Enacting a distinct pedagogic approach to Partnership Learning to Learn

Dr Linda Rush

Presentation StructureIntroduction of self; my beliefs and values

Rationale & leadership style adopted

Pedagogies associated with teacher learning at LHU

Conceptual Framework: Partnership Learning to Learn – a signature pedagogy

Pedagogic design features: the learners, the ‘atmosphere’, the ‘architecture’, the methodologies, the values

Exemplification of Partnership Learning to Learn

Strategic leadership on Partnership Learning as a form of collaboration

Acknowledgement that collaboration is challenging and disturbing (dynamic, multifaceted, multiple starting points, time constraints) – requiring strategic leadership

Seeing changes to partnership as a moment of opportunity

Identifying & encapsulating beliefs & values within an explicit vision:

Distinct relationships

Professional development

Distinct pedagogy

Pedagogies associated with teacher learning at LHU (Hathaway & Rush, 2010)

Replication: subject knowledge for teaching is promoted by the university as a defined entity that is sourced and transferred by authority; academics or tutors

Formation: subject knowledge is positioned along with professional knowledge but its promotion is less important and depth is bounded such that students to acquire it adopt a strategic approach

Transformation: subject knowledge is the knowledge of teaching embodied in practice and transformed with the students’ university and school-based learning experiences.

Conceptual Framework

Partnership Learning to Learn: A signature pedagogy

Reflective – self-conscious learning process

Intentional – agency and choice

Collaborative – intra-professionalTemporal connectivity

Lateral connectivity

Pedagogic implications

Components of Learning to Learn

I. Understanding ‘learning’ and becoming an independent learner

II. Understanding ‘knowledge’ and becoming competent in constructing knowledge

1. Gaining awareness of conceptions of learning and knowledge in discipline2. Assessing one’s present abilities as learner3. Setting short-term and long-term goals and targets4. Planning action for reaching targets5. Monitoring progress in reaching targets6. Evaluating progress/achievements

1. Gaining awareness of conceptions of learning and knowledge in discipline2. Approaching information (lectures, texts) in a focused and critical manner3. Evaluating existing knowledge4. Synthesising different sourcesinto a coherent argument5. Expressing own voice

Affordance and Constraints of Partnership Learning to Learn

Categories of description of the promotion of subject knowledge

Epistemology Affordance and Constraints

Category A: Subject knowledge gained prior to teacher replication in practice

Dualist High academic achievement is not a pre-requisite to becoming a good teacherPersonal experience of school informs teachingInnate teacher ability is a precursor to success e.g. as having parents who were teachers, a range of non-intellective qualitiesDemonstration/observation of mentor – lack of variationAcademic knowledge not timely or immediately applied

Category B: Subject knowledge acquired during teacher formation, bounded by curriculum and policy

Multiplicity

Bounded by policy and established practiceMentor is seen as regulator – persistently checking lesson plans, observation feedback Mentor act as guides to policyTechnology based access to knowledge Observation of practice by experts, performance validationFavours hard work and persistence

Category C: Subject knowledge embodied in teacher practice, created through teacher transformation

Relational

Student disposition, self-determining and self-regulated learningVariation in experience – observation and practiceDeep subject knowledgeValuing students questions and contribution

Key Characteristics of Partnership Learning to Learn

Views of Subject Knowledge(Hathaway & Rush, 2010)

Quality of Teacher learning implied (Biggs, 1999)

Replication: subject knowledge for teaching is promoted by the university as a defined entity that is sourced and transferred by authority; academics or tutors

Pre-structural Reflection dealing with action

Formation: subject knowledge is positioned along with professional knowledge but its promotion is less important and depth is bounded such that students to acquire it adopt a strategic approach

Unistructural Multistructural •Reflection that modifies or remedies

•Reflection on action

Transformation: subject knowledge is the knowledge of teaching embodied in practice and transformed with the students’ university and school-based learning experiences.

Multistructural Relational •Reflection as planned, with a focus •Profound reflection that produces personal meaning

The role of ITE in expanding our capacity to learn as intra-professional learners

A radical constructivist model of education promoted:

Learners are viewed as active autonomous makers of knowledge

Knowledge is not simply transferred

Tutors are not seen as the guardians of truth and certainty

Emphasis is placed on the role of dialogue

The role of ITE in expanding our capacity to learn as intra-professional learners

Four key role models:

Socratic teaching

Moderator

Cooperative researcher

Perturbance agent

Aspects of an epistemic culture

Language – we all speak ‘learnish’

Activities – a potentiating milieu

Split-screen thinking – the warp and weft

Wild topics – rich, real, responsible

Transparency and involvement – students as epistemic co-workers

Application – to other contexts

Progression – stronger, broader, deeper . . .

Modelling – walking the learning talk

The Pedagogic Design Features of the signature pedagogy Partnership Learning

to Learn

The learners

The ‘atmosphere’ of the learning space

The ‘architecture’ of the partnership

Methodologies and activities

Underpinning beliefs and values of all agents

Exemplification of Partnership Learning to Learn at Hope

The Hope Teacher (4Rs) - identification & development of informed philosophy of teaching

Values driven, research informed

Radical Constructivist model of learning promoted

Enabling pedagogic interventions:

Citizenship in Practice – service learning, both locally & globally – “Leadership qualities promoted akin to deputy headteacher level”

MFL - “Saphire in the National crown”

Saturated Learning, Multiple Placements, International Placements

100k Research & Development Fund

Alliances with Liverpool World Centre, The Reader Organisation, Angers (UCO), Korea (Chonnam University)

Key Themes of Collaboration

•Leadership•Drivers•Operational/Conceptual•Perceptions of partnership•Fear/Compliance/Conformity•Understanding of Programme Team•Level & Depth of Dialogue•Brownfield /Greenfield Curriculum Development•Institutional narrative/myths•Integrity•Systems/procedures •Knowledge and understanding of institutional rules

(Diamond & Rush, 2010)

Key Characteristics of Individuals Collaborating (Diamond & Rush, 2010)

The Pragmatic

•Novice•Naïve•Dominated•Dominating•Reactive•Fearful•silenced•Fragile•Detached•Parochial

The Pedestrian

•Functioning•Anxious•Lacking clarity•Isolated•Individualistic•Dependent•Defensive•Vulnerable

The Emerging Enlightened

•Competent•Co-operative•Informed•Individualistic•Cautious•Engaged at micro-level•Instrumental

The Enlightened

•Reflective•Nurturing•Informed•Open•Dialogic•Engaged•Rigorous•Confident•Conceptually driven

Co-operation Co-ordination

Collaboration/Co-ownership

Co-existence

Degrees of Collaboration (Diamond & Rush, 2010)

Leadership – Primary dimension in meaning & variation in degrees of collaboration

Leadership – Primary dimension in meaning & variation in degrees of

collaboration

Less sophisticated collaborationPresence of an individual or small group of individuals dominating in an autocratic way, linked to their hierarchical role within the institution

More sophisticated collaborationNo individual leader. Rather, the notion of reciprocal leadership prevails in which everybody had authority and genuine regard for this is tangible

Dialogic: shared decision making; joint problem solving; open to innovation; defined

parametersCO-ORDINATION

Non-interactive:task related; monitored;

resource driven; compliant

CO-EXISTENCE

Focused:assigned roles;

positional; dualist thinking; pre-

determined scriptCO-OPERATION

Freewheeling:

shared responsibility;

non-dualist thinking;

listening attentively

COLLABORATION/

CO-OWNERSHIP

Holistically structured, open, flexible cultureHolistically structured, open, flexible culture

Hierarchically structured, closed and rule-driven cultureHierarchically structured, closed and rule-driven culture

Key factors that are pivotal to more sophisticated collaborative practice

Clear leadership at all levels – ownership

Explicit understanding by all those involved of its rationale, role and purpose – contextualization

Debate and opposition are encouraged – contestation

Structured time and space and processes for sustained ‘conversations’ need to be created – conversation as enquiry

Roles and capacity or disposition(s) in collaborative inquiry need to be systematically developed – professional development (Diamond & Rush, 2010)