Why I do what I do: How can I come to understand my educational influence in students' learning through the cross-generation mentoring of student researchers?

MPhil / PhD Transfer Paper.

For:

Karen Riding

October (2005).

The enquiry

I am proposing this paper as a creative response to the emergent loving nature within my work with students, with my colleagues and with co-enquirers. I aim to show, through a multi-media perspective, how I am able to come to understand my self and my relationship with others. I hope to share a rough story of self which will demonstrate how, despite tension and disappointment, I am able to maintain and respond to a shared life-affirming energy. This energy exists within my work with students as researchers, within the shared work which is the drive for school improvement and within my relationship with my husband and co-enquirer. I wish to embrace Cho’s (2005) notion of love, and show how this forms part of the complex relationship between the self and I and between others and my self. This love is divided into three parts; my love for what I do, our shared love for each other and love shared between the students and myself. Love is a word that I have struggled to embrace in the political educational climate in which I work, and is one of the examples that I would like to share with you of the creative tension that I undergo and have undergone in order to attain a reality closer to that of my arcadia and to that of personal and shared vision. In this I refer to Senge’s (1990) notion of creative tension and vision, one that has often allowed me to see light at the end of the tunnel on the darkest and coldest of evenings.

I wish to share with you how the unique relationship of husband and wife alongside that of co-enquirers has allowed me to demonstrate our shared life-affirming energy, but which has more importantly, allowed us to then create from this our own unique individual energy. This encompasses our shared values and love for the other, and allows each of us to strengthen what we do in the workplace. Understand the uniqueness that exists between us and the uniqueness of our selves as individuals that we express in our educational relationships with our students is a focus of this enquiry.

Throughout my past, current and intended enquiry I aim to understand the question:

“Why we do what we do?”

I also intend to ask myself the following key questions alongside this:

“What is the significance of your individual contributions?” as asked by Moira Laidlow (1992)

and

“How can I improve what I doing?” (Whitehead p.105 1993)

These three central questions focus the research I have undertaken and also to reflect back upon this as a worthwhile process which has allowed a transformation of my educational knowledge to take place. The first of these questions is one formed by myself as I wandered the corridors of my Department on evenings with only the school cleaners for company. I needed to come to understand what it was that drives me to want to come back each day ready to face new challenges. In this I was fascinated by Johnson’s (2005) question “Are you happy?” in which she acknowledges research as “Sunday best” thinking by many practitioners and asks us to consider how important the workplace is in providing us with key elements needed for personal well-being. The most fascinating aspect of her writing however leads to considering connections with the lives of the electorate. In education, our electorate is the children that we teach, and I believe that collaborative research is a means of establishing and enhancing this connection.

The second question is one which will allow me to rest comfortably knowing that my participation and influence have been significant in changing school culture. In this I refer to the recognition of the value of the pupil voice as a means of improving not only teaching and learning within that institution but moreover as a way of enhancing dialogue and respect between student, teacher and stakeholders involved in that context. In this I intend to go beyond the involvement of students as researchers as advocated by researchers such as Ruddock and Flutter (2004) and Fielding and Bragg (2003) by looking at the long term effects of this type of engagement in schools and by showing how cross-generation research can lead to collaborative dialogue across traditional peer groups.

This type of work, as advocated by researchers such as Branko Bognar (2005), will support the creation internationally of guidance (but not guidelines) for students by students in their work as student researchers. I believe, as Bognar does, that the student voice is the best medium for this type of guidance and that whilst researchers may write in the third person about student research processes and outcomes, students themselves are the best medium for this type of collaboration. This allows students to learn from each other, and in this way expands on my work with cross-generations of student researchers, in which co-mentoring and enquiry have formed essential parts.

Methodological choices

This enquiry has followed and will continue to follow an action research cycle of the type advocated by Whitehead (1993). This research methodology gives me a vehicle to answer the question as posed by Whitehead (1993, p. 105) “How can I improve what I am doing?” and allows me to create a responsive enquiry as the enquiry progresses. In choosing this method, I agree with Evans (1995)

“During the Action Research enquiry, I have seen the transformation in the way that teachers think about themselves, and to believe that they have the support of their colleagues to enable them to try out new ideas. The sharing of thoughts and feelings in the Action Research group has enabled people to know that they can rethink their values, develop new concepts of teaching and that they will be helped and supported throughout the process. This has given them an excitement about their teaching and learning which has increased their motivation for teaching, and is infectious” (Evans 2003 p 46)

The methodology that I wished to engage with in order to validate my enquiry forms part of what Dadds and Hart (2001) have termed “methodological inventiveness”. Within this I have built as a researcher a collection of methodological choices that allow me to “mix and match” these to best fit the needs of my self and the enquiry. Their words speak as clearly to me now as they did three years ago when I first read them:

“..what practitioners chose to research was important to their sense of engagement and purpose…(but) how practitioners chose to research, and their sense of control over this, could be equally important to their motivation, their sense of identity within their research and their research outcomes” (2001, p.166)

In self-study of teacher education practices (s-step) studies of the kind I am creating in this enquiry, having ownership over both the what and the how of the research process has been crucial. Of equal importance has also been that the student-researchers too have ownership over their enquiry. The enquiry that the student-researchers first undertook was directed by myself as to its content, yet through the process of the enquiry the essence of what that enquiry became was two-fold. The enquiry manifested itself into the impact that student-researchers can have upon an organisation as well as how working as researchers alters the learning environment for the students involved. These learning outcomes emerged alongside the original intention of the research, and through this writing I aim to show you how this methodological inventiveness allowed this transformation of the what to occur alongside the how. I also aim to support Dadds’ and Hart’s rhetorical question:

“We now ask ourselves whether methodological innovation, far from transgressing from the norm, ought perhaps to be accepted as a more natural, necessary and legitimate part of any open-minded research culture that is seeking to enhance quality” (2001, p.167)

The quality and rigour of this writing is of the utmost importance to the researcher in s-step enquiries as without satisfying these two areas, the researcher is left in a position of being untrue to the self, that which is the very starting and ending point of the enquiry. With regards quality of the research, I intend to respond to Bullough and Pinnegar’s call for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. They argue for:

“Quality self-study research requires that the researcher negotiates a particularly sensitive balance between biography and history. While self-study researchers acknowledge the role of the self in the research project, such study does not focus in the self per se but on the space between the self and the practice engaged in…The balance can be struck at many times during the self-study process, but when a study is reported, the balance must be in evidence not only in what data has been gathered and presented, but in how they have been bought together in conversation” (2001, p.15)

and that

The consideration of ontology, of one’s being in and toward the world, should be a central feature of any discussion of the value of self-study research" (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2004 p. 319)

In presenting to you a multi-voiced text and multi-sourced imagery, I aim to reach the balance of which Bullough and Pinnegar talk. I believe that biography is an important part of this text, in that it informs the reader of events and circumstances that highlight present courses of action or decisions made. I believe that through my creative and living response to these voices and images, I can show a transformational dialogical process between the self and the participants of the research.

In response to questions as to the rigour and quality of the approach of this s-step enquiry, I intend to refer to Winter’s (1989) six key ideas and also to a framework for ‘quality’ as outlined by Furlong and Oancea (2005) in their recent paper. In the first of Winter’s ideas, reflexive, I will show that the norms of practitioner-researchers working with student-researchers are being challenged and expectations altered as a result of practice. In the second, dialectical, I will describe to you how I am living with creative tension in the contradiction that I recognise my self to be. In the third, risk, I will describe to you the willingness that I show both in the work with the student-researchers and in the position of risk that I have placed myself at various points in the course of this enquiry. I have experienced failure and have learnt to transform this into a learning condition from which one can risk again to succeed.

In the fourth, plural structure, I can show a challenge and discontentment with portraying a smooth story of self. In the fifth, multiple resource, I am using multi-media to enhance my enquiry and drawing upon a range of both academic and non-academic literature to support and challenge my enquiry. Finally, in the sixth, theory practice transformation, I am creating within this enquiry my own living theory with the aim of enhancing and transforming the contribution that students make to education and to each other’s learning.

Winter’s key ideas support my choice of referring to Senge’s (1990) notion of the creative tension that exists between our current situation and that of personal vision. Senge describes this as:

“(a) rubber band which is stretched between vision and current reality. What does tension seek? Resolution or release. There are only two possible ways for the tension to resolve itself: pull reality towards the vision or pull vision towards reality. Which occurs will depend on whether we hold steady to the vision” (p.150)

I wish to expand the idea of personal vision to that of a shared collective vision that comes as the result of a shared love for what we do.

The inclusion of multi-media as a means of representing this enquiry I believe enhances what I could say in words alone. It allows the reader of this script to hold snapshots of the enquiry, whether in terms of moving or still image. It allows him/her to become more involved in the text and to experience those moments which are key to the enquiry itself. It breathes life onto the page, and allows both you and I to maintain our focus in what we read, hear and see. It is my hope that when you have finished reading you may hold one of those images in your mind as a memory of the engagement with this paper. In this you will have shown yourself capable of engaging with me.

I believe that understanding is key to the success of the enquiry which I intend to continue. It is my intention therefore, as stated by Whitehead, that I can demonstrate my inclusivity of response to those involved with the enquiry. It is my intention for the enquiry to be readily shared with the student-researchers involved in the process, and to allow them to comment upon and alter parts with which they are not comfortable. It is also my intention for the text to be multi-voiced, as demonstrated so ably by the first generation of student-researchers in telling their story. The first person comments and narrative allows descriptions of events other than by my self, and also enhances the validity and responsive nature of the enquiry.

My own enquiry is an example of research coming from within one’s own practice, and in doing so recognising and calling upon my own tacit knowledge in the formation and pursuit of this enquiry. Furlong and Oancea (2005) refer to the traditional boundaries between this academic research and policy and practice:

“Traditionally it has been assumed that there is a distinction between the worlds of research and the worlds of policy and practice. On the one hand there is the world of research, based on explicit, systematic work aimed at the growth of theoretical knowledge. Practice and policy on the other hand are seen as taking place within the “real world” –a world based on different forms of knowledge-for example on tacit knowledge and on practical wisdom”(p.5 2005)

I am arguing, as referred to by Furlong and Oancea, for closer dialogue and cooperation between the two fields. I can prove undoubtedly how academic-based research has allowed my own practice-based research to grow in understanding and rigour. I can demonstrate how a relationship of cooperation and mutual respect can advance both sides of the research community. In my conversations and work with Sarah Fletcher, an academic researcher at the University of Bath Spa, both of us have reached new levels of understanding in terms of students’ work as researchers, and how cross-generational researcher between students can enhance this research process. This enhanced understanding is no better demonstrated by the following “snapshot” (Carnegie Foundation) as produced by both Sarah and myself in wanting to share the students’ work:

http://www.cfkeep.org/html/gallery.php?id=45789724910436

Sarah shows the need for this evidence in her comment:

“I realised that if we didn't create an archive we would
forget and lose ideas and we have collaborated with
the boys on a ground-breaking venture” (electronic mail received on 19/09/2005)

In outlining the debate for quality as part of practice-based research, I agree with Furlong et al as they state:

“Applied and practice-based research are not methodologically-depleted forms of research; rather they can be innovatory modes of research that cater for a different set of needs and define quality in terms of social robustness” (p.10)

This is in line with the concept of methodological inventiveness as outlined by Dadds and Hart (2001) and as highlighted by myself above as a central necessity of my own practice-based research.

My intention is to base the assessment of the quality of my own research in line with Furlong et al’s four categories of quality that they propose in their paper. These relate to the economic, epistemic, technological and capacity building and value for people. I shall seek, not only to validate the quality of my research through these categories, but also to identify the suitability of these categories as capable of defining quality on practice-based research. It is interesting to note that this paper was written by two academic researchers, both based at Oxford University, and in this I note the absence of other voices to substantiate the framework for assessing validity as outlined by Furlong et al.

So far

At this point in the enquiry I believe that I can demonstrate an enhanced quality of responsiveness between students and students, and between students and teachers, as to the nature of dialogue in the classroom enhancing relationships and what we do. I can demonstrate how generations of researchers working in collaboration together can transform relationships between peer groups and between teacher, student and academic researcher. I can show how the outcomes of such enquiry are dual in nature. These include both the original intention of the research to enhance understanding on the nature of teaching and learning, as well as the awareness that students gain as a result of this. This type of collaboration has led to a dynamic relationship between generations of student-researchers, classroom teachers and academic researchers in promoting the understanding of the impact of this type of work.

The following is an extract from my writing shortly after the student-researcher group had made the presentation of their interim-research outcomes to various colleagues within the school. I believe that this abstract demonstrates in part what I have claimed above:

“I shall never forget this presentation. The students gave an articulate and well-managed presentation that led everyone in the room to be impressed with their capacity as researchers. The two aims of the project were conflicting for myself. Although I certainly wanted to promote the use of students as researchers within the school, I also desperately wanted a return for myself of the time spent during the project. The “What’s in it for me?” turned the presentation from a presentation to convince others of the worth of this work, to being worthy of my time commitment in terms of personal learning for my classroom work as a result of the project.

In this sense, the presentation delivered. At the end of the session I had personally gained in terms of my classroom practice, and how to use objectives to greater effect in the classroom. This for me was the key to students as researchers, that both sides were allowed to learn in the process of conducting the research”

I also wish to share the following extract with you, as I believe that this demonstrates the cross-generational nature of the research, as well as how a multi-voiced text allows a more valid representation of others’ reflections:

“Shane and Alex, whose story is told below, are now in their third year working as researchers. They have returned in many ways to the ideology of the passive learner within the classroom at Bishops, although they also retain the wisdom to reflect on their learning whilst being aware of the sensitive nature of the knowledge that they possess. They have realized there only certain practitioners are at the stage of accepting students as researchers within their classrooms, and therefore they continue on their A-Level course with a sense of inner confidence about the knowledge that they possess.

I feel that it is important to share with you reader, at this point, the Shane and Alex story. Although I introduce this section, the majority of it comes from them directly in their own words:

Alex: “My name is Alex Dunning, and I used to work with Mrs. Riding at Westwood St. Thomas on the student research programme before she came here. We didn’t work by ourselves as students as you are doing here, but we worked with her on the student research work which she was doing then”

I was interested in Alex’s comments here, as he was referring to the difference in ownership between my research at Westwood, and my research at Bishop’s. At Westwood, it was very much teacher-led and student-focussed, but now the roles had been reversed with the students becoming the self-study focus”

I believe that I can also demonstrate how the uniqueness of marriage and co-enquiry living alongside each other allow the individual to respond to intuitive judgements over time. There is an enhancement of the individual’s values and passion for that which he/she does alongside a shared loving response to what we do and how we do it. The following is an extract in which I begin to make sense of this relationship:

“Simon and I are hoping, in our connectivity of enquiry, to show originality of mind in the responsive and loving way in which we are co-creating together. We are also learning to be worthy of the other in our role as co-practitioner. When Simon came to work with the sixth-form Mentors (at my school), he showed great angst at “wanting to do a good job”. He wanted to demonstrate his capacity to the highest extent in this task that I had selected him for. Likewise, if working with the teacher-researcher group at his school, Bitterne Park, I feel under immense pressure to be the best that I can be. We want to be worthy of the other and also make the other proud of our achievements and our skills.

These feelings of striving to be the best that one can be with a spouse are a driving force of mutual respect. If both husband and wife share the same professional sphere, I strongly believe that these individuals will produce the best work of which they are capable.

Alongside this, there are much higher stakes when the personal relationship is involved alongside the professional. At the end of the working day, there is still the need to recount one’s successes and failures, highs and lows. There is also the unending support and love that goes alongside this. These factors combined, I believe, will allow Simon and myself to be the best that we can be in life”

I refer to Naidoo’s thesis (2005) “I am because we are”, as I believe that it supports the life-affirming energy that Simon and I share.

The next steps

In the next part of my enquiry I wish to explore how we are able to sustain our passion over time. Our passion for what we do and the values that we hold. It is the longevity of the relationships that fascinates me. I wish to see the student-researcher movement be recognised at the institution level, and to see how enquirers from different international perspectives share common features and aspects. I wish to follow the social dynamic of the student-researchers and see how this transforms over time. I am in this for the long run, and I am aware that I have opened these students’ eyes to a new understanding beyond passive compliance in the classroom. My enquiry will focus upon the effects of this as students move to different groups, different contexts and different institutions. A key focus will be upon the emergence of a new first generation of student-researchers as the original generation move into Higher Education. I am looking forward to “my” enquiry developing further into a shared enquiry, in which a multi-voiced text takes increased importance. I look forward to understanding why I do what I do, and how the other shares and alters this dynamic.

The enquiry that I share with you is no smooth story of self, and I am hoping to prove both to my self and to my reader that I am learning to have the courage to be. In this sense I refer to the courage to talk in the “I”, to understand this “I” and to at last come to peace with this “I”. Learning to live with creative tension as a positive force which drives me further, as advocated by Senge (1990) shows me that I will need to include a “warts and all” account of events, in order that you may live with me through events. In this, I aim to prove to you that this has been possible. It is the quality of responsiveness that I hold as an individual to this enquiry. Other researchers such as Delong (2002) have already shown this capacity. Delong has demonstrated this in the way in which she has developed a culture of enquiry within her workplace. It is my intention to draw upon these enquiries to support and challenge my own.

Joan Whitehead (2003) talks about making the possible probable. I believe that I can already demonstrate how the establishment of student research can improve and transform dialogue between teachers and students. I have shown my colleagues that this is possible. In the remainder of the enquiry I wish to transform this into the social dimensions of the institution, and show how this can become probable at this level. I wish to demonstrate the probability of changes in the organizational development of the school, into a culture where student voice, participation and awareness influence our work and support us in developing a shared vision.

References

Bognar, B. (2005) How do you assess the quality of your practitioner research. Retrieved 18 September from http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:yz6uK7HhegsJ:mzu.sbnet.hr/files/howdoyouassessthequalityofyourpractition.doc+bognar+how+do+you+assess+the+quality&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Bullough, R.V., Jn. & Pinnegar, S. (2001) Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical Forms of Self-Study Research in Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.13-21

Bullough, R. & Pinnegar, S. (2004) Thinking about the thinking about self-study: An Analysis of Eight Chapters, in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L. LaBoskey, V. K, Russell, T. International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher-Education Practices. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cho, D. (2005)Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love. Educational Theory Vol. 55, No. 1, 79-96

Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001) Doing practitioner research differently London and New York: Routledge/Falmer

Delong, J. (2002) How can I improve my practice as a superintendent of schools and create my own living educational theory?” Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 18 September, 2005 fromhttp://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/delong.shtml

Evans, M. (1995) An action research enquiry into reflection in action as part of my role Ph.D. Thesis, Kingston University. Retrieved 18 September 2005 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/moyra.shtml

Fielding, M. and Bragg, S. (2003) Students as Researchers: making a difference. Cambridge; Pearson

Furlong, J. & Oancea, A. (2005) Assessing Quality in Applied and Practice-Based Educational research Retrieved 26^th September 2005 from

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:lz1CTUH-ukgJ:www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/Qualitycriteria.pdf+John+Furlong+assessing+quality&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Laidlaw, M. (1996) How can I create my own living educational theory as I offer you an account of my educational development. Retrieved 18 September 2005 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/moira2.shtml

Johnson, H. (2005) Are you happy? In Management in Education Volume 19, Issue 1: Education Publishing Company Limited, Devon

Naidoo, M. (2005) I am because we are (A never ending story). The emergence of a living theory of inclusional and responsive practice. Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 18 September 2005 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/naidoo.shtml

Ruddock, J. and Flutter, J. (2004) How To Improve Your School: Giving Pupils A Voice Continuum: London

Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. London; Random House

Whitehead, J. (2003) What counts as evidence in self-studies of teacher education practices? , in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L. LaBoskey, V. K, Russell, T. International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher-Education Practices. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Whitehead, J. (2003) The Future of Teaching and Teaching in the Future: a vision of the future of the profession of teaching - Making the Possible Probable. Keynote address to the Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers Annual Conference 3rd-4th October 2003, Dunchurch. Retrieved 18 September 2005 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/evol/joanw_files/joanw.htm

Winter (1989) Learning from Experience. London; Falmer.