Connection between theory and practice

- and different cultures of education

Exam project in the module:

Learning and Innovative Change in Practice, 9. semester

Master of Arts in Learning and Innovative Change

Aalborg University, fall of 2012

____________________

Name: Anne Marie Vinther

Submission date: 7th of January 2013

Student number: 20110977

Supervisor: Torsten Conrad

Preface This paper is based on my research at a Teachers Training College (TTC) in Nairobi, Kenya in the fall

of 2012 as part of the 9. Semester of the Master of Arts in Learning and Innovative Change.

I am grateful to both the Director and the Head of Department who welcomed me and allowed me

to observe, interact and teach at the college. I am also thankful for the help from students and

teachers, who were willing to answer my questions, participate, reflect and give feedback, it has

been essential for my assignment and research.

The paper consists of three separate parts that have the intercultural perspective on the

connection between theory and practice in common. The Documentation and the Exam Paper are

closely linked together by focusing on the same issue and the hypothesis of a LEGO Serious Play

workshop as solution and facilitator of solutions for the lacking connection between being a

student at the TTC and working as a teacher. The two documents can be read seperately but by

reading the Documentation before the Exam Paper, the reader will be introduced to the

background and empirical data before the Exam Paper goes deeper in the analysis. The article, on

the other hand, deals with the considerations and learning of the researcher concerning roles and

positions while trying to enter the education culture and fellowship among the teachers. This is

relevant and similar to any person, who try to enter a group or culture.

The Documentation and the Exam Paper is in English while the article is written in Danish. The first

two are written in English because the empirical data is in English, and because I would like to

send the empirical data and analysis to the TTC. The article is in Danish because it targets the

online journal by the Institute for Learning and Philosophy at Aalborg Uiversity called Reflexen,

whose contributions are made for and by the students there.

•An outline of the relevant documents and data from the project process about 'the connection between theory and practice'.

•Number of characters: 35.994 equalling 15 standard pages

Documentation p. 2-28

•Problembased study of LSP models on 'the connection between theory and practice'

•Number of characters: 33.432 equalling 14 standard pages

Exam paper

p. 29-42

•Artikel til nettidsskrift: Autoetnografisk analyse af min indtræden i praksisfællesskabet blandt lærerne på dette college

•Number of characters: 11.192 equalling 5 standard pages

Artikel

p. 43-48

Documentation: The project process

Table of contents

Introduction .............................................................................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Research Question ................................................................................ Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Design Based Research in the project process ..................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Empirical context .................................................................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Calendar in project process .................................................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Timetable .............................................................................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Analysis of education culture ................................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Three findings from qualitative data .................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Categorisation of data from questionnaires ........................................ Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Education Culture at TTC ...................................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

The workshop ........................................................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

LSP in theory ......................................................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

LSP workshop with goals and reflections ............................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Pictures of LSP Models ......................................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Transcription from workshop ............................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Ending ....................................................................................................... Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Literature .................................................................................................. Fejl! Bogmærke er ikke defineret.

Introduction

This document will present a selection of the documentation from my 9. Semester project. During ten

weeks at a Teachers Training in Nairobi, Kenya I observed and taught students and teachers. In this

documentation paper I will focus on the empirical data and the relevant analysis of these in order to

answer the research question for the combined project of the Documentation and Exam Paper.

After two weeks of observing 30 lessons where other teachers were teaching and having the regular,

evening and Saturday students fill questionnaires about their understanding of the concept of learning and

teaching, I begin teaching. In this Documentation and the Exam Paper I will focus on the LEGO Serious Play

workshop with students, which is titled: The connection between theory and practice. During the workshop

the focus is rephrased to: the connection between being a student at Teachers Training College and

working as a teacher. The material selected for this Documentation will therefore seek to be relevant and

bring perspective to that focus and, accordingly the research question is as follows:

Research Question

Which (intercultural) challenges become visible in an analysis of the models created in a LEGO Serious Play

workshop regarding the connection between being a student at Teacher Training and working as a teacher?

To reach a satisfactory answer to the problem statement I will document the following steps in the

empirical process in chronological order:

- Introduction to the research method and empirical context

- Analysis of the education culture on this particular Teachers Training

- Design and facilitation of LSP workshop

Design Based Research in the project process

This project is approached like a Design Based Research (DBR), which is a research methodology that

according to Paul Cobb et al. (2003) entails both “engineering” particular forms of learning and

systematically studying those forms of learning within the context defined by the means of supporting

them. This designed context is subject to test and revision, and the successive iterations that result play a

role similar to that of systematic variation in experiment. The experiments are conducted to develop

theories, not merely to empirically tune “what works” (Cobb 2003). This methodology is similar to my

approach, because of my idea of testing LEGO Serious Play workshops in a Kenyan Teachers Training, even

though the theories I develop must be relatively humble in that they target domain-specific learning

processes (Cobb 2003). The methodology does not insist on one systematic approach but there are many

different models of phases and also more specific principles to use.

The research approach of this project is inspired by the phases formulated by Thomas Reeves (2006),

because I find them useful to simplify and structure to the research process:

Phase 1: Analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners in collaboration

Phase 2: Development of solutions informed by existing design principles and technological innovations

Phase 3: Iterative cycles of testing and refinement of solutions in practice

Phase 4: Reflection to produce “design principles” and enhance solution implementation

These phases and the innovation model of the ELYK-project (Christensen 2012) has inspired me to develop

a model, which shows the structure of four different types of research phases in my DBR project. Every type

has a certain purpose and some unique methods attached. Even though the research process is iterative

also between the different tasks the model also indicates progress in the DBR project. In the model the four

phases in the process are numbered, where the purpose of each phase is part of the circle in the middle of

the model and the outer quadrilateral parts show the methods used to pursue the purpose of the phase.

This model shows the four phases in general:

Figure 1 DBR model in general

The following model illustrates the phases for this project process:

•Evaluation

•Analysis

•Redesign

•Iterativ process

•Documentation

•Generation of theory

•Reporting

•Design -framework

•Design principles

•Prototyping

•Desk-research

•Fieldstudies

•Domainspecific theories

1: Analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners in collaboration

2: Development of solutions informed

by existing design principles and technological

innovations

3: Iterative cycles of testing and refinement of

solutions in practice

4: Reflection to produce “design principles” and enhance solution implementation

Figure 2 DBR model on the project process

To understand why the phases of the project are as seen in the model, we must begin by understanding the

empirical context in which the problem is found.

Empirical context

The empirical context for this project is a Teachers Training for Early Childhood Development (ECD) at a

college in Nairobi, Kenya. The ECD Department educates teachers who primarily teach children at the age

from zero to seven years. The Teachers Training is part of a college, which also offers other courses. The

Teachers Training takes two years and offers two levels: Certificate and Diploma. Those students who have

finished/completed Secondary School1 are qualified for the Diploma course, while others have to finish the

Certificate course before entering a Diploma class. This Teachers Training offers both In-service, Saturday,

Evening and Regular classes. The In-service program is part-time and target students who are working as a

teacher, but desire more education, they are taught at TT during the school holidays: three weeks in

January, May and August respectively. Saturday and Evening students also work as teachers but go for TT

every Saturday or every evening respectively to qualify for the job.

However it is the classes of the Regular students, that is my main focus in this project, because most of my

lessons and the LEGO Serious Play workshops are with them. The Regular students are studying full time

and stay at the college. They have three lessons a day from Monday to Thursday, each lasts two hours and

1 After eight years of Primary School some continue with four years of Secondary School.

•Evaluation

•Analysis

•Redesign

•Iterative process

•Documentation

•Generation of theory

•Reporting

•Design -framework

•Design principles

•Desk-research

•Field studies

•Domainspecific theories

1. Problem:

Need for connection, transition between being a student and working as a teacher

2. Solutions:

- teaching that require active, participative and

reflective students -

(LSP Workshop)

- Portfolio connecting learning at TTC with

learning at TP

3. Experiments:

- Classes: Activities

- Portfolio implementation

- LSP workshop

4: Reflection:

- reflection, more practical experience, negotiation of meaning and definitions and better communication with gatekeeper for lasting change

every Friday they are doing Teaching Practice (TP) in preschools. The empirical study takes place from

August to October 2012 where the numbers of students were: three Regular students, six Evening students,

five on Saturdays and 90 students enrolled in the In-service program. The activities that are relevant for the

project are divided over my ten weeks at the college.

Calendar in project process

My teaching related activities at the college are here listed chronologically:

Week: Activity:

1-2 Observing five different teachers teach in four different In-Service Classes for 30 lessons

3 Observing and overseeing exams for the In-Service Classes

4 Break week, preparing for teaching, staff meetings concerning evaluation of in service and

planning of teaching for regular, evening and Saturday students in the coming semester

5-10 Co teaching with other teachers when the courses were called something to do with

‘activities’ for Regular, Evening and Saturday students

Having my own classes on Wednesdays and Thursdays for Regular students, where the

overall purpose is to increase the connection between theory and practice, and more

specifically the connection between what they learn at TTC and what they learn at TP

7 LSP and ‘The Creative Platform’ workshop for regular students, teachers and staff

8 LSP workshop with two regular students on ‘The connection between theory and practice’.

Portfolio workshop for teachers and staff

Timetable

My weekly teaching schedule from week 5 to 10 is documented by the timetable for the ECD Department:

Figure 3 Timetable for the ECD Department

Before week five when I began teaching, I had to try to understand the context and the understandings of

students and teachers.

Analysis of education culture

I will analyse the education culture at the TTC in order to try to understand and enter into this when

teaching and facilitating LSP workshops. To analyse the education culture I will go through the following:

My own prior understandings and prejudices – the glasses with which I see the culture, observations of

teaching lessons – what, how and why in the classroom, field notes from interactions with teachers at Tea

Time – a good opportunity to socialize and ask questions concerning what happens during the observations

in class and a selection of categorized data from a questionnaire to the students – showing their views and

understanding of learning. First I must consider my own prior understandings.

Prior understandings

Before entering the college I was aware of and wrote down some points on my prior understandings,

prerequisites and prejudices:

- I expect a thinking about teaching which is inspired by the curriculum tradition, which includes

deductively delivering knowledge to the students (prejudice + my experience from Tanzania)

- I expect a high level of teacher authority and respect for teachers as the unquestionable authority

(reference: Kari Kragh Blume Dahl (1999) and prior experience from Kenya in general)

- I expect less focus on different Learning Styles than in DK (prejudice)

- I expect less advanced ICT (Information and Communications Technology) such as computers and

software, and also older books than in DK (Because of the different financial and political state and

references (Dahl 1999).

I am convinced that my prior understandings always will direct me to focus on some things and not notice

others. Therefore I have chosen the hermeneutical approach, which encompasses everything in the

interpretative process including verbal and nonverbal forms of communication as well as prior aspects that

affect communication, such as presuppositions, preunderstandings, among other things. (Thisted 2011).

Being aware of my own prior understandings, the next step is to observe the teachings of other teachers

and how teacher and students interact in class.

Three findings from qualitative data

In this paragraph I will point out three points about the education culture at the TT that stands out when I

analyse the notes from my participative observations of lessons and informal interviews with teachers

(especially at Tea Time).

Before observing for the first time I wrote down three points to focus on in my analysis of the Education

Culture at this TTC:

- Teacher’s role/authority

- Implications of their understanding of learning

- The teaching methods

When observing, I had these points in the back of my mind, while I wrote down what happened plus my

own thoughts and questions about this. Five teachers taught while I was a participative observer in more

than 30 lessons during the first two weeks. I analyse the data in a categorized way, where the notes from

different lessons and with different teachers and classes are put together and sorted by the themes that I

recognize from the notes. In this document I have chosen to only include those aspects that are relevant to

the LSP workshop, which is central in the Exam Paper; the issue of time, concepts of learning and teaching

and the roles of teacher and student.

Time

The understanding and use of time at the TTC is very different from the Danish University College of

teaching and it is an example of how the general culture of Kenya influences the education culture. My

notes from observations describe how students and teachers often are at least 20 minutes late for class, so

it is normal for the lessons, which according to the timetable are supposed to last two hours, to only hold

one and a half hour. One teacher is always between 30 and 45 minutes late. On the other hand some of the

teachers keep the students later than scheduled to finish a subject, this may however be the excuse for the

students to be late for the next class. The following abstract illustrates our different ideas of time:

“When I asked about the issue of students and teachers being late for class at Tea time with the teachers,

they explained to me that the students come late. Because the students come late for class, the teachers

also are late. I challenged this argument by saying, that if the students knew that the teachers would be on

time, then they might also come earlier” (note from informal interview with teacher).

Another aspect concerning time is the fact that some lessons I observed, went on without any break or

change in the lecture. The following shows that one teacher tries to help the students find focus and

concentration after a long lecture:

“Then at 3.30 the teacher asks everyone to stand up and stretch because they look tired. She tells them to

sing a song and a young man in the back (who is very shy about reading out loud for the class) begins to

sing: Head, shoulder, knees and toes, and everyone else follow in singing and doing gesticulations” (note

from observation of teaching).

When trying to be included in and influence the education culture, the change agent must understand how

the African understanding of time is more circular than the Northern European linear schedules.

Concept of learning and teaching

The concepts of learning and teaching that I observe in the lessons at this TTC centre on dictation, lectures

with few discussions and in general a very curriculum focused ‘teaching to the test’.

A great deal of the time spent in the classroom is focused around dictation; here is an example of this from

my field notes:

“The teacher wants to add something to the notes so she dictates how they should write it down. In a two-

hour lesson the teacher starts by dictating for 45 minutes followed by the students reading out loud from

the notes one by one with sporadic comments from the teacher. After half an hour of this the teacher goes

back to dictating again for the rest of the lesson.”

Dictation is used a lot because of a lack of materials, but it also leaves an impression of one solution, one

correct answer and a belief in a paradigm, where there is true and absolute knowledge to be delivered

from one person to another – and the belief that it is possible to deliver such knowledge to the tabula rasa.

The Lessons, also the ones about activities such as Creative Activities, Social Science Activities etc., are

taught as lectures where the teacher is presenting knowledge to the students. They are focusing on

hearing, noting and revising the curriculum over and over. It reminds me of the expression: ‘teaching to the

test’ since they focus on what to know and do at the exam rather than what to know and do in their future

classroom.

Sometimes the teacher asks questions like: “What are chromosomes?” and “What are genes?” There is a

focus on knowing and understanding the curriculum by what is taught and what questions the teacher ask

the students. Three teachers do not ask them to reason, argue or debate the topic, at least not in the

lessons that I observed. Another says she wants them to discuss but does not really leave room for the

students to bring arguments, yet it also could be an indicator of her professional insecurity. The following

question and answer is an example of this: “Concerning the ‘subject of universal education for all’ are we

there yet or do we have much to do?” One student says: “We have made progress” - without explaining why

she thinks so. The teacher agrees and explains why.

One teacher uses interaction with the students, which sometimes leaves room for a discussion. An example

of this could be the lesson on Defense Mechanisms where he is asking the students to come up with

situations in which a person would experience denial. This turns into a class discussion on whether denial is

good or bad. He winds up the discussion with the correct answer in his understanding.

During Tea Time I asked the teachers about the possibility of doing projects instead of lectures. It turned

into a conversation about the exam system in Kenya, where there are no oral tests and the exams are all

about remembering and repeating the curriculum. One teacher states that: “lectures might be the best way

to help the students do well in these exams.” Another teacher proudly informs me of the fact that their

former students doing the exam were performing at the very top of the list in the country of Kenya. So they

are doing a good job of teaching to the test. However, they teach from the curriculum that the students

should facilitate learner oriented teaching with the pupils, but that is not what I observe them they do

themselves. Even though my understanding of the term may vary from theirs because of the different

cultural meaning negotiation (Bruner 1996), I believe that the focus on ‘learner oriented teaching’

expresses an emerging (yet it may be slow) change of paradigms in the country of Kenya. This is my

argument to the teachers and leadership at the college, who say they dream of becoming leading in their

country in the field of Teachers Training.

Roles

The last findings to be included in this Documentation are about the roles of students and teachers at this

TTC. The authority of a teacher is visible in a formal way by the fact that a teacher is not called by her

name, neither the first nor surname, but is simply called: Teacher.

One of the teachers enters a classroom where the black board is full of notes. They say yes and she asks

one of the students to come and cleanse it. This is very normal at this college. If the teacher wants to use

the white board but has no marker it is normal for a student to volunteer to go find one.

I am surprised that the authority gap between teacher and students is not bigger. The teachers are young

(mid twenties) and the students are adult so I guess it is not needed or natural for the teachers to show off

a lot of authority. This is later confirmed at Tea Time with the teachers, where one of them explains that

many students are older than him and therefore it is not natural to be so authoritative. In Kenya and Africa

in general (ref necessary?) they show a great deal of respect to age and elderly people.

One teacher stands out from the other teachers by complimenting the students a lot. I have not really

heard the others give compliments to students. But the students are very active in her classes also in

talking out loud, which may be caused by this positive and encouraging atmosphere that she brings into the

classroom. These qualitative findings are supplemented by questionnaire answers.

Categorisation of data from questionnaires

In the beginning of my stay at the TTC I gave the Regular, Evening and Saturday students a questionnaire,

because I wanted to see how they express their opinions and understandings about learning and teaching.

I will primarily use the questionnaires as a qualitative method, because I find it pivotal to gain insight into

the students’ understandings of learning and teaching and in so doing also their prior understandings. I

chose to begin the questionnaire with two single-choice questions regarding gender and age and a closed-

ended question about teaching experience. These questions can be answered by anyone, which is good

since Ib Andersen states, that it is a good idea to begin with questions that the respondents easily can

answer (Andersen 2008). They are followed by a number of open-ended questions designed to make the

students express their ideas and understandings about good learning and teaching. I received answers from

ten students: the three regular students, three (out of five) from the evening class and the four students in

the Saturday class. The Questionnaire consisted of seven questions as seen in Figure 1:

Figure 4 Questionnaire

The students’ experience with teaching is relevant because what and how they have experienced is a

determining factor for their mindset about learning and teaching. The experience of the students varies

from class to class; the Regular students write that they have no experience with ECD / Teaching. The

Evening students, who answered the questionnaire, have taught in schools between two and five years.

The Saturday students seem to have misunderstood the question since their answers express that they like

and find it enjoyable teaching young children, which reveals that the question should have been formulated

more clearly. However, I know that all the Saturday students just as the Evening students are engaged in

teaching jobs on weekdays. In this project where my Activities classes and LSP workshops are targeting the

Regular students, it is interesting to know that they have no prior experience with teaching before they

enter Teaching Practice.

I have categorized the data from the following questions by the different answers, because of a desire to

have the data form the basis of the theory that answers the research question. This is inspired by the

Editing analysis style, where you divide the material by identifying patterns and themes, then creating

metaphors and finally compare and contrast these (Thisted 2011).

The answers to question four (How do you think that people/children in general learn best?) and five (How

do you think that YOU learn best?) are similar. Four of the answers to the first question about how people

learn best focus on listening, observation and instruction:

- “By their participation in class, doing thorough revision and also being disciplined”

- “Children learn best because they are being taught by learned teachers and through observations,

listening and interaction in school.”

- “Children learn best by listening, observing and practicing what they have observed”

- “By listening to the instruction carefully and putting into practice what one has learnt.”

Another four of the students answer in a way that focuses on being active, practicing and discussing:

- “They learn best by doing”

- “People/children learn best through doing activities which make learning realistic or make sense in

their life. Like when they are the ones being involved in most of the activities”

- “In a free environment where one is allowed to study areas of interest”

- “Through discussion and practical”

The last two answers do not fit in either of these categories. One focuses on patience as an important part

of a teachers ‘personality’ and the other expresses the importance of the teachers approach to be

thematic, integrated and focusing on the level of the pupil. My expectation about rote learning and the

teacher delivering the knowledge, which was partly confirmed by the observations, are now challenged.

The answers to the second question about how they themselves learn the best are similar. However this

time the numbers are different, now only three students answer something to do with listening and

observing, while six students (twice as many as before) focus on being active learners:

Listening and observing:

- “Gaining new knowledge from my teachers”

- “I learn best when I recite instructions from my trainers thus teacher centered approach”

- “I learn best by putting into practice what I have acquired from a tutor”

Active learners:

- “Through answering questions in class and doing practical work e.g. Teaching Practice”

- “By being in class and being around the kids all the time, listening and talking to them”

- “By doing”

- “I learn best when I become the one solving the problem through guidance from my tutor.”

- “By specializing in areas that I feel inspired to. Areas that improve my talent.”

- “Through discussion”

The last answer does not fit into the two categories but focuses on joyfulness and a sense of humor as

important personality traits for a teacher. The answers show that the students wants to learn by actively

doing and participating in the learning process, but some of them think that people in general learn best by

the method, they are used to.

The last question that I find relevant for the analysis of the education culture is concerning the students’

opinion on what is most important to learn at teachers training. Once again I have tried to categorize the

answers. Two of the answers have knowledge at the centre:

- “To get some basic knowledge and skills on how I can teach kids in order to achieve their goals to the

best”

- “It is important to know that we are human and so are the children. They are very different from each

other and learning is a process, it is long term we learn everyday new things.”

Nevertheless seven answers focuses on people skills and functional methods:

- “The way to deal with the people I will be teaching whether they are children or adults. A way of

making them understand my teachings”

- “How to deal with others/personality”

- “Various ways of counseling children. Ways of inspiring children to greater heights.”

- “Ways of handling young children hence learning preschool lessons”

- “To learn how to handle children in a proper way”

- “I think it is good to be taught about how to handle young children and even classroom organization

and the sequence to be followed at ECDE”

- “The most important thing to learn is how to relate with the children and that all children can learn.”

From these answers I reckon that the students wants to learn something else than what they according to

the observations are taught at the TTC, where focus is on knowledge (what) rather than methods of

teaching (how). They do not refer to learning styles just as it is not observed in the lessons.

Since the question is asking what is most important to learn at Teachers Training, these students must

believe that it is possible to learn the skills at Teachers Training and not only when they have graduated and

started working as teachers. This aspect is interesting compared to the observations of lessons that focus a

lot on rote learning compared to practical skills.

Education Culture at TTC

The observations of lessons and informal interviews with teachers reveal that the focus in the classroom is

to understand and memorize the knowledge from the curriculum in order to pass the exams. However, the

analysis of the questionnaires shows that most of the students desire to learn ways and methods of

handling the pupils.

Most of my prior understandings and prejudices are confirmed. The teachers mainly deliver the knowledge

to the students through lectures, dictation and rote learning. I did not hear or observe anything concerning

the phrase ‘Learning Styles’ at the college, so it clearly is not something they are preoccupied with. The

computers and software at the college were old compared to the fast progress in the western world and

some of the students did not know how to download the document I emailed them. I expected old books,

but there were few books and most students had only handwritten notes that were copied out from the

teachers’ notes. This financial aspect had a big influence on the teaching, since hours of teaching lessons

have gone with the teacher dictating. I observe and experience an obvious respect for the teachers of the

college even though the teachers are young and therefore treat the adult students more equally than I

expected.

One can ask, whether I only saw what I expected to see, when I observed the teachings, since most of my

prior understandings are confirmed. The reason for this is partly my prior experiences with the East African

culture and the fact that the Kenyan Educational System is inspired by the Anglo-Saxon curriculum

tradition, where understanding is seen as a linear movement contrary to the Continental and Scandinavian

tradition, where understanding is viewed as process-related and dialectic (Wiberg 2011). The latter is

similar to the mindset behind LEGO Serious Play.

The workshop

Having focused on the education culture and mindset about education at the TTC, I began teaching. In this

documentation there is only room for the data about the LSP Workshop on ‘the connection between theory

and practice’ which consists of a short introduction to the LSP method, a presentation of the slideshow with

notes of goals before and reflections after the workshop, pictures of the LEGO models built during the

workshop and selected parts of the transcription from the audio recording of the workshop.

LSP in theory

The LSP Open-Source material claims that “LEGO Serious Play is a method that enables constructive

reflection and dialogue processes. During the structured process, participants use LEGO bricks to create

models that express their thoughts, reflections and ideas” (LSP 2010: 2).

According to its developers, LSP is based upon four theoretical directions, which are referred to as ‘The

Science of Lego Serious Play’. The directions are: 1) Constructivism 2) Constructionism, 3) Play and 4)

Imagination (LSP 2006). The notion of constructivism is developed by Jean Piaget, who discovered that

information and knowledge is not just absorbed, but actively built into knowledge structures. Seymour

Papert extended the constructivism theory into what he called Constructionism by arguing that learning

happens especially when engaging in creation of physical objects such as LEGO bricks – his theories are

often referred to as ‘thinking with your hands’ (LSP 2010).

Concerning play, it is argued that surprising insights and innovative ideas are more likely to occur in playful

environments and through playful behaviour. In LSP play is described as a limited, structured and voluntary

activity that involves imagination - that is an activity limited in time and space, structured by rules,

conventions and agreements among the players, and drawing on elements of fantasy and creative

imagination (LSP 2006).

Imagination is seen as a central part of playing. Imagination can be divided into three categories:

descriptive imagination, creative imagination and challenging imagination. Descriptive imagination not only

reveals what is happening in the often confusing world out there, but it enables us to make sense of it and

to see new possibilities and opportunities. Creative imagination allows us to see what is not there; it evokes

truly new possibilities from the combination, recombination or transformation of things and concepts.

Challenging imagination, often using deconstruction or sarcasm, overturns all the rules and wipes the slate

clean (LSP 2006). Especially the ‘creative imagination’ is seen as a central part of playing, in general.

However, in relation to LSP the ‘descriptive’- and ‘challenging imaginations’ have significant roles, too.

LSP workshop with goals and reflections

Dias Goals Reflections

- The overall purpose for the LSP

workshop is learning, but more

specifically the two points in the

Dias is in focus

- I also explained to the

students that there was

another goal: that they

experience an alternative

and creative teaching

method, which focuses on

students being active and

reflective in their learning

process - principles that are

different from what they are

used to.

Introduction to LSP

- This is a short presentation of

the ideas behind LSP.

- In a meeting someone begins

talking and the rest follows and

the meeting may end by

someone asking: Do we agree?

And everyone is nodding the

head, but do they really agree?

In LSP the ideas of everyone are

heard and respected.

- Some people think in squares,

others think triangles or circles.

Then when people talk, they

may end up thinking that they

agree and understand the

same. But the image at Dias 4

shows how the understandings

are still different in the minds of

the people. LSP seeks to solve

this problem by making models

with LEGO Bricks that everyone

can see.

- Dias five illustrates some basic

needs for good communication

and teamwork, which LSP

claims to meet.

- Dias six to eight asks and

answers why LSP uses bricks:

because of the constructionistic

emphasis on ‘thinking with your

hands’. Homunculus is a funny

This introduction (Dias 2 to 9)

was shorter than the first LSP

workshop they attended. I still

found the introduction

necessary, but made it more

interactive so that the students

could tell me what they wanted

explained or overlooked this

time.

The pictures and the graphics in

the presentation do not

represent the Kenyan context,

because the pictures show white

people in surroundings that are

foreign to the Kenyan students.

This may have made them think

that the LSP seems very

different, European and not

applicable to the Kenyan

context. I wish I had thought of

this before the workshop, so

that I could change some of the

pictures.

I just deleted the picture of

Homunculus, because last time

they focused on something else

than the hands that I focused

on… they laughed but

understood the point which they

did not seem to do at the first

workshop.

and distorted drawing of a small

human figure, the sizes of

whose limbs are proportional to

their sensitivity. The hands are

among the more sensitive parts

of the body since they have

more receptors than the knees

or the back.

- Play is an important part of LSP

since it is argued that surprising

insights and innovative ideas

are more likely to occur in

playful environments and

through playful behavior (LSP

2010). In LSP play is defined as:

(...) a limited, structured and

voluntary activity that involves

imagination - that is an activity

limited in time and space,

structured by rules, conventions and

agreements among the players, (...)

and drawing on elements of fantasy

and creative imagination. (LSP

2006:4)

- Dias 9 states that LSP is efficient

in developing a joint vision in an

organization and to find

problems and solve these, here

I refer to LSP’s successful

experiences from different

countries and types of

organizations and situations.

- Learning the ’LSP language’

- Dias 11 to 14 are there for the

students to understand the many

possibilities in building with LEGO

bricks

- Even though the students had

experienced these questions

before, they did not guess the

right number and seemed

overwhelmed by the many

possibilities.

Dias 14:

Making the students experience

the ’ownership’, you quickly

feel for something you have

made yourself.

- The importance of respecting

and not destroying the ideas,

views and models of others.

- To do the best you can with the

bricks you have chosen.

Dias 15-17:

- To help them understand that

the five bricks at the picture can

create movement and that way

be part of a story that they tell.

- To make them think creatively

and use metaphors and

storytelling

- To share something with the

group – open up

Dias 14:

- The competition was uneven

since one student still found

it very difficult to put the

LEGOs together so they

stayed together.

- They really felt ownership

when the iPhone test

destroyed their towers.

Dias 15-17:

- Childhood memory was a

bad category, since

everything model easily

could be claimed to fit into

this category. Another time I

will use a more specific

category instead.

- The other categories worked

- To have the students work with

whatever bricks they have got

- To show them that the

possibilities are within the

model

Dias 18: the same as above

Dias 19:

- To begin focusing on teaching

and more abstract ideas.

- To train for the coming tasks

- To see how they will build and

explain their “passion for

teaching”

Dias 18 to 19:

- Because of time and because

the recent task worked well, I

decided to skip this.

- Asking them to build their

passion for teaching may also

be difficult if they are not that

passionate about it, but find

themselves at the TTC because

it is possible and the dream

education/job is not.

Dias 20:

- For the students to see and

understand the views and

understandings of themselves

and each other

- For me to gain understanding of

their ideas and understandings of

“The connection between theory

and practice”

Dias 21:

- For the students to gain a

common idea and understanding

Dias 20:

- The students’ models and

explanations show that they

understand the phrase “The

connection between theory

and practice” different than I.

- In another LSP workshop I

would focus more on this

meaning making and

negotiation by either defining

it explicitly or prepare for the

discussion.

to continue from in the coming

task

Dias 21:

- Since the understandings of

the phrase were different

from what I expected and

wanted to focus on, I chose to

make another task.

No Dias

Build the difference between

being a student at TTC and

working as a teacher in a school.

- To have the students focus on the

difference between being a

student at TTC and working as a

teacher

- To focus on what may make the

transition easier from the role as

a student at TTC to the role of a

teacher at work (also in TP)

- The two students understood

my intention in this task

- They built two very different

models: one built the different

roles, the other built the

difference between the

classroom at TTC and at her

dream classroom in preschool

- When I had to come up with a

new building task it revealed a

downside to using a

PowerPoint show as a

teaching tool

Dias 23:

- To have the students think about

potential problems concerning

“the connection between theory

and practice”

Dias 24:

- To come up with and build ideas

and views to help solve the

problems from Dias 23

Dias 23:

- They have faith in authority

which is seen here because

they at first do not want to

criticize and point at problems.

Once again two different

paradigms meet and the

students and I have to find our

way together.

Dias 24:

- One student starts by

challenging my premise: that it

is possible to make the

‘connection’ better

- Then they both build and

come up with a solution each

- To reflect and evaluate the

workshop and the outcome from

the workshop

- Time has gone, so I have to

drop this and decide to have

the students evaluate the LSP

workshop another time

A downside about using the slideshow is that the slides are made beforehand which makes it more difficult

to improvise or rephrase a question. The task written in green is an extra task and therefore it was not part

of the slideshow.

Pictures of LSP Models

Task 1

The model of student 1 is to the left and the one of student 2 is at the right:

Task 2

The model of student 1 is to the left and the one of student 2 is at the right:

Task 3

The model of student 1 is to the left and the one of student 2 is at the right:

Transcription from workshop

This following section consists of the selected parts of the transcription, which are most relevant to the

analysis of the Exam Paper because of the restricted amount of space allowed in this Documentation.

Therefore, the introduction and their answers to my impulsive questions of whether they think they need

more TP at the TTC are not included here. I have also deleted the small talk in the process, but decided to

allow my questions and input in this Documentation because of the understanding that my role and

interaction with the students have a big influence on what and how they answer (Thisted 2011).

To transcribe the oral workshop implies considerations about the transcription method. In the transcription

process the oral speech is transformed into writing and this involves certain problems (Kvale 2004). I have

therefore tried to convert the spoken language into written language, which means that most of the

nonverbal communication and empty words are leaved out of the final document, yet I aim to keep the

context and understanding as true to that of the informants as possible. In the following F is short for

facilitator of workshop - which is myself, S1 means student 1 and S2 is short for student 2. (…) means that

something less relevant has been left out; … means that there is a short pause in the recording; what

appears in brackets is nonverbal communication, which is included to understand what is happening in the

situation.

Task 1: Build the connection between theory and practice

F How is the connection between theory and practice? (Looking at student 1)

S1 First I will explain the model. This is a model of a class. And first a class should be spacious. There is a teacher up here (pointing at the top of model), the teacher is a bit raised and the pupils are seated in their lockers. So here is the teacher and it is time to teach the concept about colors. This is the blackboard, it is just aside here.

F Yes

S1 The teacher is trying to teach about the concept of colors. That there are different colors, like there is white, black, blue, orange, yellow and green (pointing at the bricks in different colors as she mentions their names). The teacher is expecting that, because he has taught using the materials, the real objects in these colors, the children will get to know them well.

F So how is that the connection between theory and practice? (…) You have made up a classroom and it is very practical showing the colors and everything. Theory is what we learn here at the college. How is the connection between what you learn at the college and reality in an ECD (Early Childhood Education) school?

…

S1 I think that you as a teacher, you learn to be creative in terms of creativity. This is just a model but I could have used another model to model some materials which will make these children understand well.

F So you are using what you are taught by using the materials and making the children experience?

S1 Yes, I think the use of materials will help the children to understand the concept rather than teaching them without materials. This way the learning is real to the kids. The learning will be different for the kids and when they go back to their homes, they can just know that this tree is green; this boy is which color…

F Ok. So how did you (asking the other student) build the model about the connection between theory and practice?

S2 This is a class first and foremost. You can see that the teacher is here in front of the pupils and there is the blackboard and the duster. Here are the materials that the teacher is trying to explain to the pupils. They can use crayons, flashcards etc. for example in drawing pictures and decorating. They are just being taught on how to be creative. And the teacher is trying to explain to them.

F Ok, so does this, a classroom with black board and materials, symbolize the difference between theory and practice?

S2 The theory is the way they are taught, on how they use the knowledge to draw and how they do it practically by drawing the pictures and then color them with the crayons, maybe using those flashcards… and decorating them with different colors according to how they will be taught. Now they will do it practically after learning it like a theory in class.

F So, they learn it as a theory and then they do it practically?

S2 Yes.

F Ok, that is how you connect it.

Task 2: Build the difference between being a student at TTC and working as a teacher in a school

F And now I will ask you, it might be a little bit difficult but try to build how it is for you to go from college, Teachers Training to being a teacher in school. Which problems or challenges do you experience going from the Teacher Training to teaching? It is from one setting to another setting, so what does it demand of you as a teacher? What is changing?

(They begin building)

You can also build the difference for you from being a student to being a teacher or a problem that you face going from teachers training to teaching. It is a transition, it is a change. What do you need as a student in teachers training and what do you need as a teacher? Which skills do you need in college, teacher training and which skills do you need as a teacher?

…

F So now it is time. Let us hear you explain about the models.

S2 In the college you have to think that you are the vey lowest, down floor. You have to be humble, disciplined and patient when you are training didactical. And then you climb the stairs, as you continue studying and doing your exams for one year to two years. As you continue climbing, which will only happen if you are humble, patient, disciplined, and respectful, you reach up here (points to the top of model) where you become a teacher, and then you are enjoying the fruits of your work. So that way I have shown how you have to climb the stairs to become a real teacher.

F The fruits, is that the paycheck?

S2 It is the qualifications, which can qualify you to be employed by an accountant of payment institution. At that time it will be obvious, that you have the foundation from down there (pointing at the lower half of the model).

F So how are the characteristics of a teacher being here (pointing at top of model) different from the student here (pointing at the lower part of model)? You said that the student had to be humble, disciplined and patient, so what should the teacher be like?

S2 Here (pointing at top) it will be much easier as compared to when she was a student, because she was struggling to achieve maybe a better life. Now she is enjoying the fruits of education and so forth.

F Will the personality be different?

S2 It will be, because she will now be an experienced teacher who can teach with confidence. She has had a world of change.

F Ok, so how is the personality of the teacher different from that of the student? You said that the student should be humble, patient and disciplined. Which characteristics, could you say three things, about the teacher who have reached that point (pointing at model) and is enjoying the fruits?

S2 The teacher should be creative, determined and also confident, whatever he or she is doing and deliver it to the people.

F Ok, very interesting. S1, yours is different. I see that yours do not go up, it is wide.

S1 Can you repeat the question?

F The question was: What is the difference for you from being a student at teachers training to being a teacher at an ECD school?

S1 Here I am at this college (pointing at model), we are just being taught some skills but the class does not have any materials. You can see that it is just blank. Here are the seats and the black board. Here I am and the teacher is just preparing the work for us to do. So I think we have been taught a lot and as you said: you as a teacher should be creative in the school. The learners come and the learning is just taking place. So here I have just left the college, because I am already through with my education. I have just decided to open my school, and this is my school (pointing at model). So the concepts and knowledge I have been taught at this college I use to make my good, private school. So here is the door, the class is well spaced, here I am as a teacher, here are the pupils who are seated. I think there are a lot of materials, which I am trying to use to teach children. I am trying to teach on certain subjects of whom I am trying to use the real objects, as you can see the materials are real and there are a lot. So there is a big difference. Because I have used my time well while I was in this college, I have tried to come up with a way which I can use so the pupils can get to understand what I am teaching them.

F So the difference between the college and the school is that in the school you have a lot of materials, you do not have that at the college? Do you think we should have a lot of materials here at the college for us to practice teaching with the materials?

S1 At college you are just provided with the materials for you to go and improvise. The teachers are not drawing for you those beautiful pictures, but you are being given those materials as blanks, so that you may go and improvise. I think that because the class is empty, there are no materials. But in real sense we will be making them, but they will not be displayed in the class.

F Do you think that it is a problem?

S1 No, so long as I know what I have been taught and so long as I have been improvising my materials and kept them.

F Ok, very interesting. You have made some good models to show how you think of it.

Task 3: build how/if what you experience at the TTC and the reality as a teacher can become closer

related

F Now we see that there is a difference between getting the theory and doing it in practice. Can you build a solution so that it becomes closer related? So that what we do here (pointing at the model of teachers training college) is closer to what we need to do here (pointing at the model of the ECD classroom). The personality traits we need here (pointing at the top of the tall model), how can we learn them here (pointing at the bottom of the tall model).

S2 I think…

F I am asking you to think and then to build it. You can build a solution or you can add to the model you already have. You can remove, change the model or make scenarios. But how can what we experience at the college and the reality as a teacher become closer so that you are better equipped for the job? You are told to be creative at college and you are supposed to be creative in the school. Here you are told to make a lot of materials; here you do a lot of materials. Do you find solutions or ways to make the two closer related to each other?

S2 I may be building a…

F Try to build before you share. If you do not think that it could be done any different, then it is ok. But if you think that it could be done differently, then try to build it.

(…)

While Student 2 is finishing up, let us hear from student 1. Is it possible to make the transition from being a student to working as a teacher easier?

S1 Yes, you can see this is a mirror here. So I think me as a student in order to have gone from being a student to a teacher I have reflected all that we have been taught by the teacher. This is a mirror so I have reflected everything, to be creative, to be audible, and to be happy. I have reflected everything so this is a mirror from the college to my own school.

F Interesting. So you did not change the model of the school?

S1 No, I did not change it.

(Noise from Student 2’s model falling apart again)

F Oh, sorry! So now tell me…

S2 I do not think that you can make the transition easier, so…

F You are allowed to have your own opinion, so if you think that the transition between being a student at a Teachers Training College and a teacher at an ECD school could not be done differently it is ok. But what is this (pointing at an addition to her previous model)? Is it something you made because I told you to build or is it something that you think can actually be helpful?

S1 Yes it is helpful. Maybe you start a student and then you climb up the ladder until you become a teacher. Now I had an idea, instead of you climbing all the way up to the top here (pointing at top of model), then when you finish your training here, you come to the school that maybe the college has started and you are employed here. That way you will not be required to go all those steps and maybe you are not sure whether you will be employed here (at another ECD school) but here (The school that belongs to the college) you are guaranteed because it is the school of the college. As long as you qualify and you pass your exams you can be employed here.

F Ok, for example this school right here (pointing outside the window where the college is preparing to start an ECD School in the spring, six months from now) – yes. So while you are still a student at the college, you can be training in the school…

S2 Yes, training. When you finish, this is for only those who qualify, you will be employed here permanently

F Smart. One thing is learning something in theory; another thing is learning something by seeing someone else doing it.

S2 Yes

The facilitator winds up the lesson quickly since time is up and the students need to go somewhere else.

Ending The purpose of this Documentation was to Document the empirical data and the analysis of these to

prepare for the Research Question of the combined project to be further analyzed and answered in the

Exam Paper.

Literature - Andersen, I. (2008). Den skinbarlige virkelighed: Vidensproduktion inden for

samfundsvidenskaberne. 4.udgave. København: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur. - Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

- Cobb, P. et al. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Retrieved January 5, 2013,

from: Educational Researcher, Vol. 32 No 1 pp 1-13.

http://eec.edc.org/cwis_docs/NEWS_ARTICLES_JOURNALS/Cobb_Paul_Design_Experiements.pdf

- Christensen, O. Et al. (2012). Design-Based Research – introduktion til en forskningsmetode i udvikling af nye E-læringskoncepter og didaktisk design medieret af digitale teknologier. Læring &

Medier (LOM) – nr. 9 - 2012 - Dahl, K. Kragh Blume. (1999). Sundhedsundervisning mellem magt, magi og medicin.

Forskningscenter for Miljø- og Sundhedsundervisning.

- Kvale, S. (2004). Interview – en introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview. Hans Reitzels

Forlag

- LEGO Serious Play. (2006). The science of LEGO Serious Play. Billund: LEGO. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from http://mci.edu.au/downloads/MCI_LEGO_The_science_of_serious_play.pdf

- LEGO Serious Play. (2010). Open-source Introduction to LEGO Serious Play. Billund: LEGO. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from: http://seriousplaypro.com/docs/LSP_Open_Source_Brochure.pdf

- Reeves, T. (2006). Design Research from a Technology perspective. In J. V. D. Akker et al. (Eds.),

Educational Design Research. London & New York: Routledge.

- Thisted, J. (2009). Forskningsmetode i praksis. Gyldendal Akademisk Forlag.

- Wiberg, M. (2011). Forståelse i forskningsbaseret undervisning – især i relation til human og

samfundsvidenskab. Retrieved January 5, 2013, from Dansk Universitetspædagogisk tidsskrift nr.

10, 2011 http://www.dun-net.dk/media/104695/dut10_9.pdf

Exam Paper: LSP solution between theory

and practice

Indhold Part I - Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 30

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 30

Research Question /Problem statement ..................................................................................................... 31

Delimitation ............................................................................................................................................. 31

Research questions .................................................................................................................................. 31

Project Structure ......................................................................................................................................... 31

Model....................................................................................................................................................... 31

The social constructivism of Bruner ........................................................................................................ 32

Method ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

The praxis context ................................................................................................................................... 33

Design Based Research in this context .................................................................................................... 34

Empirical data .......................................................................................................................................... 34

Part II – DBR phases on the LSP Workshop ..................................................................................................... 35

PHASE 1: The practical problem .................................................................................................................. 35

PHASE 2: Solutions and design .................................................................................................................... 35

LEGO Serious Play .................................................................................................................................... 35

PHASE 3: Practical experiment – the LSP workshop.................................................................................... 37

Findings .................................................................................................................................................... 37

PHASE 4: Reflection and modification of theory ......................................................................................... 40

Modification of workshop ....................................................................................................................... 41

Solutions from the workshop .................................................................................................................. 41

Part III - Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 42

Literature ......................................................................................................................................................... 42

Part I - Introduction

Introduction

This paper will look into the possibilities of a LEGO Serious Play (LSP) workshop as solution and facilitator of

solutions for the problem of a lacking connection between theory and practice: between being a student at

Teachers Training College (TTC) and working as a teacher. The project tests the hypothesis that a LSP

workshop can further the understanding between theory and practice.

My praxis context, for this semester module called Learning and Innovative Change in Practice, is a

Teachers Training in Nairobi, Kenya, and I enter the college with a desire to find out whether the students

here, like they do in Denmark (Henningsen 2006), express, that they experience a poor connection between

what is taught at Teachers Training and the competences needed for the job of a teacher. My data from

questionnaires and observations of teachings reveal that the students do experience teachings and a

curriculum majorly focused on the content of teaching (what) rather than the methods of teaching (how),

as seen in the documentation, page 7-14.

This Teachers Training belongs to the long scholastic tradition that believes in the fact that something can

be taught in ‘school’ which is useful and applicable outside the ‘school’. However the development of

competences needed as a teacher can, according to Niels Grønbæk Nielsen, neither be acquired in the

practice of a teacher or at a Teachers Training. The experiences from practice as a teacher need to be

connected to theoretical reflection in order to create reflective competences on how to act and what to do

as a teacher in the classroom (Nielsen 2004). This exam paper agrees with the perspective of Nielsen and

seeks to find and implement solutions for the practical problem of the disconnection between theory and

practice at the TTC. The research therefore has a transformative focus, by which the word ‘problem’ is to

be understood as a practical challenge, and in collaboration with the leadership and inputs from teachers

and students of the TTC, I come up with suggestions, which are tested in practice, evaluated and refined.

LSP will be tested as part of the solution for the task of bringing more connection between theory and

practice. This creative method is chosen because of the hypothesis that it may be useful as the meeting

point for the practical experiences with theoretical reflection since the LSP is an innovative and experiential

process based on research, that claims that this kind of hands-on, minds-on learning produces a deeper and

more meaningful understanding of the possibilities of the world as well as deepening the reflection process

and supporting effective dialogue in an organization (LSP 2010).

The mindset about learning, which LSP is based on, is very different from the mindset about learning that I

observe at the college, see the documentation, page 8. In this meeting between different didactical

mindsets the exam paper will focus on the views and reflections of the students about the connection

between theory and practice that come forth through the LSP models, and the challenges that become

visible in my analysis of these.

Research Question

Which (intercultural) challenges become visible in an analysis of the models created in a LEGO Serious Play

workshop regarding the connection between being a student at TTC and working as a teacher?

Delimitation

The broad discussion about the connection between theory and practice will here be limited to the

difference between being a student at Teachers Training and working as a teacher in a (pre)school. The

focus is therefore on roles and competences needed in the two different settings and whether it is possible

to make the transition of gaining these easier.

Research questions

- How do the students understand the connection/transition between theory and practice?

- How can their understandings be explained?

- Is it possible to make the transition easier, between being a student at TTC and working as a

teacher, through the LSP workshop? How?

Project Structure

The Exam Project is divided in two. This paper is an Exam Paper with the aspects from the project process,

which I would like to thematize at the exam. The other part of the project is seen in the Documentation,

which is a selection of the documentation from the project process. In this exam paper I will continuously

refer to the Documentation when relevant and needed.

Model

The project has a transformative focus which is also visible in the following model of the structure for the

exam paper. The model is inspired by Design Based Research (DBR), which I will elaborate later, and shows

four phases in the process. The purpose of the phase is part of the circle in the middle of the model and the

outer quadrilateral parts show the methods used to pursue the purpose of each phase. The study begins

with an introduction including research question and ends up with drawing a conclusion to the research

question.

The social constructivism of Bruner

This project is based on Bruner’s social constructivistic approach, because it sees learning as the learners

own active, purpose seeking process and, the acquisition and development of knowledge is the

construction of the individual in interaction with others (Bruner 1999). You cannot obtain data or

knowledge about the world that is not seen from a certain perspective – knowledge is not given and

passively received, it is constructed and created (Bruner 1996). I therefore focus on how the students

perceive the world not on how the world is objectively. The social aspect is also very important to Bruner,

since you by joining a fellowship gain access to an expanded intelligence (Bruner 1996).

These views on learning is the reason for my choosing to plan a LEGO Serious Play workshop with students

at the TTC in order to have them construct and create ideas and views on the connection between being a

student at TTC and working as a teacher.

A social constructivistic thinking requires me to consider the students’ thinking of learning since it affects

their learning. Bruner thinks, that some learning processes are particular important:

“… on the basis of what we have learned in recent years about human learning – that it is best

when it is participatory, proactive, communal, collaborative, and given over to constructing

meanings rather than receiving them … Learning in its full complexity involves the creation and

negotiation of meaning in a larger culture, and the teacher is the vicar of the culture at large”

(Bruner 1996: 84).

Bruner is here normatively pointing to some ways of learning as optimal for human learning, where

learners are participating, active, cooperating and constructing their own knowledge. This is a reason for

me to focus on giving the students a part in my teaching and in the LSP workshop. The negotiation of

meaning is important since I believe that the students construct rather than receive knowledge. The social

constructivist thinking in Bruner’s perspective has an emphasis on metacognition; this means that it is

important not just to learn but to reflect on how we learn (Bruner 1996). Metacognition also makes it

easier to negotiate meaning, which is why I will focus on this in my quest to facilitate the discussion about

the connection between being a student and being a teacher among the students.

I will use a hermeneutical approach to the data collected in the project process, because I desire to gain

understanding for those phenomena that are meaningful for the students (Thisted 2011), which Bruner also

emphasizes (Bruner 1996). The hermeneutic circle refers to the idea that the understanding of a text as a

whole is established by reference to the individual parts and vice versa (Thisted 2011). I will use this

hermeneutic circle in my analysis of the empirical data to gain the opportunity of a greater understanding

of the material by repeatedly using this process and not just determine the understanding after the first

analysis of the empirical data.

Method

The praxis context

The two students attending this workshop are enrolled in a Teachers Training in Nairobi, Kenya, where they

are doing a certificate and have been studying for 6 months out of two years. The Teachers Training in

Kenya is structured so these regular students study at TTC from Monday to Thursday and then are doing

Teaching Practice (TP) every Friday. When they have finished most of their classes at the TTC they do

fulltime TP for three months before they go back to the college to finish the last classes and exams. For

further description of the praxis context see the Documentation, page 4. This way of combining the theory

at college with the practice in preschools may create possibilities of connecting what is learnt in one

context with what is learnt and needed in the other and in the following section, I will look into how such

possibilities and solutions can be designed.

Design Based Research in this context

The research approach in this project is inspired by the Design-Based Research (DBR), that Paul Cobb et al.

(2003) call Design Experiments. These experiments have both a pragmatic bent of “engineering” particular

forms of learning and a theoretical orientation, which is developing domain specific theories by

systematically studying those forms of learning and the means of supporting them (Cobb 2003).

DBR is a wide research approach so there are many different models and principles. Inspired by Reeves’

four faced model (Reeves 2006) and the innovation model of the ELYK-project (Christensen 2012), I have

developed a model, which shows the structure of four different types of research phases in my DBR project.

Every type has a certain purpose and some unique methods attached. Even though the research process is

iterative also between the different tasks the model also indicates progress in the DBR project. In the

model the four phases in the process are numbered, where the purpose of each phase is part of the circle

in the middle of the model and the outer quadrilateral parts show the methods used to pursue the purpose

of the phase.

In this Exam Paper I have chosen to zoom in on the LSP Workshop and the Problem, Solution, Experiment

and Reflection connected to this particular experiment, which makes the model look as it does on page 32.

To see the model according to the entire project process, go to the Documentation, page 3.

Empirical data

The field studies in phase 1 is based on participative observations of more than 30 lessons in two weeks,

informal interviews with teachers at Tea Time during all ten weeks and 15 students answers from

questionnaires about their perspective on learning and teaching. In phase 2 there is not a lot of empirical

data other than my personal experiences facilitating a LSP workshop at a mentor education at a Danish TTC

in the spring of 2012. These experiences are used to help me reflect on the possibilities and challenges of

facilitating a LSP workshop. Phase 3 is the workshop experiment, which is recorded and transcribed, of

which chosen elements can be found in the Documentation, page 23. After the workshop I also wrote down

my thoughts and reflections from the workshop process, both evaluating myself and trying to recall the

situation as a participative observer, these notes are also available in the Documentation, page 16. In the

project I have chosen to use different methods of collecting the empirical data, because they supplement

each other and thereby the project gains a stronger empirical foundation (Andersen 2005).

Part II – DBR phases on the LSP Workshop

PHASE 1: The practical problem As already stated in the introduction and demonstrated in the Documentation page 7 to 14, there is an

inconsistency between what the students at the TTC are asking for and what they are experiencing when it

comes to the connection between what they learn at the college and their experiences from Teaching

Practice. This gives them a sense of lacking connection between life as a student at TTC and as a working

teacher. There is also an inconsistency between what they and want and believe in when it comes to

teaching and what they do themselves, which may be explained by the fact that they repeat what they

have experienced.

This transformative research believes that it is possible to learn something while still a student in teachers

training that builds teaching competences by connecting what the students learn at TTC and what they

learn at TP. Suggestions to how this can be done will be the focus of phase 2 of the research and exam

paper.

PHASE 2: Solutions and design In this paragraph I will seek a solution in theories, which is in line with the already stated social

constructivistic approach. I will continue in Bruners line of thoughts about active, participative learners and

the focus on reflection and metacognition (Bruner 1996). With the already stated opinion that the

experiences from practice as a teacher need to be connected to theoretical reflection in order to create

reflective competences on how to act and what to do as a teacher in the classroom (Nielsen 2004), I find

active reflections through LSP useful to facilitate the connection between theory and practice.

LEGO Serious Play

The LSP workshop is based on a constructivistic understanding, where you construct theories and

knowledge cognitively while you are building a LEGO-model. The new knowledge makes it possible for the

participants to build more sophisticated models, which leads to even more knowledge – it is this spiral like

process that LSP is based on (LSP 2006). This is a good match to the social constructivist point of view, since

LSP also emphasizes the social aspect.

According to its developers, LSP is based upon four theoretical directions, which are referred to as ‘The

Science of Lego Serious Play’. The directions are: 1) Constructivism 2) Constructionism, 3) Play and 4)

Imagination (Lego Serious Play, 2006), and they are elaborated in the Documentation, page 16.

In practice, LSP is a facilitated workshop, where participants are asked different questions in relation to an

ongoing project, task or strategy. The participants answer these questions by building symbolic and

metaphorical models of their insights in LEGO bricks and present these to each other. An essential part of

the LSP is the non-judgmental, free-thinking and somehow playful interaction between the participants

(LSP 2010).

A LSP workshop is divided into four parts. First part is the introduction or ‘skills building’, where the

participants become familiar with the LEGO pieces and the democratic process of building and presenting,

as well as some of the key features like the hand-mind connection and the use of symbolic/metaphoric

models (Nielsen 2009). The three most important values, when working with LSP is 1) the answer is within

the system, 2) the many different contributions to the dialogue is important part and 3) there is not ONE

correct answer (LSP 2010). In my LSP workshop I use a slideshow with pictures, key points and skill building

tasks to present the values and skills to the students; this is shown in the Documentation from page 16.

The next part is modified or tailored to fit each project, situation and context, in which it is used. This part

often holds a sub-session where the participants first build a number of individual models and present

these to each other; this is followed by a sub-session where they build these models together into one

shared model. And finally, there is a reflection and summary of the workshop in relation to the participant

experience and the future work (Nielsen 2009). In this particular workshop I have the students build

individual models of the connection between being a student at TTC and working as a teacher, presenting

them and discussing them and then I ask them to build ideas of how that connection could be better. This is

also documented in the Documentation, page 20 to 22.

The LSP workshop has an overriding purpose of learning and two more specific purposes:

- The students experience an alternative and creative teaching method that focuses on the students

being active and reflective in their learning process - principles that they ‘should’ use when

teaching pupils in school.

- They build and share ideas and views about ”The Connection Between Theory and Practice”

followed by solving potential problems, that may come up concerning “The Connection Between

Theory and Practice”

It is my hypothesis that the LSP workshop can be one solution (out of several) to the problem with distance

between theory and practice; competences learnt at TTC and competences needed when working as a

teacher. I believe that the workshop will show the students a creative way of teaching that allows the

learners to be active, reflective and to participate in directing the learning process and that it will open up

for the students’ understandings of the connection/transition to be shared plus their ideas and suggestions

of other solutions to come forth. The next phase reveals whether these expectations are met.

PHASE 3: Practical experiment – the LSP workshop The actual LSP Workshop is facilitated from the design, which is described in the prior paragraph, but not

everything follows the plan, as the findings about task 1 reveals. A selection of the transcription from the

LSP workshop is placed in the Documentation, page 23 and will be referred to in this paragraph. Also my

notes from observations of the workshop are found in the Documentation from page 16.

Findings

Task 1: Build the connection between theory and practice

They are both building a classroom with materials available e.g. crayons, flashcards, see pictures of these in

the Documentation page 22, and the following quote illustrates how student 2 understands the term

‘theory’:

“The theory is the way they are taught, on how they use the knowledge to draw and how they do it practically

by drawing the pictures and then color them with the crayons, maybe using those flashcards… and decorating

them with different colors according to how they will be taught. Now they will do it practically after learning it

like a theory in class” (Documentation: 25)

She is explaining ‘theory’ as the way the pupils are taught, as methods of teaching and as the practical

knowledge and skills that the teacher will explain to them e.g. by using flashcards. She has been taught at

TTC to use materials when teaching and to explain to the pupils how to draw and color; this indicates that

she has an understanding of theory as the practical guidelines that she has been taught at TTC.

My purpose of asking them to build the connection between theory and practice was to have them reflect

on the different competences acquired and needed as a student on the TTC and as a teacher in the school.

My understanding of theory in this context was different than that of the students. Since one of the LSP

values is that there is not one correct answer I welcome their models and opinions and desire to

understand the models fully and thereby seek to understand their perspectives. This allows them to

negotiate meaning of the words and I realize that I could have defined the terms: Theory, practice and

‘connection between theory and practice’, but then they would not be participating to the same extent in

the negotiation of the meaning of the words.

While I am still interested in their understandings of the differences between being a student at TTC and

working as a teacher at a school, I give them a new building task.

Task 2: Build the difference between being a student at TTC and working as a teacher in a school.

Student 1 and student 2 are building two very different models, the pictures of these can be found in the

Documentation, page 22.

Student 2 is explaining how she has built the transition from one role to another, from the role of a student

at the bottom of the model where: “you have to think that you are the vey lowest, down floor, you have to

be humble, disciplined and patient.” Then she explains how she believes that “you have to climb the stairs

to become a real teacher” (Documentation: 25). When I point to the top of her model and ask for the

characteristics of the teacher on top of the model, she first explains that the teacher is ‘enjoying the fruit of

education’ and then says that the teacher should be creative, determined and confident, whatever he or

she is doing and deliver it to the people. The focus on ‘delivering’ is contrary to Bruner’s emphasis on active

and participative learners. The emphasis for this student is on different roles and positions in society, the

other student thinks differently.

Student 1 is explaining that she has built a classroom at college and a classroom in the school that she

imagines to have started after finishing TTC. The college classroom is simple; there are only chairs and a

black board, while she explains the preschool classroom like this:

“The class is well spaced, here I am as a teacher, here are the pupils who are seated, I think there is a lot of

materials which I am trying to use to teach children. I am trying to teach on certain subjects, of which I am

trying to use the real objects as you can see the materials are real and there are a lot. So there is a big

difference from here” (Documentation: 26).

She comes up with a practical difference between the two settings. When I ask whether she thinks that

there should be a lot of materials at the college for the students to practice teaching with the materials, she

declines by saying: “I think that because the class is empty, there are no materials, but in real sense we will

be making them but they will not be displayed in the class” (Documentation: 26). I interpret this answer as a

result of the culture at this TTC and Kenya in general, where teachers are much respected and not to be

criticized, this is elaborated in the Documentation about the observed education culture at this TTC, page 7-

14. Once again she is building a concrete classroom instead of using metaphors to describe the difference,

which indicates that not everyone finds the LEGO Language of building the abstract and ‘thinking with the

hands’ easy. So the ‘building skills’ could be emphasized and trained more before reaching the main

purpose of the workshop.

Task 3: build how/if what you experience at the TTC and the reality as a teacher can become closer

related?

Now we have reached the last task. Because of the negotiation of meaning during the first task, I try to

change the way I explain the task. Instead of just telling them to build solutions to the problem of

disconnection between theory and practice, I try to explain myself by referring to their models from task 2:

“Now we see that there is a difference between getting the theory and doing it in practice. So, can you build a

solution so that it becomes closer? So that what we do here (pointing at Student 1’s model of teachers training

college) is closer to what we need to do here (pointing at the model of the ECD classroom). The personality

traits we need here (pointing at the top of Student 2’s model) how can we learn them here? (Pointing at the

bottom of the model) (Documentation: 26).

A very important finding here is the fact that I find it difficult to explain what I want them to build, since

they in the workshop have not expressed it as a problem that there is a difference between what they learn

at TTC and working as a teacher. They have expressed the difference as a fact that they just have to accept

and deal with, while I found it a problem/challenge to be solved. …

Student 1 builds a mirror as a symbol of reflection:

“You can see this is a mirror here … so I think, me as a student, in order to have gone from being a student to a

teacher I have reflected all that we have been taught by the teacher. This is a mirror so I have reflected

everything, to be creative, to be audible, and to be happy (all laughing) yeah, so I have reflected everything - so

this is a mirror from the college to my own school” (Documentation: 27).

The student uses the mirror as a metaphor for reflection and thereby agrees with the theory that suggests

that reflection can make the transition from learning in theory to learning in practice easier, so the teaching

competences that consists of elements obtained in the personal life, the education system and in practice

can be developed (Nielsen 2010). In Bruner’s terminology reflection is also a very important word. It is a

way of creating meaning, to turn around what you learnt through simple teaching and to think about your

own thinking (Bruner 1996). It is a way of constructing new understandings and knowledge that otherwise

would not become known to you, the mirror of reflection is therefore an important solution to the problem

of (a feeling of) disconnection between the lessons at TTC and the experiences from TP. Before the

workshop I implemented portfolio with these students as a way of reflecting on what is learnt at TTC and

what is learnt at TP each week and how this can work together. She might have gotten the inspiration from

that, but nevertheless it is a useful solution.

Student 2 says she does not think that the transition can be made easier, but ends up adding something to

her model and explaining it as follows:

“Now I have an idea, instead of you climbing all the way up to the top here (pointing at top of model), When

you finish your training here you just close and then you come to the school that maybe the college has started

and you are employed here. That way you will not be required to go all those steps and maybe you are not sure

whether you will be employed here (at another ECD school) but here (the school that belongs to the college) you

are guaranteed because it is the school of this college…” (Documentation: 27).

Her solution for making the transition easier is to add a preschool to the college, where the students can be

guaranteed to find Teaching Practice and maybe even a permanent job. Her focus is on an understanding of

knowledge, where you learn what to do by doing it. Bruner supports the idea that the understanding of an

omniscient teacher explaining the ignorant students is too limited. He believes that only a very little part of

learning is happening that way, it is better for the learners to interact and support each other (Bruner

1996). From this perspective it is a very good idea to have the Teachers Training become as practical and

interactive as possible, of course without neglecting the needed reflection and metacognition.

The two different solutions do not eliminate or override each other, but they can supplement each other.

As Nielsen also argued, the only way, to gain the needed teacher competences, is by theoretically reflecting

on experiences from practice. When I ask whether there should be more TP in the Teachers Training, they

decline because they think that there is a lot of it. When they have finished most of their classes they will

go for TP from Monday to Friday for approximately three months. Even though the lessons I observed at

the TT reminded me of rote learning, the Kenyan TT also has some aspects that are similar to the

sociocultural learning theories. I find it important to balance between these two perspectives and to make

them work together.

Student 2 has problems with her LEGO model in the last task; since she is not so familiar with LEGO (they

have only participated in one other workshop) she does not understand how to put the LEGOs together, so

they stick together. If I were to do another LSP workshop for people who have never touched LEGO before,

I would explain it clearly and give them time to get familiar with the bricks in the very beginning of the

workshop. The LEGOs could have become frustrating and a hindrance for the student to participate and

learn.

PHASE 4: Reflection and modification of theory The ideas about learning behind LSP are very different from the ones I observe at the college; this makes it

challenging to facilitate a LSP workshop at the college. Bruner states that if the mind is understood as the

ability to create associations and reflexes, then rote learning is seen as the true pedagogy, but if the mind is

understood as the ability to reflect on and have a conversation about the condition of necessary truths,

then the Socratic dialogue is enhanced (Bruner 1996). A lot of the lessons on the TTC are influenced by rote

learning, while the values behind the LSP is in line with the Socratic dialogue and each of these are

connected to different ideas of the ideal society and the ideal citizen (Bruner 1996). That is why it can be

difficult to facilitate the meeting between these two different ideas, and the LSP workshop would be

adjusted, if I were given the chance to facilitate another on a Kenyan Teachers Training.

Modification of workshop

In Kenya, where LEGO is not known to everyone, it is important with a clearer instruction on how to put the

bricks together. It is important to understand the qualifications of the learners and to meet these.

If I were to do the workshop all over again I would express the tasks more clearly and define how the

phrase ‘The connection between theory and practice’ was to be understood. Even though I still find it

important that the learners experience a workshop where there is not one correct answer but every

contribution is important and welcome.

Before the workshop I did not question my prerequisite: I expected the students to model and express

problems with the connection between theory and practice. Another time I will reflect on my

preunderstandings and expectations more explicitly before the workshop begins. However, during the

workshop the students came up with some other solutions to the problem.

Solutions from the workshop

The students did develop some solutions to make the transition easier and the connection better between

student life at TTC and the job of a teacher. One student emphasized the need for reflection as a way of

using what is learnt at TTC in the context of a preschool. The other student focused on more TP, also after

the Teacher Training is over. Part of her solution was to have a preschool connected to the TTC to make the

transition easier.

One can question whether learning took place in the workshop, but I will argue that there has been a

change in understandings which is visible in the actions of the students and me as the facilitator. The

students have learned that it is possible to develop ideas and solutions about something they thought, they

just had to deal with: the different conditions, roles and demands of the TTC and a preschool. They have

also learned that the learning process and outcome is very different, when they have to participate: it

demands more of them but can also allow them take ownership of their learning process and meaning

making. My learning as facilitator of the workshop is among other factors centered on the fact that my

prior understanding was challenged: My idea of the problem in the fact, that life of a student at TTC and

the job of a teacher are different. To reflect on the definitions and cultural meaning making of words and

terms prior to the workshop is also crucial.

Part III – Conclusion Which (intercultural) challenges become visible in an analysis of the models created in a LEGO Serious Play

workshop regarding the connection between being a student and working as a teacher?

Generally seen the lessons at this TTC and the LSP method relate to two very different education

paradigms: the Anglo-Saxon Curriculum tradition and the Continental Didactical tradition. The cross cultural

aspect may also be evident when one student says that the difference between life of a student and life of

a teacher cannot be changed or improved, which is not what I think. I come from an education system

where it is good to question and reason about issues in society, which is not normal at this TTC. The fact

that the LEGO bricks are not familiar to the students is also an important note, together with the reality

that our understandings of words and terms are different. However, all these reflections in the LSP process

are good for the students’ meaning making and progress about their personal connection between being a

student and a teacher.

The two different solutions of the students, individual reflection and learning in practice, are not

necessarily opposites. I believe it is possible for them to supplement each other – which LSP might be a

good tool for.

Literature - Bruner, J. (1999) Mening i handling. Klim.

- Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

- Cobb, P. et al. (2003) Design Experiments in Educational Research. Retrieved December 12. 2012

from: Educational Researcher.

http://edr.sagepub.com.zorac.aub.aau.dk/content/32/1/9.full.pdf+html

- Henningsen, C. m.fl. (2006) Teori og praksis i læreruddannelsen. En interviewundersøgelse. Forlaget

CVU København og Nordsjælland.

- Kraft, G. (2004) Læringsteori eller/og formidling In: KVAN 70 (2004) Teori og praksis.

- LEGO Serious Play. (2010). Open-source Introduction to LEGO Serious Play. Billund: LEGO. Retrieved

January 4, 2013, from: http://seriousplaypro.com/docs/LSP_Open_Source_Brochure.pdf

- Nielsen, N. G. (2004) Fag, praktik og pædagogik – læreruddannelsens treklang In: KVAN 70 (2004)

Teori og praksis.

- Ravn, I. (2010) Transformativ forskningsmetode – belyst gennem et projekt om mødefacilitering.

Retrieved December 13, 2012 from: Tidsskrift for arbejdsliv 12. årgang. Nr. 1.

Artikel: Forskerens selvbetragtninger

Forhandling og udvikling af rolle og positionering som nytilkommen i et

praksisfællesskab

Abstract

Denne artikel argumenterer for vigtigheden af at overveje mulig rolle og positionering ved indtræden

i en praksiskontekst samt løbende at revidere og forholde sig analytisk til disse. Dette gælder både de

erfarne praksisdeltageres tildeling af rolle til den nytilkomne samt den nytilkomnes egne valg og

fravalg af roller. Med udgangspunkt i mine erfaringer og refleksioner som ’gæstelærer’ på en

læreruddannelse i Kenya og ved hjælp af Bruners lærings- og kulturforståelse samt Mezirows

transformative læringsteori vil jeg argumentere for og pege på, hvordan forandring af antagelser om

roller og hierarki kan konstrueres og skabes.

Afsæt og praksiskontekst

Afsættet for artiklen er mit ophold i efteråret 2012 på en læreruddannelse i Nairobi, Kenya som en del af 9.

semester på kandidatuddannelsen i Læring og Forandringsprocesser. Efter aftale med den øverst ansvarlige

for læreruddannelsen skal jeg bo på college i ti uger og starte med at observere undervisning i to uger for

så efter en uge med eksamener at påbegynde undervisning af de studerende. Før jeg tager til Kenya har jeg

gjort mig overvejelser over, hvordan jeg indtræder i denne organisation og hvordan jeg skal positionere

mig, hvilket kommer til udtryk i følgende spørgsmål: Hvilken rolle og positionering får og/eller tager jeg som

nytilkommen observatør og underviser af studerende og lærere på en læreruddannelse i Kenya?

For at finde svar på dette vælger jeg en autoetnografisk tilgang, for som Charlotte Baarts udtrykker det:

”Når alt kommer til alt, er subjektivitet den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan opnå viden om de fænomener, vi

studerer” (Baarts 2005: 153). Denne sociologiske introspektion og emotionelle genkaldelse kan jeg bruge til

at forstå en specifik erfaring, som dernæst skrives ned som en fortælling (Baarts 2005). Jeg har fokus på min

egen læring i nærværende artikel. Det er imidlertid uomgængeligt at fokusere på lærergruppen og deres

handlinger, for at kunne undersøge hvorvidt og eventuelt hvordan jeg kan blive en del af lærerfællesskabet.

Før fortællingen kan tage fart må praksiskonteksten præsenteres.

Læreruddannelsen er målrettet Early Childhood Development (ECD)2 og er en del af et college, hvor der

også tilbydes andre uddannelser. Dette college blev etableret med finansiel og organisatorisk støtte fra

svenske missionærer og der modtages stadig økonomisk støtte fra Skandinavien. Læreruddannelsen

startede i 2009 og bliver støttet i en femårig periode af en norsk udviklingsfond. Den har endvidere et

samarbejde med et norsk University College for førskolelærere, som også indebærer udvekslingsprojekter

dog primært af norske studerende til Kenya, der har holdt sig for sig selv, og kenyanske undervisere til

Norge. De ansatte på college har altså en del erfaringer med mzungus, som er et swahili-ord der betyder

”Europæer, hvid person” (Wilson 1979: 504) og af nogle opfattes som et skældsord. I denne artikel og på

dette college er det imidlertid ikke et negativt ord, men snarere ensbetydende med særlige rettigheder og

kenyaneres forventninger om gavmildhed. Forventningen om at mzungus er gavmilde bunder i de mange

erfaringer med hvide mennesker, som er kommet til landet for at missionere og yde nødhjælp. Jeg har

oplevet flere af de ansatte give udtryk for en opfattelse af, at mzungus generelt har mange penge og derfor

også er forpligtiget til at hjælpe økonomisk på forskellig vis. Mange af dem tilskriver mig sandsynligvis en

position som en af de ’rige hvide’, hvorfor jeg i deres øjne ikke kan blive en ligeværdig del af

lærerfællesskabet. Lærerne er ellers alle sidst i tyverne hvilket betyder, at vi er jævnaldrende. Jeg er

imidlertid i gang med en længere uddannelse end deres Bachelor of Education hvilket har stor betydning i

Kenya, hvor uddannelse er meget eftertragtet. Jeg spørger dog ikke lærerne eksplicit om, hvordan de ser

mig ift. lærerfællesskabet, fordi jeg har en oplevelse af, at de grundet høflighed og respekt, ikke ville kunne

eller turde svare ærligt på dette.

Empirien bygger på feltnoter, som består af dagbogslignende noter om hvad jeg oplever, og hvordan jeg

tolker dette samt uformelle interviews med ansatte på dette college. Især ved ’Tea Time’, hvor alle lærere

mødes for at drikke the og holde pause kl. 11 og kl. 17, er der mulighed for at interagere og socialisere. De

har givet samtykke til, at jeg kan gengive data fra disse uformelle interviews, dog anonymiserede. Jeg er

altså i høj grad en deltagende observatør også i de første tre uger, hvor jeg forsøger at forholde mig

observerende og lyttende. Før jeg ankommer til dette college har jeg besluttet mig for at udvise en

afventende, observerende og lyttende tilgang til samarbejdet med lærere og ledelse på college. Dette er jeg

blevet rådgivet til af en dansk missionær med mange års erfaring i Østafrika, da mzungus ellers nemt kan

virke ’kolonialiserende’ dvs. bedrevidende og som nogen der vil overtage styringen. Jeg har den tankegang

ift. lærergruppen at jeg er den nye ’dreng i klassen’, så derfor må de have et ansvar for at byde mig

2 Early Childhood Education rummer i Kenya alt fra Baby Class (elever på 2-4 år) i en førskoleordning til de første år af

grundskolen (elever på 6-7 år), kaldet Primary School i Kenya (Dahl 1999). Dette college udbyder både kurser for

certificate level training og diploma level training.

velkommen i deres praksisfællesskab. Mine rolleforventninger viste sig dog at være meget forskellige fra

lærernes.

Gæst - forstyrrelse for lærerfællesskabet

Da jeg kommer til læreruddannelsen bliver jeg budt velkommen af lederen the Director, den lærer som er

Head of Department og jeg møder de fem faste lærere, som alle er meget høflige og venlige. Formelt

oplever jeg mig som en værdsat og betydningsfuld gæst, men da jeg samme dag træder ind i The Dining

Hall, hvor jeg skal spise alle måltider sammen med lærerne, bliver det anderledes:

”Til aftensmaden fornemmede jeg en tydelig høflig anspændthed omkring mig. Somme tider slog de over i

Kiswahili eller et stammesprog med lav tale. Om det var ubevidst, for at udelukke mig, fordi samtalen ikke var

henvendt til alle fem der aktuelt var til stede eller noget helt andet – det ved jeg ikke. Hver gang blev jeg lidt

pinligt berørt og lod som om jeg fulgte meget med i hvad end der lige skete på tv-skærmen, selvom det for det

meste var på et sprog, jeg ikke forstod. Men i morgen vil jeg prøve at slappe af, man kan ’prøve’ for meget. Jeg

vil forsøge at indgå i fællesskabet på deres præmisser, selvom jeg ikke rigtig kender dem” (Feltnoter 2012).

Disse logbogsnoter viser hvordan mine forventninger til at de vil give mig adgang til deres uformelle

fællesskab og vise tolkningsrammerne, så jeg kan begå mig i dem, ikke bliver indfriet. På den ene side byder

de mig alle hjerteligt velkommen som gæst på deres college, men samtidig virker de utrygge ved min

tilstedeværelse i deres uformelle praksisfællesskab. Jeg forholder mig afventende og prøver at være

tålmodig for at indgå i fællesskabet på deres præmisser. Eva Hultengren forklarer at rolleforventninger

støtter sig til kendskab til organisationens formelle struktur, når det gælder fordeling af magt, ansvar,

aktivitet mm. mellem personerne i en organisation (Hultengren 1997). Jeg ser mig selv som nyankommen

og lav i det interne hierarki, hvor lærerne derimod har en antagelse om, at jeg som mzungu fortjener særlig

respekt og rettigheder. Både deres og mine meningsperspektiver fremstår som fastlåste og trænger til

noget kritisk refleksion, hvilket ifølge Mezirow handler om at reflektere om, hvorfor man handler som man

gør (Mezirow 2000). Med forståelse for den positionering, som de tilskriver mig, vælger jeg derfor at ændre

min rolle. Rolle forstås her ifølge Katzenelson som: ”det sæt af forventninger og normer, der rettes mod og

foreskriver en bestemt adfærdsmåde i bestemte situationer for en person, der indtager en bestemt position”

(Hultengren 1997: 84). Jeg vælger fremover at tage initiativ og ansvar i relationen til underviserne i stedet

for at vente på, at de lader mig blive en del af deres praksisfællesskab.

Gæsteunderviser – midlertidigt accepteret af fællesskabet

Da jeg begynder at undervise de studerende, accepterer de mig umiddelbart som deres underviser. Den

lærer, som er the Head of Department introducerer mig som gæstelærer for en gæst på college, hvilket jeg

glad accepterer.

I det uformelle lærerfællesskab ved Tea Time bliver jeg midlertidigt accepteret, men ikke som en ligeværdig

deltager. Dette tydeliggøres ved at samtalen ofte bliver til en udveksling af hvordan uddannelse og

generelle samfundsproblematikker håndteres i henholdsvis Kenya og Danmark. Selvom vi søger at skabe

forståelse for hinandens kulturer, øger opridsningen af forskelle ikke min indgang i praksisfællesskabet -

tværtimod.

Jeg ændrer min rolleudøvelse, så den afspejler praksisfællesskabets forståelse af min rolle, samtidig med at

lærerne ikke blot accepterer mig som en formel gæst, men også som en midlertidig del af

lærerfællesskabet. Dette afspejler Jerome Bruners forståelse af narrativitet, hvor den fortælling mennesker

har om sig selv er under fortsat udvikling og omfortolkning, hvilket er gennemgående for såvel

selvforståelse og læring (Bruner 1996). I dette tilfælde er det både jeg og underviserne som konstruerer og

rekonstruerer vores fortælling situationelt, så den passer til nuet, vores situation og ønsker for fremtiden.

Konsulent – ven

Efter et par uger med at undervise de studerende og have en rolle i lærerfællesskabet må min positionering

udfordres igen. Efter aftale med The Director og the Head of Department skal jeg nu afholde en workshop

som er obligatorisk ikke blot for de studerende, men også for lærerne. Følgende er et udklip af feltnoter om

min oplevelse af workshoppen:

”Der er fem minutter til workshopstart, da jeg går fra spisesalen for at være klar. Jeg venter og ser dem gå i

gang med at vaske op, hvilket de normalt aldrig gør – det er der andre medarbejdere som gør. Jeg bliver

provokeret af dette og ser det som en provokation mod mig. Jeg beder dem komme, men de er i fuld gang med

’arbejdet’. Jeg sætter mig udenfor bygningen, er frustreret i et par minutter og når at tænke , at workshoppen

ikke bliver til noget eller må udsættes. Men så vælger jeg at tage styringen og ikke reagere som en kollega,

der beder dem om en tjeneste, men snarere som en ’konsulent’ der i samarbejde med ledelsen har autoritet

til at lede dem. Jeg går derfor ud i køkkenet igen og fortæller dem, at workshoppen går i gang og at de derfor

gerne må komme nu. Jeg går igen hen til klasseværelset og nu er der nogle som henter papir og blyant mens

andre går direkte til klasseværelset. Her bliver de imidlertid overvældet af at der er placeret stole rundt om to

borde i stedet for den sædvanlige opstilling, hvor alle stole vender mod tavlen. Da de fleste er kommet, går jeg i

gang med at holde et oplæg, hvorefter de skal bygge modeller om ’The Good Teacher’ vha. LEGO Serious Play

(LSP 2010). Lærerne virker lidt skeptiske fra starten af oplægget, men bliver mere og mere begejstrede

efterhånden som workshoppen skrider frem. Jeg har en oplevelse af at de følte sig utrygge i min vold i

begyndelsen, men til sidst er meget glade for det” (Feltnoter 2012).

Her ses, at det skaber usikkerhed for både lærerne og jeg, når min rolle endnu engang ændres. Processen

før workshoppen kan ses som en meningsforhandling mellem mig og flere af lærerne. Når de giver sig til at

vaske op, kan det være et budskab om at jeg ikke skal bestemme for meget over dem. Her går det op for

mig, at jeg må tage den formelle rolle som leder af workshoppen på mig, hvis det skal blive til noget. I det

uformelle fællesskab er jeg på dette tidspunkt blevet gode venner med lærerne, og vi bruger meget tid

sammen udover arbejdet. Det skaber imidlertid et behov for en tydelig afgrænsning mellem vores formelle

og uformelle relationer.

Bruners forståelse af deltagelse i kulturen, hvor meningen bliver offentlig og fælles, er at betydningen af

den kulturelt tilpassede livsform, afhænger af fælles mening og fælles begreber og af fælles samtaleformer

til forhandling om forskelle i mening og fortolkning (Bruner 1999). Dette forstår jeg i relation til

praksiskonteksten på den måde, at disse fælles meninger, begreber og samtaleformer udvikles efterhånden

som jeg tilskrives og tager forskellige roller, så der til sidst er en fælles forståelse i lærergruppen for de

forskellige roller alt efter om vi befinder os i klasseværelset eller i the Dining Hall. Da jeg vælger at træde

ind i en ny rolle overfor lærerne, er der sket en transformation af mine hidtidige meningsskemaer. Dermed

må lærerne revurdere deres antagelser, hvilket konstruerer og skaber en anden orientering i forhold til

rollefordeling. Min generelle erfaring bliver at jo mere eksplicit afgrænsningen mellem formelle og

uformelle roller og handlemuligheder bliver, jo bedre bliver relationerne og samarbejdet. Efter den første

workshop oplever jeg en interesse og respekt, om hvad jeg kan byde ind med til læreruddannelsen. The

Director bad øjeblikkeligt om flere workshops, og lærerne er nu også interesserede i dette.

Afslutning

Artiklen besvarer spørgsmålet om hvilken rolle og positionering jeg har fået og/eller taget som

nytilkommen observatør og underviser af studerende og lærere på en læreruddannelse i Kenya.

Der er sket en udvikling, hvor jeg gennem kritisk refleksion og forhandling med lærergruppen formelt er

gået fra at være observatør og gæst til at være gæsteunderviser for de studerende og til sidst også

konsulent og workshopafholder for lærergruppen. Dette kompliceres af den uformelle rollefordeling, hvor

mit ønske om at indgå i lærerfællesskabet først bliver anset som forstyrrende, dernæst midlertidigt

accepteret for endelig at blive indfriet i venskab.

Når jeg ser retrospektivt på min egen agenda, må jeg stå ved at jeg ikke blot ønskede at forstå eller indgå i

uddannelseskulturen, jeg havde også et ønske om at påvirke denne, hvilket mine valgte

undervisningsmetoder også er et udtryk for. Jeg ender derfor med at gøre brug af den magt, som de

tillægger min person.

Litteratur

- Baarts, C (2010). Autoetnografi. I: Brinkmann, S. & Tanggaard, L. Kvalitative metoder – en

grundbog. (1. udgave). Hans Reitzels Forlag.

- Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

- Bruner, J (1999). Mening i handling. Forlaget Klim.

- Dahl, K. K. B. (1999). Sundhedsundervisning mellem magt, magi og medicin. Forskningscenter for

Miljø og Sundhedsundervisning.

- Hultengren, E. (1997). Medarbejderudviklingssamtalen som dialog I: Alrø, H. Organisationsudvikling

gennem dialog. Aalborg Universitetsforlag.

- LEGO Serious Play. (2010). Open-source Introduction to LEGO Serious Play. Billund: LEGO. Retrieved

January 4, 2013, from: http://seriousplaypro.com/docs/LSP_Open_Source_Brochure.pdf

- Mezirow, J. (2000). Hvordan kritisk refleksion fører til transformativ læring. I: Illeris, K. Tekster om

læring. Roskilde Universitetsforlag.

- Wilson, P.M. (1979). Simplified Swahili. Kenya Literature Bureau.