Características de los modelos pedagógicos

Chapters 1 and 2 describe a changing world and identify a need to rethink education for the future. They show that many voices are united in seeking new ways of

thinking about professional development. By identifying and exploring the significant characteristics of the innovative professional practice of the Western Melbourne Roundtable and by making connections between practice and theory this study sought to build on current thinking and therefore inform contemporary debate.

The study was based on the hypothesis that the combined activities of the Western Melbourne Roundtable—including case writing, building partnerships and engaging in action research—made a significant contribution to the professional development of those involved.

Therefore the broad aim of the study has been to reveal new knowledge and theories about how roundtables promote professional development, specifically exploring the combined dimensions of context, dialogue, collaboration and inquiry. Having said this, the study was also structured in a way that new hypotheses might evolve

gradually through cycles of data analysis and connection with the literature (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Glaser, 1992; Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).

Searching for the ‘right’ methodology

Despite having identified an hypothesis and connected this with research aims and questions, the detail of what had to be done to achieve the aims and therefore answer the research questions was not so clear. In reality there was not one ‘right’ way of conducting this research process and an analytic strategy was not immediately obvious. The challenge was to design a research strategy that would support the research aims and fit the particular circumstances.

Because the Innovative Links Project and Western Melbourne Roundtable documents highlighted the importance of respect for Roundtable members and their work the researcher was forced to ask questions such as: How might a researcher work in a respectful way? How might a researcher design a process which is respectful of the Roundtable reflection process, practitioner writing, collaboration and reflexive solutions? Therefore, the first step was to establish principles which would underpin

the conduct of the study. On one level, it was important to reflect the stated principles articulated by the Innovative Links Project and the Western Melbourne Roundtable. On another level it was important to reflect the ideas and concepts which had emerged in the literature. This process paved the way for designing a research framework which was informed by shared principles, related to concepts in the literature and which could then be connected with the literature on research methodologies.

Table 4 shows the relationships between the Western Melbourne Roundtable aims, the significant concepts indicated in the literature review and the formulation of research principles.

Table 4: Connecting Roundtable, literature and research

Themes The Western

Melbourne Roundtable aimed to…

The literature review indicates the importance of…

The research sought to…

Context work locally _{and make}

connections with the national reform agenda rethinking for a changing world acknowledging and making connections between personal, cultural and societal levels of activity respecting diversity

consider local context consider whole context and make connections act with awareness of inclusion and exclusion

Dialogue adopt case _{writing as a}

strategy for focusing on teaching and learning opportunities for dialogue

aiming for discursive consciousness emotional engagement provide opportunities for dialogue provide opportunities for storytelling allow for emotional themes to surface

Collaboration build partnership _{between schools}

and universities in: teams a roundtable a national network cooperation, collectivity and democratic relationships trust reciprocity and mutuality

building community and networks

collaborate and cooperate develop trust consider the value of research to all parties extend existing community and networks

Inquiry engage in _{action research}

to achieve innovation and reform

adopting a process for gaining a deeper understanding and generating change creating information rich environments with technical, practical and

provide opportunities for exploration which lead to new knowledge and new beginnings focus on teachers, classrooms, schools and the wider education

In establishing 16 roundtables the Innovative Links Project expressed a clear expectation that teams of teachers would focus their work locally yet make clear connections with the broader context—including the national reform agenda—and the literature reinforces the idea that there is a need to rethink schools within the context of a changing world. Habermas (1987) Giddens (1998; 1999) and Smith (1993) all argue the importance of acknowledging various contexts by making connections between personal, cultural and societal levels of activity. There is also a strong indication of the importance of respecting diversity (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Retallick et al., 1994; McDowell, 1999; Sachs, 2003). In the context of this study, these expectations and ideas indicate the importance of considering the whole context with an awareness of inclusion and exclusion and a commitment to seeking

connections.

The Western Melbourne Roundtable made a decision to adopt case writing as a strategy for focusing communication around teaching and learning. The literature indicates the importance of strategies that provide opportunities for teachers to engage in narrative and storytelling (Arendt, 1958; 1995; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000)

inspired by emotional moments (Shulman, 1992) and the possibility of moving from practical to discursive consciousness (Giddens, 1984). The decisions made by the Roundtable and these observations in the literature suggested the importance of designing a methodology which included the kind of opportunities for storytelling and dialogue (Senge, 1992) which would allow for an emotional dimension to surface. It seemed particularly important to ensure that the voices of Roundtable members remained central throughout the process. Incorporating the principles of respect and trust in collaboration suggested:

privileging sources of information which were either spoken or written by members of the Roundtable

adopting analytic and interpretive strategies which privileged teachers’ vocabulary, descriptions and insights

enabling Roundtable participants to voice their recollections in interviews and conversations which were designed to confirm, clarify and expand their ideas and opinions about the work of the Roundtable.

While one side of this coin suggested respect and recognition of teachers the reverse demanded consideration of the power relationship between the researcher and the members of the Roundtable participating in the research. Was it possible to be an outside researcher and work ethically with the people and documents of the Western Melbourne Roundtable? Clearly it was important to consider how the research could be designed to offset the issues created by an external researcher. In this way, the role of the researcher shifted from creating new ideas to revealing the ideas identified by members of the Roundtable. This study was therefore committed to a:

…process of meaning construction…(where the researcher was) concerned with what the narrative means to the people who create it or read it…(and not one) in which the researcher imposes his or her own predetermined categories and theory on the text’ (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998:58).

The Innovative Links Project was structured so that partnerships could be built between schools and universities and that people would work collaboratively. Once again this matched a trend in the literature oriented to cooperation, collectivity and democratic relationships (Arendt, 1958; Hargreaves, 1993; Harradine, 1995; Kemmis, 1998b; Giddens, 1999; Habermas, 1999; Niemi & Kemmis, 1999; Bauman, 2000; Sachs, 2003). The benefits of working in this way were couched in terms of trust (Cox, 1995; Giddens, 1999; Sachs, 2003), reciprocity and mutuality (Arendt, 1958; Cox, 1995) and the possibility of building communities and networks (Arendt, 1958; Cox, 1995; Yeatman, 1996; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Kemmis, 1998a; Senge &

Scharmer, 2001). These ideas suggest the importance of conceptualising research as a collaborative, cooperative activity which involves the possibility of extending existing communities and networks.

The Innovative Links Project expected that Roundtable members would engage in action research to guide reflection, innovation and reform. In the literature this is conceptualised as a process for gaining a deeper understanding and generating change (Habermas, 1996b; Giddens, 1998). The literature proposes that creating information rich environments (Hawley & Valli, 1999) focused on the technical, practical and critical (Kemmis, 2001) will support this endeavour. In the context of this study these ideas suggest the importance of focusing on teachers, classrooms, schools and the

wider education community and providing opportunities for exploration which might lead to new knowledge and new beginnings.

As indicated in the literature review there is an unhelpful gulf between academic and practitioner research (MacIntyre, 1999; Coulter & Wiens, 2002). Yeatman and Sachs (1995) suggest the importance of distinguishing between academic and

practitioner/action research on the basis of orientation, test, mode of communication, intent and audience (see Table 2: The differences between academic and action

research, p63). They argue that it is only by articulating the distinction that it might be possible to find a way in which the two kinds of research might complement each other. Arendt (1958) and Coulter and Wiens (2002) argue the importance of being both spectator and actor and in this study the researcher aimed to be both actor and spectator.

Given the commitment to gaining a deeper understanding about professional

development and the Roundtable, it was clear from the beginning that this would be a qualitative research project—it was the richness and complexity of the Roundtable work which was significant—with the aim being to report the multiplicity of experiences as well as the differences and variations. Issues of quantity were not of paramount significance; yet having said this, experiences common to multiple locations were sought. The study was therefore based on the collection of qualitative data and employed qualitative methods for analysis and theory building. The key methods were document analysis, individual and group interviews and a researcher’s journal.

In combining these techniques the intention was to map the complexity of what happened in the Western Melbourne Roundtable. Wolcott (1992:22, 160) describes this as producing a qualitative research ‘tree’ where different views can be gained from each branch and each branch represents a different qualitative strategy. The document analysis was closely connected to the Roundtable focus on case and commentary writing and the interviews reflected the many opportunities for

conversation which were facilitated by the Roundtable. The researcher’s journal was also closely connected to the Roundtable commitment to documenting practice and was used as a device for the researcher to mirror Roundtable practice. This made it possible to be both actor and spectator as Arendt (1958) and Coulter and Wiens

(2002) recommend. In this situation the focus was on the experience and dilemmas associated with conducting research. Each of the research activities is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

There are many criteria for evaluating research and decisions about which criteria to adopt are usually shaped by the particular paradigm or theory which underpins the work. For instance, a positivist/postpositivist paradigm demands internal and external validity while a constructivist paradigm is more likely to favour criteria such as trustworthiness, credibility, transferability and confirmability (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994b:13). Refining this constructivist paradigm, Anderson and Herr (1999) have argued a validity framework for practitioner research which identifies five criteria or tests for validity: outcome, process, democratic, catalytic and dialogic validity; and within the context of a longitudinal study into school restructuring Kruger and colleagues (2001) report opportunities for each of these tests to be applied. Taking a critical standpoint such as that adopted by feminist, ethnic or Marxist theorists, research is more likely to be considered in terms of dialogical, race, class, gender, lived experience or caring criteria (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994b:13). While starting from the position of assessing communicative action, Habermas (1996b:119, 131) applies the tests of comprehensibility, truth (accuracy), truthfulness (sincerity) and rightness (moral appropriateness); Niemi and Kemmis (1998a; Niemi & Kemmis, 1999; 2001) have used Habermas’s framework to inform evaluative and action research projects. Noting the multiplicity of issues involved in selecting criteria Ely and her colleagues (1991, 1996) noted:

What seems important for researchers in any paradigm is to understand thoroughly what needs doing in order for their research to be trustworthy and to work to communicate that as clearly and as non-defensively as possible (Ely et al., 1991, 1996:95).

Therefore, if the shape of the research suggests the criteria by which it is to be understood, and if the concerns identified by the Innovative Links Project, the Roundtable and the framework outlined at the end of the literature review were to be extended, then the issues of contextuality, communication, collaboration and

researcher was to be both actor and spectator then validity tests needed to respond to both aspects of the endeavour.

Trustworthiness was a primary concern for members of the Western Melbourne Roundtable both in terms of process and content. University researchers challenged the traditional divide between practitioner and academic researcher by seeking methodological solutions which valued collaboration and reflexivity. This concern and commitment can be seen in the multifaceted search for research outcomes that were accurate, useful and connected to local practice and the interests of practitioners and students. Therefore in seeking trustworthiness within this study it was important to plan for a collaborative verification process which involved the researcher and practitioners working together. Exploring and verifying the research propositions with the authors and members of school teams and then checking cross-site themes through group interviews achieved a level of trustworthiness and validity which was not possible for the researcher to achieve alone.

In order to address these concerns it was also crucial that whichever analysis

strategies were adopted, the process—including the researcher’s train of thought and work—had to be traceable. A simple process was required, one which could be applied consistently and repeated while still honouring the complexity and fluidity of practice in the Roundtable. This was checked by asking: In examining practice, how can I capture processes, steps, stages and movement over time?

Within the Roundtable a form of self-reflexivity was achieved by the school and university colleagues as they trained their gaze on themselves, and later engaged in discussions about ideology and methodology. The process made explicit their stance as both actors and spectators, both ideologically and methodologically. It has

encouraged critique and problem solving around issues such as democratic

relationships between university and teacher researchers, and questioning how choices are made.

Meeting both the demands of the Roundtable and the need for a framework for qualitative research triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994a:214), the study has been designed to support the claim for both trustworthiness and validity on a number of levels.

Data triangulation was planned through the use of a variety of data sources including cases and commentaries, interview transcripts and school reports.

Investigator triangulation was planned by including the voices of the researcher and other Roundtable participants, document authors and members of teams.

Methodological triangulation was planned through the use of multiple methods (document analysis, individual and group interviews and researcher’s journal), the subsequent checking of research propositions identified during document analysis, and the subsequent conduct of individual and group interviews.

Theoretical triangulation was addressed through the application of multiple perspectives to the data as suggested at the end of the literature review.

The research process

The remainder of this chapter describes the research process which was adopted in this study. It focuses on each stage of the research process describing the associated activities, the connection to principles outlined in the first section of this chapter, the purpose of adopting each strategy and the process of implementation (Miles & Huberman, 1994:12). The first stage involved collecting and working with the Roundtable documents, the second involved conducting a series of interviews with individual members of the Roundtable and the third involved three group interviews. Throughout these three stages a researcher’s journal was maintained and the process of analysis and interpretation was pursued in an ongoing and cyclical way.

The combined strategies outlined below in Table 5 and described in detail in the following pages led to a gradual revelation of information and ideas and a deeper understanding about professional development and the work of the Western

Melbourne Roundtable, ultimately providing an opportunity to develop a new model for professional development.

Table 5: Relationship between stages of research, research activity and the production of research documents

Stage of research

Research activity Research document/s produced

Appendix

Collect documents and audit by document type, team, date

Document register Appendix 1: Document Register, p376.

For each document: Sketch and thread Translate into research proposition

Bundle propositions

Propositional statements for each document

For example see Appendix 2: , p385.

Bundle document statements for each team

Team portraits (These documents were extended after interviews)

Team profiles and mini biographies of participants

For example see Appendix 3: A portrait of ILP at Eagle Secondary College, p391. Working with documents

Identify cross-team themes Theme statements: case writing working together reflection

For example see Appendix 4: Case writing, p428.

Link emerging themes to interview questions

Schedule of questions Appendix 5: Schedule of questions for individual interviews, p440.

Conduct interviews Interview transcripts For example see Appendix 6: Interview with Laila, p442. Individual

interviews

Connect theme statements with interview transcripts

Three cases of Roundtable practice: Chris’ reflections on:

case writing working together action and reflection

See Appendix 7: Chris’ reflections on working together, p462, Appendix 8: Chris’ reflections on case writing, p464, and Appendix 9: Chris’ recollections about action and reflection, p466. Group

interviews

Conduct interviews using Chris’ reflections as discussion starters

Interview transcripts: case writing working together action and reflection

For example see Appendix 10: Case writing interview transcript, p469. Exploration and reporting themes Connect: research propositions individual interview transcripts group interview transcripts literature Draft chapters

Working with Roundtable documents

The first stage of the research involved collecting and working with the Roundtable documents and there were a number of steps involved. The first step involved compiling a register of all documents used during this study and it was created by detailing each document collected and entering the document details or factual

attributes (Kelle, 1995:Ch 6) onto a spreadsheet (see Appendix 1: Document Register, p376). The register not only served as a record of all the documents used within this study but acted as an organisational device for sorting, exploring, grouping and relating the documents by category. This provided the possibility of using the register as a tool for analysis and for theorising.

Together, the Roundtable members produced, collected and archived both individual and group records ranging from official documents through to personal records (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994a). These written records of the Western Melbourne Roundtable became key artefacts of the project. As a collection they represented a unique record of a school–university partnership, describing the Roundtable structure and mode of operation as well as revealing the interests and actions of Roundtable members during the project. These materials were an integrated aspect of the action research activities of the Roundtable. The first step in this study was to collect the documents and records of the Western Melbourne Roundtable.

Importantly, the documents enabled different ways of looking at what happened in the Roundtable. The official records of the Western Melbourne Roundtable contributed to