69
Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group Lorraine Males, Michigan State University

Presentation Agenda

  • Upload
    shawna

  • View
    28

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group Lorraine Males, Michigan State University. Presentation Agenda. Background/Literature Theoretical Framework Method Results Discussion. BACKGROUND. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Presentation Agenda

Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Lorraine Males, Michigan State University

Page 2: Presentation Agenda

Presentation Agenda

2Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

• Background/Literature• Theoretical Framework• Method• Results• Discussion

Page 3: Presentation Agenda

BACKGROUND

Page 4: Presentation Agenda

Why study professional development?

4Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Teacher

PD

improved practice and

student learning

?

Page 5: Presentation Agenda

Why study professional development?

5Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

decontexualized • contrived • unsatisfying • fragmented •

superficial • disconnected • non-cumulative

(Ball & Cohen, 1999;Lord, 1994; Wilson & Berne, 1999; Little, 1994)

Page 6: Presentation Agenda

What do we know about PD?

6Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

learning is a collaborative activity and “educators learn more powerfully in concert with others who are struggling with the same problems” (Elmore, 2002, p. 8).

a common thread in highly regardedprojects was the “privileging of teachers’ interaction with one another” (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 195).

Page 7: Presentation Agenda

What do we know about PD?

7Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

According to the “consensus view” on professional development should be

be designed to develop the capacity of teachers to work collectively on problems of practice, within

their own schools and with practitioners in other settings, as much as to support the knowledge and skill development of individual educators. (Elmore, 2002, p. 8).

Page 8: Presentation Agenda

What does collegiality look like?

8Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

According to Little (1990) two things that describe schools in which the teachers work collaboratively• Teachers are not working in isolation - they talk

to each other about teaching on practical and theoretical levels

• Teachers learn from each other “abandoning a perspective that teaching is ‘just a matter of styles’ in favor of a perspective that favors scrutiny of practices and their consequences” (p. 451).

Page 9: Presentation Agenda

Collegiality in Professional Development

9Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Although collegiality is rare, there is a growing body of research that focuses on “collaborative work”

collaborative work is built on the assumption that learning is a social activity and that communication among professionals is key to developing common language to ask questions and reflect on teaching (Loucks-Horsley, 2003 ).

Page 10: Presentation Agenda

Collegiality in Professional Development

10Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

This work includes the growing body of research on: mathematics teacher study groups (e.g. Herbel-Eisenmann & Cirillo, 2009;

Crespo, 2006; Arbaugh, 2003)action research (e.g., Jaworski, 1998, 2006; Atweh, 2004; Zack

& Graves, 2001).

Page 11: Presentation Agenda

Collegiality in Professional Development

11Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Despite the focus on collaboration these groups just like more traditional professional development groups have had difficulty building “trust and community while aiming for a professional discourse that includes and does not avoid critique” (Wilson & Berne, p. 195).

Issues include power and authority, conflicting values, and teachers not knowing how to provide critical feedback to their colleagues (Atweh, 2004, Jaworski, 2006).

Page 12: Presentation Agenda

Unanswered Questions about Professional Development

12Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

We still do not know how teachers learn from professional

development or how collegiality may help

or hinder learning

Page 13: Presentation Agenda

One possible hypothesis

13Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

According to Wilson and Berne(1999), the most successful professional development projects were “aiming for the development of something akin to

Lord’s (1994) ‘critical colleagueship’” (p. 195)

They hypothesize that this type of critical collegiality may help to explain how teacher learn

in professional development contexts.

Page 14: Presentation Agenda

Theoretical Framework

14Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

“For a broader transformation, collegiality will need to support a critical stance toward teaching. This means more than simply sharing ideas or supporting one’s colleagues in the change process. It means confronting traditional practice – the teacher’s own and that of his or her colleagues – with an eye toward wholesale revision” (Lord, 1994, p. 192).

Page 15: Presentation Agenda

Critical Colleagueship

15Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Creating and sustaining productive disequilibrium through self reflection, collegial dialogue, and on-going critique.

Page 16: Presentation Agenda

Critical Colleagueship

16Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Creating and sustaining productive disequilibrium through self reflection, collegial dialogue, and on-going critique.

Page 17: Presentation Agenda

Critical Colleagueship

17Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Embracing fundamental intellectual virtues. Among these are openness to new ideas, willingness to reject weak practices or flimsy reasoning when faced with countervailing evidence and sound arguments, accepting responsibility for acquiring and using relevant information in the construction of technical arguments, willingness to seek out the best ideas or the best knowledge from within the subject-matter communities, greater reliance on organized and deliberate investigations rather than learning by accident, and assuming collective responsibility for creating a professional record of teachers' research and experimentation.

Page 18: Presentation Agenda

Critical Colleagueship

18Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Embracing fundamental intellectual virtues. Among these are openness to new ideas, willingness to reject weak practices or flimsy reasoning when faced with countervailing evidence and sound arguments, accepting responsibility for acquiring and using relevant information in the construction of technical arguments, willingness to seek out the best ideas or the best knowledge from within the subject-matter communities, greater reliance on organized and deliberate investigations rather than learning by accident, and assuming collective responsibility for creating a professional record of teachers' research and experimentation.

Page 19: Presentation Agenda

Critical Colleagueship

19Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Increasing the capacity for empathetic understanding (placing oneself in a colleague's shoes). That is, understanding a colleague's dilemma in the terms he or she understands it.

Page 20: Presentation Agenda

Critical Colleagueship

20Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Increasing the capacity for empathetic understanding (placing oneself in a colleague's shoes). That is, understanding a colleague's dilemma in the terms he or she understands it.

Page 21: Presentation Agenda

Research Questions

21Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

How can the aspects of critical colleagueship exhibited by mathematics teachers participating in a teacher study group be identified?

How are the first three aspects of critical colleagueship exhibited by mathematics teachers participating in a teacher study group?

Page 22: Presentation Agenda

METHOD

Page 23: Presentation Agenda

Context

23Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Baseline Data Collection

Aug. 2005 – May 2006 Aug. 2006 – May 2007

Reading Group

Aug. 2007 – May 2008 Aug. 2008

Mapping & Reflecting on Personal Beliefs

Identifying & Reflecting on Performance Gaps

Pilot Study Cycles of Action Research A.R. cont…

Report onActivity Structures

& Turn Length AnalyticMemos

Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

Page 24: Presentation Agenda

Participants

24Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Two university researchers and eight middle-grades (grades 6 – 10) mathematics teacher-researchers

from seven different schools in one mid-western state

Page 25: Presentation Agenda

Participants

25Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

TR Gr School Setting Certification Yrs Teach Curriculum

Cara 6 Rural, MS Elem 21 NSF reform

Robert 6 Urban, MS Elem 7 Trad

Stacey 7 Rural, MS Elem/MAT 17 NSF reform

Gwen 8 Urban, Title I, MS Sec 18 Trad

Kate 8 Suburban, MS Sec/MS 14 NSF reform

Holly 8 Urban, Gifted, HS Sec 9 Trad

Mike 8 Urban, MS Sec/MSM 14 Trad

Owen 10 Suburban, HS Sec/MAT 2 Trad

Page 26: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis

26Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Pre-existing data includedtranscripts and videos from project meetings (41 meetings approximately 3 hours each)

Page 27: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis – Step #1

Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Reading GroupBeginning EndMiddle

Action ResearchBeginning EndMiddle

Page 28: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis – Step #2

28Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

All transcripts were coded in Transana (Fassnacht & Woods, 2005) for interaction patterns – praising, advising, challenging (Males, 2009) and relating.

http://www.transana.org/

Page 29: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis – Step #3

29Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Data reduction (Miles & Huberman, 1994)

Challenging• I hypothesized that I may be able to gain insight into critical

colleagueship (i.e., intellectual virtues)• literature (Little, 1990) described the difficulties teachers

have in engaging in these waysRelating

• I hypothesized that I may be able to gain insight into critical colleagueship (i.e., empathetic understanding)

• Seemed to be the most unlike challenging (alignment vs. opposition)

Page 30: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis – Step #4

30Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Challenging and Relating interactions within each phase were further coded for the following:

a) who initiated the interactionb) who received the initiationc) the primary content of the interaction d) the linguistic nature of the interaction e) the aspects of critical colleagueship exhibited

Page 31: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis – Step #4

31Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

For the linguistic nature I imported the challenging and relating transcript excerpts into Wordsmith Tools (Oxford University Press, 2008) and created a wordlist – this will find the most frequent words in the text.

http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/

Page 32: Presentation Agenda

Data Collection & Analysis – Step #5

32Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

I created the following types of representations for my data:a) a pictorial representation

boxes for the participants and arrows going from the initiator to the receiver

b) a matrix representationthe initiators were represented in the columns

and the receivers in the rows; each cell contained the number of challenges occurring between two participants

Page 33: Presentation Agenda

RESULTS

Page 34: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Colleague Example

34Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Gwen: In class, did you show them using Pythagorean theorem to solve the problem?

Owen: Yes. That's the way we did them.

Gwen: So you couldn't say, that a kid said, oh this is how you did it, so that's how I'm supposed to do it. So how is that different than, I know the distance formula, so that's how I’m going to do it?

Owen: Because the distance formula is an exterior entity which they have no actual understanding of. All they have is their memorization of what

the distance formula is as opposed to having them draw a triangle, which connects a problem they are presented with back to something else they are already familiar with.

Gwen: I understand that, but you taught it that way.

Page 35: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Colleague Example

35Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Gwen: In class, did you show them using Pythagorean theorem to solve the problem?

Owen: Yes. That's the way we did them.

Gwen: So you couldn't say, that a kid said, oh this is how you did it, so that's how I'm supposed to do it. So how is that different than, I know the distance formula, so that's how I’m going to do it?

Owen: Because the distance formula is an exterior entity which they have no actual understanding of. All they have is their memorization of what

the distance formula is as opposed to having them draw a triangle, which connects a problem they are presented with back to something else they are already familiar with.

Gwen: I understand that, but you taught it that way.

Page 36: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Colleague Example

36Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Gwen: In class, did you show them using Pythagorean theorem to solve the problem?

Owen: Yes. That's the way we did them.

Gwen: So you couldn't say, that a kid said, oh this is how you did it, so that's how I'm supposed to do it. So how is that different than, I know the distance formula, so that's how I’m going to do it?

Owen: Because the distance formula is an exterior entity which they have no actual understanding of. All they have is their memorization of what

the distance formula is as opposed to having them draw a triangle, which connects a problem they are presented with back to something else they are already familiar with.

Gwen: I understand that, but you taught it that way.

Page 37: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Colleague Example

37Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Gwen: In class, did you show them using Pythagorean theorem to solve the problem?

Owen: Yes. That's the way we did them.

Gwen: So you couldn't say, that a kid said, oh this is how you did it, so that's how I'm supposed to do it. So how is that different than, I know the distance formula, so that's how I’m going to do it?

Owen: Because the distance formula is an exterior entity which they have no actual understanding of. All they have is their memorization of what

the distance formula is as opposed to having them draw a triangle, which connects a problem they are presented with back to something else they are already familiar with.

Gwen: I understand that, but you taught it that way.

Page 38: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Colleague Example

38Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Gwen: In class, did you show them using Pythagorean theorem to solve the problem?

Owen: Yes. That's the way we did them.

Gwen: So you couldn't say, that a kid said, oh this is how you did it, so that's how I'm supposed to do it. So how is that different than, I know the distance formula, so that's how I’m going to do it?

Owen: Because the distance formula is an exterior entity which they have no actual understanding of. All they have is their memorization of what

the distance formula is as opposed to having them draw a triangle, which connects a problem they are presented with back to something else they are already familiar with.

Gwen: I understand that, but you taught it that way.

Page 39: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Colleague Example

39Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Gwen: In class, did you show them using Pythagorean theorem to solve the problem?

Owen: Yes. That's the way we did them.

Gwen: So you couldn't say, that a kid said, oh this is how you did it, so that's how I'm supposed to do it. So how is that different than, I know the distance formula, so that's how I’m going to do it?

Owen: Because the distance formula is an exterior entity which they have no actual understanding of. All they have is their memorization of what

the distance formula is as opposed to having them draw a triangle, which connects a problem they are presented with back to something else they are already familiar with.

Gwen: I understand that, but you taught it that way.

Page 40: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Interaction – The nature

40Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

stretched over multiple turns

questions were mostly “what” or “how” questions (very few “why” questions)

push receivers to think more deeply or think about things in different ways

use of classroom experience for reasoning

ifcould

would

but

or

Page 41: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Interaction within the Different Phases

41Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Far more challenges in the reading group phase than the action research phase

Phase # of Challenges

Most Frequent Initiators

Most Frequent Receivers

Reading Group

215 Kate (56) Owen(43)Helen (32)

art/idea (86)Owen (28)Kate (26)

Action Research

86 Helen (25) Owen(14)Claire (13)

Owen (14)

Page 42: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Interaction within the Different Phases

42Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Reading Group• authors ’ writing styles• general instructional strategies (e.g., problems to pose,

proof-styles to incorporate)• abstract notions rather than particular practices of

individuals

Action Research• mostly directed towards teacher-researchers presenting• approach to the action research project (e.g., research

questions, ways of collecting data)

Page 43: Presentation Agenda

Challenging Interaction – Critical Colleagueship

43Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Rejecting weak practices• recognizing alternative explanations for

phenomena• often initiated because of the receivers making

claims based on lack of evidence

Openness to new ideas• as a result of challenges often teachers would

express their openness to an alternative suggested by others

Page 44: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #1

44Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Helen: I'm wondering on page seventy-four, where they talk about functions or purposes for revoicing…. And I'm wondering, like if you think aboutwhat you do in your classroom do you feel like you do those about the same or do you feel like you do one more than the other? Or do you feel like you do one and not the other?

Kate: I don't think I create the alignments. I think probably what would happen is someone would make a conjecture and other people would react to it rather than having several at the same time. I don't see that happen very much. I see pursuing one of them or I ask for multiple explanations, but I'm not sure we investigate why one might be better than another assuming they are all correct, very often. I wonder how much I do that's truly revoicing as opposed to repeating.

Gwen: I would agree with that. I would say I probably do more just repeating.

Page 45: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #1

45Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Helen: I'm wondering on page seventy-four, where they talk about functions or purposes for revoicing…. And I'm wondering, like if you think aboutwhat you do in your classroom do you feel like you do those about the same or do you feel like you do one more than the other? Or do you feel like you do one and not the other?

Kate: I don't think I create the alignments. I think probably what would happen is someone would make a conjecture and other people would react to it rather than having several at the same time. I don't see that happen very much. I see pursuing one of them or I ask for multiple explanations, but I'm not sure we investigate why one might be better than another assuming they are all correct, very often. I wonder how much I do that's truly revoicing as opposed to repeating.

Gwen: I would agree with that. I would say I probably do more just repeating.

Page 46: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #1

46Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Helen: I'm wondering on page seventy-four, where they talk about functions or purposes for revoicing…. And I'm wondering, like if you think aboutwhat you do in your classroom do you feel like you do those about the same or do you feel like you do one more than the other? Or do you feel like you do one and not the other?

Kate: I don't think I create the alignments. I think probably what would happen is someone would make a conjecture and other people would react to it rather than having several at the same time. I don't see that happen very much. I see pursuing one of them or I ask for multiple explanations, but I'm not sure we investigate why one might be better than another assuming they are all correct, very often. I wonder how much I do that's truly revoicing as opposed to repeating.

Gwen: I would agree with that. I would say I probably do more just repeating.

Page 47: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #1

47Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Helen: I'm wondering on page seventy-four, where they talk about functions or purposes for revoicing…. And I'm wondering, like if you think aboutwhat you do in your classroom do you feel like you do those about the same or do you feel like you do one more than the other? Or do you feel like you do one and not the other?

Kate: I don't think I create the alignments. I think probably what would happen is someone would make a conjecture and other people would react to it rather than having several at the same time. I don't see that happen very much. I see pursuing one of them or I ask for multiple explanations, but I'm not sure we investigate why one might be better than another assuming they are all correct, very often. I wonder how much I do that's truly revoicing as opposed to repeating.

Gwen: I would agree with that. I would say I probably do more just repeating.

Page 48: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #2

48Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

The following takes place way after Mike shares the difficulty he is having with the heightened awareness of his discourse practices

Kate: It's a lot of responsibility just being aware. Heaven only knows we don't want any of that [responsibility]. And what I think Mike, not only is it harder that it's also that I'm less satisfied with what I've done.

Stacey: Cause you just think that after teaching for so long there's some day you're going to get to a point where you really feel like you're doing it the way you want to be doing it. And I've come a long, long way but it's exciting that there's still so much more to know and to try to do. But it's just never feeling like it's good enough.

Cara: And it's exhausting.

Page 49: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #2

49Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

The following takes place way after Mike shares the difficulty he is having with the heightened awareness of his discourse practices

Kate: It's a lot of responsibility just being aware. Heaven only knows we don't want any of that [responsibility]. And what I think Mike, not only is it harder that it's also that I'm less satisfied with what I've done.

Stacey: Cause you just think that after teaching for so long there's some day you're going to get to a point where you really feel like you're doing it the way you want to be doing it. And I've come a long, long way but it's exciting that there's still so much

more to know and to try to do. But it's just never feeling like it's good enough.

Cara: And it's exhausting.

Page 50: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #2

50Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

The following takes place way after Mike shares the difficulty he is having with the heightened awareness of his discourse practices

Kate: It's a lot of responsibility just being aware. Heaven only knows we don't want any of that [responsibility]. And what I think Mike, not only is it harder that it's also that I'm less satisfied with what I've done.

Stacey: Cause you just think that after teaching for so long there's some day you're going to get to a point where you really feel like you're doing it the way you want to be doing it. And I've come a long, long way but it's exciting that there's still so much more to know and to try to do. But it's just never feeling like it's good enough.

Cara: And it's exhausting.

Page 51: Presentation Agenda

Relating Colleague Example #2

51Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

The following takes place way after Mike shares the difficulty he is having with the heightened awareness of his discourse practices

Kate: It's a lot of responsibility just being aware. Heaven only knows we don't want any of that [responsibility]. And what I think Mike, not only is it harder that it's also that I'm less satisfied with what I've done.

Stacey: Cause you just think that after teaching for so long there's some day you're going to get to a point where you really feel like you're doing it the way you want to be doing it. And I've come a long, long way but it's exciting that there's still so much more to know and to try to do. But it's just never feeling like it's good enough.

Cara: And it's exhausting.

Page 52: Presentation Agenda

Relating Interaction – The nature

52Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Two types of relating:• initiator related to the receiver to

acknowledge agreement• initiator related to receiver

because of an emotional response triggered by the receiver

varied from quick responses to more elaborate stories

use of classroom experiences

identify with

resonate with

relate to

As Kate mentioned

Page 53: Presentation Agenda

Relating Interaction within the Different Phases

53Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

More relating in the reading group phase than the action research phase

Phase # of Relating

Most Frequent Initiators

Most Frequent Receivers

Reading Group

58 Stacey (16)Cara (15)Kate (13)

art/idea (14)Mike (14)

Action Research

36 Mike (9)Stacey (6)Kate (6)

Kate (13)Mike (7)Cara (5)

Page 54: Presentation Agenda

Relating Interaction – Content

54Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Reading Group• often prompted by Helen (university-researcher)• general feelings about carrying out daily practices with new

awareness of their classroom discourse • student behaviors and attitudes• contained some direct connections to particular classroom

practices

Action Research• often facilitated by Helen (e.g., “Well, you use did something like

this in your class, Holly or Gwen, right…”)• General feelings about the overwhelming nature of collecting

the “perfect” data

Page 55: Presentation Agenda

Relating Interaction – Critical Colleagueship

55Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Empathetic understanding• particularly when the relating was prompted by

an emotional response

Self-reflection• To express agreement or understanding teacher-

researchers often referred back to their own experience and reflected on these experiences

Page 56: Presentation Agenda

DISCUSSION

Page 57: Presentation Agenda

Identifying the Aspects of Critical Colleagueship

57Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

It was possible to identify some of the aspects of critical colleagueship in the discourse – particularly it was useful to identify these aspects within particular interaction patterns and by focusing on the linguistic nature of the talk (i.e., use of particular words)

Page 58: Presentation Agenda

Challenging and Relating

58Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Teachers challenged more than they related (in 5 out of 6 mtgs)

Challenging,

RG - July

Relating, RG - July

Page 59: Presentation Agenda

Teachers as Critical Colleagues?

59Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Although the teachers did exhibit some of the aspects of critical colleagueship, this study points to the difficulties that the teachers have in confronting practices.

Most of the challenging and relating where the aspects were exhibited occurred in the reading group phase where the focus was not on particular teacher-researchers practice.

Even when the focus of the meetings was more on what teachers were doing, the challenges and relating where not often connected to actual practices occurring in teachers classrooms.

Page 60: Presentation Agenda

To challenge or to relate to who and why?

60Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Frequently Challenged

Frequently Related to

Owen Kate

MikeKate

This study leaves me with questions related to why particular teachers where challenged or related to and how this may affect their taking up of the aspects of critical colleagueship

least experienced, confident, unhedged language, more “challengeable”

very experienced, confident, well-respected seemed to be further along in

her development – TRs wanted to align with her

Page 61: Presentation Agenda

Limitations

61Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Studying critical colleagueship by identifying interaction patterns may limit the aspects I could identify

I was the sole-coder of the data for the relating interaction

Limited generalizability of critical colleagueship to PD since I studied an atypical group and only a limited number of the aspects

Page 62: Presentation Agenda

Contributions

62Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Adds to the growing body of research on teacher study groups, action research, and how collegiality may manifest in these PD contexts

Outlines a method for analyzing teacher interactions using the framework

of critical colleagueship

Page 63: Presentation Agenda

Current study

Future Directions

63Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Page 64: Presentation Agenda

examine additional

aspects of CC

Future Directions

64Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Current study

Page 65: Presentation Agenda

examine more critically the role of the facilitator

examine additional

aspects of CC

Future Directions

65Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Current study

examine additional

aspects of CC

Page 66: Presentation Agenda

connections between CC and teacher knowledge and teacher

practice

examine more critically the role of the facilitator

Future Directions

66Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Current study

examine additional

aspects of CC

Page 67: Presentation Agenda

development of CC with pre-service

teachers

Current study

connections between CC and teacher knowledge and teacher

practice

examine more critically the role of the facilitator

Future Directions

67Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

examine additional

aspects of CC

Page 68: Presentation Agenda

Acknowledgements

68Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

all the participants in this project

Everyone here today!

my committee: Jack Smith, Beth Herbel-Eisenmann, Kosze Lee & Sandra Crespo (honorary member )

my writing group: Aaron Brackionecki, Aaron Mosier, & Sam Otten

Page 69: Presentation Agenda

Thank You

69Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group

Questions?

Lorraine MalesMichigan State University

[email protected]