Explain the metaphor for teacher and the metaphor for learner and the relationship between them.
The metaphors I chose were chimpanzee (teacher) and owl (learner). I was thinking that a chimpanzee is inquisitive and owls, wise. As a teacher, I am inquisitive about the learning process and seek ways to create an environment where learners can discover and share their knowledge with each other and the class as a whole. Chimpanzees are also active and I spend much time preparing for classes so that there are a number of varied activities for the learners to engage while I assume the role of facilitator in the learning process.
The owls then have opportunities to share their knowledge with each other through active learning experiences. These active learning experiences set the tone in the classroom along with the expectation that knowledge will be co-constructed between learners and between learners and teachers.
While considering the relationship between the metaphors, it occurred to me that I had briefly explored the relationship between teacher and learner through an inquiry based activity in the LCTHE course. In this class, I was part of a group that presented ‘The Art of Inquiry’. Following this experience, I wrote a brief paper called ‘Relationships of Change: How does social work education navigate inquiry based learning?’ This brief paper then became the subject of a poster presentation at the Windsor/Oakland conference in May 2012.
I discovered through a search of the literature that the relationship between teacher and learner was only one of three relationships that are challenged by inquiry based learning. The other two relationships included teaching/research and university/community. My inquiry question then became, ‘How does inquiry based teaching and learning challenge these relationships?’
Focusing solely on the metaphors for this blog, I discovered a number of ways in which the teacher/learner relationship is challenged through inquiry based learning. First, inquiry based learning changes the relationship between the student and the teacher so that it is a relational approach (Wood, 2003; Mangione, 2000). Next, there is a sharing of power and openness to challenge and critique (Brew, 2003). This fits with the notion of co-construction of knowledge as the teacher is not the expert in this relationship and in this classroom. Within this relationship, the roles shift and the teacher role moves from expert to facilitator while the learner assumes responsibility for establishing the knowledge base (Damnjanovic, 1999). The knowledge created then is through the transformation of the experience so that what is critical for the learner is the context in which they are learning (Healey, 2005).
The co-construction of knowledge in this learning environment allows dialogue to remain a permanent tension (Narayan, 2000) as the inquisitive teacher and the wise learner engage in a reciprocal exchange of information allowing for challenge and critique to form new knowledge. An important piece of this exchange requires the teacher to demonstrate or express authenticity and empowerment through language (Mangione et al 2011).
References
- Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education.
- Wood, W. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at Large Research Universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission Report.
- Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between preservice and inservice teachers.
- Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning.
- Mangione, L., Mears, G., Vincent, W., & Hawes, S. (2011). The supervisory relationship when women supervise women: An exploratory study of power, reflexivity, collaboration and authenticity.
- Narayan, L. (2000). Freire & Gandhi. Their relevance for social work education.
You blog is very thoughtful and academic, Beth. I really appreciate you refreshing our ideas on the art of inquiry and expanding my undertanding of it. Specifically, the idea that most applealed to me was: the co-construction of knowledge, whereby the teacher becomes more of a facilitator and the learner assumes more responsibility for providing information to learn by.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that the teacher becomes a learner as well in this "tension" you refer to, whereby the new knowledge gleaned is not a one way application! This speaks intellegently to the postive aspects of this style of scholarly teaching.
Hi Beth,
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to the Owl as learner and your explanation that Owls are wise was...well, "That can't be right!" Since when do we look out on our class room as see rows upon rows of wise students? Wise is not the adjective I would have used as a blanket description of students. Words such as potential, even intelligent, or curious, seem more apt.
Yet, as I read your post I saw the way in which you were viewing this relationship. With IBL the teacher becomes a participant or co-creator in the development of new knowledge. The teacher is no longer looked at as content master, but seen as guide who is simultaneously curious about what their students will discover. Likewise the student does become the 'expert' and therefore can be considered wise.
I liked the way you framed this and now see how you visualize this relationship (I also noticed how Michael added & switched 'learner' and 'teacher' to the table to illustrate the changing of roles!). My question then is whether you see this relationship holding up under all teaching conditions and not just when IBL is implemented.
Thanks for a thought provoking post.
Jules
Thanks for a very scholarly blog! And a very nice approach to the process. I like Biggs conceptual model of the teaching and learning systems which carefully joins the teaching learning activities illustrating their interdependance. Without a scholarly approach to learning activities and effective interaction between teacher-learner it is unlikely that the expected and actual learning outcomes will be aligned. It is of course critical that the teacher must also be a learner for both content and understanding of student teacher interactions. Great blog! Lyn
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts resonate with the transition from expert to facilitator. I find myself going through the same shift in position. In the wisdom of being an owl, the shift seems like a well- researched and evidence based shift. Change in a jungle is as natural as the seasons, the chimpanzees actively adapt to the change with intelligence and curiosity. This curiosity is perked up more by teaching that effectively draws out the questions lurking in their minds. I really enjoyed the direction of your blog to 'art of inquiry'.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post, Beth! The connection between Inquiry and constructivism is remarked upon throughout the literature, as you probably found (given your sources). Something we'll consider later in the course is whether what's being "constructed" is knowledge or . . . something else.
ReplyDeleteAs Brenda mentioned, the role of the teacher-as-learner in Inquiry seems particularly strong. I wonder whether this means we should have separate metaphors for teachers and students in this case (chimpanzee and owl), or whether in this context it makes more sense to think of teachers and students using the same metaphor (all chimpanzees? All owls?).
Jules' comment regarding the "wisdom" of owls got me thinking, too. Wisdom is, truly, a very different quality than knowledge, or curiosity, etc. It might be worth exploring. Is there a wisdom in our students that should be recognized, or assumed to be there by virtue of their role as students? Or are we really talking about something else entirely? How could we find the answer? Jules' comment suggestions that wisdom may be assumed as part of being an "expert". If that's true -- which it may or may not be -- then we would need to understand the nature of expertise.
Lyn's comment got me thinking about the conditions in which Inquiry learning might be incompatible with constructive alignment. Specifically, I was wondering whether there may be situations in which an Inquiry approach and a constructively-aligned approach may not work together. If this is so, how should we handle such conflicts?
I really liked how Anna brought in the notion of chimpanzees adapting to changing conditions. That does seem to be an important aspect of a scholarly approach. It made me wonder about how the owls adapt, too, for surely they must. Are there differences in how chimpanzees and owls should, or must, adapt to changes in their (teaching and learning) environments?