Education, Faculty of
Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Minnes-Brandes, Gabriella
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Using ethnographic research methods this case study examined how a group of teachers and university educators analyzed teaching for the purpose of enhancing students’ involvement in their learning. Data were collected from weekly meetings and interviews over a period of two school years. Three research questions guided the study: 1) How does a collaborative group of teachers and university educators, who meet regularly in order to improve teaching practices aimed at increasing students’ active learning, evolve over a period of two school years? 2) What is the nature of the conversational dynamics of this collaborative group? and 3) In what ways can the nature of the discourse in this collaborative group be described and represented? In this study, the group deliberations are described in terms of reflective conversations (Schön 1983; 1987; 1991). While Schön has used this term metaphorically to refer to an individual’s “conversation” with a problem setting, this study extends this term to refer to the dialogue occurring among a group of professional colleagues. Shulman (1992) argues that written well-crafted cases serve as an important springboard for a critical analysis of discussions of educational practice. In this study, the participants’ stories were represented in terms of shared situated cases. The purposes of these cases were: to provide the language and context for educators to discuss teaching; and to serve as a method to accumulate the shared repertoire of these colleagues. The group deliberations became the common ground in the context of a supportive group for discussions of private theories about teaching. Thus, this community of professionals developed a shared language and an accumulated repertoire of teaching strategies. This study provides insights about teachers’ professional development, and the role within it of collaboration between university and school educators. Building on the study, researchers might explore the implications of collaborative groups on school culture, and the possibilities of using such groups to help beginning teachers in their professional growth.
8671150 bytes
application/pdf
Collaboration Between Teachers and UniversityEducators In a Professional Development Context:Shared Situated CasesbyGABRIELLA vilNNESBRANDESA THESIS SUBMI1TED N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESCurriculum and InstructionFACULTY OF EDUCATIONWe accept this thesis as conformingto the requi staTHE UNT\’ S TY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VJuly 1994© Gabriella Minnes-Brandes, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_____________________Department of________________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate /2J j’/DE-6 (2188)IIAbstractUsing ethnographic research methods this case study examined how agroup of teachers and university educators analyzed teaching for the purpose ofenhancing students’ involvement in their learning. Data were collected fromweekly meetings and interviews over a period of two school years.Three research questions guided the study: 1) How does a collaborativegroup of teachers and university educators, who meet regularly in order toimprove teaching practices aimed at increasing students’ active learning, evolveover a period of two school years? 2) What is the nature of the conversationaldynamics of this collaborative group? and 3) In what ways can the nature of thediscourse in this collaborative group be described and represented?In this study, the group deliberations are described in terms of reflectiveconversations (Schön 1983; 1987; 1991). While Schön has used this termmetaphorically to refer to an individual’s “conversation” with a problem setting,this study extends this term to refer to the dialogue occurring among a group ofprofessional colleagues.Shulman (1992) argues that written well-crafted cases serve as animportant springboard for a critical analysis of discussions of educational practice.In this study, the participants’ stories were represented in terms of shared situatedcases. The purposes of these cases were: to provide the language and contextfor educators to discuss teaching; and to serve as a method to accumulate theshared repertoire of these colleagues. The group deliberations became thecommon ground in the context of a supportive group for discussions of privatetheories about teaching. Thus, this community of professionals developed ashared language and an accumulated repertoire of teaching strategies.This study provides insights about teachers’ professional development, andthe role within it of collaboration between university and school educators.Building on the study, researchers might explore the implications of collaborativegroups on school culture, and the possibilities of using such groups to helpbeginning teachers in their professional growth.inivTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables vii\cknowledgrnents viiiChapter One: Introduction to the Study 1The Problem 1The Study 2The Purpose of the Study 2Background of the Study 3Research Questions 4Significance of the Study 5Research Methods 8Data Analysis 8Limitations of the Study 9Organization of the Chapters 10Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 12Teachers! Knowledge and Reflection 12Teachers! Professional Development 17Teacher Collaboration and Professional Development 22Collaboration Between Teachers and University Educators 25Models of Teachers! Professional Development in a CollaborativeSetting 30Cases and Teachers! Knowledge 34Summary of Chapter Two 36Chapter Three: Research Method 38Sources and Settings for Data Collection 38The School 38The Participants 39Group Meetings 42Staff Meetings 43Conference Presentation 43Methods of Data Collection 43Interviews 43Participant Observation 46Data Analysis 50Generalizability of the Data Aalysis 51Tirneline of the Research 52Summary of Chapter Three 54VChapter Four: The Development of the Process of CollaborationBetween Teachers and University Educators 56Chronology of the Project 56Preliminaries to the Formation of the Group 57The Participants’ Reasons for Joining the Group 58Goals of the Project and How They Shifted 61Development of Roles Within the Group 62The Substantive Content of the Meetings 68Visual Presentation 70Writing Techniques and Strategies 70Assessment and Evaluation 71Complexity of Experimenting with New TeachingStrategies 72Interplay Between Theory and Practice 73Linking Between Subjects, Within Subjects, and BetweenSchool and Student& Lives 73Shifts in the Substantive Content of the Meetings 74Contacts Within the School 77Contacts Outside the School 79The Development of the Learning Strategies Group ComparedWith Other Group Development Models 80Summaiy of Chapter Four 82Chapter Five: Reflective Conversations as a Tool for ProfessionalDevelopment 84Framing and Reframing of a Specific Problem in the LSG Meetings 84Reflective Conversations in the Learning Strategies Group 92Spirals and Ladders of Reflective Conversations 98Summary of Chapter Five 105Chapter Six: Shared Situated Cases 107Stories and Cases in the Learning Strategies Group 107Common Definitions and Characteristics of Cases 109Cases in Teacher Education 110Teachers as Participants in Creating Cases 112Shared Situated Cases in the Learning Strategies Group 113Shared Cases 114Situated Cases 119Linking: A Shared Situated Case 121The Interplay Between Theory and Practice: A SharedSituated Case 127Summary of Chapter Six 139Chapter Seven: Conclusions, Implications, and Further Research 141Conclusions Emerging from the Research Questions 141Question One 144Question Two 148Question Three 150Implications for Further Professional Development Endeavours 152viChange at the School Level 152Intrinsic Reward System 153Power and Control 154Sharing a Theoretical Perspective 155Interplay Between Theoiy and Practice 156Group Dynamics 157Conducting Research About Collaborative Projects 158Directions for Further Research 160The Impact of Collaborative Groups on the School Culture 160Collaborative Groups as a Tool for Professional Developmentfor Beginning Teachers 162Appendix I 164Appendix II 167Appendix III 170Bibliography 183List of TablesTable One: Summary of Research Timeline 54Table Two: Timeline of the Project 57Table Three: Results of the Questionnaire 166Table Four: The Content of the Meetings 171vuVillAcknowledgmentsI would like primarily to thank the participants in this study. Their interestin and commitment to collaboration between school and university, and teacher&professional development have made this study possible. The insights, commentsand questions of both teachers and university educators were an assetthroughout the study.Members of my family also deserve thanks: my husband and children forbeing patient and tolerating the months I was preoccupied even when I spenttime with them, and my extended family for their continuing interest and supportfrom a distance.The committee members have been of great help to me in grappling withthe ideas and words which make up this dissertation. Gaalen Ericksonencouraged me to pursue my interests and questions around teacher&professional knowledge. His participation and interest in the project, and hiscriticism have assisted me to clarify and reorganize my thinking on many of theissues discussed. Allison Torn provided the inspiration and model forethnographic research. Her careful comments have pushed me to examine andexplain my choices about the methodology and the analysis of the data. JohnWillinsky continuously challenged my interpretations and forced me to justifyand illustrate my claims. The committee meetings have always been stimulatingand have shaped my understandings and analysis of the data.I am also indebted to friends and colleagues at the University of BritishColumbia who spent time with me to discuss questions about this research.Finally, I would like to thank Nadine Binkley for her endless support indiscussions of ideas, meticulous reading, and detailed commenting of the manydrafts of this dissertation.1Chapter OneIntroduction To The StudyThe ProblemTeachers’ professional growth has been conceptualized in recent years asan on-going, long term endeavour which begins with pre-service training andcontinues throughout a teacher’s professional career (Bowman, 1990; Fullan,Connelly & Watson, 1990). Teachers’ professional development and growth hasbeen examined from different perspectives, some looking at its structure, others atits substantive content, and yet others focusing on factors enhancing orconstraining the opportunities for such professional development (for example,Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Lieberman & Miller, 1991;Little, 1986; McLaughlin, 1991; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1990).Collaboration both among teachers and between teachers and universityeducators has been one of the possible approaches for nurturing teachers’professional development (Bell & Gilbert, 1993; Cole & Knowles, 1993; Cuban,1992; Erickson, 1991; Hollingsworth, 1992; Huberman, 1990; Hunsaker &Johnston, 1992; Richardson. 1990; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988. From theperspective of this approach, then, gaining insight into the process ofcollaboration between teachers and university educators is an important step inunderstanding teachers’ professional development.The above mentioned studies examine collaboration in a professionaldevelopment context and analyze what makes these collaborative endeavourswork. They examine settings and roles within these projects. They also analyzethose factors that contribute to collaborative professional developmentendeavours, and those factors which confine them. However, there is a need for a2long term study which documents the dynamics of a group of teachers anduniversity educators over time. This study discusses a collaborativeproject in which teachers and university educators meet regularly to examineteaching practices that encourage students to become more actively involved intheir learning. It analyzes the nature of the discourse in these meetings and howit evolves over more than two school years. A study of this long term projectprovides the opportunity to examine gradual shifts and progressions in thedevelopment of a community of professional colleagues.The StudyThe following sections describe the study under the headings: the purpose,background, research questions, significance, method, analysis, and limitations ofthe study.The Purpose of the StudyThis study focuses on how teachers and university educators mutuallyconstruct an understanding of what good learning and teaching entail. It is alongitudinal study that follows a group of secondary school teachers anduniversity educators from the initial stages of the formation of the group. An in-depth longitudinal study of the evolution of a group of teachers and universityeducators discussing teachers’ practice has implications for the literature on staffdevelopment and for the literature on teachers’ knowledge. Its significance is inenriching the knowledge about the dynamic processes that occur in such acollaborative setting.The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive description andanalysis of a specific process of collaboration between teachers and universityeducators, by analyzing the circumstances that led to the formation of such a3group and the way it evolved. Examining the contents of weekly meetings andinterviewing the participants provided an understanding of the uniquecharacteristics of collaboration between teachers and university educators. Ananalysis of the discourse in these meetings provides insights about teacher&knowledge and how this knowledge is enriched through conversations withother professionals who share similar understandings of what good teaching andlearning entail.Background of the StudyBetween 1987 and 1988, Sullivan (B.C. Ministry of Education & Sullivan,1988) conducted The Royal Commission Study of the British Columbia SchoolSystem and concluded with a list of recommendations. As a result of that studythe B.C. Ministiy presented a mission statement: “The purpose of the BritishColumbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potentialand to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute to ahealthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy” (B. C. Ministiy ofEducation, 1989, p.6). This started a process of defining terms and producingdocuments under the title Year 2000. The key principles in these documentsdeal with learning and the learner, curriculum, and assessment and evaluation.The three key learning principles are: 1) learners ought to actively participate inthe learning process, 2) learning is done in a variety of ways and at different rates,and 3) learning is both an individual and a social process (B.C. Ministry ofEducation, 1989, pp. 9-10). Implementation of the new program was gradual.beginning with the primary grades. But, at the beginning of this study, threeyears ago, teachers in secondary schools felt the pressure to start to implement theprogram. They had the general direction and expectations provided by thepolicy documents but very few details as to how they should proceed. Teachers4were searching for avenues to pursue the new directions put forth in thesedocuments. Finding solutions within the local and specific context of a schoolwas a way to address these new directions. It was within this general educationalcontext that teachers from a secondary school approached the universityeducators. The university educators extended an offer to the teachers tocollaborate and focus on developing teaching approaches and strategies whichencourage their students to become more independent and responsible learners.This evolved into an on- going collaborative project of teachers and universityeducators.This study examines what this group of teachers and university educatorshas done to better understand and improve teaching practices aimed at increasingstudents! active learning.. The participants1in the group shared an understandingthat learning is an active process that involves the learners (Baird & Mitchell,1987). They perceived teaching as a process which includes and involves thelearners in decisions both about structure and content of learning. Theparticipants also shared the view that curriculum design is a complex processstemming from specific problems, involving reflection and decision making in agroup (Schwab, 1983). The group deliberations produced practical solutions toproblems and concerns. The participants perceived the teachers’ role as essentialin implementing new curricula (Ben Peretz, 1988).Research QuestionsThe purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the dynamicprocesses that occur in deliberations between teachers and university educators1 The term participants refers to both the teachers and the univerty educators tho parcipated in thegroup.when they discuss teachers’ practice. The research questions focus on thecomplex and intricate phenomenon of collaboration between teachers anduniversity educators, Thus, they examine both the form and content of theconversations that occur in the meetings.a 1. How does a collaborative group of teachers and university educators, whomeet regularly in order to improve teaching practices aimed at increasingstudents’ active learning, evolve over a period of two school years?• 2. What is the nature of the conversational dynamics of this collaborativegroup?• 3. In what ways can the nature of the discourse in this collaborative group bedescribed and represented?Significance of the StudyMany studies about change processes within school tend to refer toelementary schools (Goodlad, 1984; Lieberman & Miller, 1986). Moreover, manyexisting studies describe the difficulties and complexities of bringing aboutchange within the. school and end up by summarizing the factors that need to betaken into account (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Little,1986; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1990). However, because thesefactors are interwoven and dynamic, simply identifying these factors andattempting to take them into account has not always resulted in effective.changes. The focus of the research pertaining to change has moved fromdescriptions of attempts to implement change through changing specific factorsto looking at professional development of teachers as a way to make changeshappen within the school setting (Lieberman & Miller, 1991; McLaughlin, 1991).6Thus, there. is a shift in the research literature from making lists and predictionsbased upon these lists to detailed descriptions and analyses of processes withinschools which incorporate attempts at staff development.Only recently have studies examined the culture of the secondary schooland how it might influence changes in curricular structures or classroom practices(for example, Fullan 1990b; Little 1990a). Taking into account the uniquecharacteristics of secondaiy schools is crucial to understanding how to go aboutchanging intricately connected components within that complex setting.Consequently, this study has implications for the literature on staffdevelopment and change in secondary schools, and also for the literaturepertaining to teachers’ professional knowledge. Studies of teachers’ knowledgehave tended to focus on the individual teacher and on the process of becoming ateacher (Carter, 1990; Elbaz, 1991: Grimrnett & MacKinnon, 1992; Shulman,1987; Torn & Valli, 1990). These studies have focused on the development ofteachers’ professional competencies, or on descriptions of the nature of teachers’professional knowledge base. Schön’s (1983; 1987) discussion of practitioners’knowledge describes and analyzes the components of practical knowledge andhow it is used in order to address problems in a practice setting. He focuses onthe personal construction of professional knowledge. Analysis of the data in thisproject extends this notion of professional knowledge further by analyzing thegroup deliberations in terms of reflective conversations between the participants.Since teachers often use stories when they describe their teaching andthese stories are situated in particular learning settings (Brown, Collins & Duguid,1989), it seems appropriate to discuss teaching in terms of cases (L. Shulman,1992; J. Shulman, 1992). However, the data from this project call for a newdefinition of the kinds of cases that were the product of the group’s7conversations. These cases were useful in describing the discourse theparticipants used in this collaborative group.An in-depth longitudinal study provides a detailed description of this staffdevelopment and collaboration endeavour. Learning about teachers! anduniversity educators’ interests and concerns while participating in group meetingssheds light on the process of discussing stories about teaching and learning. Ananalysis of the deliberations among the participants in this group allows a numberof claims to be formulated regarding the ways they created a language to discussand share teachers’ professional knowledge. This analysis also enhances theunderstanding of the ways teachers! professional knowledge is constructed anddeveloped throughout their conversations with colleagues. An understanding ofthe nature and the dynamics of the conversations in a collaborative group ofteachers and university educators, may be meaningful to other teachers seekingto collaborate with colleagues. Analysis of the discourse is helpful for teachersand university educators who are interested in teaching strategies that encouragestudents’ independence and responsibility. The analysis and description of thisstudy provide some insight for other practitioners about ways to start and sustaincollaborative endeavours, while being aware of its difficulties, advantages andweaknesses.Analysis of the data from this study also provides insights for the value ofSchön’s (1983; 1987; 1991) notion of reflective conversations, and of Shulman’s(1992) discussions of the use of cases in education. However, the use of theseterms is expanded for the purpose of the analysis in this study. Reflectiveconversations demonstrate the dynamic nature of the deliberations among theparticipants. The use of shared situated cases, as a way to represent and analyzeteachers’ professional knowledge, is unique to this study.8Research MethodsThis study is a case of collaborative professional development that occursin the context of a secondary school. The two primary methods of datacollection were participant observation and interviews. The researche?sparticipant observation in the study consisted of a variety of activities in theschool including participation in: weekly meetings; staff meetings in which thegroup was discussed; professional development days for the staff; and a full dayworkshop for the group participants. Participant observation also entailedproviding summaries of meetings and learning strategies, and included informalmeetings at the school,In addition to participant observation, semi structured interviews wereconducted (Mishler, 1986; Spradley, 1979). The interviews took place at thebeginning of the weekly meetings and at the end of the first school year. All theparticipants in the study were interviewed twice, and in addition the principalwas interviewed with regard to his perception of the project. All the meetingsand interviews were tape-recorded.Data AnalysisThe tapes from the group meetings and the interviews were transcribed andanalyzed. The aialysis of the data was based on grouping and coding thetranscripts according to topics and themes. After a first round of coding, thegroupings were examined, at times new categories emerged and at others somegroups were integrated into larger topics (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles &Huberman, 1984; Wolcott, 1990). Decisions about the codes and groups weremade on the basis of the literature about teachers’ professional knowledge, andliterature about collaboration between teachers and university educators in aprofessional development setting.9In an attempt to address the potential problems of this method of analysisof the data (for example, biases and misinterpretation of the data), and to verifythe categories, coded and themes, there was a process of member checking. Idiscussed the framework of the analysis with the participants on differentoccasions, and some of them read and commented on early drafts of thedissertation.Limitations of the StudyThe limitations of the study stem both from the methodology and from theresearcher’s role. Since this is a case study it examines one setting in depth. Thestudy describes and analyzes the dynamics that occur when a group ofsecondary school teachers volunteer to meet with university educators on aregular basis in order to discuss teaching. Consequently, an in-depth descriptionof such a group cannot be generalized to all teachers or even to all the teachersin that school. The teachers who volunteered to participate in the study may notrepresentative of the rest of the staff in that school or in any other setting.Although the circumstances in that school are unique, they can still inform usabout some conditions necessary for creating a support system within the schoolhere teachers can discuss their own practice to improve it.In addressing this type of limitation, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggestusing the concept of transferability (replacing the concept of external validity) inorder to discuss the ability to learn from one context to another. They suggestthat having “thick descriptions”, as Geertz (1973) uses the term, allows us to makeinformed decisions about the similarities and differences betweendifferent contexts. Detailed description, encompassing layers and interactionswithin a specific culture, taking into account multiple voices and different10perspectives allows us to learn from this study and to transfer this knowledge todifferent sites taking into account both contexts and their complexities.The second limitation sterns from the researcher’s role in the study. Sincethe researcher simultaneously participates in the group and describes andanalyzes the processes as they occur, questions of objectivity surface. Theproblem of participating in the process and at the same time describing andanalyzing these processes must be addressed.Taking a feminist perspective to qualitative research and adopting Harding’s(1990; 1991) notion of strong objectivity helps to address this limitation. Strongobjectivity includes the ability to see the “other”, the participants, and to be ableto recognize the “web of interrelations”, without completely becomingparticipant or completely staying observer. This dual stance, which isincorporated with a self reflexive and critical perspective, is at the core of strongobjectivity. Being aware of the social setting of research, and not claiming valueneutrality, allows researchers to “abandon notions of perfect mirrorlikerepresentations of the world ... yet still apply rational standards to sorting lessfrom more partial and distorted belief” (Harding, 1991, p. 159). The essence ofstrong objectivity is viewing the researcher and researched with the same critical“eyes”. Having reciprocal relationships which include critical and rationalevaluation between researcher and researched, is essential to this perception ofthe researcher’s role. Adopting this stance enables the researcher to makeclaims about the participants as well as the researcher’s role and involvement inthe study.Organization of the ChaptersThere are seven chapters in this study. The first three chapters lay out thefoundation upon which the study was based. They include the introduction11(Chapter One), literature review (Chapter Two), and method (Chapter Three).Chapter Four focuses on the development of the project and how it evolvedover time. It examines the development of the project, analyzing both thestructure and substance of the meetings and how they were reshaped over time.Chapter Five defines and examines the nature of the reflective conversationsamong the participants when they discussed teaching strategies which wereaimed at enhancing students’ active involvement in the learning process. ChapterSix examines the stories teachers shared in the meetings. These stories areanalyzed and compared with cases that are often used in teacher education.There are recurring thematic topics that are revisited time and again in themeetings. These themes are represented in the form of implicit cases which areunique to this collaborative endeavour of the teachers and university educators.Lastly, Chapter Seven discusses the conclusions and insights from this projectand suggests implications for further research about collaborative endeavours.12Chapter TwoReview of the LiteratureThis chapter examines and analyses three bodies of literature which pertainto the study: teachers’ knowledge and reflection; teachers’ professionaldevelopment through collaboration; and the role of cases as a part of teachers’professional growth and development. The literature in these three areasenhances the understanding of the dynamics that occurred when a group ofteachers and university educators met in order to discuss teaching and learningpractices.Teachers’ Knowledge and ReflectionOne of the assumptions embedded in this study is that teachers develop a type of“craft knowledge” (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992). Another assumption is that teachersconstruct understandings about their practice based on their prior experience(Hollingsworth, 1991; Richardson, 1991), and that they continue to do so throughouttheir professional careers. Reflection as an integral and pertinent component of this craftknowledge is emphasized both in this study and in the literature. In this section I willdiscuss different notions of teachers’ knowledge as conceptualized by Clandinin (1986),Clandinin and Connellv (1992), Comiellv and Clandinin (1988, Elbaz (1981; 1991),Grimmett and MacKinnon (1992), Schön (1983; 1987). and Shulman (1987).Elbaz defines teachers’ personal practical knowledge:While teachers’ kno’ledge may be largely unarticulated, teachers do have a broadrange of kno..’ledge which guides their work - - knowledge of subject matter; ofclassroom organization and instructional techniques; of the structuring of learningexperiences and curriculum content; of students’ needs, abilities, and interests; ofthe social framework of the school and its surrounding community, and of theirown strengths and shortcomings as teachers. (Elbaz, 1981, p. 47)This definition articulates the specifics of what is involved in being a teacher in the mostpractical way. Clanclinin (1986) Clandinin and Connelly (1992), Connellv and Clandinin13(1988) elaborate on this notion of teachers’ practical knowiedge, claiming that though it istacit, teachers! practical knowledge determines what is happening in a classroom..Connelly, Clandinin, and Elbaz claim that by listening to teacher’s stories about theirteaching they are able to reveal teachers! untapped knowledge. They look at teachers!metaphors, rhythms and images in order to learn about teachers! personal practicalknowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Elbaz, 1981). Elbaz (1991) argues that thispractical knowledge is broadly based on experience. Teachers use this practicalknowledge in order to handle problems that arise in the context of their school work. Thispractical professional knowledge is explored further by examining practitioners! practicalknowledge in different fields (for example, Schön 1983; 1987).Schön (1983; 1987; 1991) sets out to explore the development of professionalknowledge and what that knowledge entails. His assumption is that practitioners(teachers included) know, in many cases, more than they are able to articulate. Trying toidentify practitioners’ unique professional knowledge has led Schön to examine the natureof the practice, and the context within which practitioners function. Schön describes thepractice context as follows: “the changing character of the situations of the practice - thecomplexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflicts which are increasinglyperceived as central to the world of professional practice” (Schön, 1983, p. 14.Schön’s definition of practice utilizes terms very similar to those Schwab (1969)uses. Practice is complex, changing, unpredictable, and non-linear. Schwab perceivescurriculum to be embedded within practice and thus he uses similar terms to describe theprocess of teachers and university educators making decisions with regard to curriculum.Schwab (1969; 1971; 1973; 1983) calls for unique strategies and techniques that takeinto consideration the practical characteristics of curricular decision making in order tosolve problems.14Schön (1983) claims that practitioners go through a process of “reflection-in-action”in order to come up with alternative solutions to specific and unique problems. Hedescribes how practitioners make sense of their practice:The practitioner has built up a repertoire of examples, images, understandings, andactions. . . .When a practitioner makes sense of a situation he (sic) perceives to beunique, he sees it as something already present in his repertoire. ... It is, rather, tosee the unfamiliar, unique situation as both similar to and different from thefamiliar one, without at first being able to say similar or different with respect towhat. The familiar situation functions as a precedent, or a metaphor ... an exemplarfor the unfamiliar one. (Schön, 1983, p. 138)Schön does not specifically discuss teachers in this citation, nonetheless, one can see therelevance of Schön’s interpretation of the processes practitioners go through in teaching.Teachers make sense of a “messy” situation in a classroom where many factors influencethe setting simultaneously. Each situation is on the one hand unique, and on the otherhas had resemblance to other similar instances. Teachers rely on their past experiences,images and metaphors in order to make sense of a particular situation and act within it.Schön uses the notion of a “reflective conversation” to describe the relationshipbetween the practitioner and the practice setting (1983; 1987). He describes theseconversations as internal, personal and in many cases subconscious. Reflectiveconversations occur between a practitioner and a problem situation that needs to beaddressed. The reflective conversations with the situation are “an experiment inreframing. From his repertoire of examples, images, descriptions, he [the practitionerl hasderived (by seeing-as) a way of framing the present, unique situation” (Schön, 1987, p.68). Schön argues that these reflective conversations are experimental in nature:When the practitioner reflects-in-action in a case he perceives as unique, payingattention to phenomena and surfacing his intuitive understanding of them, hisexperimenting is at once exploratory, move testing, and hypothesis testing. Thethree functions are fulfilled by the very same actions. And from this fact followsthe distinctive character of experimenting in the practice. (1987, p. 72)15Schön maintains that decision making in a practice setting is complex. The practitionermentally experiments with options regarding the problem, and hypothesizes aboutalternative explanations and solutions.When discussing reflective conversations, Schön describes an inner andindividual process. However, I argue, this process can also be seen in a larger, socialcontext. Expanding Schön’s notion of a “reflective conversation” to includeconversations between practitioners about the practice can be seen within the frameworkof Schwab’s (1973; 1983) conception of curriculum planning and implementationMarrying Schwab’s account of curriculum design as a group process, with Schön’s notionof reflective conversations can provide an interpretative frame for analyzing thedeliberations within the group in this study. As both Schwab and Schön point out, thepurpose of these reflective conversations is to find solutions to practical problems.Understanding the group deliberations in the context of reflective conversations amongpractitioners will be explored further in Chapter Five. The conversations among theparticipants may be analyzed in terms of the hypotheses the participants make about aspecific problem, the process of framing and reframing problems based on pastexperiences, and finding mutual ways to discuss the practice. This analysis brings forthinsights about the dynamics of these conversations.Analyzing reflection in- and on-action is only a partial description ofteachers! knowledge. Another perspective of this discussion of teachers’professional knowledge is used by Grirnmett and MacKinnon (1992). Theypropose that teachers have craft knowledge, which entails judgments thatteachers make with regard to their students and subject areas. Teachers’knowledge manifests itself in teachers’ abilities to understand the dilemmas ofteaching. Teachers’ knowledge relies on intuition and caring for students. Thisunique kno’ledge allows teachers to create situations that will foster meaningfullearning experiences for students. This type of craft knowledge is based on what16Schön calls “the accumulated repertoire”, and it allows teachers to makedecisions and judgments based on their past experiences. Grimmett andMacKinnon (1992) describe teachers who have craft knowledge. Although theydo not analyze the processes teachers employ in constructing this craftknowledge, Grirnmett and MacKinnon (1992) argue that craft knowledge may beused as a framework to teacher& collaborative explorations with students abouthow learning occurs.Shulman (1987) also, Sets out to identify the sources of a knowledgebase for teaching, and then looks at the implications of that knowledge forteacher education and reform. The categories of teacher knowledge thatShulman identifies and discusses are: content knowledge; general pedagogicalknowledge; curriculum knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge; knowledgeof learners and their characteristics; knowledge of educational contexts;knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values, and their philosophicaland historical grounds (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). He maintains that whether explicitor implicit, teachers’ knowledge consists of specific content of various subjectmatters, and pedagogical knowledge. Using the four commonplaces ofcurriculum; teacher, learner, subject matter, and milieu (Schwab, 1969), Shulman(1987) specifies the multiple layers of knowledge that teachers possess.Understanding the content areas, having a deep knowledge of learners, beingfamiliar with educational purposes and goals and linking all these pieces of thepuzzle to knowledge of the circumstances and specific contexts of the learningprocess all make up teachers’ knowledge.Schön’s theory of the reflective practitioner is applicable to the description of theinner processes that are involved in teachers’ understanding and knowledge as theyaddress their practice: teaching. Shulman categorizes the components of teachers’knowledge, portraying a detailed picture of that knowledge. Grimmett and MacKinnon17link teachers’ craft knowledge to its implications towards learners and learning. Theypoint out how teachers utilize their craft knowledge when they interact with students. Inthis study I address these notions of teachers’ reflection and craft knowledge whenanalyzing the deliberations of teachers and university educators who discuss teaching.Following the threads of conversations between the participants provided insights aboutthe kinds of thinking and sharing that occur when teachers and university educatorsmake sense of specific incidents from the classroom. These conversations serve as a toolfor professional growth. Therefore, I will now examine the literature pertaining toteachers’ professional development.Teachers’ Professional Development.Teachers’ professional growth has been studied from the initial stages ofpre-service and teacher training programs to in-service programs for experiencedteachers. Kagan (1992) claims that teachers’ professional growth is bothbehavioural and conceptual. Examining pre-service teachers, she proposes amodel of teachers’ growth that consists of five components: 1) an increase inmetacognition; 2) the acquisition of knowledge about pupils: 3) a shift inattention from self to pupil; 4) the development of standard procedures androutines; and 5) growth in problem solving skills, which are multidimensional andcontext specific (Kagan, 1992, p. 156). Proposing such a model poses manyquestions regarding the development of teachers’ professional development instages. As Grossman (1992a points out, there are contradicting data regardingthis conceptualization of a model. Grossman argues that the focus in teachereducation programs ought not be skills that are immediately necessaly forbeginning teachers. The focus ought to be on helping beginning teachers to askworthwhile questions about their teaching. In spite of this critique, there is meritin examining Kagan’s developmental model of teacher education. Kagan (1992)18sheds light on the components of teachers’ knowledge. Setting aside questionslike what develops first and if one thing leads to another, she discusses thesubstance of teachers’ knowledge. When teachers grow professionally they gothrough a process of change. The literature on school and teacher change is vast,and I will discuss that literature which is relevant to ways of enhailcing changethrough teachers’ collaboration and professional development.The perspective proposed in this study suggests that there are linksbetween understanding school culture (Fullan, 1990a; Sarason, 1982; 1990),understanding teachers’ practice, and the importance of staff development as away to bring about meaningful change (Fullan, Cornielly & Watson,1990;Huberman & Miles, 1984; 1986; Lieberman & Miller, 1986; Little, 1990a; 1990b;McLaughlin & Marsh, 1990; 1991). The claim is that teachers are empoweredwhen they are involved in the process of change. The notion of professionaldevelopment, in this study, is of a process within the structure and culture of aschool which encourages teachers to examine their practice. This is not an “inservice”, “one -shot” workshop, whereby an expert comes to the school to teachteachers a new technique or curriculum. Professional development is an ongoing, long term process that is closely linked to the notion of collaboration.Teachers learn the most from their own experience and then from colleagues(Lortie, 1975). In order to be able to learn from colleagues, teachers needstructures within the context of school that will allow this collaboration. Schoolbecomes the key unit of change, and the focus of the process of change becomesdeveloping and encouraging communities of learners in the school (Barth, 1991;Cuban, 1992).Different studies examine, the pertinent role staff development plays inchange plans within schools. For example, Doyle (1987) maintains that effectivestaff development should be based on the teachers’ culture and the way they19perceive their work. Griffin (1987) focuses on staff development andcollaboration of teachers as an on-going developmental and reflective process.These studies express similar views to those maintained in Lieberman and Miller’s(1986; 1991) study of change, to Little’s (1986; 1 990a; 1990b) analysis of theprocess of professional development, and to Rosenholtz’s (1989; 1990)description of school improvement attempts.Lieberman and Miller (1986; 1991) survey the different studies on change.They claim that earlier studies are concerned with conditions that enable changewhereas later research focuses on the quality of teachers’ knowledge as related toissues of change. Lieberman and Miller suggest that although there is no onemodel that will fit all teachers and all circumstances, the teacher maintains the keyrole in the process of change and implementation of an innovation. Moreover,they suggest that there is a need for teachers’ support systems in the form ofnetworks that will “provide informal settings as legitimate places where we[teachers] can share resources, gain new knowledge, be supportive of oneanother, and participate voluntarily” (Licherman & Miller, 1986, p. 107). Theycontinue to stress the importance of staff development in the process ofattempting to change. Staff development is seen as a way to develop teachers’culture, which will allow teachers to inquire into their practice both individuallyand, more so, collaboratively.Little (1986; 1 990a; 1 990b) examines professional developmentprograms and, in particular, analyzes collegiality among teachers. Her assumptionis that there are gains to professional development when teachers are workingcollaboratively (Little, 1 990a. Little identifies six dimensions of school supportthat are needed in order to maintain collegiality among teachers: 1) rewards forcooperative work, making the sources of interdependence clear; 2) school levelorganization of staff assignment and leadership; 3) latitude of influence on crucial20matters of curriculum and instruction; 4 time to meet; 5) training and assistance;and, 6) material support (Little, 1990a, p. 183). Little argues that staffdevelopment is most influential where it ensures collaboration adequate toproduce shared understanding, shared investment, thoughtful development, andthe fair rigorous test of selected ideas. It is beneficial where it requires collectiveparticipation in training and implementation. Staff development ought to focuson crucial problems of curriculum and instruction. It should be conducted oftenenough and long enough to ensure progressive gains in knowledge, skill andconfidence. When there are norms of collegiality and experimentation, staffdevelopment is more effective (Little, 1986, p. 35). The close description andanalysis of the project in this study ( see Chapter Foui) provides insights to howthese conditions play out in a specific setting of one secondary school.Rosenholtz (1989; 1990) pursues an investigation of staff development asa means of implementing change. She identifies two distinctive school cultures:“stuck” and “moving”. In the “moving” schools teachers work together towardsmutually agreed upon goals. These schools have norms of opportunities forcontinuous improvement and career long learning. She argues that severalstructural features implicit in the innovation account, at least in pail, for its initialsuccess. Rosenholtz elaborates on these features stating that when teachers aregiven considerable task autonomy and discretion both to formulate and toimplement, their commitment is higher. That is, because teachers collectivelyconstruct the plan, it has shared meaning and value. Teachers should be involvedin defining their needs and in setting the agenda for staff development to meettheir specific needs. In the study discussed here teachers and universityeducators decide the direction and content of teachers’ professional development.Though this study does not examine in depth the structural features of the schoolthat allow for such collaborative professional development to take place, it does21analyze the internal features, both structural and substantive, which enhanceteachers’ growth.Teachers are seen as the key to educational change and thus are the focusof many studies of change. Many of the studies mentioned point to teachers’collaboration and staff development as critical in the process of change andimplementation of new curriculuni Little (1 99Qa describes four kinds of collegialrelationships among teachers: (a) scanning and stoiytelling, (b) help andassistance, (c) sharing, and (d) joint work. She claims that there are differentlevels of collegial relationships between teachers starting with merely telling eachother anecdotes, through helping novice teachers, sharing prepared materials andstrategies to jointly working to construct teaching materials. Close examinationof transcripts from the meetings in this study indicate how gradually over timeteachers and university educators learn to jointly discuss and deliberate uponteaching in order to improve it.Hargreaves (1992) explores the notion of collegiality and collaboration ofteachers in relation to teachers’ cultures. He describes four possible scenarios thatcharacterize the relations among teachers within schools, and which indicatedifferent cultures among teachers: 1) individualisnt in which teachers develop aculture of working alone in their own classrooms; 2) balkanization: in which theculture is made up of separate and sometimes competing groups; 3) collaborativeculture: in which teachers are more united than divided, sharing both successesand failures in order to help and support each other; and, 4) contrived collegiality:in which the culture is characterized by a set of formal procedures designed toincrease joint planning, and consultation of teachers with other teachers.Hargreaves points to the possible problems with collaboration (i.e. balkanizationand contrived collegiality) stemming from the structure and culture within someschools. He maintains that one should not automatically assume that under the22title of “collaboration there is real sharing and striving towards mutual goalswhere teachers support each other both in times of success and failure.Hargreaves clain that identifying teacher cultures focuses on defining teachernorms, values, beliefs and practices. Understanding these cultures, he claims, willhelp understand the dynamics of change in school.Examining teachers’ cultures and different kinds of collaborative endeavours hasbeen at the forefront of many studies. Such studies not only put the teacher at the centrebut focus on collaboration and staff development as effective methods to enhance changewithin the complex setting of school.Teacher Collaboration and Professional DevelopmentOne of the earlier attempts at professional development and collaborationas a way to bring about changes into schools was peer coaching. Joyce andShowers (1988) and Showers (1985) describe and analyze peer coaching.Coaching teams are organized and designed to enhance the understanding anduse of a teaching strategy or curriculum innovation. The team studies therationale, sees the new skill demonstrated, practices it, and learns to providefeedback to one another. The members of the group learn to observe and givefeedback which is accurate, specific, and none valuative. The purposes of peercoaching are: 1) to build communities of teachers who continuously engage inthe study of their craft, 2) to develop a shared language and a set of commonunderstandings necessary for the collegial study of new knowledge and skills,expanding the repertoire of teaching skills with the help of colleagues, and 3) toprovide a structure to follow up and train teachers in the new skills and strategies.Sparks and Bruder (1987) studied peer coaching programs in two schools inorder to see if peer coaching affects implementation, and encourages collegialityand experimentation with new materials. They found that teachers became23comfortable with the process of peer coaching and found it useful. The studyindicates that an entire school, with the proper support, can implement peercoaching that results in an increase in communication about and experimentationwith teaching techniques.Hargreaves and Dawe (1990) critique peer coaching. They claim thatattempts at peer coaching are insufficiently attentive to the meanings andunderstandings, the doubts and disagreements that different teachers bring to thetraining process. They continue to say that peer coaching, as it is proposed byShowers and Joyce, does not tackle the issues involved in teachers’ difficultieswith and resistance to change. Peer coaching underestimates the importance ofcontextual problems when teachers are trying to apply new skills and it ignorespolitical and ideological forces within the structure of the school. They add thatthe scope of peer coaching is narrow, and the time demands are great. Insummary, Hargreaves and Dawe state that peer coaching amounts only tocontrived collegiality, which might be useful only as a preliminary phase in themove towards more enduring collaborative partnership between teachers.Examining peer coaching in light of the perspective proposed earlier, itseems that though the rationale of peer coaching entails a greater involvement ofteachers in the process of implementing new strategies, the procedure that is usedis rigid and limits the teachers’ ability to influence it. Furthermore, teachers are notempowered through this process, since they are not active in planning ordeveloping materials, and they do not take full responsibility for the process ofimplementation. Though it is a step in the direction of opening classroom doorsand encouraging teachers to work together, teachers should be more involved inevery stage of the process to achieve true collegiality and a sense of ownership.Ellis (1990) examines the notion of collaboration among teachers and itsimpact on improving teaching (in other rds, on teachers’ change). She studied24thirteen experienced volunteer teachers from five elementary schools who wereall working with teacher assistants. Her focus was on conversations betweenexperienced teachers and their assistants. The data show that teachers’discussions were associated with teachers’ implementation of innovativeprograms. Ellis describes and defines collaboration in terms of supportivesupervision, observation and feedback between the teachers and their assistants.She shows that close supervision from experienced teachers, which was highlystructured, forced them to articulate their knowledge to others and encouragedthem in their attempts at change.Ellis! perception of collaboration is different from the peer coaching that isdiscussed earlier. Ellis (1990) describes a situation whereby issues of power arecritical since the study examines attempts of collaboration between experiencedteachers who are considered “experts” and assistant teachers. Other studies (forexample, Fullan & Steigenbaur, 1991; Lieberman & Miller, 1986; Little, 1 990a;1990b) show that in order to discuss professional development and collaboration,one should strive for collaboration among teachers who have a vested interest inthe specific change and are involved in the process. One should also be aware ofhierarchical differences between the collaborating participants.In recent years there have been many studies ( for example, Bell & Gilbert,1993; Cole & Knowles, 1993; Cuban 1992a; Erickson, 1991; Jzlollinsgworth, 1992;Hunsaker & Johnston, 1992 ) examining collaboration between teachers anduniversity educators. University educators have shown growing interest incollaborating with teachers and studying their collaborative endeavours.Teachers are perceived as inquiring professionals who mediate ideas, constructmeaning and act upon these constructions. Their practice is influenced byinteracting with and reflecting upon different situations and theories aboutteaching and learning (Richardson, 1990). When teachers and university25educators work on mutually agreeable interests and agendas of inquiry, it leads tocreating collaborative partnerships (Richardson, in press). Following is ananalysis some of these partnerships between schools and universities.Collaboration Between Teachers and University EducatorsMends (1990) opens the discussion about possible links between university andschools with the traditional contact where universities train the new generation ofteachers. He moves on to claim that there should be new avenues of collaborationbetween teachers and universities. Collaboration, according to his definition, requires notonly joint projects but also joint dialogues between teachers and university faculty.Goodson (1992) also encourages this kind of collaboration, but points out its difficulties.He focuses attention on the inequality in relations between teachers and professors andwarns that the nature of collaboration might be characterized by inequality unless specialattention is drawn to this concern.Collaboration, as I perceive it, is a process of mutual construction of knowledge.It is a process in which goals, procedures, and evaluation are defined jointly by all theparticipants and are negotiated time and again throughout the process (Hunsaker &Johnston, 1992). In an interaction between teachers and university professors wherebyteachers basically describe their practical experience and university professors mainlyshare their “scientific” knowledge, there isn’t necessarily a mutual creation of knowledge.However, when the purpose of the meetings is to understand and mutually discussteaching, where each partner contributes from his or her expertise and experience to newunderstandings, there is collaboration.Cuban (1 992a) acknowledges the potential for collaboration between professorsand teachers, however, he understands its difficulties. Cuban shows that university andschool determine “valued knowledge” in different ways. University culture prizesscientifically produced research, whereas school cultures value practical knowledge that26prepares new teachers for their job and helps solve practical concrete problems. Cubanproposes that teaching is the common activity joining these two communities together.Since teaching requires similar qualities, no matter at what level one is teaching, this can bethe bridge between university professors and teachers. Cuban describes teaching as anactivity that:requires making concrete choices among competing values for vulnerable otherstho lack the teacher’s knowledge and skills, who are dependent upon the teacherfor access to both, and who will be changed by what the teacher teaches, how it istaught, and who that teacher is. (Cuban, 1992a, p. 9)Cuban suggests that these characteristics of teaching (the practical, and moral coping withdilemmas) can join the cultures of the university researchers, the professors in the schoolof education and the teachers. He maintains that a re-.emphasis on the moral nature ofteaching can become a basis for creating intellectual communities of scholars andpractitioners, who will construct shared standards for their mutual practice - teaching.Cuban’s notion of the commonalties between teachers and university educators bringsteachers and university educators together around dilemmas of teaching. Collaborationbecomes a method of finding solutions to similar problems stemming from similar dilemmasthat both teachers and university educators face.Clandinin and Connellv (1992) and Elbaz (1991) in their later workacknowledge the difficulties of relationships between teachers and researchers of teachersand teaching. Connelly and Clandinin claim that although in the past only the researcherdid the wTiting, the researcher’s voice did not appear in the discourse, or at least did notappear explicitly within a conversation with the teachers. The researcher’s role was tolisten and record, to be intentionally detached from the process to secure uobjectivity!.Connelly and Clandinin propose a new kind of collaboration, whereby the text is createdby teachers, researchers, and learners (1992). Elbaz (1991) also points to the complexrelationships between researchers and teachers. She calls for the creation of communitiesof teachers and researchers working together.27In the many studies of partnerships between university and school (for example,Bell & Gilbert, 1993; Cole & Knowles, 1993; Cuban, 1992a; Hollingsworth, 1992;Huberman, 1990; Hunsaker & Johnston, 1992) there is an attempt to understand thenature of collaborative relationships, and their roles. One role of such partnerships focuseson establishing professional development schools that provide preparation for studentteachers (for example, Dixon & Ishler, 1992; Lasley, Matczynski & Williams, 1992;Winitzky, Stoddart & O’Keefe, 1992; Zeichner, 1992). Another role of such partnershipsfocuses on school restructuring and creating major changes within schools (for example,Heikkinen, Bucci & Reitzamrner, 1992; McDevitt & Stone, 1992). A third possible role ofsuch a partnership focuses on teachers’ professional development. Since this study is anexample of such collaboration, an analysis of studies in which collaboration plays a similarrole is in order.Hollingsworth (1992) describes a project in which a group of beginningelementary school teachers met with a researcher, who is also a teacher educator, in orderto talk about the meaning of learning to teach. The meetings took place once a month inan informal setting and continued over several years. Hollingsworth describes themeetings as non-evaluative conversations. She describes how her role has changed fromfacilitator/researcher to a participant in the dialogues. Hollingsworth claims that thissetting, of long term non-evaluative conversations, becomes the support structure withinwhich collaboration between university educators and school teachers can occur and bywhich all the partners experience growth. She emphasizes how her role and herperception of her role evolved over time. She started by telling teachers what she knewand checking if they learned it, and then she worked with the teachers as a co-learnerthough their collaborative conversations.Erickson (1991) discusses another study of collaboration. He describes andanalyzes a project involving science teachers and university educators. Just asHollingsworth (1992) described changes throughout the project, Erickson points to shifts28in the project as a result of collaboration between university educators and teachers.Erickson (1991) reports on the way they began with the expectation that the universityresearchers would generate “diagnostic techniques” and lists of teaching strategies for theteachers to tiy. As the project evolved, teachers started playing a more fundamental rolein the development phase as well as in the implementation. Teachers needed to constructtheir own “diagnostic techniques” in order to respond to the complex and uniquesituations they encountered in their practice. Erickson suggests that one shoulddifferentiate between teachers’ purposes and university educators’ purposes in the sameproject.Collaboration calls for significant interactions where the participants negotiategoals, purposes, roles and routines as a part of their collaborative endeavour. Thepurposes and goals of both teachers and university educators should be explicitlyexpressed as a part of the deliberations. Collaborative relations should allow participantsto reflect, take risks, share both successes and failures, and take a critical stance towardissues related to teaching.The PEEL project (the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning) isanother study of collaboration between university and school. Since there aremany parallels and similarities between PEEL and this study, I will examine it inmore detail. PEEL’s aim was to discover ways to improve learning and teachingin school (Baird, 1986). The accepted educational “product” was an effective,independent learner. Teachers in a secondaiy school in Australia, who werevoluntarily involved in the project, met on a regular basis in order to discuss theirpractice and, in particular, to focus on ways to bring about effective learning.This project showed links and parallels between processes teachers went throughand those students went through similar to those Fullan (1 990a: 1 990b)discussed. The PEEL project shows that in order for teacher change to lead tostudent change it requires: 1) on-going support within the school, in the form of29meeting time as a part of the timetable; funding for substitute teachers in order toallow longer meetings for teachers involved. 2) support from tertiary members(university educators who participate in the meetings), 3) regular interaction withcolleagues, and 4) gradual introduction of new ideas. Staff need time to developtheir personal meaning of innovations in their classroom. The teachers are a partof trying out, initiating, developing ideas, materials and strategies, and hence, theybecome independent action-researchers within their classrooms (Mitchell, 1 986a,1986b).The PEEL project brings forth teachers’ professional development as long-termand collegiaL PEEL is constructed in a way that takes into account the existing structureand culture of the school although it includes support from tertiary (university) sources.University educators participated in the regular group meetings and brought in differentperspectives to teachers’ attempts at change. The university educators were a source ofcontinuous support and positive reinforcement to the teachers (Baird and Mitchell, 1986).They also saw their goal as constantly linking the conversations to examination oftheories of learning, and to the initial goals of the group.This form of collaboration which includes both teachers and university educatorsadds new dimensions to the partnership. A reciprocal relationship develops, whereuniversity educators may add the perspective of current research on the one hand and anexternal view to the discussions on the other, and the teachers may make the connectionsto their classroom practice. Moving from sharing of ideas, procedures and strategies ofteaching, to making links between new strategies and theories of learning and teachingexpands the discussion. University educators also benefit from such a collaborativeendeavour. They become more in tune with the classroom reality through participation insuch partnerships.These three studies demonstrate the advantages but also the difficulties incollaborative relations between university educators and teachers. Difficulties of time and30place, mixed and unclear agendas, assumptions and pre-conceived notions about thepartnerships and the inequality of power relations may hinder partnerships betweenteachers and teacher educators. The studies emphasize the possibilities of using theserelations as a means of mutual growth and as a tool to encourage teacher developmentthat will bring about change. Though one should secure teachers’ equal voice in suchcollaborative relations, these studies show that it can be done. Collaboration, in all theabove studies, entails negotiation of the aims and methods, the procedures and theevaluation between all the participants throughout the process. The next sectionexamines three models which analyze the interactions in collaborative partnershipsbetween university and school. Analyzing these models provides the basis to analyze thecollaborative process in this study.Models of Teachers’ Professional Development in a Collaborative SettingKagan (1991) defines collaborations as “organizational and inter-organizational structures where resources, powr, and authority are shared andwhere people are brought together to achieve common goals that could not beaccomplished by a single individual or organization independently” (p.3). Shesurveys different collaborative endeavours, and then she proposes that collaborationshould be discussed in five developmental stages: formation, conceptualization,development, implementation, and evaluation. In the first stage the participantsbecome aware of a problem and they perceive collaboration as a means of solving it.The second stage is one of defining objectives. In the third stage the participantsmove from theory to practice. The fourth stage involves implementation, in whichthe participants work together within agreed structures to achieve the agreed upongoals. Stage five involves assessment. of and reflection upon the collaborativeprocess. As a result of that stage there is a decision either to terminate the process orto enter another stage of collaboration. Kagan (1991) adds that these stages are31affected by four mediating variables: a) goals: b) resources: c) power and authority;and d) flexibility (pp. 18-26). She argues that since collaboration is complex,complicated, and with multiple layers, it is difficult to define precise success criteria.Consequently, it is difficult to determine success. However, Kagan (1991) lists theconditions in which collaboration works best: a) when there is a fertile context, thatis a setting where there is a history of successful collaboration: b) when the goals areclear, although in many cases they are revisited and modified; c) when the structurematches the mission: d) when the mandate is facilitative and not restrictive: e) whenthe participants are really invested; f) when resources are available: and, g) when thepitcess and policies are clear (pp. 7482).Cole and Knowles (1993) propose a second model to examine collaborationbetween teachers and teacher educators. They examine examples from studies thatthey conducted with teachers focusing on phases of research activities and the rolesof the researchers and teachers. Then they also explore the phases of the researchand the scope of the partnerships. Cole and Knowles define teacher development asa continuum through teachers’ professional lives. “Teacher development representsemerging and on-going, individual and collective, professional and personaldevelopment “(1993, p. 475. Looking at many collaborative endeavours betweenteachers and researchers, Cole and Knowles propose that research should addressthe complexities of partnerships. They share the understanding that “each partner inthe inquiry process contributes particular and important expertise, and that therelationship between the classroom teacher and the university researcher ... ismultifaceted and not powerfully hierarchical” (1993, p. 478). They maintain thatpartnerships between teachers and teacher educators entail four phases: planningand preparation, information gathering, interpretation and representation, andreporting. Cole and Knowles (1993) claim that each of these four phases isinfluenced by technical, personnel, procedural, ethical, political and educational32issues. In their paper, Cole and Knowles (1993) analyze projects where theresearcher studies one or two teachers and their classroom practices. Questions likewho sets the agenda, whose voice is heard, and how is it represented are coredilemmas that need to be addressed in such studies. Whether it is done in phases,with shifting focus over time, seems less crucial than the actual addressing of thesedilemmas. Though Cole and Knowles (1993) claim that there are no hierarchicaldifferences, it seems that questions of control and power need close examinationwhen analyzing partnerships between teachers and university educators.Bell and Gilbert (1993) propose the third model of teachers’ professionaldevelopment. Their model is based a collaborative project between experiencedscience teachers and a university educator that exemplifies a form of professionaldevelopment. The assumptions underlying the model are that teacher development isa process of empowerment. It should focus on new teaching activities. Its purposesare to help teachers feel better about themselves as teachers and to improve teachingand learning outcomes in classrooms. Teacher development is enhanced throughconversations about classroom practices. Support, feedback and reflection are keycomponents of teachers’ professional development. The process of professionalgrowth entails addressing prior ideas, beliefs, concerns and experiences of theteachers with regard to teaching science. One critical part of professionaldevelopment is for teachers to acknowledge that there is a problem in a specific areain their teaching that they will be able to address and change. The teachers shouldbe allowed to decide the pace and nature of changes they are making. Theuniversity educator serves as a participating facilitator in this project (Bell, 1993).Bell and Gilbert (1993) maintain that teacher development has three main features:professional, personal and social. They add that each feature has three phases thatdevelop over time. The phases of the social development entail: seeing isolation asproblematic, valuing collaborative ways of working, and initiating collaborative ways33of working. The phases of professional development entail: trying out new activities,developing ideas, and initiating other development activities. The phases of personaldevelopment entail: accepting difficulties in one’s teaching, dealing with restraints,and feeling empowered. Bell and Gilbert (1993) argue that there are many possiblecombinations for a teacher to locate one’s self within the model. A teacher may be inone phase of professional development and in another phase of social development.Though they do not discuss the hierarchical characteristics of their model and thevalues embedded in it, they maintain that teachers need to be aware of theirdifficulties and then they can proceed to improve in those specific areas. Althoughuniversity educators are involved in the collaborative endeavour, their role is one offacilitation. There is no account of any change process that involves the universityeducators. The phases in the model address only the teachers who participate in theprofessional development. This raises questions about the nature and definition ofcollaboration in this case. Is there a shared partnership in which the agenda, thedirection and purposes are negotiated through the project, and do the teachers anduniversity educators have equal power over these decisions? Though Bell andGilbert (1993) acknowledge the importance of teachers’ input they do not attempt toexamine the nature of the collaborative relationship between university and school.The model may be useful in analyzing teachers’ growth through professionaldevelopment, but it does not sufficiently capture the multifaceted inter-relationsbetween both sets of participants.Based upon examining different kinds of collaborative endeavours betweenuniversity and school, the next section focuses on cases and stories as a valuablemeans to capturing and discussing teachers’ professional knowledge.34Cases and Teachers’ KnowledgeWhen teachers discuss teaching they often use stories in order to capturethe complexities of the classroom reality. Elbaz (1991) maintains that telling astoly is the most adequate way of presenting teachers’ knowledge. However, shecautions that it is critical to adhere to teachers’ genuine voice in those stories,since only by placing the stories within their specific contexts, does one ensurethat the teachers’ “real” voice is expressed.Willinsky (1989) critiques the personal practical knowledge perspective on twogrounds: methodological and conceptual. Methodologically, Willinsky states that sincethe researcher and teacher look for a shared single voice in publication, the teacher’svoice is heard mostly through interpretations of the researcher. As Willinsky phrases it:“teacher’s voice is kept distinct and subordinated in indented blocks or inverted commas”(Willinsky, 1989, p. 235). One may claim that Connelly and Clandinin (1992) address thisissue of multiple voices in their later work, where they propose collaborative work andwriting. Connelly and Clandinin claim that the researcher’s voice is not heard, whereasWillinsky (1989) suggests that we actually hear only the researcher and hear of theteacher through the researcher.Researchers interpret conversations with teachers and report teachers’ stories,thus, the researchers’ voices are again heard. Until there is co-authored writing, thedifferent voices of teachers, researchers, and learners will not be equally heard. Evenwhen a text is co-authored there are questions of how it was written, how decisions weremade, whose voice we hear, and as importantly, whose voices we don’t hear.The main concern with teachers’ stories is that the stories may becomemore therapeutic than critical, and thus the ability to learn something that is notidiosyncratic is limited. Teachers’ stories move beyond the idiosyncratic whenteachers reflect upon their practice and analyze it. Regardless of the possiblelimitations of teachers’ stories, they provide many advantages. Since teachers’35stories evolve around questions of learning and accepting the perception thatlearning is situated (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), cases and stories are theappropriate medium to discuss learning. Stories help teachers to talk aboutteaching, which is an ill-structured domain (Grossman, 1 992b). Stories areconcrete, specific and embedded within a certain context (L. Shulman, 1992) andthus may capture situations in a classroom. Teachers stories become cases whenthese stories serve a specific purpose beyond telling a certain incident in theclassroom. When teacher educators use cases, their purpose may range fromproviding a setting for a discussion of theoretical questions, to providing vehiclesfor reflection and the development of specific strategies, to addressing certainsituations, and to providing insights about values ( J. Shulman, 1992).Cases have been used in teacher education for many years both in theinitial and continuing training of teachers. However, there has been growinginterest in the use of cases over the last decade, both with pre-service teachersand with experienced ones (Grossman, 1992b; Kagan, 1993; Kleinfeld, 1992;Merseth, 1992; J. Shulman, 1992; L. Shulman, 1992). These cases are carefullycrafted to be an educational tool for the users, either in preparation programs or inprofessional development projects. The advantages to using cases are thatteachers are encouraged to discuss, share, and refine their beliefs, perspectives,values and skills about specific teaching and learning questions. Cases point tothe complexities of the reality of the classroom, and since they pose a problemthey are intellectually engaging (J. Shulman, 1992). Lee Shulman (1992) pointsto the difficulties of using cases, arguing that they are time consuming anddifficult to produce, and they are hard to organize and structure, particularly withlarge groups of teachers. Grossman (1992b) adds another limitation to usingcases in teacher education. Cases are narratives and as such are linear, whereasreal life situations in the classroom are seldom linear. The stories described in36cases may be used for teaching purposes but may not be taken as portraying theclassroom as it is. Cases, like stories, have narrators who give a certain point ofview and perspective. The reader ought to remember that there are other possiblepoints of view to the case.In spite of their disadvantages and limitations cases have great merit forteachers’ deliberations about their practice. Transcripts of the conversations inthis study emphasize that teachers talk and remember their practice throughstories. Though the literature argues that cases ought to be carefully crafted anddesigned with a purpose, this study shows that teachers and university educatorscreate cases through their discussions of teaching and learning. When a group ofteachers and university educators talk about teaching and learning there arethemes that recur. These recurring thematic topics shape cases that are situatedand shared by the participants. They are unique to the specific context in whichthey are embedded, but they also touch on general issues and questions. Theseshared and situated cases allow the teachers and university educators to recallinstances they discussed earlier and link them through themes and cases to newoccurrences in their practice. Chapter Six provides a close analysis of theseshared situated cases.Snimnary of Chapter TwoIn this section I briefly analyze the relevance of the three bodies ofliterature reviewed in this chapter for this study. When Schon (1983; 1987; 1991)discusses reflective conversations, he refers to an “inner conversation” between apractitioner. and a problems setting. In this study this construct is broadened andrefers to group conversations of teachers and university educators who discussedteaching and learning. Reflective conversations among colleagues around issues37of teaching and learning as shaped in this study in the form of shared situatedcases will be examined in later chapters (see Chapter Five and Six).The literature discusses collaboration between teachers and universityeducators as an important method of teachers! professional development. Kagan(1991) lists the conditions that enhance collaboration. In Chapter Four, I examinethese conditions in the context of this study. Cole and Knowles (1993)examine personal, individual processes teachers go through while discussing andanalyzing their practice with researchers. In this study, the focus is on a group ofteachers and university educators who were involved in and committed to an ongoing process of professional development. However, the issues of voice andrepresentation, setting direction and negotiating purposes are germane tocollaborative endeavours examined in this study. Acknowledging the differentkinds of expertise and experiences the players have and bring to the partnershipsis also important. Bell and Gilbert’s (1993) model focuses on teachers’developmental stages in their professional development. However, it is alsobeneficial to examine and analyze the dynamic nature of the collaborativeconversations (for a detailed comparison between these models and this groupsee Chapter Four). The next chapter focuses on the methodology used in thisstudy and how it links to the research questions.38Chapter ThreeResearch MethodsThe purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the dynamicprocesses that occur in meetings between secondary school teachers anduniversity educators when they discuss teaching and learning. The researchquestions focus on the ways in which a community of professional colleaguesevolved over a period of two school years, and on the dynamic nature of thegroup deliberation. Thus, qualitative methodologies best answer the researchquestions (Geertz, 1973; Goertz & LeCompte, 1984; Wolcott 1988). The primaryresearch task was to provide a detailed understanding of the processes thatevolved within the group in the context of the school. This in-depth descriptioncalled for a case study approach using qualitative methods.Sources and Settings for Data CoflectioiiThe schoolThe site for the study is an urban, public secondary school. It hasapproximately one thousand students, and is located within a large city, in amiddle class neighbourhood of a large city, with a relatively homogeneouspopulation. For most of the students English is the first language. However,there is a growing population of English as a Second Language students (10% to15%) which is changing the makeup of the school. It is a grade eight to gradetwelve secondary school, in which many students take provincial examinations atthe end of grade twelve. About 60 - 70% of the students go on to postsecondary education. There are fifty-five staff members. In an interview, theprincipal characterized the staff in the school:39Actually it’s a changed considerably in the last couple of years.We’ve got a fair number of young staff. ... So I would say theaverage age [of the teachers] is declining and there’s a lot of energyamongst this group. I think we have an excellent staff.(Interview, 23.6.92)Many of the parents are academically oriented, and they have specific interestsand requests regarding the acquisition of learning skills.The PailicipantsBoth teachers and teacher educators were involved in the study. Initiallythere were nine teachers in the project who each had four years or more teachingexperience. There were four English teachers, two social studies teacher, apsychology teacher (who also taught English), a science teacher, and twoteachers in the Alternate school2 where they teach all the subjects. Seven of theteachers are females and two males. After the end of the first school year, one ofthe teachers left the school and consequently left the group. Throughout thesecond and third years of the project three teachers left the group and two othersjoined.There were four university educators in the group, which included myselfas the person who was documenting and analyzing the process. The fouruniversity educators had previously been secondary school teachers ofhumanities and science. Two are males and two females. At the end of the firstschool year two left the group because they left the country. The other tworemained involved in the group meetings throughout the project.I briefly introduce the participants at this point so that it is easier for thereader to follow the analysis chapters that contain transcripts from interviews andmeetings and refer to the participants. There were four English teachers in the2 The alternate school is also called a satellite school. There are different feeder schools to it. but mainlythe school in which this study is conducted. The students are mainly low achievers who did not.accommodate to secondary school for a variety of academic and social reasons.40group: Alice3,Ann, Pat, and Susan. Alice is an English and drama teacher. Whenthe project started it was her fourth year teaching, and her second year teachingat this school. She teaches English, drama and writing in grades eight to twelve.Ann teaches English to grades nine, ten and twelve. She is also involved in playsthat the school theatre puts on. She has been teaching for thirty five years, fiveof them in this school. Pat is the head of the English department and has been atthe school for five years. Before that she taught in different schools. Pat teachesmainly in the upper grades. During the third school year she gradually stoppedattending meetings. Susan, an English teacher, was on the professionaldevelopment committee and thus was involved in initiating and setting up theproject. She taught English in different grades. Prior to coming to the schoolfour years ago she taught in England. At the end of the first year she left theschool and thus was not involved in the research.Karen teaches psychology, and she is also a counselor at the school. Inthe second year of the project she also taught English. She teaches grades eightto twelve. She has taught at different schools and was involved in different formsof professional development.Barbara and Nelly both teach social studies. Barbara is the head of thesocial studies department at the school. When the project started she was in herfirst year at the school. She teaches history, law, business education and socialstudies, working mainly in the upper grades. It is Nellys fourth year at the school.She has been teaching for twenty three years. Nelly teaches social studies,accounting, and keyboarding to grades nine through twelve. Nelly came only toone meeting in the first year of the project, but joined the group during thesecond year.3 All names used in the disseration are pseudoinyns except for my name.41Mark was the oniy science teacher in the group. He has been in theschool for many years, teaching science and physics to the upper grades. Hestopped coming to the meetings regularly in the middle of the second year.Melissa and Doug taught in the Alternate school. Melissa is a counselor.She taught counseling and life skills at a college and then took the position of ateacher in the Alternate school. She teaches all the subjects to students of variedsecondary school ages. Though she teaches all the subjects she feels morecomfortable teaching humanities. Melissa gradually left the group meetings in thesecond school year. Doug also teaches in the Alternate school. When he joinedthe group it was his seventeenth year teaching. He taught at different schoolsand in various countries and then took the challenge of teaching at the Alternateschool.Jim and Gary. the university educators, had both been science teachers inthe past. Jim was one of the initiators of the Learning Strategies Group (LSGproject. He also initiated similar groups in Australia, serving as a facilitator ofthose groups. Gary is a university professor interested in math and scienceeducation and in teachers! professional development. Janet is an English teacher,however, when the project started she was serving as a university advisor andcame to the project as one of the initiating university educators, Janet wasinvolved in similar teachers’ professional development projects in Australia. Atthe end of the first school year, both Jim and Janet left the project, returning toAustralia. I (Gabriella joined the group as one of the university educatorsinterested in collaboration between teachers and university educators. Prior tothat I taught humanities for fifteen years at secondary schools in Israel. BothGary and I have participated in the project from its initial stages till today.All the participants in the group were there voluntarily, and of their owninitiative. Participants shared an interest in participating in a project that entailed42long term professional development focusing on learning and teaching. Themeetings were open to all the teachers on staff regardless of their commitment tothe project. Thus, there were some who came only for a limited time. No one wasrejected from the group. During the second year a consultant (former teacher)from the central board office joined the meetings for a few months.All the participants were aware that I was studying the project, and they allgave their consent to participate in it. All meetings were tape recorded andtranscribed.Group MeetinasThe main source of data was the dialogue within weekly and later biweekly meetings of the group. In the meetings the participants established theirroutines and agendas, and discussed issues of learning and teaching. Theparticipants deliberated on specific problems and dilemmas that teacherspresented in the meetings. They discussed methods and strategies that enhancestudents’ involvement in the learning process. The goal was to collaborativelyfind ways to encourage students to become independent learners. The meetingsincluded deliberations on a variety of issues of learning and teaching: (a) subjectspecific strategies, like how to teach a specific novel; (b) generic learningstrategies, like how to summarize or paraphrase; (c) assessment and evaluationstrategies that link to the strategies discussed in meetings; (d) finding links withinsubjects, between subjects, between students’ lives and school; (e) involvingparents in meaningful ways in the learning done at school; and (f) finding creativesolutions to addressing the wide range of students’ abilities.At the end of the first school year there was a full day meeting in order toexamine the direction the group was heading the following year.43Staff MeetingsAt several points in the project the participating teachers decided todiscuss the group meetings and their content.s with the rest of the staff in theschool. They arranged for time at staff meetings to present the substance of theproject. The purpose of the presentations was twofold: to let the staff knowabout the group and what the group participants were grappling with; and torecruit new members. The group discussions in which the participants decidedhow and when to present the Learning Strategies Group to the staff wereincluded in the data collection. The preparation for these presentations became atool to clarify the purposes and roles of the group to members as well as to nonmembers. My role was mainly one of support to the presenting teachers.Conference PresentationIn the second year three teachers and I decided to make a presentationabout the project at a professional conference. Preparing for the presentation,discussing how to present the group and the content of the meetings, becamevaluable data for the participants. It was an opportunity to explain, deliberateand reflect upon the project.Methods of Data CollectionTwo main methods of data collection were employed: interviewing andparticipant observation. In the following sections I discuss each of them.InterviewsInterviews are widely used in qualitative research. An interview isdefined as a unilaterally-led conversation with a purpose. The purposes varyfrom obtaining information, construction of the setting by the participants,44reconstruction of the past by the participants, to obtaining interpretations of thesetting from the point of view of different participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985. p.268; Marshall & Rossrnan, 1989, pp. 82-83). The interview allows theparticipants to take the time to reflect upon the issues discussed and observed inthe study. Conversations and interviews are discourses, in which both theresearcher and the participants try to make sense of a situation and mutuallycreate meanings (Mishler, 1 986a; 1 986b).In this study, the interviews were relatively open-ended and non-directive (Harnrnersley & Atkinson, 1983). The interviews vvere semi-structured(Mishler, 1986, Spradley, 1979) allowing for standard questions to be asked ofall the interviewees, while allowing unique directions to be taken, if necessary.The questions were general and their intent was to encourage the intervieweesto engage in a conversation around their participation in the project. Thepurpose of the interviews was twofold: to clarify the motivations of theparticipants in joining, the group, and to discuss the perceptions of theparticipants about the implications of the group meetings on the teachers’practice.Hanirnersley and Atkinson (1983) propose the term “reflexiveinterview”:The main difference between the way in which ethnographers and surveyresearchers ask questions is not, as is sometimes suggested, that one formof interviewing is ‘structured’ and the other is ‘unstructured’. Allinterviews, like any other kind of social interaction, are structured by bothresearcher and informant. The important distinction to be made isbetween standardized and reflextive interviewing. Ethnographers do notdecide beforehand the questions they want to ask, though they may enterthe interview with a list of issues to be covered. Nor do ethnographersrestrict themselves to a single mode of questioning. On differentoccasions, or at different points in the same interview, the approach maybe non-directive or directive, depending on the functioning that thequestioning is intended to serve. (pp. 112-113, italics in the original)45The researcher responds to the comments made by the interviewee and thosecomments shape the direction of the conversation. The interview is regarded as asocial interaction, in which both participants shape and structure the event. Therespondent is encouraged to explore thoughts, beliefs, and concerns that may ormay not be phrased in the questions. Following what may seem to be a tangentin a certain response may lead to new avenues of explorations of theinterviewe&s understanding and perceptions of the study. However, theresearcher does orient the interview questions towards addressing the researchquestions that are guiding the study (Goetz & LeCompte, 1983).All the participants in the group were first interviewed after their initialdecision to join the group. This first interview examined the reasons why theparticipants joined the group and their expectations of the meetings. There wasa second interview after five months (towards the end of the school year, June1993). This interview focused on the interactions and dynamic processes withinthe group as seen by the participants. There were questions about roles ofteachers and university educators, the substantive and structural content of themeetings, the perceptions of the implications of participating in the groupmeetings on teachers! practice and on other staff in the school.The interviews were the opportunities for the participants to voice theirviews about the group. Though there were some discussions in the meetingsabout group dynamics and direction, not everyone was active in thesedeliberations, and thus they used the interviews to express their views. Bothteachers and university educators were interviewed in order to gain insights intothe various perceptions of the project. The principal was also interviewed inorder to examine his perception of the group meetings as a form of professionaldevelopment of the staff, and his understanding of the role the group playedwithin the larger school setting. There was a total of twenty five interviews46ranging from 30 minutes to three hours in length. They were tape-recorded,transcribed, coded and analyzed.Participant observationA main “tool” the researcher uses in qualitative research is observation.Ethnographic observation takes place within the setting and it is usually over anextended period of time ((McI\’Iillan & Schumacher, 1989). The researche?s roleis to record, interpret, and analyze what is observed and thus construct meaningsof the phenomena. Observation provides a “here-and-now” experience of thesetting through the lenses of the researcher.Observation.. .maximizes the inquirer’s ability to grasp motives, beliefs,concerns, interests, unconscious behaviours, customs, and the like;observation ... allows the inquirer to see the world as his subjects see it, tolive in their time frames, to capture the phenomenon in and on its own terms,and to grasp the culture in its own natural, ongoing environment;observation ... provides the inquirer with access to the emotional reactionsof the group introspectively - that is, in a real sense it permits the observer touse himself as a data source; and observation ... allows the observer to buildon tacit knowledge, both his own and that of members of the group (Guba& Lincoln, 1981, p.193).Using participant observation, the researcher is involved in a setting both as a participantand as an observer. Researchers are expected to observe and participate as well as record,compare and analyze, moving back and forth from participating to observing (Wax, 1980).Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) claim that in order to keep both roles, the researchershould maintain a relatively marginal role in the setting. This allows the researcher tosimultaneously maintain the two roles of a participant, and of a detached observer.There has been a shift in the conception of the notion of participant observationin the social science research traditions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The naturalisticparadigm sees the influence of a participant observer on what is observed. “Observationnot only disturbs and shapes but is shaped by what is observed” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,47p. 98). Eisner (1991a develops this point further stating that one observes through thelenses of one’s theories. Jaggar adds that:Just as observation directs, shapes, and partially defines emotions, so too emotiondirects, shapes and even partially defines observation. Observation is not simply apassive process of absorbing impressions or recording stimuli; instead, it is anactivity of selection and interpretation (1989, p. 154).Jaggar discusses the role of the researcher as an interpreter who is actively involved inreciprocal relations with participants and with what is observed. Clifford summarizes thebasic notion of participant observation as a continuous interaction of “inside” and“outside”. He maintains that:“Participant observation” serves as shorthand for a continuous tacking betweenthe “inside” and “outside” of events: on the one hand grasping the sense of specificoccurrences and gestures empathetically, on the other stepping back to situatethese meanings in wider contexts (1988, p. 34).Feminist theorists claim that participant observation is a unique tool forobtaining data and rapport with participants, being aware at the same time of theproblematic issues evolving from the role of the researcher as a participant observer. Theyemphasize issues of power, authority, voice, representation and exploitation(Hollingsworth, 1992; Jaggar, 1989; Roman & Apple, 1990; Stacey, 1988; Britzrnan, 1990;Lather, 1991). They discuss the contradiction between portraying participants as theywould portray themselves, as opposed to describing the participants in ways they couldnot see by themselves (Britzman, 1990).Stacey (1988) claims that the researcher’s notion of an “insider” is an attemptto be authentic, and as much a part of the setting as possible. At the same time, theresearcher tries to maintain a role of a remote “outsider”. Stacey uses harsh terms todescribe this ambivalence in the relationship. She claims that researchers may “exploit” oruse the information that participants share with them. Though there are researcher -researched relationships that can be described as leaning more towards reciprocal thanexploiting, both researchers and participants should be aware of the range of possiblerelations and caution against leaning toward exploitation. Focusing the attention to the48possible benefits for all participants from any research they participate in, and movingaway from the notion that only researchers gain from research, may create a morebalanced relationship between the researcher and the participant. Making the researchagenda explicit, sharing thoughts and the analysis with participants, allows movementtowards a collaborative relationship between the researcher and the participants.Lather (1991), Stacey (1988, Reinhartz (1979), and Harding (1991) discuss thedifficulties with this role of “insider” and “outsider” involved in participant observation.They are concerned with the possibility of the “abuse” of the “tool” and even more sowith the “abuse” of the relationships that develop between participants and researchers.Thus, they encourage researchers to be open about their ideology (Harding, 1990; 1991;Grumet, 1989; 1990; Reinhartz, 1979); and suggest that they become self-reflexive abouttheir research (Lather, 1991; Roman & Apple, 1990; Stacey, 1988; Hollingsworth, 1992).Again, the way to address these concerns is through acknowledging them, being explicitabout the research agenda, taking into account the researcher’s preconceptions of thestudy, and sharing the analysis of the data with the participants.As a participant observer I participated in the meetings that initiated theproject. I participated in the two professional development days for the entirestaff, was involved in composing, administering and analyzing the questionnairesthat led to the creation of the group. I participated in the weekly and bi-weeklymeetings since the inception of the group. I was also a participant observer instaff meetings where the Learning Strategies Group was discussed. Over the lastthree school years there have been more than forty meetings, which were all taperecorded and transcribed. One of my participatory roles was to supply theminutes and the written summaries of strategies aiid procedures tried out by theteachers. However, I have not been an active participant in the meetings insuggesting new procedures or variations of strategies already tried. As a49participant observer, I was involved in a variety of activities in the schoolincluding the following:• Participation and observation in weekly meetings of the group.• Participation in staff meetings which discussed the group.• Participation in organization of questionnaires to the staff in order todetermine and prioritize interests and concerns.• Participation in organization of two professional development days for thestaff.a Participation in organization of a full day workshop for the group participantsat the end of the first school year.a Providing minutes and summaries of strategies discussed in group meetings.a Meeting informally with participants who were interested in conferencepresentations and in writing about the project.• Discussions with administration about the group.In all these different activities, I wrote extensive field notes focusing on the guidingresearch questions. I started the field notes with descriptions of the site (the room wherethe meetings took place), the participants in the meetings, time of arrival, sittingarrangements, roles played in the meetings, order of speaking, and topics covered. I triedto capture as much information as possible. However, later, when I had a betterunderstanding of the nature of the dynamics of the conversations, I could be morefocused in my observation and in my reports in the field notes. The next level of fieldnotes occurred after the meetings, when I started to make sense of what I was observing.I added beginnings of interpretations to what was occurring in the meetings. Then, Ilinked these interpretations to the research questions and to further observations. I wrotequestions I had, and specifically focused on deliberations about situations that were moredifficult to explain. These became the foci of further observations and analyses.50Data AiaalysisThe purpose of the data collection was to have data that enabled “thickdescription” as Geertz (1973) suggests. The interviews and observations oughtto create an in-depth “thick description” of the ways this group of teachers anduniversity educators functioned when they met on a weekly basis, and whatkind of discourse was created amongst the participants. Specifically, the analysisof the data led to an understanding of how the participants used reflectiveconversations, represented in the form of shared situated cases, to capture, reflectand deliberate upon teaching.Data analysis is a synthetic process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985> of makingsense of descriptions, transcripts of meetings and interviews, In order tounderstand and analyze the data, codes and categories were used (Miles &Huberman, 1984; 1986) based on the research questions and the literature thatinformed the study. Using the constant comparative method was a means forderiving grounded theoiy . The analysis entailed four levels of transformation ofthe data. The first level of transformation was the transcripts and field notes fromthe meetings and interviews. The second level of transformation entailedidentifying categories for coding the data and “chunking” a sample of the data toexperiment with the categories. The initial codes were based on the literature ofteachers professional development and collaboration between teachers anduniversity. The focus of these coded units was to establish routines and roles,and examine factors that enhanced or hindered collaboration in that schoolsetting. After the sampling, I omitted some of the categories, and added others.The third level of transformation was a close examination of the discourse in themeetings, analyzing themes that emerged over time. Themes were defined astopics or stories that the participants referred back to over time. These thematic51deliberations were examined drawing upon Schön’s model of reflection-on-action and reflective conversation. The fourth level of transformation wasexamining the themes beyond one meeting, analyzing the ways recurring storieswere represented in shared cases that the participants drew upon in theirdeliberations. In this level there were also claims made about teachers’professional development and collaborative endeavours between university andschool.All four levels of transformation are reported in the following chapters.Chapter Four, demonstrating how the group evolved and developed over time,reports on a level two transformation. Chapters Five and Six, discussing thereflective conversations and the way shared situated cases are created, drawupon levels three and four of transformation. Chapter Seven, discussing theconclusions from this study and its implications to teachers’ professionaldevelopment, also reports on level four transformation.Generalizabilitv of the Data AnalysisThe case study method is useful for understanding different perspectivesand for clarifying processes within specific contexts (Firestone, 1993). Thequestion I face in the analysis of this case study, of the nature of the dynamics ofconversations between teachers and university educators, is the ability togeneralize from the findings. Eisner (1991b) defines generalizing as an act oflearning, or transferring information. He argues:The content we generalize is ideas couched not only in linguistic form, butalso in skills and images. We generalize skills when we know how toapply them in situations other than the ones in which they were initiallylearned, and we generalize images when we use them to search for andfind features of the world that match or approximate the images we haveacquired. Images can function, just as propositions can, as categories thatenable us to seek and sort the world we encounter, They are devicesthrough which our experience is construed. (p. 201)52Thus, in order to be able to transfer, generalize, or learn from this case study, thereader ought to have “thick descriptions”, as Geertz (1973) uses the term, to makeinformed decisions about the similarities and differences between differentcontexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The emphasis on a detailed description,encompassing layers and interactions within the Learning Strategies Group,taking into account multiple voices and different perspectives, allow the reader tolearn from this study and to transfer this knowledge to different sites. Firestone(1993) refers to this extrapolation as case4o—case transfer, and Lincoln and Guba,(1985) use the term transferability.However, generalizability may also refer to expanding theory. As Eisner(1991 b) claims: “. .what we generate through inquiry into educational matters areideas that contribute to the development or refinement of conceptual frameworks,perspectives, or metaphors through which the world is viewed” (p. 210).Generalizing to theory, or analytic generalization, is providing evidence thatsupports theory or links between theories and specific cases (Firestone, 1993, p.8). The analysis of the Learning Strategies Group provides insights and evidenceto Schöns (1983; 1987) notion of reflective conversations, and to Shulrnans(1992) discussions of the use of cases in education. However, the analysis of theLearning Strategies Group provides new insights for these perspectives.Reflective conversations and cases are defined and exemplified in new andbroader terms, thus expanding the initial theoretical perspectives.Timeline of the ResearchThe project described in this study has been an on-going collaborativeendeavour between a group of secondary school teachers and universityeducators. The data for this study were gathered from meetings and interviewsthat took place in the first two school years. However, the university educators53(myself included) continued to participate in the meetings and support. them.Consequently, when there were instances that occurred in the third year and hadimplications to claims made earlier, these were used in order to support the claims.The. project started with initial contacts from the school to the university inOctober 1991. There were two initial meetings, between the professionaldevelopment committee, department heads, administration, and the universityeducators to discuss possible venues of working together. Following thesemeetings, the university educators were introduced at a staff meeting, and thendevised a questionnaire to the staff to prioritize their concerns and interests (seeappendix I). On the basis of this questionnaire the university educatorsconducted a professional development day for the entire staff in December 1991.Subsequently, another questionnaire was distributed to determine staff interest incontinuing to explore the issues of teaching and learning from the firstprofessional development day (see appendix II). Based on the results from thatquestionnaire, a second professional development day was held by the universityeducators in Januaiy 1992, for interested teachers. The group of interestedteachers started meeting with .the university educators on a weekly basis throughJune 1992. In February and March 1992, I conducted the first set of intervie.In June 1992 a full day workshop was run by the university educators, and thesecond set of interviews was conducted. At that time I also interviewed theprincipal. In September 1992 the group resumed its meetings with some changesin personnel. By Januaiy 1993 the group moved to hi-weekly meetings. InMarch 1993 representatives of the group presented at a professional conference.The regular meetings continued till the end of that school year and on to thefollowing school year. In those meetings, the group presented to the rest of thestaff several times its purpose and how it worked.54Table One: Summary of Research4TirnelineOctober 1991 Initial contactsNovember 1991 University educators present at staffmeeting.Meeting of department heads,administration, and universityeducators.First questionnaireDecember 1991 Professional Development DaySecond questionnaireJanuary 1992 Professional Development DayLearning Strategies Group is formedand meets regularly on a weekly basisMarch 1992 First interviewsJune 1992 Full day workshopSecond interviewsSeptember 1992 Bi-weekly meetings continue in thesecond school yearMarch 1993 Conference presentationJune 1993 Meetings continueEnd of data collectionSummary of Chapter ThreeThis chapter laid out the research methods used in the study both tocollect data and to interpret it. This study analyzed the deliberations of a groupof professionals. Qualitative methods best suit this study that focuses on multilayered and multi-faceted dynamic conversations. Thick descriptions and theiranalysis provide the tools to understand how a professional community is createdand developed over time, and what the nature of their discourse is.4This table focuses on the tirneline of the research particularly the data collection. However, the projectcontinued over a longer period of thne and will be discussed in Chapter Four.Group meetings and interviews were the main sources of the data. Theresearch tools, participant observation and interview were discussed both ingeneral terms and within the specific context of this study. The methods ofanalysis and interpretation of the data were brought forth and so were the levelsof transformation of the data. A discussion of the significance of the study and itsgene ralizability both to other cases and to theory followed. The last section gavean overview of the timeline of the research and the data collection. The nextchapter examines the development of the collaborative endeavour in theLearning Strategies Group.56Chapter FourThe Development of the Process of Collaboration BetweenTeachers and University EducatorsThis chapter lays out the development of a collaborative endeavour betweenteachers and university educators from the preliminary steps of negotiations betweenthe participants to the formation of the Learning Strategies Group and its evolutionover more than two school years. The description of the project entails the initialnegotiations, the reasons the participants joined the group, the roles of theparticipants, the substantive and structural contents of the meetings and the waythey shifted over time.Chronology of the ProjectThe project was initiated by a secondary school professional developmentcommittee who wanted to explore possibilities of a professional development day forthe staff. This evolved to an examination of the interests and concerns of the staffand led to two professional development days around issues of learning andteaching. The university educators planned and conducted these two days. Theinitial contacts took place between October 1991 and January 1992. The result ofthe second professional development day was a decision to form the LearningStrategies Group. The group met regularly for over two school years, starting withweekly meetings and then moving to bi-weekly ones. At the end of the first schoolyear the participants met for a full day to discuss the direction the group should takein the following year. Over the second year some members of the group prepared apresentation at a conference to discuss the project. In the third year the teachersdecided to recruit more teachers to participate. They also considered meeting withother professional development groups of teachers from different schools.57Table Two: Tirneline of the ProjectOctober 1991 Initial contactsNovember 1991 Meeting of department heads, administration.and university educators.First questionnaireUniversity educators present at a staff meetingDecember 1991 Professional Development Day run by theuniversity educatorsSecond questionnaireJanuary 1992 Professional Development Day run by theuniversity educators and geared for interestedteachersLearning Strategies Group is formedWeekly meetingsJune 1992 Full day workshop for the participants run bythe university educatorsSeptember 1992 Bi-weekly meetingsMarch 1993 Professional conference presentation by threeteachers and a university educatorJune 1993 The participants decide to continue meetingthe following school yearSeptember 1993-present Bi-weekly meetingsExploring possible writing venuesPreliminaries to the Formation of the GroupThe project evolved from an initiative of the professional developmentcommittee at the school that examined possibilities of professional development toincorporate university educators and teachers. In October 1991 the teachereducators met with the school professional development committee, administrationand department heads to determine the teachers needs and expectations. Theparticipants in this meeting tried to articulate the teachers’ concerns based on themission statement of the school. As a result of that meeting the staff completed aquestionnaire (see appendix I) in order to identify and prioritize their concerns about58learning and teaching. On the basis of that questionnaire the university educatorsplanned a professional development day focusing on specific strategies to encouragestudents to become active learners. Subsequently, the university educators devised asecond questionnaire (see appendix II) in order to determine teachers’ interest inpursuing the issues raised in the first professional development day. The secondquestionnaire also detected any concerns and objections of the staff concerning theformation of a group within the school that would focus on enhancing students’involvement in their learning. The university educators clarified to the staff that theysaw the professional development days as a possible first step in a collaborativeprofessional development project. Out of the total number of respondents to thequestionnaire, fourteen teachers did not object to the project but were not interestedin taking part in it, four teachers were committed to participating in an on-goinggroup even before the second professional development day, and eleven teacherswere interested in a second professional development day in order to decide abouttheir participation in the group. Mi of the teachers who were not interested injoining specifically stated that they did not object to having such a group in theschool. At the end of the second professional development day, a group of nineteachers and four university educators formed the Learning Strategies Group (LSG)to begin exploring ways of enhancing active learning through weekly meetingswhere teaching and learning were discussed.The Participants’ Reasons for Joining the GroupThe teachers had a variety of reasons for joining the group. The mostcommon one was the need for a place to share their ideas and to give and receivesupport on a regular basis. Several teachers linked this need of support andsharing with a focus on encouraging students to become active and independentlearners.59In the interviews some teachers stated other reasons for joining the group.Mark said that he liked to try out adventurous new things in his teaching andafter the professional development days the ideas of quality learning seemed tohim to fit well with his teaching. Melissa said she had been a counselor for manyyears and now that she was back in the classroom she was seeking support fromcolleagues and a place to share new teaching strategies. She added, that activelearning was a key component of her teaching, and she considered it as the rightway to prepare kids to live in modern society. Barbara added another dimension,to her decision to join, relating it to being involved in staff activities and findingher place among the staff as a new person joining the school:I joined the group for many reasons, three of which are: One, I’m new inthe school. It’s my first year here, so it’s a way to find out what’s going onand to, I feel, to be with teachers who are really interested in raisingstandards and trying something innovative. The second reason is,because of the course work Pm doing at the university, it ties in verynicely. And the third reason is that we are looking at Curriculum 2000,which is a brand new curriculum, so I’m sort of seeing how I can use what Iam learning in this group at a professional level. So, it’s real selfishreasons. (Interview, 9.3. 92)Though Barbara did not, at first, give reasons similar to other teachers, she talkedabout ways in which she could use the group both in her socialization within theschool and in her practice.The university educators joined the group because of their interest inteachers’ professional development as an on-going, long-term process and as aresult of their belief in the part collaboration between teachers and universityeducators can play in the professional development process. Two of theuniversity educators had previously been involved in a similar project and sawthe LSG as another way to foster teachers’ professional development. Jim andJanet were interested in exploring teachers’ professional development through60collaboration with university educators in a new context. Discussing his reasonsfor joining the LSG, Jim said:I can see changes occurring in a school. Another reason I do it is thatI get all these new ideas for my ow classroom, it enriches my ownworking knowledge. And a third reason is ... to have an on-going relationwith the schools. (Interview, 12.3.92)When Gary talked about his reasons for joining the group he focused on theimportance of teachers’ professional development through collaborativerelationships between university educators and teachers:I was looking for ways of getting teacher groups potentially startedwhile they [the two teacher educators from Australia] were here to drawupon their expertise. And the second [reasoni is that it does indeed seemto me like a reasonable model of teacher development. A more of a schoolbased model where the teachers have more control and moreresponsibility for their professional development, at the same timerecognizing the important and critical role of support structures that needto be in place in order for that to happen. (Interview, 16.4.92.)My reason for joining the group was my interest in teachers’ professionaldevelopment. I wanted the opportunity to closely study a collaborativeendeavour from its initial steps and through its later development, believing, thatcollaboration between teachers and university educators may lead to the creationof a community of professionals who focus on improving teaching.Although the participants had different motivations for joining the groupand attending the meetings, they all shared the view that they may benefit fromdiscussing teaching and learning. All the participants had a commonunderstanding that sharing, deliberating and reflecting upon teaching strategieswas worthwhile. They all viewed teachers’ professional development as a longterm endeavour, that enriched all of its participants’ professional knowledge.61The Goals of the Project and How they ShiftedWhen the participants joined the group they had a list of concerns thatthey identified and prioritized:• How do we encourage independent learning and critical thinking as opposedto rote learning?• How do we encourage higher level thinking such as critical and reflective thatwill lead to self-assessment and self evaluation?• How do we “harness” the students’ verbal activity and energy in a positiveway to focus on thinking and learning?• How do we promote students’ attitudes that value intellectual challenge asopposed to “Make me learn! or “Is it for marks?” types of attitudes?• How do we design learning activities that encourage active learning?• How do we develop evaluation measures to match the types of learning weseek?The participants composed this list of concerns on the basis of the school’smission statement (that many of the teachers had been involved in creating) andon their perception of their weaknesses as teachers, and those of their students.These concerns became the goals of the Learning Strategies Group. They wantedto encourage independent learning, and thinking that led to self assessment.They wanted to promote student attitudes that value intellectual challenges, andsought to develop evaluation measures to match these types of learning.There were very few explicit discussions about these concerns (except forthe meeting on 6.3.92). However, in the full day meeting (.17.6.92) theparticipants examined the strategies in relation to these goals. All the strategiesthe teachers brought to the discussion matched these initial goals, and all thegoals were addressed. When the participants were considering the second year,they maintained that they wanted again to focus on these goals. However, they62could define them in more specific terms, since they had a clearer understandingof the group deliberations.In the second year the participants decided to emphasize integrationbetween different subjects, focusing on links both through themes and skills.They wanted to inform staff and recruit more people to join the group. They werelooking for ways to link school work to students’ lives. The participants alsowanted to encourage parents’ involvement in the students’ learning. Linkingbecame a thread that wove the concerns and goals of the second and third yearsof the project.The Development of Roles Within the GroupAs the meetings started (January 1992) the university educators suggestedthat the group nominate a chairperson, who would prepare the weekly agenda,and liaise with the university educators. The teachers reacted immediately to thatsuggestion and decided that they wanted that role to be shared and rotatedamong them every four weeks. One teacher volunteered to be the firstchairperson and then the role rotated alphabetically through the teachers.Teachers chaired the meetings and took responsibility for the agenda. Althoughthere were different styles of chairing, there were some elements common to allthe chairpersons. Whoever chaired set the agenda, ensured that everyone whowanted to share got “air-time” in the meeting, and encouraged teachers toparticipate in the discussions. After chairing for four weeks, the teacher whochaired was more aware of the participants’ needs and concerns.Thus, since the role rotated between the different teachers, they all becamevery sensitive to each other’s needs, concerns and requests from the meetings.Finding data to substantiate this claim has been difficult as the change observedwas not only expressed in verbal comments. On many occasions the people who63had already chaired waited longer in the meetings before they brought to thediscussion stories and problems from their classrooms. They encouraged otherteachers to use meeting time and allowed them priority. Verbal comments thatsupported that claim were sparse but clear. For example, after Mark finished histurn as a chairperson he was still in tune to the needs of other participants andtook the responsibility to ask clarifying questions:I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at, what is the goal you are trying toachieve. (Fieldnotes, 21.2.92)Later on in that meeting he complimented Barbara for the strategy she shared.After Barbara finished her rotation as a chairperson she, on more than oneoccasion, still considered the needs of other teachers for “air time” before takingthe time herself,Come on, Karen, please tell us. (Fieldnotes, 8.5.92)Liaising with the teacher educators was shared among all the teachers. None ofthe teachers took the responsibility to discuss the agenda with the universityeducators prior to the meetings. That shaped the advisory role of the universityeducators. They responded to teachers’ requests and wishes and they did notfrequently initiate topics. They did not run the meetings, nor did they bringexternal material unless it was in response to something the teachers brought.The decision to have a rotating chairperson affected the collaboration with theuniversity educators. In other similar projects (Baird & Mitchell, 1987) theuniversity educators were in close contact with one or two chairpersons. Anagenda was decided upon collaboratively and the university educators onoccasion provided theoretical elements to the discussions. In the LearningStrategies Group the teachers were clear that they did not want that kind ofinvolvement. When on one occasion a university educator tried to initiate adiscussion that seemed somewhat more remote from immediate classroom64practices the teachers resisted (I will examine that incident more in depth whendiscussing the interplay between theory and practice in Chapter Six).The weekly meetings of the LSG helped change teachers! perceptions oftheir roles as teachers. These deliberations provided the teachers withrecognition and support. Support for risk taking was particularly important.Recognition by colleagues and by teacher educators was a new experience formost of the teachers. In the first months the group met the teachers focused onstrategies that they had tried in their classrooms. However, over time thediscussions shifted from focusing solely on each class to issues that linked classesand teachers. The role of the teachers was perceived as extending beyond oneclassroom,. The teachers discussed team teaching, and coming to observe eachother teaching . Integration between subjects was done both through themesand learning skills. One example was when Alice and Barbara decided to teamteach a unit of mythology (Fieldnotes, 18.11.92) focusing both on English andsocial studies. Another was when Alice invited Karen to observe her class andprovide her with feedback related to the group’s deliberation (Fieldnotes,13.3.92). The teachers saw the benefits of collaborating beyond their oiclassrooms. Their perception of their isolation as teachers gradually shifted withthe discussions about new strategies and with team teaching.In the early months the teachers focused on their classrooms and did notsee the benefit of reaching out whether inside or outside the school. Karen saidat an interview:I don!t want to be taken out of my classroom for any kind of professionaldevelopment in this area. I guess, I really want to keep it in my owntime and class. Partly because I hate preparing for subs because it!s reallyhard, and I just, you know, Pm there to be a teacher in the classroom.this is my job. (Interview, 9.3.92)Over time this changed as the teachers saw the importance of professionaldevelopment of teachers on staff and in other schools. Towards the end of the65first school year, the participants discussed reaching out to the rest of the staff.Pat argued:I think it is our obligation to inspire our own colleagues. ... I think weshould expand the group .... I think we should make it a goal to fly andbring on more people. (Fieldnotes, 17.6.92)In that meeting Mark considered the possibility of running a professionaldevelopment day for the staff. In the second school ye.ar three teachers and oneof the university educators decided to present the project at a conference, Theparticipants acknowledged the importance of discussing their professionaldevelopment with other professionals. Though the priority in the meetings wasfinding strategies that enhance students! active involvement in the learningprocess the teachers saw some merit in involving other staff members andcolleagues.Analyzing the roles the university educators played in the projectindicates that these roles developed and changed over time. The universityeducators took the initial invitation from the school and built on it. Early on theystated to the professional development committee that if there were members ofthe staff who were keen on joining the project the university educators werecommitted to supporting it. However, the university educators wanted neither tolead or control the group meetings, nor did they have a clear vision of theirdirection. Gary described his role in these terms:I guess, I see our role [the university educators] as being one of beginningto get them [the teachers] to become a bit more reflective about the moregeneral aims rather than the kind of specific instance. (Interview, 6.4.92)Jim emphasized his keen interest in theory and practice:The idea is that w&re looking for interplay between theory and practice.That to me is a given for my participation in the group. (interview 12.3.92)When asked about her role, Janet discussed being a resource person:66That’s the kind of resource role. They want to draw on our experience andhave some of the strategies explained a bit more, in a bit more detail, Isuppose, and have us maybe make suggestions. (Interview, 5.3.92)At the initial meetings the teacher educators perceived their role as providing thetheory behind teaching strategies which enhance active learning, abstractingfrom teachers’ examples, and providing more examples for the strategies theteachers proposed. They saw their role as providing support, recognition andencouragement for the teachers. They drew from their past experience and fromresearch to discuss both the strategies and the group processes they observed inthe meetings.The teachers did not have a clear understanding of the universityeducators’ roles and purposes in the project. Throughout the first school year theteachers questioned the role of the teacher educators. When asked in theinterviews about the teacher educators, teachers still wondered about thedifferent roles they played. Mark said,I think obviously the initial impetus [for the project] came from theuniversity people, so I think it’s good. I think they have a lot to contribute.Obviously they are the ones that contributed the germ of the idea, if youlike, to begin with and they are helping us to follow that through, soI’m very much in favor of them. But I guess if they drop out at some point,that’s fine, because I think the group has got started and I think that it nowhas some idea where it can go. But you know, .... in a sense the morepeople are interested in it and can contribute ideas the better. (Interview,28.2.92)As time progressed the teachers had a better understanding of the role theuniversity educators played in the project as they saw the kind of input theuniversity educators had in the meetings. Nelly defined the university educator’srole:To me he’s [the teacher educatorl there as an observer and a facilitator ifwe need him. (Interview, 27.11.92)Barbara added about the teacher educators:67We use their expertise. (Interview ,9.3.92)Susan was more direct in the role she attributed to the university educators:The contact with Jim and Janet and Gaiy has given it [the projecti anotheredge. Pm wondering if a group could actually keep going without thatexternal thing. (Interview, 19.6.92)The university educators took upon themselves organizational duties,particularly with contacting agencies outside the group. At the end of the firstschool year the university educators planned, organized, and conducted a longermeeting in which the participants reflected on the past meetings and planned thesecond school year. Since they had more experience and the teachers felt thestress of the end of a school year, the university educators took charge of thatevent. In that long meeting the routines, roles, purposes and substance of theproject were examined and revisited. The participants also discussed the nextschool year.My original role was to document and analyze the process of thiscollaborative professional development. Initially I did not know what that wouldentail. However, I taped the weekly meetings, transcribed the tapes, preparedminutes and summaries of meetings, and distributed them to the participants thefollowing week. I also wrote extensive fieldnotes and analyzed the accumulatingdata. Over time I assumed more roles. I interviewed each participant twice, onceat the beginning of the weekly meetings and a second time at the end of the firstschool year. The interviews allowed the participants the time and opportunity toreflect upon the process they were involved in. Interacting with the participantson a long term basis and analyzing the process allowed the participants to get toknow me and trust me and the role I played in the project. As Mark said in thesecond interview:you werent there .... in the sense of influencing in one way or the otherbut I think your presence is known and welcome, but you don’t really tryto shape [the project] and design it and influence it. (Interview, 19.6.92)68At the end of the second school year, when the teachers reflected on the projectthey acknowledged that my role was important (a) in setting continuity andsupport, and (b) in allowing the participants to set the agenda and direction.Susan described how she perceived my role:your service to the group ... you are kind of facilitating and you aredefinitely keeping out of decisions ... you don’t interfere in that sense. It’skind of like a presence. But you have now become very incorporated.We are on a friendship base with you. (Interview, 19.6.92)When I examined my role and analyzed the fieldnotes it seemed clear thatI had a need to be supported too. My main support came from informalconversations after the meetings with the university educators. Theseconversations gave a new perspective on my thoughts, observations, andanalyses of the meetings and interviews. The opportunity to discuss issues in aninformal setting, without teachers, allowed me to regain some distance andcontinue with the analysis.The Substantive Content of the MeetingsThe group agreed to meet once a week before school for forty fiveminutes. The purpose of the meetings was to provide the teachers with a forum inwhich they could share with other colleagues, both teachers and universityeducators concerns about teaching. In that forum the teachers could discussspecific teaching strategies, experiment, plan, and share difficulties in a supportivesetting.From the first meetings, January 1992, the content consisted of issues oforganization and structure, and substance. The group made decisions aboutchairing the meetings, agenda, confidentiality, when and where to meet, howoften to meet and for how long. Another structural feature the group discussedwas how’ to ensure that “air time” was divided in ways that addressed all the69participants’ needs. There were many discussions at the beginning of the projectabout forming routines. However, those. were not exclusive to the earlymeetings. The participants revisited some of those issues throughout the twoyears, elaborating or modifying the established routines in order to meet newconcerns and needs.As early as the first meeting and through all the meetings the teachersshared teaching strategies. An analysis of the substance of the meetings revealsthat the participants discussed subject specific topics, generic teaching skills andstrategies, meta content (for example, discussions of the relationship betweentheoiy and practice), and the process of professional development in which theywere involved (see appendix III). The teachers brought to the meetingsprocedures and strategies that they had tried in class. These were deliberated onand shaped through the conversations among all the participants. During thegroup deliberations they discussed strategies of learning and teaching that wouldenhance students’ active learning. The teachers adapted strategies presented inthe group meetings in order to fit their students’ needs and the subjects they wereteaching. When the teachers brought to the meetings strategies that they hadtried in their classes, the university educators linked them either to other examplesfrom different subject areas or to principles of teaching that encourage students’active learning. The participants asked clarifying questions, and in many casesrelated the strategies to their subjects and prior experience. These deliberationsgave the teachers the opportunity to reflect on strategies that they had used andto decide how they would use them again.A close examination of the substantive content of the meetings indicatesthat there are some recurring thematic topics, that is topics that teachers raisetime and again to re-examine, re-assess, modify or clarify. The thematic topics are:1) the variety of ways to visually present materials to students; 2) the techniques70for students to summarize written material; 3) the assessment and evaluationstrategies which meet the specific goals of teaching that enhance students’involvement in their learning; 4 the complexities associated vth using newteaching strategies; 5) the interplay between theory and practice; 6) the use ofmodels and structure in order to encourage students to be creative; and 7) the useof linking strategies between subjects, within subjects, and between school workand students’ lives.Visual PresentationWhen the participants discuss visual presentation of written material they refer totechniques that allow students to represent written material in a variety of ways.Different forms of presentation enhance students’ understanding of texts.Exemplaiy techniques of visual representation were:o Sociograrn (Fieldnotes, 24.1.92; 12.93; 17.2.93)• Grid (Fieldnotes, 14.2.92)• Diagram; Flowchart; Concept map (Fieldnotes, 6.3.92; 3.3.93; 25.3.92)• Chart (Fieldnotes, 28.2.92; 8.5.92)• Poster (Fieldnotes, 28.2.92)In these deliberations the participants shared and discussed a variety of methodsto present written texts. They emphasized that moving from one method ofrepresentation of ideas to another was an important learning skill because itfocused on inter-relationships, and enhanced new levels of understanding of thetext.Writin2 Techniques and Strate giesWriting was one of the topics that teachers from a variety of subjects had incommon. The participants claimed that writing skills were pertinent tools of5 The dates indicate the frequency of occurences. but not the time spent. on each technique in the meeting.71learning, and thus, discussed a wide range of techniques to teach students toimprove their writing.Exernplaiy techniques of writing were:• Modeling and using structures in creative writing (Fieldnotes 28.2.92;13.3.92; 18.11.92; 25.11.92; 9.12.92; 3.3.93)• Summary (Fieldnotes, 31.1.92)• Use of a grid as a basis to writing an essay (Fieldnotes, 31.1.92)• Journal (Fieldnotes, 8.5.92).• In class essay wiiting(Fieldnotes, 23.9.92; 18.11.92),• Book report (Fieldnotes, 25.11.92)• Paragraph writing (Fieldnotes, 18.11.92; 25.11.92; 9.12.92,)• Grammar as a writing tool (Fieldnotes, 6.1.93)• Writing a chapter review ( Fieldnotes, 3.2.93)• Writing as a thinking skill (Ficidnotes 17.2.93)• Use of metaphors (Fieldnotes, 25.3.93; 7.4.93)The participants shared the understanding that writing was an important skillacross the different subjects, and thus, they discussed at length possible links andstrategies for the different subjects with regard to writing. They felt it was theresponsibility of teachers in the different subjects (not just those teachingEnglish) to emphasize and teach writing skills. One way some teachers addressedthe need to emphasize writing skills was team teaching of English and socialstudies.Assessment and EvaluationThe participants perceived assessment and evaluation as an integral part oflearning. They wanted students to become more involved in making decisionsabout what and how to evaluate their learning and the products of their learning.Exemplary techniques of assessment and evaluation were:72a Students determined criteria for assessment and evaluated each other’sprojects and their owi work (Fieldnotes, 13.3.92)• Teachers modeled how to evaluate oral presentations and then studentsevaluated them (Fieldnotes, 7.2.92)a Teachers used assessment criteria negotiated with students ( Fieldnotes,21.2.92)• Portfolio in their assessment ( Fieldnotes, 6.3.92; 27.3.93)a Assessment of group work and process and not just the final product(Fieldnotes, 20.1.93)• Interim assessment of progress in long projects (3.2.93)Assessment became an integral part of the learning experience that involvedstudents’ input and decision making.Complexity of Experimenting with New Teaching StrategiesSince teachers were experimenting with new teaching strategies they observedand discussed its complexities (Fieldnotes, 31.1.92; 7.2.92; 18.11.92). Theparticipants discussed how to learn from these first attempts so that they couldmodify them in the future. They learned from students’ comments and reactions,and from the group discussions both prior to and after teaching.Exemplary techniques of teaching new strategies were:• I\/Iodeling and using structures in creative witing (Fieldnotes 28.2.92;13.3.92; 18J1.92; 25.11.92; 9.12.92: 3.3.93; 7.4.93)• Discussions of new strategies with students (Fieldnotes 28.2.92; 6.3.92;25.3.92; 27.3.92; 18.11.92; 25.3.93)• Students learn through teaching (Fieldnotes 8.5.92)a Risk taking as a part of learning (Fieldnotes, 6.3.92; 13.3.92)73The participants discussed teachers’ difficulties when they used new strategies.Teachers, university educators, and students discussed learning, and they startedto share a vocabulaiy to deliberate upon teaching and learning.Interplay between Theory and PracticeIn early meetings the teachers emphasized that they wanted the deliberations tobe practical. They saw little purpose in theoretical discussions. However,gradually the participants identified the group discussions as processes oftheorizing, making sense of practice. Group conversations allowed theparticipants to evaluate and analyze teaching, and to generate new teachingstrategies. i\s the participants firmed their theories about teaching and learningthey explored other theories too (Fieldnotes 6.3.92; 13.3.92; 25.3.93; for adetailed analysis see Chapter Six)Linkin2 Between Subjects, Within Subjects, and Between School and Students’LivesThe participants discussed using linking as a teaching tool. They understood theimportance of discussing teaching techniques and strategies. They claimed thatusing linking was an efficient strategy to enhance students’ awareness of andactive involvement in their learning.Exemplaiy types of linking were:• Linking between subjects (Fieldnotes 24.1.92; 31.1.92; i4.292; 6.3.92;27.3.92; 17.6.92; 23.9.92; 14.10.92; 18.11.92; 25.11.92: 9.12.92; 3.2.93)• Linking within subjects (Fieldnotes 24.1.92; 31.1.92; 28.2.92; 6.3.92,8.5.92; 17.6.92; 18.11.92; 9.12.92: 3.2.93; 25.3.93)• Linking between students’ lives and school (Fieldnotes 6.3.92; 17.6.92;23.9.92; 16.6.93)74There were many deliberations about techniques that make links explicit tostudents as a part of their learning. The participants perceived linking as a tool toachieve the goals of students’ active involvement in their learning. Therefore, thegroup specified linking as one of the goals for the second year (see furtheranalysis in Chapter Six).Other topics that the participants addressed were the important role ofdiscussing the learning strategies with students, thus, developing a language todiscuss learning (Fieldnotes 31.1.92; 28.2.92; 27.3.92); the importance ofexamining the processes within the group and how these processes evolved(Fieldnotes, 21.2.92; 28.2.92; 8.5.92; 17.6.92; 30.9.92; 16.6.93) the students’reactions to teaching with a focus on active learning (Fieldnotes, 21.2.92).Shifts in the Substantive Content of the MeetingsIn the first months of meetings, teachers discussed only tested strategies,most of which were successful. They leaned on examples from their pastrepertoire as teachers. The participants linked the strategies to their subjects andto generic teaching strategies that enhance students’ active learning. Graduallyteachers added two new dimensions to the deliberations. On the one hand theyshared difficulties and failures, and on the other, they used the meeting time forplanning. As a result of the development of a supportive and trustingatmosphere, the teachers felt safe to take risks and publicly share theiruncertainties with the others. They brought to the discussion “tentativestrategies”, attempts to address specific learning skills, and not only well triedstrategies and procedures. Consequently, in the second and third years (1992-1994) there were both deliberations of successful and unsuccessful strategies, anddiscussions of planning. In their discussions, the participants searched for linkswithin subjects, between subjects, and to students’ life experiences. They were75engaged in conversations around issues of integration between subjects,evaluation and assessment, and generic teaching strategies which enhancestudents growth toward becoming independent learners. nalysis of transcriptsof the meetings indicates that in the later meetings, when the group was wellestablished, the teachers used the opportunity to share in a slightly different way.When the teachers brought forth subject specific strategies that they had tried orhad planned, they linked them to the principles of active learning. They did notjust share the strategy, but they linked it to other strategies the group had alreadyshared, and to the initial goals of the group.In the first months of meetings the university educators initiated most ofthe discussions about the professional development process in which they wereinvolved. They encouraged the teachers to examine the process they wereengaged in, relating it to their initial goals and concerns. In one of the meetings(Fieldnotes, 6.3.92) one of the university educators suggested that the groupexamine the strategies proposed up to that time and relate them to the initialgoals. The teachers’ responses indicated that they were hesitant. The interviewshappened close to that event, allowing me to ask about their reactions. Oneteacher, who had brought a strategy and samples of students’ work to thatmeeting, felt she did not have enough time to discuss that strategy. She felt thatthe priority in the meeting should be sharing strategies and not examining thegroup progress. Other teachers commented that they did not want thedeliberations to become theoretical and thus removed from classroom practice(Chapter Six provides a more detailed analysis of this tension between theory andpractice).However, in June 1992, at the end of school year, the participants met for afull day to reflect on their achievements and to plan the group meetings for thesecond school year. At that time, all the participants found it extremely useful to76analyze the group processes in conjunction with looking at the strategies theyhad presented in the meetings. These discussions that examined both thestructure and substance of the meetings were thought by the teachers to beinformative, though they did not link directly to classroom practice.As I discussed earlier, there were some personnel changes in the secondschool year (1992-1993). Two university educators and one teacher left. Threeteachers came sporadically and one joined the group. The group became morehomogeneous with a strong emphasis on humanities. This was a shift from thefirst year when the group was heterogeneous, having teachers who taughtdifferent subjects. Consequently, in the first year the strategies were oftendiscussed in such ways that they could be accommodated in different subjects.The group was aware of teachers need to translate activities from what theyheard in meetings to their specific contexts in order to make them relevant. Theparticipants focused on links between subjects though these were not alwayseasy to find. In the second year, when the group was more homogeneous thestrategies were more subject specific. The skills were also subject specific and thelinks between the humanities subjects were easily made.At the end of the second year (June, 1993) the teachers from the Alternateschool expressed the feeling that their concerns were not met and that thetranslations they had to do from what was presented at the meetings to theirreality were huge. This concern was addressed in occasional discussionsfocusing specifically on the Alternate school and strategies that would applythere (for example, Fieldnotes, 31.1 .92;7.2.92; 8.5.92; 13.10.93). Throughout thewhole project the paiticipants have been aware of the need to address all theteachers needs and realities and share the time in the meetings in ways thatbenefited all the participants in the group.77Contacts Within the SchoolIn the first year the participants decided to meet on their own time, and hadvery little contact with people at their school about the Learning Strategies Group.Toward the end of the first school year (June, 1992) the administration approachedthe participants and offered meeting time within the time-table. The teachers rejectedthe offer for two reasons. The first was that meeting during the school day wouldhave eliminated the participation of the teachers from the Alternate school. Theteachers felt strongly that any teacher who wished to participate in the group shouldnot be excluded. The second reason was that the teachers were concerned that ifthey met on the time-table they would lose their autonomy. They maintained thatmeeting on their own time, before school started, or meeting over a weekend allowedthem to have complete control over the agenda, the pace of the project and itsdirections. From the initial meetings the teachers indicated that they wanted to feelresponsible for the process they were involved in. They did not want theadministration or the university educators to set the agenda or to dictate thedirection of the meetings. They maintained that they did not want this group tobecome “a feather in someone’s hat (i.e. the administration or the universityeducators) and that they were meeting because of their mutual interest inincorporating active learning skills in their teaching, and in the sharing ofprofessional knowledge. Although there was a specific request, the teachers decidednot to distribute the minutes to the administration.The principal, as well as offering to allow teachers to meet on time-table,found financial support for a full day meeting towards the end of the first schoolyear. The administration did not participate in the group on a regular basis.However, occasionally the principal joined the meetings. Over time, there had been ashift in the attitude of the administration toward the project which may indicate itsdevelopment. In the early months the administration was passively supportive in78that they allowed the professional development days to occur, and then allowed theteachers to meet. Through the principal came to one meeting (7.2.92) he was notinvolved in determining the group’s direction. Towards the end of the first schoolyear (May 1992) the principal offered to arrange the time-table for the next year tosuit the needs of the participants. That indicated that he saw it as positive that thegroup continued to meet, and saw its role as an important form of professionaldevelopment within the school.In the second school year (20.1.93) the principal came to a group meeting todiscuss an innovation he was thinking of implementing with regard to assessment.The principal was exploring assessment and evaluation methods that suitedcooperative learning and group work. The principal regarded the group as apotential vehicle for change within the school. Discussion of the potential changesand the suggestion that the group participants lead a professional developmentevent for the staff indicated the importance the principal attached to the group. Thisvalidated and supported the participants. In summary, though, the principal has notbeen a leading force in the project, he has been supportive of it.In a day long debriefing of that year (17.6. 92) the teachers expressed adesire to reach out and recruit more teachers to the group. They agreed to sharewith the staff a booklet that I had compiled of the strategies they had tried andshared in the meetings. These were the first attempts to reach beyond the group.The group continued to reach out to the staff on a few occasions. First, theteachers invited other teachers to present at a meeting (18.11.92). Second, one ofthe teachers decided to invite her student teacher to the meetings. Third, at thebeginning of the third school year (October 1993), the participants presented theLearning Strategies Group at a staff meeting, welcoming teachers to join.79Contacts Outside the SchoolThere were limited influences on the project from outside the schoolOccasionally teachers discussed the provincial examinations the students weretaking at the end of grade 12 (Fieldnotes, 7.2.92; 14.2.92; 7.4.93; 21.4.93). Theteachers expressed the tension between teaching that encouraged students tobecome active independent learners and one that was geared to externalexaminations. The teachers considered the possibility of teachers in lower gradesfocusing on the new strategies. They also believed that teaching that focused onactive learning may be time consuming, however in the long run, since studentsbecame independent learners, they would be well prepared to take the examinations.The group had to make financial decisions that concerned external influences.At the full day meeting (17.6.92) one of the teachers brought a proposal to theparticipants. She said that the group could apply for a Site Development Grant fromthe Provincial Ministry of Education in order to fund substitute teachers for theparticipants in the group. The discussion on the topic was long and fierce. Someparticipants felt they would like the support and recognition, whereas others feltstrongly that by accepting such a grant the group would not be autonomous. Theresult was a decision not to apply for the grant, but to remain autonomous and smallin scope. This topic was not raised again that year. However, at the end of thesecond school year (June, 1993) another suggestion came up in the meeting.Someone from the School Board who occasionally participated in the meetings,suggested that the group apply for a grant. Though the end result here too, was thatno application was filed, the reaction was much milder. No one wanted to take onthe burden of negotiating for the grant and there was no immediate need for funds,so the topic was dropped. It was interesting to note that the suggestion was metwith less animosity.80The Development of the Learning Strategies Group Compared With OtherGroup Development ModelsAn examination of the Learning Strategies Group in terms of Kagan’s (1991)proposed model indicates both similarities and differences. Kagan (1991) primarily,discusses a professional development model in which the purpose wasimplementation of a specific curriculum. The Learning Strategies Group’s purposewas to create a time and place where teachers could share their practice withcolleagues in order to improve it. Thus, the initial phase was different from the oneKagan (1991) presented. The teachers and university educators discussed thecharacteristics of teaching which enhanced active learning. Then they negotiatedhow and when they could start the collaborative partnership in order to promotestudents’ active learning. They defined goals, as Kagan (1991) proposes, focusing onteaching strategies which enhance active learning. After the first school year, theparticipants re-examined their goals and planned the next year of collaborativeexploration. They decided to focus on links in subjects, between subjects, andbetween school and students’ lives. They also agreed to invite more teachers to jointhe group. The third, fourth, and fifth stages that Kagan (1991) proposes melt intothe development of the Learning Strategies Group. The Learning Strategies Groupdid not progress in a linear way as suggested by Kagan (1991). The direction,agenda, and purposes were constantly negotiated and examined.Cole and Knowles (1993) analyze partnerships between teachers anduniversity educators. They focus on research done both by teachers and byuniversity educators. The phases they propose pertain to research, data analysis andrepresentation, and reporting on the data. The Learning Strategies Group’scollaborative relationship focused on sharing the participants expertise andexperience in order to improve their practice. Thus, there was no need to gatherinformation, interpret it, or report it beyond the meetings. However, in the meetings,81the participants did gather information through the minutes and summaries of newstrategies. They examined and reflected upon the strategies periodically in order tomake decisions about the meetings. Cole and Knowles (1993) analyze the impact oftime and place to meet, personnel, confidentiality, and control on collaborativestudies. These factors were also observed and analyzed in the LSG meetings.The development of the Learning Strategies Group is similar to phasesdiscussed in the Bell and GilbeWs (1993) model. For example, the teachers in bothstudies, saw the value of collaboration as a solution to their isolation as teachers, theteachers tried out new teaching strategies for their classrooms, and the participantsdealt with the constraints of the project and found creative solutions to them.However, the overall picture of the Learning Strategies Group is slightly differentfrom the one portrayed by Bell and Gilbert (1993). They propose three sequentialphases for the teachers in collaborative projects. In the LSG the teachers did notseem to move from the social to the professional and then the personal phase. Thatcould perhaps be explained by the fact that all the teachers in the LSG knew eachother and worked together at the same school, whereas in the project discussed byBell and Gilbert (1993) teachers came from different schools. Knowing each othermay have made the first meetings easier. The teachers knew who they were workingwith, and though they were participating in a new project of professionaldevelopment they knew many of their partners. Though the teachers did not knowthe university educators, they had time to observe them and listen to their views inthe two professional development days and developed a positive attitude towardsthem. Still, at times throughout the first school year, there were small incidents ofuneasiness in the group resulting from teachers not knowing the universityeducators, or understanding their role.Another important reason for a difference between the development of theLSG and the model proposed by Bell and Gilbert (1993) is that the participants in the82Learning Strategies Group shared a similar understanding of what good teachingentailed. They agreed on the key pail active learning played in encouragingstudents to become independent learners. Sharing a similar theoretical view, thoughit was not stated explicitly till the end of the first school year (Fieldnotes, 17.6.92),eased the meetings in the project. The teachers joined the project because they wereinterested in collaboration and sharing their teaching, focusing on active learning.They did not come because they identified difficulties in their practice. Although theparticipants in the LSG went through some of the phases discussed in the Bell andGilbert (1993) model, it was not sequential. The Learning Strategies Group evolvedover time. Issues that were presented at the early meetings were modified, clarifiedand expanded in subsequent ones. The teachers gradually felt safe to share pail oftheir practice openly; they found new avenues of sharing and planning in the group.Summary of Chapter FourAnalysis of the development of the Learning Strategies Group suggests thatalthough there were shifts in emphasis in some areas, there was no indication ofdiscrete developmental stages. This professional development attempt can best bedescribed in ternis of a process that evolved and unfolded. In every meeting thegroup discussed substantive content, whether it was generic or subject specific. Thefocus was both on structure and substance, establishing routines sharing teachingstrategies. The participants continuously examined the development of theirprofessional growth, thus self monitoring the group processes. There were, however,shifts in emphasis. In the beginning teachers shared past successes, movinggradually to share teaching difficulties and to address questions regarding futureplanning. The participants linked the new strategies to strategies they hadpreviously discussed. The group developed a repertoire of strategies that theyreferred to. The goals were revisited at the end of every school year, and were83refined for the next year. Throughout the project the teachers maintained completeautonomy and control over the direction and content of the meeting. They madedecisions about when and where to meet, what to discuss, and what kind of supportthey wanted from the university educators.The Learning Strategies Group began as an attempt to create a time and placefor teachers to work collaboratively with each other and with university educators inorder to improve their teaching. A comparison with the three models of collaborationbetween teachers and university educators provides parameters to examine thisproject. The models provide frameworks to discuss factors that influencecollaborative endeavours, and phases that structure them. However, the analysis ofLearning Strategies Group suggests that collaboration is not sequential. Theparticipants discussed both structural and substantive topics from early meetings andcontinued to do so throughout the meetings. They developed a language and arepertoire of strategies which served as lenses to examine new problems andstrategies. They also evolved in their attempts to reach out, recruit new members, andshare the new strategies with colleagues who were interested in teachers’professional development through collaboration between teachers and universityeducators.84Chapter FiveReflective Conversations as a Tool for ProfessionalDevelopmentThis chapter examines the nature of the conversations between theparticipants in the meetings. An analysis of the kinds of talk teachers anduniversity educators used when they discussed teaching sheds light on how theydeveloped the conversations into a tool for their professional growth. UsingSchön’s discussion of reflection and reflective conversations provides aframework to examine and analyze the group conversations.Framing and Refraining of Specific Problems in the LSG MeetingsThe teachers brought stories from their classrooms to the meetings. Oftenthese incidents stemmed from specific problems. For example, the participantsdebated about appropriate methods of assessment; they questioned the bestmethods to teach writing skills; or they examined methods to actively involvestudents in decisions about their learning. These discussions were in many casesa result of difficulties in practice. For example, the teachers thought that thewriting level of students in the upper grades was not adequate. They shared thisconcern, and then shared a description of a strategy, which addressed thatproblem area.Karen: They don’t know how to write essays..Alice: It is not their fault. That’s why I started teaching the essayright now [in grade 8]. ... If they learn how to do it, when they getto grade 11 they can write these essays and they can deal with thecontent and not with the structure. ... and they had the formallanguage too.Gaiy: By formal language you mean?Alice: Well. my students are doing critical analysis of elements ofplot.Gary: So the language of analysis and criticism?85Alice: Yea, so they are not saying “I”, they are not saying “you”they are saying “ the reader” and “In so and so’s novel...”, “the riseof climax is”.Barbara: But the format is there and that counts, and the polishcomes later. It is grade eight.Karen: When they have the inspiration then they will also have thetools to write.Alice: And they are getting excited about it.Karen: What I am flying to do with the grade 8 is to get them tolearn to write a well developed paragraph, with a topic sentence, aconcluding sentence, and details that develop the topic sentence.This is really basic but they can’t do it. And so I gave them quite abit of structure.. What we did was we did a little co-op [cooperative]lesson, reading this hilarious little short story called The Ransom ofRed Chief by 0. Henry. They had to do a few little co-op exercisesbefore we got into this. And they had to share a book, between twopeople, so they kind of had to work together even when theyweren’t actively doing co-op. ... They had to write an interimanecdotal report on Bill, [the character in the story] how well heparticipated with others and Reggie [the second character] on howwell he got along with others. And they had to imagine that theaudience was the parents. ... They had to look at the character inthe story. One of the objectives was to look at characters andanalyze a character, and the other thing was to write a topicsentence and then go back to the story. ... I wanted them to goback and find support for their ideas. So when they develop thebody of the paragraph, I wanted them to go back to the story andfind examples of behaviour that supported their judgment. So firstof all they had to judge and then support. And then they had towrite a concluding sentence. It was hard for them to write liketeachers. The other thing that I wanted them to do was start to lookat transitional devises within paragraphs so that they link theirideas. ... They had to write their topic sentence then they had towrite a minimum of five sentences. A lot of the kids wrote more andthey had to use three transitional devices in the paragraph. What Iwas really surprised was how much the kids enjoyed doing this, andhow much it made them think ... Here are some examples. [shepasses them aroundj. They liked to use the Interim Reports. Theyare not perfect by any means, but at least they are on the topicthroughout the paragraph and they are looking for support in thestory.Gary: They are using the interim reports form.Karen: I turned the reports into a full paragraph activity instead ofjust a comment.Nelly: Sure they liked it.Barbara: Karen, this is really good. (Fieldnotes, 18.11.92)86In this meeting, the conversation stemmed from a concern Karen raised about thewriting skills of the students in the higher grades. The participants explored thisconcern from different perspectives, discussing the language tools necessary tohelp students improve their writing skills, and the time and context to address it.Then Karen proposed an example of a strategy that she had used in order toteach students in grade eight to write a paragraph. She explained her goals, theprocedures, and the students’ reactions. She then, showed the group someexamples of students’ work. This excerpt is an example of how the participantsengaged in conversations about teaching writing skills, in which they discussednew teaching strategies. The teachers reflected on their teaching and on ways toimprove it.When Schon (1983; 1987; 1991) uses the term reflection-in-action hediscusses a situation which involves thinking that is embedded in action. Schönclaims that over time practitioners develop a repertoire of expectations, imagesand techniques. They develop an ability of knong-in-practice which is tacitand over time becomes spontaneous.Through reflection, he [the practitionerl can surface and criticize thetacit understandings that have grown up around the repetitiveexperiences on a specialized practice, and can make new sense ofthe situations of uncertainty or uniqueness which he may allowhimself to experience. (Schön, 1983, p. 61)Schön argues that practitioners allow themselves to experience surprise,puzzlement, or confusion in unique and unexpected situations. He then proposesthat practitioners follow a process of investigation of the problem throughreflection-in-action. Reflection-in-action is a process in which the practitionerconducts reflective conversations with the situations from the practice. Thepractitioner sets the problem and understands its uniqueness, framing andrefrarning it on the basis of past repertoire. The practitioner experiments with87different possible solutions, interprets and evaluates these solutions, and decideson further actions (1983. p. 141). Schön elaborates:In this reflective conversation, the practitioner’s effort to solve thereframed problem yields new discoveries which call for newreflection-in-action. The process spirals through stages ofappreciation, action, aiid reappreciation. The unique and uncertainsituation comes to be understood through the attempt to change it,and changed through the attempt to understand it. (1983, p. 132)Thus, the reflective conversations which Schön proposes happen between thepractitioner and the situation, evolve and change in a spiral way. Theseconversations develop as the practitioner tries out solutions to specific problemsthat arise. Reflection-on-action occurs when practitioners describe and analyzetheir actions. In the context of the Learning Strategies Group, the conversationswere reflection-on-action. As demonstrated in the above excerpt, Karendescribed and analyzed a concern she had, and how she dealt with it. She addedthe reasons she had for choosing that particular strategy. This was an example ofone of the ways in which the participants used the meetings to discuss both whatthe teachers had tried and what they were planning to try. The conversationsemphasized explicit discussions of reasons and objectives, and not merelydescriptions of strategies.Schön proposes that the deliberations should result in actions. Althoughon many occasions the teachers discussed problems that they had already solved(particularly in the first year of meetings), the joint deliberations influenced actionat a later point in time and suggest alternative solutions. Whether teachersdiscussed events that had happened or those that will happen, the group’sreflective conversations had an impact on future actions. The groupconversations linked reflection-on-action with reflection-in-action.Giving examples from psychiatry and architecture, Schön analyzes the“anatomy” of reflective conversations of practitioners. The first step of these88conversations sterns from a specific problem in the practice. The practitionertacitly defines the problem, names it, and frames it in a specific context. Framingthe specific problem and bringing some structure and coherence to it may bringabout new understandings, and thus create new possible options for action. Thereflective conversations are usually tacit and spontaneous. However, having todiscuss one’s practice and one’s decision making within a group of colleagues(like the Learning Strategies Group) warrants the opportunity for reflectiveconversations to become public and thus requires the participants to makeexplicit their beliefs about and understanding of a practice setting.Using another example from the meetings, I will illustrate the reflectiveconversation, demonstrating its components . Susan presented to the group aproblem which was embedded within a specific context. She described theproblem, defined it and framed it. This allowed her to seek alternative solutions.Comments of other participants were included in the process of framing andreframing, generalizing from one context to another and finding creative optionsfor further action.Susan decided to use her “air time” in the meeting (Fieldnotes, 14.2.92) todiscuss ways to help weaker students in the class. She presented the problem tothe group giving some background information:Susan: With my grade eight we have started a new book called“The Friends” and my main purpose was that some of the weakerstudents have a chance to sort out what was happening, and Iwanted the better students to help the weaker readers in acooperative learning situation.She discussed a problem of having students with different levels of abilities andits effect on her teaching. If it were possible to examine Susan’s processes ofdecision making in class, and how she addressed this problem in class it would beexamining reflection-in-action. However, when she recalled and retold thesituation, discussing it in retrospect in the meeting, it is reflection-on-action.89Susan proceeded to describe her attempt to solve this problem through theuse of group work. She gave the groups questions prior to their reading thechapter, in an attempt to direct their reading. They had to fill out a grid on whatthey knew and what they wanted to know about the characters. From Susan’sdescription of the situation in the classroom and of her goals, it seemed thatSusan was trying to achieve several objectives: students’ knowledge of thecontent of the reading material, students’ active involvement in the reading, andstudents’ support of other students. Susan did not define these goals explicitlywhen she presented the problem. Consequently, the comments of theparticipants varied in their focus and direction. When Barbara heard Susan’sdescription, she asked her to elaborate on the strategy she had used.Barbara: I notice that you have three points in each grid, was thatdeliberate?Susan was not aware of this, and Barbara’s comment pushed her to reflect on andexplain and the technique she used:Susan: I didn’t mind how many points they had, but theyhad to go back to the book and then link it to what they knowabout the characters in the book. I am flying to get them togeneralize.In her response, Susan stated her objective. She wanted the students to link theirprior knowledge v.th the new reading. The structure of the grid was notimportant, however, its use as a linking tool was. She explained why she wantedthe students to be able to link one part of the book to another. Susan framed theproblem in terms of teaching principles. She was working on generalizing as anunderlying principle. Mark took this general statement of purpose from Susanand expanded it further, framing it in a larger and new context:Mark: Presumably you are giving them insights about themselvesbecause obviously eveiy kid is going to respond in a different wayto the book.90Mark took the notion of generalizing beyond the written text and linked it tostudents’ lives. Refrarning the initial problem in another light and within a newcontext allowed a new examination of Susan’s problem. Barbara pursued this lineof thought further and reframed both Mark’s comment and Susan’s initial problem.Barbara: I like that because it takes the students from the first gridto a second grid and to a third grid and you have a situation and itmakes the students think about it beyond the original story.Barbara reframed the initial problem of cooperative learning, students workingtogether on reading, and making links within a literary piece in terms of learningstrategies that encourage students to explicitly make links between differentcontexts within the subject. She moved back to the classroom situation andemphasized the processes of linking and generalizing when moving from oneform of representation to another (grid to story to grid). Although Susan is anEnglish teacher, she proceeded to discuss the potential benefits of this teachingstrategy in social studies.Susan: You could do it in history: what do you know about Hitleror the situation in Europe at the end of the war? What does thatmake you think about.., and what would you do?Mark: And you could add, and what should Churchill have done?Jim: That is a good question. Picking up on what Mark said you gotthem to report back, and the kind of thing they reported involvedvery much their own ideas in speculative, tentative, hypotheticallanguage. I think that underlying a lot of the things that go withour group is that we want the kids to be responsible for theirlearning and so here they see that their speculative and tentativeideas have value. This is a shift for the kids that when they opentheir mouth to speak they are not just giving answers. It gives themexperience and validates their ideas.Susan discussed the implications of using grids when teaching social studies. Shemoved the discussion to the level of learning and teaching strategies, focusing onthe importance of asking questions that require students’ interpretations andopinions. Mark set the problem in a slightly different context. He emphasizedthe importance of looking at a particular event in history from different91perspectives. Jim, in his comment, discussed students’ benefits from speculatingand hypothesizing about the material they had read. Jim’s comment about therole of speculation in learning tied to Susan’s initial concerns with students. Jimalso made an explicit link to the goals and purpose of the Learning StrategiesGroup.Tracing the conversation in the above excerpt from a group meetingindicates that each participant framed and defined the problem somewhatdifferently. The conversation started with a discussion of how to create asituation of cooperation between stronger and weaker students in which strongerstudents helped weaker ones. It then moved to a discussion of strategies toencourage students to interpret what they had read. The participants emphasizedthe importance of using grids as a learning tool that allowed students theopportunity to examine issues from different perspectives. They broadened thediscussion from one subject to others.ft may seem that the participants were not discussing the initial problemthat Susan had raised, but bringing different and perhaps their own agendas tothe table. However, each of their explanations and suggestions demonstratedprocesses of framing the initial problem that Susan had shared. They led todifferent possible options for action. These strategies shared similar underlyingprinciples of learning and teaching. The solutions may entail integration betweensubjects with a focus of learning strategies: or involving students explicitly in thelearning processes that they are using.This excerpt illustrates that when the participants in the group reacted to aspecific problem that was discussed and framed it in different ways, theybroadened their collective understanding of the problem and consequently thespectrum of generated solutions. The process of framing and reframing an initial.problem encouraged participants to explore a wide variety of avenues of action92with regard to the specific situation. The participants in their deliberations,addressed the problem in multiple ways. Thus, through the reflectiveconversation a problem was framed and reframed and adapted to differentcontexts. This spiral deliberation engaged more than one teacher in the processof seeking solutions to a particular problem. Since the meetings involved aprocess of reflection-on-action there was no immediate need for action and therewas time to weigh different alternatives and perspectives.Reflective Conversations in the Learning Strategies GroupThis section explores reflective conversations that are not only internaland individual but occur within a group setting. Schön (1983; 1987) argues thatreflective conversations are tacit and internal processes. However, he maintainsthat these kinds of conversations may also take place as a dialogue between acoach and a student when someone is learning to become a practitioner (Schön,1987, p. 101) . In these conversations the student discusses a specific problemwith the coach. In the conversation, the coach asks probing questions, they bothframe and reframe the problem, and they explore alternative solutions.Reflection-in-action becomes reciprocal when the coach treats thestudents’ further design as an utterance, a carrier of meaiiings like“This is what I take you to mean” or “This is what I really meant tosay”, and responds to her interpretations with further showing ortelling, which the student may, in turn, decipher anew and translateinto new design performance. The process continues throughoutthe sequence of design project. ..though not necessarily in a straightline - toward the student’s increasing capacity to produce what sheand her coach regard as competent designing. (Schön, 1987, pp.101-102)Discussions between a coach and a student are similar to the reflectiveconversations the expert practitioner conducts with a situation whenencountering a problem. In both instances, the practitioners define the problem.identify its unique characteristics, link it to past repertoire, experiment with93possible solutions, which then lead to action. However, in the dialogue betweenthe coach and student they define, frame and reframe, and experiment together.Schon proposes that designing and planning are processes of reflection-in-action.Discussions of these processes are reflections-on-action.Schon (1987) refers to three types of coaching: ‘follow me,’ ‘jointexperimentation’ and ‘hall of mirrors’. The ‘follow me’ type of conversation ischaracterized by showing and telling of the expert to the novice. ‘Jointexperimentation’ takes the form of collaborative inquiry. ‘Hall of mirrors’ is aprocess of reciprocal reflection.In the Learning Strategies Group there were no coaches or students. Thegroup consisted of colleagues who were examining teaching. Thus, there wereno coaching relationships. However, there are similarities in the forms ofconversations between the coach-student and the group participants. In theLearning Strategies Group the deliberations take the form of ‘jointexperimentation’ and ‘hall of mirrors’, that is they are characterized bycollaborative inquiry and reciprocal reflection. A teacher would bring forth aproblem from the practice. The reflective conversation would begin with adiscussion of possible new experimentation which generated new problems.These problems could become the material for reciprocal reflection (Schön 1987,p. 118). The previous excerpts demonstrate how the initial problem may beshaped, defined and redefined in different ways through the deliberations in themeeting. The teachers and university educators used the deliberations both toexamine past experiences and to plan future ones. They shared experiences fromthe classroom about subject specific learning strategies or generic teachingtechniques and procedures, and they also used the time to plan possible teachingapproaches. The reflective conversations allowed the participants to choosewhich problems they were going to address, in which order, and which other94problems may arise from the initial one. They also made decisions regarding pastand future action.Examining these types of conversations in the context of the LearningStrategies Group shows both similarities and differences to Schön’s analysis of thereflective conversations between the coach and student. The similarities lie inpractitioners’ discussing and sharing their practice. Schön discusses threefeatures of the dialogue between the coach and student:It takes place in the context of the student’s attempts to design; itmakes use of actions as well as words, and it depends on reciprocalreflection-in-action. (Schön. 1987, p. 101)Thus, whether it is a student and a coach or a group of experienced practitionersdiscussing practice, there are common threads to these conversations. Theydiscuss specific incidents from the practice, they include teaching/designing(action) and discussions, and the participants in both conversations are engagedin reciprocal reflection-in-action.However, there are four points of difference between Schön’s descriptionof the reflective conversations of the student and the coach and theconversations among the participants in the Learning Strategies Group.The first difference touches on the level of expertise and experience ofparticipants. Schön describes a situation of a student and an expert practitioner,in which the student needs advice and creates his or her professional repertoirethrough the deliberations. The setting in the Learning Strategies Group isdifferent. The participants in the LSG are experienced teachers and universityeducators. The purpose of the process of deliberation in this context is to findcreative solutions to specific problems in teaching. The conversations take placebetween practitioners who are all experienced practitioners. All the participantshave significant repertoires of past experience they can draw on. Using thatvaried knowledge and experience-base they find the process of deliberating and95discussing specific problems with colleagues beneficial. They regard it as areciprocal process. Each participant gains both from sharing problems and fromthe process of discussing alternative solutions to problems brought forward byother participants.A second difference between the types of coaching that Schön suggestsand the Learning Strategies Group is in the number of people involved in thereflective conversations. In all the examples Schön provides, he discussesreflection that is either internal and tacit or one that takes the shape of a dialogue.In the context of this study, there is a group of about ten people discussingteaching. The notion of a dialogue is expanded to a group conversation. Onemight claim that having two or ten people converse may be only a matter ofquantity, however, comparing the excerpt above and Schön’s examples ofconversations indicates that when there are more people, there are more opinionsand different dynamics. This wide range of opinions, questions, contexts andunderstandings expands and enriches the conversations. Each participant bothcontributes and benefits from other contributors. The process of framing andreframing a problem expands and broadens. Schwab (1969; 1971) claims that theprocess of deliberation and examination from a variety of angles is important tothe development of sound practical solutions to problems, and to thedevelopment of professional expertise. Therefore, group discussions mayfacilitate and enrich such a process, as they in fact, have in the case of theLearning Strategies Group.The third difference between the conversations between an expert andstudent that Schön describes and the Learning Strategies Group conversations isin the participants. In Schön’s example, both the architect and the psychiatristpractice their profession at the time they instruct the novice practitioners in theirfields. The situation in the Learning Strategies group is different. The group96consists of both teachers and university educators. Though in the past theuniversity educators had been secondary school teachers, at the time of theconversations they were not school teachers. Having university educatorsparticipate added new dimensions to the conversations. The universityeducators’ comments did not come solely from their teaching practice but alsofrom their research practice. They brought examples from other similar groups,from research, and from their past and present experience to the conversations.They were also aware of group processes and brought them to the attention ofthe group. For instance, after the chairperson asked the university educators ifthey would also alternate chairing meetings, a discussion evolved around howmeetings were run, and Jim said:Jim: Having seen a lot of groups of teachers work, one of the thingsthat is critical is that, and this group is just being terrific at it, is thateveryone accepts that the needs and interests and concerns ofpeople around the group at various times in the project differ....Everyone needs to be sensitive ... my rule of thumb is that over acycle of two meetings everybody feels they’ve got something fromit and there is a mutual trust that they can say afterward “well, Iwant to talk about x in the next meeting” ... because otherwisepeople stop coming. The other point is ... the interplay betweentheory and practice, because I’ve seen three attempts to set upgroups of teachers which ran ... entirely from what teachers said andeach time the group sort. of spiraled down into decay. They ran outof new things to say. Now I think what Karen has raised here is aninteresting example of ... where does creativity fit on that ... attemptto map thinking. Where does high levels of creativity fit? I mean,that’s a pretty hard one to capture, isn’t it? I mean, Alice has gotsome incredibly creative stuff, you know, and how did she do that?I think when kids are tackling a difficult chemistry problem, a goodchemistry solution is very creative, how do we do that? (Fieldnotes,13.3.92)When Jim responded to the discussion at the meeting he drew on his experiencewith similar groups. He started off by examining the needs of group participantsin general terms. Then he framed the dynamics within the meeting in terms of hispast experience. He compared groups of teachers who were only sharingteaching practices with groups who added to this sharing a theoretical discussion97of underlying teaching and learning principles. Jim related specifically tostrategies that Alice had presented which required creativity. He then reframedthem in another context, moving the discussion from teaching English to teachingchemistry. He focused on creative problem solving as the common element ofthese subjects. This excerpt illustrates some of the variety of feedback theuniversity educators added to the reflective conversations. They brought inexpertise and experience that was different from teachers’ experience. WhenSchön discusses the coach he assumes that he or she has experience andexpertise in the areas similar to those the student is involved in. The LearningStrategies Group is an example of the benefit of having a group in which theparticipants have varied experiences. Having not only teachers but both teachersand university educators in the group provides breadth and depth to thereflective conversations.The fourth and last difference between the conversations between coachand student and in the Learning Strategies Group is in the purpose of thedeliberations. The coach’s goal is to teach and train the student in the newpractice. Thus, the conversation consists of telling, listening, demonstrating, andimitating. The coach probes the student’s knowledge with questions in order toclarify the student’s thinking processes. The coach uses questions, instructions,advice, or criticism.Whatever he chooses to do, the coach experiments incommunication, testing with each of his interventions both hisdiagnosis of a student’s understanding and problen and theeffectiveness of his own strategies of communication. ( Schon, 1987,p. 101)The Learning Strategies Group had evolved into a group of professionalcolleagues who discuss teaching. Thus, the comments they make to each otherare not geared to teach or train each other. These comments and questions probethe issues under discussion for the purpose of clarifying and understanding98questions about teaching. An examination of comments and questions in theabove excerpts indicates that the comments are tools that serve multiplepurposes: (a) to allow the presenter to clarify meanings, purposes, and structureswithin the issue under discussion; (b) to help the listeners make translations fromthe stoly told in the meeting to their contexts; and (c) to incorporate otherpeople!s ideas in the discussion and thus broaden the scope of the strategy underscrutiny.Knowledge of the purposes and kinds of questions and comments thatprobe reflection may be helpful in these conversations. The participants maybecome more aware of the impact of their comments on the direction of theconversations. Since the Learning Strategies Group is structured so that thechairperson rotates, there is no one participant who assumes the role of a leader.Consequently, when the discussion fades, it is not necessarily the same personwho feels responsible to initiate further conversation.The next section examines the structures of conversations. I analyze thesestructures and compare them to Schön’s analysis of conversations between coachand novice practitioners. The analysis of the conversations in the LearningStrategies Group expands Schön’s description of reflective conversations.Spirals and Ladders of Reflective ConversationsIn the Learning Strategies Group the discussions evolved around practicalquestions. The teachers brought to the discussion table stories and incidents fromtheir classrooms, poses questions regarding ways to involve students actively inthe learning process and encouraged them to become independent learners. Theconversations in the meetings followed similar steps to those Schön discusseswith regard to reflective conversations that the practitioner has with the situation.99Karen raised a problem for discussion. She was teaching a grade 11psychology class where the students had to read a new chapter. Karen felt thechapter was important but dry. She wanted the students to be able to predictsome of the content from the headings of the sections, and she wanted to raisetheir anticipation to the new topic. Karen’s description of the procedure she hadused in class started the reflective conversation in the meeting.Karen: In psychology (grade 11) when starting a new chapterdealing with stress I took different events and examples on anoverhead, and the kids had to put them in categories’headings.Then they had to figure out which chapter they were going to read.Jim: How did the kids react?Karen: Fine, but it took them a while more than I had anticipated.They came up with the right chapter.Jim: It is great. I found that kids didn’t pay attention to headingsand titles of chapters but usually looked at the first few words andrelied on me to give the topic.Karen: My text is great but it is dry and I see my part asentertaining them.Barbara: Categorization of information is very important. In historyif you teach chronologically it is very difficult for the kids to moveto a thematic division. Pm struggling with that, that different eventsat different periods of time fall under the category of one theme.Karen: Do the opposite, ask them to take events studied in thecourse and categorize them into themes.Ann: This is like mapping.Jim. A history teacher asked the students in one of the classes toreTite their notes from chronological order to thematic division. Itwas a major project.Barbara: It could be a group project. What is best is to give theminformation and ask them to classify or give them categories andthey fill in the information.Karen: It is easier and faster to give them information and theycategorize.Susan: They learn more when they categorize.Doug: Do a combination, give them some information and theycategorize, then go over it, add what they miss, and let themcontinue. (Fieldnotes, 24.1.92)After the participants had heard the problem and some information of its context,they reacted to the story. Jim asked about the students’ reactions to the strategy.Karen responded, and then Jim shared his experience with the same strategy. Indoing that he framed Karen’s story in terms a teaching strategy of prediction.100Barbara continued to generalize and linked predictions with categorizing, makinga connection between social studies and psychology. Barbara emphasized theimportance of being able to organize material both chronologically andthematically. She addressed the difficulties students encountered when they hadto move from one way of organizing material to another. In this descriptionBarbara reframed the initial problem in more general terms that reflected certainassumptions and beliefs about learning. Karen continued the discussion andmade explicit the links between social studies and psychology, focusing on thelearning processes the students go through in both subjects. Ann (who teachesEnglish) expanded Karen’s strategy and linked it to teaching English. TheEnglish teachers had discussed concept mapping in past meetings. When Annmentioned mapping she was using “verbal shorthand” and she referred to theseearly conversations. She then added a title to the strategy (mapping) that linkedto other group discussions. Jim added another example of an attempt to movefrom one way of organizing material to another, relying on his past repertoire.Susan framed those strategies in terms of theories of learning. Towards the end ofthe conversation Doug proposed new ways to address the problem. Hesuggested that Karen incorporate the two techniques, start with the students’categorization, check what was missing, and then encourage students to continuethe process and generate the new and missing items.When discussing the structure of reflective conversations between thecoach and the student, Schön proposes the metaphor of a ladder of reflection(1987, pp. 114-115). He argues that the four rungs of the ladder are:4. Reflection on action on description of designing.3. Reflection on description of designing.2. Description of designing.1. Designing. (Schon, 1987, p. 115)101The first rung, at the bottom of the ladder is the design, the action in the practicewhich elicits the problem. This rung entails reflection-in-action. The second rungis the reflection on that initial action. There are times when the descriptionincludes evaluation and appreciation. There are other times when the descriptionrefers to the initial reflection-in-action that happened at the first stages. The thirdrung is the reflection on the description. The coach or the student may reflect onthe meaning the other has constructed for the earlier description. The fourth rungis the reflection on the dialogue itself between the coach and student. Movingup the ladder of reflection means moving from an activity to reflection on thatactivity. Climbing the next rung implies reflection either on the action or thereflection in the previous rung. There are also diagonal moves which “occurwhen one party’s action triggers the other’s reflection or when one party’sreflection triggers the other’s action” (Schon, 1987, p. 115).This metaphor of a ladder of reflection captures many of the discussions inthe Learning Strategies Group. In the example above, Karen’s description ofwhat she had done was on the second rung of the ladder. The comments of theother participants were the third rung, in which they commented both on Karen’sactions and on the comments other participants had on the initial description.However, this metaphor of the ladder of reflection captures only a part of theconversation. Since in the LSG there were multiple participants who wereresponding they would all be climbing their own ladders of reflection. Thisnotion of ladder does not take into account two features of the conversations inthe Learning Strategies Group. First, it does not account for the inter-relationsbetween the participants. As opposed to the coach and student, where there isdirect interaction between two people, in the LSG there are many peopleresponding, broadening the conversation in different directions that are notalways accounted for. The participants move up and down their own ladders of102reflection while exchanging views and experiences with the other participants,thus creating an intricate web of reflections. There are layers of ladders ofreflection within the conversations. Second, the ladder of reflection describes aspecific incident or interaction between two people. However, analysis of theconversations in the Learning Strategies Group ought to consider theaccumulated repertoire of the group. Since the same group of people has beenmeeting for a long period of time they have developed a common repertoire ofstories and discussions they refer back to when they respond to new problems.The metaphor of the ladder does not incorporate this feature in it. Consequentlythere should be two metaphors in order to capture the complexities of the groupmeetings: ladders of reflection and spiral reflective conversations.Some of the shared stories in the Learning Strategies Group take the shapeof a spiral. The initial problem is framed and reframed in light of past experience,the participants suggest alternative solutions, the teacher who presented theproblem tries alternative solutions and then the deliberations continue. The initialproblem is shaped, defined and redefined through the group deliberations(Schwab, 1969; 1971; 1973; 1983). This spiral process not only helps define andredefine the problem, but engages the participants in finding alternative solutions,trying them out and discussing them further. The discussions and deliberationsrely on the repertoire of the participants, and their past experiences andperceptions of what good teaching and learning entail. Thus, a richness ofalternatives is developed for the participants to tap into in trying to solve theinitial problem. Each participant is likely to address problems in different ways.The spiral process of refrarning and redefining the problems within a groupcontext adds breadth, depth and wealth of experience that are all intertwined inthe process of proposing solutions to a problem.103After the first month of weekly meetings, the group decided to examine theprocess they were engaged in.Jim: I think there are two aspects to it: one is how do we go aboutdeveloping strategies to use in the classroom which help achievethat, and how have our classes changed? Do we see students thenbecoming more responsible for their own learning? Student changeoccurs pretty gradually... and you’re looking at another good pointof teacher change too. What is happening here, people are lookingat their own practice and saying well there are some things that Ialready do which help achieve these and there are things we weaveinto that.Mark: What I find I do is I listen to other people or think aboutwhat I could be doing and if I hear some things I think that wouldbe applicable to me then I fly and use them, other things I perhaps Ijust go over my head because either I don’t see relevance perhapsfor me, that doesnt mean to say they are not useful for the personwho is giving out those ideas.Barbara: What I like about the group is that I find it extremelycreative and it also gives me ideas to draw on that I could use,and also it makes me question this teaching style. Is this teachingmethodology really accomplishing anything as far as the studentsare concerned or are they just there, and passive learning is goingon rather than active learning? Is it meaningful to anyone? Is itrelevant? Or am I just here for one hour and the kids walk out andmaybe have acquired nothing but a rote situation and answeringquestions. I try to at least once a week do something no matter howsmall or big it is whereby the students... acquire an ownership or asense of responsibility for what they’re doing.Doug: I just want to add that what I’m getting out of all of this isand again it is not making major transformations over night, butwhat you do is you pick up a piece here and a piece there and I’mtlying them. I’m tlying to remember all those things but it is justsmall little details Pm flying to incorporateBarbara: It is constantly on your mind, right? (Fieldnotes, 14.2.92)At the fifth meeting, one of the university educators initiated a discussion aboutthe group processes and the importance the teachers attribute to the meetings. Allthe teachers stated that the meetings encouraged them to think about theirpractice. The deliberations encouraged them to tiy something new, whether largeor small, so that they could discuss it in the meetings. Thus, the reflectiveconversations, which incorporated reflection-on-action and reflections on thosereflections were linked to teachers’ practice. The teachers found themselves104thinking about those deliberations and slowly incorporating ideas from them intotheir practice.Karen: I guess what I get from the group is it stimulates me to thinkas a teacher and that’s the primary benefit I see from it. And I alsothink teachers dont sit around and talk about their teaching verymuch, they talk about other things and it’s a really productive wayto share information with other teachers and have that kind ofprofessional relationship with them that you don’t normally have.Gabriella: And can you see specific things that you’ve used or thatyou can say that you gained from the group?Karen: Specific things? [she pauses and thinksj What was it, therewas something we were talking about with Barbara when she wastalking about bringing notes having the students make notes forher, and they had to hand in their outline for an essay. It was an in-class essay but they could bring an outline. I think that onediscussion I found really interesting because we’re appealing tohigher levels of thought with a lot of the activities but I still thinkthe ultimate expression of higher level thinking has to be in writing.You have to able to articulate your ideas in writing. So for me, thegoal still is to teach students to express themselves well in writing.And I think from that discussion we came up with ways of actuallyteaching kids how to write an in-class essay and how to organizethemselves, and not just by giving them a bunch of tips, but byactually walking them through the process and gradually sort ofweaning them from having as much teacher input. And that wasone of the things that I think next year when I am in the Englishclassroom particularly with English Lit I think I’ll use that.(Interview, 19.6.92)Barbara also talked about the impact the group had on her practice:What I like about the group, the LSG it’s two things: one is that itmakes me feel good about my job because I am working withcolleagues that are really doing the most amazing things in theirclassroom, and it also keeps me on my toes. I think, that this is oneof the ultimate ways of professional development. (Interview,23.6.92)The participants found the discussions to be stimulating and challenging. Beingable to present something in the meeting, and to report on an attempt has becomea force that the teachers described as influencing their teaching. In this way thereflective conversations continuously shaped the practice and were shaped by it.105Sununary of Chapter FiveThe. notion of reflective conversations can be applied to a group ofpractitioners discussing their practice. When a group of teachers and universityeducators discussed specific teaching or learning problems they followed apattern that I have argued bears a similarity to Schön’s notion of reflectiveconversations. They framed and refrarned the initial problem; they set it in acontext; and then they examined alternative solutions to that problem. Throughthat process of deliberation the problem was shaped and reshaped andconsequently so were the solutions.These conversations described both as ladders of reflection and as spiralconversations. While discussing specific problems or topics about teaching, theparticipants were engaged in reflection-on-action. They were reflecting both onthe action in the practice setting and on their discussions in the group. In otherwords, they were climbing up and down the rungs of ladders of reflection.However, since there were many participants in the meetings there was anintricate web of ladders, on which the participants climbed. Moreover, thedirection was not only up and down or diagonal. The thread of theconversations was also spiraling between the ladders. The participants discusseda topic, framed and reframed it, and proposed possible solutions. Then theteachers tried out the proposed solutions and shared them at later meetings. Theparticipants returned to the topic and reexamined it in light of the descriptions ofnew practices. Since both teachers and university educators were engaged inreflective conversations there were opportunities to explore a wide range ofperspectives. These conversations, which I described as a complex set of spiralsand ladders, allowed the participants access to a variety of experiences andpossible alternative solutions.The ladders of reflection focused on deliberations within each meeting.They demonstrated the interactions and reflections within each meeting. Themetaphor of the spirals linked different meetings. It emphasized the connectionsbetween meetings through recurring thematic topics. The next chapter willexamine these thematic topics. It analyzes the stories the participants share whenthey discuss teaching.106107Chapter SixShared Situated CasesChapter Five presented the analysis of the deliberations in the meetingsusing elements of Schön’s notion of reflective conversations. It focused on theinner structures and content of each meeting. Chapter Six analyzes the structuraland contextual nature of the discourse throughout the whole project. It definescases and stories, analyzing the recurring thematic topics in the reflectiveconversations. After defining cases and stories in the Learning Strategies Group,I compare them to cases used in teacher education (for example, Kleinfeld, 1992;Merseth, 1992; J. Shulman, 1992; L. Shulman .1992). Two cases are thenpresented, one discusses the use of linking as a teaching strategy, and the otheraddresses the evolving tension between theory and practice in the groupmeetings.Stories and Cases in the Learning Strategies GroupThe teachers shared their practice through stories that originated from theirclassrooms. They started with a story that exemplified a strategy. The group thenidentified and discussed the strategy, its implications and connections to otherdiscussions they had. For example,Ann: The only thing that I tried out this week is something to dowith punctuation. You know I have to teach them the use of thecomma, and I have taught them it so many times and so ineffectivelyso finally I just decided to get them to teach the class. I got themdivided into four groups and told each group to do one section ofhow to use the comma. (Fieldnotes, 31.1.92)Another example of starting a discussion with a story:Karen: I started my psychology project and ... Fm trying to coverfour chapters in three weeks. And the first thing I did was havethem work in groups. I had them work in groups on Tuesday and .108I asked them to come up with ... what the logical sort of agegroupings were for the stages of development. And I wanted themto try and give me things like the main characteristics of peoplegoing through that stage, what was important to those people, whatcaused them to move from one stage to another stage. (Fieldnotes,3.4.92)Like other oral narratives, these stories have plots and in many occasionspurposes. They often present a dilemma or a difficulty that needs to be addressed(as will be illustrated in the two examples at the end of the chapter) . Theteachers shared the stories in order to discuss learning and teaching issues. Whenthe participants responded to these stories they used a variety of techniques.They asked questions for clarification, they categorized the main teachingstrategy and its purpose, and on many occasions they responded by linking thestories to other stories that had previously been discussed at meetings.In the above example, after Karen discussed how she had started thepsychology unit, the participants asked many questions and made suggestions forteaching the rest of the unit. Barbara discussed what had happened so far in herclassroom as a result of the psychology project. Mark and Jim linked the projectto the group!s discussions, using the terminology and language that theparticipants shared.Barbara: It was interesting yesterday in Law, we were discussingengagement and marriage contracts, and one boy [she gives a name]mentioned that it must be difficult to get a divorce when you!re inyour forties because in psychology we learned the effects of thatage.[Ihe participants laugh]Mark: Thats integration across subjects.Jim Yea, it!s linking. (Fieldnotes, 3.4.92)In this way there are different layers of stories that are interwoven. An initialstory outlining the problem is presented to the group. It is subsequentlymodified in the group discussion which follows. The group deliberations create asecond layer of the story. In some cases there is no further discussion of an initial109story. However, in others, there is yet another layer. When the teacher reportsthe follow up to the discussion, when other teachers use the same strategy, orwhen they refer either to the initial story or to the one created at the meeting,they create the third layer. This multi-layered story, that evolves over timewhenever it is recalled and reshaped, is what I am calling a shared situated case.For the purpose of the analysis of this study, there are no substantivedifferences between stories and shared situated cases, and differentiatingbetween them may be difficult. I define these cases as stories with multiple layers.It is not simply a story that is retold time and time again. But, it is the accumulatedand multi-layered stories of problems around a specific thematic topic thatconstruct a case through the multiple times and the variety of ways it isaddressed. The participants shape, modify, define and redefine some thematictopics through the meetings. These multiple layered stories become sharedsituated cases that represent the mutually constructed repertoire of the LearningStrategies Group. In the LSG, these implicit cases represent one aspect ofteachers’ professional knowledge. They allow the participant to recall strategiesand problems that the group had discussed, and in so doing create a sharedrepertoire.In the next section I will examine the literature on cases in teachereducation, in order to compare them to the implicit cases constructed in the LSG.Definitions and examination of common features of cases in the literature allowfor an analysis of the unique features of the cases that emerged in the discussionsof the Learning Strategies Group.Common Definitions and Characteristics of CasesCases are stories of here-and-now. They are concrete, particular, messy,and multi-layered narratives (J. Shulman, 1992; L. Shulman, 1992). They invite110discussions which enhance expert practitioners’ ways of thinking (Kleinfeld,1992). Cases are carefully crafted and they raise dilemmas which call for decisionmaking (Merseth, 1992). There are five characteristics of narrative cases: a) theyhave a plot, beginning , middle and end; b) they are particular and specific; c)they place the events in a frame of time and place; d) they are narratives ofaction or inquiry, revealing the working of the mind, habits, motives; and, e) theyreflect the social and cultural contexts in which the events occur (L. Shulman,1992, p. 21).Discussing problems and difficulties and forming alternative solutions are processeswhich enhance reflection on practice and are a part of training the novice in his or herpractice. Kleinfeld summarizes the merits of cases for the novice teacher:Cases can give novices: 1. vicarious experience with the kinds ofproblematic situations characteristic of teaching, 2. a model of how an expertteacher goes about framing and constructing educational problems, 3. amodel of how a sophisticated teacher inquires about and reflects on suchproblems, 4. a stock of educational strategies for use in analogous problemsituations, and 5. a sense that teaching is an inherently ambiguous activityrequiring continuous reflection. (1992, pp. 34-35)Cases are a valuable tool for experienced practitioners as well. They provideexpert practitioners with opportunities to examine and reflect upon their currentpractice. They may encourage discussions around dilemmas and ambiguities ofpractice.Cases hi Teacher EducationAs discussed in Chapter Two, cases are used in teacher education in atleast three ways: as instructional material, to bridge the gap between theory andpractice, as data in research on teachers’ cognition, and as catalysts to promotechange (Kagan, 1993). The purposes of using cases are many; some of theseinclude: to teach principles or concepts of a theoretical nature; to shareprecedents for practice; to discuss morals or ethics as a part of the process of111learning to become a teacher; to teach strategies, dispositions, and habits of mindof teachers and teaching; and to explore visions or images of the possible.Calling something a case makes the claim that a story, an event, is an instance oran example of a larger cate gory. They provide the opportunity to discuss aspecific problem or question, and learn from that discussion about similarproblems or questions. The assumption is that there is merit in writing andreading about problems that are anchored in a specific context. The merit ofusing a case lies in the opportunity to examine an incident and the possiblesolutions to the incident.Cases provide the occasion to view other practitioners’ reactions to anincident and to compare these to your own. Written cases used in teachereducation serve as instructional material around which both novice and expertteachers can form communities for discussion or discourse. When interpreted bytheir readers, cases can exemplify ideas, attitudes, and practices that are broughtto the case by the readers (L. Shulman, 1992).Since teaching is situated within a specific contexts it has been arguedthat stories are better at capturing the nature of teaching than other forms ofdiscourse. Grossman cites Spiro and his colleagues who argue that knowledge ofill-structured domains is stored in cases. “This may help us understand whyteachers talk in terms of stories, as these stories may both help organize theirknowledge of teaching and serve as precedent cases from which they reasonabout current dilemrnas”(Grossman. 1992b, p. 232). Lee Shulman links thenarrative quality of stories to the theory of situated cognition and to cases.Our growing understanding of narrative ways of knowing, of thelocal and situated character of cognition, and of the conditionsneeded for the development of cognitive flexibility to cope withunpredictable and fluid domains lend credence to the claims ofthose who advocate case methods (1992, p. 26).112The narrative case, then, can serve as one of the appropriate tools to discuss,analyze, and reflect upon teaching. Bearing this in mind, I will continue toexamine common definitions and characteristics of cases.Teachers as Participants in Creating CasesMost cases have been written by teacher educators as a method ofexamining teaching practices in teacher education programs. These cases areproducts of careful examination of theories that are necessary in teachereducation (Merseth, 1992). They provide opportunities for analysis anddeliberation of issues pertinent to the field. Recently there has been a tendencyto involve expert teachers in creating cases (J. Shulrnan, 1992). When teachersparticipate in creating and writing cases they are encouraged to reflect on theirpractice and to become analytic about it. This analytic process may take twodirections: writing cases and writing commentaries on cases. Commentaries raisequestions and provide other lenses through which to discuss the dilemmasbrought forth in cases. Judith Shulrnan (1992) describes a collaborative attemptat writing cases and commentaries with teachers and university educators. Shemaintains that bringing together teachers to write cases begins with a process oftrust building and of the development of a support group. It was fascinating towatch how the narratives of teachers’ subjective experiences evolved into‘teaching cases’. ... Case writing itself became the reflective phase of the originalexperience” ( J. Shulman, 1992, p. 136).Lee Shulman articulates another benefit of including teachers in creatingcases: “Moreover, authoring cases may well instill deserved pride in practitioners,especially teachers, whose own professional insights are rarely afforded therespect they deserve” (L. Shulman, 1992, p. 9). Thus, case writing becomes a tool113for teachers to exhibit their expertise, reflect upon their practice, and share it withother practitioners.The next section analyzes the implicit cases that I argue were constructedby the Learning Strategies Group. It examines and illustrates the uniquecharacteristics of these cases, and compares then-i to written cases used in teachereducation. Then I demonstrate two cases that emerged from the group’sdeliberations.Shared Situated Cases in the Learning Strategies GroupThe literature discussing cases and their use in teacher education assumesthat the cases are written, carefully planned and crafted to meet specific purposes.However, I argue that cases can be shaped and generated in other ways. InGrossman’s (1 992b) critique of the use of cases in teacher education, shequestions the ability of a linear narrative structure to capture the complex realitywithin the classroom. In the Learning Strategies Group deliberations, theparticipants orally create their own cases through their deliberations.The stories and cases are not polished, carefully crafted narratives but oral:changing, tentative, evolving and emergent. They are generated from concretesituations in the classroom and they evolve from addressing dilemmas ordifficulties. This process of revisiting the stories from different perspectives hasshaped them into cases.Teachers brought oral stories to the meetings. Many of these stories wereon thematic topics that had been addressed many times in meetings. Thedeliberations of these thematic topics, engaging the participants can berepresented in cases. The recurring thematic topics are: 1) the variety of ways ofvisually presenting materials to students; 2) the techniques for students tosummarize written materials; 3) the assessment and evaluation strategies which114meet the goals of teaching; 4 the complexities associated with using newteaching strategies; 5) the tension between theory and practice; 6) the use ofmodels and structure in order to encourage students to be creative; and 7) the useof linking strategies between subjects, within subjects, and between school workand students’ lives. The cases are constructed from layers of stories about thesethemes. They arc shaped through the continued attempts of the participants tograpple with dilemmas in these areas.As discussed above, cases are narratives, or concrete stories within specificcontexts. The cases shared in the LSG are also narratives of specific contexts.However, they also have other unique characteristics. They are shared andsituated. I will define each of these characteristics and illustrate them in theexcerpts from the group deliberations.Shared CasesOne of the characteristics unique to the cases in the Learning Strate giesGroup is that they are shared among the participants. They stem from theparticipants’ talk and question posing related to their stories about teaching andlearning. The cases are constructed from participants’ personal recollections oftheir teaching practices. These oral stories are told and analyzed in the meetings.Discussing maternal knowledge and practice in relation to women’s talk, Belenky,Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986), emphasize the importance of talk as alearning tool. “Question posing is at the heart of connected knowing. We arguethat women’s mode of talk, rather than being denigrated, should become a modelfor all those who are interested in promoting human development” (Belenkey etal., 1986, p. 189). They emphasize the importance of talking and posing questionsas a critical component of human and professional growth. Although Belenkeyet al.115(1986) argue for the importance of women’s talk, this kind of talk is notnecessarily exclusive to women.Discussing learning through discussion, Grossman says: “In genuinediscussions, there is a shared responsibility for the conversation, just as in learningcommunities there exists a shared responsibility for learning” (Grossman, 1992b,p. 235). Since the Learning Strategies Group has met over a period of over twoschool years they have had the opportunity to develop a sense of sharedresponsibility for their talk. When the participants in the meetings discuss theirpractice, pose questions, are intrigued by the answers and are willing to pursuethem further, they push their professional growth to new limits. This kind of talk,geared toward exploring one’s profession in a safe and supportive environmentwith other practitioners, becomes a tool for professional growth.Learning ... advances through collaborative social interaction and socialconstruction of knowledge. . . .Within a culture, ideas are exchanged andmodified and belief systems developed and appropriated throughconversation and narratives, so these must be promoted. (Brown et a!.,1989, p. 40)When professionals discuss their practice, particularly when this is donecollaboratively, they enhance their learning. Discussions have the merit ofcrystallizing ideas, trying them out through conversations with colleagues, andreflecting upon actions.Although the participants receive written summaries of both the meetingsand the strategies they have discussed in previous meetings, the deliberationsalways evolve around the oral stories. Only at summative meetings, like at theend and beginning of the school year, or in preparation for the conferencepresentation, did the participants review the written versions of the strategies.The stories and strategies become cases through the multiple times they areaddressed in the meetings. I will now examine how stories evolve to cases in themeetings.116When a teacher brings a story to the group meeting this story usuallysterns from a problem on an issue in their teaching practice (Schwab, 1969). Insome instances the teacher shares an incident that has happened, highlighting thefocus or dilemma, and in other instances, the teacher plans ahead and comes upwith solutions for problems before they happen. The participants in the meetingsrespond to the story. Sometimes they suggest alternative approaches. They alsostart a process of linking the story to a variety of contexts. The story is linked todifferent content topics within that subject, to different subjects, to genericlearning and teaching questions, to theories of teaching and learning, and toprevious discussions within the group. The initial story changes its shape anddirection throughout the deliberations and discussions in the group. The initialproblem that was phrased by the teacher is now seen in a new light that suggestsnew directions of action. Thus, the story moves from a specific incident to a casethat is shaped by the discussions and shared by the participants.This characteristic of cases in the Learning Strategies Group, the fact thatthey are shared among the participants, allows them to be both emergent andgenerative. These cases emerge through deliberations in which the participantsclarify their stories. Questions and clarification also provide opportunities for theparticipants to find new applications to the teaching strategies in the originalstory. In this way, the deliberations on stories of thematic topics create caseswhich emerge from these stories and generate new ones. The new applicationsoccur when teachers modify a strategy that was discussed, or try that strategy innew contexts.Karen was in the planning stages of a unit in psychology and she broughther initial thoughts to the meeting:Karen: I have got something I want to do for psych that Pm reallynervous about because thats a lot of work. ... So maybe you guyscould just tell me if it’s going to be too much work. ... I’m doing117three chapters on developmental psych ... I would have them.before they ever look at the textbook, come up with the number ofstages they think people go through in their lives, and what thestages are, what are the significant issues at each stage. And thencome up with a class stages of life chart, I guess. So that’s my idea.My problem is I don’t know how I’m going to do it in the sense thatI’d like them actually to gather data.Pat: You could start with the Seven Stages of Man.Karen: But I want them to start blank.Jim: Sort of their own life experience.Karen: Yea, their own life experiences and the people who theyknow.Susan: You’ll see they have a lot of knowledge, I think you’ll findthat.Karen: But how are they going to prove it though?Alice: So you want them to interview?Karen: Or try and find evidence. Yea, but where am I going to findthe people for that?Jim: What’s sort of data will they collect?Karen: We’re going to work this out from beginning to end. Sothey have to figure out what the stages are, they have to figure outwhat they think what their hunches are about what happens ineach stage and then they have to figure out a way of testing thathunch. So ... they’d have a survey, maybe it could be a generalsurvey used at every stage.Pat: What if they took some of the data and made these boxes, let’ssee old age and then they observed and they told you what theirbase was?Karen: YeaPat: In other words some kids might go to the mall and because theyare looking at kind of mobility and dress and you know.Barbara: You’re looking at methodology too. What type ofmethodology are you going to use?Pat: You could divide the class up to groups.Karen: But that might be a good thing maybe to do. O.K. some ofyou come up with a survey ‘cause that’s one way of gathering data,and another pretty good is the community... and set up a situationthat you observe.Pat: What about interviewing elders about the stages they thinkthey have gone through?Karen: Yea, where would I get the elders from?Pat: You might get a group of kids together who have access toelders and have them interview their elders.Nelly: The other thing you could do too is when you first get themto do that they could brainstorm and get their ideas of what thestages are.Karen: HrnhmNelly: You could discuss that .. and then you could divide yourclass, and each group take a stage, and then from that they would118develop the methodology, they’re going to decide who they’regoing to use for their survey within the group. (Fieldnotes, 27.3.92)The above excerpt emphasizes the generative, emergent and sharedcharacteristics of the deliberations in the group. Karen presented a topic andmany questions about it. Through discussions and probing the participants sheshaped her decisions about the unit. Karen was able to focus the assignment,discuss areas where she was still not clear, and where she needed to explorefurther. She used the other participants’ experience and expertise in order to helpher frame the new assignment she was starting and the methodology she woulduse. The teachers followed the progress of this unit over a few meetings. In themeetings, Karen started by sharing her questions and dilemmas, posing them tothe group and receiving their responses. Karen stated that she was willing toshift and change her classroom practices because of the group deliberations. Theteachers’ comments ranged widely from questions about the topic, to commentsabout methodology, to suggestions to work in groups, and to hints aboutpossible sites of data collection. Karen then made decisions and choices aboutthe directions she wanted to pursue with the students. Karen carried out the unitand reported back to the group, refining, changing, and shaping the project in theprocess. This became an interactive kind of planning process for the participants,which started a new tradition of using meeting time to plan new lessons and notonly to share past experiences.The deliberations and discussions of the psychology project illustrate howtalk, and specifically talk among experienced practitioners, both teachers anduniversity educators, plays an important role in the process of framing problemsand finding alternative solutions to them. The reflective conversations of theparticipants shape their stories into cases and build a repertoire within the group.The teachers may use this shared repertoire when they make decisions about their119practice. Having both teachers and university educators participate in thedeliberations widens the horizons of the conversations. As Judith Shulman(1992) argues, commentaries of written cases provide multiple perspectives on thesame issue, they link it to research, and suggest alternative strategies for action.The collaborative deliberations in the meetings serve the same role. Havingteachers representing a range of subjects and having university educatorsinvolved in the process enriches the discussions and brings both depth andbreadth to the deliberations. The conversations are layered. The first layer is thestories and the other layers are the dialogues, analyses, and alternativesuggestions about the cases (Schwab, 1969). The cases in the LearningStrategies Group are shared and collaborative. They are rich in their descriptionof teaching and in the solutions they propose.The above excerpt illustrates that the implicit cases in the LearningStrategies Group are shared among the participants and are shaped by the groupdeliberations. The group discussions are embedded in a specific context that theparticipants are familiar with, and thus, these conversations provide the criticalcontextual structure to articulate teachers’ professional knowledge. The nextsection illustrates the situated nature of the cases in the Learning StrategiesGroup.Situated CasesSince learning is situated, cases are the appropriate medium to discuss andexplore learning, and may be the instrument best suited for teachers to learnabout their teaching (L. Shulman, 1992). There is a connection betweenknowledge, discussion of that knowledge, and action. Thus, cases become asignificant form of professional development in which narration of activity andanalysis of practice intertwine. “The problem, the solution, and the cognition120involved in getting between the two cannot be isolated from the context inwhich they are embedded” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 36). There are links betweenexplicit knowledge and implicit understanding, and the two are framed within aspecific context. When cases are used in teacher education they are written andprepared by experts who often do not teach in school. In the Learning StrategiesGroup the teachers and university educators implicitly created their own cases.They discussed difficulties in teachers classrooms and alternative strategies tosolve them. The participants examined the suggestions in light of previous groupdiscussions. The stories and cases were embedded in a context that was knownto all the participants. The stories were situated in a specific setting whichinfluenced them and influences how the participants understood and interpretedthe cases. The fact that the teachers all worked in the same setting and werefamiliar with it allowed the suggestions and solutions to problems to be specificand unique to that school. The cases in the LSG were situated within its specificsetting and, accordingly, so were the alternatives raised by the participants.The following excerpt is an example of the situated nature of the storiesand cases in the Learning Strategies Group. Doug linked the discussion ofconcept maps to the specific context in which he was teaching. He raised thequestion of the difficulty of encouraging students within the context of theAlternative school to read. The participants suggested different solutions:Doug: I have a question putting it into the context of the Alternateschool. What do I do if the kids do not read the book? How canthey work on those concept maps that assume knowledge of thecontent?Pat: Peer pressure to read.Doug: Peer pressure is in the other direction.Karen: Mystery, give the title and ask them to make up the content.Doug: This is something else, it is creative writing.Pat: Use short stories.Doug: You need to find the right book.Melissa: Last year we read cowboy stories, they got into it andreally read it.121Alice: Buy used books, tear them in half give them to pairs so theyread together each reading a half. (Fieldnotes, 24.1.92)The teachers discussed a variety of ways to encourage students to read. Theytalked about choosing the topics carefully, ensuring the books were short, toeven a unique method for having students read in pairs, where each one readshalf the story and describes that half to the partner, thus cutting the reading loadin half and encouraging cooperation (Fieldnotes, 31.1.92) . Since the context ofthe Alternate School is unique, the participants had to focus on that context sothat the solutions would work. Though the solutions may also work in othercontexts, they were geared to the reality for which they were proposed. Dougmade the choices about how to solve the problem of students not reading. Thesesolutions were shared and situated within a specific context.The next section describes and analyzes one of the recurring thematictopics. The participants frequently discussed the notion of linking as animportant teaching strategy. They maintained that in order to make learningmeaningful the students should be aware of links between concepts withinsubjects, links between subjects, links between learning and assessment, and linksbetween school life and students’ lives. Tracing the value the teachers attachedto the importance of “limking” in the group discussions over time, helps illustratethe nature of a shared situated case.Linkin2: A Shared Situated CaseLinking as a teaching strategy that is geared to building an understandingof school knowledge, focuses on connections either within a specific contentarea or between different content areas, or between students’ lives and schoolknowledge (Baird & Northfield, 1992). Linking was one of the recurring themesin the group meetings. It was first alluded to in the professional development122days, when the university educators mentioned linking as one form ofencouraging students to become independent learners. The teachers trieddifferent forms of linking. They used linking in a variety of ways in the meetingswhen they wanted students to expand their perspective. At first, the discussionsabout linking were sporadic. It came as a strategy when the group membersthought it could enhance students! understanding. However, gradually theteachers and university educators systematically sought out links in thediscussions and the teachers often tries to use them in their classes. Linkingbecame one of the thematic topics that was woven into many discussions. Theparticipants slowly shared and developed a repertoire and a language to discusslinking strategies.The importance of linking as a strategy to encourage students to becomeinvolved in their learning and become independent learners was initiallydiscussed in the first professional development day that the whole school staffattended. Throughout that day the university educators showed examples oflinking that were tried by groups of teachers in other settings. In the meetingsthat followed, the teachers frequently discussed variations of those linkingstrategies. At first they discussed attempts within subjects and then theyexpanded it further to links between subjects, and links between students’ livesand what they learn in school. For example, Barbara shared an example of usinga grid in grade 12 social studies as a method of summarizing a long and difficulttopic area. She gave the students the topics of the cells and columns and hadthem fill in the cells with information from the chapter. When Barbara broughtthis example to the meeting the teachers elaborated on it.Barbara: I wanted to make sure that when they compared andcontrasted the different countries you could see the slots verynic ely.123Karen: Maybe this is like almost training them to use the grid so thateventually they’ll create a grid. It might be just a beginning of thewhole process.Barbara-: They liked the idea and they said, “ Gee, this is a reallygood way to handle a chapter that is so messy, how to organize it,to make sense out of it”.Jim: I think the grid sounds great. I think, it has similarities to what abiology teacher had the kids do a grid for this purpose. Then theyused it to do their essay. That worked well, so I wonder if we’retaking this backwards you can now find a couple of essayquestions which require the same kind of knowledge of using quitea lot of the cells systematically.Barbara: I was thinking of that because otherwise it is just anexercise that is just hanging out there without a follow- up.Karen: If you follow up with an essay then they’ll see it as a muchmore powerful tool.Pat: Maybe now they only see it as an exercise done in class but ifthey see it as a way of organizing their ideas so that they can writefrom them, they!ll come up with something different.Pat: I would like to see if they use it later on their ovvn as a way oftaking notes.Barbara: It’s a good learning tool to organize information, andunless the information is organized you can’t have access to it, it isone of the pillars that they need to understand the next step.Pat: It also helps them understand what is going to be on their test.(Fieldnotes, 31.1.92)Barbara shared the grid and the participants responded. Jim linked it to anothergrid in biology and explained how it was used. Pat linked it to organization ofmaterial when studying for a test, and Karen suggested using the grid as aspringboard for writing an essay. Pat added another dimension, stating that itwould be interesting to see if students linked the grid to other learning contextswhich required accessing complex contents.Two meetings later (Fieldnotes. 14.2.92) Susan went back to examinelinking and the use of a grid. This time the grid was to be used to represent pastknowledge and what students were reading. Susan linked the grid to English.Then the participants encouraged each other to use grids and make the linksbetween the subjects explicit. Mark and Jim demonstrated how studentsbenefited from making links between concepts within subjects and between124subjects. Mark also added that the links between students’ lives and experiencesand what they learned in school was important.Less than a month later (Fieldnotes, 6.3.92) the use of linking strategieswas discussed again. This time Ann proposed using the grid in a new waycontinuing a discussion that Barbara had initiated. She described a flow chart, inthe form of a diagram which represented the relationships between characters in abook the class was reading.Ann: I think a flow chart would really help them to plan and to seewhy things happened, you know, the causes of events.Barbara: That’s right, cause and effect.Karen: And then would you mark that?Barbara: That’s probably a good suggestion, I never thought aboutit. ... They haven’t got the devising of the questions, but the flowchart, that would make sense, wouldn’t it? That’s a good route to go.Susan: Looking at a sort of the bigger picture of how we can helpthem link it all together. ... they [the students] weren’t making linksand I just got them to keep all their work in their writing, Iconstructed a writing folder, and I was just thinking seeing it allthere and seeing a progression through, will be a physical way ofhelping them to make the links. (Fieldnotes, 6.3.92)The participants moved from merely examining strategies of grids and links toexamining assessment tools that encourage the emphasis of links within schoolknowledge. Susan emphasized linking within the subject she was teachingthrough visual demonstration of the progression of what they had studied,linking different segments within the curriculum. Two months later (Fieldnotes,8.5.92) Karen discussed the use of a chart in her teaching, again focusing onmaking links explicit.At the end of the school year the participants had a longer meeting tosummarize their accomplishments and decide on directions for the second schoolyear. One of the decisions was to emphasize linking between contents withinsubjects, between the different subjects, and between school knowledge andstudents’ lives. The participants decided to make an effort to use students’ links125as a part of their teaching strategy, and to reinforce links in any possible way(Fieldnotes, 17.6.92).In the second school year the teachers raised specific attempts at linkingbetween subjects. One of the problems the teachers wanted to address at theschool at that time was racism. The teachers thought of ways to address thistopic in the school. Making links and emphasizing both relevancy and ahistorical perspective seemed the appropriate ways to handle that problem:Karen: A nice piece of integration between social studies andliterature might be to take an essay by Mowat called TheExecution. It is about the Inuits. That might be worth doing.Barbara: I wonder about a way to make it relevant if you take alook at the Neofascist movement in Germany, the skinheads andwhat they do to the Polish people and the Vietnamese etc.Pat: A one week on multiculturalism isn!t enough.Karen: I\4aybe we should do something across the curriculum, itwould be nice if we would be working together particularly in thegrade 10. (Fieldnotes, 14.10.92)In the next meeting (Fieldnotes, 18.11.92) linking between subjects was broughtup again. This time the context was different. The participants discussed linkingEnglish (Animal Farm by Orwell) and social studies when learning about Russia.They also discussed possible links between keyboarding skills and handing intyped assignments.Then the discussion moved to links within the English department withregard to book reports. In subsequent meetings the teachers shared experiencesof team teaching social studies and English in grade eight, making the linksbetween these subjects explicit to the students. The next mention of links wasbetween science and English:Gary: Do they talk about other examples of where they [thestudents] have to use evidence, where they say: in this coursewhere they are making those kinds of links that we were talkingabout.Barbara: They don!t say specifically, but I know the students ‘hoare in Lit 12 and I remember our concerns from the beginning of the126year when the students were writing both in lit and history it wasmore opinion rather than using concrete examples.Karen: They had good ideas but they didn’t know where they gottheniGary: I am just wondering if that spill-over came from the sciencecourses. That is a fairly important theme and issue in science.(Fieldnotes, 9.12.92)Linking in this meeting was through common learning skills. The participantsdiscuss good learning skills, like using evidence to substantiate claims,throughout the different subject areas. This attempt to emphasize learning skillswas an example of the commitment the participants made at the end of the firstschool year. This was the direction they thought the Learning Strategies Groupshould move. Over the next several meetings the teachers brought moreexamples and incidents in which they could emphasize learning skills that wereapplicable to different subjects. The group deliberations reflected this focus. Theparticipants had a common language and many past examples to rely upon whenencountering new situations in which linking would be applicable. This hasbecome one of the emphases in the deliberations and in the way the teacherspresented the stories they brought to the meetings.As demonstrated above, the notion and importance of linking as a teachingstrategy were woven into many of the meetings. The participants viewed manyof the stories through the implications of these stories to the notion of linkingbetween content topics within a specific subject, between subjects, and betweenstudents lives and what they learn in school. I will now analyze thecharacteristics of this shared situated case. As I stated earlier, cases in theLearning Strategies Group are shared and situated, and consequently, they areboth emergent and generative. When the participants in the LSG started todiscuss the strategy of linking it was specifically geared to answer a difficulty ofsummarizing a chapter in social studies. The group deliberations provided the127participants with ample opportunities to discuss and try out other kinds oflinking. The deliberations generated further strategies and examples of linkingthat the teachers tried and later shared in the meetings. The participants’ view ofthe role of linking changed over time. It was no longer a single strategy that wastried once, but a thread that connected a large variety of strategies. Theparticipants slowly developed terminology and ‘verbal shorthand’ about linking.They explicitly discussed in the group and with students the value of makinglinks between contexts, between topics in the same subject, and between schooland students’ lives. When the group discussed linking they shared and in timemodified the purposes of the strategy and its possible applications in newcontexts.The next section describes another shared situated case. The case of theinterplay between theory and practice is also woven into the Learning StrategiesGroup. This case focuses on the group processes and direction and not solely onits content.The Interplay Between Theory and Practice: A Shared Situated CaseThis case examines the interplay between theory and practice in theLearning Strategies Group, in which the participants reflected about theory andits relationship to practice. Theorizing is defined here as a process of abstractingfrom the particular instance, making sense of that instance based on priorknowledge and then applying it to new situations. Thus, theorizing explains,clarifies and modifies practice.Although the teachers who participated in the group meetings shared acommon view of what constitutes good teaching, most of the teachers claimed intheir interviews that they did not want to discuss theory in the meetings (seedetails in Chapter Four). The teachers sought a time and place within their128professional routine where they could share and discuss their practice. They didnot see these conversations about their practice as theoretical. They regardedthem as deliberations embedded within a specific practical context.Karen: I don’t want to get all caught up in anything that is tooacademic, I want to keep this really practical. What I want to takeout of the room is something, an idea to use some time or justsomething for me to think about and store away, you ... are here fora different reason and that’s fine, as long as it doesn’t becomeacademic for us, it doesnt matter to me, and I’m happy, I like havingJim and Janet here because I think you have a lot o( backgroundand expertise. (Fieldnotes 13.3.92)The university educators, on the other hand, saw the benefits from focusing onthe interplay between theory and practice. They expected the deliberations to bemore than just sharing of stories. They saw the group as an opportunity toexamine theories of learning, change, and collaboration between universityeducators and teachers.Jim: I’m not sure that you can run for a year just sharing ideas.What are we trying to do? What problems are we trying to dealwith? And, what progress are we making? Do we see changes inthe kids? ... It’s very exciting, you know. So I think that there’s aconception here of what can theory offer to practice. Noweverything Janet and I said at the day [the professionaldevelopment dayl tried to indicate the what we saw as theinteraction between the two and the value of the two for eachother. But it’s not something teachers are used to seeing in practiceso if we talk about change as involving the four dimensions ofconceptions, attitudes, behaviours and trusts then we’ve got aconceptual change here that needs to be brought about. (Interview,12.3.92)Since the teachers did not regard the core of the meetings as theoreticalthere were only a few explicit discussions about theory in the meetings.However, a close look at the list of topics discussed in the meetings and whoinitiated them (see appendix III) indicates both teachers and university educatorsdiscussed external theories. However, in the meetings there were many instances129where the teachers and teacher educators theorized about teaching and learning.There were theoretical assumptions and claims in what the teachers brought tothe meetings and in their reactions to what other participants brought forth.Furthermore, at the end of the first school year in a full day meeting (Fieldnotes,17.6.92) and in the interviews, the participants discussed the notions of theoryand practice more explicitly. In an interview, Susan elaborated on teaching withan underlying theoretical view of teaching and learning:Metacognition gives some kind of a framework, a direction, apurpose, and what we do [in the group meetings], sharing practice,is supported by this umbrella of metacognition. (Interview, 11.3.92)Though there were no explicit discussions of theories in the deliberationsabout practice, the stances the participants took in specific questions, and theways in which they approached practical dilemmas implied certain theoreticalperspectives. The group discussions provided an opportunity for the participantsto examine teachers’ practice through their, at times, implicit theoretical lenses.The deliberations about practice are theoretical, though they are anchored in theteachers’ practice.The participants theorized about learning, teaching, change, and theirgroup processes of collaboration. Following are examples of group discussionsthat emphasize how teachers and university educators theorized.Discussions of the notion of learning, evolved around questions of whatlearning entails, and how one learns. Discussions about learning focused on thenotions of learning from mistakes, making links between prior knowledge and thenew material, making links between different subjects learned in school, makinglinks between school work and students’ lives, and learning through teaching.The following excerpt from a meeting provides a focus to a discussion ofthe process of theorizing, that the teachers engaged in. The teachers spent many130of the group meetings discussing the importance of teaching students to usestructures and models. The teachers had long discussions about the interplaybetween providing structure and encouraging creativity. In those discussions theteachers were theorizing about teaching and learning though they did not framethe deliberations in theoretical terms. The following excerpt from a meetingillustrates how one teacher described a poetly project she had tried. The teachers!theories about learning and teaching were evident through their probing andquestioning.Alice: I ‘ye been doing poetry with my writing 12 class, which isnothing particularly interesting in itself.Karen: Well, why did you do what you did?Alice: The class is run like a writing cooperative ... so I started thepoetry after the prose term and I said ... do whatever you want,...well it didn’t work because they had no structure. So then I.. said,“Te1l, we’re going to do poem structure and this is meter and Iinvented all these patterns they had to write to and they had to playwith the syllables and it got better and it got better. So then Idecided to have them pattern... I had them patterning after RobertFrost, because I wanted them to write about things outside ofthemselves. I wanted them to go to nature,.. and I wanted them towrite in metaphor. They did a lot of group together analyzing it andtalking about it and finding the patterns and we read the othertwo “Road Not Taken” and “Acquainted with the Night”. Theassignment was they had to choose the structures, .. .and followthem. . .I’m finding that by putting the structure, I think the resultswere fairly remarkable.Janet: Fabulous.Jim: It’s incredible.Susan: So the sort of active part of this is the fact that they aredoing the writing.Karen: But also they had to understand first, they had to take apoemSusan: But the making of it has helped them understand.Karen: And I think that helping them analyze the poem has helpedthem to make it, because they couldn’t make it on their oiii before.Alice: Well, ... the reason I brought this in [to the meetingi isbecause this Robert Frost assignment seems to be producingconsistent excellence throughout the class ... as soon as I startedimposing structure, I gave them 4-5 assignments to get to this one.Karen: I think it is really good, you said it, it is a good way, itillustrates that this kind of structure and teaching of a techniquefrees kids. It gives them something, we sort of think “be creative”,¹131and they go in a vacuum, and they can’t do it. They need to betaught the technique and then they are free to do wonderful stuff.And I think that’s what you’ve done.Barbara: They can spring away from there.Karen: And the other thing, ... they had to create their own structureand it just goes to show how they’ve internalized what they’vedone with the imposed structure (Fieldnotes, 28.2.92)In this excerpt the teachers made some implicit theoretical claims aboutlearning and teaching: creativity is enhanced through the use of a model or astructure, group discussions and deliberations among students prior to individualwork enrich their work, and analysis of structure allows students to use itcreatively in their writing. These theoretical claims underlie and direct thedeliberations in the meetings. The way in which Alice presented the poetryproject to the class was in itself embedded in theory about writing. When Karenasked Alice why she had presented it to the class in that way Alice began toexplore her perceptions of teaching and learning and to reflect upon her actions.She maintained that before she had taught students to impose structure theirwriting was limited. She assumed that teaching students some of the structures ofpoetry freed them to be creative within a given structure. The teachers’ commentsand deliberations about the relationship between structure and creativityindicated that they held similar theoretical views about the advantages ofteaching students structures and models on the one hand, and encouraging themto be creative on the other. The participants assumed that when students learneda “tool” they would find new contexts in which to apply it.In another interview Pat linked the theory of active learning with itspractical implications. Pat added to the discussion about how to teach usingactive learning strategies and how to enhance higher level thinking skills ofstudents:Pat: As I said I’m coming away [from the meetings] with thinkingabout how I’m going to design activities that make kids makeconnections between their prior knowledge and the new things132they are learning, and between concurrent classes so that theirlearning may be easier for them. (Interview, 236.92)The participants theorized about collaboration between teachers and universityeducators. Barbara described the merits of the group meetings saying:One thing I like about the group is that it is really practical. I like thegroup [because] I’m questioning more what I’m teaching, I amquestioning if there is a better way to go, is this really necessary orwhat direction should I be trying to take the kids in. All right, so Ilike the group for that reason, it keeps me on my toes.(Interview. 23.6.92)Although Barbara called the group “practical” she described a process oftheorizing about teaching and learning. She maintained that through the groupdiscussions the teachers reflected upon their practice and learned from it, so thatthe decision making process was active, conscious and, to some extent, done inthe group meetings. Susan provided another example of the group collaborationand how it shaped her practice:Well, I did that [a strategy of how to summarize a passage whilereading it] with much more purpose and direction, because I haveseen that it was worthwhile. So that what I’ve done was directly inresponse to the group. (Interview, 19.6.92)The teachers claimed that they theorized by looking at the similarities anddifferences of the strategies and procedures other teachers brought to themeetings, and thus predicted how these would work in different settings, withdifferent students. They modified, changed, translated and developed thestrategies to their needs and to the students’ needs.When discussing collaboration between the participants some teacherssaw the university educators as providing “external” theories, and early on somefelt that they did not want or need “external” theories brought to the meetings.After seven meetings Jim consulted with the chairperson of the meeting andsuggested that they might try mapping the strategies the group had alreadydiscussed on a grid of active learning that was based on research about active133learning (Baird & Mitchell, 1987; Baird & Northfield, 1992) (Fieldnotes, 63.92).This kind of activity was foreign to the group discussions. In previous meetingsthe teachers brought instances from their practice and reflected upon ways toimprove their practice by moving towards teaching that encourages students touse high level thinking skills. The deliberations focused on those practicalinstances, elaborated on them, compared them or contrasted them with otherinstances. Jim was suggesting that the group might examine the suggestionsabout those instances in light of a specific theory of learning. The teachers in thegroup were not prepared for this shift in focus.This suggestion from a teacher educator produced a subtle tension in themeeting. The reason for this tension was twofold: the fact that the group hadnever examined teaching in that format before, and the fact that one of theteachers was disappointe.d because she could not share with the participantsexamples of students’ work which she had brought to the meeting in order toillustrate a procedure. That teacher left the meeting with a feeling that prioritywas given to an “external” theory brought in by the university educators. Shedid not perceive an immediate benefit from such a theoretical discussion,moreover, she felt her needs were not fulfilled by the group. In some of theteachers’ eyes, theory (brought in by university educators) took priority, in thisinstance, over what seemed more practice-oriented needs of a teacher.In interviews held later that day, some of the teachers expressed theopinion that perhaps there were teachers with different needs in the group: thosewith a “theoretical orientation and interest”, and those with a “practicalorientation and interest”. These teachers were even willing to consider separatinginto two discrete groups. It was surprising to note that not all the participantsperceived a link between the grid proposed by the university educator for thepurpose of examining the teachers’ suggestions and their teaching. In spite of134that tension the meetings proceeded. However, the participants agreed thatdifferent participants had different needs and interests at different points in theprocess and these needs should be addressed. In other words, when a teachercame with material to share and did not have time to do so, it was theresponsibility of the participants to allocate time for that teacher in the followingmeeting. Only at the long meeting at the end of the first school year did theuniversity educators subsequently initiate any external procedures to examinethe group!s progress.A year after this incident four of the participants prepared a conferencepresentation about the project . To prepare for the conference the teacherstheorized about the project they were involved in, the group evolution, learning,and teaching. In a discussion about theory I pointed out that these teacherswere nov7 theorizing in a way similar to the way proposed a year earlier by Jim.This slow shift in the perception of the. interplay between theory and practicemay have been a result of the weekly meetings. The teachers could see thebenefit of using theory for the purpose. of reflecting upon practice. Although theuniversity educators were initially perceived as bringing ‘external” theories tothe group meetings, as time went by the teachers appreciated the potential benefitof theory in their attempts to improve their practice.In one of the meetings (Fieldnotes, 25.3.93) Gary developed the notion ofusing metaphors in science. He described a situation where a teacher brought toclass a black box with a funnel at the top and a spout at the bottom. The teacherasked the students to tell him about the box. Then the teacher asked students topredict what would happen if clear liquid was poured into the funnel. Thestudents predicted different possibilities. The teacher poured in the clear liquidinto the funnel and red liquid came out of the spout at the bottom of the box.The students were then asked to create a theory or a model for what was in the135box. Before pouring some more liquid in the funnel, the teacher had the studentsmake another prediction. This time blue liquid came out. They re-examined theirinitial theoiy in light of what they had seen. When Gary shared this story withthe group he emphasized that the box was a type of metaphor of studenttheorizing, of making sense of what they saw and relating it to what they knew,and of being forced to re-examine what they knew when they encounteredcontradictory information. The students were theorizing about the box bylooking for similarities and differences within a specific context.When the teachers heard about the above demonstration they quicklymade a connection to the group processes. Karen said, “this is a metaphor for thegroup” (fieldnotes, 25.3.93). Nelly and Karen said that the way the teachers inthe group operated was similar to the description of the students. They said thatthe participants re theorizing and speculating on learning and teaching. Theywere trying out new strategies and then re-examining them in light of theirreflections in the meetings.In the second year, the teachers started to share their conceptions andunderstandings of learning and teaching. The teachers appreciated the importantrole of theorizing in order to make sense of teaching. However, they did notperceive “external” public theories (which they linked to the university) asrelevant. Public theories are written and become a part of the discourse withinthe discipline. Private theories are usually in the form of reflections and do notbecome public.However, all the participants used grounded theory to explain the groupprocesses, to account for the changes in the perceptions of teaching towardsactive learning, and to explicate what constitutes learning and teaching. Theteachers “judged” public theories according to how distant these theories werefrom their practice. Public theories were general, abstract understandings about136learning or classroom management, and in many cases these theories wereattached to a specific name of a researcher or a school of thought.The teachers distinguished between “external”, public theories and theirowi private theorizing. They perceived external theories as distant from theirpractice, but their group deliberations they perceived as a type of theorizingwhich was directly applicable and influential in their practice. When asked toexpand on the distinction they focused on theories that were immediately linkedto their practice. Thinking about and deliberating on the “craft of teaching” and“the philosophy of teachers” are processes of making theory. Theory here servesas a tool to make sense of specific instances of practice and link them to furtherpractical instances. Karen discussed this issue:This is a different kind of theory. These are my thoughts andexplanations of what had happened, they dont come from a book ora journal. They are not Theory in capital letters. They are my o’wiexplanations. (Fieldnotes, 23.2.93)Theorizing means going through a process of abstracting from the particularinstance. It provides the language and concepts with which to describe andanalyze phenomena. Theory consists of generalizations and ideas about interrelationships between concepts. Theory is the public discourse which enables anindividual to make sense of practice. Hooks (1988) points to the interplay oftheory and practice:All theory as I see it emerges in the realm of abstraction, even thatwhich emerges from the most concrete of everyday experiencesSuch theory emerges from a context in which there is either anintegration of critical thinking and concrete experience or arecognition of the way in which critical ideas, abstractly formulated,will impact on everyday life experience. (p. 39)Regardless of whether the starting point is practice, experiences in the field,theory, or abstract articulations of concepts, there is an interplay between theory137and practice. Theory informs practice and practice modifies theory. Schon(1987) claims that there is tacit knowing-in-action which entails thinking whiledoing. Theory becomes a tool, a vehicle which enhances and influences practice.In a similar way, the experiences, the past repertoire of practice informs andmodifies theory.In the early months of the meetings the teachers did not find links betweenthose “external” theories and their practice. What seemed important to theteachers was their process of theorizing about their practice. Thus, privatetheories and reflections became public within the group setting and were sharedby the participants as they were trying to make sense of teaching. After theteachers had discussed and articulated their personal reflections and theoriesabout teaching, the “external”, public theories became more accessible and usefulto them. The group deliberations became an intermediate stage between theprivate reflections and public theories.The shift in the teachers’ view of the underlying impact of “external” publictheories was evident at the end of the first school year (Fieldnotes, 17.6.92).After five months of weekly meetings the group met for a full day to discuss itsprogress and decide about its direction for the next school year. On that day theparticipants examined the strategies the teachers brought to the meetings andmapped them on to the group’s initial goals. Though there was hardly anymention of these goals in the five months of meetings, and there were very limited“theoretical” discussions in the meetings, the participants realized that they shareda theoretical perspective. All of the strategies stemmed from a similar perceptionof what constitutes good learning and teaching. The teachers felt that what drewthem together was a need to share their practice and collaborate with others;however, there was another layer of commonality. Though not discussedexplicitly at length, the participants shared a theoretical view of the learning138process. During the full day workshop that summarized the first school year, theparticipants examined the strategies they had discussed in the meetings. Thediscussion illustrated that all the strategies and procedures shared commonperceptions of learning and teaching. The group also shared a theoretical view ofthe potential for collaboration as a form of on-going professional development.As this case demonstrates the role and definitions of the interplay betweentheory and practice evolved over time. The teachers staited out claiming thatthey wanted the primary focus of the group to be on their practice. Theuniversity educators encouraged discussions about links between theories andpractice for the purpose of enriching the understanding of both theory andpractice. However, because of some of the teachers’ initial responses to theirinitiatives the university educators did not often bring theories to the discussions.However, over time teachers perceived the group deliberations as a commonground where they expressed their private theories and reflections aboutteaching. These private theories became public in the group setting, and were attimes shaped through the deliberations. The teachers shifted from claiming tofocus solely on practice, to sharing their theories, to examining possible benefitsfrom external theories. Gradually and occasionally they linked their theories topublic theories when they felt these theories allowed them to explain problemsand difficulties about teaching and learning. As discussed earlier, this caseillustrates how the understanding of the interplay between theory and practicewas modified through the deliberations. The discussions were situated in thecontext of this particular group, its needs and understandings. The discussionsallowed the participants to revisit their views and re-assess them. Thecollaborative setting and the fact that the meetings continued for a long timeprovided the participants with opportunities to examine their perceptions in light139of the deliberations and their practice. The multiple discussions of theories of theparticipants, discussions of theories of teaching and learning, and discussions ofthe dynamic processes of these deliberations became the multiple layers of thisshared situated case.Summary of Chapter SixThe participants in the Learning Strategies Group discussed teaching andlearning over a long period of time. They focused on skills that encouragedstudents to become independent learners. They discussed a variety of topics,some of which recurred over time. Links between content, a wide range ofassessment techniques, actively involving students in the learning and teachingprocess, the use of different forms of representation, and the complexities of theuse of new teaching strategies were all discussed.I have argued that the stories, teachers brought to the meetings, can bethought of as a type of ease knowledge. The participants shaped and defined thestories and carved them into a common discourse. The cases were situated andshared by all the participants. They were constructed from on-going discussionsand deliberations which were generative of further discussions and new teachingstrategies. The situated shared cases in the Learning Strategies Group hadmultiple layers. They started with an initial description of a specific situationbrought by a teacher. Then they were shaped and defined and framed throughthe reflective conversations. The next layer was that they were written in theform of minutes and strategies of the meetings. Another layer was the newattempts made by teachers to address questions that had been raised in themeetings. Yet another layer was when the topic was brought back to thediscussion table and the group deliberated on it again.140This multi-layered process constructs cases that are shared by theparticipants, situated within a specific context, rich, generative of further ideas forpractice, and evolving over time. The cases are the accumulation of reflectiveconversations of the participants. When the participants reflected on theirpractice before joining the group they either did it alone or sporadically withcolleagues. The Learning Strategies Group provides a systematic structure inwhich the participants reflect upon teaching and learning. As the group evolvedthe participants developed an atmosphere of trust where they could share privatetheories in a public setting. These shared situated cases allow the teachers toexamine their practice in a unique way; they also provide an opportunity for thiseducational community to use them as a dynamic tool of deliberation andanalysis.141Chapter 7Conclusions, Implications, and Further ResearchThe conclusions, implications for practice, and possibilities for furtherresearch that are described in this chapter are based upon the analysis of themeetings and interviews of the Learning Strategies Group. The chapter is dividedto three sections: an analysis of the research questions and the conclusionsemerging from them; implications for further professional developmentendeavours; and possibilities for further research stemming from this project.Conclusions Emerging from the Research QuestionsAn analysis of the literature pertaining to teachers’ professionaldevelopment, teachers’ knowledge, and the use of case studies served as thebackground perspectives used for this study. Transcripts and fieldnotes frommeetings and interviews were analyzed in light of these bodies of literature. Athick description of the development of the Learning Strategies Group, focusingon the participants’ reasons for joining the group, their expectations and roles, thestructural and substantive content of the meetings and how the group evolved,served as basis for answering the first research question. The second questionfocuses on the kinds of talk that occurred in the meetings. Therefore, a detailedanalysis of the discourse in the meetings was undertaken to answer that question.The third question examined the overall content of the meetings and how itevolved. Thus, an analysis of thematic topics at different meetings was used toanswer that question.Both Schon’s (1983; 1987; 1991) analysis of reflective conversations, andShulman’s (1992) definition and analysis of cases and stories were the tools usedto examine and analyze the content of the meetings. I used the terms “reflective142conversation” and “case” for the purpose of the analysis in this study. However,their definitions for the purpose of this analysis are broader than those suggestedin the literature. When Schon (1983; 1987) uses the term “reflectiveconversations” he sometimes refers to conversations iu the virtual world, ametaphorical dialogue between a practitioner and the specific situation that needsto be addressed. Although Schon also discusses conversations betweenpractitioners, he does not expand the use of the term “reflective conversation”beyond that of reflection on action between two practitioners.In this study, “reflective conversations” referred to the deliberations of theparticipants discussing a specific problem or dilemma about teaching andlearning. Using Schon’s term allowed me to examine the components of theseconversations. Schon argues that reflective conversations include a definition ofthe problem within a specific context, setting the problem in the light of pastrepertoire, experimentation with possible solutions, and a decision for action. Thedata indicated that the conversations in the Learning Strategies Group followed asimilar pattern. Thus, reflective conversations provided me with the tool tounderstand and analyze the structure of the dialogues in the groupconversations.In this study the teachers and university educators went through a processof “reflective transformation of experience” (Schön, 1987, p.25) in theirdiscussions in the meetings. Teachers shared instances from their practice withthe other participants in the group meetings. Then they transformed what theyheard in the meetings to their own settings. They went through a process ofconversing about reflection-on-action of the other participants in the group or ontheir own past experiences. This is similar to Smyth’s notion of “teacher-toteacher dialogue that constitutes the basis for a departure from the narrow viewsof reflection (Smyth, 1992, p. 219). Reflection becomes a tool with which teachers143can examine their practice, embedded within their particular context, and thusthey create their own “operationaV’ and “locaP stories (Smyth, 1992, p. 297).Richardson (1991) also emphasizes the importance of such conversations amongteachers and between teachers and researchers:It means that opportunities should be created to allow teachers to interactand have conversations around standards, theory, and classroom activities.It also suggests that a necessary element of the conversation arediscussions of alternative conceptions and activities that in combinationwith some of the teachers’ own conceptions form a view of warrantedpractice. Research becomes one basis for the development of warrantedpractices with which teachers may experiment in their classrooms. (p. 18)The use of cases to discuss teachers’ practice has been prevalent in theteacher education literature in the last decade (for example, Grossman, 1 992b;Kleinfeld, 1992; Kagan, 1992; J. Shulman; 1992, L. Shulman, 1992). Lee andJudith Shulman (1992) discuss a variety of purposes for using cases. When LeeShulman discusses cases, he talks about written cases that are composed either byteachers or by university educators. These cases serve as the springboard foreducational discussions among experienced and novice teachers. However, hereagain, the study expands the way the term is used.In the Learning Strategies Group the recurring thematic topics that thegroup discussed and the group deliberations created shared situated cases. Thesecases were oral, generative and evolving. Although the participants did not setout to create cases but to discuss teaching and learning, implicit shared situatedcases emerged from the discussions. These cases served two purposes: to providethe language and context for teachers and university educators to discussteaching, and to serve as a tool to accumulate the repertoire of these colleagueswho regularly met to discuss teaching and learning. The cases in the LSG wereshared, that is crafted simultaneously and orally by the different participants, andsituated within specific contexts,144Question One: How does a collaborative group of teachers anduniversity educators who naeet regularly to improveteaching practices aimed at increasing students activelearning evolve over a period of two school years?When the school contacted the university, the professional developmentcommittee was seeking possible venues of collaboration. The universityeducators expanded the invitation and encouraged teachers to consider an ongoing project of collaboration around a shared interest in learning and teaching.The literature suggests different models to analyze similar collaborativeendeavours (Bell & Gilbert, 1993: Cole & Knowles, 1993.; Kagan, 1991).However, the data from the Learning Strategies Group did not support thesemodels. The data suggested that though there were shifts in emphasis no stageswere identified.These three models discussed above describe different facets ofcollaborative endeavours. The analysis of this study does not propose a fourthmodel. Models, by definition, are arbitrary and externally imposed structures onphenomena. When I analyzed the data from the meetings I found that there wasevolution of development, but not necessarily stages of development. There wasdevelopment in the kinds of stories the teachers shared in the meetings, and in therole theory and practice played in the deliberations. Initially, teachers sharedsuccesses from their past experiences, and gradually they discussed difficulties,problems, and planning for future teaching. Teachers’ attitude towards theinterplay of theory and practice also evolved over time. First, they were adamantthat they were only interested in deliberations that were directly geared to theirteaching. They wanted to steer away from any theoretical discussions. Slowly,they understood that the group was theorizing when they responded to anindividual teacher’s story. The participants were making sense of teachers’ stories.145They analyzed, categorized, and applied principles from these stories in newcontexts. Then, the teachers started to appreciate the ways that theorizinginfluenced and was a part of their practice. Next, they sought external theoriesthat would allow further insights into their practice and to the groupdeliberations.Though there is certainly growth and evolution in the group over time, Iargue that using an external model does not capture the intricate nature of thegroup deliberations. The participants developed a language and a sharedrepertoire to discuss teaching and learning. The evolution of these topics can betraced to the early group meetings. For example, presenting external theories wasnot left entirely in the hands of the university educators, and there were teacherswho shared failure earlier in the meetings. Thus, a description and an analysis oftrends and directions and the way they evolve over time, seem more suitable thana creation of a new model.The participants established routines and roles from the initial meeting andrenegotiated them throughout the project. Chairing the meetings rotated amongthe teachers, and hence all the teachers, in turn, decided the agenda, ensuredparticipants needs were met, and occasionally shared the responsibility ofcontacts with the university educators. The participants discussedconfidentiality, agenda setting, and ways to ensure that all the participantsconcerns and interests were addressed. They also discussed the support from theuniversity educators. There was no stage in the project in which the participantsfocused entirely on procedural and structural concerns. From the initial meetingand in all the meetings, the participants discussed specific incidents and storiesfrom the classrooms. In the first months, the teachers discussed successfulstrategies that they had tried. Later, the teachers shared difficulties and failures inorder to find alternative solutions to problems. The teachers also used the time in146the meetings to plan together either for team teaching or for their own teaching.They deliberated on units that were difficult. Consulting with the group beforeand while teaching a unit allowed the participants to comment on the planningprocess, and also allowed the teachers to reflect upon the plan and decide how toproceed.There were seven recurring thematic topics that were discussed in themeetings: 1) the variety of ways to visually present materials to students; 2) thetechniques for students to summarize witten materials; 3) the assessment andevaluation techniques which meet the group’s goals of teaching; 4) thecomplexities associated with using new teaching strategies ; 5) the tensionbetween theory and practice; 6) the use of models and structure in order toencourage students to be creative; and 7) the use of linking strategies betweensubjects, within subjects, and between school work and students’ lives. Theparticipants discussed teaching strategies around these thematic topics andoccasionally revisited them. The discussions evolved around subject specific andgeneric teaching strategies.When the participants reviewed the strategies and their initial goals inparticipating in the project (Fieldnotes, 17.6.92), they realized that all thestrategies that they had discussed shared the same understanding of what goodteaching and learning entailed. Though the participants did not often addresstheir theoretical understandings, the strategies indicated that it was shared amongthe participants.When the group was more heterogeneous, in the first year of meetings, thestrategies and learning skills discussed were more generic in nature. When theparticipants discussed subject specific strategies they also sought ways totranslate them into other contexts and subjects. In the second and third years,with changes in the teachers who participated in the project, the group became147more homogeneous. The strategies and learning skills were more geared towardsteaching humanities. The focus of the discussions was on learning skills and linksbetween social studies, English, and English as a Second Language.The group developed with regard to contacts outside the group. At first,the teachers were not interested in any kind of contacts with other teachers onstaff who did not choose to participate in the meetings or with teachers fromother schools. The teachers emphasized that they were not interested inparticipating in any presentations about what they had done in the meetings.Over time, the teachers were more inclined to share with others what they hadlearned. They initiated presentations to the staff where they discussed theadvantages of collaboration between teachers and university educators for theirprofessional development. They encouraged teachers to join the group. Theparticipants also presented insights from the project at a professional conference.Another indication of the shifts in attitude towards the project may be seenat the administrative level. Initially, the administration was supportive of theproject, but was not very involved in it. The principal encouraged the teachers tomeet and was willing to plan the timetable accordingly. However, the teacherspreferred to meet before school on their owii time. Over time, on differentoccasions when the principal wanted to examine new ideas for change hebrought them to group meetings.Though there were no specific stages of development in the LearningStrategies Group, it did evolve over time. The participants developed trust so thatthey were willing to discuss and share both failures and successes. The teachersslowly moved from sharing past teaching experiences and particularly successes,to using the meetings in order to plan and reflect upon their earlier attempts. Theroles of the participants and purposes of the meetings were defined, examinedand negotiated throughout the project. In the second year the participants148sought ways to reach new teachers and to discuss the project in contexts outsidethe meetings. In the third year the teachers started to discuss their perceptions ofthe implications of their participation in the LSG on their students.In this study, the school did not have past experiences of long termcollaboration with a university. Thus, the initial stage was one of slowly buildingtrust, and creating a setting. Though the goals were stated clearly from the outset,they were stated in broad terms. One of the on-going assignments of theparticipants was to unpack the broad goals into specific ones that were revisitedand negotiated and renegotiated throughout the project. The mandate of thegroup was clearly facilitative, geared to improve teachers! practice throughdiscussions. All the participants had vested interests though they varied bothindividually and over time. Each participant had a clear sense of gain fromparticipation.Question Two: What is the nature of the coiaversational dynamics of sucha group?The teachers and university educators were engaged in discussions ofspecific incidents about teaching and learning that the teachers brought to themeetings. After a teacher described an event from the classroom, the participantscommented and responded to the stoiy. They asked questions that pushed thepresenting teacher to explain the rationale for the strategy. The deliberationsshaped the strategy, and the alternative solutions to the dilemmas or problemsthat were embedded in the teacher’s stoly. The participants linked the strategy toother strategies that they had previously discussed, or to other contexts in whichit could be implemented.The analysis of the group deliberations in terms of Schön!s (1985; 1987)discussion of reflective conversations points to the similarities and differences149between them. Reflective conversations, in both cases, describe a process ofdeliberation and finding solutions to problems of practice. Reflectiveconversations include framing and reframing of the problem, setting it in differentcontexts, and experimenting with alternative solutions. In Schö&s descriptionand in the Learning Strategies Group, reflective conversations serve as a vehicleto make decisions about the practice. Schön argues that the conversations areinternal, taking place between the practitioner and the situation. They bring forththe virtual world in which the practitioner experiments in order to later perform inthe practice setting. Although the reflective conversations in the LearningStrategies Group served the same purpose of deliberations about the practice,they were different since they involved a group of people and provided theparticipants with opportunities to share their expertise, past experience, andopinions about the question at hand. These reflective conversations were notpersonal internal processes, they allowed the participants to make their reflectionspublic. The reflective conversations in the LSG were the tool to share privatethoughts in a more public setting. Building trust was the initial step that allowedthis kind of group reflective conversations to take place.The reflective conversations in the group can be described as spirals andladders. A concern or a dilemma was raised and then the participants reacted.The presenting teacher was pushed to examine the proposed strategy in light ofthese questions. The conversation extended beyond the initial concern to newcontexts. In these reflective conversations the participants discussed the initialconcern, refrarned it in other contexts, and explored it in relation to pastexperience. t the end of these conversations, the participants discussed possiblealternatives for action with regard to the initial concern. Thus, using andexpanding Schön’s (1985; 1987) metaphor, there were ladders of reflection, onwhich the participants went up and down, discussing both theory and practice.150In these conversations the participants shared concrete and specific examplesfrom the classroom, going up and down their own ladders of reflection. When theparticipants linked a specific incident to others and to earlier deliberations,building a shared repertoire, they were exchanging ladders. The conversationsalso evolved in spirals, both examining other extensions of a problem andreturning to it. Since the group consisted of both teachers and universityeducators their experiences and fields of expertise varied, hence theconversations were broad and encompassed a wide variety of examples andperspectives.Question Three: In what ways can the nature of the discourse hi thiscollaborative group be described and represented?The teachers in the Learning Strategies Group used stories and incidents todiscuss questions of learning and teaching. They did not come to meetings andpresent a general, theoretical question, like “what are assessment tools thatinvolve students in evaluating their work?” or, “what learning skills ought to betaught in grade eight?”. However, they addressed these questions in themeetings through discussions of stories from the classroom. The teachers broughtto the meetings stories from their teaching that exemplified specific difficulties,and conflicts and they addressed these in their reflective deliberations. Since theinitial description was in the format of a stoly, cases seem to be the tool that willallow description, examination and analysis of the kinds of conversations andtheir substantive and structural contents.Cases are narratives, which have a plot, a structure and a purpose. Thecase is a story of the particular and specific which serves as an example of a largercategory. Cases in teacher education are written by expert teachers or universityeducators, and they serve as a tool to encourage conversations around dilemmas.151They are often used in order to allow novice teachers to engage in decisionmaking processes like expert teachers.Although shared situated cases in the Learning Strategies Group sharemany characteristics of the cases discussed above, they also have unique features.Like case studies in teacher education, shared situated cases are narratives thatcapture situations related to teaching and learning. They too, have a plot,structure and purpose. However, there are some differences between these twokinds of cases. Shared situated cases represent a process of deliberation about aparticular topic. They are my representation of the ways in which thematic topicsemerged and evolved over time in the group discussions. Thus, shared situatedcases portray a process of deliberations, whereas case studies, used in teachereducation, represent a product that is carefully crafted. Another difference lies inthe purpose of the case. Cases in teacher education serve as catalysts fordiscussion. They are carefully crafted in order to begin a dialogue, or a process ofdeliberation about educational issues. Shared situated cases, however, do notserve a function of creating the opporftmity for a dialogue. They are arepresentation of the dialogue, the multi-layered discussions around thematictopics. Their purpose lies in the accumulation of a shared repertoire of teachingstrategies and deliberations about teaching and learning. Shared situated casesare not crafted prior to the group deliberations. It was not that one of theparticipants came with a written case and that opened the discussion. Rather, ateacher started the meeting with an oral report, a story, or an incident from theclassroom, and that often evolved into a reflective conversation. Theseconversations, comments and questions of the participants are articulated in theform of shared situated cases.When the participants addressed a new story that was presented in ameeting, they sometimes referred back to other stories that they had previously152shared. These comments, modifications, questions, and links to other stories thatthe participants made were the components of the shared situated cases. Theshared situated cases were constructed from the analysis of the groupdiscussions. The initial story was reframed and defined in different contexts,linked to theories and to other stories in the shared repertoire of the group.Shared situated cases in the LSG represent the layers from each occasion inwhich the thematic topics were addressed in the meetings. The layers were thedifferent perspectives and deliberations about the recurring thematic topics thatwere demonstrated in the shared situated cases. These shared situated casesprovided the language which the participants in their professional development.The participants created a repertoire of cases which encapsulated the teachers’experiences and the group’s deliberations about these experiences. The sharedsituated cases demonstrated the common language the participants used toexplore and reflect upon teaching and learning.Implications for Further Professional Development EiadeavoursThis section discusses insights from the Learning Strategies Group whichmay be useful in enhancing professional development endeavours which entailcollaboration between teachers and university educators.Change at the School LevelThe Learning Strategies Group was initiated at the school level. It did notevolve as a result of a large scale school or district curriculum improvementinitiative. Its focus was local, addressing the specific needs of the school. Theapproach taken was a “grass-roots” approach. Although the university educatorsknew they were interested in a long term professional development endeavour,and not one in-service day, they did not determine the direction of the project.They had one parameter that guided them and that was their interest in153enhancing active learning. They were clear that they would not meet regularly ifthe teachers were interested in pursuing other directions. However, the teachereducators left the specific leading and directing of the project to the teachers.This approach increased the salience of the motivations and the relevance of theproject to the participants, and may perhaps, explain the longevity of the projectand the commitment of the participants. Research indicates (Sarason, 1990; 1993;Winitzky, Stoddart, & O’Keefe, 1992) that many proposed changes do notbecome the new reality in the schools. Those changes are in many casessuperficial and thus slowly dissolve. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991), Barth (1990),and Cuban (1992), call for creating communities of teachers and teachereducators that will support teachers! growth and thus, foster school improvementand change. Similar to the Learning Strategies Group, the focus moves fromlooking at change as something external and imposed to one where change isviewed as stemming from local initiatives of teachers focusing on theirprofessional development and growth.Intrinsic Reward SystemWhen a professional development project is local, as in the LearningStrategies Group, participants perceive the project as one which nurtures theirown professional development. Thus, the operative reward system is intrinsic.Extrinsic purposes and rewards often lead to value conflicts and to the earlytermination of projects when those extrinsic rewards cease to exist (Dawn Smith,1992; Lasley, Matczynsky & Williams, 1992; Haymore, Sandholtz, & Merseth,1992; Teague Ashton, 1992; Winitzkv, Stoddart, & O’Keefe, 1992). Collaboration,as defined in this study, is a process of mutual construction of knowledge. It is aprocess where goals, procedures, and evaluation are defined jointly by all theparticipants and are negotiated time and again throughout the project (Cole &Knowles, 1993; Erickson, 1991; Hunsaker & Johnston, 1992). Accountability is154internal to the group and is determined by and for all the participants. Theparticipants felt it was their responsibility and their reward to attend meetings andcontribute to them. E.ven when offered extrinsic support, as in scheduling themeetings on timetable, the teachers felt strongly that they wanted to meet on theirown time and not be controlled by anything or anyone external to the group.Power and ControlSince the Learning Strategies Group was a collaborative project thatentailed collaboration between participants from different cultures, teachers anduniversity educators, issues of power had to be addressed. The teachers wantedto meet on their time and thus have “ownership” of the project. They refused toapply for external funding from the Provincial Ministry of Education in order tomaintain control. They did not want the administration or the universityeducators to set the agenda or dictate the direction of the meetings. This becameparticularly apparent when there was some uncertainty about the direction thegroup was going (for example towards the end of the first year). Theycontinuously asked the university educators about their roles and interests in theproject. The teachers were concerned that their agenda be addressed in themeetings and that there was no “hidden agenda” of the teacher educators. Theuniversity educators found ample opportunity to demonstrate to the teachersthat their role was that of assistance and support. The teachers set the pace, theagenda, the format of the meetings. The university educators gave examples andsupplied theory that was relevant to the discussions, but rarely initiated newdirections. The university educators negotiated and explained their roles andpurposes throughout the project, making their interests explicit.Some of the teachers in the group were department heads and some werenot. Though there was no visible incident where this issue of authority led to aproblem, the teachers in interviews discussed a possibility of tension in such155situations. The hierarchical differences between teachers and department headshas the potential to become a problem, but has not become one in the LSG. Sinceall the participants perceived themselves as competent, experienced teachers whowere experimenting to find ways to improve their teaching, were willing to shareboth successes and difficulties.To avoid hierarchical conflicts within the group, the teachers decided torotate chairing the meetings. The main advantage of this decision was that all theteachers felt a responsibility over the project beyond their specific needs andinterests. The teachers ensured that the meeting time was divided so thatwhoever wanted to present new material could do so. The disadvantage to thegroup as a result of the decisions to rotate the chairperson was the lack ofcontinuity in contact with the university educators. There were hardly anydiscussions between teachers and university educators between meetings. Theydid not discuss the agenda or possible directions to pursue. Therefore, theteachers had full control over the project, its pace, and direction. Hence, the roleof the university educators was one of support and not a leading and directingone.Sharing a Theoretical PerspectiveThe starting point in the project was a shared theoretical perspective onlearning and teaching. The teachers who joined the Learning Strategies Groupdid so after two professional development days that focused on ways to enhancestudents’ active involvement in learning. Early on in the meetings they linkedthese theories to their practice. Sharing a theoretical view of what good teachingand learning were was at the core of the meetings. When the participantsexamined the strategies the group had previously discussed, they saw that all thestrategies shared a theoretical perspective. Therefore, the conversations in themeetings were not merely sharing stories from the classroom. Sharing had156another purpose. The deliberations touched on the interplay between theory andpractice and how one influenced the other and at the same time was influencedby it. Hence, both teachers and university educators could benefit from thediscussions and contribute to them.Interplay Between Theory and PracticeTheory was perceived in the Learning Strategies Group as a generativedevice for deliberations about teaching strategies. Although the teachers sharedan understanding of what good teaching and learning entailed they did not seemto refer back to one specific theory. The group discussions provided anopportunity for the participants to examine teachers’ practice through theirsometimes implicit theoretical lenses. The deliberations about practice aretheoretical, though they are anchored in the teachers’ practice. In the meetings,the participants discussed teaching and learning, change, and collaboration in thegroup. The participants encouraged the teachers to take risks, try new strategies,use the group to debrief their teaching experiences, and to modify the strategiesfor further attempts. They encouraged teachers to translate and link strategiesfrom one content area to another, and to look for generic learning and teachingprocedures, The teachers used the meetings in order to examine their practicesharing stories from their classes.Schön (1983; 1987) argues that practitioners’ knowledge is found both intheir actions and in their reflections on those actions. He claims that practice canbe characterized as complex, uncertain, unstable, unique and characterized byvalue conflicts. As Schön maintains, one goes back to one’s prior knowledge,claims, and beliefs in order to solve a problem in current practice. This reframingof the problem is a theoretical process that leads to new actions in practice. Theteachers used the time in the meetings to share some of this process of examiningtheir practice.157Differentiating between private and public theories is helpful in order tounderstand the participants’ attitudes and views of theory and practice. Whetherreferring to public theory which sterns from research reports and is brought to themeetings by the university educators, or private theory that teachers bring forththrough a process of making sense of their practice, theory both influences and isinfluenced by practice. These deliberations, which are often shaped like casesthat provide a dialogue between theory and practice, enrich both the teachers’practice and the participants’ understandings of the interplay between theoryand practice. The teachers did not see initially the value of external theory. Theywere seeking concrete practical solutions to problems. However, as time went on,they perceived their discussions as theoretical, expressing both personal andshared theories in the group. The meetings became the common ground todiscuss intermediary theories of the participants. These theories were no longerpersonal, yet were shared only within the group. Gradually the participantslinked them to external theories, and were also interested in writing about theirown theories.Group DynamicsGroup dynamics had an important role in the development of the project.When the makeup of the group was heterogeneous, encompassing teachers froma wide range of subjects, the focus of the deliberations was on generic teachingstrategies. These strategies could be. translated from one context to another.Heterogeneity allowed the participants to discuss both a variety of subjects andgeneric learning skill, using examples from different subjects. However,heterogeneity also resulted in times when some teachers’ needs and interests wereput aside in order to answer other teachers’ needs. It also meant that at timesteachers needed to translate and modify what they heard from one subject totheir own. When the group became more homogeneous the teachers shared a158common background of a specific field of knowledge. This led to discussions ofsubject n-latter that were more topic specific. However, the discussions thensometimes lacked the variety and diversity of different perspectives. Groupdynamics influenced the directions of the deliberations, and the content of themeetings.Conducting Research on Collaborative ProjectsI joined the project because of my interest in teacherS professionaldevelopment and collaboration between teachers and university educators.However, my goal was also to conduct research about the project. In order to dothat I gathered data from meetings and interviews. Since the meetings were taperecorded and transcribed, I could provide the participants with written copies ofstrategies and minutes from the meetings. Although the participants did not referto these documents regularly, they served two important roles. These writtendocuments provided the teachers with a record of the many new strategies ofteaching that they could use. They also allowed the participants to examine thedirection of the project, and make decisions about future meetings. The analysisof the strategies that had been presented at the meetings was the basis ofdiscussions and decisions at the end or beginning of the school years. Thedeliberations about goals and purposes of the group emphasized the sharedunderstandings of learning and teaching.When research is conducted as a part of the project, there is someone whoprovides written reports, conducts interviews, and analyzes the process and thecontent of the project. The research provides insights about the project, engagesin deliberations about it in comparison with similar endeavours that are reportedin the literature, and thus may shed light on the unique characteristics as well asthe features that are similar to other projects in the area.159When I presented my research interests to the participants they all agreedto participate in the project as well as the group. Although the research agendawas known from the first steps, as it evolved and changed I shared the analysiswith the participants. The researcher is the one who makes decisions about thedirection and focus of the research. However, the participants must be able toexpress their opinions about it. Negotiations of the research agenda need to takeplace throughout the project. In this case, the teachers and university educatorswere aware of the analysis directions, and the ways in which I made sense of thedata.A cautionary note to those conducting research in similar projects. Theresearcher ought to be aware of the biases and preconceptions that he or she mayimpose on the data. For example, since the teachers discussed in the early stagestheir resistance to external theory, I assumed that the university educators werethose who presented theory in the meetings. With this perception in mind Iexamined the data. I theorized about the role the university educators played inpresenting theories in the meetings. However, a close analysis of the transcriptsindicated that both teachers and university educators brought external theoriesto the discussions. Theories were brought when any participant thought theywould enhance the understanding of a certain topic. Though some teachersseemed reluctant to acknowledge the role theory plays in deliberations aboutpractice, they occasionally brought external theories to the discussions.The researcher ought to examine and analyze the data in a wide range ofdirections and interpretations. Themes emerge from the constant interplaybetween the researcher’s knowledge of the literature and the data. Awareness ofthis interplay provides the researcher with opportunities to examine his or herbiases with regard to the study. Theorizing about the project, making sense ofthe data is a dynamic process which evolves and unfolds over time.160Directions for Further ResearchThere were two areas that emerged from the data that require furtherinvestigation and research: the first is to explore the impact of such collaborativegroups on the school culture, specifically examining the administration, teacherswho do not participate in the group, and students; the second is to explore thepossibilities of using collaborative groups as a tool for professional developmentfor beginning teachers.The Impact of Collaborative Groups on School CultureThis study focused its investigation on the dynamics and development of agroup of teachers and university educators within a secondaiy school setting. Itwas beyond the scope of this study to examine the school culture and how it wasaffected by the existence of the Learning strategies Group. Such an examinationmay be oriented to three possible directions. First, one may examine therelationships between the group and the administration. Though this study refersbriefly to the interactions between the principal and the group, it is a topic thatwarrants more extensive study. The principal has many roles in the school, someof which entail supervision and evaluation of teachers, and initiation of change inthe school. When a group of teachers and university educators meet regularly atthe school it may affect the relationships between the participating teachers andthe principal. The principal’s views of teachers’ professional development mayaffect possibility to meet on timetable. The principal’s perception of the merit ofcollaboration may also affect the possibility of occurrence of groups similar to theLSG. The development of the perception of the principal as to the possibilitiessuch a group bringing about change in the school might determine the attitudetowards the group.161The second factor to consider in the culture of the school is the rest of theteachers. Since projects like the Learning Strategies Group are long term, theinter-relationships between the participating teachers and the other teachersshould be examined. Teachers who choose not to participate in the groupprobably have opinions about the meetings, their content, and possibleinfluences. Do these change? If so, in which direction, and on the basis of whatevidence? How do the teachers who do not participate perceive the groupmeetings? Why don!t they join the group? What makes teachers change theirmind and leave or join the group?At the end of the first professional day, a second questionnaire asked all ofthe staff if they objected to the project. The university educators wanted toensure that the teachers who did not join the group did not object to it takingplace. Although there were many teachers who did not want to join the group,no one expressed opposition to the meetings. This survey was important so thatthe group did not meet in a hostile setting. However, the staff was notapproached again to see how they felt as the group evolved. Did the staff feel“left out”? Did they feel there was a change among the staff because a group ofteachers was meeting regularly? Did they ever consider using strategies from theLearning Strategies Group? Can they benefit from reading cases that evolve fromthe group? How do these teachers perceive teachers! professional development?These questions may shed light on the impact of the group on the staff, and onthe reactions of the staff to the existence of the group. They will allow a glimpseat the culture of the school.The third component of the school culture that ought to be studied is thestudents. In this study, the teachers discussed their perceptions of students’change, however, that change was not examined. The teachers brought examplesof students’ projects and assignments in order to demonstrate the new strategies.162However, the classes were not observed and the students were not asked abouttheir understanding of what their teachers were doing. In order to have a fullunderstanding of the impact of collaborative groups of teachers and universityeducators one should examine students’ achievements, and their understanding ofthe new strategies and their purposes and goals. Since the purpose of theLearning Strategies Group was to enhance students’ active involvement in theirlearning, one should assess the changes that occur in students whose teachers areinvolved in such groups. One of the themes that merges was that teachersparticipating in the group were going through similar learning processes as theirstudents. The participating teachers were experimenting with new teachingstrategies. In a similar way, their students were wrestling with new learningstrategies and skills. Pursuing this parallel between students and teachers furthermay help to shed light on the processes of learning new material both inadolescents and adults.Participation in the group is voluntary and thus there would probablyalways be teachers who would not participate in them. Students of theseteachers may serve as control groups to determine the differences betweenstudents whose teachers participate in professional development collaborativegroups, and students of teachers who do not participate in such groups.Collaborative Groups as a Tool for Professional Development for BeginningTeachersIn the second school year there were some attempts to get beginningteachers and student teachers to join the group. All these attempts endedrelatively quickly with the new teachers and student teachers deciding they didnot belong in the group. In a discussion the beginning teachers claimed that themeetings were too overwhelming. They felt they did not have time to join themeetings. Their work load seemed unbearable. There were too many strategies163proposed and discussed in the meetings. They also felt that the participantsshared both successes and failures and that was difficult. As a result of thedynamics that developed in the Learning Strategies Group the new teachers didnot want to participate in the meetings. It seems that beginning teachers wouldbenefit at least as much as experienced teachers from the opportunity to discusstheir practice: plan., receive feedback about their classroom experiences, andreflect upon their teaching with a group of colleagues. Beginning teachers couldalso learn from the discussions about theories of teaching and learning as they areembedded and situated within their specific contexts. So why didnt they join thegroup? What would encourage new teachers to join such groups? How shouldthese groups be structured so that the new teachers feel that participating in sucha group does not add another burden to their full schedule but reduce the load?What should be the roles of the university educators if the participants are newteachers?Such questions ought to be addressed but are beyond the scope of thisstudy. Studies that address such questions may further enhance theunderstanding of how collaborative groups of teachers and university educatorscreate communities of professionals, who create and share a language to discussand improve their practice.164APPENDIX IPROFESSIONAL DAY !FEEDBACK FORM”From: Professional Development CommitteeThe purpose of the Professional Development Day on December 13th will beto focus upon teaching strategies aimed at changing types of student learningoccurring in classroonis, in ways that are consistent with the schoolcommitments found in the School Handbook.In an earlier meeting with the University team we identified a number of possibleemphases that could be addressed through workshops. We would like somefeedback of which, if any, of these emphases are of concern or interest to you.Please indicate your degree of interest in the following emphases and rank orderyour top three preferences.Interest Ratin2: L = Low M = Medium H = HighEmphases:(a How do we encourage independent learning and criticalthinking as opposed to rote learning?(b) How do we encourage higher level thinking such as critical,reflective that will lead to self-assessment and evaluation?(c) How do we “harness” the students’ verbal activity and energy ina positive way to focus on thinking and learning?(d How do we design learning activities that encourage activelearning?(e) How do we enable students to be more responsible for what ishappening in class?(I) What happens to weaker students when we emphasize criticalthinking in our teaching?(g) What are the implications of attempting to effect changes suchas those above for dealing with racial tension?(h What are the implications of attempting to effect changes suchas those above for providing for ESL students?165(i) How do we promote student attitudes which value intellectualchallenge as opposed to “make me learn” or “is it for marks?” typesof attitudes?(j) How do we develop evaluation measures to match the types oflearning we are seeking?(k) Other(1) Other ______My order of interest is: (place letter in appropriate box)1st 2nd 3rd166Table Three: Results of the QuestionnaireIIHigh 23 25 23 19 29 16 16 14 27 21 3Mid 10 10 10 16 13 20 17 23 13 8Low 9 7 9 7 2 5 9 6 2 91st 6 5 5 4 3 1 5 8 12nd 6 3 2 4 3 2 3 9 53rd 7 3 4 7 3 5 2 3No 3 2rateWhen the teachers responded to the questionnaire, they prioritized theirconcerns for the purpose of helping the university educators plan theprofessional development day. This table indicates that the teachers wereconcerned the most with involving students in their learning and encouragingthem to become independent learners. Teachers were also concerned withchanging students’ attitudes towards learning. The teachers sought ways toengage students intellectually in their studies. Another concern was to match theassessment and evaluation tools with learning that encouraged students’ activeparticipation.The university educators were interested in active learning and incollaboratively exploring teaching strategies that enhanced active learning.Since the teachers’ concerns matched these interests the university educatorsdesigned a professional development day to address them.167APPENDIX IIName:PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DAYS December 13th & January 20thThanks for your energetic participation last Friday. We would appreciate yourspeedy and thoughtful response to this so we can plan ahead. Please return tothe office by 8:30 a.rn. Thursday, December 19.January 20th will be most valuable if all staff are involved in activities which theyfind useful. The Pro D Committee hopes that December 13th will lead to theestablishment of an on-going group at the school, which will collaborate withU.B.C. in developing ways of improving the quality of learning and teaching atthe school in ways consistent with our aims. This group would obviously consistof volunteers, consequently there will be a range of activities on January 20th. Inorder to plan the day it is essential to know the preferences of the staff.Preferences A and B are intended to be guidelines, not rigid prescriptions. Theprecise nature of the day will be planned to fit the responses to this survey.Please decide which general preferences best suits you and indicate your morespecific interests in the “other issues” sections.PREFERENEE AI will probably commit myself to involvement in an on-going group. On January20th I would like to focus on issues associated with: where and how could I startin my classrooms, and when and how often will we meet. I may try somethingwhich is new for me before January 20th and I would like to share and reflect onearly experiences with others.Other issues, concerns or questions of interest to me:168PREFERENCE BFriday, December 13th addressed issues which are important to me. I may getinvolved in an on-going group, but, before I make any commitment or deal withissues of what will we dofl, I would like some further discussion on issues withwhether the time and effort is likely to be worthwhile.On Januaiy 20th I would like to spend some time on the concerns and questionswhich I have listed below. I will then decide whether I want to attend sessions ofthe type described in Preference A.Issues, concerns or questions of interest to me:PREFERENCE CI will not be involved in any on-going group and will attend other sessions onJanuary 20th.My reactions to December i’3th were:My reaction to the possibility of an on-going group at the school is (please checkone)I am disinterestedI do not support itI support it, but I think it unlikely to be of personal benefit.Isupport it and I think I may benefit form the group’s ideas.Out of the teachers who responded to the questionnaire, fourteen teachersdid not object to the project but were not interested in taking part in it. Oneteacher did not support having a group at the school. Four teachers werecommitted to participating in an on-going group even before the secondprofessional development day, eleven teachers were interested in a secondprofessional development day in order to decide about their participation in thegroup. All the teachers who were not interested in joining specifically stated thatthey did not object to having, such a group in the school.169170APPENDIX IIIThis table describes the content of the meetings. It indicates who initiatedthe topics for conversations, and examines the topics discussed, The tabledifferentiates between topics that are relevant to the conversations within thegroup, and those that discuss issues that contacts external to the group meetingsThese conversations were about the following topics: 1) Provincial examinationsand how to prepare students for them and still focus on active learningstrategies;. 2) possibilities of external funds; 3) the principal’s role andinvolvement in the project; and 4 occasional guests who visited the group.There were five headings to topics of the substantive content that wasinternal to the group: 1) routine, 2) process, 3) subject content, 4 generic content,and 5 meta-content. The heading ‘routines’ referred to discussions about theestablishment of routines and procedures to run the meetings. Discussions of thegroup processes, that entailed the direction of the group, and decisions aboutsubstantive issues and the developments and shifts in direction were under theheading ‘process’. The ‘subject specific’ heading included strategies that werediscussed in the context of a specific subject and focused on specific content.The heading ‘generic content’ included strategies that could be used in differentsubjects and mainly focused on specific learning skills. The last heading, ‘metacontent’, included discussions about teaching and learning. These conversationswere not about any specific strategy, but about general issues of teaching andlearning and particularly those aiming at enhancing students’ active involvementin the learning process.The table indicates clearly that the variety of headings were addressedfrom early meetings and continued through the project. There were no unique171stages in which one heading was more dominant, but they were interspersedthroughout the meetings. The participants discussed both structure (routine) andsubstance (both process and content) throughout all the meetings.Table Four: The Content of the MeetingsDate Internal Content External Content Initiator24.1.92 routine Markprocess (reflection) Karenroutine Susansubject content (psyc) Karengeneric content Barbara(categorizing)generic content Susan(representation ofreading) Barbarageneric content(evaluation) Jimmeta content (using anew technique) Douggeneric content(encourage reading)31.1.92 routine Jimgeneric content (how to Susansummarize reading)generic content Barbara(surnniaiy with gridgeneric content (from Karengrid to essay)generic content (learning Annthrough teaching)meta content (using a Jim, Patnew technique)meta content (debrief Jimstudents)subject content (English) Patsubject content (English) Alicegeneric content Alice(evaluation1727.2.92 routine MarkWith principal Barbarasubject content (social Dougstudies) Patsubject content (English) Teaching for Provincial BarbaraexaminationsMarksubject content (physics)generic content (using a Janetnew technique) Karenroutine14.2.92 routine Markroutine Jimprocess (debrief withingroup) Jimroutine Susangeneric content (grid forreading) Susangeneric content(representation of Susanreading)generic content (extend Susanthe text) Annsubject content (English)meta content (links Susanbetween subjects)meta content (links Jimbetween subjects) Marksubject content (physics)meta content (links Ann.between subjects) teaching for Provincial Markexamination1732L2.92 routine Barbaraprocess (debrief Jimstrategies)process (what Barbaraparticipants gain) Barbarasubject content (socialstudies) Dougprocess (whatparticipants gain) Dougmeta content (whatstudents gain) Susanmeta content (students’involvement) Susangeneric content(evaluation) Barbarameta content (students’ Barbarainvolvementsubject content (social Jimstudies)meta content (student Markchange)meta content (learningstyles)17428.292 routine Alicesubject content (English) Alicegeneric content(use of Alicestructure) Principal joins meetingmeta content (students’ Susaninvolvement) Karengeneric content(summary in chart) Karengeneric content Karen(representing in poster) Karengeneric content (using anew technique)process (sharing failure) Karenmeta content (modifying Karenstrategies after trying Barbarathem out) Jimsubject content (psych) Susansubject content (socialstudies)meta content (use of Susanstructure)subject content (English) Susanmeta content (students’involvement in Susanassessment) not to meet on timetable Barbaraprocess (time for Karenreflection on process)process (time to meet in inform staff of LSG Susan2nd year recruit new staff Garyteachers don’t want Patprocess (longer meeting principal in all meetingsfor end of year) discuss LSG with staffhow to present to staff KarenPro D day facilitated by Alicegroup participantsteachers discuss about Pathow to present to staff Mark1756.3.92 routine Barbaraprocess (strategies vsgoals) Jimmeta content (learningtheory)meta content (activelearning theory in Garypractice)meta content (linkcontent to students’ Janetexperience)generic content (diagramof reading) Susangeneric content (mindmap Barbarageneric content (flowchart) Barbarageneric content (linkchart and reading) Barbarageneric content (studentsparticipate in evatuat ion)meta content (link Susanlearning to students’lives) Susangeneric content (cheatsheets) Barbarameta content (learning asrisk taking) Nellygeneric content(preparing for exam) Barbarageneric content(improving in 2nd time) Jimgeneric content (studentsinvolved in assessment) Jimgeneric content (students Susanmonitor their learning) Susan17613.3.92 routine Barbarageneric content( usingstructure) Alicemeta content (partnershipbetween students andteacher) Barbararoutine Barbarageneric content (modelsto represent books) Anngeneric content (studentschoose form ofrepresentation) Anngeneric content (studentschoose evaluation Annciiteriameta content (active.learning changesstudents’ attitudes and Jimperceptions)meta content (students Patassess their progress)subject content(English ) Patmeta content (writingand risk taking) Patgeneric content(representation in Gaiydifferent formats)generic content (students Annassess each other’s work) Barbararoutineprocess (role of univers. Barbaraeducators) Karenprocess (fear of “theory”) Dougprocess (keep meetinginfoimal) Jimprocess (interplay oftheory & practice) Jimprocess (share planningand new attempts)27.3.92 generic content(students’ self Susanassessment)subject content (psych) Karensubject content (English) Susanmeta content (debriefstudents about newstrategies) Jim1773.4.92 routine Alicesubject content (psych) Karensubject content (physics) Mark8.5.92 generic content (charting Kareninformation)subject content (psych) Karenprocess (value ofplanning & sharing inmeeting) Karensubject content (English) Patgeneric content (studentslearn by teaching) Patgeneric content (writingjournals’) Patgeneric content (peerteaching of students inAlternate school) Doug17.6.92 process (evolution of(long project) Jimmeeting) process (examinestrategies vs goals) Jimprocess (establish goalsfor 2nd year’) JimYear 2000 KarenGrant Susanmeta content (importancefor variety of teachingtechniques) Karenmeta content (new goals)process (recruit moreteachers) Doug17823.9.92 document of strategies Alice(2nd year) to share with staff Patmeta content (linksbetween subjects, insubjects and to students!life)teachers present atconference Patprocess (1st meeting)teachers discuss LSGprocess (phrase strategies with staff Patin generic terms)Karenphrase strategies ingeneral terms so othersroutine may use them Garygeneric content (common Aliceapproach to essay Barbarawriting) Patsubject content (English)30.9.92 preparation ofpresentation in staffmeeting Karenprocess (purpose of LSGmeetings)Nellypropose drop-in to staffinterest in conferencepresentation Gabriella14.10.92 subject content (psych) Karenracism in the school Karenmeta content (integrationbetween social studies & KarenEnglish)subject content (social Karenstudies)17918.11.92 subject content (social Barbarastudies)generic content (essay Karenwriting)generic content Pat(structure and language Karenas tools)subject content (English) Karengeneric content (writinga paragraph) Nellymeta content (2nd timebetter results) Karengeneric content (use a Alicemodel and structure)subject content (English)meta content (usingBloorns taxonomy to Barbaraevaluate where studentsare)generic content Barbara(integration of socialstudies and English)25.11.92 routine Nellygeneric content (teamteaching social studies &Englishgeneric content (writing Alicea paragraph)generic content (using Karenstructure) Alicesubject content (English) Karensubject content (English) Pat9.12.92 subject content (English) Karensubject content (English) Karengeneric content (model aparagraph) Karensubject content (English) Karenmeta content (linkbetween science andEnglish) GaiyYear 2000 Nefly6.1.93 conference presentation Gabriellapublishing strategies inAustralia Jimgeneric content (teachinggrammar as a writing Pattool)18020.1.93subject content (social Nellystudies)generic content Pat(evaluation involvingstudents)subject content (English) PatPrincipal joins asksgroup’s support inenhancing cooperativelearning among staffTeachers propose to eachteach the staff onetechnique that workswellgeneric content(assessment incooperative learningteaching) Karen3.2.93 subject content (English Alicesociogran1generic content (linkwithin English unit) Nellysubject content (English) Georgettesubject content (socialstudies chapter review) Barbarageneric content (linksbetween social studies & BarbaraEnglish)generic content Karen(monitoring students’progress)17.2.93 Visitor from the Schoolgeneric content (links Board joinsbetween social studies & KarenEnglish Marksubject content (physics)generic content (writingas a thinking skill)subject content (English Alicesociograrngeneric content Alice(involving students inassessment)generic content (visualrepresentation)1813.3.93 subject content (social Barbarastudies addressing cultural Barbaradiversitysubject content (English Karenuse of structure)generic content (visualrepresentation) Alicesubject content (English)generic content(variations of sociograrn25.3.93 subject content (English-metaphors) Karensubject content(metaphor in science, Garytheorizing)meta content (teachingstudents the language todiscuss their learning)meta content (strategiesthat enhance higher levelthinking skills maketeaching efficient)subject content (Englishconcept map of poemwith key words) Pat7.4.93 subject content (English Aliceuse of structure)generic content (usingmetaphors) Alicesubject content (social Nellystudies) teaching directed toprovincial vs activelearning21.4.93 teaching directed toprovincial vs activelearningsubject content (English) Karensubject content (English) Karensubject content (socialstudies, links with Nellystudents lives andhistory)16.6.93 subject content (English) KarenTeacher-As-ResearcherGrant visitor fromprocess (LSG efficient the Schoolpro-d because it is on- Boardgoing & supportive)recruit more peoplewrite a paper based onconference presentation Pat6.10.93 recruit more people Doug(3rd year) not becoming an allEnglish teachers meetingSchön!s work and its Karenrelevance studentteaching and reflection182183BibliographyMends, R. I. (1990). Connecting the university to the school. In B. Joyce (ed.)Changing school culture through staff development. (pp. 117-143.).:ASD.Baird, J. R. (1986). Reflections on the nature of change. In J. R. Baird, U.Mitchell (eds.), Irnprovin2 the quality of teaching and learning: AnAustralian case study - The PEEL Project. (pp. 255-273). Melbourne:Monash University Printery.Baird, J. R., and Mitchell , I. 1 (1986). Lessons from PEEL: A look to the future.In J. R. Baird, I.J. Mitchell (edsi, Improving the Quality of teaching andlearning: An Australian case study - The PEEL Project. (pp. 285-295).Melbourne: Monash University Printery.Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J.R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience.Melbourne: Monash University Printery.Barth, R. S. (1991). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.B.C. Ministry of Education, (1989). A curriculum and assessment framework forthe future. (Draft). Victoria.B.C.. Ministry of Education, & Sullivan, B.M. (1988) Legacy for learners: Reportof the Royal Commission on Education.. Victoria.Belenky, M. F., Cliuchy, B. M, Goldberg, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’sways of knowing. U. S.A: Basic Books.Bell, B. (1993). Taking into account students’ thinking. A teacher developmentguide. Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research:University of Waikato, Hamilton.Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (June, 1993). Teacher development as professional, personaland social development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theLearned Societies Conference, Canadian Society for the Study ofEducation, Ottawa.Ben Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher - curriculum encounter. Freeing teachers fromthe tyranny of texts. New York: State University of New York Press.Bowman, J. (1990). Issues in teacher education. Background to a review ofteacher education in British Columbia. B.C. College of Teachers: Canada.Britzman, D. P. (October, 1990). Could this be your story? Guilty readings andother ethnographic dramas. Could this be your story? Guilty readings andother ethno2raphic dramas. The Bergamo Conference, Ohio.184Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture oflearning. Educational Researcher, (Januaiy-February) 32-41Clandinin, J.D. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London:Falmer Press.Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M., F. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W.Jackson (ed.) Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). NewYork: Macmillan.Clifford, J. (1988). On ethnographic authority. The predicament of culture. (pp.21-&). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Cole, A. L., & Knowles, G. J. (1993). Teacher development partnership research: Afocus on methods and issues, American Educational Research Journal,30(3), 473-496.Connelly, M. B. & Clandinin, J. D. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners.Canada: OISE Press and Teachers College Press.Cuban, L. (1990). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. In A. Lieberman (ed.)Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now. (pp. 71-77).New York: The Falmer Press.Cuban, L. (1 992a). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities.Educational Researcher, 21(2). 4-11.Cuban, L. (1992b). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (ed.)Handbook of research on curriculum. (pp. 216-247). New York:Macmillan.Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston(ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp.291-310) New York:MacMillan Publishing Company.Dawn Smith, S. (1992). Professional partnerships and educational change:Effective collaboration over time. Journal of Teacher Education,43(4. 243-256.Dixon, P. N., & Ishler, R.E. (1992). Professional development schools: Stages incollaboration. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 28-34.Doyle, W. (1987). The classroom as a workplace: Implications for staffdevelopment. In M. Wideen, & I. Andrew (eds.) Staff development forschool improvement. (pp. 38-54). New York: The Falmer Press.185Eisner, B. W. (1991 a). Educational connoisseurship. The enlightened eye.Qualitative inciuirv and the enhancement of educational practice.. (pp. 63-83). New York: Macmillan.Eisner, E. W. (1991b). Do qualitative studies have lessons to teach? Theenlightened eye. Qualitative inquin and the enhancement of educationalpractice. (pp. 197-2 12). New York: Macmillan.Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s ‘Practical Knowledge”: Report of a case study.Cuniculum Incuiiw, 11(1), 43-70.Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teacher’s knowledge: The evolution of a discourse.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(1), 1-19.Ellis, N. E. (1990). Collaborative interaction for improvement of teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 267-277.Erickson, G. L. (1991). Collaborative inquiry and the professional development ofscience Teachers. The Journal of Educational Thought. 25(3), 228-245.Firestone, W. A. (1993). A ternative arguments of generalizing from data asapplied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher 22(4) 16-23Fullan, M. G. (1990a). Staff Development, innovation, and institutionaldevelopment. In B. Joyce (ed.) Changing school culture through staffdevelopment. (pp. 3-25).: ASDC.Fullan, M. G. (1 990h). Change processes in secondary schools: Toward a morefundamental agenda. In M.W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (eds.)The contexts of teaching in secondary schools. (pp. 224-255). New York:Teachers College Press.Fullan, M.G., Connelly, M. F.. & Watson, N., (1990). Teacher education in Ontario:Current practice and options for the future. Toronto: MGS PublicationsServices.Fullan, M. G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fightin2 for? Workingtogether for your school. Canada: Ontario Public School Teachers’Federation.Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, 5. (1991). The new meaning of educationalchange(2nd edition. New York: OISE Press, Teachers College Press.Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.Interpretation of Cultures. (pp.3-30). New York: Basic Books.Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. (1984). Conceptualizing the research process.Ethnography and qualitative design. (pp. 33-62).: Academic Press.186Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.Goodson, I. F. (1992). Sponsoring the teacher!s voice: Teachers lives and teacherdevelopment. In A. Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (eds.) Understandin$Teacher Development. (pp. 110-121). New York: Teachers College PressGriffin, G. A. (1987). The school in society and the social organization of school:Implications for staff development. In M. Wideen, & I. Andrew (eds.) Staffdevelopment for school improvement. (pp. 19-37). New York: The FalmerPress.Grirnrnett, P. P., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the educationof teachers. In G. Grant (ed.) Review of research in education. (pp. 385-456). New York: AERA.Grossman, P. L. (1 992a). Why models matter: An alternative view on professionalgrowth in teaching. Review of Educational Research 62(2) 171-179Grossman, P. L. (1992hL Teaching and learning with cases. In J. H. Shulman (ed.),Case methods in teacher education. (pp. 227-239). New York: TeachersCollege Press.Grumet, M. R. (1989). Feminism and the phenomenology of the familiar. In M.Milburn, I. F. Goodson, & R. J.Clarke (eds.) Re-Interpreting curriculumresearch: Images and arguments. (pp. 87-101). Canada: The Falmer Press.Grumet, M. R. (1990). On daffodils that come before the swallow dares. In E.W.Eisner & A. Peshkin (eds.) Qualitative Inguiiy in Education: Thecontinuing debate. (pp. 101-120). New York: Teachers College Press.Guba, E. G. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity. In E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin(eds.) Qualitative Inquiiy in Education: The continuing debate.. (pp. 74-91). New York: Teachers College Press.Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). The naturalistic method of inquiiv. EffectiveEvaluation. (pp. 53-127). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.Harnrnersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnographv: Principles in practice.London: Routledge.Harding, S. (1990. Feminism, science, and the anti- enlightenment critiques. InL. J. Nicholson (ed.) Ferninism’Postmodernisrn (pp. 83-106). New York:Routledge.Harding, S. (1991). “Strong objectivity” and socially situated knowledge. WhoseScience? Whose Knowledge? (pp. 138-163). Ithaca, New York: CornellUniversity Press.187Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In A. Hargreaves& M. G. Fullan (eds.) Understaiding Teacher Development. (pp. 216-240). New York: Teachers College Press.Hargreaves, A. & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths to professional development: contrivedcollegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teachingand Teacher Education. 6(3), 227-241.Haymore Sandholtz, J. & Merseth, KK. (1992). Collaborating teachers in aprofessional development school: Inducements and contributions. Journalof Teacher Education. 43(4, 308-317.Heikkinen, H. W., McDevitt, T. M., & Stone, B. J. Classroom teachers as agents ofreform in university teacher preparation programs. Journal of TeacherEducation. 43(4), 283-289.Hollingsworth, S. (1992). Learning to teach though collaborative conversation: Afeminist approach. American Educational Research Journal, 29(20), 350-372Hooks, B. (1988). Feminist theory: A radical agenda. In Talking back: Thinkingfeminist, thinking black. (pp.35-4-i). Toronto: Between the Lines.Huberman, M. (1 990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: Aqualitative study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363-391.Huberman, M. A., & Miles, M. (1984). Imovation up close: How schoolimprovement works. New York: Plenum Press.Huberman, M.A., & Miles, M. B. (1986). Rethinking the quest for schoolimprovement: Some findings from the DESSI Study. In A. Lieberman (ed.)Rethinking School Improvement: Research, craft, and concept. (pp. 61-81).New York: Teachers College Press.Hunsaker, L., & Johnston, M. (1992). Teacher under construction: Acollaborative case study of teacher change. American EducationalResearch Journal, 29(2), 350-372.Jaggar, A. M. (1989). Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. InA. M. Jaggar & S. R. Bordo Gender, body, knowled2e. (pp. 145-171). NewBrunswick: Rutgers University Press.Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development.New York: Longman.Kagan, D. M. (1993). Contexts for the use of classroom cases. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 30(4), 703-723.188Kagan, S. L. (1991) United we stand: Collaboration for child care and earlyeducation services. New York: Teachers College Press.Kleinfeld, J. (1992). Learning to think like a teacher: The study of cases. In J. H.Shulman (ed.), Case methods in teacher education. (pp. 33—49. New York:Teachers College Press.Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart. New York: Routledge.Lasley, T. J., Matczvnsky, T. J., & Williams, J. A. (1992). Collaborative andnoncollaborative partnership structures in teacher education. Journal ofTeacher Education. 43(4), 257-261.Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1984). School improvement: Themes and variations. InA. Lieberman (ed.)Rethinking school improvement: Research, craft, andconcept. (pp. 96-11 1). New York: Teachers College Press.Lieberman, A., & Miller, L (1991). Revisiting the social realities of teaching. In A.Lieberman & L. Miller (eds.) Staff Development for Education in the22nd edition. (pp. 92-109). New York: Teachers College Press.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, P. G. (1985. Naturalistic inquiiy. CA: Sage.Little, J. W. (1986). Seductive images and organizational realities in professionaldevelopment. In A. Lieberman (ed.) Rethinking school improvement:Research. craft, and concept. (pp. 26-44). New York: Teachers CollegePress.Little, J. W. (1 990a. Conditions of professional development in secondaryschools. In MW. McLaughlin, J. P.. Talbert, & N. Bascia (eds.) Thecontexts of teaching in secondary schools. (pp. 187-223). New York:Teachers College Press.Little, J. W. (1990b). Teachers as colleagues. In A. Lieberman (ed.) Schools ascollaborative cultures: Creating the future now. (pp. 165-193). New York:The Falmer Press.Lottie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.Marshall, & Rossman, G. B. (1989. Designing qualitative research. London:Sage.McLaughlin, lvi. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have welearned? In A. Lieberman and LMiller (edsi, Staff development foreducation in the 90’s (2nd edition. (pp. 61-82). New York: TeachersCollege Press.189McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1990). Staff development and schoolchange. In A. Lieberman (ed.) Schools as collaborative cultures: Creatingthe future now. (pp. 213-232). New York: The Falmer Press.McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1990). The contexts in question: Thesecondary school workplace. In M.W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N.Bascia (eds.) The contexts of teaching in secondary schools. (pp. 1-14).New York: Teachers College Press.McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in education: A conceptualintroduction (2nd edition). London: Scott, Foresman & Company.Merseth, K. K. (1992). Cases for decision making in teacher education. In. J.H.Shulman (ed.), Case methods in teacher education. (pp. 50 - 63). NewYork: Teachers College Press.Mishler E.G. (1986a. Research interviews as speech events. Researchinterviewing. (pp. 35-51).: Harvard University Press.Mishler, E.. G. (1 986b). The joint construction of meaning. Research Interviewing.(pp. 52-65). : Harvard University Press.Mitchell, I. I (1986a). Establishing PEEL. In J.R. Baird, & I.J. Mitchell(eds.),.Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian casestudy - The PEEL Project. (pp. 18-27). Melbourne: The MonashUniversity Printery.Mitchell, I. J. (1 986b). The group meetings and teacher change. In J.R. Baird, &LI Mitchell (eds.), Improving the quality of teaching and learning: AnAustralian case study - The PEEL Project. (pp. 24O-254. Melbourne: TheMonash University Printery.Reinhartz, S. (1979). On beconng a social scientist. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice.Educational Researcher 19(7) 10-18.Richardson, V. (in press) Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S.Hollingsworth, & H. Sockett (eds.) Teacher research and educationalreform. NSSE Yearbook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Roman, L. G., & Apple, MW. (1990). Is naturalism a move away from positivism?Materialist and feminist approaches to subjectivity in ethnographicresearch. In E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (eds.) Qualitative Inqui1T inEducation: The continuing debate. (pp. 38-73). New York: TeachersCollege Press.Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers! Workplace: The social organization of schools.New York: Longrnan.190Rosenholtz, S. J. (1990). Education reform strategies: Will they increase teachercommitment? In A. Lieberman (ed.) Schools as collaborative cultures:Creating the future now. (pp. 79-101). New York: The Falmer Press.Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. (2ndedition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. Can wechange course before its too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sarason, S. B. (1993). The case for change. Rethinking the preparation ofeducators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think inaction. New York: Basic Books.Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: JosseyBass.Schön, D. A. (ed.) (1991) The reflective turn. Case studies in and on educationalpractice. New York: Teachers College Press.Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of the discipline. TEducational Record, 43(July), 197-205.Schwab, J. J. (1964. Problems topics and issues. Education and the structure ofknowledge. (pp. 4-47). Chicago: Rand McNally.Schwab, J. J. (November 1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. SchoolReview, 1-21.Schwab, J. J. (August 1971). The practical: Art of the eclectic. School Review 79,493-542.Schwab, J. J. (August 1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. SchoolReview, 81, 501-522.Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do.Curriculum Inguin, 13(3), 239-265Showers, B. (April 1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational leadership,42(7), 43-48.Shulman, J. H. (1992). Teacher-witten cases with commentaries. A teacher -researcher collaboration. In J.H. Shulman (ed.), Case methods in teachereducation. (pp. 131-152). New York: Teachers College Press.191Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teachin2: Foundation of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.Shulman, L. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview.Cornplementaiv methods for research in education. (pp. 3-17). WashingtonD.C.: American Educational Research Association.Shulman, L. S. (1992). Towards a pedagogy of cases. In J.H. Shulman (ed.), Casemethods in teacher education. (pp. 1-30). New York: Teachers CollegePress.Sirotnik, K. A. ,. (1988). The meaning and conduct of inquiry in school-universitypartnerships. In K. A. Sirotnik, & J. 1. Goodlad (eds.) School- universitypartnerships in action: Concepts. cases, and concerns. (pp. 169-190). NewYork: Teacher College Press.Smyth, J. (1992). Teachers’ work and the politics of reflection. American JournalResearch Association, 29(2), 267-300.Sparks, G. M., & Bruder, S. (November 1987). Before and after peer coaching.Educational Leadership, 42(7), 54-57.Spradely, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Wornens StudiesInternational Forum, 11(1). 21-27.Teague Ashton, P. (1992) Editorial. Journal of Teacher Education. 43(4 242Torn, A. R., & Valli, L., (1990) L. Professional knowledge for teachers. In W. R.Houston (ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp.373-392)New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Wax, M. L. (1980). Paradoxes of “consent” to the practice of fieldwork. SocialProblems, 27(3), 272-283.Willinsky, J. (1989). Getting personal and practical with personal practicalknowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 247-264.Tinitzky, N., Stoddart, T., & O’Keefe, P. (1992) Great expectations: Emergentprofessional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education. 43(1)3-18Wolcott, H. F. (1988). On ethnographic intent. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 21(3), 187-203.Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking - and rejecting - validity in qualitative research.In E.W. Eisner, & A. Peshkin (eds.) Qualitative Inqui in Education: Thecontinuing debate. (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.Zeichner, K. Rethinking the practicum in a professional development schoolpartnership. Journal of Teacher Education. 43(4 296-307192
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Curriculum Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Collaboration between teachers and university educators in a professional development context: shared situated cases
Text