Teacher Development Supporting teacher and school ...

This article was downloaded by: [Swets Content Distribution] On: 2 February 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912280237] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teacher Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100723

Supporting teacher and school development: learning and teaching policies, shared living theories and teacher-researcher partnerships Colin A. Smith a a Caldervale High School, Airdrie & University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

To cite this Article Smith, Colin A.(2002) 'Supporting teacher and school development: learning and teaching policies,

shared living theories and teacher-researcher partnerships', Teacher Development, 6: 2, 157 — 179 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13664530200200163 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530200200163

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Teacher Development, Volume 6, Number 2, 2002

Supporting Teacher and School Development: learning and teaching policies, shared living theories and teacher-researcher partnerships

Downloaded By: [Swets Content Distribution] At: 09:53 2 February 2010

COLIN A. SMITH Caldervale High School, Airdrie & University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT A practitioner’s living theory can make valid contributions to educational knowledge (Whitehead, 1989). However, in Whitehead’s original conception living theories are largely individual products. A contribution is made to the debate on facilitating teaching-research partnerships by suggesting that the staff and pupils in a school can share a living theory as a form of learning and teaching policy. How a school staff came to develop such a policy is described. The policy is compared with features of living theories to substantiate this claim. The testing of the shared living theory takes place through the normal development processes of the school. A model is also presented showing how this may facilitate closer, two-way relations between academic theory and practitioner theory. Using this model facilitates cooperation between teachers and researchers in working together to support teacher and school development while also sharing the task of increasing educational knowledge.

Introduction I would argue even further that teaching at all levels must become a research-based profession in which teachers are equipped to reflect on and learn from their professional practice, to share their knowledge effectively across professional networks and to work in partnership with other academic researchers. (Matheson, 2000)

The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) in England and Wales, along with scholars in other parts of the world, is keen to promote the vision of teaching as a research-based profession (Everton et al, 2000). Yet, Everton and his colleagues also found a belief among teachers that educational research is of little relevance to practice. In a small study into teachers’ views on educational 157


Colin A. Smith

research, Garner (2000) found the general belief that research is best carried out by researchers, not teachers. Also, the academic community often discounts practitioner research by making it difficult to publish, or ignoring it when it is (Evans et al, 2000), and teacher-researchers are not taken seriously as theorists (Beck & Kosnick, 2001). However, there is also an increasing interest among the educational community in both action research and upon drawing from mainstream educational research. For example, in Scotland, the SCRE (Scottish Council for Research in Education) has organised a teacherresearcher support group, both to support existing action research and to encourage its development. Perth and Kinross Council (2000) have produced a paper outlining the conditions for effective learning in its schools that draws upon some leading thinkers on the relationship between the brain and education. Elsewhere, partnerships between universities and schools have been established (see, for example, Catelli et al, 2000; Ebbutt et al, 2000; Evans et al, 2000; Postlethwaite & Haggarty, 1998; Wiske, 1998). This promotion of research-based practice arises, in part at least, from Schön (1983, 1987). He distinguishes between the ‘technical-rationality’ conception of practice in which outside experts do the reflection and practitioners apply it and the ‘reflection-in-action’ view, in which practitioners reflect upon practice and develop theory. There is a current emphasis on the latter (Beck & Kosnick, 2001). Beck & Kosnick contribute to the debate on whether teachers can indeed reflect while actually teaching: is it conceptually compatible with the idea of ‘being there for the learner’? It is not the intention here to enter this debate. Speaking as a teacher, it seems obvious that there are times when one, as it were, stops in mid-flight to think about what one is doing, and times when one is too engaged with the pupils to allow this. There are also occasions when one thinks about one’s practice away from the classroom. Some of us even turn to research findings and theories to aid this reflection. The latter type of reflection seems likely to become de rigueur as Continuing Professional Development (CPD) becomes more formalised. However, Beck & Kosnik also make the important point that teachers and academic researchers need to work more in a partnership in which teachers are also seen as being theorists. This article seeks to contribute to the debate on how school and teacher development can be supported through cooperation between teaching and research by arguing for a conceptual framework in which learning and teaching policies are constructed as shared living theories. We begin with a description of how a school formulated a form of learning and teaching policy that subsequently came to be thought of as a shared living theory (Whitehead, 1989). To make this clearer, the concept of a living theory is briefly outlined. The form of development that the school and its staff are now engaged in is then briefly discussed and a model presented that suggests how teachers and academic researchers can work in partnership to advance educational knowledge.

158

PRACTITIONERS’ LIVING THEORIES

However, one complex issue that is implicit in the discussion is that of the relationships between types of educational theory and their roles in different contexts. Although it is not possible here to explore this fully, it may be useful to outline a metaphor for educational theory that the author finds currently useful in making sense of his role as a teacher seconded temporarily to a research institution. The model presented at the end of this article can be regarded as an attempt to represent one aspect of this metaphor.


The ‘Web of Webs’ of Educational Theory Knowledge can be thought of as a network (Capra, 1997) and, using this metaphor, educational theory can be described as comprising a complex ‘web of webs’ of theories with different purposes. Within this web of webs are explanatory theories (Bereiter, 1990) that seek to explain educational outcomes: the results of the educational process and reasons for them. It is not the role of this type of theory to specify educational outcomes, but to account for those that actually occur. Of course, the focus of explanation may vary and, consequently, explanatory theories themselves comprise a web. For example, constructivist theories that are concerned with explaining educational learning vary between those that focus primarily on the learner, those that focus primarily on the teacher, and those that try to take a more heuristic approach (Entwistle & Smith, 2002). Another part of the web of webs comprises theory that is concerned with specifying desirable outcomes in the form of the aims of education (or its components such as subjects, social education, and so on) and the specification of ways of achieving them. In this category, we could include academic curriculum theory, national and local authority policy documents, syllabus documents, the full set of quality indicators as used by school inspectors, teaching guidelines, and instructional theories such as those of Gagne et al (1992) and Reigeluth (1996). Some of these theories are more concerned with identifying aims and some more with method, but a fuller analysis is not possible here. There seems to be no existing term that unambiguously covers this entire ‘web within a web’ and so, in line with the terminology of Entwistle & Smith, (2002), it will be, for the moment, referred to here as target understanding theory. Then we have the theories used by the practitioners within the school. All practice, whether the practitioner accepts it or not, presupposes theory (Barrow, 1984). Barrow argues that anything practical, whether it is bridgebuilding or teaching, has behind it a theory of what counts as ‘good’. It is well documented that teachers at all levels have beliefs concerning the nature of teaching, the nature of the subject, and how to deliver it (see, for example, Kember, 1997; Patrick, 1998; Trigwell & Prossor, 1996). Particularly interesting is Patrick’s finding that teachers teach their subjects differently and in line with their beliefs about their natures, and despite the fact that they were following a common syllabus and assessment. As such, their practitioner theories do not 159


Colin A. Smith

necessarily derive directly from target understanding theory. According to Whitehead (1989), a particular form of practitioner theory emerges when teachers are concerned with improving their practice: living theories. Whitehead generally describes these as mainly individual creations, although they may result from shared projects. However, it will be suggested below that an overarching shared form is possible in a school within which practice relevant questions can be explored by both individuals and groups. Of course, the theory types do not represent boundaries for individuals. It is possible for any person working in education to be involved in, or to draw upon, more than one type of theory. Certainly teachers draw upon both target understanding theory and practitioner theory in their everyday work, and the examples in the introduction suggest a growing (or more conscious) role for explanatory theory. Certain parts of target understanding theory may empower teachers by suggesting methodologies to try, but other parts, particularly those concerned with specifying policy, aims and assessment, may limit the teachers’ room for manoeuvre. Also, researchers may move in the same paper from explanatory theory (reporting their findings within a research framework of explanatory concepts) to target understanding theory or practitioner theory (considering the implications for educational policy or practice). This ‘web of webs’ metaphor for educational theory is useful as it shows the interconnections and interdependency of all its parts, while aiding awareness of our movements between different types of theory making and use. It also allows us to picture the possibility of strengthening, or increasing, some of the links within the web. In this article, a model of how the theory making of practitioners and researchers can be conceived as working together is presented. Like all models, it is inevitably a simplification. A notable example is the way in which it places target understanding theory into the background to become the context in which the relationship between explanatory theory and practitioner theory develops. Let us return now to a description of how the school developed a learning and teaching policy and how this can be conceived as a form of practitioner theory, which we will call a shared living theory. How the Learning and Teaching Policy Came to Be Constructed The development of this policy began with the desire of the new head teacher to place learning and teaching at the centre of the development processes within the school. It may seem strange that this has to be engineered, but some readers will be only too familiar with ways in which a school’s development process can be ‘hijacked’ by many, often conflicting, concerns. Certainly, in this case, many staff felt that there was an opportunity for the school to renew its sense of purpose. In addition, as with any school, there is the constant need to ask how learning and teaching can be improved. A new learning and teaching policy seemed an appropriate response, one deliberately 160



formulated in such a way that other policies would need to derive directly from it. Thus, the school was beginning with two questions: ‘How do we improve learning and teaching?’ and ‘How do we keep learning and teaching at the centre of all that we do in the school?’ The head teacher had also already invited an educational consultant to conduct a morning’s in-service training. A former member of the staff of the Scottish Consultative Committee on the Curriculum (SCCC), a governmentsponsored body which provided advice on structuring the curriculum to policy makers and schools, the consultant now sees his role as acting as a link between research and schools. To capitalise on the consultant’s visit, a starter paper was written and issued in advance to all teaching staff. This paper aimed to stimulate teachers’ thinking about their beliefs concerning learning and teaching. Various questions were then asked with space for teachers to reply. Of particular relevance, as it turned out, were the questions, ‘What is teaching?’ and ‘What is learning?’ Prompts for these questions were the conceptions of learning and teaching that research consistently finds (Table I) (for example, Marton et al, 1993; Säljö, 1979; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Watkins & Mortimore, 1999). Other questions focused upon the aims of the educational process and the constraints that affect it. Through drawing upon the research presented by the consultant, teachers were encouraged to consider these questions. He also emphasised that the end product – a learning and teaching policy – was not necessarily the most important aim. The process of thinking things through and reflecting was intrinsically worthwhile. What is teaching? Teaching is imparting information Teaching is transmitting knowledge Teaching is facilitating understanding Teaching is changing students’ conceptions Teaching is supporting student learning What is learning? Learning is getting more knowledge Learning is memorising and reproducing Learning is acquiring and applying procedures Learning is making sense or meaning Learning is personal change Table I. Questions on the nature of teaching and learning, derived from Watkins & Mortimore (1999).

The replies to the questions were collected from those teachers who were prepared to submit them, anonymously if that was preferred. The comments were then grouped. To aid that grouping, both HM Inspectors of Schools (HMI) performance indicators (HMI, 1996) and features of effective schools identified by research (Boyd, 2000) were used. The latter include:

161

Colin A. Smith


having recently revisited aims with all of staff, pupils and parents having a broad definition of achievement having a range of forums (not just pupil councils) for listening to pupils’ views on topics including policies and effective teaching having genuinely high expectations of pupils genuinely trying to reach out to parents using an evidence-based (qualitative and quantitative) approach to school improvement. Although terminology differed, there was a remarkable overlap in the perception of the conditions that support learning and teaching. Beginning with Boyd’s description of the features of an effective school, it was possible to group both the HMI performance indicators and the staff comments in sets alongside them. It seems that an improved dialogue between researchers, HMI and teachers could be based upon recognition of this. That aside, however, and because in this case they were being specifically asked to address these issues, the teachers were also making clear statements about their views on the nature of educational learning and teaching, something both Boyd and the HMI omitted. The natures of learning and teaching often seem to be taken for granted. Opening up this debate, as we shall see later, makes it possible to bring teachers and researchers together into a model of dialogue that aids the development of educational theory. However, there may be a mismatch in conceptions of learning and teaching in that the definitions that this school has settled upon differ from the view which some researchers tend towards. For example, Marton & Booth (1997) argue that conceptions (such as those in Table I) are a nested hierarchy with the ‘higher’ concepts (in this case, learning as personal change and teaching as supporting student learning) describing the phenomenon more completely. In the case of learning (see Table II for the final form), the teachers appeared to be arguing that all those listed above ‘personal change’ can, in the right circumstances, be pursued to effect a personal change or development which the learner feels is worthwhile. For example, a student may memorise the order of the reactivity of metals, not as an end in itself or to pass a test question, but to develop the ability to make predictions about how metals will react in particular circumstances. This raises some issues for the relationship between theories with an explanatory purpose and those aimed at improving practice, and these will be briefly considered later. From the above process, a draft policy emerged that consisted of two distinct parts: first, the school’s shared practitioner theory of learning and teaching and, second, the aims that were derived from this theory. Since it arose from questions of improving practice (the questions of ‘How do we keep learning and teaching the centre of all we do in the school?’ and ‘How do we improve learning and teaching?’), the theory section can be regarded as a shared living theory consisting of the current beliefs (or hypotheses) concerning what teaching and learning are, along with the hypothesis as to

162


what set of conditions in the school would support them. In summary, the theory comprises:

A shared hypothesis about the nature of learning. This aimed to reflect the belief that worthwhile personal change or development could involve any of the other features. A shared hypothesis about the nature of teaching. This also incorporated all parts of the question on teaching so that the statement on learning was matched. A shared hypothesis about the set of conditions that support learning and teaching as stated in the above. The aims were directed towards creating the conditions specified in the theory of learning and teaching. Once this draft was prepared, it was issued to all staff for further comment. This time a group looked at the returns and redrafted it. The final forms of the statements concerning the natures of learning and teaching that emerged (see Table II) had the following significant changes:


An attempt to move away to a degree from the researchers’ language in the original questions (Table I) on the nature of learning and teaching, as some teachers now felt that this was not sufficiently accessible to all staff, parents and pupils. An incorporation of a dimension involving positive attitudes to self and others into the statements on the natures of learning and teaching that was now felt to be missing from the research conceptions. Educational learning is achieving personal development which is experienced as worthwhile through:

Teaching is supporting and developing learning through:

• building on knowledge and information • memorising and reproducing • understanding and evaluating • acquiring techniques of research and investigation • acquiring a positive attitude to self and others

• motivating learners • aiding understanding • demonstrating skills to allow for imitation and development • challenging and expanding students’ conceptions • encouraging a positive attitude to self and others

Table II. The descriptions of educational learning and teaching in the current policy.

The final list of conditions perceived as being required to support learning and teaching (Table III) was also extended. In recognition that none of the components of the theory of learning and teaching can ever be assumed to be final or definitive, the aims also incorporated the need to constantly reflect upon and develop it as the teachers (and pupils) learn from each other and from research. It is planned to set aside

163

Colin A. Smith

time for this. It is, therefore, envisaged that the policy will undergo revisions as the need arises. Implementation of other policies and initiatives will also contribute to the process of the development of the policy. They will derive their focus from supporting the conditions for teaching and learning, or from exploring or implementing the statements on learning and teaching. In a sense, they represent hypotheses (ideas for action) which derive from the practitioner theory encapsulated in the policy (see Figure 1, discussed below). They may, therefore, highlight features of the policy that need to be changed or added to by contributing to the assessment of the validity of the theory. They are tests of the theory.


Conditions that support learning and teaching as defined in Table II • Mutual respect between teachers and pupils • Support from parents for both pupils and teachers • Teachers value each other’s work • Pupils do their best and see value in learning • Valuing all types of learning aims • Staff act as mentors for a small group of pupils • Staff and pupils need to share common goals • Teachers pupils and parents all have high expectations for learning • Time for staff to reflect on their practice • Encouragement of pupils to reflect on their learning • Quantitative and qualitative evidence is used to assess school improvement • Need to ask, ‘What are our goals?’, ‘Why do we the outcomes we do?’ and ‘How do we achieve the outcomes we want?’ • Overcoming barriers such as literacy and language • Strong and fair discipline/pupil care system • Suitable physical environment for staff and pupils • Appropriate resources made available • Clear statement of mission to focus direction and leadership • Promotion of equal opportunities • Feeling valued by both school and local authority Table III. Conditions identified by the school’s teaching staff as supportive of learning and teaching.

From the beginning, it was clear that the theory of learning and teaching set out a vision for the type of school desired. The idea of a learning community or learning school is now achieving general currency (see, for example, Bowring-Carr & West-Burnham, 1997; Joyce et al, 1999). Therefore, subsequently, the theory part of the policy is now being called a vision for a learning and teaching community. However, for the purposes of this article, it is its nature as a theory shared by the school’s teachers that is of interest. The next section will explore the connection between the type of practitioner theory in the policy or vision and Whitehead’s concept of a living theory.

164


Living Theories What Is a Living Theory? Whitehead (1989) has introduced the concept of living theories to educational theory and practice. In his conception, they are largely individual and are outlined in the written work of practitioners covering a period of time. Living theories are formulated when practitioners explore questions of the type, ‘How do I improve my practice?’ For example, an educational practitioner would construct a living educational theory of professional practice applicable to the context within which he or she works. According to Whitehead, this type of theory contributes to educational knowledge by combining the development of new forms of educational knowledge with contributions from the traditional educational disciplines. I am arguing for a reconstruction of educational theory into a living form of question and answer which includes propositional contributions from the traditional disciplines of education. (Whitehead, 1998a, p. 42)


Whitehead (1998b) argues that the following questions are central to the development of a living theory:

How to acknowledge oneself as a living contradiction. How to show one’s values in action. How to show the validity of a living theory. How to move from the individual to the universal. How to determine which power relations influence the academic legitimacy of a living theory.

It is not intended to go in any depth into Whitehead’s answers to these questions. However, some important features of living theories derive from the first four questions and this article aims to shift the context to which the last applies. According to Whitehead, academic theories are structured as interconnected and consistent propositions. A living theory also includes propositions, but does not reduce to a consistent set, as contradictions may remain embodied within it. The contradictions derive from the inclusion in a living theory of the ‘I’ as an important part of the explanation of the development of the practitioner’s professional learning. What this means is that the practitioner has the ability to hold together particular values and their negation: for example, a belief in enquiry may be negated by an awareness of having stifled its expression in pupils by the way one teaches. As such, developing and applying a living theory is a process in which the practitioner tries to work through these contradictions. Whitehead outlines the process as follows: I experience a concern when my values are negated in practice. I imagine a way forward.

165

Colin A. Smith


I act. I evaluate. I modify my concerns, ideas and actions in the light of my evaluations. (Whitehead, 2000, p. 93)

The impact of this process on the teacher’s living theory will depend upon the degree to which it results in changes in fundamental beliefs about learning and teaching and how much it involves only a change in practice. In other words, one can imagine a range of effects from fundamental conceptual change to changes that are more akin to a refinement of craft knowledge. Second, and following from the above, the practitioner is a ‘value-laden centre of consciousness’ (Whitehead, 1998b, p. 4). However, he notes that the meanings of values such as freedom, respect, truth, democracy and compassionate understanding vary from context to context. One could also discuss this in terms of values found in Table III – such as valuing each other’s work, high expectations, strong and fair discipline – which may be more fundamental to a school and its classrooms. Whitehead’s point is that, in a particular context, the meanings of values become clearer through time and action. An explanation offered by a living theory is based in part upon the values, and their particular meanings, that guide the practitioner’s development. For this author, these first two features need a little more clarification. The interpretation here is that the practitioner may have a living theory in which contradictions are unconsciously or tacitly embedded due to the application of different values. We may come to notice one or more of these contradictions and so act to resolve them. If they are resolved, there has been a development or clarification in the meanings of the values within this context and the living theory becomes more coherent. Third, the products of a living theory are claimed to be the evidence for is validity. Examples of these products in the form of PhD and Masters’ theses can be found on the educational action researcher website at the University of Bath. These include work by a teacher of English, a senior school administrator, a career’s advisor, a vice-principal of a secondary school, and a senior policewoman. Various forms of professional activity are explored, including leadership, improving practice, action planning and values. The quality of the living theories that are found in these theses is appraised by judging the individual’s claim to know his or her educational development against methodological, ethical and aesthetic standards (Whitehead, 1998a). Fourth, a living theory consists of the practitioners’ public descriptions and explanations of their own practice. This gives them the ability to connect directly to the practices of others. As long as those engaged in similar activities underpin their practices with the same values, generalisation to other contexts is possible. However, since living theories are often presented in thesis form, they are likely to be of limited value to others who are unprepared, or lack the opportunity, to take the time to read them. Research on conceptions of 166


learning and teaching can be used to shorten this process to some degree. This research can be used to formulate learning and teaching policies that are shared forms of living theories. That is, a more general and shared process is initiated, in which the school stakeholders as a group develop a theory of learning and teaching within their own context. This theory would then be the basis on which school development is predicated. Of course, this is what was done in formulating the learning and teaching policy described above. It can be thought of as a shared living theory. Although not necessarily answering Whitehead’s fifth question concerning the power relations that influence the academic legitimacy of a living theory, it is now raised in a new context.


Sharing a Living Theory as a Theory of Learning and Teaching First, it should be emphasised that at the time the school formulated its policy, the concept of a living theory was unknown to any of its members. It was a subsequent encounter with Whitehead’s work that led to this conception and also helped to clarify how to take the policy forward in the form of subsidiary questions (see below). Table IV shows how the features of a living theory discussed above also apply to the type of learning and teaching policy described earlier. It can be seen that the questions the policy began with come within the general category of living theory questions, as they are concerned with improving practice. Additionally, the shared beliefs about the conditions that would support learning and teaching incorporate potential contradictions. For example, learning and teaching are seen as requiring both mutual respect and a strong and fair discipline system. Thus, there is an implication that these need to be thought about in a compatible way and that actual practice may negate these values. As the values of ‘mutual respect’ and ‘strong and fair discipline system’ are explored, their meanings should become clearer. This clarification and resolution of values would form part of the school’s and its stakeholders’ development. The narrative of how the theory was encapsulated in the policy – along with, as appropriate, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the outcomes of initiatives based upon it – will comprise the evidence for the validity of the shared living theory. They are the equivalent to the products of theses or dissertations that give validity to individual living theories. Finally, insofar as other schools share the same values, the living theory and the practises that derive from it can be generalised to other contexts. Conflict with other schools’ theories may be a further source for evaluating one’s own position. For these purposes, schools and teachers will have to make descriptions and explanations public and this obviously requires a common format. The best form of this is not yet clear, but teachers need to formulate their own criteria as to what counts as quality theory (Anderson et al, 1994), and one possibility for supporting this process is through a journal (or journals) that is managed, edited and peer-reviewed by teachers themselves (Smith, 2001). 167


Colin A. Smith

Features of a shared living theory

Corresponding feature in learning and teaching policy

Concerned with questions of type, ‘How do I improve my practice?’

Concerned with questions of type, ‘How do we improve learning and teaching?’ and ‘How do we make learning and teaching the centre of all we do?’

Incorporates contradictions through holding together values and their negation, e.g. belief in enquiry negated through awareness of stifling its expression in pupils through teaching methods used. Meanings of values in the given context become clear through time and form part of the explanation of the practitioner’s development

Incorporates contradictions through holding together values and their negation, e.g. belief in mutual respect negated through awareness of stifling its expression in pupils and staff through discipline methods used

Meanings of values in the given context become clear through time and form part of the explanation of the practitioner’s development

Meanings of values in the school context become clear through time and form part of the explanation of the school’s and its stakeholders’ development

Validity evidenced through its products such as degree theses

Validity evidenced through its products such as educational outcomes and the narrative of how the theory encapsulated in the policy develops

Connect to practices of others through their public descriptions and explanations, and also through sharing values with others: what makes generalisation to other contexts possible

Connect to practices of others through their public descriptions and explanations, and also through sharing values with others: what makes generalisation to other contexts possible

Table IV. A learning and teaching policy as a shared living theory: features of living theories and the policy compared.

One thing that the school here is questioning is the lack of involvement to date of parents and pupils in the formulation of the policy. It may have been wiser to involve them earlier, as (not surprisingly) the staff have identified sharing of aims and mutual respect as essential conditions for learning and teaching. On the other hand it can be argued that teachers, as the professionals, need to provide the initial structure for the others to react to. However, one senior member of staff suggests that this says something about the values that we began with. The policy is founded upon a living contradiction: pupils’ and parents’ inputs are valued but not initially sought. Other schools would need to consider this issue if they embarked on a similar process. It is certainly true that the nature of this school’s living theory implies that it ultimately has to take a form that is shared by all the stakeholders. However, that these issues are now being raised shows potential for school and teacher development through this process. The following section

168


will explore the contribution that a policy setting out a theory concerning learning and teaching, and conceptualising that policy as a shared living theory or vision, can make to teacher and school development. Shared Living Theories Supporting Teacher and School Development In general, the type of policy or vision described in this article has the following advantages:

It ensures that the school is centred on its core business of learning and teaching. It relates practice to research. Implementing it forms a source of data both for research and for school improvement.


The school concerned is currently exploring this. One group of staff is exploring educational learning and has begun with a focus on understanding with the question ‘How do we support understanding of topics in the curriculum?’ This has given rise to the following questions that are currently being worked upon by groups of two or three teachers:

How do we resource for understanding? How do we use group work to support understanding? How do we use critical/philosophical thinking to enhance understanding? How do we help pupils to understand the ways in which body systems work together to support the processes of life?

In thinking about these questions, practitioners are thinking about the interpreted target understanding (Entwistle & Smith, 2002) or object of study (Patrick, 1998) that is presented to pupils. Another group, not directly involving the author, is exploring the questions ‘How do we encourage mutual respect within the school community?’ and ‘How do we achieve a strong and fair discipline system?’ What is happening is that both groups of staff and individuals are being encouraged by the overall structure of the policy to explore subsidiary living theory questions that arise within it. For example, those exploring understanding are drawing upon research to provide some clues as to possible answers; that is, the literature on teaching for understanding (e.g. Newton, 2000; Wiske, 1998), on group work (e.g. Adhami, 2001; Bennett & Dunne, 1992; Lapadat, 2000), on ICT resources (e.g. Leask & Pachler, 1999; McAvina & Oliver, in press; Mooij & Smeets, 2001), and on critical thinking (Ikuenobe, 2001; Pithers, 2000). A process has begun in which the learning and teaching policy and the issues it raises have become a stimulus for the development and evaluation of ideas, some of which come from research and some of which draw upon the experience and thinking of the staff themselves. In this way,

169

Colin A. Smith

research and practice are being brought together in a meaningful way and both whole-school and individual professional development is being supported. For example, one outcome is that the groups working on the body systems, group work and resources for understanding are beginning to work together. A pedagogical model of understanding is emerging that is a simplification of the forms of understanding identified by Entwistle & Entwistle (1997) and which can be described as follows (Entwistle & Smith, 2002):


mentioning incoherent bits of information without any obvious structure; describing brief descriptions of topics derived mainly from material provided; relating outline, personal explanations lacking detail or supporting argument; explaining using relevant evidence to develop structured, independent arguments; conceiving individual conceptions of topics developed through continuing reflection. For the purposes of modelling this to pupils in the first two years of secondary school, it has been reduced to unconnected understanding in which one knows a number of facts about something but have not thought about how they relate; descriptive understanding, in which a number of facts are brought together to form a description; and explanatory understanding, in which facts and descriptions are brought together to form explanations. This model arose as we tried to support and scaffold pupils’ developing understanding as they explored, in groups, a question of how the circulatory and breathing systems work together to keep us alive. Part of this scaffolding involved considering types of questions – what, how and why – and reflection on the classroom experience of this led to the model. Table V illustrates the model as it is currently being used, but the reader should be aware that it is likely to change as it is applied to different topics, subjects and contexts. Space does not allow more detail on the effect on teacher thinking, but the essential problem is becoming one of how to meet the content requirements placed upon us by syllabus documents and policy (the context provided by target understanding theory) while finding ways to help pupils move into explanatory forms of understanding that are academically acceptable, but which they have developed themselves. Traditional teaching can quite easily facilitate unconnected and descriptive forms of understanding, but is less secure with explanatory understanding as depicted here. Thus, this living theory approach has opened up a new area of thinking for those of us concerned with this project.

170



Type of understanding

Features

Example

Type of question it relates to and sample answer

Unconnected

A number of pieces of information the person has acquired concerning a topic, but has not connected

• Blood is a red liquid • A part of blood is plasma • A part of blood is red blood cells

Simple ‘what’ type of question: what is it, what does it do? What is blood? Blood is a red liquid

Descriptive understanding

Information connected into a description.

The above are linked into a fuller description

‘What’ questions thought about more deeply. Blood is a red liquid that consists of red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. It carries oxygen round the body (etc.)

Explanatory understanding

Connections between information and different descriptions and (where necessary) between explanations

This is very variable and has to be developed by the pupil themselves in relation to meaningful questions

Can combine thinking about ‘what,’ ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. What is blood, how does it work and why? (See below)

Blood is a red liquid in the body. It consists of plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. It carries oxygen round the body in the red cells and this is necessary because the cells need oxygen to get energy from food [a connection made with ‘Why is oxygen necessary?’]. It is pumped round the body by the heart which is a muscular pump with four chambers [connection with ‘What is the heart?’]. The heart pumps the blood to the lungs through an artery [connection with blood vessels]. In the lungs, which are air-filled sacs [connection with ‘What are the lungs?’], it picks up oxygen and gets rid of carbon dioxide. The blood now goes back to the heart through a vein [blood vessels again]. The blood now pumps it out through an artery to the body (etc.) Table V. Towards a pedagogical model of understanding that can be used with pupils.

The next section will present a model showing how the development process within the school and the processes of research can be thought of as working together towards the development of educational knowledge. The tension between values and practice that acts as the basis for the development of a living theory operates in the school in a way that mirrors to a degree one way in which research can be pictured as progressing.

171

Colin A. Smith

A Model Linking Research with Practice


This model (see Figure 1) assumes two worlds. These are the world of the academic researcher and the world occupied by the practitioner and pupil. The former has theories aimed at explaining why things occur that drive the collection of data to provide evidence for their own validity, modification or replacement. The latter has theories in the form of shared living theories that are aimed at improving practice and that drive the collection of evidence for evaluating their success. As with the academic theories, they can be validated, modified, or replaced on the basis of this evidence.

Figure 1. A model of educational theory. The thick arrows show the outline of how the two worlds of academic research and practice operate (ideally, at least). The thin arrows show some possible links between the two ‘worlds’ of academic research and practice. There may be others. Also, some may be stronger than others. They may also depend upon the activities of individuals or groups from both worlds. The broken line indicates a ‘mutualism’ which could develop between shared forms of practitioner theory and academic forms of explanatory theory.

The use of the model can be illustrated by applying it to the activities of the school featured here. Beginning with some outcomes from academic research (the identification of conceptions of learning and teaching among students and teachers at various levels in education), a shared living theory has been constructed within the practitioners’ and pupils’ world (line 1 in Figure 1). This shared living theory is now leading to an examination of conceptual frameworks concerning understanding, mutual respect and a strong and fair discipline system. The development of a pedagogical model of understanding described in the previous section is an example of how research findings are 172



being adapted to this school’s context within the constraints of target understanding theory. Other questions are likely to follow as other features of the theory are considered. In one sense, these frameworks are equivalent to the frameworks that academics work out to explain a phenomenon within their broader theory. For example, the academic may have a framework for explaining motivation and linking it to a broader theory of learning. It was noted above that practice presupposes a theory or conceptual framework. However, practitioners may not have explicitly explored their individual conceptual frameworks and so they do not necessarily connect to a broader theory. In some cases, the forming of a shared living theory may be the first occasion upon which these conceptual frameworks begin to be examined for coherence and consistency. It is then that acknowledging oneself (or one’s school) as a living contradiction becomes possible. In time, the conceptual frameworks applied to different areas of school life should become more explicit as the shared living theory is refined and modified and expands its influence within the school. Contradictions will be examined and lived with (perhaps because they are imposed by external policy components in target understanding theory) or resolved. Note that the main stimulus for articulation of a living theory derives from conflict within it, from experiencing a negation of a value in practice. Although development is also possible by comparison of conflicts with other school’s living theories, this is not as essential to progress as in the academic research world, where confrontation between different explanatory theories is central. One feature of the model is the possibility it creates for teachers and researchers to debate conceptual issues. An earlier section described the difference that arose between the conceptions of learning and teaching among students and teachers that research has identified and the current conception of these as set out within the policy (Table II). The difference was one between a hierarchy (nested or otherwise) and a two-level one in which all the concepts of learning are taken as potentially resulting in worthwhile outcomes. This raises some interesting questions. For example, phenomenographic research generally emphasises that conceptions, being descriptive of ways of experiencing, are dependent upon the relationships between person and a particular context (Marton & Booth, 1997). Has this context of forming a policy in which conceptions of learning and teaching are used as a starting point encouraged conceptions absent in other contexts? Does the conception of learning in this school’s theory represent an advance in thinking about learning, or is it naïve, or is it just different? Are the conceptions in this policy of more practical use to the school than the original categories in Table I, perhaps because of the explicit incorporation of positive attitudes to self and others? How do we conceptualise the relationships between the contexts of the original conceptions and this new one and what of the validity of each in relation to their particular contexts? Other questions may be asked of the school’s theory. From an external perspective, are the parts of the living theory 173


Colin A. Smith

consistent? Is the list of conditions required to support learning and teaching simply the traditional one? How does feedback (perhaps from discussion with academics) on these questions affect the way in which practitioners perceive the validity of their living theory? Is this another source of conflict and development for both living theories and academic theories? The future explorations of these types of questions make it possible for both teachers and researchers to work together in developing a closer relationship between research and practice. They form the context in which answers to Whitehead’s fifth question, how to determine which power relations influence the academic legitimacy of a living theory, are looked for. Of course, a relationship already exists between research and practice and many of the pathways shown in the model are already in operation. What the model does is map them out and positions shared living theories as the main theory of practitioners that, nevertheless, can form meaningful and mutually beneficial relations with the explanatory theories of educational research. As the model suggests, the current development cycle of schools in which initiatives are planned and evaluated forms part of the practitioners’/pupils’ world and through the links with the academic world can contribute and provide data for the development of explanatory theory. In the final section, an attempt is made to draw the implications together. This school cycle follows Whitehead’s framework. If a school asks how something can be improved, it is experiencing a concern that a value is being negated in practice. How it deals with this will depend upon where the value derives from – its own policies or target understanding theory – and the power relations involved. It then imagines a way forward, acts, evaluates and, if necessary, modifies what it believes and does in light of those evaluations. By making public the theory behind its practice and its evaluations, the school can contribute to educational knowledge. The links between research and practice are strengthened and support for both teacher and school development from the research world is given new direction and relevance. Supporting Teacher and School Development It is important to emphasise that the school example is in the early stages of this process. It has its shared living theory but has experienced some difficulty in finding the required collegiate time for staff to explore their questions within the new framework of pay and conditions currently being implemented in Scotland. However, it hopes to find a solution as the new conditions’ framework becomes embedded. One hope is that, as new norms for the use of development time emerge, teachers can engage with research and researchers in exploring their own living theory questions. However, other schools may not share this difficulty. Indeed, the original living theory model, whereby teachers are supported in developing their practice through pursuing appropriate practice-based postgraduate qualifications, has already resulted in partnership arrangements between 174



schools and researchers (see, for example, Eames, 1996; Evans et al, 2000). Also, apart from the living theory model, university/school partnerships have also been attempted (see, for example, Ebbutt et al, 2000; Postlethwaite & Haggarty, 1998). However, such partnerships can involve tensions between two occupational cultures that may take time to diminish (Ebbutt et al, 2000). This article contributes a structure that should help to make it easier to make such partnerships meaningful through the shared goals of developing educational knowledge and applying that knowledge in practice. From the teachers’ perspectives, they can bring their living theory questions to the literature and to researchers themselves. They do not come to research-based in-service training or conferences in the vague hope that they will find something they can use. They come with the agenda of moving nearer to having their living theory questions answered. They want to derive hypotheses for what they can try out in an effort to improve their practice and which can then be tested in that practice. There is a recognition that their own experience is not sufficient to develop their expertise and that theoretical insights allow an exploration of the parameters of their practice (Winkler, 2001). From the researchers’ viewpoint, their expertise in data collection and interpretation (Winch & Foremen-Peck, 2000) is being directly utilised. They would no longer be left only with the hope that some practitioners might lift their ideas from attending a research conference, in-service training or whatever. They also may find new opportunities for research in schools as this form of dialogue develops. There is a role for teacher involvement in action research within a framework that makes teachers stakeholders in evaluating and prioritising research, but also as colleagues in projects that rely on expertise in data gathering and interpretation at the classroom level. (Winch & Foremen-Peck, 2000, p. 176)

In all of this, both teacher and whole-school development is being supported, not directed. Some may question the model of research it depicts. However, even if it is naïve by the standards of the philosophy and sociology of science and social science, it is one that many adopt in practice. Also, all models are, to one degree or another, representations; otherwise, they would not be models. In this case, the model is justified if it clarifies the outcomes of greater partnerships and dialogues between educational research and practice and, through that, supports teacher and school development. Its power lies in the fact that a school’s shared living theory is not imposed by research (or anyone else), but is living in the sense that it grows and adapts to its local conditions, while having the opportunity to contribute to the wider development of educational knowledge. Perhaps equally importantly, it is a powerful tool for bringing together both whole-school developments (through the development planning process) and the continual professional development of individual staff in a manner that is meaningful to both. This model implies an additional point. In the daily life of the school, the living theory and the subsequent subsidiary questions that it raises guide the

175


Colin A. Smith

actions that teachers and school management take. In constructing the individual living theories within the overall shared form, teachers will reflect before, in and after action as to whether their practice is improving, either generally or in a particular area. The living theory is a theory-in-and-about action directed towards bringing valued educational outcomes. Practitioners may well be best placed to develop this type of theory and make contributions to educational knowledge through it. If one wants to explain, as both an academic researcher and a practitioner might, why particular educational outcomes occurred or are occurring, the living theory, its values (negating or otherwise), and the actions it prompted would be part, at least, of that explanation. However, the academic may also draw upon research concepts and findings that have not yet permeated the living theory of a particular school, but that have been developed in a wider research field. This wider research (for example, the research into conceptions of learning and teaching used by the school described) has a potential to be incorporated (perhaps in modified form) into a school’s living theory. This incorporation and modification, as we have seen, raises more issues for academic research. The explanations and information provided by academic researchers appear from this analysis to have a wider remit than do those of the practitioners. This is an issue worth exploring further (see, for example, Hammersley, 2001). In summary, a school with a learning and teaching policy that is a shared living theory concerning the natures of learning and teaching and the conditions needed to support them is engaged in asking how to improve its practice. In turn, the pursuit of these questions enables real and equal partnerships between both researchers and teachers: partnerships that are not based upon the researchers giving advice to teachers (although that may happen when appropriate), but ones that are based upon teachers and researchers exploring together how to make education more effective and, in so doing, both making contributions to educational knowledge. The idea of a shared living theory provides a structure that supports teacher and school development in ways relevant to them, while still allowing partnerships with research. As the opening quote suggests, teaching can be a research-based process and teachers can be one type of academic researcher. By pursuing individual living theory questions within the framework provided by a shared living theory of learning and teaching, teachers are ‘equipped to reflect on and learn from their professional practice, to share their knowledge effectively across professional networks and to work in partnership with other academic researchers.’ Acknowledgements Thanks to Professor Noel Entwistle for the opportunity to do this work and to Professor Mary Simpson and Dr Jack Whitehead for comments on an earlier version of this article.

176


Correspondence Colin A. Smith, Caldervale High School, Towers Road, Airdrie ML6 8PG, United Kingdom ([email protected]). References Adhami, M. (2001) Responsive Questioning in a Mixed-ability Group, Support for Learning, 16, pp. 28-34. Anderson, G.L., Herr, K. & Nihlen, A.S. (1994) Studying Your Own School: an educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. London: Sage. Barrow, R. (1984) Giving Teaching Back to Teachers: a critical introduction to curriculum theory. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Beck, C. & Kosnick, C. (2001) Reflection-in-Action: in defence of thoughtful teaching, Curriculum Inquiry, 31, pp. 217-227. Bennett, N. & Dunne, E. (1992) Managing Classroom Groups. Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Shuster.


Bereiter, C. (1990) Aspects of an Educational Learning Theory, Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 603-624. Bowring-Carr, C. & West-Burnham, J. (1997) Effective Learning in Schools: how to integrate learning and leadership for a successful school. Harlow: Pearson Education. Boyd, B (2000) Introductory talk to Conference on Thinking about Learning, 3 March, University of Strathclyde. Capra, F. (1997) The Web of Life: a new synthesis of mind and matter. London: Harper Collins. Catelli, L.A., Padovano, K. & Costello, J. (2000) Action Research in the Context of a SchoolUniversity Partnership: its value, problems, issues and benefits, Educational Action Research, 8, pp. 225-242. Eames, K.J. (1996) Action Research, Dialectics and an Epistemology of Practically-Based Professional Knowledge for Education. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bath. Ebbutt, D., Robson, R. & Worrall, N. (2000) Educational Research Partnership: differences and tensions at the interface between the professional cultures of practitioners in schools and researchers in higher education, Teacher Development, 4, pp. 319-337. Entwistle, N.J. & Entwistle, A.C. (1997) Revision and the Experience of Understanding, in F. Marton, D.J. Hounsell & N.J. Entwistle (Eds) The Experience of Learning, 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Entwistle, N. & Smith, C. (2002) Personal Understanding and Target Understanding: mapping influences on the outcomes of learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp. 321-342 Evans, M., Lomax, P. & Morgan, H. (2000) Closing the Circle: action research partnerships towards better learning and teaching in schools, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, pp. 405-419. Everton, T., Galton, M. & Pell, T. (2000) Teachers’ Perspectives on Educational Research: knowledge and context, Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, pp. 167-182. Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design, 4th edition. Fort Worth: HBJ College Publishers.

177

Colin A. Smith Garner, P. (2000) Teachers as Researchers: an uneasy relationship? Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20-23 September. Hammersley, M. (2001) Can and should educational research be educative? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Leeds, 13-15 September. HM Inspectors of Schools Audit Unit (1996) How Good is Our School? Self-evaluation using performance indicators. Edinburgh: HMSO. Ikuenobe, P. (2001) Questioning as an Epistemic Process of Critical Thinking, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33, pp. 325-341. Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. & Hopkins, D. (1999) The New Structure of School Improvement: inquiring schools and achieving students. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kember, D. (1997) A Reconceptualisation of the Research into University Academics’ Conceptions of Teaching, Learning and Instruction, 7, pp. 255-275. Lapadat, J.C. (2000) Construction of Science Knowledge: scaffolding conceptual change through discourse, Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35, pp. 1-14. Leask, M. & Pachler, N. (1999) Learning to Teach Using ICT in the Secondary School. London: Routledge. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning and Awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Marton. F., Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993) Conceptions of Learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 19, pp. 277-300. Matheson, D. (2000) Scotsman Education, 26 January. McAvina, C. & Oliver, M. (in press) ‘But My Subject Is Different’: a web-based approach to supporting lifelong learning skills, Computers and Education. Mooij, T. & Smeets, E. (2001) Modelling and Supporting ICT Implementation in Secondary Schools, Computers and Education, 36, pp. 265-281. Newton, D.P. (2000) Teaching for Understanding: what it is and how to do it. London: Routledge Falmer. Patrick, K. (1998) Teaching and Learning: the construction of an object of study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne. Perth and Kinross Council (2000) Promoting Effective Learning. Perth: Perth and Kinross Council, Educational Services. Pithers, R.T. (2000) Critical Thinking in Education: a review, Educational Research, 42, pp. 237-249. Postlethwaite, K. & Haggarty. L. (1998) Towards Effective and Transferable Learning in Secondary School: the development of an approach based on mastery learning, British Educational Research Journal, 24, pp. 333-353. Reigeluth, C.M. (1996) A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(3), pp. 13-20. Säljö, R. (1979) Learning in the Learner’s Perspective 1: some common sense perspectives. Göteborg: University of Göteborg Press. Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (1992) Conceptions of Teaching Held by Academic Teachers, Higher Education, 24, pp. 93-111. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, C.A. (2001) Becoming a Research-Based Profession, Research in Education, 68, pp. 10-11.

178


Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996) Congruence between Intention and Strategy in University Science Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching, Higher Education, 32, pp. 77-87. Watkins, C. & Mortimore, P. (1999) Pedagogy: what do we know? in P. Mortimore (Ed.) Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning. London: Sage. Whitehead, J. (1989) Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of the Kind, ‘How Do I improve My Practice?’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 19, pp. 41-52. Whitehead, J. (1998a) Creating Living Educational Theories Through Paradigmatic or PostParadigmatic Possibilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, 13-17 April. Available in the Living Theory Section of http://www.actionresearch.net Whitehead, J, (1998b) Educational Action Researchers Creating their Own Living Educational Theories. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, 13-17 April. Available in the Living Theory Section of http://www.actionresearch.net Whitehead, J. (2000) How Do I Improve My Practice? Creating and legitimating an epistemology of practice, Reflective Practice, 1, pp. 91-104.


Winch, C. & Foremen-Peck, L. (2000) Teacher Professionalism, Educational Aims and Action Research: the evolution of policy in the United Kingdom, Teacher Development, 4, pp. 165-176. Winkler, G. (2001) Reflection and Theory: conceptualising the gap between teaching experience and teacher expertise, Educational Action Research, 9, pp. 437-449. Wiske, M.S. (Ed.) (1998) Teaching For Understanding: linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

179


Colin A. Smith

180