u p . I am g o i n g t o d i s c u s s t h e t e a c h e r ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h one o f t h e s e " e x t r a o r d i n a r y c a s e s " . Through t h e s e u n i q u e c a s e s and t h e h a n d l i n g o f t h e i r " o f f - t r a c k " s i t u a t i o n s , I c o u l d b e t t e r g a i n i n s i g h t as t o how t h e t e a c h e r framed h i s / h e r r o l e . A s i g n i f i c a n t number o f u n p r e d i c t a b l e e v e n t s i n c l a s s seem t o c e n t r e a r o u n d t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e s e e x t r a o r d i n a r y o r u n i q u e c a s e s . D e a l i n g s w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s a r e more r o u t i n e and c o n s i s t e n t . D e a l i n g s w i t h t h e s e o t h e r p u p i l s a r e t i m e - c o n s u m i n g , sometimes d i s t r a c t i n g t o t h e whole group, c h a l l e n g i n g t o t h e t e a c h e r , r e q u i r i n g i m p r o v i z a t i o n , i n t u i t i o n , "know-how" and t h e c u m u l a t i v e w e i g h t o f p e r s o n a l t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . H a n d l i n g t h e s e u n i q u e c a s e s , Schon wo u l d c l a i m , r e q u i r e s " a r t i s t r y " . T h i s was a s p l i t 3/4 g r a d e , w i t h more t h a n h a l f t h e c l a s s b o y s . Of 30 on t h e r e g i s t e r , 17 were b o y s . Of a l l t h e c l a s s e s I o b s e r v e d , t h i s one had, I t h i n k , more t h a n a f a i r s h a r e o f u n i q u e o r s p e c i a l c a s e s . About f i v e o f t h e s e p u p i l s , I t h i n k , t r e a t e d t h e m s e l v e s s p e c i a l l y and t h e t e a c h e r seemed t o make a l l o w a n c e s f o r them. I r e r e a d t h e o b s e r v a t i o n n a r r a t i v e s t h e i r names appear t i m e and t i m e a g a i n . I was f i r s t drawn t o C, n o t because he s a t i n any p a r t i c u l a r s p o t i n t h e room. He was n o t t o o f a r from t h e t e a c h e r ' s desk. He j u s t s t o o d o u t . He worked a t h i s own pace and he r e q u i r e d t h e t e a c h e r ' s a t t e n t i o n a t odd t i m e s . I remember on one o c c a s i o n t h e t e a c h e r a s k e d C t o hand i n a w o r k s h e e t t h a t t h e o t h e r s had a l r e a d y t u r n e d i n . He t o o k about f i v e m i n u t e s o r more t o g e t i t . The t e a c h e r j u s t c a r r i e d on a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s , c o n d u c t i n g h i s c l a s s w h i l e C poked a r o u n d , s u l k e d , shoved h i s p a r t n e r , rummaged a r o u n d under t h e desk, e m p t i e d what seemed t o be t h e e n t i r e c o n t e n t s o f t h e d e s k and f i n a l l y f o u n d t h e s h e e t . By t h i s t i m e t h e t e a c h e r was on t h e c a r p e t w o r k i n g w i t h a group and C s t u m b l e d up and s u l k i l y shoved a s h e e t o f p a p e r a t him. The t e a c h e r a c c e p t e d i t w i t h t h a n k s and c o n t i n u e d w o r k i n g . N e i t h e r t h e t e a c h e r n o r t h e o t h e r p u p i l s seemed t o n o t i c e a n y t h i n g odd about t h i s e p i s o d e . A p p e n d i x G ( c o n t d . ) Through a l l o f t h i s I had t h e uncanny f e e l i n g t h a t I was a l o n e i n ray c o n s t e r n a t i o n . P erhaps i t was t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d t h a t C w o u l d a c t t h i s way. L a t e r on t h a t day, D i c k , Donna and I were c h a t t i n g . The c o n v e r s a t i o n t u r n e d t o t h e " k i d s " . I a s k e d about C. D i c k s a i d t h a t he was v e r y e a g e r t o p l e a s e and t o do t h i n g s r i g h t and t h a t he k e p t on a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s and he k e p t on a n s w e r i n g him. Donna added t h a t i n s u p e r v i s i o n he, C, can " j u s t s w a l l o w y o u up". D i c k went on t o e x p l a i n t h a t he had no i d e a how C d i d any work b u t he showed me C's s h e e t and i t was o b v i o u s l y p a i n s t a k i n g l y done, and v e r y w e l l done compared w i t h t h e o t h e r s he showed me. A P P E N D I X H - M i s c e l l a n e o u s R e c o r d s , o f W o r k a n d T e s t s 2 3 7 Specimen o f Teacher A c t i v i t y Sheet f o r T e a c h i n g The S k e l e t o n and M u s c u l a r  System w h i c h D i c k and Donna u s e d as a g u i d e f o r p a r t o f t h e u n i t . The main f a c t s we l e a r n e d about t h e s k e l e t o n and m u s c u l a r s y s t e m , f r o m t h e t e x t b o o k , a r e : - The s k e l e t o n i s a s y s t e m o f bones, l i k e a frame, h o l d s up body  - Bones p r o t e c t body, h e l p us move  - m u s c l e s p u l l on bones  - bones move a t j o i n t s  - c a r t i l a g e between bones p r o t e c t s bones from bumps, s o f t . - m u s c l e s a l l o v e r body, un d e r s k i n , j o i n e d i n t o f i b e r s  - a l m o s t a l l movement comes from c o n t r a c t i o n  - m u s c l e s work i n p a i r s one r e l a x e s t h e o t h e r p u l l s - v o l u n t a r y m u s c l e s you move, stomach, h e a r t , b r e a t h i n g , m u s c l e s work t h e m s e l v e s i n v o l u n t a r y More f a c t s we l e a r n e d f r o m t h e f i e l d s t u d y a r e : 3 " T h i n g s t o T r y , " t h a t show how t h e s k e l e t o n and m u s c u l a r s y s t e m w o r k s , a r e : ( G i v e t h e e x p e r i m e n t a t i t l e and e x p l a i n t h e method.) A. P 105 #2: E x p e r i m e n t t i t l e : The b a l l and s o c k e t s h o u l d e r  Method: - H o l d y o u r arm s t r a i g h t o u t  - Move i t i n a c i r c l e  - F i n d what o t h e r ways you can move y o u r arm w h i l e  k e e p i n g i t s t r a i g h t  R e s u l t s / C o n c l u s i o n : " T h i n g s t o T r y " ^ B. p. 110 / / l : E x p e r i m e n t t i t l e : Arm m u s c l e s work i n p a i r s  Method: - Put y o u r palm under t h e desk push up  . - P u t y o u r o t h e r hand on y o u r upper arm and f i n d w h i c h m u s c l e s a r e w o r k i n g - f r o n t t o back  - P u t y o u r f i r s t hand on t h e d e s k , p a l m up, and push down  - A g a i n f e e l y o u r upperarm, w h i c h m u s c l e h a r d n e s s , f r . / b a c k R e s u l t s / C o n c l u s i o n : C. p. I l l # : E x p e r i m e n t t i t l e : P e o p l e as m u s c l e s (4 p e o p l e w r i t e a l e t t e r ) Method: - T i e 4 s t r i n g s on t o t h e t o p o f a p e n c i l  - T i e 4 s t r i n g s on t o t h e b o t t o m o f a p e n c i l  - 4 p e o p l e t a k e 2 s t r i n g s e a c h , a t o p and b o t t o m one  - work t o g e t h e r t o t r y and w r i t e a l e t t e r by c a r e f u l l y p u l l i n g t h e s t r i n g s  R e s u l t s / C o n c l u s i o n :  P r e s e n t e d by: 239 A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) Specimen o f M a t c h i n g P u p i l A c t i v i t y Sheet ( D i c k and Donna) The System Sheet The main f a c t s we l e a r n e d about t h e s k e l e t o n and m u s c u l a r s y s t e m , f r o m t h e t e x t b o o k , a r e : More f a c t s we l e a r n e d from t h e f i e l d s t u d y a r e : 3 " T h i n g s t o T r y , " t h a t show how t h e s k e l e t o n and m u s c u l a r s y s t e m w o r k s , a r e : ( G i v e t h e e x p e r i m e n t a t i t l e and e x p l a i n t h e method.) A. p. if : E x p e r i m e n t t i t l e :  Method: 2 4 0 " T h i n g s t o T r y " B. p. // : E x p e r i m e n t t i t l e :  Method: C. p. // : E x p e r i m e n t t i t l e : Method: P r e s e n t e d by: A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) 2 4 1 Specimen P u p i l R e c o r d o f Notes f o r Speech u s e d b y D i c k ' s c l a s s MY ONE MINUTE SPEECH FOR (Date) TOPIC THE THREE MAIN THINGS I WANT TO SAY ARE: #1 #2 #3 THE KEY WORDS FOR MY SPEECH ARE: Fo r #1 Fo r #2 Fo r #3 (Use r o u g h p a p e r t o p l a n y o u r s p e e c h i n more d e t a i l . T h i s i s j u s t f o r t h e n o t e s y o u s h o u l d use d u r i n g y o u r t a l k . ) A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) 2 4 2 I n s t r u c t i o n s t o P u p i l s W r i t t e n by Donna on h e r b l a c k b o a r d 1. Form a c i r c l e w i t h y o u r group. 2. Group l e a d e r s w i l l a s k members t o r e a d o u t l o u d t h e i r main f a c t s t h e y c o l l e c t e d from t h e i r homework l a s t n i g h t . 3. The group d e c i d e s w h i c h f a c t s w i l l be p u t on t h e f i n a l d r a f t . ( R a i s e y o u r hand t o do t h i s . ) 4. The group l e a d e r p u t s t h e f a c t s on t h e s h e e t . 5. D e c i d e how y o u r group i s g o i n g t o p r e s e n t i t s s y s t e m t o t h e c l a s s . 6. D e c i d e what e x p e r i m e n t you w i l l have t h e c l a s s t r y . A s s i g n j o b s f o r y o u r p r e s e n t a t i o n . c h a r t ? books? f i l m s t r i p s ? p i c t u r e s models A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) 2 4 3 J e s s i c a ' s Anatomy T e s t , Grade 7 Name Date T o t a l /50 PART A: MATCHING (Use e a c h number o n l y ONCE) 1. c e l l 2. p a p i l l a e / t a s t e buds 3. a l i m e n t a r y c a n a l 4. stomach 5. e p i g l o t t i s 6. esophagus 7. h e p a t i c v e i n 8. l a r g e i n t e s t i n e 9. c e l l membrane 10. l a c h r m a l g l a n d 11. l i v e r 12. k i d n e y 13. u r e a 14. d e r m i s 15. sebaceous g l a n d 16. s k i n 17. sweat 18. p l a c e n t a 19. a m n i o t i c s a c 20. u t e r u s 21. semen 22. smooth m u s c l e s 23. c a r d i a c m u s c l e s 24. m u s c l e s 25. n u c l e u s 26. p a n c r e a s 27. t e s t e s 28. o v a r i e s b l o o d away from l i v e r l a r g e s t g l a n d o f body - s t o r e s s u g a r womb c o n t r a c t o n l y f i l t e r s tomach, i n t e s t i n e , s k i n , b l o o d v e s s e l s c o o l i n g mechanism f i g h t b a c t e r i a t h i n k i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e b r a i n c a r r y oxygen sperms d i g e s t i o n from mouth t o anus semi-permeable ( l e t s some m o l e c u l e s t h r o u g h b u t n o t o t h e r s ) c l o s e s w i n d p i p e s k u l l j o i n t / m o s t complex i n body l i n k s b r a i n t o a l l p a r t s o f t h e body p r o d u c e s i n s u l i n c o n t a i n s b l o o d v e s s e l s , n e r v e s , f a t t y t i s s u e s p a s s a g e f o r f o o d i n t h r o a t t e a r s HCI ( g a s t r i c a c i d ) p e p s i n eggs e l e c t r i c a l i m p u l s e s a t r i u m , v e n t r i c l e s sweet, s o u r , s a l t , b i t t e r 70 m i l l i o n sperm/cm 3 A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) J e s s i c a ' s Anatomy T e s t , Grade 7 PART B.. MATCHING 244 1. P a r k i n s o n ' s d i s e a s e 2. g r e e n s t i c k f r a c t u r e 3. ringworm 4. k i d n e y s t o n e s 5. v e n e r e a l d i s e a s e s 6. t e n d o n i t i s 7. m u s c u l a r d y s t r o p h y 8. m u l t i p l e s c h l e r o s i s 9. c i r r h o s i s 10. d i a r r h e a 11. d i a b e t e s 12. l e u k e m i a e x c e s s i v e use o f a m u s c l e l i v e r d i s e a s e c a u s e d b y a l c o h o l t o o many w h i t e b l o o d c e l l s f u n g i n e r v e s cause m u s c l e s t o shake w a t e r n o t r e a b s o r b e d b y body body d o e s n ' t p r o d u c e i n s u l i n t o h a n d l e s u g a r s h a i r l i n e c r a c k s w a s t i n g o f m u s c l e s b a l l s o f mucus s e v e r a l s e x u a l l y t r a n s m i t t e d d i s e a s e s d e s t r u c t i o n o f m y e l i n s h e a t h a r o u n d n e r v e A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) 2 4 5 J e s s i c a ' s Anatomy T e s t , Grade 7 29. h e a r t 30. w h i t e b l o o d c e l l s 31. r e d b l o o d c e l l s 32. b a l l &. s o c k e t j o i n t 33. m a n d i b u l a r j o i n t 34. eye 35. cerebrum 36. n e u r o n s 37. c e r e b e l l u m 38. s p i n a l c o r d e x t r a c t s w a t e r , h a r d e n s f o o d t o w a s t e a l l o w s c i r c u l a r movement c o v e r s , p r o t e c t s , r e g u l a t e s t e m p e r a t u r e , e x p e l s t o x i n s c e l l g r o w t h and r e p r o d u c t i o n s o u r c e o f 4/5 o f what we know h a i r f o l l i c l e h e a r t m u s c l e s r e g u l a t e s h e a r t b e a t , r e s p i r a t o r y r a t e , p e r s p i r a t i o n w a s t e p r o d u c t c o n t a i n s f o e t u s , w a t e r , u m b i l i c a l c o r d f o o d f o r baby b a s i s o f l i f e A p p e n d i x H (co n t d . ) 246 J a c k ' s Anatomy T e s t , Grade 7 Name Date T o t a l /50 PART A: MATCHING (Use ea c h number o n l y ONCE) 1. n u c l e u s f i l t e r s w a s t e f r o m t h e b l o o d 2. a o r t a " t r a p d o o r " o f t r a c h e a 3. t e s t i c l e t h i g h bone 4. b l a d d e r h o l e s i n s k u l l f o r e a r s , n o s e , mouth, 5. eye eye 6. femur male r e p r o d u c t i v e o r g a n 7. cerebrum t e a r s ( m o i s t e n s e y e s ) 8. semen w h i t e b l o o d c e l l s 9. e p i g l o t t i s DNA/chromosomes 10. h e a r t l a r g e s t a r t e r y i n t h e body 11. l a c h r y m a l g l a n d s m e l l messages t o t h e b r a i n 12. e p i d e r m i s kneecap 13. l i v e r b r a i n p a r t w h i c h r e g u l a t e s h e a r t b e a t , 14. v e r t e b r a e r e s p i r a t i o n , p e r s p i r a t i o n 15. m i t o c h a n d r i a e n c l o s e s h e a r t / p r e v e n t s h e a r t from 16. e r y t h r o c y t e s r u b b i n g a g a i n s t l u n g s and c h e s t 17. o l f a c t o r y n e r v e s power p r o d u c e r o f a c e l l 18. m a n d i b l e h a i r f o l l i c l e 19. F a l l o p i a n t u b e v o i c e b o x / v i b r a t e s 20. b r o n c h i p h o t o r e c e p t o r s / o p t i c n e r v e 21. a l v e o l i i l i u m , i s c h i u m , p i b i s bones 22. k i d n e y main b r a n c h e s a t end o f t r a c h e a 23. p e r i c a r d i u m p l a c e where f e r t i l i z a t i o n o f egg o c c u r s 24. s k i n g a s t r i c j u i c e 25. p a t e l l a p u lmonary, a o r t i c , t r i c u s p i d 26. v i l l i m i t r a l v a l v e 27. c e r e b e l l u m c o n n e c t s k i d n e y s t o b l a d d e r 28. l e u c o c y t e s a n o t h e r name f o r u p p e r s k i n l a y e r A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) 2 4 7 J a c k ' s Anatomy T e s t , Grade 7 29. stomach 30. o r i f i c e s 31. sebaceous g l a n d 32. u r e t e r 33. e n d o c r i n e g l a n d s 34. n e r v e c e l l s 35. p e l v i s 36. l a r y n x 37. u m b i l i c a l c o r d 38. sweat g l a n d s s e c r e t e h o r m o n e s / d u c t l e s s memory, l e a r n i n g p a r t o f b r a i n s t o r e s s u g a r ( g l u c o s e ) / s t o r e s g l y c o g e n a l m o s t w a t e r p r o o f / r e g u l a t e s body temp./ p r e v e n t s b a c t e r i a r e d b l o o d c e l l s s w e l l s / h o l d s waste p r o d u c t s mucous, sperm s p o c r i n e , e c c r i n e / ( k i n d s ) a t t a c h e s baby t o p l a c e n t a l o w e r jaw/jawbone f i n g e r l i k e p r o j e c t i o n s i n s m a l l i n t e s t i n e w a l l s n e u r o n s / c r e a t e s y n a p s e s s p i n a l column a i r s a c s T o t a l /38 A p p e n d i x H ( c o n t d . ) 248 PART B. MATCHING 1. h e a r t d i s e a s e 2. Simraonds 3. m e t a b o l i c d i s e a s e s 4. A l z h e i m e r ' s d i s e a s e 5. g a l l s t o n e s 6. mumps 7. acne v u l g a r i s 8. p l e u r i s y 9. e p i l e p s y 10. m o n o n u c l e o s i s 11. s c a b e s 12. P a r k i n s o n ' s d i s e a s e J a c k ' s Anatomy T e s t , Grade 7 s a l i v a r y i n f e c t i o n p a r a s i t e eggs i n s k i n b r e a t h i n g p a i n f u l and d i f f i c u l t g l a n d u l a r d i s e a s e s ; t i r e d f e e l i n g n e u r o ns o f b r a i n a l l f i r e a t once/ s e i z u r e s u n c o n t r o l l e d t r e m b l i n g , m u s c l e s shake a r t e r i o s c h l e r o s i s d w a r f n e s s s e r i o u s memory l o s s b i l i c a r y c a l c u l i / c a l c i u m , b i l e s a l t , c h o l e s t e r o l i n f e c t e d b l a c k h e a d e x c e s s o f one c h e m i c a l T o t a l /12 APPENDIX i - Specimen I n t e r v i e w T Yanscr i. pt v)C£S: Grade six, on our e l e c t r i c a l unit, they have to do an electromagnet and we say to them, " You've got one n a i l . It w i l l pick up pins. Which end i s north? Which end i s south?" And they, when they don't know i t , 1 say, "You have a problem to solve." Well, then some of them think of a compass eventually. Once one person thinks of i t , you know of course... But I ' ve had youngsters, I said,"Think back to your magnetism because you need to know that information, that knowledge i n order to answer t h i s question." They say, "I swear, " I've never had magnetism i n my l i f e . " They've had two months of i t with me i n grade four and by grade s i x they do not know they have ever had magnetism. So I tend not to worry about the knowledge, the body of knowledge... Jack: You can also go look i t up... 3 C S S : I tend not to worry about the body of knowledge as much as ... Int: So what i s i t that you're concerned about? Jack: I think an atti t u d e , probably i t ' s the most important thing to have... ^J^S£: Liking science and using science techniques to face prqfcrlems and solve problems and look at science not as something separate i n a^couse in school. They hate i t i n high school, they come back and t e l l (is y.. Int: Why i s t h i s ? "3c£?! Because they have to go through a textbook from page one to page ten. There are no experiments. They are always, "Here's the problem, get to the r i g h t answer." There i s nothing where you get your answer or you face a problem and you solve i t i n some way. There's no variation i n high school; there i s the problem, get to the end. And i t ' s a l l cookbook stuff. Int: There was one other thing that I noticed so far quite d i f f e r e n t . It i s that there's a l o t of i n t e r a c t i o n between you (Jack ) and the kids during the course of the speeches and your inte r a c t i o n ( J i l l ) seems to come i n at the end. ,]eSS: Well I would l i k e them to handle, again i t ' s the same thing, i s n ' t i t ? Get yourself ready, get yourself organized. You're responsible f o r t h i s . You handle the questions. Unless somebody's r e a l l y rude, I wouldn't interrupt the t a l k . I would l e t them do t h e i r , "what they have in the i r mind. Int: But I wasn't t a l k i n g . . . Jack: You mean a f t e r the speech? Int: I'm ta l k i n g about things l i k e , you ask them questions about s p e l l i n g . I notice there's a preoccupation i n both classes about terminology.•• Jack: Yes, I can see i t from the kids' point of view... JC£5: ( l i k e a student) What word i s that he's trying to say? Jack: I also know they don't know how to pronounce i t and I don't blame them. I keep thinking, l i k e X who's s i t t i n g i n front of me w i l l say, "Oh, i t ' s that one!" jeSS: Like P today, with " p e r i s i s " , " p e r l s l s " instead of " p e r l s t a l y s i s " and " c i r r h o s i s " - I knew what he meant and I thought kids should be aware of that word as a vocabulary word, not s p e l l i n g . Not •polling, vocabulary. Appendix X C o n t ' d 250 Int: 3at you see, Jack Joss a lot more of that than I see you doing.,. Jack: But also because there's another reason. Well in my case, i t ' s probably because I've never done i t with these kids before. This i s the f i r s t time I've ever done t h i s . I've never done i t with the students. You probably wouldn't know that by me being there, but I've never done the systems with these kids before in the school. So, and I also know that I have to [end of side one]...give them a test. Now J i l l she has the idea, whereas I have nothing. I am sort of, I'm trying to piece i t together for the f i r s t time. It's l i k e asking me the f i r s t time I did the astronomy speeches, I had to think about what I wanted. Now I just l i e back and go, "They're going to say this and t h i s . " And I know t h e y ' l l probably, and i f they don't comment on that I w i l l and they've got i t a l l together. This i s the f i r s t time I'm doing t h i s . That's why I'm asking more myself because when they say these words and they don't pronounce them, I think I've got to make up the t e s t and I've got to make sure I've got the ri g h t facts before I put them on the t e s t . Thus, part of i t i s for my own benefit and that's why I'm probably asking so much. Int: I also wondered i f you were tr y i n g to test them. Sometimes I noticed that you asked, "Could you go back on that and repeat i t for us slowly." Jack: Just to explain a couple of those diseases again. I found that, you see, they've put i t i n their speech, blah, blah, blah, but when I came back and said, "But do you understand i t ? " , you could see that, l i k e S said, "Well, Parkinson's disease, i t ' s a disease, but i t ' s a ..." and she hesitated. She just sort of stuck i t in there but she didn't quite understand i t . Whereas i f you asked L to explain i t , she gladly went back to the chart and did,and so did BG ac t u a l l y . He said, "I could go over those ones again." And he said, "This one i s t h i s one."Then he knew. You see he was nervous at f i r s t but I double tested him on that so that's why I made his mark a l i t t l e higher than i t would have been because I realised that he understood. Int: So you're marking them on that kind of thing? Jack: I also fee l not only should i t be presented well but they've got to understand i t a b i t . JcSS: And I would tend to say (that) t h i s i s some thing they have to get through and they have to handle. And so I'm thinking probably more on st y l e than Jack i s . I probably would l e t , be more concerned that they... Jack: But you see, the next time I do t h i s , i f I ware to do t h i s again i n future years, I won't get so bogged down, you know what I mean? The f i r s t time you do something everything i s kind of bombarded at you. Once you do i t the second time, you don't worry about certain parts of i t . JCS*: F o r Instance, on a l l that material on the brain, I mean I probably w i l l -use the words "cerebrum" on the test and I w i l l probably, I might use "myelin sheath" because they mentioned It so often and probably "axon" or "dendrite" or something. (To herself) What else might I use? Int: J said, "anox". Is that J, the dark haired one? ' The dark haired one, he said "anox" instead of "axon". He has a language, sp e l l i n g problem. But didn't you hear JA say that here's no relationship between "my nerve " and "J's nerve"? Int: Yes. JeSS: Because he didn't agree with J . He'd obviously tol i k e d with him about thi s 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055295/manifest

Comment

Related Items