Combining Voices In Living Educational Theories
Jack Whitehead, Department of Education, University of Bath, UK.
Keynote presentation for the International Conference of Teacher Research on Combining Voices in Teacher Research, New York, 29 March 2008.
DRAFT 3 MARCH 2008
Since beginning my first teacher-research into my classroom practice for my masters degree in 1972 and attending my first ICTR conference in San Francisco in 1990 I have been delighted in the global growth of influence of teacher-research as a form of professional development and as a way of helping pupils and students to improve their learning. I have also been most impressed by the contributions to educational knowledge generated by teacher-researchers. I am thinking here of the contributions to transforming understandings of educational theory and in generating the kind of knowledge-base for education advocated by Donald Schon in 1995.
In this keynote I want to test the validity of an idea that is still transforming the way I think about the nature of educational theory. It is a relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries that Rayner (2004) refers to as inclusionality. I want to focus particularly on the way in which multi-media narratives of the inclusional explanations of teacher-researchers, of their educational influences in learning, can be combined in processes of improving professional, pupil and student learning and in the generation of new forms of educational theorising. I am thinking of the kinds of combination that occur in the creating of living theories in the boundaries of cultures in resistance and that are contributing to the creation of a world of educational quality.
Introduction:
I want to begin by thanking the organising committee of the 2008 ICTR conference for this opportunity to explore some implications of ideas from my research, into combining voices in living educational theories, for combining voices in teacher research. I was first attracted to the idea of the teacher as researcher during my classroom research into the growth of my pupils' scientific understanding, for my masters dissertation (Whitehead, 1972). The introduction to the idea of the teacher as researcher coincided with my recognition that the dominant view of educational theory was mistaken. The dominant view, known as the disciplines approach held that the explanations I gave for my educational influences in learning were at best pragmatic maxims having a first crude and superficial justification in practice that in any rationally developed theory would be replaced by principles with more fundamental theoretical justification (Hirst, 1983, p. 18).
I just want to focus on the idea that the explanations we produce as teacher-researchers from our practical experience, and that we justify in terms of the results of our individual activities and practices should be replaced by principles with more theoretical justifications from abstract forms of rationally in the theories of traditional disciplines of education. I believe that many of you will have experienced the power relations in universities, the power relations in which what counts as educational knowledge is legitimated, that support the above move to replace your practical principles by those of abstract rationality. What I want to offer today is a form of educational theorising that is grounded in what you do in education and that draws insights from the theories of abstract rationality without being replaced by them.
There are three ideas I'd like to share with you in offering you a way of combining voices of teacher-researchers in living educational theories that can contribute to the creation of a world of educational quality.
The first idea is that of living in the world with a relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries. Following Rayner (2004), I refer to this awareness as inclusionality.
The second idea is that you can create your own living educational theory as an explanation of your educational influence in your own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of the social formations in which we live and work.
The third idea is that we can understand the generation of our educational theories as combining our voices in the living boundaries of cultures in resistance in creating a world of educational quality.
These ideas have emerged from my 34 year research programme into the nature of educational theory at the University of Bath. Some of the transformations in my thinking have taken several months to emerge and I imagine that you will need time to reflect on what I am saying to see if you think the ideas are valid. I am hoping that you will let me know sometime after this year's ICTR conference whether any of the ideas captivated your imaginations.
I know that working with Jean McNiff has been a wonderfully productive partnership in helping to move my ideas forward and you can see how we incorporated our latest ideas in the
AERA professional Development Training and Extended Course on Evaluating Quality in Doing and Writing Action Research in Schools, Neighbourhoods and Communities (McNiff & Whitehead, 2008). Your responses could certainly help me to continue to develop my understandings of educational theory.
1) A relationally dynamic awareness of space and
boundaries: inclusionality.
Here is a video clip of an hours meeting with pupils, parents and educators that I'm going to move through in seconds to communicate what I am meaning by an educational space that is distinguished by a relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries. What I think the speeded up clip shows clearly is a relational dynamic in the movements between the participants in the space. Individuals are receptively responding to each other in the co-creation of their living boundaries in the educational space. As teacher-researchers I am assuming that we have all experienced the complexity of responding to the diverse needs of our pupils and students. I am assuming that we are still curious about how to represent our educational relationships in valid explanations of our educational influences in learning.
What I am suggesting is that we are all living with the kind of relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries as shown in the video. I am claiming however that the dominating forms of representation used in Universities for explaining educational practices and influences in learning, remove the energy we express in our educational practices and do not express adequately the values we use to give meaning and purpose to our lives in education. I believe that the reason for this lies in the continuing tendency of academic theories to replace the practical principles used by individual to explain their lives, by principles with justifications in abstract rationality. What I am saying we should be creating are different forms of academic theories from a perspective of inclusionality:
At the heart of inclusionality... is a simple shift
in the way we frame reality, from absolutely fixed to relationally dynamic.
This shift arises from perceiving space and boundaries as connective,
reflective and co-creative, rather than severing, in their vital role of
producing heterogeneous form and local identity...
To make this shift does not depend on new
scientific knowledge or conjecture about supernatural forces, extraterrestrial
life or whatever. All it requires is awareness and assimilation into
understanding of the spatial possibility that permeates within, around and
through natural features from sub-atomic to Universal in scale. We can then see
through the illusion of 'solidity' that has made us prone to regard 'matter' as
'everything' and 'space' as 'nothing', and hence get caught in the conceptual
addiction and affliction of 'either/or' 'dualism'. An addiction that so
powerfully and insidiously restricts our philosophical horizons and undermines
our compassionate human spirit and creativity. (Rayner, 2004)
I shall return to
the importance of enhancing flows of compassion and creativity later when I
focus on cultural influences of living theories and on the social significance
for educational transformation of creating living theories in the living
boundaries of cultures in resistance.
Before I move on
to justifying my advocacy of
creating your own living educational theory I want to highlight the
importance of understanding that from a perspective of inclusionality we are
all included in the dynamics of a common living-space. As Ted Lumley, one of
the originators of the idea of inclusionality, points about about the
importance of recognizing a 'pooling-of-consciousness'.
"...an inspiring pooling-of-consciousness that
seems to include and connect all within all in unifying dynamical communion....
The concreteness of 'local object being'... allows us to understand the
dynamics of the common living-space in which we are all ineluctably included
participants." (Lumley, 2008, p.3)
2) Creating your own living educational theory
I first proposed the
idea of living educational theory to make a distinction. This is the
distinction between the explanations of education derived from theories in the
disciplines of education characterised by abstract rationality, from the
explanations produced by individual in terms of their values-laden practical
principles with insights from theories from the traditional disciplines of education. In the late 1970s I was greatly
influenced by the work of the logician Evard Ilyenkov (1977, p. 312) and the
question he asked about representing 'living contradictions':
'If an object exists as
a living contradiction what must the thought be (statement about the object)
that expresses it?'
Having experienced
myself, my 'I', as a living
contradiction in 1971, when watching a video-tape of my classroom practice, I
could see myself holding together my commitment to enquiry learning with my
pupils with my denial of enquiry learning in my practice. Until I saw the video
tape of my classroom I believed that I had established enquiry learning with my
pupils. The video showed that I was actually giving the pupils 'their'
questions and organising the learning resources in terms of pre-set answers. As
soon as I saw myself as this living contradiction my imagination began to
create possibilities for moving my practice in the direction of living my
values and beliefs more fully in my practice. I first began to formulate an
understanding of action reflection cycles as I acted on a chosen possibility,
acted and evaluated the influences of my actions in my pupils learning and
produced an account of my professional learning (Whitehead, 1972, 1976). The idea that we teacher-researchers
could generate our living educational theories (Whitehead, 1989) as
explanations for our educational influences in learning emerged from enquiries
into improving learning with pupils. The idea has been used in many educational
enquiries throughout the world to distinguish the unique living theories of
teacher-researchers as they make their own original contributions to
educational knowledge. I just want to draw your attention to five doctoral
theses from teacher researchers in Ireland that have been legitimated at the
University of Limerick over the past two years.
M‡ir’n Glenn (2006) Working With Collaborative
Projects: My Living Theory Of A Holistic Educational Practice.
Caitriona McDonagh (2007) My Living Theory Of Learning To
Teach For Social Justice: How Do I Enable Primary School
Children With Specific Learning Disability (Dyslexia) And Myself As Their Teacher
To Realize Our Learning Potentials?
Mary Roche (2007) Towards A Living Theory Of Caring
Pedagogy: Interrogating My Practice To Nurture A Critical, Emancipatory And
Just Community Of Enquiry .
Bernie Sullivan (2006) A Living Theory Of A
Practice Of Social Justice: Realizing The Right Of Traveler Children To
Educational Equality .
Margaret Cahill (2007) My Living Educational Theory Of
Inclusional Practice .
There are several
distinguishing features of living educational theories working with the above
perspective of inclusionality. The first is a tension or contradiction between
the values and understandings the individual uses to give meaning and purpose
to life, and experiences in which these values and understandings are not being
lived as fully as the individual believes to be possible. I am associating such
values with the experience of a life-affirming energy whose representation
seems to be missing from explanations derived from abstract rationality. The
most recent living theory doctorate to be legitimated in the Academy with the
explicit recognition of flows of energy is that of Adler-Collins (2007) for his
enquiry:
Developing an inclusional
pedagogy of the unique: How do I clarify, live and explain my educational
influences in my learning as I pedagogise my healing nurse curriculum in a
Japanese University?
His original
contribution includes an energy-flowing, living standard of inclusionality:
An energy-flowing, living
standard of inclusionality as a space creator for engaged listening and
informed learning is offered as an original contribution to knowledge. (Adler-Collins, 2007. Abstract see http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/jekan.shtml)
I believe that everyone
here understands that we cannot do anything without energy. I associate a
life-affirming energy with the educational relationships and influences of
teacher-researchers. Such energy is usually affirmed with religious and
spiritual expressions. Through my bodily expressions today, in being present
with you, I hope that you can feel the flow the life-affirming energy I express
in my educational relationships. I bring this energy into my explanations of
educational influences in learning with the help of visual narratives. These
narratives include video of my practice. If you access this address using a
web-browser you can see how I integrate video-evidence into a visual narrative
here:
Generating Educational Theories That Can Explain Educational Influences In Learning: living logics, units of appraisal, standards of judgment. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/166811.htm
I now want to focus on the idea that through combining our voices in our living educational theories from our teacher-research we could develop a cultural influence in contributing to the creation of a world of educational quality.
3) Combining our voices as living educational theories in the living boundaries of cultures in resistance.
In this third and final
section I want to introduce the idea of the 'living boundaries of cultures in
resistance' and summarise the points I made in a presentation to a recent
conference (18-20 March 2008) on Cultures in Resistance in the UK. on:
How are living educational theories being produced and legitimated
in the boundaries of cultures in resistance? http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwmanchester250208.htm
The main reason that I am engaging with the experience of living in the boundaries of cultures in resistance is that I want to extend the influence of living educational theories in the creation of a world of educational quality. The living educational theories that are created within a particular context can only have a significant influence in the education of social formations through a cultural influence in the lives of others. I am hoping that like me you are aware of existing in living boundaries of cultures in resistance. Here is how I explained my meaning of 'living boundaries of cultures in resistance':
"I draw my understanding of culture from Said (1993)
when he writes:
As I use the word, 'culture' means two things in
particular. First of all it means all those practices, like the arts of
description, communication, and representation, that have relative autonomy
from the economic, social, and political realms and that often exist in
aesthetic forms, one of whose principal aims is pleasure. Included, of course,
are both the popular stock of lore about distant parts of the world and
specialized knowledge available in such learned disciplines as ethnography,
historiography, philology, sociology, and literary history..... Second,
and almost imperceptible, culture is a concept that includes a refining and
elevating element, each society's reservoir of the best that has been known and
thought. As Matthew Arnold put it in the 1860s.... In time, culture comes to be
associated, often aggressively, with the nation of the state; this
differentiates 'us' from 'them', almost always with some degree of xenophobia.
Culture in this sense is a source of identity, and a rather combative one at
that, as we see in recent 'returns' to culture and tradition.
(Said, pp. xii-xiv, 1993)
The first meaning of culture can be associated with
transformation, the second with reproduction. I think of cultures as living
phenomena that are social constructions sustained by collective communications
in forms of life. Particular individuals may die and the culture can continue.
If all the individuals sustaining a culture die, the culture dies. Hence my
stress on the living and my interest in the influence of living educational
theories in sustaining and or transforming cultures in resistance.
Resistance
Writing about resistance, in the tertiary level of
education in Japan, McVeigh distinguishes a form of social malaise as
'resistance':
By 'resistance' I do not mean a conscious,
organized, and systematic insurrection against the sociopolitical order.
Rather, I employ this term to designate actions and attitudes that do not directly challenge but scorn the system. This form of subtle resistance ignores
rather than threatens and is a type of diversion (if only temporary) from,
rather than a subversion of, the dominant structures.
(McVeigh 2002: 185-186).
I can understand this notion of resistance, but it is
not the way I am using the idea of resistance when I write from a position in
the living boundaries of cultures in resistance. By the 'living boundaries of
cultures in resistance' I am meaning that that there is something expressed in
the boundary sustained by one culture that is a direct challenge to something
in the other culture. For example, in education there is a political culture
that has been imposing a regime of testing in schools. There is a professional
culture that has been stressing the importance of creativity. There continues
to be tensions in the boundaries of these cultures that can be understood
through the perspective of inclusionality." (Whitehead, 2008a).
All of the teacher-researchers I work with in Bath have
talked about tensions they feel between the testing culture they are
subjected to through government agencies and their desire to engage creatively
with their pupils as they develop a personalized learning agenda with them. The
accounts of Amy Skuse and Ros Hurford record their creative responses to such
tensions:
Amy Skuse: How have my experiences of Year 2 SAT's influenced my perceptions of assessment in teaching and learning? http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/amyskuseeeoct07.htm
Ros Hurford: Working within the framework of
'Personalised Learning' how can I ensure there is a real learning space for my
pupils, where they feel involved in what they learn and how they learn it?
http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/amyskuseeeoct07.htm
I am placing an
emphasis on the importance of the communications potential of web-technology
for combining our voices in creating and sharing our living educational
theories in the living boundaries of cultures in resistance. I think that we
can help each other to sustain our flows of life-affirming energy in extending
our educational influences through the explicit recognition of the value we
have found in each others' narratives. This is what I am meaning by combining
our voices in living educational theories. While we might feel an
energy-sapping lack of recognition or open hostility to extending the influence
of our ideas in our workplaces, we can feel the life-affirming energy in seeing
our ideas being of value to others in the creation of their living theories.
The first
video-clip I showed included pupils, educators and parents. In Joy Mounter's
enquiry into Can children carry out action research about learning, creating their
own learning theory? http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/joymounterull.htm
Joy explains how her pupils expressed puzzlement (and some irritation!) when
she explained to them that she was studying learners and learning for her
masters programme at the University. Her pupils wanted to know how Joy could be
doing this without involving them as learners. Joy then worked with her pupils
to answer the above question and the co-created answer includes video-evidence
that shows the six year olds critically evaluating a theory of learning,
explaining its limitations and creating a model that they felt sure was a more
appropriate representation of their learning.
During the first video
clip, as one adult was talking to one young person (the pupils were some 8
years old) I noticed that all the adults were questioning the young people and
that no young person was asking a question. I pointed this out to the group and
suggested that the young people might like to ask some questions of the adults.
One of the teachers e-mailed me the following day (Lucy is a pupil)
I don't know
whether Jack heard the question Lucy asked me when she was finally allowed to
get a question in, she asked me, 'How do you
help children with their learning?' I think that this also might be something
which the children could collaborate on with me, which might be a starting
point for them to write their own ideas about their own learning.
I want to finish with this idea that we
can all help each other to create our own living educational theories in which
we account to ourselves for living our values and understandings as fully as we
can. I'm hopeful that in the coming years we will be sharing our living
theories with those who are constituting the new generation in our diverse
cultures as we work together to create a world of educational quality. Thank
you once again for enabling me to share these ideas with you.
References
Hirst,
P. (Ed.) (1983) Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines. London;RKP
Lumley,
T. (2008) A Fluid-Dynamical World View. Victoria, British Columbia; Printorium
Bookworks, Inc.
McNiff, J & Whitehead, J. (2008) Evaluating Quality in Doing and Writing Action
Research in Schools, Neighbourhoods and Communities: AERA professional Development Training and Extended Courses
Proposal. Retrieved 3 March 2008 from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/aeraictr08/jmjwaeraprofdev08.htm
Rayner,
A. (2004) Inclusionality: The Science, Art and Spirituality of Place, Space and
Evolution
http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality/placespaceevolution.html
Whitehead, J. (2008a) How are
living educational theories being produced and legitimated in the boundaries of
cultures in resistance? Presentation for the Cultures in Resistance
Conference. The 7th Conference of the Discourse, Power, Resistance
Series, 18-20 March 2008 Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved 3 March
2008 from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwmanchester250207.htm
Whitehead, J. (2008b) How Can S-STEP Research Contribute to the
Enhancement of Civic Responsibility in Schools, Neighborhoods, and Communities?
A presentation in the session: Becoming Innovative Through Self-Study Research
at the 2008 Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, 25-29 March 2008. Retrieved 3 March 2008 from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwaera08sstep.htm