The ability of teachers in higher education to develop knowledge in collaboration with

their students

Rudy Vandamme (BE) Erica Gasseling (NL)

Vandamme.rudy@skynet.bewww.forkmodel.net

GAC Assesment, Training en CoachingInfo@gac-coaching.nlwww.gac-coaching.nl

6th International Conference on Dialogical Self Theory Athens Sept-Octobre 2010

Content

1. Context: educational reform in the Netherlands

2. My PhD queste

3. Research method

4. Quantitive conclusions

5. Qualitative conclusions

6. Application in Training Teachers

7. Knowledge creation in higher professional education

3

Knowledge

Transmission

Students

Teacher as expert

Modern education paradigm: patriarchal

The teacher is transmitter of

knowledge

4

Modern education paradigm: industrial

School

Input

Teaching

Output

Learning

Learning is alinear processin the students

5

Knowledge

Students

Teacher as coach

Post-modern education paradigm: self-directed learning

Knowledge is Everywhere;The teacher is a coach or

facilitator

6

Knowledge

Selfdirectedlearning

Teacher as facilitator

Subgroup

Subgroup

Knowledge

Knowledge

Know

ledge

Knowledge

Post-modern education paradigm: self-directed learning

Colloborative learningamongst students

7

Our vision on education development

Education development is not a linear process to replace teacher-centered education by student-centered education, but to value all possiblities of the learning context, e.g. to construct education as a context of relationships.

NOT student-centeredNOT teacher-centeredBUT relationship centered

Ph.D Research queste

How to integrate institutional arranged relationships and the possibility of co-creative knowledge development?

Educationalstructure

Co-creativeKnowledge

Development

Thesis for this research module

The possibility of co-creative knowledge development in the classroom depends on teacher’s capacity to access different complementary I-positions in order to solve conflicting goals of education.

• Program targets

• Bringing up, ‘educating’ students

• Managing a mini society in the classroom

• Coaching individual students

• Doing research and knowledge development

• Inspiring young people, role model

The Dialogical Self theory, Hubert Hermans

I as teacher I as student

Self as monolithic

The Dialogical Self theory, Hubert Hermans

My knowledge

My partner

My students

Students

I as transferring knowledge

I as in search for recognition

I as coach

Dialogue

Extended Self

Books

School

Dialogical Self

Dialogical Self

The Dialogical Self theory, Hubert Hermans

My knowledge My students

My teacher

I as exploring worlds

I as ambitious

I as student

I as transferring knowledge

I as in search for recognition

I as teacher

I as creative I as detached from education

The interaction between the dialogical self of the teachers and the dialogical self of students

Research method: understanding teachers with the PPR and interview

• PPR = Personal Position Repertoire (Hermans), online instrument• Dialogue/interview• Professional (non-academic) higher education• 4 different schools (nurse, social work, HRM, communication)• 14 teachers:

– 3 men, 11 women– 4 young (< 5 years), 10 senior (> 10years)

• Procedure:– In every school one contact person who motivates the colleagues to

collaborate.– An opening email with a word doc attached, to frame the research and

to prepare for the online PPR.– Online PPR– Interview with each teacher (1,5 hour)– Dialogue amongst us (Erica & Rudy)

PPR: choosen repertoire

INTERNAL I-POSTIONS

I as expert

I as facilitator

I as responsable

I as passionated

I as structuring

I as teacher

I as student

I as artist

I as narrator

I as knowledge transfer

I as colleague

I as role model

I as evaluator

I as researcher

I as developer of knowledge

I as I am

I as I should be

EXTERNAL I-POSITIONS

My partner

My father

My mother

My children

My students from class 1

My students from class 2

My students from class 3

My sister/brother

My colleagues

God

My best friend

Somebody who needs help

The world

A teacher who is an example for me

De schoolleader

+ 5 EXTRA+ 5 EXTRA

Online PPR

Raw data of the PPR

I as...

My...students

Internal positions

External positions

Hierarchy of positions

Correlations

Some quantitative conclusions: hierarchy

10/12 teachers has strongest activation for I as I am

10/12 teachers indicatie lowest activation I as I have to be in school

Low internal: I as student, I as researcher, I as ego

High external: students (3 classes)

Low internal: world, God

Conclusions:

1.Typical for a teacher is to have a strong sense of being present ‘this is me’. They pace themselves in contrast with the school demands.

2.Teachers are very sensitive to connection with students! ‘their students’.

3.Doing co-creative research with students in placements, and contributing to the content professional community (writing a paper) is rare.

4.Teachers see themselves as translaters of knowledge from academic to professional context and helping their students to find their way through the learning career.

Some quantitative conclusions: correlations

The half of the sample (6teachers) shows a positive correlation between I as teacher and I as expert, knowledge transmission, rolemodel, evaluator BUT also I as developer of knowledge and not with being a researcher.

High correlations between the three classes > Teachers tend to do the same approach in different classes.

Only in one case there was a positive correlation between I as teacher and I as artist.

Discussion quantitative research

1.I positions are highly subjectively interpreted by teachers doing the PPR. Correlations are very unique for each teacher. It is not possible to generalise on a small sample. Each unique correlation profile has to be interpreted in dialogue with the teacher to become meaningful.

I as student - ‘no, I am not’ >> I as learning - ‘yes, always’

I as teacher - ‘yes, although I am a trainer, I still have a responsability’

I as Developer of knowledge - ‘yes I rewrite my syllabus every year’

I as researcher - ‘no, I am not working at university level’

I as artist - ‘no, I am not painting or sculpting’

I as coach - ‘yes and no’

2.The choice of I positions determines the outcome.

3.They have to learn to think ‘PPR’; it requires introspection.

4.Is it behaviour or narrative?

5.Is it created at the moment itself or is it a description?

6.Some connections are stupid, e.g. I as coach - a beloved person who is dead.

Further research vistas

1.Finding a way defining I positions in a less intepretative way.

2.Reducing external positions, related to the goal under study.

3.Enlarge it to a general mapping of personality.

4.Taking a representative sample so that an individual or smaller sample can be compared with statistical obtained averages.

5.Using the instrument as a starting point or an in between point in a dialogical inquiry.

6.Using the instrument as an educational tool for teachers.

SOCIAL ROLESI as teacher in a schoolI as father of childrenI as researcher at university

PSYCHOSOCIAL POSITIONSI as your teacherI as a fatherlike personI as an researcher in life

VALUATIONSTeachingParentinginquiryingChildisch

Interview questions

Interpreting data: What do you mean by...How are you doing education in classroom?From your biography, what is the psychosocial equivalent of being a teacher?How are you supporting the personal development (18years old) of the students?What challenges do you encounter in your own positioning?How do you develop knowledge through the interaction with students?

A dialogue

From valuation (SCM) to I-position

Transcript

interview

Valuations

PersonalPosition Repertoire

I as

Some qualitative conclusions: composition teacher PV

I as teacher - structure, strict ‘they are sponges’

X

I as mother - caring, loving ‘I see it all’

X

I as passionate - I want them to think for themselves

X

I as story teller

X

I as physican - students asking medical questions about themselves

X

I as coach - listening to individual questions

X

I as being aware of my pedagogical role - I as role model (‘see, this behavior is possible’)

Nurse school, Teacher Physiology, anatomy

My students are my sponges

I admit I am not developing knowledge;The content doesn’t fit

with the idea of co-creation

Some qualitative conclusions: composition teacher MdR

I as king - man, structure, giving direction

X

I as going for connection - woman, recognition,

X

I as Child - creative, playing, visualising ideas

X

I as producing creative result - integration of intership based data

Management, Teacher Human resources

I use my student to feed my own creative challenges.

Knowledge creation is the core of higher education;

integrating internship of students

Some qualitative conclusions: composition teacher CR

I as structuring - prestructured shedule

X

I as facilitator - giving materials

X

I as confronting them - ‘I go into it’, ‘hé what is happening here’, ‘be authentic’

X

I as giving space - sitting back

I know now better how to arrange education in orderto arrive at the learning

outcomes

Trainer communcation for teachers course

Knowledge creation is applied knowledge

Some conclusion

1.In general ‘structure’ and ‘connection’ will be present in any teacher’s profile. These positions are mixed in a way that brings together contradictory values of each (educational and humanistic).

2.Senior teachers can be succesful in different ways. Co-creation and knowledge development are not necessary to be a succesful teacher.

3.To be able to co-create knowledge development a teacher needs besides the general educational I positions (structure & connection ) a specific I position of creative knowledge development.

Discussion qualitative research

1. Doing only one interview gives as endresult an assesment. It is not enough to obtain data and categorize them. The researcher is out of dialogue.

2. Positions are sometimes explicit, sometimes not at all. It is artificial to speak about ‘I as ...’ if the person has just a feeling of doing something. - ‘Well if you insist, you can call it a position’.

3. I took the perspective of understanding teachers in how to manage the multiplicity of their job. It was difficult to keep in mind the reference of my research question. Is it possible to combine an understanding modus with a testing modus?

Further research vistas

1.Feedback the results to the teachers and discuss with them a mapping of there personality profile as teacher.

2.Doing a SCM with the material.

3.Looking for behavioral based patterning of I positions.

4.Starting with a general mapping of the dialogical self with a interview based agreement on the repertoire.

5.Using a developmental perspective to obtain a better inside in internal conflicts.

6.How can we study the open space (in between position) idea in the dialogical self?

7.Using constellation work to understand the relational field between teacher-students-knowledge.

8.How can we study deeper meanings of the presence of the ‘I as student modus’, discussed in literature as the necessary condition to connect with students?

Relational thinking, level 1: integrating relationships

Education is a context in which relationships are intentionally interacting upon each other in order to stimulate learning and development.

Collaboration

Learning communitycircle

Students

Teacher

Inspiration

Lear

nin

g

KnowledgeModel for

Training teachers

based on relational thinking

Relational questions, level 1

How is the knowledge voice present in the learningcircle?

How is the teacher’s voice present in the learningcircle?

How are the students’ voices present in the learningcircle?

How is the relationship between teacher and knowledge brought into the learning community?

How is the relationship between student and teacher part of the learning community?

How is the relationship between student and knowledge brought into the learning community?

Relational thinking, level 2: integrating multiplicity

The multiplicity of each participant makes the learning community more alive.

Student roleI as curiousI as naiveI as criticalI as I am

Teacher roleI as expertI as facilitator I as coachI as researcherI as I am

I as factual/ I as perspectiveI as incarnated ideaI as historical rooted I as related to someones biographyI as developmentalLearning

communitycircle

Knowledge

Relational questions, level 2

• Are you showing monolithic ‘teacher’ behaviour or a repertoire of different positions?

• Are distinct I-positions recognised by the students?

• Is ‘knowledge’ differentiated or put into the circle as truth?

• Are students accepted in their multiplicity?

• Is the multiplicity of the teacher fit for its purpose?

e.g. If you like to co-create, you need to activate a not knowing position.

35

Training Teachers with I-positions, level 1 & 2

I as architect

I as classroom manager

I as cocreator

12

8

I as FacilitatorI as coach

4

5

7

I as expert

I as researcher

Students

3

I as I am

I as student6

Relational thinking, level 3: integrating extended self

The dialogicality of all participants creates a complex field of interactions that enhance the possibility of development and creativity.

Student roleMy friendsMy teacherMy life world

Teacher roleMy studentsMy husbandMy childMy university

My costumersMy contextMy studentsMy media

Learning communitycircle

Knowledge

Relational questions, level 3

• How is the other (student/teacher/knowledge) represented as an external position in my dialogical self?

• What is the constellation of the different positions in the extended self related to each other?

• How is learning, researching and the unknown represented in the state of the teacher?

Relational thinking, level 4: integrating external relationships

The external relationships helps the learning to be embedded in context.

Student

Teacher

Learning communitycircle

KnowledgeAcademic community

Partner

Hobby

Childen

Friends

Parents

School

Colleagues

Student job

Parents

Siblings

Hobby

Lover

Friends

Placement

Manuals

Universities

Internet community

(Ken Gergen)

Relational questions, level 4

How are all relationships brought into the circle?

Home life of students

Peer relationship, classroom relationships

Home life of teacher

Relationship of teacher with the school

Relationship of teacher with his professional community

Relational thinking, level 5: contextual, holarchy

Teacher, students, knowledge and their relationships are ‘nested’ in the development of the bigger whole, e.g. The society (e.g.powerrelations, cultural patterns, educational reform, professional identity), development of human civilisation, global issues (e.g. Peak oil, financial crisis, migrations, ecology, climate change).

Student

Teacher

Learning communitycircle

KnowledgeAcademic community

Partner

Hobby

Childen

Friends

Parents

School

Colleages

Student job

Parents

Siblings

Hobby

Loved one

Friends

Internship

Manuals

Researchers

Internet community

(Ken Wilber)

Relational questions, level 5

In what bigger context is the education embedded?

What role does education play in that context?

How is the way education is constructed a contribution to the development of societal, ecological and global challenges?

Knowledge creation in higher professional education

Collaboration

Learning communitycircle

Students

Teacher

Inspiration

Curr

iculu

m le

arnin

g

Knowledge

Professional field

(placement)Experiental learning

Gap between theory and practice

In higher professional education two learning circles are present. In general, they are quit seperated.

Knowledge creation in higher professional education

Collaboration

Learning communitycircle

Students

Teacher

Inspiration

Curr

iculu

m le

arnin

g

Knowledge

Professional field

(placement)Experiental learning

Gap between theory and practice

Coach, supervisor

Knowledge creation in higher professional education

Knowledge creation is the product of the interaction between academic/theoretical frames and the professional practice of the students during his placement.

The teacher facilitates the construction of knowledge and manages the integration of the necessary curriculum learning and experiental learning in the field.

Collaboration

Students

Teacher

Inspiration

Curr

iculu

m le

arnin

g

Knowledge

Professional field

(placement)Experiental learning

Gap between theory and practice

Coach, supervisor

Knowledge creation in higher professional education

The lector is more skilled in research methods.

Collaboration

Students

Teacher

Inspiration

Curr

iculu

m le

arnin

g

Knowledge

Professional field

(placement)Experiental learning

Gap between theory and practice

Coach, supervisor

Lector

Lector

Knowledge creation in higher professional education

Collaboration

Learning communitycircle

Students

Teacher

Inspiration

Curr

iculu

m le

arnin

g

Knowledge

Professional field

(placement)Experiental learning

Gap between theory and practice

Coach, supervisor

If higher professional education wants to enhance knowledge creation, the teacher’s professioal identity should move towards the profile of ‘lector’.

The presence of knowledge creation depends now solely on the repertoire of the teacher, e.g. the presence of a desire to develop knowledge.