Exploration 4: Layered Analysis

“Teaching transforms into learning, and back again to teaching.”

Jean McNiff

Teaching as learning, an action research approach

Research Question (as posed by Mary Elizabeth Meier): As participants share their documentation with the inquiry group and engage in dialogue, what indicates shifts in thinking about teaching and learning?

Layer One: Code to Disassemble and Reassemble

Scene I: Reflecting on One Year of Collaborative Inquiry Group Work

Scene II: Planning for/Reflections on “Innovations in Art”

Scene III: Sharing Documentation and Reflections

Scene IV: Blog posts by Collaborative Inquiry Group Participants

·      Questioning//Uncertainty

·      Collaboration//Shared Experiences

·      Self-Reflection//Adaptation

Layer 2: Inquiry Prose

<<Questioning --> Collaboration --> Reflection --> Questioning>>

Throughout Mary Elizabeth Meier’s Story Constellations, members of the collaborative inquiry group seemed to speak in cyclical patterns moving from “questioning” to group “collaboration” to self and group “reflection.” At times these processes worked simultaneously, while at other times they followed a more linear path. Repeatedly members made statements referencing how the work of others and the work of the group influenced and affected their professional development. The theme of “questioning” runs throughout the entire project, beginning with creating a “big question.” A question that seeks to answer how to create an environment rich in student led learning within each participant’s context.

Thoughts on Questioning: Conversation and documentation throughout the constellation returned to inquiry, the “big question.” Within this questioning, themes of uncertainty, hesitancy, skepticism, continually surfaced. Some of these included fear of technology, the questioning process, uncertainty within an individual’s classroom setting, etc.

Thoughts on Collaboration (and shared experiences): The group as a whole seem to function as a sounding board for participants who entered the program feeling like they were already a “lonely island” acting as one person making up an entire department. The connections made within the group illustrate vulnerability, eagerness to learn and apply, trust, respect and willing contribution.  “Almost every meeting, I picked up something to take back with me” – “Technology” – “Teaching styles” – “how each of us was working…how I could do that…see if I could modify” – “hearing about your experience” – “you were so helpful…in helping me think about [list of courses]” – “sharing…taking ideas and moving along with them.” Each of these quotes from participants articulate the collaboration experienced, intentionally and unintentionally, throughout the study.

Thoughts on Self-Reflection/Reflection (and adaptation): Collaboration yielded self-reflection at the point of collaboration as well as when participants sought to share their own experiences. During self-reflection, evidence of shifts in thinking is verbalized. Although only one participant used the term “shift in thinking” others eluded to the process throughout their dialogue.  “Before I had only thought of…” – “…changed along the way for me.” – “I can see it coming together…I am still seeing a bigger picture.”

Layer 3: Reflexivity and Encompassing Metaphors

The process of questioning, collaborating, and reflecting proves to be a constant challenge of value and belief systems of the individual educator. At the moment the question is addressed a new question forms. The process is ongoing and uncertainties continue to arise. One participant observed “if you don’t have uncertainty or something that you are looking to define or know more about, then you don’t have a conflict or a question.” Jean McNiff states that in the process of question and answer, “the nature of the answer is not the end phase of a previous question, but the beginning of a new question. The process of question and answer is not to lead to a fixed ‘truth proof’, but to lead to a continuing dialogue, in which the understanding of each party moves forward” (McNiff 1993, p 29). The dialogue between the educators in the CIG is not final. Rather it continues throughout the process with no right or wrong answers, but instead “right” questions (McNiff 1993, 44). These questions lead to action and experimentation and back to reflection for advanced and improved pedagogical practice.

Layer 4: Seeing Patterns as Major Themes

One of the greatest evidences of shift in thinking about learning and teaching can be seem in changes of practices implemented, whether successfully or not, by participants in their respective classrooms. The blog posts chronicling the past year speak to the growth and challenges of the participants. As participant, Rachel, guides the group on a journey through her student’s self-portraiture, she illustrates how her students were challenged to think and create as individuals pushing the boundaries of their own creativity and perceived limitations. Rachel, as an educator, also experienced the same discomfort and challenge from the process as she assumed the role of teacher observer instead of her traditional position in the classroom. 

The data seems to point to the fact that when teachers “get to figure out [their] own professional development…get to decide what [they] want to learn” more effective change occurs and teachers become students who then become teachers sharing and replicating their experiences and processes within their classroom. One participant articulated this with the statement “what happened to me this year is what I am trying to do for my kids too.”

Teachers are owners of their own educational knowledge. They may share this knowledge with others, by demonstrating its internal validity in that they are able to live out their educational values. Peers may accept (or not) this knowledge as valid, by discussing the claim to knowledge of the individual, and sharing it by adopting or adapting it (or not) to themselves. In this way, those peers also create their own educational knowledge. In this way are constituted dialogical communities of self-reflective practitioners who share the same values base as a shared way of life

(McNiff 1993, p 45).

“…enquiry by the self of self…enabling individuals to develop their own personal theories.” – Jean McNiff (1993, p 17)

My personal layered analysis:

Currently the largest component of peer-to-peer interaction in my online course is the discussion board. Students make weekly contributions to the conversation regarding the most recent material covered in class. Half-way through this semester, students were asked to reflect upon this process. I typically have students do this at the end of semester; however, I am experimenting with the placement of this assignment to determine if by having students reflect midway through the semester they can see and address any areas that could use improvement or be challenged to contribute in a new and more innovative way. This layered analysis is based on a random sampling of their submissions to this assignment.

Layer 1: Code to Disassemble and Reassemble

The discussion reflection is based on all contributions to the discussion board and includes your original posts and responses to others. In the reflection, you are to analyze your comments while reflect on your written ideas and interactions with others. As you are reading, critically analyze your comments objectively—imagine that you’re reading posts written by someone else. Comment on what you notice and what reflections arise as you read. Also, feel free to cite any original course content. Please be thoughtful and directed with your analysis and consider some of the following questions as you are writing:

What do you usually write about in your posts?

Are there broad themes or specific issues that keep appearing in your writing?

Has the nature of your posts changed over the semester?

What changes do you notice in your writing?

What surprised you as you reread your work?

What ideas or comments in your posts would you revisit?

How do feel you’ve contributed to the online learning community through the discussion board?

What else do you notice?

What aspects of the weekly discussion do you value most, and how does it show up in your posts?

Layer 2: Inquiry Prose

Class submissions were not due until this past weekend (based on my course schedule from the beginning of the semester); therefore, I have not been able to spend as much time analyzing these as I would like or plan.

Thus far I can trace three consistent threads of thought in each of the submissions: the challenge faced by students, the expectations of themselves and their peers, and the engagement (or lack of) with the material through the discussion posts.

The challenge most articulated was a fear of rejection, especially once students realized their peers were utilizing the forum to connect with each other and they actually valued the contributions. (Note: each student was required to post at least two responses to their peers’ posts. Therefore, evidence of interaction and value can be found within these posts. However, the posts are not a part of this analysis.) “Will my classmates think my ideas are stupid?” “Am I interpreting this artwork in the right way?”

Although the discussion guidelines were clearly defined at the beginning of the course, some students admitted to having reservations about posting and some failed to see how such conversations could enlighten their experience at all. “The use of a discussion board for an art history class does not seem like the best method to learn more about artwork.”  Aside from being required to complete the task, students had relatively low expectations of themselves or their peers regarding the discussion posts.  One student states “I was not very cognizant that I was actually trying to engage my classmates in my posts.” Another alluded to the idea of classmates waiting on the “first responders” of the board in order to fashion a response.  However, this was not always the case. As students became more comfortable with the process and their peers, they “became more and more interested in what [others] were saying.” One student relished this opportunity to “socialize about” the content.

By reflecting on each of their past posts, students acknowledge that a certain degree of knowledge of the subject as well as interaction with the material is required to 1) create a post that fully explores the prompt and 2) is interesting to other classmates.

Layer 3: Reflexivity and Encompassing Metaphors

In the online classroom, students must take the initiative and control of their learning experience.  One student shared of the reflection process that “the one thing that surprised me most about [rereading the discussion posts] was what I am actually learning in this class…. Not only is it helping me to improve my posts but it has opened my eyes to the way that art is associated with lifestyles of societies and can represent what was going on during the period in which it was created. I believe that a piece of art is an expression of an artist, but I did not previously associate it with what may be going on globally or locally as seems to be the case….” Many have expressed freedom to articulate their opinions as the semester continued. Others admitted to keeping to the “topic at hand” in order to “promote and not hinder discussion.” Some have even discovered that it is in these tangential spaces that great discussions can ignite.

Layer 4: Seeing Patterns as Major Themes

Students seem to be trying to place themselves within the context of the course. Exploring how they compare to others, how they want to be perceived by others. A name without a face is still a name, a person; therefore they seem to be highly sensitive to how they “interact” with one another. A sort of etiquette develops among the students on the discussion board were “I am able to give my own opinions about a subject without someone telling me I’m wrong or right, because it is my opinion” while still trying to “get ideas stirring by commenting on other people’s posts.” They demonstrate growth as they move past the fear of rejection and build confidence as they go public with their ideas and open themselves up to the scrutiny of their peers.

Confession: As I read and reflect upon the thoughts of my students, I am becoming keenly aware that it may not be the class that is “bored” by the structure of the course. Perhaps, it is actually me. I still plan to implement a plan to utilize technology to aid students in finding their “voice” through the interpretation of art. However, rather than reinventing the wheel, I need to evaluate where my students are and work from that point. A natural tendency for people working in an already unfamiliar space (or even a familiar but comfortable one) is to resist change.

Resources: 

McNiff, J, (1993). teaching as learning an action research approach. London: Routledge.