#edureading - The too-be-published (?) Article
#edureading – The Article
Grumet (1990) posits that our “songs” ought to have three
parts: situation,
narrative and interpretation, this
idea informs the structure that follows. The situation section contains an
explanation of the professional learning community of educators that is the
focus of this paper. The narrative contains reflection from the participants
within the group. The interpretation contains a combination of the context and
narrative findings to produce suggestions for further exploration.
SITUATION:
Introduction to #edureading
On the 18th of September 2018 the following
message was posted on twitter:
“Alrighty, here’s my
pitch: academic reading room type thing, but without the academics. We read 1
academic article per month (maybe not the Christmas months), maybe #flippedlearning
related, maybe not. Then we have a Skype chat about the reading and record it. #AussieED #vicpln”
The resulting respondents, a group of educators with a
shared interest in academic reading begun communicating and further developing
how this idea could work.
The current group of around 30 members democratically
developed the following protocols: each month a single article is read and
discussed via the video discussion platform ‘FlipGrid’ prior to a twitter cat
on the final Sunday of the month. The discussion is guided by three prompts
that relate the articles content to practice and teachers lived experience.
From its very conception, the group sought to be contrarian
and counter to the culture of the types of discussions which are common on
social media. These discussions are typically shallow, “parallel dialogues”
(Eacott, 2018) where the majorities of parties have a vested, if not financial,
interest in the position they seek to defend. In addition, the group sought as
Dewey (1992) suggested a “destruction of the barriers which have divided theory
and practice”. Though as per the initial call to action, the group excluded
academics, what was ultimately being challenged was the type of “top-down
research that is often forced upon the profession” (Ravitch, 2014). The first
step for participants was to share their level of post-graduate study and frequency
of reading academic articles. Thus, from the beginning, teacher’s context and
teaching areas were overlooked to allow for a focus on a shared passion and
interest and as a way to overlook context and the traditional silos that
teachers are attributed to from their pre-service training.
Article 1
With much enthusiasm, the first article selected was Barak
Rosenshine’s 2012 paper ‘Principles of Instruction’ that produced much
discussion via the online video discussion platform FlipGrid and the ensuing
twitter chat. Teachers applied academic ideas and theories to their day-to-day
teaching practice where clear differences emerged around areas of focus in line
with teacher disciplines and a great deal of cross-talk and discussion
occurred.
Article 2
Initially participants selected between one of two articles,
a more accessible piece by Daniel Willingham (2009b), or the article that would
be ultimately selected ‘Cognitive load theory: Instruction-based research with
applications for designing tests’ (Elliott, Kurz, Beddow, & Frey, 2009).
This choice was supported by the awareness of teachers (especially those within
New South Wales) of the concept of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). Supported by
the Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) publications (2017)
and the conveniently timed release in November 2018 of their most recent paper ‘Cognitive
load theory in practice: Examples for the classroom’. This article in
particular was chosen as it engaged not only with a summary of Cognitive Load
Theory (CLT) but also linked that directly with the practical application of
test design. The response from participants was strong and overwhelming in
regard to their use of this information within their own settings. In
particular, a number of participants mentioned using these concepts in
Professional Learning they ran. In addition, the discarding of Willingham’s
American Educator article (2009b) led some of the group to participate in a
shared reading of the book ‘Why don’t students like school?’ (2009a) which
generated interesting discussions and further codified the groups shared
knowledge and understanding.
Article 3
The reading for Article 3 was Kirschner, Sweller &
Clark’s 2006 piece ‘Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An
Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching’. The original intention was for it to
be followed by a rebuttal to this piece (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007;
Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog & Paas, 2007; Sweller, Kirschner & Clark,
2007) A member of the group passionate about PBL shared a link to the
discussions held at the 2016 PBL conference in Zurich, which both Sweller and
Schmidt attended (Schmidt, 2016; Sweller, 2016; Sweller & Schmidt, 2016)
revealed a great deal of common ground and good will shared between these two
academics. Indeed, this agreement mirrored a great deal of the discussion had
by participants in regards to the utility of both of these methods, the most
common belief was that both pedagogical ideas were important for a teachers’
pedagogical repertoire, with a preference towards Constructivist ideas, likely
reflective of the discipline or progressiveness of the participants within the
group. As well as PBL forum videos, additional articles from the sequence of rebuttals
between Sweller, Schmidt and associates were shared and read (Hmel-Silver &
Duncan & Chinn, 2007; Schmidt & Loyens, & Van Gog, & Paas, 2007).
As a result of these videos, articles and another voting process the consensus
of the group was that continuing to consider this ‘false dichotomy’ between
Constructivist ideas and Cognitive Load Theory was no longer required.
Article 4
As a result of the intended article being scrapped (Hmelo-Silver,
Duncan & Chinn, 2007), the next article in line is Karpicke and Grimaldi’s
(2012) ‘Retrieval-Based Learning: A perspective for Enhancing Meaningful
Learning’. Having actively challenged the broad application of Rosenshine’s principles
of instruction for all disciplines and engaged actively with CLT, then
problematised this idea with Constructivist ideas. It seemed prudent to
challenge the concept of learning as a change in long term memory, as proposed
by Sweller, a concept openly questioned and challenged by the group. This paper
also provides challenges to teacher practice around revision, activating prior
knowledge and retrieval, but also has implication for student’s practices as
well.
The idea for #edureading had its genesis in the work of the
‘ResearchED movement’, a grassroots movement of teachers with an interest in
research in the United Kingdom and surrounds, led by Tom Bennett (2015). It
sits neatly alongside podcasts’ whose purpose is to make the teaching
profession more aware of shifts in research and how that relates to practice. Ollie
Lovell’s ‘Educational Research Reading Room’ is most consistent with the ideas
of this group, whilst Cameon Malcher’s ‘Teachers Educational Review’ serves
mores of a bridging purpose between policy and practice. Whilst more broadly
accessible ideas are communicated by John Catterson and Pete Whiting’s ‘Teacher’s
Talking Teaching’ podcast and Brett Salakas’ ‘#AussieED twitter chat’ which is
the lynchpin of the entire system of PLNs based around social media.
The ‘Flip the System’ series of books (Evers, Kneyber, 2015;
Netolicky, Andrews & Paterson, 2018; Rycroft-Smith & Dutaut, 2018) were
particularly inspirational in three key respects. Firstly, they featured
authentic teacher and teacher-leader voices and secondly, they were generated
and written via online means with minimal physical engagement, as stressed by
Netolicky (2018) within the introduction to ‘Flip the System Australia’. Thirdly,
these works suggest a dramatic revolution whereby teachers have greater say
over key educational decisions, something that this group aims to model in a
small way. Indeed, a small subset of the group is currently reading and
engaging with this book to support different ideas and approaches to leadership
it suggests.
Teacher
professionalism as complex
Too
often the teaching profession is spoken on behalf of and belittled through
policy dictats and also in some examples of research into practitioners. For
example, Kooy (2006) notes that “teachers can begin to examine and revise their
knowledge in unthreatening ways (My
emphasis, p. 673) and that “to survive teachers’ must immediately adopt
lifelong learning if they (sic) thrive in the profession.” (p. 671). While, the
intentions and accuracy of these comments are sound, the question of who speaks
for, and who speaks against, is of great import to teachers. Some have conceptualised
these types of debates as a conflict over the nature of teacher professionalism,
though the role of teacher and voice and representation is also crucial. To
those viewing the concept of professionalism as an ideological struggle between
“union leaders, bureaucrats and academics” (Sachs, 2001, p.150), teachers’
tacit removal from this conflict is problematic.
Intro to
Methodology
This piece builds on
the methodology adopted by the group and the theoretical underpinnings within
it, as such, many of the approaches described will serve double duty as
methodology and theoretical approach to collaborative discussion and
practitioner research (Ravitch, 2014). In regard to the Group’s methodology the
focus is on ‘inquiry as stance’ (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990, 2000; Cochran-Smith,
2009, Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 2009; Nelson, 2004; Ravitch, 2014) and ‘practitioner research’ (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 2009; Ravitch, 2014; Schulman, 2004). For the focus of this
article on the phenomenon the approach is a mixture of ‘self-study’ (Hayler &
Williams, 2018) and ‘narrative inquiry’ (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990;
Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
Group
Methodology
The approach of the
group can best be summarised as ‘inquiry as stance’ that aims to produce a
“more person-centred, systematic and proactive approaches to empowering and
advocating for one’s constituencies” (Ravitch, 2004, p.7). It supports the idea
that, “the teaching profession at the individual and collective level should
acknowledge the importance of professional self-narratives” (Gergen and Gergen,
1988; Sachs, 2001). Because as Sachs (2001) suggests that critical
self-narratives about professional identity move teachers towards an ‘activist
stance’ and the development of an ‘activist identity’. This ‘activist identity’
may be too forceful a phrase, but it purports that “both teachers’ and
learners’ voices to be heard on a par with those of the researchers.”
(Pavlenko, 2002), rather than a researcher summarising and generalising
experiences of teachers (Rust, 1999) as they are silenced by their exclusion. Bakhitin’s
(1986) dialogical theory states that thinking, and learning depends on multiple
voices, which is true of the methodology and participation of this group but
also serves as an active challenge to the debates around education in Australia
and also more globally. We, the participants partake in a “Professional
becoming” (Hayler & Williams, 2018) or a “constant becoming” (Wenger, 1998)
or as a “Continual modification in light of new experiences” (Dewey, 1938).
Article
Methodology
Inspired by the
approach of Hayler and Williams (2018) to use a self-study and shared
reflection on a process of “constant becoming”. As well as an approach that
gave equal weight to the voices used as part of the narrative inquiry elements
of their piece as with those writing the paper.
It disagrees with the
messages of Clandinin and Connelly (1999) that the researcher ought to add
“his/her own reflective voice” (p.12) and reject the idea of participant and
researcher having “two narratives” (p.11) but instead narratives that begin and
persist as a “shared narrative” (p.12). Furthermore it denies the concept that
narrative inquiries tend to begin with a pre-specified problem and set of
hypotheses, this piece aims instead to set the context, let the narrative
elements stand in support of the context and then attempt some form of
interpretation to link up the threads of this authentic and organic
manifestation of teacher professional development and teacher professionalism.
This article makes use
of a narrative approach (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Clandinin &
Connelly, 2000), but avoids the practices of embedding or transcribing quotes
from teachers, or researchers explaining and summarising the thoughts of
teachers under their care and tutelage (Rust, 1999). Teacher voice is presented
in parallel and with equal weight as the academic ideas that surround it.
Inspired by the approach of Hayler and Williams (2018) to use a self-study and shared
reflection into the proves of teachers’ “Constant becoming” (Wenger, 1998). As
well as an approach that gives equal weight to the voices used as part of the
narrative inquiry portions of this paper and those of the co-authors.
The applicability of
narrative inquiry for this type of paper is tied intrinsically to the need to
consider “issues of representation and audience” (Clandinin & Connelly, p.2
and p.16, 1990).
This piece adopts an
emancipatory methodology (Punch, 2013) that looks to reverse power
relationships and hegemonic formations of knowledge. As “Not the top-down kind
of research that is being forced upon many of us (Ravitch, 2014, p.6) but
rather “critical counter narratives that speak back to grand narratives of
groups” (Ravitch, 2014, p.8) and those in power. With the core idea of ‘talking
back to research’ and ‘talking back to power’ with the goal of becoming more
empowered ourselves as a result.
Calls for
a change in professional development and how #edureading is different
In 2001, Sachs’
suggested that “If the teaching profession wants to be the author of its own
identity or professional narrative then now is possibly the time for this to
occur.”. As this lofty goal is still something that is yet to be realised,
considering the development of professionalism is a useful place to start,
Hargreaves (2000b) sets out four ‘ages of professionalism’. Within his third
age of professionalism and professional learning Hargreaves (2000b) notes that,
“As the authority of external scientific expertise is being eroded, and
course-based professional development delivered by experts outside the school
is also being questioned (Day, 1999; 2002), many teachers are starting to turn
more to each other for professional learning”. In 2006 Kooy called for a
reinventing and reshaping of the contours of Professional development to
include teachers themselves as major stakeholders in their lifelong learning
processes that have only recently entered educational conversations (p.661).
Whilst, Hayler and Williams (2018) note that “teacher educators need to be
resilient crusaders if they want the aspects of their work that they value, but
which are often less valued in academia to be recognised for the good that they
bring” (p.107). This project aims to build alliances between teachers (Sachs,
2001) and actively challenge those who would make decisions on behalf of our
profession and define our very professionalism. Within the rising culture of
accountability (Heffernan, 2018) teacher voices are often silenced, as Paolo
Friere (1972) argued, the powerless are prevented from either self-determined
action or reflection upon their actions, resulting in a culture of silence.
Sachs (2001) displays this contested space as a battle between ‘democratic
professionalism’ and ‘managerial professionalism’. Democratic professionalism
is a movement from within the profession itself and managerial professionalism,
not surprisingly as emanating from the direct managers of teachers but also the
broader policies of accountability, constant improvement and effectiveness. She
positions these two definitions as a contested space where “union leaders,
bureaucrats and academics” engage in ideological struggle, it is worth noting
that the ‘profession itself is not positioned as a force at all in this
depiction of the struggle. Within this contested space we can see how a culture
of silence is able to develop and how movements by teachers amongst themselves
are the first steps in addressing these exclusions and the culture of silence
that pervades our profession.
The idea that “…Teachers,
working together to frame and solve education-related problems, can create
their own powerful opportunities for learning” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1992; Fullan, 1991; Lieberman; 1995 Rust, 1999) is a common one. This is
further supported by Hargreaves (2000b) who noted that cultures of teacher
collaboration are not just a self-indulgent teacher luxury but that they
improve teacher senses of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). It is through these
processes that teachers develop “knowledge-of-practice” (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999; Nelson, 2008) whilst also finding space for “taking a critical
perspective on the theory and research of others” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999). Nelson (2008) further notes that during her process teachers’ dialogical
interactions shifted from sharing teaching activities to critically questioning
relationship. In this process the critical questioning of relationships between
practice and research were set from the beginning.
By taking “an inquiry
stance towards collaborative work” we participate in “transformative individual
change and reculturing” (Nelson, 2004, p. 558) and by making this knowledge
“available for public scrutiny and other’s use in the present and future” (Nelson,
2008, p.550; Hiebert, Gallimor & Stigler, 2002) we lay pathways for others
to follow.
A full 20 years ago
Rust (1999) noted that, “There should be a number of options – all voluntary,
all there and available - - as supports to new teachers. Who should provide
this support? Teacher educators understood in the broadest sense - school
teachers, university professors, clinical instructors and peers.” (p.25)
Despite significant advancements in technology, the range of options in this
regard seems relatively limited, but a grass roots movement is emerging,
carrying with it a certain ‘Punk’
(Parkinson, 2016), ‘punk rock’ (Heffernan, 2019) or ‘Edupunk’ (Kamenetz, 2010)
aesthetic grounded in DIY learning and utilising low or no-cost productions.
These ideas run counter to the growing trend of polished ‘Edu-businesses’
(Hogan, 2016) producing word-perfect but generic resources, Instagram-worthy
classrooms, and concepts such as ‘Teachers Pay Teachers’ and the ‘edupreneur’
movements. Taking part in the ‘learning society’ or ‘knowledge society’
(Hargreaves, 2000b) is an increasingly complex matter that calls for new
formations and practices of teachers in the ‘post-modern 4th stage
of professionalism (Hargreaves, 2000a). In many ways the above positive and
negative examples of this new teacher professionalism represent the new
freedoms of teachers to choose, but very few of these ideas actively bring
together teachers in an equal and collaborative fashion.
Ravitch (2014) outlines
the value and import of practitioner research in five facets: deeply
contextualised, local knowledge; counter-hegemonic ways of thinking and
approaching theory-research-practice-policy connections and integrations; the
development of individual and collaborative research projects that push against
traditional expert-learner dichotomies which can serve to re-inscribe power
asymmetries and support structural oppression; local research; contributing to
an understanding of the methodological approaches that help teachers cultivate
the knowledge skills and dispositions that support and generate, taking an
inquiry stance on practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; 2009). The
approach taken to practitioner research explained here shuns the local and
contextual factors but achieves many of the other positive facets outlined by
Ravitch. Most interesting perhaps, is the way that the ideas generated by
practicing teachers is counter-hegemonic and anti-authoritarian. Not only by
challenging the ideas presented and co-discovered, but also by empowering the
“wisdom of practice” (Schulman 2004), at times at the expense of academically agreed
upon wisdom, as fluid as a concept as that is.
NARRATIVE
1.
Context Blind ideas
|
The group exists within a
paradigm that favours qualitative data, generated from PISA, NAPLAN (for the
Australian participants) and a focus on ‘Best practice’ (Longmuir, 2019).
Unlike the work of Nelson
(2008) who group PLCs around faculties and learning areas, this group from
conception and in an ongoing way is from disparate geographical areas,
teacher areas and even belief systems.
The participants
by-and-large represent teachers and leaders from within the ‘Accountability
generation’ (Heffernan, 2018) have either never known a pre-Gonski system, or
having witnessed the changes firsthand (Gonski, Boston, Greiner, Lawrence, Scales & Tannock,
2011; Gonski, Arcus, Boston, Gould, Johnson, O’Brien,& Roberts, 2018).
Ravitch (2014)
calls for “local” communities of practice whilst Ryan and Bourke (2013) comment
that they should occur “where they (teachers) work”, yet despite adopting
many of the elements suggested by these two pieces of scholarship this group
spurns localisation and contextuality. Instead opting for the type of
reflexivity that can only come from communicating around common ground
without existing on common ground.
|
2.
Ongoing Professional Learning (PLC / PLN
models)
|
The literature on
professional development shows almost without fail how ineffective it is (Cohen
& Hill, 1998; 2000; Wiliam, 2016)
Guskey (2002) notes that professional
development endeavours are deliberate and purposeful endeavours with clear
and well-defined goals. This is not true for this group, rather than
considering the goal of the group professional development, the goal is
simply teacher empowerment and collaboration.
Teacher development and
knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 1997; 2000)
Hargreaves & Connor
(2018) present the idea of ‘Collaborative Professionalism’ and present stages
of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), noting that stage 3 is one where
the group is created and sustained by people who have a desire to know rather
than having these practices imposed upon them. This action represents
teachers ‘New Democratic Professionalism’ (Stevenson & Gililand, 2015)
Guskey (2012) posits that for
most professional development the end goal is “the improvement of student
learning”, but this is not explicitly the purpose of this group or the work
that occurs here. The removing of this commonly presumed cog frees up the
participants to act as professionals, without the need to provide data, prove
student growth or a direct improvement on student outcomes, though these events
may occur without being directly addressed.
|
3.
Ideas not mired in local politics or school
climate – teachers from across nations, sectors, settings etc.
|
This support and the ideas
generated by participants importantly is not sensitive to school climate
(Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009) or their school’s leadership
style (Hirsch, Emerick, Church, Reeves & Fuller, 2006). Indeed, the focus
away from workplaces and settings was a conscious choice that allows a focus
on pedagogy and broader ideas than does within individual contexts.
|
4.
Teachers with Inquiry as stance
|
Cochran-Smith’s (2009) work
focuses on a different conception of teacher professionalism that emphasises
‘inquiry as stance’ rather than passive reception of educational ideas and
trends (Eacott, 2017).
Combining this with the
concept of teacher voice and sharing through collaboration (Rust, 1999), we
get close to the model being adopted.
|
5.
Social support
|
Social Support
A largely unintended but
positive outcome of the group has been the mutual support and encouragement
that participants have been able to offer to one another (Billingsley, 1993;
Johnson, S. M., Kraft & Papay, 2012).
Pomaki, DeLongis, Frey,
Short & Woehrle (2010) refer to a ‘social support buffer hypothesis’ that
assists especially new career teacher’s retention intentions. Indeed Howe
(2006) noted that the support of colleagues acted as a buffer to attrition
intentions (leaving the profession), an issue which has been widely noted in
education systems around the world (40-50% attrition in the first 5 years
etc. ADD REFERECNCES). This level of social support is surprising, as from an
outsider’s perspective this group and the ‘intellectual labour’ associated
with it represents an element of increased workload. Yet the concept of
social support and buffering allows an important outlet to
Models of teacher turnover
(Mobley, Griffeth, Hand & Meglino, 1979; Price & Mueller, 1981) emphasise
that psychosocial stressors such as excessive workload and lack of social
support can start a process of job dissatisfaction, turnover intention and
finally turnover. This is true especially for new, Early Career Teachers
(ECTs) who’s retention intentions diminish over the course of a year, whereas
more experienced teachers do not note this effect (Bradley, 2007).
|
6.
Talking back to research
|
Teacher self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997)
‘New Democratic
Professionalism’ (Stevenson & Gililand, 2015)
|
7.
Accessible and relevant for ECTs and more
experienced teachers alike
|
Important gains in teaching
quality in the first years of experience and smaller gains over the following
years. (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005)
|
8.
Rigorous debate around pedagogy, research,
etc. very often lacking in schools
|
|
9.
Small and achievable, low barrier to
participation
|
Wiliam (2016) writes of his
implementation of PLCs during his research projects and suggest that teachers
working in PLCs attempt only one change per month as an effective strategy.
He uses a range of metaphors to support why this is necessary, such as
‘engine repair whilst in flight’ and ‘stopping to sharpen the saw, rather
than continuing to cut’.
|
10.
Asynchronous video discussions and continuous
responsive discussion and networking via Twitter
|
Kelli’s section where she
shows off her ICT lingo:
Social Network Analysis
perhaps?
The group aims to create a ‘campfire’
or ‘watering hole’ in ‘Cyberpsace’, (Thornburg, 2001) or rather a virtual
classroom, but one where the discussion of ‘Core business’, or storytelling
(Rust, 1999) actually takes place.
The question
of teachers’ sharing over social media is one that is often explored through
a lense of bizarreness and outsider-dom, the concept of teachers ‘liking
their work’ is often presented as odd as curious (Bergviken Rensfeldt &
Hillman & Selwyn, 2018).
Yet effective professional
learning is increasingly acknowledged to involve teachers sharing knowledge
and experience with others e particularly in the form of “participation in a
network of teachers”. (Lantz-Andersson & Lundin & Selwyn, 2018)
|
Implications /
Discussion / Conclusion
Though only a very small case-study from an ongoing project
of teacher collaboration and a sharing of research.
Communities of practice that articulate issues of
professional practice can have profound impacts on teachers’ lives (Sachs,
2001).
Wegner (1998, p.148) intensified five dimensions of
identity:
1)
Identity as negotiated
experiences where we define who we are by the ways we experience ourselves
through participation as well as the way we and others reify our selves.
2)
Identity as community
membership where we define who we
are by the familiar and the unfamiliar.
3)
identity as learning
trajectory where we define who we are by where we have been and where we are
going
4)
Identity as nexus
of multi membership where we define who we are by the ways we reconcile our
various forms of identity into one identity
5)
Identity as a
relation between the local and the global where we define who we are by
negotiating local ways of belonging to broader constellations and manifesting
broader styles of discourses.
Learning trajectories (Hayler & Williams, 2018; Wegner,
1998)
These trajectories may be:
·
Peripheral (at the edge of the community, not
fully a member but contributing to one’s identity)
·
Inbound (Joining the community with the intent
of becoming a full participant)
·
Insider (full participation as practice and
identity continue to evolve)
·
Boundary (brokering across the boundaries of
several communities of practice)
·
Outbound (leaving a particular community and
moving towards a new one)
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays,
trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1986), 103.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control (pp. 3-604). New York: wH Freeman.
Bascia, N., & Stevenson, H. (2017). Organizing teaching:
developing the power of the profession.
Bennett, T. (2015). The School Research Lead. Education
Development Trust. Highbridge House, 16-18 Duke Street, Reading Berkshire,
England RG1 4RU, United Kingdom.
Bergviken Rensfeldt, A.,
Hillman, T., & Selwyn, N. (2018). Teachers ‘liking’their work? Exploring
the realities of teacher Facebook groups. British Educational Research
Journal, 44(2), 230-250.
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and
attrition-in special and general education: A critical review of the
literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 137-174.
Bradley, G. (2007). Job tenure as a moderator of
stressor-strain relations: a comparison of experienced and new-start teachers.
Work & Stress, 21, 48e64
Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) (2017)
‘Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand’.
CESE, New South Wales.
Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE)
(2018) ‘Cognitive load theory in practice: Examples for the classroom’. CESE,
New South Wales.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Boston College Evidence Team.
(2009). “Re-culturing” teacher education: Inquiry, evidence, and action.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 458-468.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.).
(1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. Teachers College
Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999).
The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational researcher, 28(7),
15-25.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009).
Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation.
Teachers College Press.
Cohen, David K. and Hill, Heather C.. (1998). Instructional
Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California. CPRE
Research Reports. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/4
Cohen, David K.; Hill, Heather C. (2000) Instructional
Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California.
Teachers College Record, v102 n2 p294-343 Apr 2000
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T.
(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher
education. Teachers college record, 111(1), 180-213.
Connelly, F. M., &
Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly,
F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most:
Investing in quality teaching. National Commission on Teaching & America's
Future, Kutztown Distribution Center, 15076 Kutztown Road, PO Box 326,
Kutztown, PA 19530-0326.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student
achievement. Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1.
Davies, P. (1999). What is evidence‐based
education?. British journal of educational studies, 47(2), 108-121.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of
lifelong learning. London & New York, Falmer Press.
Day, C. (2002). Developing teachers: The challenges of
lifelong learning. Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty.
Dewey, J. (1938). An as experience. Education.
Eacott, S. (2017) School leadership and the cult
of the guru: the neo-Taylorism of Hattie, School Leadership &
Management, 37:4, 413-426.
Eacott, S. (2018). Ranting, raving and complaining:
reflections on working against orthodoxy. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 1-9.
Elliott, S. N., Kurz, A., Beddow, P., & Frey, J. (2009,
February). Cognitive load theory: Instruction-based research with applications
for designing tests. In Proceedings of the National Association of School
Psychologists' Annual Convention, Boston, MA, February (Vol. 24, pp.
1-22).
Evers, J., & Kneyber, R. (Eds.). (2015). Flip the
system: Changing education from the ground up. Routledge.
Evers, J., & Kneyber, R. (Eds.). (2015). Flip the
system: Changing education from the ground up. Routledge.
Evers, J. (2017) Leraren aller landen verenigt u! (Teachers
of all countries unite!) https://onderzoekonderwijs.net/2017/11/11/leraren-aller-landen-verenigt-u/
Available in English here: https://mrkolbersteaching.blogspot.com/2019/02/jelmer-evers-teachers-of-all-countries.html
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
1968. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Herder.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational
change. Routledge.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and the
self as relationship. In Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol.
21, pp. 17-56). Academic Press.
Gilliland, A. & Stevenson, H. (2015) Teacher Unions at
the Heart of a New Democratic Professionalism. Howard Stevenson, Alison
Gilliland. From: Evers, J., & Kneyber, R. (Eds.). (2015). Flip the
system: Changing education from the ground up. Routledge.
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales,
B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of funding for schooling: Final
report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations.
Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W.,
O’Brien, L & Roberts, M. (2018). Through growth to achievement: The report
of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian
schools. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher
change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3) 381-391.
Grumet, M. R. (1990). Voice: The search for a feminist
rhetoric for educational.. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(3),
277. https://doi-org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/10.1080/0305764900200307
Hammersley, M. (1997). Educational research and teaching: a
response to David Hargreaves’ TTA lecture. British Educational Research
Journal, 23(2), 141-161.
Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.
Random House.
Hargreaves, A., & Lo, L. N. (2000b). The paradoxical
profession: Teaching at the turn of the century. Prospects, 30(2), 167-180.
Hargreaves, A. (2000a). Four ages of professionalism and
professional learning. Teachers and teaching, 6(2), 151-182.
Hargreaves, A., & O'Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative
professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin Press.
Heffernan, A. (2019). The ‘punk rock principal’: a metaphor
for rethinking educational leadership. Journal of Educational
Administration and History, 1-16.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A
knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can
we get one?. Educational researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Higgins, S., & Simpson, A. (2011). Visible Learning: A
Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. By John AC Hattie:
Pp 392. London: Routledge. 2008.£ 90 (hbk),£ 27.99 (pbk),£ 35.37 (e-book).
ISBN-13 978-0415476171 (hbk), ISBN-13 978-0415476188 (pbk), ASIN: B001OLRMHS
(e-book).
Hirsch, E., Emerick, S., Church, K., Reeves, C., &
Fuller, E. (2006). Creating conditions for student and teacher success: A
report on the 2006 Kansas teacher working conditions survey. Chapel Hill,
NC: Southeast Center for Teaching Quality.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A.
(2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A
Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist,
42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Hogan, A. (2016). NAPLAN and the role of edu-business: New
governance, new privatisations and new partnerships in Australian education
policy. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 93-110.
Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An
international review. Educational philosophy and theory, 38(3),
287-297.
Hayler, M., & Williams, J. (2018). Narratives of
Learning from Co-editing, Writing and Presenting Stories of Experience in
Self-Study. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 103-119.
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How
context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working
conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’
achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39.
Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and
the coming transformation of higher education. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Kolmos, A (2016) Competence Development with Problem-
and Project-based Learning. Presentation at PBL Congress Zurich. Retrieved
from: https://www.pbl2016.ch/de/english/congress-review/,
accessed on 25/2/2019
Kooy, M. (2006). The telling stories of novice teachers:
Constructing teacher knowledge in book clubs. Teaching and teacher
education, 22(6), 661-674.
Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Selwyn, N. (2018).
Twenty years of online teacher communities: A systematic review of
formally-organized and informally-developed professional learning
groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 302-315.
Lieberman, A. (1995). The Work of Restructuring
Schools: Building from the Ground Up. Teachers College Press, Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027.
Longmuir, F. (2019) Resistant leadership: countering
dominant paradigms in school improvement. Journal of Educational
Administration and History, 1-17.
Mobley,W. H.,Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H. H.,&Meglino, B.M.
(1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 493e522.
Netolicky, D. M., Andrews, J., & Paterson, C. (Eds.).
(2018). Flip the System Australia: What Matters in Education. Routledge.
Olson, D. R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in
the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational
researcher, 33(1), 24-26.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Narrative study: Whose story is it,
anyway?. TESOL quarterly, 36(2), 213-218.
Parkinson, Tom (2016) Being punk in higher education:
subcultural strategies for academic practice. Teaching in Higher Education. pp.
1-15. ISSN 1356-2517.
Pomaki, G., DeLongis, A., Frey, D., Short, K., &
Woehrle, T. (2010). When the going gets tough: Direct, buffering and indirect
effects of social support on turnover intention. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(6), 1340-1346.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of
turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543e565.
Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research:
Quantitative and qualitative approaches. sage.
Ravitch, S. M. (2014). The transformative power of taking an
inquiry stance on practice: Practitioner research as narrative and
counter-narrative. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(1), 5-10.
Reid, A. (2015). Building our nation through public
education. Australian Government Primary Principals Association.
Reid, A. (2018) Beyond Certainty: A process for thinking
about Futures in Australian Education. University of South Australia for the
Australian Secondary Principals Association.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005).
Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2),
417-458.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction:
Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American
educator, 36(1), 12.
Rust, F. O. C. (1999). Professional conversations: New
teachers explore teaching through conversation, story, and
narrative. Teaching and teacher education, 15(4), 367-380.
Rycroft-Smith, L., & Dutaut, J. L. (2018). Flip the
System UK: A teachers’ manifesto. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing
discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of education policy, 16(2), 149-161.
Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic
competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259-287.
Sahlberg, P. (2016a). The global educational reform movement
and its impact on schooling. The handbook of global education policy,
128-144.
Sahlberg, P., & Hasak, J. (2016b). Big data’was supposed
to fix education. It didn’t. It’s time for ‘small data’. Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.
com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/05/09/big-data-was-supposed-to-fix-education-it-didnt-its-time-for-small-data.
Schmidt, H. (2016) Problem-based learning: What works
and why? Presentation at PBL Congress Zurich. Retrieved from: https://www.pbl2016.ch/de/english/congress-review/,
accessed on 25/2/2019
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F.
(2007). Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture:
Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational
psychologist, 42(2), 91-97.
Shirley, D. (2016). The new imperatives of educational
change: Achievement with integrity. Routledge.
Schulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on
learning, teaching, and learning to teach.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies:
Transforming educational practice and research. Educational
researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
Slavin, R. E. (2004). Education research can and must address
“what works” questions. Educational researcher, 33(1), 27-28.
Stevenson & Gilliland (2015) Teacher Unions at the Heart
of a New Democratic Professionalism. In Evers, J., & Kneyber, R.
(Eds.). (2015). Flip the system: Changing education from the ground up.
Routledge.
Sweller, J. & Ayres, P. & Kalyuga, Slava (2011)
Cognitive load theory, New York, Springer-Verlag.
Sweller, J & Schmidt, H. (2016) Panel discussion.
Presentation at PBL Congress Zurich. Retrieved from: https://www.pbl2016.ch/de/english/congress-review/,
accessed on 25/2/2019
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007).
Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to
commentaries. Educational psychologist, 42(2), 115-121.
Sweller, J. (2016) Problem-based learning. Presentation
at PBL Congress Zurich. Retrieved from: https://www.pbl2016.ch/de/english/congress-review/,
accessed on 25/2/2019
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F.
(2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later.
Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Stevenson, H (2017) Teacher union renewal: developing the
power of the profession. Retrieved on 28/01/2019, from: https://worldsofeducation.org/en/woe_homepage/woe_detail/15100/teacher-union-renewal-developing-the-power-of-the-profession
Stevenson, H. (2018) Flip. the. system? Get. organised!
From: Rycroft-Smith, L., & Dutaut, J. L. (2018). Flip the System UK: A
teachers’ manifesto. Abingdon: Routledge.
Terhart, E. (2011). Has John Hattie really found the holy
grail of research on teaching? An extended review of Visible Learning.Journal
of curriculum studies, 43(3), 425-438.
Thornburg, D. D. (2001). Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial
Metaphors for Learning in the 21st Century. Ed at a Distance, 15(6),
n6.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a
social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2-3.
Willingham, D. T. (2009a). Why don't students like
school?: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and
what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
Willingham, D. T. (2009b). Why Don't Students Like
School?-Because the Mind is Not Desiged for Thinking. American
Educator, 33(1), 4.
Wiliam, D. (2016). Leadership for teacher learning.
West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
Running Word Count: 15,678
Comments
Post a Comment