Pedagogy and teacher identity - tying it all together while the chimp and the owl have tea

Week 4 Blog – Pedagogy and teacher identity – tying it all together while the chimp and the owl have tea

My inquiry process to date has included identifying my beliefs, values and attitudes about students and teachers, developing an inquiry question and defining component parts of the question. Through this experience, I have enjoyed the discovery of definitions, the feedback from colleagues and instructors and opportunity to reflect on my own thinking, perhaps even critically, thinking about my thinking. For this week four blog, I will try to tie some of these ideas together.

I thought I would start with Michael’s suggestion of reading Max van Manen. This was a familiar name to me so I was excited to print off this article and read it. As is usually the case, I found myself browsing the reference list and before I knew it, I had another four articles of interest to browse. Fenstermacher’s response to van Manen, van Manen’s reponse to Fenstermacher and two other post-modern and poststructural writings, for another time.

Max van Manen (thanks Michael) argued that pedagogy is about the interactions between student and teacher and that they are always relational (social work is about relationships). Additionally, he noted that these pedagogical relations demonstrate lasting pedagogical consequences. I have a number of personal examples I can share about pedagogical consequences and have chosen one to demonstrate this idea. Calculus in grade 13 was a challenging subject for me and our teacher demonstrated tremendous passion for the subject and for student success.  He worked tirelessly making himself available during lunch hours and before and after school for any and all students to come for additional help. He was at time mocked by students for grading papers while he attended varsity sports events. He celebrated with childlike enthusiasm when students successfully completed a question on the board, the dreaded place to have to go to show your work to the entire group. It made us all smile and laugh as he demonstrated theatrics by way of waving his arms, enthusiastically nodding his head, jumping up and down, and verbally praising success.  He was equally clear about student’s need for assistance when they were not successful and directly reminded us all of his extra tutoring/instruction time. It was not his instruction that was the pedagogical consequence. It was the manner in which he related to each and every student in the class. He wanted everyone to be successful and the manner in which he related to each student while reviewing their work, was evidence of his commitment and integration of his values, beliefs and attitudes. His message was clear; you can do this and I believe in you! The pedagogical consequence for me was that it opened up my mind to possibilities. I could believe that calculus was possible for success and it helped me to re-exam my beliefs about myself and the potentials that I held. Van Manen suggested that “we abide by the principle of hope, possibility, and the as if…as if they were real possibilities; then possibilities do become realities” (van Manen, 1994, p. 148).

My chimp and owl are relational. The teacher as curious learner and the student as wise teacher relate with one another in the development of knowledge. It is not just the delivery of knowledge from the teacher to the student that counts. The importance lies in the understanding that the pedagogical relation a student holds significant beyond the intended purpose of the experience (van Manen, 1994), meaning, learners take that life experience and connect it to another life experience. It is these connections that lead us to the next part of this blog, the inquiry question.

The inquiry question was ‘why would it be important for social work students to experience inquiry to become critical thinkers?’.  I see as important, the connections of the terms. How does the personal paradigm of the learner (me) fit with the research question, the way in which I defined the terms, the relevance of the definitions and the connections between the terms themselves.  Mulder (2010) identifies inquiry as a process of connections and relationships between variables. As a suggestion, the inquiry process can use the model of progression that lead to students building and testing hypothesis. Participating in these activities facilitate the student’s ability to think critically and at the same time students who can think critically are successful at inquiry activities (Mulder, 2010).  There is a connection and relational aspect to these two concepts, just as pedagogy reveals the interactions between students and teachers as relational.

Critical thinking is conceptualized as not only engaging in purposeful, self-regulatory judgement (Abrami et al, 2008) but also as connecting to the social, political and ethical challenges in everyday life. This definition expands critical thinking to incorporate connections outside of the self (thanks Jules!) These ideas of inquiry, knowledge of the relations between the variables, and critical thinking, the purposeful judgement and evaluation outside of the self, can tie in nicely with pedagogy and pedagogical relations in that the pedagogical relations can foster both the inquiry process and critical thinking skills.  Interestingly, Giesecke suggests that “it is virtually impossible for the teacher to maintain pedagogical relations with every one of the students he or she teaches” (van Manen, 1994). Based on my experiences in life, I would have to disagree. I think if , as was suggested by Giesecke, professional educators struggle from an understanding of their professional identity as a teacher, it may have more to do with inattention to their knowledge, values, attitudes and world view as it relates to teaching and learning, then it does to their ability to engage in activities defined as pedagogical relations.  In other words, I would support the position that it is possible.

In terms of the relevance of the literature, I would say the Mulder et al (2010) article is relevant to my research question in that there are connections between inquiry and critical thinking as it does appear important for the development of critical thinking skills to engage in a process of hypothesis testing found within inquiry and that the use of inquiry also develops critical thinking skills.

Van Manen’s conception of pedagogy relation fits well with my understanding of the constructivist paradigm and the construction of social relations. After successfully arguing in favour of pedagogical relations as a critical aspect of teaching, the author then presents an alternative view that questioned the necessity of pedagogical relation in contemporary family arrangements. Given my bend to toward relations being socially constructed, this second argument appears irrelevant. Whatever the societal values of families, whether contemporary or from another era, relations would be constructed based on the values of the time and the language used to construct those relations (Payne, 2005).

Having considered my work until this point, I am settled on the inquiry question and believe it is important for social work students to experience inquiry to become critical thinkers. Moving forward, I would now want to consider the potential methods involved for teaching inquiry in social work education, starting with epistemology, or ‘this I believe’ to begin to construct my ideas about how to answer this next area of inquiry.

Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Borokovski, E., wade, A., Surkes, M., Taman, R., & Zhang, d. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134.

Mulder, Y., Lazonder, A. & Jong, T. (2010). Finding out how they find it out. An empirical analysis of inquiry learners’ need for support. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2033-2053.

Payne, M. (2005). Modern Social Work Theory. Third Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. UK.

Van Manen, M. (1994). Pedagogy, Virtue, and Narative Identity in Teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 24(2), 135-170.

 

A closer look at Definitions

Week 3 Blog – Examining definitions

Today, I explore the definition I used to describe critical thinking (CT). Following up on a recommendation from Michael, I reflected on a published Masters Thesis authored by Claudia Alvarez (2007). Ms. Alvarez provides an overview of the many definitions of CT. It turns out, my definition of CT comes in part from the Delphi Report (1990), tauted as the definition used to create assessment tools to measure CT (Alvarez, 2007) and in part from the ‘second wave’ of CT definitions.  According to Alvarez, CT has been defined in a traditional way (logical analysis) and by another group of researchers she refers to as ‘second wave’.  This alternate definition expands CT to include the application of methods of logical analysis.

My definition of CT from last week’s blog, reported by Abrami et al. (2008), reflected that of the Delphi Report (1990) such that “purposeful, self regulatory judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference” and “explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological or contextual inquiry” (Alvarez, 2007, p.24). The first part of this could be described as traditional while the second part, second wave. Similarly, Alvarez identifies Siegel (1988) and Ennis (1985) with definitions that also would fit with the second wave, for example, “CT involves bringing to bear all matters relevant to the rationality of belief and action” (Siegel, 1988) and “the reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985).

The definition of the second wave group focus on the beliefs and actions. In the Delphi Report (1990), this too is captured in the wording “conceptual, methodological, criteriological” and includes a further piece introducing “contextual”, which might include discipline specific inquiry.

All of these definitions, for me, can be combined to provide a more inclusive definition for CT as I noted from Abrami et al (2008). Inclusivity is a value that fits for me in my personal beliefs, professional career and within the research paradigm that I am still sorting out (Critical vs Constructivist).

For next week, I will follow-up further on a recommendation regarding an inquiry definition and a 2010 study that explores inquiry from both content and process for novice learners.

http://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-thesis.pdf

Inquiry and critical thinking in the jungle

Inquiry question – Week 2 – Theme: Identity

My first question, ‘Why would it be important for social work students to experience inquiry to become critical thinkers?’ has a number of associated assumptions. Included in these assumptions are that inquiry can be experienced; that inquiry is necessary or helpful; that social work students can become critical thinkers and that inquiry does lead to critical thinking. In attempting to answer this question, I searched a number of sources, education journals, social work education journals, a search of key words through the Leddy Library search tools. 

My inquiry search included ten searches. The searches began with journal articles in education, using the Eric search engine and restricting the search to peer reviewed articles. The search began with ‘inquiry base learning and critical thinking, empirical studies’ and received zero hits. Next, ‘inquiry base learning, empirical studies’ received three hits but the articles were not what I was seeking. The third search, ‘inquiry based learning, empirical studies received 47 hits with three potential articles, Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006), Capps, Crawford & Constas (2012) and Mulder, Lazonder & Jong (2010). The fourth search, ‘scientific inquiry education critical thinking’ revealed two potential articles, Cox, Deese & Ramsey (2007) and Sadeh & Zion (2009). By this time, I was tired of Eric and wanted to move more towards social work education.

In considering the Social Work search link and Social Work Abstracts (Ovid), the keys words searched in the first three attempts ‘inquiry based learning and critical thinking in social work; inquiry based learning in social work education; and inquiry, critical thinking’ all received zero hits. A switch to the social service abstracts (proquest) and running the first search again found three articles, one of which appeared to be a potential for this purpose, Biggerstaff (2005). The final search included ‘inquiry based learning in social work education and of 40 hits, one article appeared to have potential, Bay & Macfarlane (2011).

Despite my beliefs about trusting process and my attempts to be patient, rational and demonstrate perseverance, this process was frustrating mostly because at the end of this exercise, I do not have an answer to my question. I defined my terms, for example, ‘experience inquiry’ meaning the students are going through a process so that it is clear that the students are part of the process and the experience is unique to them. I adopt Hudspith and Jenkins (2007) conception of inquiry as “a path to new knowledge and understanding” (p. 9) and critical thinking as, “the ability to engage in purposeful, self-regulatory judgement… but also thinking about the social, political and ethical challenges in everyday life” (Abrami et al, 2008, p. 1102) as this definition seems to connect nicely with the purpose of social work. Important is defined by an online dictionary, “mattering much or entitled to more than ordinary consideration” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/important?s=t). As this exercise is about identity, I will position myself as not yet fully determined, landing somewhere between or within the critical theory or constructivist paradigm, more likely leaning towards constructivism with an “it depends” response to my beliefs about knowledge creation.

Through the literature I discovered a meta-analysis on instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills. This study revealed, through a review of 117 studies, three key outcomes related to the 1) impact of instruction on critical thinking, 2) How methodology moderates the impact and 3) The role of substantive study features. According to Abrami et al (2008), the largest effect size occurred in the studies where critical thinking is taught as a separate unit within the content of a specific course and the instructor making the learning of critical thinking explicit. Also, according to the same authors, pedagogy matters, meaning for instructors with training (experience) in teaching critical thinking, student outcomes for learning critical thinking skills increased. So, now I know the conditions under which critical thinking might be taught in order for students to learn critical thinking skills. How does inquiry fit into this equation?

Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) support the use of guided instruction emphasizing there have been no empirical studies to support the use of what they call a constructivist/minimally guided or inquiry based approach to learning. Considering positivist and constructivist paradigms are very different, it made me wonder if the assumption made by the authors was that empirical studies were the final word on research method effectiveness. This of course challenges my own paradigm, if I were to claim constructivism. Other authors support inquiry based learning as an effective method provided both domain (content) and process support are provided particularly to novice learners (Mulder, Lazonder & Jong, 2010). In a study comparing open inquiry to guided inquiry, researchers found the open inquiry student group to perform higher on changes during inquiry and procedural understanding of inquiry suggesting methodological effectiveness (Sadeh & Zion, 2009). Capps, Crawford & Constas (2012) identify the purpose of inquiry in the classroom is to learn how to do scientific inquiry by learning how to ask and identify questions, how to plan and design experiments and how to use the data to make connections. This appears to be getting closer to my question in terms of seeing how inquiry can help to build critical thinking skills in terms of purposeful, self-regulating judgement. It also appears to support another assumption, that inquiry is helpful. Still, no indication of why this would be important.

Some researchers provide information to the flip of my question. Cox, Deese & Ramsy (2007) suggest that specific activities can provide students opportunities to use critical thinking skills that will allow them to be successful conducting inquiry and they believe the use of specific activities can be adapted across disciplines. This moves me a little closer to responding to one of my assumptions that social workers can develop critical thinking skills.

The social work education literature linked me to my question but more in an anecdotal way, not necessarily through empirical research. Biggerstaff (2005) observed reflective learning and critical thinking skills were outcomes for students enrolled in an online inquiry course whereas Bay and Macfarland (2011) provide an example of guided inquiry and how critical reflection can be purposefully taught to develop critical thinking skills using real world experiences through a post-structural lens. This particular lens allows students to challenge their ‘taken for granted’ assumptions. Some think that this process of deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge, values and beliefs can lead to transformative learning (Bay & Macfarland, 2011) and that the critical analysis of narratives can lead to opportunities for change. We would want social work students to be critical thinkers so that they can critically analyze those structures in society that create barriers for people, addressing the social, political and ethical challenges in everyday life. This connects the importance of critical thinking but not inquiry as a means of achieving critical thinking.

I’ve reached the end of what I can do for this week. This exploratory search has been too big and too wide to bring any resolution to this question. The connections have not been fully made and will need to be further considered for next week.

Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M., Taman, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134.

Bay, U., & Macfarland, S. (2011). Teaching Critical Reflection: A Tool for Transformative Learning in Social Work. Social Work Education, 30(7), 745-758.

Biggerstaff, M. (2005). Social Work Ethics Online. Reflective Learning. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 23(3-4), 245-257.

Capps, D., Crawford, B., & Constas, M. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318.

Cox, C., Deese, W., & Ramsey, L. (2007). Non traditional Card Sorts: Adding critical thinking and inquiry to science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 24(9), 38-42.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Mulder, Y., Lazonder, A. & Jong, T. (2010). Finding Out How They Find it Out. An Empirical Analysis of Inquiry Learners’ Need for Support. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2033-2053.

Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.

It's a jungle out there

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

1. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education.
2. Wood, W. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at Large Research Universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission Report.
3. Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between preservice and inservice teachers.
4. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning.
5. 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.
6. Narayan, L. (2000). Freire & Gandhi. Their relevance for social work education.