Chapter Thirteen: Reflections

What has been presented here is a personal story. There is no doubt that no other consultant would have handled this project in the same way as the consultant described here and one could argue, at length, the merits of various approaches to many of the situations described. However, most of the themes that have been developed throughout the story have general applicability (even though the approach taken by this consultant may not) and some of them warrant further discussion, albeit briefly, here.

The problem of getting started. The way the consultant got himself completely tied in a knot in trying to get a group started and get a focus whilst trying desperately not to impose his own vision on the group could arouse many, and varied, emotions in the reader. At the time, he was convinced of the importance of the process being genuinely controlled by those living within the situation studied (Brown, 1981:4). When Brown also states:
Action-research depended on those engaged generating questions which they perceived as important to them, and, with the aid of the researcher/facilitator, answering them themselves. Where researchers imposed their questions on groups, inducing participants to gather relevant data they were able to improve their understandings while leaving the participants no better off. (Ibid: 3,4)

it is, perhaps, understandable why the consultant was so sensitive about using the group for his own ends.

One possible conclusion that could be drawn from this study is that a slavish dedication to the purist action research model (at lease as described above) detracts

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

102

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

from, rather than enhances, professional growth in teachers. The consultant believed he could separate his own personal agenda for change from his agenda for supporting the group. This belief was obviously misplaced. Perhaps this is a personal trait in the individual concerned or, perhaps, it is a more common and general problem than the proponents of action research tend to admit. It is difficult to imagine a consultant working to support a group without having a personal agenda for change or, at least, without a desire to gather data that would have wider applicability than just to the group concerned.1

John Elliott, in his often cited description of action research in the Ford Teaching Project, seems to go further than Brown in recognising the outsider's agenda when he states that

our aspiration [was] to involve a group of teachers in the development of a theory about their own practice in this case of inquiry/discovery teaching that subsequently other teachers might have access to as support for their continuing reflection about classroom practice. (Elliott, 1976, p.3)

Elliott was concerned to develop a "practical theory of inquiry/discovery teaching" that "might be highly generalizable" (p.3). Elliott had a purpose in addition to the teachers' professional growth, and he was quite open about it. He was also quite open about nominating a focus for investigation.

Being completely open about the outsider/consultant's agenda at the beginning of, and during, a project gives the participants greater control over, firstly whether they will be involved, and, secondly, the direction the project takes. Because they have
1

This is a concept that appears to be an anathema to Brown as he states "It should be clear that knowledge produced in this way is personal and specific .. . Attempts to pass on to others the discoveries made through this process as anything but potential starting points for then own investigations can have limited success at best".

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

103

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

knowledge of what the outsider wants to achieve, they can negotiate how it will proceed.

Elliott was open about his desire for the teachers to adopt a reflective approach to the task (of developing practical theories). It is this researcher's observation that most consultants supporting action research are also quite honest regarding this aspect of their agenda. Unfortunately, it is possible many are not as frank about the particular agenda they have for educational reform. The consultant described in this report certainly was not. Without this knowledge the participants have no ability to negotiate and thus no real control over the project in which they are involved.

Where it occurs, this reticence on the part of consultants to declare their self interest results, it is now argued, from a view of teachers which regards them as incapable of weighing one pedagogy against another. In the case reported here it certainly arose out of the rather paternalistic view that the consultant's colleagues would not understand his higher level aims namely developing a reflective stance and adopting 'the RIME philosophy'.

Teacher Readiness to Adopt a Reflective Stance Given that the teachers in this project were never told that they were being asked to develop a reflective stance, they became remarkably reflective. Elliott notes that

After the first conference it became clear that our problem was how to motivate the majority of teachers to adopt a reflective stance, since the action research approach presupposes readiness to reflect. (Elliott, 1976, p.5)

As noted in the first chapters of this report, effective reflection requires training and certainly seems to require support (a conclusion reached by Elliott). Given that the

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

104

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

teachers in this project did develop many reflective skills, one can only wonder what they would have achieved had this been an explicit aim of the group.

Again, this is evidence that the consultant was not placing the same level of trust in in his colleagues as they were placing in him. He did not seem to believe that they would regard working towards developing a reflective stance as a worthwhile aim. It is now argued that he felt this way because he was asking these teachers to reflect in a vacuum. That is, his reticence to be honest about his aim to develop a reflective stance was a direct result of his reticence to state his pedagogical and theoretical starting point. Subconsciously, he felt that the teachers would reject reflection because he had failed to give them anything to reflect upon. Developing this argument further, it is suggested that giving the teachers the theoretical and pedagogical background of the consultant would have stimulated, rather than diminished, their willingness and ability to reflect. It would have stimulated discussion (thus providing a rich breeding ground for reflection), and demonstrated to the teachers that their judgement was being valued. For, by giving his view of the change that he wanted to see, he would have been saying to his colleagues

Here is my view. I welcome your response to it and would particularly like to know where you disagree with it. Whatever you think, you know that I am not trying to get you to do something without your consent I am not trying to sneak something past you.

In this way, the teachers would know that their reflection was real and valued, not just a psychological ploy to trap them into doing something without full knowledge of what they were doing.

As it was, the consultant was being dishonest with his colleagues and using them for his own ends without their permission. While it involves some pain for this

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

105

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

researcher to admit this it is not stated here as some sort of public penance. Rather it is highlighted because it is believed that there is a danger that the same fundamental dishonesty may be found in may similar projects.

Vicarious Experience and Teacher Professional Autonomy As teachers gain new experience (either directly, and perhaps through action research, or vicariously) they will add it to a whole lot of previous experiences. A teacher's experience is unique. Adding new experience will yield something that belongs to that teacher alone. The conclusions for action the teacher reaches will be based on her whole experience, not just on what has been added. Perhaps we too often fail to recognise this.

Some time after the period reported here, the consultant resumed work with the group and, this time, the focus of establishing 'Co-operative Learning' was adopted. Early on, in this second phase of the project, he showed the teachers a video tape of some classrooms which were organised for co-operative learning. He faced a strong temptation to believe that showing them the video would convince the teachers of the value of adopting a co-operative learning approach simply because it had convinced him.

The argument being developed here is that this approach incorporates a fundamental disregard for the previous experience of the teachers involved and it is an approach which is taken far too often in professional development activities. We take teachers through an exercise, show them a video or ask them to try a new lesson (perhaps even a RIME lesson) in an attempt to force them into adopting our pedagogy. We continually face the danger of failing to recognise that the experience of others is different to our own.

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

106

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

Clarke et al. put it this way

Too often teachers have been seen as a passive conduit between policymakers/curriculum-developers and pupils, and not as active creators and managers of the learning environment. Only relatively recently, perhaps since the mid-1970s, have we begun to take seriously the matter of how teachers, in ordinary classroom settings, can firstly, develop their own positions on necessary changes to classroom practices, and secondly, how they can be active partners in bringing about such changes. (Clarke, et al., 1990)

The conclusion of this researcher is that both the traditional research based, deficit model of teacher development and the action research model, where the consultant constrains herself to facilitating the process of teachers developing their own hypotheses, fail to provide an adequate paradigm on which teacher professional development can be based. Both have a place, but something in-between,where the knowledge and skills of the practitioner and those of the outsider/consultant are held in equal regard, is needed. The consultant has a pedagogical view based on experience and formal research. So does the teacher. Recognising, and being explicit about this strengthens the professional relationship between the two1. The following steps are seen as necessary for this kind of relationship to develop: 1. the consultant explicitly values the professional knowledge of the practitioners; 2. the consultant values his own professional knowledge, and is open about the value he places on it, with the practitioners;

In the project described here, the consultant outwardly allowed the teachers' views to have a higher value than his own, whilst retaining his inward conviction that his professional knowledge was superior to that of the teachers. In other models of professional development,

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

107

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

3.

the teachers realise that their knowledge is being valued as well as realising that the consultant has something of value to offer them.

It is only as such relationships occur that we can be sure that no-one is being treated (to paraphrase Marris, op. cit., slightly) "as puppets dangling by the thread of [others'] conceptions." Implications for School Support Given all this consultant's fears and anxieties about not controlling the puppet strings of his colleagues, and his resultant dishonesty with them, he still developed a strong professional supporting relationship with them. His prior experience as a classroom teacher was a significant factor in developing this relationship. It is suggested that the project developed the framework within which ongoing support could be provided to the mathematics faculty at Sapphire Plains High School. The critical factor in the development of this framework, it is argued, was the consultant's willingness to maintain his involvement with the school over an extended period of time.

What is it that consultant's should do? They must develop relationships with groups of teachers, because the practitioners in schools do not have time to support themselves and keep themselves abreast of even the most significant developments. There is evidence in this project that teachers can develop a professional reflective stance to their work, but they require support to do so. This support, however, must be more than emotional support or 'value free' support. Teachers must be given access to good, research based theory as well as to each others' best work. Clarke et al. state

there is an implicit view that the knowledge of the 'presenter' is superior. Both of these views must cloud the relationship between the consultant and practitioner.

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

108

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

Critical to our argument is the belief that a very considerable body of understanding about numeracy and appropriate teaching strategies exists in the hands of our best teachers. As a teaching profession we have failed to identify and document such good teaching practice, and this has meant that the collective wisdom of our best teachers has not been available to support other teachers interested in reshaping their own practice. (Clarke et al., 1990)

The consultant in this story indicated his conviction that at least Mike was one of our best teachers. Mike's understanding about numeracy and appropriate teaching strategies remained untapped because of the consultant's reluctance to present a clear description of the RIME approach and the way it can also be used to document good teaching practice. However, it is argued, the framework for developing the type of professional knowledge that Clarke et al. refer to, resulted because of the relationship the consultant built up with the group. Given a more open approach by the consultant, one could expect some more collective wisdom of our best teachers to have become available to support other teachers. (Whether this would occur is an inviting extension to the present research.)

This researcher now argues that consultants working closely with schools are in the best position to present thorough, and practical descriptions of the best theories of classroom practice and to be the channels through which teachers' own knowledge and understanding can be documented and shared.

3/Ch. 13: Reflections

109

Baird, J. R. & Mitchell, I. J., (1986), Improving the Quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study the Peel project, Melbourne, Monash University Printery Berliner, D., (1986), In pursuit of the Expert Pedagogue, Educational Researcher, 15 (7), 3-13 Borthwick, A., (1982), A collaborative approach to the school focused in-service for teacher development and curriculum improvement, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the AARE, 1982. Brisbane Brown, L., (1981), Action Research: The Teacher as Learner, Curriculum Services Unit, Education Department of Victoria Clandinin, D. J, (1986), Classroom Practice, London, The Falmer Press Clarke, D., Lovitt, C., & Stephens, M., (1990) Reforming mathematics: supporting teachers to reshape their practice, in Willis, S., Being Numerate: What Counts, Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria Cockcroft, W. H., (Chairman), (1982), Mathematics Counts, Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office Curnow, C,, (1986), The impact of computer technology on mathematics education, COM 3 (Journal of the computer education group of Victoria), 12 (3), 3-5 Curriculum Branch, (1984), The RIME Lesson Pack, Melbourne, Victorian Government Printing Office Curriculum Branch, (1985), Curriculum Frameworks P- 12, An Introduction, Melbourne, Education Department of Victoria Curriculum Development Centre, (1982), Australian Mathematics Education Project: A statement of basic mathematical skills and concepts, Canberra, Curriculum Development Centre Elliott, J., (1976), Developing hypotheses about classrooms from teacher's practical constructs. Interchange, 7 (2), 2-22 Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A., (1977), Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 335- 397 Fullan, M., (1982), The Meaning of Educational Change, New York, Teachers College Press

Bibliography

3/ Bibliography

110

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

Fullan, M., (1987), Implementing Educational Change, Paper prepared for the World Bank Seminars, Planning for the implementation of Educational Change Glazer, N., (1974), "The schools of the minor professions.", Minerva, 12 (3) 346363, cited in Schon, D., (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, London, Jossey Bass Holly, M. L, (1984), Keeping a personal-professional journal, Deakin University, Victoria Huberman, A. & Miles, M., (1984), Innovation up close: How school,improvement works. New York, Plenum Joyce, B. & Showers, B., (1980), Improving in-service training: the messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379 - 385 Joyce, B & Showers, B., (1983), Transfer of training: the contribution of coaching, in Joyce, B., & Showers, B., (eds), The Structure of School Improvement, New York, Longman Little, J, (1981), The power of organizational setting: school norms and staff development., Paper developed from final report to National Institute of Education, School success and staff development: The role of staff development in urban desegregated schools, cited in Fullan, M, (1982), The Meaning of Educational Change, New York, Teachers College Press Lovitt, C. & Clarke, D., (1988), MCTP Acticity Bank. vol 1, Canberra, Curriculum Development Centre Lovitt, C. & Clarke, D., (1980), MCTP Acticity Bank, vol 2, Canberra, Curriculum Development Centre Marris, P., (1975), Loss and Change, New York, Anchor Press/Doubleday, cited in Fullan, M., (1982), The Meaning of Educational Change, New York, Teachers College Press Miles, M., SaxI, E. & Lieberman, A., (1988), "What skills do educational change agents need? An empirical view", Curriculum Enquiry, 18 (2), 157-193 Schon, D. A., (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York, Basic Books Schon, D.A., (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass

3/ Bibliography

111

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

Shulman, L., (1986), Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 3-14 Smith, L. & Geoffrey, W., (1968), The complexities of an urban classroom. New York, Holt, Rinehard & Winston Stake, R.E., (1987), "An evolutionary view of programming staff development", in Wideen, M. & Andrews, I. (eds). Staff Development for School Improvement, London, The Falmer Press Victorian Education Department, (1983), The School Improvement Plan, Ministerial Paper No. 2, Melbourne, Victorian Government Printing Office Victorian Education Department, (1984), Curriculum Development and Planning in Victoria, Ministerial Paper Number 6, Melbourne, Victorian Government Printing Office Victorian Education Department, (1985), Ministerial Papers 1 - 6, Melbourne, Victorian Government Printing Office

3/ Bibliography

112

Appendix
The following is an extract from the consultant's journal. It is the basis on which Chapter 10 in the report was developed. 4th August 1987 Change of Meeting Day The last time I saw Mike, I told him that I had just found out that my Monash night was Monday and not Tuesday as I had thought, and that we would therefore have to find another night. SPHS has staff meetings on alternate Tuesdays, Mike had commitments on Wednesdays and Thursdays and no-one liked Fridays so we were a bit lost. We finally had to settle for every second Tuesday and see how we went. Hence today is the first meeting we have had for a couple of weeks. Significant Meeting at SPHS Today's meeting was a very significant one. I arrived there and Karen and Peter were sitting at the table talking while we waited for the others to arrive. I asked them how it was going and they chorused an enthusiastic 'good' in reply. 'It's even easier than using the textbook' was Peter's comment to which Karen added All the work that Mike's put in just makes it so easy. I've commented before about this but Mike is a special kind of teacher. He is quietly spoken, good humoured, clear, well organised, hard working and efficient. He is also just a thoroughly nice guy. At this point Mike and Bob came in. I told Mike how the other two had been raving about the work that he had been putting in. In typical Mike manner he just shrugged it off. I wanted to ask Mike and Bob how they thought it was going and we started talking about it but Bob had a question. 'I've got a question for ya' he said, 'Should the kids be using the formal method (in this case for finding 'x' and 'y' intercepts) or should they be using 'guess and check' methods as Doug Clarke suggests in his latest article in the Australian Maths Teacher (Clarke, 1987)1?' This was a very open question. I could have jumped right in with my philosophy or I could just bite my tongue and see what happened. I chose the latter. I asked Bob what he thought and a very interesting discussion followed. In this discussion a lot of issues were raised. The most important one for me was 'How
1

Clarke. 1987

Appendix

A.1

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

do children learn maths?' although this was not stated as a question in the discussion at all. There were two questions that this discussion really opened up: Why should children learn maths? and; How do children learn maths? This was fairly exciting for me because these are the two central questions to calls for change in mathematics education. It is also fairly interesting that these teachers had read the mathematics framework and thought it was a great document but had passed over these issues or at least the practical implications of the issues. Bob thought it was important to learn the formal method because otherwise the kids just tried to guess an answer and if they couldn't get it, they just gave up. I was really interested in the idea of kids learning for understanding rather than just learning how but I didn't say too much just yet. In the back of my mind throughout this discussion, was a lecture that Dick White had given the night before about Gagne's learning hierarchies. It occurred to me that any kid could probably be taught all of these intellectual skills if you used very carefully thought out hierarchies but very few would be able to attach any meaning to it. I probed a fair bit before coming in on the discussion as such and only then because Bob and Mike really wanted to know what I thought. Probing why they wanted to know what I thought they said they guessed they really wanted to know what most schools are doing in this area. I had to admit that most schools probably relied fairly heavily on formal methods. However, I also had to say that I didn't think this was a good practice. Interestingly here I am not being seen as the facilitator, but rather as 'the expert'. But at the same time, I am being seen as someone whose ideas are worth listening to and discussing I am becoming accepted as a colleague and I am able to say what I think without prejudice to the relationship even if it contradicts their current thinking. Its just something we can talk about. Bob had given the following example of an equation for which the kid might be asked to find the 'x - intercept' (a fairly meaningful phrase for most kids). Mike took this and showed the 'formal' method he would like them to learn for it y = 3x + 2 0 = 3x + 2 (finding x-intercept so let y = 0) 0 - 2 = 3x + 2 -2

Appendix

A.2

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

-2=3x

-2 = 2x 3 3

x = -2 3 My first reactions to this was to try to get Bob and Mike, particularly, to say why they would want kids to know this stuff. Was it because it was an important skill that the kids would need in their working lives or was it just because they had to learn it to pass the exams at Years 11 & 12. I said I thought that although you could probably successfully teach this method to most year nines it would have no meaning for the vast majority of them. Peter and Karen are fairly quiet during all this. I can think of two reasons why this might be so. Firstly they see Bob and Mike as the experienced teachers who should know. Secondly, they would have come across a lot of these issues in Dip. Ed. and much of it would not be as new to them as it was to Mike and Bob. This led into a whole lot of issues like: At a school like this you can't have kids going into Year 10 not being able to do this sort of question. (Mike) Of course not. Maybe in the long term you might want to change the school but for the moment you have to work within the system. However, you can teach it in such a way that it has some meaning for a lot more of the kids. If it's a choice between having kids learn the formal method and a method that they understand, I would go for the method they understand every time. I would hope (and teach with the expectation?) that all kids would learn both (and eventually the two methods would coalesce) but some kids will miss out on something... too often what they have missed out on is a method they understand because of teacher insistence that they learn the formal method... ...and if they are going to miss out on something let it be be the formal method. (Chris)

Appendix

A.3

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

I really think most kids can learn that (the formal method) with meaning especially if you do lots of balance type demonstrations (he draws a typical diagram at this point) with them (Mike) In Mike's class they probably would. I was saying before that Mike was a special kind of teacher. One of the things that I think is special about him is that he has an intuitive understanding ofGagne's ideas and is thus able to break a task up into all the sub-tasks that the learner must be able to do. He thus teaches with a high degree of success and of course, this motivates the kids. I was really interested in what Mike was saying here partly because I didn't think it was true. I think Mike was confusing understanding with being able to do. I would really like them to do some probing of understanding. I think the results would really challenge them. Perhaps some of Baird & White's results would be useful here. How relevant is Maths anyway? What use is what we teach to the vast majority of students? Can we teach the same syllabus in such a way that it is useful to the vast majority of kids. We would have to throw most of what is in our syllabus out if we used relevance as a criterion for inclusion (Mike). Bob is not so interested in the relevance part. Academic study is for the pure enjoyment of learning. My reply is that I am fairly sick of going to parties and having people going troppo when I tell them that I'm a maths teacher. What are we doing to all these people especially at a time when our country needs people with good maths skills - maths skills that can be applied. It is very interesting. Bob is saying these things but I think he is saying them perhaps mostly because he believes them but also just a bit tongue in cheek. He is almost exploring his beliefs about maths. There certainly does not seem to be any animosity between us even thought this could be a fairly contentious issue. We talked a lot about how you could teach this stuff so that all the kids in the class could get something useful out of it. My main suggestion was by putting it into context. Find a real problem, that is relevant to the kids, that it can be used to solve. Another issue was that the kids are used to the textbook approach. "If I went into my class and gave them something innovative, they'd say "Why are we doing this?'" (Mike) Karen was quite excited about this and remarked that that was what I had said in my ED4806 case study and the comment I made about kids needing to be changed.

Appendix

A.4

A Consultants Diary

Chris Curnow

I really think this was a really opening up experience for Mike. Karen and Peter did Dip. Ed. last year so they met a lot of this stuff then. But it is new to Mike and he is just beginning to come to terms with it. He is certainly not accepting it yet but I can almost see the wheels of his mind turning this over. As I said - a very significant meeting. Kids are used to playing the system. So they often don't like it when we change the system. Sometime during the session I asked Karen what she thought about my case study. She replied "It was good, I thought it was funny." This last comment was obviously not meant to be derogatory but rather almost a relief that someone else had experienced similar things to herself.

Appendix

A.5