Explicación del proceso de planeación estratégica

At this point the pragmatic question emerges: Given all that we know, how might we choose to act, and what are the likely consequences of our various choices? (Cherry- Holmes, 1999; Mayo, 2003). Similar debates have been raging about education for some time. For example, at the time when pragmatism was developing, there were heated debates between Traditionalists who favoured a curriculum-centred approach to education, and the Progressives who believed that expression of the child’s native impulses was all that needed to be attended to in education. Dewey (1934) uses a pragmatic stance to respond by choosing a middle ground and rejecting these dualities. He argues that by the time children enter the classroom, they are already intensely active, and the question of education is a question of taking hold of their activities and giving them direction. Dewey believes that the role of a teacher is as director of learning but in a child-responsive manner. He uses both Traditional and Progressive approaches to inform his stance from multiple perspectives.

Because of its focus on consequences rather than truth, pragmatic theory sits in opposition to realism which strives to create universal, or foundational accounts of the physical world (Cherry-Holmes, 1999). Yet because of its inclusiveness, pragmatic theory also works in partnership with other theories, both realist and relativist (Mayo, 2003). Rorty (1982) argues that the search for universal truth is unnecessary. He

19

proposes that knowledge depends on the discursive practice carried out between two or more individuals arguing over statements and attempting to convince each other. If one argument is more persuasive, then this outcome justifies the ‘truth’ behind the argument. The same test of persuasiveness can be applied to the competing discourses surrounding OE and ITE. It also explains how pragmatism avoids the concept of ‘universal truth’ because truth claims are based on convincing arguments and are therefore contextual. Indeed pragmatists suggest that a search for trans-historical ‘truth’ is unhelpful and impossible. Justifications of truth are only valid within a particular language community, thus abandoning the notion of certainty of knowledge as a central goal of philosophy. Truth, according to Rorty, is the expression of satisfaction at having found a solution to a problem. This solution to a problem is, however, likely to be temporary and the satisfaction someday likely to be seen as misplaced. While complex problems (such as those in education) may be enduring, solutions are only likely to be temporarily satisfying. This is not to suggest that the solutions should be enacted without deliberation simply because we understand that such solutions will be temporary.

Dewey (1933) in his book “How We Think” warns us that deliberation (converting thought into intelligent action) needs both open-mindedness and whole-heartedness. Open-mindedness requires an attitude of freedom from prejudice and therefore an active and positive desire to listen to different sides and to give full attention to alternative possibilities. Whole-heartedness describes an attitude of absorption in an activity that requires a vigorous and energetic commitment to considering the consequences of a possible action. The monumental task of considering the consequences of each of the different discourses within OE and ITE is daunting. Extending on this pragmatic approach to teacher education, Kemmis and Grootenboer (2008) state that:

We need informed and enlightened ...teacher educators, not just ones who want to produce particular outcomes and effects that may seem important at any particular historical moment, in the context of particular political issues of the day. They too must be held to account for their work in the construction of the practice architectures of schools and colleges and universities. (p. 60)

My work as a teacher educator is therefore important in establishing ‘practice architectures’ which may shape the work of teachers in the future. Furthermore, the

20

changes I make must not simply be responses to a particular historical moment or political issue of the day. This has perhaps been the problem in the past where changes in teacher education were best characterized as a “series of displacements” (Openshaw & Ball, 2008, p. 155). These authors contest that rather than an ‘informed and enlightened’ approach, teacher education has been influenced by historical and political whims and as a consequence, many of these changes have been reversed or have simply compounded the problems they were designed to address. Over a century ago, Dewey (1900) wrote about transitory fads and arbitrary inventions within education and Openshaw and Ball’s comment suggests that this criticism remains relevant to the context of Aotearoa New Zealand today.

In light of the complexity of the field and the history of inadequate responses to diverse influences, how can I attempt to improve on this situation and make informed and enlightened decisions as a teacher educator? Schwab’s (1978) work provides a way forward with his reference to the ‘commonplaces’ as a means of achieving balanced curriculum development and I turn to this next.

Applying pragmatism to Schwab’s ‘commonplaces’ framework

In this section I draw on Schwab’s work to provide a means to effect the pragmatist’s approach to problem solving in complex situations. According to Schwab (1978), one- sided influences within education may result in successive ‘bandwagon’ curricula based on an unbalanced focus on some particular area of the curriculum or one particular interest group- similar to Dewey’s educational fads.

Pragmatism provides me with a useful theory from which to launch an investigation of teacher actions. In order to explore questions about teaching from a curriculum perspective, a framework is needed that is commensurate with pragmatic principles. Schwab (1978) offers such a framework through the commonplaces. He states that balanced curriculum development and change require deliberation with representatives of four “commonplaces” of educational thinking. These commonplaces are based on the fact that education always involves someone, teaching someone, something, somewhere (Schwab, 1978). By implication the four commonplaces must be

21

the teacher, the learners, the discipline and the milieu. I describe each of these briefly in Table 1.

Table 1: Schwab’s four commonplaces

Commonplace Description

Learners Teachers must be familiar with the aspirations and concerns of their learners; the generalities but also the particularities of the learners in the class.

Teacher Teachers are the active creators of curriculum and must be curious and knowledgeable about different

approaches. Teachers must critically reflect on their beliefs and actions.

Milieu The influences on students of their families,

neighbourhoods, and the wider society are crucial to the act of teaching.

Subject matter This directs teachers to address the bodies of knowledge in their particular curriculum area.

Defensible decisions about curriculum require all four of the commonplaces. Schwab states that without such deliberation, we risk the kind of unbalanced curriculum bandwagons which resulted in the ‘series of displacements’ that Openshaw and Ball (2008) criticised. Deliberation with representatives from all the commonplaces appears to be the key to avoiding the pitfalls of short term and uninformed changes.

While deliberation is important, it is not infallible. Kemmis and Grootenboer (2008) warn us that

We cannot know with certainty how everything will turn out. And so we are obliged to deliberate, drawing on our knowledge and experience, before deciding what to do-

22

and in the knowledge that things may turn out in ways other than we would wish. (p.19)

Schwab’s work in general has become increasingly important, perhaps because of the compelling case that A. Clarke and Erickson (2004b) make for a renewed recognition of Schwab’s influential and foundational writing. Based on Schwab’s commonplaces, A. Clarke and Erickson argue that there is a missing fifth commonplace implicit in Schwab’s framework: self-study. They state that “for teaching to occur, there must be somehow, a way for an educator to know, recognise, explore and act upon his or her practice” (p. 207). In this regard, self-study is the way in which the deliberation with the commonplaces can be enacted. Balanced curriculum development depends on many voices from different perspectives deliberating and co-creating the changes. The role of self-study is to promote full participation from all commonplaces within this process. The fifth commonplace (the process of self-study), conceived in this way, must facilitate a conversation that results in a curriculum that is both rich and rigorous (A. Clarke & Erickson, 2004b).

Within the literature there is a growing body of research referencing Schwab’s commonplaces (Attard, 2014; Craig, 2008; Lighthall, 2004; Misco, 2012; Pyle & Luce- Kapler, 2014; M. J. Reid, 2010; Ross & Chan, 2008). Craig (2008) specifically focuses on the commonplace framework to research her role as a teacher educator. In so doing, she makes a number of modifications to the commonplaces to shift from her role as teacher researcher to teacher educator researcher:

1. milieu is extended to include local and national policies specific to teacher education;

2. subject matter is extended to include content and processes of teacher education;

3. the learner role is taken by the PSTs;

4. the teacher role is taken by a teacher educator.

In response to Craig’s modification, I have included policies specific to teacher education.

23

Schwab’s framework of commonplaces is helpful for exploring teaching teachers about outdoor education and ensuring that the research design takes into account the key perspectives to ensure rich and robust curriculum development. This approach is developed further in the methodology chapter.

Summary

In this chapter I have covered a range of important context-specific information, ranging from my beliefs about teaching to those discourses which influence both OE and ITE. The contestations are profound and the dangers in any response to such contestations bring the risk of being arbitrary or faddish. Pragmatism provides me with a useful approach in its rejection of Truth, its acceptance that different discourses have a contribution to make, and its emphasis on the consequences of my actions. Furthermore, Schwab’s commonplaces point towards the perspectives I need in order to work towards balanced curriculum development. This chapter has brought these frameworks and approaches to bear on the problems facing me as a teacher educator in outdoor education and given initial direction to this doctoral research.

In the next chapter I examine the literature pertinent to creating quality learning experiences in ITE.

24