Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made - … · 2014-03-30 · enhancing multicultural. teaching, how multicultural calendar artifacts can be interpreted as

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 441 785 SP 039 243

AUTHOR De Lawter, Kathryn; Sosin, AdrienneTITLE A Self-Study in Teacher Education: Collective Reflection as

Negotiated Meaning.PUB DATE 2000-04-25NOTE 14p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April24-28, 2000).

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Elementary Secondary Education; *Global Approach; Graduate

Students; Graduate Study; Higher Education; MulticulturalEducation; Preservice Teacher Education; Self Evaluation(Individuals); *Teacher Collaboration; Teacher Educators

IDENTIFIERS Meaning Construction; *Reflective Thinking

ABSTRACTThis self-study highlights two teacher educators' evolving

collaborative relationship, viewed within the larger research study of theirpraxis i.n teaching. It is part of a multi-layered research methodology,developed to inquire into graduate preservice teachers' understandings ofmulticultural education. This paper focuses on the experience of negotiatingmeaning in a process called collective reflection. The term emerged as theteacher-researchers engaged in focused dialogue. It refers to self-consciousengagement with another for the purpose of mutual understanding, whether inclass or with a research partner, and to the interaction between people whoview being together as time to learn with and from each other. Collectivereflection extends to the interpretive work of students and teachers withinthe classroom. It emphasizes the social nature of meaning construction andaffirms the authentic expression of personal knowledge. In the context of acore course called Global Perspectives, collective reflection is afundamental condition that must be created, made conscious, and maintainedthrough types of interactions that sustain awareness of common purposes andrespect for the integrity of differences. This self-study emphasizes concernfor conscious and meaningful self and collective reflection in acts ofcurriculum making. (Contains 58 references.) (SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

A SELF-STUDY IN TEACHER EDUCATION:

COLLECTIVE REFLECTION AS NEGOTIATED MEANING

Kathryn De Lawter & Adrienne "Andi" Sosin

Pace University, New York

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA, April 25, 2000.

Abstract

This self-study is about two teacher educators' evolving collaborative

relationship, viewed within the larger research study of their praxis in teaching. It is one

layer of a multi-layered research methodology, developed in collegial partnership to

inquire into graduate pre-service teacher education students' understandings of

multicultural education. This paper focuses on the experience of negotiating meaning in a

process called, "collective reflection." The term, collective reflection, emerged as the two

teacher/researchers engaged in focused dialogues. The term refers to self-conscious

engagement with "the other" for the purpose of mutual understanding whether in the

classroom or with a research partner. It refers to the talk and interaction between people

who view being together as time to learn with and from each other.

The concept of collective reflection extends to the interpretive work of the

students and teacher within the classroom. Collective reflection emphasizes the social

nature of meaning construction, and affirms the authentic expression of personal

knowledge. In the context of a core course called Global Perspectives, collective

reflection is a fundamental condition that must be created, made conscious, and

maintained through the kinds of interactions that sustain awareness of common purposes

as well as respect for the integrity of differences.

This self-study emphasizes the concern for conscious and meaningful self and

collective reflection in acts of curriculum making. What educators learn from self-study

about themselves and from each other will benefit prospective teachers, parents and

children, and will contribute to the development of global perspectives and the renewal of

a spirit of community. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONPERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND Office of Educational Research and Improvement

DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONBEEN GRANTED BY CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as

nC 3 k Ls.}r received frg

om the person or organizationoriginating

(-4...lf) Minor changes have been made to

V-) BEST COPY AVAILABLETO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

4, improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) document do not necessarily represent

1 official OERI position or policy.

Collective reflection as negotiated meaning 1

A SELF-STUDY IN TEACHER EDUCATION:

COLLECTIVE REFLECTION AS NEGOTIATED MEANING

Kathryn De Lawter & Adrienne "Andi" Sosin

Pace University, New York

This self-study of collaboration is one layer of amulti-layered research methodology, developed incollegial partnership to inquire into graduate pre-serviceteacher education students' understandings ofmulticultural education. The evolving collaborativerelationship is viewed within the larger research study oftheir praxis in teaching. This paper focuses on the twoteacher/researchers' experience of negotiating meaning ina process called collective reflection. The concept ofcollective reflection extends to the interpretive work ofthe students and teacher within the classroom. This self-study emphasizes the concern for conscious andmeaningful reflection in acts of curriculum making.

Although the proposal for this paper was titled,"The Global Perspectives Calendar: A multi-layeredqualitative methodology for the study of pre-serviceteacher education students' understandings ofmulticultural curriculum," the proposal reviewssuggested that the authors elaborate on their work as aself-study. With this request, the reviews became a partof the inquiry methodology (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,1999; Feldman, 1999). This paper was written to makeself-study focal and the title of the paper was changed.

Roots of this self-study in a graduate teacher educationcore course

The context of this collaboration is the teachingof "Global Perspectives," a graduate pre-service teachereducation course at Pace University in New York City.The Global Perspectives course enables students who arecareer changers (Bennett, 1991;Evans et al., 1997;Guyton, 1993; Haberman, 1991) intent on making adifference (Greene, 1995; Lortie, 1975), to know whatthey bring to teaching, understand the importance of whatthey bring, and develop an awareness of teaching praxis(Friere, 1970/1998). The Global Perspectives courseattends closely to students' expressions and examinationsof their personal knowledge (Polanyi, 1964). The coursestructure is designed to reflect ideas presented by Freireand Macedo(1987), who state that, ". . . it is throughmultiple discourses that students generate meaning intheir everyday social context" Students are affordedopportunities for self-examination of their stereotypicalpresuppositions and biases (Trent, 1990). They draw

3

upon their multiple cultures and experiences by beingpaired as journal partners, and as "apprentice pairs" forthe purpose of creating "global perspectives" K-12classroom activities that examine stereotypes and worldconcerns (Gore, 1993; Saign, 1994; United Nations,1989). Some students elect to engage in service learningwith homeless children and youth through a communityorganization (Kroloff, 1993; Levinson, 1986; Rafferty,1998; Schultz, 1987).

Throughout the course, meanings are sociallyconstructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1967) around issues ofculture, power and curriculum (Meier, 1995). It becomesclear to students that their social and culturalconstructions are also political. This realization calls intoquestion taken-for-granted realities (Garfinkel, 1967;Schutz, 1966) and bears on their openness to changingperspectives. Students' conceptual and value changes arelegitimated through talk and interaction as a matter ofconsciousness (Weber, 1949). Disequilibrium (Piaget,1971) is intended to transform the pedagogicalrelationship.

During the semester, as a major course project,each student struggles to create and present to the classan artifact, which is ambiguously defined, but must berecognizable as a multicultural "calendar", intended foractual future use in teaching. All course assignments aresupported by texts and activities that assist students tobecome aware of multicultural approaches to teaching,(Ayers & Ford, 1996; Banks, 1991; Banks & Banks,1996; Sleeter & Grant, 1994). Calendars, as expressionsof the situated discourse (Gee, 1996) of the members ofthe class, become the focus of students' critical attention.The class' discourse about each calendar involves holisticassessment (DeFina, Anstendig, and De Lawter, 1991).Students discuss each other's work. The followingcriteria were developed with students: Unique/Original,Personal Connectedness, Eye Catching/Surprising,Cross-Cultural, Interactive, Educative/Usefulness,Relatable to subject matter, Relatable to viewer (DeLawter, 1990). This experiential process providesdemanding authentic assessment opportunities for allclass participants.

The calendar project poses a problematiccurriculum task, which stimulates and challenges the pre-service teacher education students to think in new waysthat call for a personal/social process of engagement, anopenness to the experience of constructive criticism, anda willingness to persist. Students are concerned enoughabout their course grade to complete the calendar project,even if starting is difficult and many false starts are made.Students recognize each other's achievements as theyrespectfully encounter each other's artifacts and listen tothe maker's description of process. The students'increased awareness of the meaningfulness of the criteriaas they relate to diversity and culturally responsiveteaching practices (Hollins, 1995; Leck,1990; Nel, 1995),makes the thought of entering their own classroomsconceivable. Many students feel an emerging sense ofself-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) as prospective teachers.The Multicultural Calendar project is often highlighted incourse evaluatiOns as the student's most significantaccomplishment in the teacher education program.

A muki-layered qualitative research methodology as awork-in-progress

This multi-layered qualitative research and itsmethodology are works-in-progress. It develops languagefor observation, analysis, and modification of theteacher/researchers' teaching practices. It is concernedwith students' constructions of meaning, which revealtheir issues, questions and problems in curriculum-making. To date, themes have been generated in threeareas: 1) Multicultural Calendar Artifacts as Texts, 2)Collective Reflection, and 3) Praxis in Teaching. Thispaper about collaborative self-study is one layer of thelarger action research study (Carr & Kenunis, 1986;Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Hutchinson, 1988; Merriam,1988; Noffke, 1997; Oja & Smulyan, 1989, Sosin & DeLawter, 1999; Stake, 1988; Wolcott, 1988; Yin, 1984).Not included in this paper are the investigations of theGlobal Perspectives Calendar as a methodology forenhancing multicultural teaching, how multiculturalcalendar artifacts can be interpreted as texts, and- theprocess of collective reflection with and betweenstudents. Additionally, layers of the research whichexplore the aesthetics of ethnography for education andthe process of critical collaborative action research inteacher education are not included in this paper. Also, anongoing investigation of the characteristics and effects ofambiguity in curriculum making is not discussed here.

Rationale for this self-study in teacher education

Most teachers want to know if what they aredoing works with their students. Teacher educators are nodifferent. They use lecture/discussions, simulations, in-

4


class presentations, practicum, projects, tutoringexperiences, fieldwork, service learning, studentteaching, and mentored relationships in the hope thattheir students will be prepared to teach (Kolb, 1984). Informalizing this research, the two teacher educatorsopened an inquiry into their actual practices ofmulticultural education, qualitative research, andcollaborative partnership. Each of these areas is anexperiential path of exploration of the complex socialreality called teacher education.

. This self-study layer extends the inquiry bymaking focal (Polanyi, 1967) the process of thecollaborative partnership. It displays how meanings ofmulticultural education are interpreted, negotiated andarticulated in the context of teacher education. The twoteacher educators are transformed as researchersdeliberately pursuing and making public their knowledgeof their interpretive work (Garfinkel, 1967). Each revealsthat self-reflection and collective reflection shape theirinterpretations of what is meaningful to them, theirstudents, and their profession.

Roots of this self-study in a teaching collaboration

Self-reflection on teaching was already a vitalpart of both instructors' practices. This cooperative effort,by juxtaposing two people's perspectives, changed thenature of the self-reflection. The decision to make self-study focal came about after cooperation in the planningfor the teaching of the course "Global Perspectives".What began as an administrative (De Lawter, 1982)necessity of expanding the Global Perspectives courseinto two sections, developed into a long-termcollaboration in teaching and research.

At first the two instructors sat down to discussthe syllabus, the purposes of the course, particularassignments and activities, and assessment, in terms ofholistic criteria and an interpretive scoring process. Fromthe start, their process of communicating was of focalinterest. They were tacitly aware of their culturalidentities and somewhat familiar with the other's culturalbackground. There was an immediate recognition ofdifferent personal styles, theoretical paradigms, andprofessional uses of language. The circumstances wereripe for "crossing the divides." Cooperation expanded tocollaboration through speaking to "the other" acrossboundaries of established differences. The seeds of thisformal self-study were sown upon realizing a commonpurpose of developing education students' globalperspectives. The instructors recognized a sharedcommitment to continuity of the original course design,and their genuinely warmhearted respect and collegialitythat expressed a desire to learn and grow with each other.

The collaboration rapidly built upon thecommon purpose of investigating the students'construction of meaning. The recognition of differencesbetween the teacher/researchers led to their realizationthat a meaningful inquiry into issues of multiculturaleducation and teacher preparation included self-study.They found that their differences gave real impetus to thedevelopment of a multi-layered research methodology.These differences underscored the importance ofunderstanding correspondences of meanings, as well asalternative interpretations in data analysis. With the needto articulate and clarify understandings of the data anduse of key concepts for interpreting the data,conversations across theoretical paradigms becameheuristic.

Self-study as a research methodology in teachereducation

Relentless critiques of education and teachereducation have resulted in legislative mandates for higherstandards at all levels of education. These mandatescreate a situation of heightened concern among teachersas to how they can do their primary work of meeting theneeds of their students, build community with parents,and exercise their professional judgments. Increasingly,curriculum and teaching have become prescriptive innature and teachers' critical questioning has become riskyand unwelcome. Teachers and teacher educators ponderhow the new regulations and requirements can enablethem to make a positive difference in a system ofeducation which silences parents, and mutes the voices ofteachers who know the children up close in theclassroom.

As a way of coming to terms with the criticisms,legislative mandates, and their own professional concernsfor improving education, particularly pre-service teachereducation, teacher educators have recently becomeinvolved in their own self-studies. In discussing the "NewScholarship in Teacher Education," Zeichner (1999)traces the historical background of research in teachereducation. He recognizes that the importance of the self-study movement in teacher education is that the teachereducators themselves are conducting the research aboutteacher education. "The birth of the self-study in teachereducation movement around 1990 has been probably thesingle most significant development ever in the field ofteacher education research."(1999, p. 8).

Zeichner's review makes the self-studymovement a category of the new scholarship in teachereducation. He includes in this category of researchvarious types of qualitative studies. Many deal withsubstantive issues relating to the lives and work ofteacher educators such as analyses of their instructional

5


strategies and approaches, their struggles with issues ofrace, class and gender, and the contradictions they face inbalancing their philosophical positions with the realitiesof their teaching practices and lives within institutions ofhigher education. Zeichner, by summarizing theimportance of teacher education self-study research,however, directs attention to its value beyond theempowerment of teacher educators' reflective activity.He notes that self-study provides information about thepersonal and social complexities of educating teachers formembership in the educational and researchcommunities. He also considers of major importance,self-study in teacher education that models andencourages disciplined and systematic inquiry forstudents, the prospective teachers.

For SchOn (1983), self-study researchmethodologies first and foremost support practitioners'examination of their own practices. Thus, the purposeful,systematic self-reflection of teacher educatorsexemplifies SchOn's "reflective practitioner." Otherself-study methodologies such as dialogic communicationthrough letters (Abt-Perkins, Hauschildt & Dale, 1998),conversation (Feldman, 1999), and in inquirycommunities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) openpossibilities for understanding meanings necessary toinform teaching and curricular decisions. The notion ofpraxis in teaching is concerned with the relationshipbetween action and reflection. Teaching praxis hones anawareness of listening as vital to the interpretation ofstudents' constructions of meaning. In this self-study, theteacher/researchers are inquiring into their reflections ontheir process of negotiating meanings concerning pre-service teacher's interpretations of multiculturaleducation.

The larger research project

The multi-layered, longitudinal, incrementalmethodology of this research is an approach that makesexplicit how integral researchers' paradigms andlanguage are to the problems they define and theinterpretations they make. This self-study is part of agrowing body of work on important issues of theoreticaland practical import in the lives of practicing teachereducators. The teacher/researchers' peel away researchlayers to reveal facets of the interpretive process of theircollaboration. The instructors; in alternate semesters, planand conduct the course, engage with the artifacts as texts,and participate in holistic evaluation with the class.Purposeful selection of course resources, design of courserequirements including rules for participation andevaluation in the course, and structuring of in-classactivities and interactive discussions are part of thequalitative research design. Multiple action researchcycles incorporate participant observation, conversations,

interviews, use of holistic rating criteria, and analyticreviews of video and audio tape, with reflection upon thecharacteristics of physical artifacts and documents(Turner, 1974). Each instructor reflects about the holisticevaluation experience after the event, and views videos ofcalendar presentations, before conducting constructivedialogue and reflection in collaboration.

The significance of this self-study layer

The significance of this layer of self-study is inits focus upon the communication and partnershipbetween the teacher/researchers. The primary focus of theoverall research is the students' constructions ofmeaning, i.e., students' active interpretive work ofmulticultural curriculum making. The teacher/researchersare interested in how their interpretations of students'work are understood, in language developed through theircollaborative work. Generative themes (Friere,1970/1998) have emerged from conversation. These willbe discussed in another paper.

This paper is an account of how theteacher/researchers' interactions and interpretationsactively shape their understandings of each other's andthe students' interpretive work. It points to howconsciousness of language in communication is the basisfor eliciting generative themes. It reveals thepresuppositions underlying how their interpretations ofstudents' meanings are a result of their interpretive worktogether. The paradigms of critical theory,constructivism, and the sociology of knowledge haveguided the collaborative process of negotiating meanings.The teacher/researchers' distinct paradigms have beenmade focal and problematic through intentionalconversations. By engaging in this self-study, theteacher/researchers' understandings have become data asa layer of the research. Each now views their interpretivework as a form of "collective reflection".

Collective Reflection

The term "collective reflection" emerged as thetwo teacher/researchers engaged in focused dialogues.The term refers to self-conscious engagement with "theother" for the purpose of mutual understanding whetherin the classroom or with a research partner. It refers to thetalk and interaction between people who view beingtogether as time to learn with and from each other. Theconcept of "Collective Reflection" extends the notion of"Meaning Construction" (De Lawter, 1982).

De Lawler identifies " Meaning Construction"as a relational construct, first between persons (in a socialcontext) and secondly, between readers and texts (within


a social context) (Ricoeur, 1976) as well as betweenreaders and other readers.

"Meaning Construction [is] a kind ofdiscourse which can occur in theclassroom but usually does not, becauseof the prevailing classroom meaningstructures. The construction of meaningis the interpersonal work of interpretinghuman action on the world resulting instories, artifacts, and knowledge of allkinds; [it is] the integration andappropriation of the social constructionof knowledge, fact, and meaning intoone's own matrix of meaning; the actof interpreting experience andreflection upon one's own and others'meaning constructions. MeaningConstruction in the interpersonalsituation is both an action on the worldto make sense, and a reflection uponthat action to understand why this[sense] rather than another sense [wasmade]. (De Lawter, 1982)

According to De Lawter, the classroom is aparticular social context with four "classroom meaningstructures," which she calls the pedagogical, thecurricular, the administrative and the evaluative. Withinthese overlapping meaning structures are four kinds ofdiscourse that occur in classrooms: Everyday Chit-Chat,Commonsense Knowledge, Curriculum Knowledge, andMeaning Construction. The notion of "collectivereflection" emphasizes the social nature of MeaningConstruction, and affirms the authentic expression of"personal knowledge" (Polanyi, 1964), understood tomean that process of knowing by which human beingsrelate their objectivity and subjectivity as universalmeanings individually integrated within themselves. Theteacher/researchers' agreed upon definition of collectivereflection carries the sense of openness, and a willingnessto change one's view or position through dialogue. It isan encounter with another's ideas, where the act of activelistening is an engagement with the personal knowledgeof "the other" to construct meaning. In the context of theGlobal Perspectives course, collective reflection is afundamental condition that must be created, madeconscious, and maintained through the kinds ofinteractions that sustain awareness of common purposesas well as respect for the integrity of differences whateverthey may be.

Collective reflection speaks to the quality of therelationships between people doing interpretive work

6

together. The key word is "together" since a commitmentto the mutual construction of meaning calls for authenticspeech and action. Herein lies the possibility ofunderstanding. Moments for breakthroughs come up. Aspartners, the teacher educators recognize how challengingit is to work towards breakthroughs in both teaching andresearch. Time is not taken-for-granted, since theteacher/researchers value the time it takes to exploreideas as far as possible. In moments when ideas come tothe fore, the multi-layered research methodologyencourages respectful pursuit of the inquiry. Bothpartners fully engage in active listening to the personalknowledge of "the other" to construct meaning. This isthe interpretive work, whether negotiating meaning as anexperience of collaboration or as praxis in teaching with aclass. A common language develops that is grounded intrust, and in a relationship of growth (Gadamer, 1992).

Collective Reflection as Negotiated Meanings

From the beginning, common understandingswere a result of negotiated agreements. The self-reflective practices of the two teacher educators, ratherthan remaining tacit, (Polanyi, 1967) had become focal intheir first meeting to discuss the Global Perspectivescourse. At first, the purpose was cooperation in bringingin a new instructor on the planning and writing of thesyllabus. However, stimulated by the exchange, adecision was made to collaborate that led to theirconnecting with "the other." Reaching across boundariesfor understanding, their teaching praxis moved the twoteacher educators to come together as teacher/researchersin action research.

Fortunately, collaborative practices provideopportunities for self-study. This self-study incorporatesconversation, live and recorded, self-reflection, theviewing of videos, proposal and paper writing, andconference preparations and debriefings. Conversation incollective reflection is a dialogical inquiry involvingcritique. Some conversations are audio taped and thenrevisited as a new exchange. The negotiated meanings ofconversation recognize the paradigmatic space and usesof language. These create conversational openings thatare the opposite of time fillers. These conversations inteacher education stimulate professional and personalgrowth. They spark the imagination and inspirepreparations for classroom interactions.

Negotiating meanings is also about self-reflection. The self-reflections of this self-study raisesuch questions as, "What am I doing and Why am I doingit?" and Why am I doing it this way?" (Cruikshank,1996). In addition, viewing videos both individually andtogether and, note taking and responding are both eventsof self and collective reflection. The more formal work of

7


collective reflection includes proposal writing and paperwriting. Negotiations of meaning in writing extend theinterpretive possibilities for understanding and growth.Conference preparations also provide incentive to beprecise in making public the formulations based onexperience, realization and discovery.

The negotiated meanings of collectivereflection enable self-understanding. In theteacher/researcher partnership thus far, respect for self ismanifested by addressing the questions, "Who am I as ahuman being?" and "How do I see myself, yesterday,today, and tomorrow? In other words, "What do I knowof my autobiographical story?" As teacher/researchpartners, respect for "the other" takes multiple forms,including 1) critical questioning of the language andparadigms brought to the understanding of others'interpretations, 2) focusing on the process of researchcollaboration, 3) connecting collaboration with themaking of community, 4) identifying individual andcollaborative curricular decisions and assessmentpractices, and, 5) negotiating the tension betweencategorization and deconstruction in the interpretation ofmeaning.

An example of negotiated meanings in collectivereflection

The two teacher/researchers' different ways ofwriting and speaking elicit different meanings.Participants doing collective reflection gain or areenriched, by examining the other's ways ofcommunicating meaning. In writing this paper, therewere, both instances when one author was convinced togo with the other's way of drawing the meaning, and,times when agreements were made to combine or shapean alternative version. As an example, the followingsection contains statements offered by one of theteacher/researchers to initiate further conversation abouthow collective reflection as negotiated meanings isunderstood. In the subsequent paragraph are "the other"teacher/researcher's written statements on collectivereflection as negotiated meaning. What do the statementsreveal about a correspondence between the twoteacher/researchers' meanings?

Initiating comments on collective reflection asnegotiated meanings:

(KD): First, respect is an ever- amazinglubricant that increases idea andgenerative theme flow. Second, self-conscious conversation createsopportunities for the acknowledgementof genuine differences that canprofoundly alter the taken-for-grantedgrounding of closely held positions.Third, the trusting relationship deepens

with each encounter. Personalperspectives are valued as traditions ofmeaning connected with others in timeand place. These traditions can beunderstood, questioned, and allowed toinform other ways of thinking. Fourth,each person's relationship toknowledge is potentially identified, butnot reified as "given" or "fixed" or"natural". Fifth, a constructivist view ofknowing is affirmed, yet differently

andtwo

to

considered as exploratoryexperimental by theteacher/researchers committedexperiential education.

"The other" teacher/researcher's comments:(AS): Collective reflection, whenconsidered by an individual used tomaking bulleted lists, becomes a listingof its attributes. The ideas inherent inthe consideration of collectivereflection as a negotiation of meaningare 1) that the terminology or languagethat is used is defined within theprocess of collective reflection. 2) Oneengaged in the process gives and takesas ideas are discussed, sharing one'sconceptions of meaning while beingopen to conflicts or differences. 3) Theend product of collective reflection canbe a meeting of the minds, although itis possible that the participants agree todisagree. 4) The experience ofcollective reflection provides forgrowth in understanding for allparticipants to the process.

Below, in the next section are the twoteacher/researchers' written responses to their commentsabove, which provide a sample of written self-reflections.Each agreed to spontaneously write statements aboutcollective reflection. After reading each other'sstatements, they agreed that before discussing them, theywould write a response. In writing what they thought andfelt, they displayed their personal knowledge. Thisexample is an expression of the self-reflection thatprovides a basis for their collective reflection.

The self-reflective responses to the paragraphs oncollective reflection as negotiated meaning:

(AS): In looking at our two differentstatements, I am impressed by howmuch alike they are. We espouse asimilar reason for engaging in

8


collective reflection, that of some typeof learning, be it a "constructivist viewof knowing," or "growth inunderstanding." Yet we are different inour emphases. In my definition ofcollective reflection, I brought adispassionate detachment. I saw thelisting of attributes and the abstractionof the process. My partner's firstparagraph is a statement that embodiesher feelings her statement has greaterintensity and more personalconnectedness than does mine. Shediscusses the self-consciousness ofconversation, and the respect betweenparticipants as important factors. Thepersonal and trusting relationships inwhich the interaction of eachparticipant's traditions of meaning playa role is vital to her conception of theprocess.

The act and process ofcollective reflection are embodied inboth these statements by seekingsimilarities and isolating differences,we negotiate meaning. We eachattempt to use language to persuadeeach other of the rightness of ourpersonal points of view. I am oftenpersuaded to modify my position, andsometimes abandon my ownconception and adopt my counterpart's.In all instances, we negotiate until weeither compromise or arrive at impasse.Like collective bargaining, this is aderivative of long history we areresolving meanings, gaining inunderstanding, and developing a deepand truthful relationship.

(1(D): I was struck by how much inagreement and in common "theother's" statements were and yet thestatements were very different fromeach other. One writer seemed toemphasize the personal dimensions ofthe collaboration, displaying personalconnectedness. "The other" focusedstrongly on the significance of process.I found myself recognizing herstatements as "key" points in the way Ido when my students expressthemselves in writing. I also wonderedwhy I had not made these statements

since I saw them as vital to theunderstanding of collective reflectionas negotiated meaning. My meaningconstruction process then alternatedbetween focally noting how I hadarrived at my overview of thepersonal/process difference and tacitlykeeping the notion of collectivereflection as negotiated meaning as thecentral relationship between the twoparagraphs. I noted in the margins theconcepts in each statement thatprovided the basis for my recognitionof the personal/process point of view.In the first paragraph, statement one,the personal was expressed in terms ofrespect. In statement two, was theconcept of self (consciousness).Statement three held the concepts oftrust, relationship, encounter, andpersonal. Statement four had theconcepts of person and relationship,and statement five carried the conceptof commitment. These conceptsprovided the underpinnings of what Iseemed to be pointing to, i.e. a personaldimension of collective reflection asnegotiated meaning.

I saw in paragraph two theactual word "process" three times. Instatement one the reader will fund,

"defined within the process," instatement two, "engaged in theprocess," and in statement four,"participants to the process". Statementthree, appeared to me to be stating aresult of the "process" of collectivereflection as negotiated meaning. Myprocess then became one of looking forthe similarities in meaning between thetwo writers. I began seeing in the firstparagraph a series of triplerelationships: in statement one,between respect, idea/generative theme,and flow; in statement two, betweenself-conscious (conversation),acknowledgement (differences), andalter (taken-for-granted); in statementthree, between trusting (relationship),valued (traditions of meaning), andconnected (with others); in statementfour, between person, relationship, andknowledge; and in statement five, I sawthe triple relationship between


affirmed, differently considered, andcommitted.

In the second paragraph, I sawin statement one, a focus on language(defined); in statement two, give andtake, sharing (conceptions), and beingopen (to conflict/differences); instatement three, "a meeting of theminds," and the possibility of agreeingto disagree; and in statement four, I sawthe concepts of experience, growth, andunderstanding. I was surprised to notethat my partner had mentioned"understanding" while I had not, andthat I had mentioned knowledge andshe had not. I had spoken of traditionsof meaning and she had spoken ofconceptions of meaning. She spoke ofexperience and I spoke of experiential(education). I spoke of persons, she ofparticipants. Both of us communicatedour senses of the importance of what isheld in common after noting probabledissonances or differences. I wonderedhow she would respond to what I hadwritten. I was energized by the prospectof hearing what she would say aboutthe relationship between the twoparagraphs. Will she express interest inthe distinctions I had drawn of theproblem of reification of knowledge?Will she make a connection withstudents' constructions of theirmulticultural calendar artifacts and mystatement number four about person'srelationships to knowledge? I will tellher how her statements express what Itake to be vital about collectivereflection as negotiated meaning. I ameager to know how my statements willspeak to her. My experience of the useof the term collective reflection is thatit is an invitation to join with others inthe quest for greater precision inmeaning making.

Collective reflection's potential for creating newlanguage

Collective reflection holds the potential to createa new language for speaking about new and sharedunderstandings grounded in experience. It has a qualitythat warrants communicating more about, a quality ofbeing consciously open to difference and other-ness.

9

Collective reflection is radical in the sense of getting tothe roots. Collective reflection taps a person's being,moves the person to see anew, and connects the personfor choosing acts of personal/social power. Collectivereflection generates shared understandings calledrelational knowledge (Hollingsworth, cited in Feldman,1999) tied to political and social structures. Friere's(1985; 1970/1998) work demonstrates how educatorscreate a new language with which to talk abouteducation. Ways of speaking with each other are socialagreements. (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). Real talk,active listening and purposeful action are expressions ofpower (Friere, 1970/1998). Collective reflection is aninstance (Garfinkel, 1967) of experiential learning thatenvisions freedom, democracy, and social justice associetal possibilities and personal/social actions.

Students and teachers potentially express theirmeanings through multiple ways of knowing in theschooling process. Polanyi's (1964) notion of "personalknowledge" affirms the connectedness and power ofpersons who express universal meanings that transcendtheir own subjectivity. Personal knowledge and meaningare understandable as a manifestation of the socialrelationships that occur between knowing beings in atime and place. The new language created in the processof collective reflection issues forth from being human inthe act of negotiating meaning. Collective reflectionopens possibilities for empowered persons to changethings (and themselves in the process).

Meaning construction practices, actualize andaffirm the communicative competence (Habermas, 1976)each brings to "the other." As teacher/researchersengaged in collective reflection, the work is to makesense of the ongoing collaboration. Empowered action,growth in understanding, and reflection on that action andgrowth over time constitute a fruitful praxis. Further, thisexperiential work contributes to a fertile grounding fortheir students' growth and awareness of praxis inteaching.

Collective Reflection as Praxis in Teaching

Collective reflection as praxis in teaching refersto the action and reflection a teacher does with and forstudents. Teaching praxis is the dialectic between theactions and language of the students and teacher (Friere,1970/1998). Teachers notice students' uses of languagein the classroom and their own responses to them.Teachers also make statements and ask questions thatboth prompt and give messages to individuals and groupsfor in-class activities and outside of class assignments.Teachers' and others' statements and questions shapeparticipants' interactions as members of the class.

10


Praxis in teaching has to do with modeling theintegrated dialectic of theory-in-practice. Both educatorsare mindful of the obligation to make explicit why theydo what they do. Concerned that education courses andmethods courses in particular are challenged to bothmodel and teach praxis, each strives to model teachingpraxis as an experiential art. Both create opportunities foraction and reflection by envisioning and organizingevents throughout the teacher education curriculum.While Global Perspectives is only one course, it is a corecourse in the graduate teacher education curriculum. It isa course that fosters students' experimentation withcurricular and pedagogical practices. Students createactivities and reflect on their own and other's actions andreflections.

Praxis in teaching includes course preparationbased on decisions made about interpretations ofstudents' work. Interpersonal communications as well asthe artifacts made by students are vital to understandingwhat and how the students know. The formats of theassignments for students' interpretive work are designedfor inclusive engagement. Classmates are assignedjournal partners. Every week journal partners exchangetheir ideas in writing and in conversation on mattersrelevant to the course. Every student is also apprenticedto another class member. "Apprentice pairs" explorecurriculum making in collaboration. Pairedheterogeneously, though sometimes by subject matter orgrade level, students create global perspectives activities,deciding together how to integrate world concerns intothe curriculum or how to engage their peers in an activityfor examining cultural stereotypes. They experienceenvisioning curriculum and implementing a teachingplan. A service learning option is also offered to studentswho want to work directly with homeless children in theneighborhood. Through these formats, students in theglobal perspectives course actualize opportunities forcollective reflection. What matters are the students'constructions of meaning.

Since no praxis of any two instructors is thesame, there is all the more reason for conversation. Acommon frame of reference develops between parties tothe conversation. Valuing students as informants ofteachers alters teacher/researcher reflection. Negotiatedmeanings evolve into common understandings of theterms they agree to use. This self-study begins an accountof the work-in-progress. The trust elicited through theconversations about the course is now a ready referent forthe two teacher/researchers. Their growing relationship isgreatly valued and serves as a model of the kind of careand openness to "the other" that is so important forstudents interested in changing their perspectives anddeveloping a global perspective. It is through collective

reflection that the focus on praxis in teaching reveals theessential commitments of the two teacher/researchers aseducators.

Conclusion

This self-study is an invigorating undertaking. Itprovides TIME for two colleagues with differentbackgrounds, experiences, and perspectives TO BEtogether. Taking their different perspectives on curricularissues and problems and sharing their common teachingconcerns they gladly delve into their own teaching andresearch practices with trust and challenge. In theacademy, mutual support is warranted and necessary. Atthis turn of the century, the education of teachers is at acritical moment. The encouragement of meaningfulundertakings such as self-studies could not come at amore opportune time for educators and teachers at alllevels. What they can learn about themselves and fromeach other within their own meaning context will benefitchildren, other teachers, students, and parents, and willcontribute to the renewal of a spirit of community.Teachers framing their own questions will regain theirvoice. Such empowerment is the essence of educationand can transform classrooms into domains ofdemocracy.

11


References

Abt-Perkins, Dawn, Hauschildt, Patricia, & Dale, Helen.Critical Pedagogy in Process: A Collaborative Self-Study. Tea Ching Education. 1998. Winter/Spring.Vol. 9 No. 2. pp101-107.

Ayers, W. & Ford, P. (Eds.). (1996). City kids, cityteachers: Reports from the front row. New York: NewPress.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought andaction: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies.(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Banks, J.A. & Banks, C.M. (1996). Multiculturaleducation: Issues and perspectives. (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Bennett, C. (1991). The teacher as decision makerprogram: An alternative for career-change preserviceteachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 119-'130.

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The socialconstruction of reality: A treatise in the sociology ofknowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books,Doubleday.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships ofknowledge and practice: Teacher learning incommunities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),Review of research in education, 24. Washington,D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical:Education, knowledge and action research. London:Falmer Press.

Cruickshank, D.R. ( 1996). Preparing America'sTeachers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta KappaEducational Foundation.

De Lawter, K. (1982). A constructivist's view ofcompetency-based teacher education materials.Unpublished dissertation. Teachers College,Columbia University.

De Lawter, K. (1990). Global perspectives calendarholistic evaluation criteria. Unpublished manuscript.Pace University.


DeFina, A.A., Anstendig, L. & De Lawter, K. (1991)."Alternative reading/writing assessment andcurriculum design." Journal of Reading, 34(5).

Evans, E.D., Torrey, C.C., & Newton, S.D. (1997).Multicultural education requirements in teachercertification: A national survey. MulticulturalEducation. Spring, 1997. 9-11.

Feldman, A. (1999). The role of conversation incollaborative action research. Educational ActionResearch: An International Journal, 7, 125-144.

Freire, P. (1970/1998). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NewYork: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culturepower and liberation. South Hadley, MA: Bergin &Garvey.

Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading theword and the world. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Gadamer, H. (1992). Truth and method. 2nd revised edn.(J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). NewYork: Crossroad.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies:Ideology in discourse. (2nd ed.). Bristol, PA: Taylor& Francis.

Goetz, J.P & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography andqualitative design in educational research. New York:Academic Press.

Gore, A. (1993). Earth in the balance: Ecology and thehuman spirit. New York: Plume Book.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays oneducation, the arts, and social change. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Guyton, E. and others. (1993). A collaborative field-based urban teacher education program. Action inTeacher Education, 15(3), 7-11.

Haberman, M. (1991). Can cultural awareness be taughtin teacher education programs? Teaching Education,4 (1), 25-31.

12

Habermas. ,Y. (1976). What is universal pragmatics? InM.Cooke (Ed.) On the pragmatics of communication.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Hollins, E. (1995). Revealing the deep meaning of culturein school learning: Framing a new paradigm forteacher preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 17(1), 70-79.

Hutchinson, S. (1988). Education and grounded theory.In R.R. Sherman & R.B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitativeresearch in education: Focus and methods(pp.123- 140).. New York: Falmer Press.

Kolb, D.A, (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience asthe source of learning and development. EnglewoodCliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kroloff, Rabbi C.A. (1993). 54 Ways you can help thehomeless. Southport, CT: Macmillan Publishing

Leek, G.M. (1990). Examining gender as a foundationwithin foundational studies. Teachers College Record.91 (3), 382-395.

Levinson, L. (1986). "Choose Engagement OverExposure," in J. Kendall et al, Combining service andlearning, (pp 68-75). National Society forExperiential Education.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons forAmerica from a small school in Harlem. Boston:Beacon Press.

Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education:A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nel, J. (1995). From theory to practice: Ogbu andErickson in the multicultural curriculum. Action inTeacher Education, 17(1), 60-69.

Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and politicaldimensions of action research. Review of EducationalResearch, 22, 305-343.

Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative actionresearch: A developmental process. New York:Falmer Press.

Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology.Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.


Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York:Doubleday.

Ricoeur. P. (1976). Interpretation theory: discourse andthe surplus of meaning. Fort Worth, TX: The TexasChristian University Press.

Rafferty, Y. (1998). Meeting the educational needs ofhomeless children. Educational Leadership, 55. (4),48-52.

Saign, G.C. (1994). GREEN essentials: What you need toknow about the environment. San Francisco: MercuryHouse.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: HowProfessionals Think in Action. New York: BasicBooks.

Schultz, S. (1987). "Learning by Heart: The Role ofAction in Civic Education," in J. Kendall et al,Combining service and learning, (pp 210-224).National Society for Experiential Education.

Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers: Studies inphenomenological philosophy. In Maurice Natanson,(Ed.) Collected papers: Studies in phenomenologicalphilosophy. Volume I. The Hague: Martinus Nijoff.

Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1994). Making choices formulticultural education: Five approaches to race, classand gender. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Sosin, A. & De Lawter, K. (1999). A CollaborativeAction Research Investigation in Teacher Education:The Global Perspectives Calendar as a methodologyfor enhancing multicultural Teaching. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association. Montreal, April22, 1999. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 430 926).

Stake, R.E. (1988). Case study methods in educationalresearch. In R. M. Jaeger, (Ed.). Complementarymethods for research in education. (pp. 253-265).Washington, D.C.: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Trent, W. (1990). Race and ethnicity in the teachereducation curriculum. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 361-369.

13

Turner, R. (Ed.). (1974). Ethnomethodologv: Selectedreadings. Middlesex, England: Penguin.

United Nations. (1989). Teaching human rights: Practicalactivities for primary and secondary schools. Geneva:Centre for Human Rights.

Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the socialsciences (E.A. Shils & H.A. Finch, Eds. & Trans.).New York: Free Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1988). Ethnographic research ineducation. In R. M. Jaeger, (Ed.). Complementarymethods for research in education. (pp. 187-221).Washington, D.C.: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design andmethods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teachereducation. Educational Researcher, 22(9), 4-15.

14


U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

AERA

ERIC

Title:e: A szt-r- s-f-LAA -1:201/4.6lee Sciucci-7'ev\ e.r(e.etiv. 'Re-ctec--h'G-n as NJ csficki-421

Author(s): i<0.-likey -Dsz._ 0.A.4 " \-tA d i So S iCorporate Source: Avw,,,,.k Mee.* A.3

hvtker;c-No kesscLck.cc.tA Ass060,:tiery,

Publication Date:

Apt :1 251 2000

H. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstract journal of the ERIC system. Resources in Education (RIE), am usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document

If pennIssion is granted to reproduce anddisseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.

The sample stidter sham below veil besebted 62 al Level 1 documents

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

The sample sticker shown below veal bemaned lo al Level 2A dominants

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERSONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2A

Qs0


Level 2A

Peck here far LAW 1 celeste, waddingCheck here tar Lad 2A release, PollIll09reproduction and dissandnelkm Inmicroadat or other reproduction and disserninetion In micralldm and toERIC oddest made (ee, dectronic) andpaper electronic moils for ERIC archival oodectkin

mfg. subsoil= aft

Signhere,-)please

The sem* sticker show% below WM be'fined to all Level 2B documerds

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

2B


Level 2B

Check here for Level 26 release, permielnoreproduction and dissendmdkin In ndcretiche only

Documents *51 be processed as kalicated provided reproduction guilty permits.II permission to rept:ducats granted, but no box Is checked, door nents.nta be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the EducationalResources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproductkrn from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and Its systemcontrectorsrequkespennIssion hem the copyrightholden Exception Is made kir non-pmNreproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

1)0Lce.1kAiviz Pace:Ptaz0.10, (063g

Pir-77tra7De_ Lat.u-tek- D.FAX

1'12- n(2 17'tTthnlhc-181artslar(i)paca_dal 111..tdoo

rover,

March 2000

Cilearringhouse on Assessment and Eva Dilation

Dear AERA Presenter,

University of Maryland1129 Shriver Laboratory

College Park, MD 20742-5701

Tel: (800) 464-3742(301 ) 405-7449

FAX: ( 301) [email protected]

http://ericae.net

Congratulations on being a presenter at AERA. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment andEvaluation would like you to contribute to ERIC by providing us with a written copy of yourpresentation. Submitting your paper to ERIC ensures a wider audience by making it available tomembers of the education community who could not attend your session or this year's conference.

Abstracts of papers accepted by ERIC appear in Resources in Education (RIE) and are announced to over5,000 organizations. The inclusion of your work makes it readily available to other researchers, provides apermanent archive, and enhances the quality of RIE. Abstracts of your contribution will be accessiblethrough the printed, electronic, and internet versions of RIE. The paper will be available full-text, ondemand through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service and through the microfiche collectionshoused at libraries around the world.

We are gathering all the papers from the AERA Conference. We will route your paper to theappropriate clearinghouse and you will be notified if your paper meets ERIC's criteria. Documentsare reviewed for contribution to education, timeliness, relevance, methodology, effectiveness ofpresentation, and reproduction quality. You can track our processing of your paper athttp://ericae.net.

To disseminate your work through ERIC, you needback of this letter and include it with two copiyour paper and reproduction release form ataddress below. If you have not submitteddrop it off at the booth with a Reproductionfor future or additional submissions.

of your paper.e ERIC booth (223)

our 1999 Confere

Mail to:

Sincerely,

.1.,,(4/114,t,t,-

Lawrence M. Rudner, Ph.D.Director, ERIC/AE

AERA 2000/ERIC AcquisitionsThe University of Maryland1129 Shriver LabCollege Park, MD 20742

oduction release form on thean drop of the copies ofmail to our attention at the

paper please send today orm. Please feel free to copy the form

ERIC/AE is a project of the Department of Measurement, Statistics and Evaluationat the College of Education, University of Maryland.