Reflective Theory_and Practice in _Teacher Education

4  Reflective Practice: Ancient Wisdom and Practice—Australian Indigenous… 79 In the sharing of this “surface” layer of knowledge Story about Country, Neidjie is including the reader into the appropriate telling of the Story—he can only tell us a certain amount, a certain surface version because that’s what the Story says to do. Those that know the deep knowledge of this Story have followed the Story for thou- sands and thousands of years, which really re-equates as a continuing moment (not an event that happened in the past) which is still occurring. The act of listening is available to us all. This involves an “inner, deep listening and quiet; an inner still- ness … where there is no fear of silence” (Ungunmerr-Baumann 2002, p. 1). Today this may be referred to as a form of mindfulness or contemplation, but this is putting English words to a non-English act. Miriam Rose Ungunmerr-Baumann (2002) uses this concept “Dadirri” in her teaching, in her life. She describes one way of experi- encing Dadirri which we share here knowing that Dadirri is: Simply being it is not a search for outcomes or activity … Clear a little space as often as you can, to simply sit and look at and listen to the earth and environment that surrounds you. Focus on something specific, such as a bird, a blade of grass, a clump of oil, cracked earth, a flower, bush or leaf, a cloud in the sky or a body of water (sea, river, lake … ) whatever you can see. Or just let something find you be it a leaf, the sound of a bird, the feel of the breeze, the light on a tree trunk. No need to try. Just wait a while and let something find you, let it spend time with you. Lie on the earth, the grass, some place. Get to know that little place and let it get to know you – your warmth, feel your pulse, hear your heart beat, know your breathing, your spirit. Just relax and be there, enjoy- ing the time together. Simply be aware of your focus, allowing yourself to be still and silent..., to listen …. (Ungunmerr-Baumann 2002, p. 4) The act of paying attention is also available to us all. This act further engages our deeper sense of listening. How can we as educational practitioners inspire this and engage with this in the context of our teaching and learning environments? We will share two examples of strategies not so that people can latch onto cookie cutters but to showcase how sur- face knowledge can be taken to greater depths. In Australia, we undertake what is called the Acknowledgement of Country, in which we on public occasions or before teaching sessions at some universities acknowledge the local Nations in the area where the group is gathered. The Acknowledgement of Country can allow people to put a name to a place, but this may have little meaning for them. It may in fact just be seen as an act of political correctness—something we “have” to do, working at a different level if, after acknowledging Nation(s) and Country(s), we share a Story from the area; by telling the Story with imaginings and engaging all senses, we further engage the listener and begin to connect them to place. This connects and builds relationships between the narrator, the listeners, the Storys and the Country(s). At an even deeper level after identifying the Nation, sharing a Story and a specific link to the business at hand, we can connect the listener to place and this business. Depth and nourishment can be even more significant when we acknowledge and embrace Country as having Storys hundreds or thousands of years old where the business of the day is just one Story embalmed within all of the many Storys from that place. By paying attention and listening, we are able to transport and connect old Knowings, new knowledges co-becoming with Country in ways that deepen our

80 N. Blair and B. Collins-Gearing associations, our relationships with each other, our business with each other with Country and with our sense of place and identity. Such an acknowledgement if used can be an educative practice. A second illustration involves using Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander weather/seasonal maps and calendars to allow students and others to experience other Knowings. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s website (2014) Storys different geographical places. Some local Aboriginal community sites showcase different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander calendars as well as non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ones. Students researching these sites can explore the rhythms, patterns, tones and dimensions within their local region’s calendars. The Storying, the listening and paying attention go beyond Western named disciplines to identifying landscapes, soundscapes, astronomy, flora, fauna and all elements the universe links together. (For resources related to these practices see the Respect Relationships Reconciliation (2016) website http://rrr.edu.au/unit/.) More simply, we can ask ourselves, and our students, to look at different plants in their area. For example, if there is a coastal wattle, look at it, and listen to it at different times of the year. In some parts of the Country, if a coastal wattle is in flower, bream are running and ready to be caught. What are the signs? If, as Gurindji state, knowing is about paying attention and not searching for an answer to a question, then it is clear that reflective practice from an Indigenous per- spective, like the concepts and knowings of Country and Story, is different from the view of reflective practice that we are used to in the Western academy, one not better or worse, just different. Western notions of progress, advancement and enlighten- ment place emphasis on the singular, individual self and the individual movement towards improvement. This is different from the idea of environments, ecosystems, communities and practices already being in balance, a state of collective coexis- tence as conceptualised in Indigenous ways of Knowing. Philosophers such as Dewey (1933) and Schön (1983) and authors such as Jones and Ryan (2014), Loughran (2002), Tabachnick and Zeichner (1991), Adler (2004) and Akbari (2007) contribute to a debate about the purposes and processes of reflective practice as a key attribute of teachers. Although we acknowledge the complexity of this discus- sion, we suggest that reflective practice from within the Brick Wall is most often concerned with the identification of a problem, which then takes us to action leading to some form of improvement, whereas in Indigenous practice, there is emphasis on just doing and actioning without the idea of improvement. Perhaps all we are sug- gesting is that in the Indigenous context, “reflection” is a big picture practice, where everything is considered and allowed agency rather than only focusing on the indi- vidual self’s movement towards something better. In arguing this, we are not mean- ing to trivialise Western discourse about reflective practice. Our reflections, though different, can coexist with those of you, the readers of this chapter. We are simply trying to listen to other discourses, other voices and other Storys around us that have, for the last 200 years, been built over and silenced. Different stories which contradict each other, do not conflict, but simply coexist. … A story is told, the information is exchanged and discussed. However, the discussion was not for finding a single ‘right’ story, but for exploring the several possibilities of the cause … main-

4  Reflective Practice: Ancient Wisdom and Practice—Australian Indigenous… 81 taining the knowledge did not mean finding a ‘right’ story but widening the possibilities of stories. Information of different variations is preferred, pooled and maintained as a bundle of possibilities without judgement. (Hokari 2000, pp. 8–9) As Wilson (2008) asserts, we share personal Storys because it is important for us to “impart [our] own life experience into the telling” (p. 32) whilst giving the listen- ers the space to “filter the story being told through their own experience, adapting the information to make it relevant and specific to their life” (Wilson 2008, p. 32). We invite you as readers of this chapter to do just this, to have read and seen, lis- tened and heard our storying of reflective practice and to have walked with us. You have walked Mt. Kincumba with us. Perhaps like us you can see the eagle, hear it breathing, see, feel and smell the possum fur and see and hear the pelicans above your heads. Our co-becoming with the mountain has led us to new space, a new place in our minds, our hearts, with this now being reflected in our writing. You see, reflective practice is an ancient wisdom and practice which we build on as the Country around, the ecosystems supporting us, grows with possibilities. As practi- tioners of reflective practice in teacher education, we can all embrace the differing concepts, the bundle of possibilities to enrich and add depth to what we all do. Acknowledgements  We would like to acknowledge Countrys we come from and have walked as well as the spirits of the ancestors of these Countrys both for their guidance and wisdom. We acknowledge our friend who walked Mt. Kincumba with us. References Adler, S. (2004). Multiple layers of a researcher’s identity: Uncovering Asian American voices. In K. Mutua & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts. Critical personal narratives (pp. 107–122). Albany: State University of New York Press. Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 192–207. Arbon, V. (2008). Arlathirnda Ngurkarnda Ityirnda. Being-knowing-doing. De-colonising Indigenous tertiary education. Teneriffe: Post Pressed. Arrows, F. (2006). Introduction. In F. Arrows (Ed.), Unlearning the language of conquest. Scholars expose anti-Indianism in America (pp. 18–28). Austin: University of Texas Press. Atkinson, J. (2002). Trauma trails, recreating song lines: The transgenerational effects of trauma in indigenous Australia. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press. Australian Bureau of Metereology. (2014). Indigenous weather knowledge. Retrieved from http:// www.bom.gov.au/iwk/index.shtml Battiste, M., & Youngblood Henderson, S. (2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage. A global challenge. Saskatoon: Purich. Bell, D. (1998). Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin. A world that is, was, and will be. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press. Benterrak, K. M. (1996). Reading the country. South Fremantle: Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Bird Rose, D. (1996). Nourishing terrains. Australian aboriginal views of landscape and wilder- ness. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission.

82 N. Blair and B. Collins-Gearing Blair, N. (2015a). Privileging Australian indigenous knowledge. Sweet potatoes, spiders, water- lilys and brick walls. Champaign: Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations/ Common Ground Press. Blair, N. (2015b). Aboriginal education: More than adding different perspectives. In N. Weatherby-­ Fell (Ed.), Learning to teach in the secondary school (pp. 189–208). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Blair, N. (2016). Australian aboriginal knowledges and service learning. In B. Bartleet, D. Bennett, A.  Power, & N.  Sunderland (Eds.), Engaging first peoples in arts-based service learning. Towards respectful and mutually beneficial educational practices (pp.  99–117). Cham: Springer. Cajete, G. (2004). Look to the mountain. An ecology of Indigenous education. Skyland: Kivaki Press. Carnes, R. (2011). Changing listening frequency to minimise white noise and hear indigenous voices. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 14(2–3), 170–184. Country, B., Wright, S., Suchet-Pearson, S., Lloyd, K., Burarrwanga, L., Ganambarr, R., … & Maymuru, D. (2015). Working with and learning from country: Decentring human authority. Cultural Geographies, 22(2), 269–283. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Fixico, D. (2003). The American Indian mind in a linear world. New York: Routledge. Hanlen, W. (2007). Indigenous literacies: Moving from social construction. In L. D. Makin (Ed.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2nd ed., pp. 233–234). Sydney: Elsevier Australia. Harrison, M. D. (2013). My people’s dreaming: An Aboriginal elder speaks on life, land, spirit and forgiveness. Sydney: HarperCollins Australia. Hokari, M. (2000). History happening in/between body and place: Journey to the aboriginal way of historical practice. Paper presented at the Habitus 2000 Conference: A Sense of Place, Unversity of Western Australia Perth. Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (Eds.). (2014). Successful teacher education. Partnerships, reflective prac- tice and the place of technology. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. King, T. (2003). The truth about stories. A native narrative. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies. Characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Kwaymullina, A. (2005). Seeing the light: Aboriginal law, learning and sustainable living in coun- try. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 6(11), 12–15. Kwaymullina, A. (2014). Walking many worlds: Storytelling and writing for the young. Retrieved from http://www.wheelercentre.com/notes/e221876968a8/ Kwaymullina, B., & Kwaymullina, A. (2010). Learning to read the signs: Law in an Indigenous reality. Journal of Australian Studies, 34(2), 195–208. Langton, M. (1993). Well, I saw it on the television and I heard it on the radio. Sydney: Australian Film Commission. Langton, M. (2000). Sacred geography western desert traditions of landscape art. In H. Perkins & H. Fink (Eds.), Papunya Tula: Genesis and genius (pp. 259–267). Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice. In Search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter. Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the impli- cations for researchers. Teneriffe: Post Pressed. McConchie, M. (2003). Elders. Wisdom from Australia’s Indigenous leaders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4  Reflective Practice: Ancient Wisdom and Practice—Australian Indigenous… 83 Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the savages. Savaging the disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Neidjie, B. (1989). Story about feeling. Broome: Magabala Books. Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press. Phillips, J., & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous studies in education. Reflection and the importance of knowing. Melbourne: Pearson. Randall, B. (2003). Songman the story of an Aboriginal elder. Sydney: ABC Books. Respect Relationships Reconciliation. (2016). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education: Resources for pre-service teachers. Retrieved from http://rrr.edu.au/ Riley, L. (2016). Kinship learning module. University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://sydney. edu.au/kinship-module/learning/4-totems.shtml Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Shiva, V. (2013). Making peace with the earth. London: Pluto Press. Sveiby, K. E., & Skuthorpe, T. (2006). Treading lightly: The hidden wisdom of the world’s oldest people. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Issues and practice in inquiry-oriented teacher educa- tion. London: Falmer Press. Tiffin, H., & Huggan, G. (2009). Postcolonial ecocriticism: Literature, animals, environment. London: Routledge. Trudgen, R. (2000). Djambatj Mala. Why warriors lie down and die. Darwin: Aboriginal Resource and Development Services Inc. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing research methodologies. Dunedin: University of Otago Press. Ungunmerr-Baumann, M-R. (2002). Dadirri: Inner deep listening and quiet still awareness. Emmaus Productions. Retrieved from http://nextwave.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Dadirri-­ Inner-­Deep-Listening-M-R-Ungunmerr-Bauman-Refl.pdf Watson, I. (1998). Power of the Muldarbi, the road to its demise. The Australian Feminist Law Journal, 11, 28–45. Watson, A., & Huntington, O. H. (2008). They’re here – I can feel them: The epistemic spaces of Indigenous and western knowledges. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(3), 257–281. Wilshire, B. (2006). On the very idea of “a worldview” and of “alternative worldviews”. In F. A. Jacobs (Ed.), Unlearning the language of conquest. Scholars expose anti-Indianism in America (pp. 160–272). Austin: University of Texas Press. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony. Indigenous research methods. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Youngblood Henderson, J.  (2000). Ayukpachi: Empowering aboriginal thought. In M.  Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 248–278). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Chapter 5 Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative Self-Study Julian Kitchen Abstract  In this chapter, I focus on how teacher educators can critically reflect on masculinity in education through narrative self-study. The chapter begins with a review of some important themes in the academic discourse on masculinity, includ- ing how the construct of masculinity affects straight men, women and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) communities. I then employ narrative self-study as a means of reflecting on, and critically engaging with, masculinity in teacher education contexts. In order to illus- trate narrative self-study as a reflective practice, throughout I share stories of such inquiry and unpack them in relation to this theme. 5.1  I ntroduction Examining and problematizing one’s classroom practices are central to reflective practice (Schön 1983). Through reflective practice, educators make sense of the complexities of practice and reinterpret their experiences from different perspectives. While improving pedagogical practices and understanding the practice context are at the heart of much reflective practice (Loughran 2004), a growing sense of the self in education (Russell 2004) has prompted practitioners to draw on their own experiences both to better understand how these experiences inform their practices and to adapt these practices to the needs of students and communities (Connelly and Clandinin 1988; Kitchen 2009). Narrative self-study (Clandinin and Connelly 2004) is particularly suited to helping educators understand their personal practical knowl- edge (Connelly and Clandinin 1988) and how their stories of experience inform their identities and performative selves. For reflection on the self and practice to be critical, the educator needs to both identify a problem and then reframe the problem (Dewey 1933). Essential to J. Kitchen (*) 85 Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_5

86 J. Kitchen ­rigorous reflection that challenges normalized understandings of the self is critical engagement with new information and ideas (Miller 1998). In this chapter, I focus on how teacher educators can critically reflect on mascu- linity in education through narrative self-study. This chapter begins with a review of some important themes in the academic discourse on masculinity, including how the construct of masculinity affects straight men, women and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) communities. I then employ narrative self-study (Kitchen 2009) as a means of reflecting on, and critically engaging with, masculinity in teacher education contexts. In order to illus- trate narrative self-study as a reflective practice, throughout, I share stories of such inquiry and unpack them in relation to this theme. As a teacher educator, I am very conscious of masculinity and how it plays out in the classroom. In my classes, I draw attention to the construction of male identity. I open the conversation with the trailer for The Mask You Live In (Siebel 2015), a documentary about the pressure on boys to conform to masculine stereotypes. “The three most destructive words that every man hears when he is a boy,” football player and coach Joe Ehrmann says, “is ‘Be a man!’” Dr. Michael Kimmel adds, “We con- structed an ideal of manliness… that doesn’t give boys a way to feel secure in their masculinity. So we make them go prove it all the time.” If unsuccessful, then “Dude, you’re a fag” (Pascoe 2012, p. 48). In the milieus I inhabit as a teacher and urban professional, masculinity matters considerably less than it does in schools. But it still pervades the culture in which we live. It informs our intimate relationships and the places in which we work. Masculinity is tacitly accepted yet unexamined by most men. It is, however, rigor- ously critiqued by feminist and queer theorists. At its best, it brings out good quali- ties in men. At its worst, it regulates and diminishes the lives of straight men, women and sexual/gender minorities. Certainly, masculinity merits attention from teacher educators interested in understanding themselves and their practice. Indeed, reflective practice focused on this theme can yield deep insights into oneself as an educator and into improving one’s practice. Male teacher educators need to reflect on how the social construction of masculinity informs their identities and the ways in which being male privileges them. Female teacher educators need to reflect on their assumptions about mascu- linity, how patriarchy influences their lives and how they may reinforce it. Given the importance of school culture in the psychology of boys, all teacher educators need to consider how they can encourage positive models of masculinity and diminish the power of hegemonic masculinity in schools.

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 87 5.2  E xploring Masculinity in Education Meaningful reflection on masculinity in education benefits from critical understand- ing of recent developments in gender studies and, in particular, masculinity. This section presents an overview of current conceptualizations, which challenge both stereotypical notions and first-wave feminist critiques. While males and patriarchy have long dominated many cultures, masculinity has only recently become a field of intellectual inquiry. Until the 1970s “the use of the male template for all human experience” (Brooks and Elder 2016, p. 3) led to igno- rance about the similarities and differences between men and women. “Feminist scholarship on the psychology of women and gender,” according to Levant and Richmond (2016), “developed a perspective that viewed gender roles as socially constructed by gender ideologies, rooted in power differences between men and women” (p. 23). While sex is a biological construct, gender is “a culturally derived construct focussing on the myriad ways that gender socialization regulates conduct” (Brooks and Elder 2016, p.  3). Over time, “traditional gendered performances become normative and compulsory” (Levant and Richmond 2016, p. 23) and are encoded neural pathways and social structures. In other words, femininity and mas- culinity are, to great extents, learned behaviours. This insight, derived from femi- nism and inquiry into women’s ways of being, prompted increased attention to men and masculinity. As a result, “the psychological study of masculinity and the prac- tice of gender-sensitive approaches to psychotherapy for boys and men has gradu- ally become a specialty area” (Kiselica et al. 2016, p. 123). The Myth of Masculinity, a seminal work by Pleck (1981), challenged essentialist notions of a clear masculine essence that is biologically determined and historically invariant. Indeed, Pleck found that gender roles are inconsistent, contradictory, dys- functional and often violated. Worse, violation of the gender norms of patriarchal society leads to negative psychological consequences, gender strain and social con- demnation. Pleck (1995) argued that the dominant gender ideologies of a society determined gender role norms. These norms, to which it is difficult for men to adhere, prompt gender strain for individuals (Pleck 1981) and social dysfunction. This strain partly emerges from pressure on males to conform to stereotypes in order to maintain their higher social status. Teasing and taunting against those who do not conform to stereotypes often prompt distress, socialization into traditional roles and suppression of emotion among boys (Farkas and Leaper 2016). Precarious manhood, in which status is hard to earn and easy to lose, makes the fear of being misclassified as gay the greatest fear (Steinberg and Diekman 2016). This is as misogynistic as it is heteronormative and homophobic, an assertion of masculine agency through the repudiation of femininity (Martino 2014). Parents, teachers and schools are complicit as they often leave boys to develop their understanding of what it means to be a man from peer culture. It is incumbent on us to use our con- siderable influence to address tacit and explicit norms of masculinity that generate gender strain and aggression.

88 J. Kitchen Sociologists and critical theorists view masculinity as a deeply problematic con- struct that privileges males, reinforces patriarchy, subjugates women and marginal- izes LGBTQIA people. Connell (2005) employs the term masculinities and identifies four categories of masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity refers to the cultural ideal of masculinity that legitimizes patriarchy and the collective, institutional power of men in institutions of business, government and the military. Toughness—emotional restraint, daring, uncompromising, aggressive—is the ideal, while so-called femi- nine characteristics (emotional vulnerability, demonstrativeness, meekness, flexibil- ity and passivity) are dismissed. Complicit masculinity (Connell 2005) refers to the stance of the many men who may not fit the hegemonic ideal but benefit from the advantages of being male in a society that subordinates women and LGBTQIA. As Connell also aligns patriarchy with White privilege, marginalized masculinities refer to the ways in which other cultures are denigrated; Blacks, for example, are often dismissed as hypersexual and violent. Finally, subordinate masculinities refer to the placement of LGBTQIA people at the bottom of the gender hierarchy and their symbolical expulsion from hegemonic masculinity for perceived femininity. This expulsion is based on the assumption that all males should be cisgender—have a gender identity or gender expression that matches their assigned sex—not trans- gender. It also assumes that same-sex attraction is an inappropriate behaviour for real men. This category can also include heterosexual men perceived as wimps, sissies and nerds for their failed expressions of masculinity. Connell’s framing of masculinities is useful in understanding patriarchy, power and privilege. It is also helpful in reflecting on the degree to which we as educators implicitly validate oppression when we are blind to its enactment through constructions of gender and masculinity in school culture (Kitchen 2014a). At the same time, it is important to note: “There is no single pattern of masculinity which is found in all cultures and at all periods of history” (Connell 2008, p. 132). Indeed, even where hegemonic mas- culinity holds the dominant position, a “single institution will often be host to diverse constructions of masculinity” (Connell 2008, p. 132). While these frameworks are useful in critiquing the harmful effects of constricted notions of masculinity and white heteronormative male hegemony, they are “overly focused on male pathology and… overlook masculinity strengths, adaptive behav- ior and the positive aspects of being a man” (Kiselica et al. 2016, p. 123). Kiselica et al. report that extensive research indicates that most males have secure attach- ments, are well adjusted, are reasonably expressive and are prosocial in manner. Indeed, they wax poetic about a positive and noble masculinity paradigm: There is something beautiful about being a witness to the lives of decent boys and men, and there are many great lessons to be learned from these admirable human beings. Boys who are raised with the belief that they have a duty of care and provide for others, work hard, serve their communities, be courageous and self-reliant, and take healthy risks tend to grow up to be well-adjusted men and make significant contributions to their families and society. (p. 125) A challenge for educators is to accentuate the positive while recognizing the negative effects of hegemonic masculinity. Teacher educators can contribute to

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 89 social change by critically reflecting on these ideas in relation to ourselves and our work as teachers of the teachers on the frontlines of male identity formation. 5.3  N arrative Self-Study as Reflective Practice Narrative inquiry is more than “the study of stories or narratives or descriptions of a series of events” (Pinnegar and Daynes 2007, p.  4). We immerse ourselves in experience as lived and told in stories, but the telling and collection of stories is only the beginning of the reflective process. Through the multidimensional exploration of these stories, narrative knowledge emerges that helps us to critically reflect on identities and practices. As educators reflecting on masculinity, narrative self-study is a means of applying academic knowledge to the interpretation of those experi- ences as played out many times in our lives. We also tell stories of our past that frame our present standpoints. It is through the multidimensional exploration of these stories that narrative knowledge emerges. As Taylor and Coia write (Taylor and Coia 2009), “Our pedagogical choices, our perceptions if the challenges we face, all involve our values, beliefs, and prior expe- riences” (p. 5). By storying experiences, we see the multiple narrative threads at work in our lives. However, the experiences of individuals, institutions and/or com- munities at any given moment in time need to be “contextualized within a longer-­ term historical narrative” (Clandinin and Connelly 2000, p. 19). By moving back and forth between the personal and social, we see that “the self is not a fixed entity [but] rather it is socially constructed in the context of social, historical, and cultural relationships” (Taylor and Coia 2014, p. 11). While storying experiences is hard work, “the more difficult and important task is the retelling of stories that allow for growth and change” (Clandinin and Connelly 2000, p. 71). Narrative self-study attends to the improvement of practice by reflecting on one- self and one’s practices as a teacher educator through methods for telling and retell- ing stories of our experiences, the experiences of others and the dynamics in our teacher education classrooms. It focuses on “the living of teacher knowledge in action, rather than merely the verbal (whether written or spoken) accounts of action” (Clandinin and Connelly 2004, p. 582). It offers critical frames that situate experi- ences within classrooms, schools and other social spaces that influence professional knowledge and practice (Clandinin and Connelly 1995). Juxtaposing stories with scholarly understandings of masculinity helps one move beyond normalized world views to world views rounded in critical insights (Miller 1998). Narrative inquiry involves understanding how the past, present and anticipated future shape our actions. Although stories relate to the personal dimension of experience, narrative self-study also helps us reflect on how we are situated within contexts with tempo- ral, social and spatial dimensions. In this chapter, the personal experience methods of storytelling and autobiogra- phy are used to puzzle over issues related to masculinity in education.

90 J. Kitchen 5.4  Storytelling: Unpacking Gender Presentation Storytelling can be a powerful method for exploring one’s identity as a learner or teacher. Stories may involve classroom learning, family and learning beyond the school and classroom teaching experiences. They are often events from the past, as opposed to a reflection on an event that just occurred. Revisiting stories—on their own or as a collection—is the first stage in a process that then involves restorying and reinterpreting narratives of experience. Connelly and Clandinin (1988) recom- mend that teachers begin with at least three stories, as three “seems to be a mini- mum number to examine for themes, threads, or patterns” (p. 48). While there is value in theoretical explorations of masculinity, it is through our lived experiences we can best understand the impact of social constructions of mas- culinity on our identities and worldviews. Teacher educators—particularly white, heterosexual, cisgender males—may not have taken the time to reflect on their gen- der identities or how hegemonic masculinity has impacted their identities. I encour- age teacher educators to explore their gender identities, perhaps beginning with a reflective journal entry followed by the storying of the presentation of self (e.g. mentioning a spouse or children), a minor incident (e.g. talking about sports to build rapport) or a moment of tension (e.g. bullying). In the story below, I describe how I typically present myself to a new teacher education class. Although I pay particular attention to issues of masculinity, I try to be descriptive in the storytelling. Afterwards, I restory and reinterpret the story in relation to the masculinity paradigms introduced in this chapter. Introducing Myself to Students  Machiavelli wrote that it is better to be feared than loved. As I introduced myself to my new teacher education classes, I seek to be both. I wear a grey suit with starched white shirt and purple striped tie. The suit’s muted tone conveys strength and professionalism. The contemporary cut of the suit both suggests sophistication and draws attention to my fitness level. The tie is both dramatic and masculine. I try to maintain a tension between accessibility and authority. I hide my shyness and nerves behind a mask of confidence. The 30 faces that stare back at me are predominately white, and 60% female. I smile and welcome them to the class. I acknowledge that Professionalism and Law seems like an intimidating course, yet assure them that the material is accessible and that I will do all I can to help them succeed. I introduce myself. I tell them that I have been at the university since 2006, and have been a teacher educator since 1999. I note that I wrote the textbook (i.e. I know my stuff) because there was no Canadian text that addressed the topic in an accessible manner. The book focuses on teachers’ duty of care to students, I explain, and how being caring and careful can guide ethical decision-making. I draw on my 13 years as a secondary school teacher and research in classrooms to convey my commitment to making the material prac- tical and relevant. I emphasize my authority by noting that I am the director of Indigenous education and the project lead in the redesign of the teacher education program. I draw attention to my publications in teacher education journals and books, as well as funded research on Indigenous education in the north.

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 91 I feel a knot in my stomach and a wave of panic. My face reddens and my voice falters. I mention that my recent research on bullying and gay-straight alliances has heightened my awareness of the role teachers can play in making schools safe for all students. I then note that I have also written about queer theory and my identity as a queer teacher educator. While they absorb this disclosure, I plow ahead with my introduction to the course. After a brief presentation of the theme of the course, I introduce them to a case study. As they work on the case, I circulate and make casual conversation. In taking up the case, I keep the tone light and ironic, as it is often best to maintain a sense of humour in dealing with sensitive issues. In working through the case, both of which deal with the tension between individual rights and public safety, we consider the Supreme Court’s view that we need to find reasonable accommodations between individual and collective rights. I conclude the class by encouraging them to puzzle over the issues raised and applying ethical decision-making to dilemmas of practice. I assure them that it will help them be more caring teachers. The big revelation in this story is that I am gay. Clearly, this is a big deal to me, both as a part of my identity and as a potential basis for subordination by students. As Connell (2005) notes, this revelation potentially places me at the bottom of the gender hierarchy. While students need not know—as it is an invisible stigma and I do not come across as gay—I have determined that it is important to be upfront. As I have experienced no consequences, my story (Kitchen 2016a) and my presence as a role model counter stereotypes and disrupts hegemonic masculinity. Revisiting the incident through storytelling also helps me see other ways in which masculinity informs my presentation of self. I offset potential subordination by emphasizing markers of hegemonic masculinity through my business suit, sense of authority and emotional restraint. Thus, I am partly complicit in hegemonic mas- culinity—benefitting from the positive stereotypes of white males—even as I dis- rupt conventional notions. Also, I evidently experience a degree of gender strain as I evidenced by my adoption, in embodied (clothing, physique and body language) and disembodied (authority manifest in academic achievement) ways, of masculine ideals. Also, I am attempting to model being a decent man who demonstrates a duty of care, community-mindedness, courage and healthy risk-taking. As a teacher educa- tor, I have worked hard to model a relational approach to teaching (Kitchen 2005a, b, 2016b) that is respectful of everyone and all groups. This process of storying the experience informs me of how I live out my masculinity in the present and draws attention to unexamined aspects of my classroom persona and practice. Most impor- tant, given the focus of this chapter, is the social dimension of restorying and rein- terpreting within a broader discussion of masculinity. Among other things, the story highlights the messiness of masculinity discourses by illustrating how one may be both victimized by and implicated in patriarchal notions of masculinity.

92 J. Kitchen 5.5  S torytelling: Unpacking Gender Relations Storytelling as a means of exploring how masculinity can be oppressive to women is nicely illustrated by Jeffrey Kuzmic (2014) in “Disturbing Masculinities: Epistemology, Outlaw Emotions, and the Gendered Self in Self-Study Research”. He draws on an incident with a female graduate student, captured in his field notes, to puzzle over the stance he took as a male professor. While not a deeply disturbing event, it was troubling enough that Kuzmic returned to it in order to glean insights into his identity and practice. In field notes, Kuzmic storied the experience as being about Madison having a “meltdown” in class: I told her that I think she needed to stop collecting data [and] get some distance and per- spective in order to complete her analysis and the final paper; that she was too close to things and it was obviously having an impact. She agreed and at least she seemed to have calmed down. (p. 81) This story is placed alongside a story involving his wife: And then it comes out, not in anger, perhaps in frustration, and certainly with the desire to help me understand: “You’re such a guy. I don’t want you to make things right, to fix it, or even to try and make me feel better. I want you to listen, to share, to feel with me.” (p. 80) This juxtaposition and the crafting of the narrative draw attention to the ways in which masculinity plays out even in the lives of men who employ feminist scholar- ship and combat social injustice. In his multilayered reinterpretation of these story fragments, Kuzmic unpacks male privilege and the ways in which he was pejorative and dismissive of Madison. He draws on a range of texts to uncover how little he appreciated Madison’s response as a woman and how much he privileged reason over emotion. He explains the title: In the first sense, I use the term ‘disturbing’ to an awakening of sorts to the power of my identity as a gendered subject, which shapes my understanding and experience of the world in ways that make my complicity in the inequalities of patriarchy invisible. In the second sense, I use ‘disturbing’ as a conscious political act intended to disrupt and redefine the ideological social, epistemological, and methodological terrain that serves as the hege- monic foundation for patriarchy. (p. 84) Kuzmic’s storying, restorying and reinterpretation of a critical incident with a student exposes the subtle dynamics of masculinity and patriarchy in education. It illustrates the power of critically reflecting on masculinity through narrative, through its interweaving of personal experience with the social context. Finally, Kuzmic’s account is a celebration of narrative inquiry as a way of learning to live new stories. Stories like this have the potential to prompt others to consider inci- dents in their lives and work in which there are tensions between men and women and in puzzling over male-female perspectives.

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 93 5.6  Autobiography: Masculinity from Boyhood to Manhood Autobiographical writing is another personal experience method for understanding our narratives of experience. Connelly and Clandinin (1988) write: We often begin our classes with having participants share brief autobiographical state- ments. It is helpful to follow up this brief oral presentation with longer written versions. We also ask our graduate students to begin their theses and dissertations with their own autobi- ographies. (p. 39) As I have noted elsewhere: Writing an autobiography, particularly an extended version, is not easy. It is, however, an excellent way of examining how one’s personal history informs one’s present practice and plans for the future. Stories that have been developed independently can be incorporated into the narrative or included as artifacts of experience to be examined. In addition, an autobiography can include consideration of current teaching practices as revealed through personal experience methods such as metaphors, rules and principles, personal philoso- phies, and journals. (Kitchen 2009, p. 42) While writing an entire autobiography—as I did for my master’s thesis—may be excessive for the present purpose, understanding how masculinity has informed one’s experiences over time and across social contexts is a useful exercise. In the following autobiographical passage, I write about the impact of masculinity in my life from grade 7 to 13. Embedded are two stories written at different times. As important as the storying and restorying—the final product being the result of mul- tiple craftings—is the interpretation that follows. The Outsider  School was often a lonely place, a place where I felt inadequate. I switched schools frequently due to emigration to Canada from England, multiple switches of houses and shifting transitioning through elementary, middle and secondary school. Even when we settled down for periods of time, I felt like an outsider. In 1993 (age 33), I recalled an incident that took place in Grade 7: Shy, awkward and self-conscious—yet not fat or asthmatic—I was a perfect target for the gym teacher… He seemed to think gym class was boot camp. He yelled at us, called us names, praised the highly-skilled and competent, criticized the inept, and preyed on the vulnerable. One period, being absent-minded, I arrived in gym class without my equipment. Since Mr. Brown had not arrived, I rushed to the library to collect my bag and return. When I arrived, Mr. Brown was breathing fire. After a severe—to me—dressing down, I was instructed to return the gym bag to the library. I was then sent back to the library to retrieve it. When I returned, I was belittled again and sent to my seat shaken and on the verge of tears... Now I am quite fit. I run and swim regularly and enjoy both squash and soccer. Still I feel uncomfortable and illegitimate when I go to the gym. The drill sergeant approach to physical education was a disaster for me. Rather than toughen me up—which was not a bad idea—it pushed me further into myself. High school was particularly difficult for me. I had nicely settled into Grade 9 when the family moved into the city. Being the new kid in Grade 10 was difficult enough. Then, before I was able to make any friends, the teachers went on strike for several months. When I returned to school in January, cliques had already formed, and I sat alone in the cafeteria plucking up the courage to talk to another uninteresting outsider. Shy and self-conscious, I

94 J. Kitchen burrowed deeper into myself. Otherwise, I was a ‘nerd’—intellectual but disengaged in class—but not particularly odd in manner or appearance. The corridor near the gym was an imposing space where the jocks hung out. There was lots of banter and interplay between jocks and their girlfriends. I often avoided this space. I paid little attention to masculine banter and my circles of friends did not engage particularly in sexist or homophobic language. My identity as an outsider was compounded by a growing realization that I was attracted to other boys. Knowing this caused me to become more reclusive and feel more alienated. I recalled later: On my way home from school one spring afternoon in Grade 10, I dropped my bag and out tumbled several books. Phil, who was in one of my classes, helped gather my belong- ings. As we walked together, I felt a spark of energy, a special connection with a beauti- ful, gentle boy who was like me. In the days that followed, I imagined spending time with Phil, gazing into his blue eyes, and kissing him. But I was scared to let down my guard. I avoided seeing Phil again during my time in high school. My adolescence in 1970s Toronto is a collection of stories in which little happened, with this being a notable example. I was a normal enough Grade 10 student: gawky yet bright, an outsider in a new school. My gay identity was safely locked away, my yearnings held in check, and my mask firmly fixed. I carried on well enough as I progressed through the grades. By Grade 13, I had gained confidence, demonstrated academic success, edited the school newspaper, rose in social status, and dated girls. Yet my brief encounter with Phil haunts me still. Recently, as I read several young adult novels about gay youth, I cried, and cried, and cried. I cried for lost innocence. I cried for feeling alone, and lonely. For learning to be guarded about my feelings. For not having a normal adolescence. For not having kissed a boy… I cried because I had made the right choice. If we had entered into an awkward, fum- bling teen romance, it would have ended in disaster. I did not have the strength of character to deal with the experience, and the world around us would have reacted cruelly. I cried because alternative endings remain difficult for most lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens today. (Kitchen 2014b, pp. 310–311) And, yet, I was not the victim of overt homophobia. I am sure I was called ‘fag’ once in a while, but no more than the average guy. On one occasion in Science I was confronted by a jock, but my athletic lab partner quickly silenced the aggressor. Shortly after writing this story, I reflected further on my adolescence. I planned to fol- low-u­ p with an account of how repressive it was to date girls for 3 years. While restorying the experience in my journal (December 8, 2013), I discovered that my experience was not so bad: Dating girls was by chance (they asked me) and by choice (I accepted I could prove my masculinity to myself and to others). My social status increased along with my confidence. From girlfriends, I learned how to engage in intimate conversation and to get close to another individual. They helped me to feel loved, and to appreciate the pleasure of being physical with another human being. While kissing a boy would have been preferable, these moments were among the most joyful of my life up to that point. On the arms of girlfriends, with my masculinity no longer questioned, I eventually claimed my place at cool academic kids’ table. Writing autobiographically about a period of time is different from storying a particular experience. Individual stories, such as my encounters with Mr. Brown and Phil, stand out less when they are not reinforced by similar stories. I cannot recall being ridiculed and emasculated by another teacher. Most teachers put up with my eccentricities and the classroom was a safe space. While I internalized the

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 95 ­homophobia of the school culture by living a lie, dating girls was largely a positive experience. In writing this autobiographical piece, I expected to have considerable fodder for a critique of masculinity as played out in school. The reality proved more nuanced. It is difficult to untangle the multiple dimensions of one’s life. To what extent was my outsider status a product of being new and unknown? To my quirky nature, underdeveloped social judgement and sharp tongue? To archetypal males asserting hegemony? To homophobia? To what extent was I complicit in hegemonic mascu- linity? While it is difficult to disentangle the threads, masculinity was a persistent influence in the development of my identity and remains pervasive in the social context of schools. As I grappled with this problem, I was reminded that restorying and reinterpreting experiences are cognitive processes. I needed to account for the apparent differences between my experiences and the depictions of masculinity in the literature and accounts of masculinity in schools to make this reinterpretation meaningful for me and for others reading my reflections. A rich source for understanding the dynamics of teenagers in schools is Milner’s (2004) Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids. Milner identifies a consistent hierarchy that privileges athletic males and attractive females as the cool kids. Some form distinct subcultures, such as goths, school band and stage crew, while others constitute an anonymous mass semi-cool or uncool kids. In the ecology of schools, “‘nerds’ who are openly preoccupied with academic success” (Milner 2004, p. 41) are normally close to the bottom of the teenage status ladder. As someone unathletic and smart (though not studious), my coolness would have been questioned, even if I had been more familiar and less shy. Yet, only a few can be cool, while the vast majority yearn for coolness or simply avoid trouble. Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School by C.J. Pascoe (2012) probes more deeply into masculinity as played out in schools. Pascoe builds on vivid accounts and candid conversations with teenagers to illustrate how mascu- linity is enacted in schools and reinforced. Pascoe writes, “Expressing heterosexual desire establishes a sort of baseline masculinity. Bradley, a charming blond, blue-­ eyed sophomore…explained, ‘To be the coolest guy? If you’re a stud at sports and you’re a stud with the ladies’” (p. 70). Scoring with girlfriends “both protected boys from the specter of the fag and bolstered their masculinity” (Pascoe, p.  71), yet expressions of affection, such as holding hands, were derided. Pascoe also recounts a “Revenge of the Nerds” skit that saw the protagonists transformed from unmascu- line nerds unable to protect their girlfriends into muscular, heterosexual men through working out, asserting racial privilege and sexual aggression. School ceremonies, such as this skit, are cited as evidence that “authorities encouraged, engaged in, and reproduced the centrality of repudiation processes to adolescent masculinity” (Pascoe, p. 114). This “repudiation of femininity, weakness, and, most importantly, the specter of the ‘fag’” (p. 113) was tacitly approved and sometimes enacted by teachers. I wanted to be cool, but I was so far from cool that I was not even in the game! I was not a stud in sport. Even if I had been heterosexual, I doubt I would have objec- tified and used girls in that way. I was only peripherally aware of the gendered and

96 J. Kitchen sexual dominance practices described by Pascoe, but I was sufficiently attuned to stay well clear of spaces that made me uncomfortable. Most of my heterosexual peers—the moderately nerdy and reasonably cool—did not engage in such talk (or only in a perfunctory manner). This is consistent with Pascoe’s observation that one-on-one interactions are very different than pack dynamics. While I deeply appreciate the work of Pascoe and masculinity researchers in addressing hegemonic masculinity and the gender strain it imposes on LGBTQIA, women, and straight men, my experience was of mainly decent boys working towards becoming decent men. While most boys were not engaged in hegemonic masculine behaviours, there is a degree to which we were complicit. Certainly, few challenged the dominant dis- course or confronted bullying, even though many did not engage in these practices. As males of high socio-economic status, many of us assumed we would be success- ful in the world and did little to challenge the social order. I hid my outcast state and accepted the social status conferred on me as a guy with a girlfriend. I was certainly aware of my subordinate status in culture where heteronormativ- ity and masculinity are forces of repression. Knowing that being gay would make me a complete outsider and, possibly, a victim of homophobia, I denied myself and hid behind a mask. In 1992, in a paper for a graduate course, I wrote: It is hard to become whole—to unite the private and public—when society denies your sexuality—part of the core of your private identity. This means that in order to function one is expected to hide this secret and act as if part of the majority. The consequence, as Paul Monette (1992) laments, is “the gutting of all our passion till we are a bunch of eunuchs, our zones of pleasure in enemy hands” (pp. 1–2). Worse than external stigmas is the self-­ delusion and self-hate this engenders in the victim. While being gay reinforced my self-identity as an outsider, it was not a factor in how others perceived me at the time. Indeed, I recall only one homophobic com- ment directed at me. While heterosexuality was compulsory and homosexuals were dismissed, I have little recollection of homophobic taunts or bullying directed at students perceived to be queer. I came out as gay during my first year university with limited fallout from friends and family. I joined my friend Paul at a summer party with former high school class- mates. Paul was taken aside by several guys. They observed that two of his best friends had “turned gay”, then demanded to know if he was gay. Paul, age 19 with no girlfriend, courageously stood by his gay friends. He remains a close friend and I am godfather to his first child. My encounter with Mr. Brown is an example of teachers enacting dominance with a male student. He is part of a highly gendered military drill tradition in physi- cal education and competitive sports that focuses on disciplining male bodies (Connell 2008). There are many signs that male physical education teachers are downplaying competition, employing de-gendering strategies (e.g. mixed classes) and confronting homophobia (e.g. Connell 2008). Connell downplays the influence of sports coaches, citing its low status. The higher status accorded coaches and sports in the United States may account for the dominant masculinities in Pascoe’s (2012) study.

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 97 The incident with Mr. Brown was a singular event in my personal experience, and I witnessed little such behaviour from other teachers. I did, however, witness teachers ignore masculinist behaviour, homophobic allusions and sexist comments. As Milner (2004) observed, this is both gendered behaviour and a reluctance to confront the arbiters of coolness in the school. For the most part, teachers made classrooms safe places for students interested in learning, as they continue to do in the schools I visit as a teacher educator. However, then and now—based on my research on school climate and bullying (Kitchen and Bellini 2013)—those teachers who are less skilled or more negligent do little to make the school climate safer and disrupt the school ecology that privileges hegemonic masculinity. The teen years are a time in which archetypes of male dominance are prevalent. This reality needs to be acknowledged and confronted by educators for the sake of victims of gendered harassment and for the sake of all students. At the same time, my experience as a student—reinforced by my 13 years as a teacher and 17 years as a teacher educator—is that most people carry on in a reasonably civilized and civil manner. While dominant patterns put pressure on all adolescent males, a study of British high school life revealed many construct identities individually and collec- tively through relations with girls, academic success, involvement in the arts and unconventionality (Mac an Ghaill 1994). 5.7  I mplications for Reflective Practice in Teacher Education “Teachers often recognize a disparity in what they believe and what they actually do in practice”, according to Samaras and Freese (2006, p.  13). Whitehead (1989) refers to this as a living contradiction we attempt to reconcile through critical reflec- tion on ourselves and our practices. In this chapter, I addressed this living contradic- tion by exploring masculinity through narrative inquiry. I identify three implications for reflective practice by teacher educators. First, narrative self-study is an effective means for unpacking elements of iden- tity through the prompting of stories of experience that make one aware of unexam- ined beliefs and practices. Restorying and reinterpreting experience—which “takes place in the present moment and anticipates plans for the future” (Clandinin and Connelly 2000, pp. 37–38)—prompts action, however modest. The process of sto- rying, restorying and reinterpretation can be applied to many dimensions of identity, practice and context. Hopefully, the examples provided demonstrate both the pro- cess of narrative exploration and the impact of reflection through personal experi- ence methods. Second, masculinity is an under-examined yet vitally important theme in class- rooms, one that influences educator identity and practice. Gender norms, including expressions of masculinity, are facets of personal and professional knowledge that tacitly inform the practices of teachers yet are often left unexamined by educators and teacher educators. The literature reviewed in this chapter highlights the power of normative assumptions about masculinity. Pascoe’s (2012) account of adolescent

98 J. Kitchen culture reminds us of that these assumptions are particularly pervasive in schools. This often oppressive peer culture is enacted under the gaze of educators, so teach- ers and principals can have a profound impact should they choose to exercise their duty of care. My research on school climate (Kitchen and Bellini 2013) has shown me that individual teachers can make a difference. Milner (2004) describes a school that was successful in breaking down cliques to establish a school culture respectful to all. Third, teacher educators who take the trouble to reflect on masculinity can use their knowledge and self-knowledge to deal with masculinity and gender in thought- ful ways. Airton (2014) writes, “Humanizing myself is my best response” (p. 387). I think of Leon, a grade 4 student who dressed as a girl for Halloween; when asked by his father, Leon said that he knew he would be safe because Mr. Fitzgerald made sure all students were treated with care and respect (Kitchen 2008). As a queer pro- fessor relating with students and colleagues, I work hard to model being caring, relational and non-judgemental. I draw on my own experiences and recall how much being called a fag hurts all students. I remind them that they are being observed when they ignore a homophobic taunt or pretend not to see a student shoved in the hall. What lessons are they teaching then? As teacher educators, we all have oppor- tunities to live out stories as human beings who treat all students—regardless of gender presentation or sexuality—with care. We all have opportunities to disrupt stereotypes whether we teach math, physical education or social justice. This knowledge applies particularly to those of us who teach courses in which we can help students understand how gender and sexuality have informed their per- sonal identities and professional practice. This can be done through reflective writ- ing exercises such as those in this chapter. Vavrus (2009), who employed reflective writing with students in a social justice course, reported heightened awareness and a commitment to addressing these problematic elements of school life. It can also be done in small ways when we are open and responsive. For example, during a workshop on sexual and gender minorities in schools, a table of aspiring technology teachers (tradesmen by background) were asked to respond to definitions of terms such as cisgender, heteronormative and transgender. As I sat with the group, they puzzled over the notion of cisgender. They had never been exposed to the term and puzzled innocently with the idea that one’s biological sex might not match one’s gender identity. One asked, “If I am as man (and a man who likes women) become woman, would that make me a lesbian?” Others unselfconsciously formulated simi- lar questions in the first person. We laughed as we marvelled at the array of possi- bilities. Having expected them to be uncomfortable, I marvelled at their receptivity to alternative construction of gender. As a teacher educator who raises such issues, usually in playful and nonthreatening ways (Kitchen and Bellini 2012), I believe that aspiring teachers are particularly open to such dialogue. We need to find ways to engage beginning teachers so that together we protect women from harassment, shield LGBTQIA students from bullying and help heterosexual males feel secure in their masculinity. We should all feel comfortable and committed enough to decent men and women engaged in helping boys become decent men.

5  Critically Reflecting on Masculinity in Teacher Education Through Narrative… 99 References Airton, L. (2014). Hatred haunting hallways: Teacher education and the badness of homophobia(s). In E. J. Meyer & D. Carlson (Eds.), Gender and sexualities in education: A reader (pp. 387– 399). New York: Peter Lang. Brooks, G. R., & Elder, W. B. (2016). History and future of the psychology of men and masculini- ties. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2004). Knowledge, narrative and self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teach- ing and teacher education practices (pp. 575–600). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Connell, R. W. (2008). Masculinity construction and sports in boys’ education: A framework for thinking about the issue. Sport, Education and Society, 13(2), 131–145. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experi- ence. New York: Teachers College Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company. Farkas, T., & Leaper, C. (2016). The psychology of boys. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 357–387). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kiselica, M. S., Benton-Wright, S., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2016). Accentuating positive masculin- ity: A new foundation for the psychology of boys, men, and masculinity. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp.  123–143). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kitchen, J.  (2005a). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 194–207. Kitchen, J. (2005b). Looking backwards, moving forward: Understanding my narrative as a teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1), 17–30. Kitchen, J. (2008). Relational teacher development: A quest for meaning in the garden of teacher experience. Cologne: Lambert Academic Publishing. Kitchen, J.  (2009). Passages: Improving teacher education through narrative self-study. In D. Tidwell, M. Heston, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Methods for self-study of practice (pp. 35–51). Dordrecht: Springer. Kitchen, J. (2014a). Inqueeries into self-study: Queering the gaze on teacher educator identity and practice. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 127–142). Rotterdam: Sense. Kitchen, J. (2014b). To kiss a boy: Working to make schools safe for queer teens. In D. Gosse (Ed.), Out proud: Stories of pride, courage and social justice in Canada (pp. 310–312). St. John’s: Breakwater Books. Kitchen, J. (2016a). Inside out: My identity as a queer teacher educator. In J. Kitchen, D. Tidwell, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity II (pp. 11–26). Rotterdam: Sense. Kitchen, J. (2016b). Looking back at fifteen years of relational teacher education: A narrative self-­ study. In M. Hayler & J. Williams (Eds.), Transitions and transformations: Teacher educators’ journeys of becoming. Rotterdam: Springer. Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2012). Making it better for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender stu- dents through teacher education: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 209–225.

100 J. Kitchen Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2013). Making schools safe and inclusive: Gay-straight alliances and school climate in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 146, 1–37. http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/ Kuzmic, J. J. (2014). Disturbing masculinities: Epistemology, outlaw emotions, and the gendered self in self-study research. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, feminism, and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 77–92). Rotterdam: Sense. Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity ideolo- gies. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 23–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Loughran, J. J. (2004). A history and context of self-study in teaching and teacher education prac- tices. In J. J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International hand- book of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. Martino, W. (2014). Masculinities, gender non-conformity, and the significance of queer and trans- gender perspectives in education. In E. J. Meyer & D. Carlson (Eds.), Gender and sexualities in education: A reader (pp. 9–24). New York: Peter Lang. Miller, J. L. (1998). Autobiography as a queer curriculum practice. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 365–374). Mahwan: Lawrence Erlbaum. Milner Jr., M. (2004). Freaks, geeks and cool kids: American teenagers, schools and the culture of consumption. New York: Routledge. Monette, P. (1992). Becoming a man: Half a life story. San Francisco: Harper. Pascoe, C.  J. (2012). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkley: University of California Press. Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, J. G. (2007). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn to narrative. In D. Jean Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodol- ogy (pp. 3–34). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. C. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic Books. Russell, T. (2004). Tracking the development of self-study in teacher education research and prac- tice. In J. J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1191–1210). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Samaras, A., & Freese, A. (2006). Self-study of teaching practices: Primer. New York: Peter Lang. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Bantam Books. Siebel, J.  (Producer & Director). (2015). The mask you live in [Motion Picture]. USA: The Representation Project. Steinberg, M., & Diekman, A. B. (2016). The double-edged sword of stereotypes of men. In Y. J. Wong & S.  R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp.  433–456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Taylor, M., & Coia, L. (2009). Co/autoethnography: Exploring our teaching selves collaboratively. In D. Tidwell, M. Heston, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Methods for self-study of practice (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht: Springer. Taylor, M., & Coia, L. (2014). Addressing gender, feminism and queer theory through self-study of teacher education practices: A literature review. In M. Taylor & L. Coia (Eds.), Gender, femi- nism, and queer theory in the self-study of teacher education practices (pp. 11–30). Rotterdam: Sense. Vavrus, M. (2009). Sexuality, schooling, and teacher formation: A critical pedagogy for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 383–389. Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, ‘How do I improve my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52.

Part II Enacting Reflective Practice with Teacher Learners

Chapter 6 How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice Joseph C. Senese Abstract  While the term reflective practice can be found throughout preservice and professional teacher education courses, this chapter suggests that much of the emphasis on reflective practice in these courses is of a cursory nature, with a focus on superficial provision of answers rather than on the acquisition and practice of processes, techniques, and modeling which encourage deeper knowledge and advanced skills in teaching. This chapter argues that for reflective practice to become internalized, transformative, and embedded in the everyday practices of teachers, a number of elements, currently paid passing attention (if addressed at all), need to become the pivotal foci of teacher education for reflective practice. Based on the author’s experience as a teacher educator working in the field of reflective practice, a number of practical suggestions are made and examples given of perspectives and activities which might contribute to a more profound recognition of the complex nature of reflective practice and its real potential in teacher education. 6.1  Introduction If our solutions don’t work as well as we want them to, if our explanations of why some- thing happened don't feel sufficient, it’s time to begin asking others about what they see and think. (Wheatley 2009, p. 39) In this chapter, reflection is defined as systematic inquiry for the purpose of improvement of practice. This type of reflection develops over time as a habit of mind and cannot be established by a few exercises or lessons (Ryan 2005). Therefore, teacher educators interested in teaching and promoting teacher reflection need to devise or adopt ways of setting assessment tasks and learning activities through which to impart the elements of reflection that will provide teachers with new view- points, fresh understandings, and useful ideas that translate into daily practice. This is not easy. One pathway to growing a reflective mindset in teachers is to have them J.C. Senese (*) 103 Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_6

104 J.C. Senese practice it many times and in many ways because “Teaching does not require so much reflection about discrete pedagogical methods and classroom management techniques as it requires skills of perception that situate knowledge in the living context of classrooms by means of reflection on experience” (Connell 2014, p. 14). The title of this chapter emphasizes the question that I pose to graduate students: How do I know what I think I know? When teachers adopt a stance of inquiry, they see themselves not only as teachers but also as learners. To me that is a critical com- ponent of being a teacher: appreciating that none of us must ever give up being both a teacher and a student. We are teachers by profession, but we also remain students of our profession. This habit of mind can provide a foundation for inquiring about what we do and how we do it. 6.2  T he Problems 6.2.1  R eflection as Mere Recall The need for teachers to be reflective practitioners is often emphasized in teacher education courses because “reflection is a critical underpinning of growth and learn- ing” (Ryan 2005, n.p.), not merely a desirable trait but a necessity for good teach- ing. Although reflection in education has been defined in various ways (Winch et al. 2015), the result of all that discussion has remained clear: … we aim to help our students become reflective educators [which] means that their knowl- edge of teaching is never conclusive; it must be “subjected to careful reconsideration in light of information from current theory and practice, from feedback from the particular context, and from speculation as to the moral and ethical [and political] consequences of their results (LaBoskey 1994, p. 9).” (LaBoskey 2004, p. 828) But how many teacher educators urge their preservice or practicing teacher edu- cation students to be reflective without providing modeling, strategies, techniques, or scaffolding which offer adequate and appropriate depth to the reflections? A common method to encourage reflection is simply to have teachers write a reflective piece after their teaching activities or placement. The analysis and interpretation of the subject or content of those reflections usually emphasize providing answers rather than the processes of reflection. In other words, what many call reflection Wheatley (2009) might label as shallow recall. Cornish and Jenkins (2012) discov- ered that “Even those [teachers] who notionally engage in the reflective process, however, often do so at a superficial level. Their reflections contain no justifications for decisions or actions, no explicit questioning of assumptions, no evaluation apart from ‘motherhood’ statements” (p.  165) meaning that reflections often produce hackneyed, shallow, and predictable responses. This attitude is the very antithesis of true reflective practice. To be truly reflective practitioners, not only must teachers consider their prac- tices and the outcomes of those practices, but these considerations must also result

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 105 in improvements in understanding, attitude, and, most importantly, practice. As a result, a reflective teacher will always remain a student of teaching practice. In other words, “…teachers are learners and learners are teachers” (Senese 2005, p. 53). Unfortunately teachers often implicitly learn that they may not have the where- withal or skills to be reflective on their own. They may rely on a teacher educator or a cooperating teacher at a student teaching site to instruct them about what worked or did not work in a lesson, which may send a subliminal message to the student teacher that only an experienced teacher can truly reflect on how things progressed in the classroom. But, …if the focus is genuinely on the student teacher as learner, then it is their ability to analyze and make meaning from experience that matters most – as opposed to when the teacher educator filters, develops, and shares the knowledge with the student teachers. (Loughran 2002, p. 38) Therefore, before teacher educators can develop lessons and activities that will provide many opportunities for reflection, they must make sure that teachers under- stand that the intended outcome of reflection is improved practice and not just the recollection of events. Understanding that to improve teaching practice reflection needs to be a purposeful process provides a rationale for learning to reflect while affording an incentive for conducting systematic reflection. 6.2.2  Reflection in Isolation Ever since John Dewey encouraged reflection in educational practices, probably the most influential proponent of this practice has been Donald Schön (Kotzee 2012). In describing professionals as they taught others, Schön divided teachers’ actions into reflecting-in-action and reflecting-on-action (Schön 1983). The former, some- times called reflexivity (Ryan 2005), occurs while the teaching is happening, the latter after the teaching has ended. These distinctions have been useful to describe and study how teachers act as professionals, but there has been some criticism of Schön’s characterization of reflection including that it isolates reflective practice and “that it leaves out the ‘social dimension’ of learning” (Kotzee 2012, pp. 5–6). Consequently, a teacher may end up performing reflective introspection rather than reflective engagement with others in analyzing teaching and learning experiences. If teachers rely entirely on their singular ability to effectively unpack the layers of meaning inherent in teaching, they may overlook new views of seeing and under- standing that they might gain if they shared reflective experiences with other profes- sionals. A difficulty with social reflection, however, is that “Often discussion can wander or have difficulty staying to a topic or context. While this type of “getting ideas out on the table” has merit, it can be frustrating when attempting to untangle practical and theoretical dilemmas or practices” (Jay and Johnson 2002, p. 82). This aspect of social reflection needs to be addressed.

106 J.C. Senese 6.2.3  R eflection as Resolution, Not Inquiry Because reflection has often been considered a solitary activity, the fuller, richer effects of being a reflective teacher may escape notice. Indeed, many teachers would claim that they are already reflective because, after teaching a class, they consider how the class progressed, how the lesson played out, and how the students responded. But at that rudimentary level of reflection much can be overlooked. If reflectivity includes framing and reframing of experiences (Loughran 2002), then a truly reflec- tive activity may need to challenge the teacher. Learning to probe, solicit, listen, and self-direct in order to arrive at new (and deeper) understandings of practice may require something more than a brief review of the day. Typically, teachers crave answers to their problems; reflection can suggest ways of addressing those problems, but it may not provide the satisfaction that a teacher expects. That in itself makes teaching reflection a problematic proposition. Teaching reflective practices to teachers must embrace the inherent uncertainty and messiness of teaching in general. Teacher educators should ask, “How can teachers be assisted in working through their own problems without being told what to do and how to do it?” Helping teachers to grow in their practice without telling them how to do it can be complicated (Berry 2007). Therefore, teacher educators strive to teach in ways that help teachers find the answers they seek without leading them. Loughran (2006) reminded us that “Teaching is reflective and requires an inquiry stance” [emphasis in the original] (p. 129) and that includes the reflective teacher who embraces doubt and questions practice. 6.3  T eaching Reflective Practices In this chapter I analyze the kinds of reflective activities that I have used in four graduate courses in education. Three of the courses form an integrated Master’s Project sequence based on the completion of an action research project to study one’s teaching practice. The fourth course investigates teaching practices primarily through the use of protocols designed to assist teachers in analyzing and interpret- ing student and teacher work. All four courses share methods of analysis and reflec- tion with the goal that teachers learn varied ways to improve their practice. Many of the lessons in the first course are structured around helping teachers envisage their practice in order to improve it. They write about their beliefs about teaching and learning, interview current teachers, make classroom observations, and read extensively about their proposed area of research. Through all of these activities, their learning about practice has a social and a collaborative dimension. Even with a mix of preservice and practicing teachers in the class, those at every level of experience are able to discover something about teaching practice that can benefit their professional growth.

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 107 Because the courses revolve around conducting action research to improve prac- tice, the work that teachers perform in them not only encourages but demands reflection (Mertler 2014; Mills 2011; Stringer 2014). If practice is to improve or change, action researchers have to be committed to taking a long, hard, objective look at what the data say, not what they want the data to say. That, however, encapsulates a problematic issue for new teachers and student teachers who seek certainty and formulas for teaching. In these courses I want to provide the experience of teachers “knowing what they do not know, having their own means to find out, and then discovering the knowledge for themselves. I am referring to … asking genuine questions, ones that have personal meaning and con- sequences” (Senese 2005, p. 51). If teachers learn anything from these four courses, it is the messiness of teaching. Cultivating an attitude of inquiry, teachers are poised to become reflective learners and teachers. A narrow approach to practice is challenged by the reflective posture of an action researcher. In the Master’s Project sequence of courses, we do not just rely on the methodology of action research to teach reflective practice, but make it the means by which teachers develop a reflective mindset, because When an educator engages in meaningful reflection, conclusions can be drawn that provide insight for future instruction. The primary emphasis is to prepare educators to create learn- ing environments that are conducive to the teaching and learning process which will posi- tively impact student achievement. (Lupinski et al. 2012, p. 82) Consequently, I next offer some in-class activities for teachers that assist them in discussing and reflecting on educational issues. These activities can provide the groundwork to develop skills as a reflective practitioner who can … move beyond simple questions about whether or not their practice is working to under- standing how it is working and for whom. They also advocate for teachers to critically examine the inherent values in their practice as well as how their practice will lead to change, a commitment to quality, and respect for differences. (Jay and Johnson 2002, p. 76) 6.3.1  Action Research as Reflective Practice Regardless of the stage of experience at which teachers in the graduate program find themselves, the underlying heart of the Master’s Project sequence addresses the question, “How do I know what I think I know?” Teachers are introduced to this question in the first class of the first course. It frames the action research project that they will develop. The question is repeatedly addressed at various stages of the pro- cess, beginning with the development of a research question, to unearthing assump- tions about their research topic, through connecting their data to their findings, and until writing their conclusions. They must always reference how they know what they think they know. The activities and assignments for all four courses rely on this question as a way to prepare teachers to be reflective practitioners.

108 J.C. Senese The goals of the Master’s Project emphasize the necessity of reflective practice as a way of being, drawing on the work of Winch et al. (2015) who suggest that For those committed to action research, this approach is about more than knowing; it becomes for them a way of being in the classroom and the school. Assuming the habit of inquiry as an ongoing commitment to learning and developing as practitioners, action research assumes that teachers are the agents and source, and not the objects, of reform. (p. 207) The characteristics of action research make it a natural way for teachers to learn to be reflective. They begin the journey to find their deepest point of doubt about practice in order to develop a suitable action research question. As teachers develop their ideas, their research questions, their planning, their data collection, their analy- ses and interpretations, and their conclusions, they engage in investigative dialogues with their peers and teaching assistants (who are all practicing teachers). In numer- ous ways they share their thinking and their beliefs with peers who question them and stimulate their thinking. The variety of opinions and approaches to educational issues enriches their experience through reflection with their peers. 6.3.2  P eer Discussion to Reflect Through Questioning One reflective activity that we use evolved organically from conducting action research. The Master’s Project question review (MPQ review) asks one teacher at a time to write the current form of their Master’s Project question on the board for discussion with their peers. After about 20–30 min., teachers have had a probing conversation with their peers and a teaching assistant in order to explore their research question and its meanings. To emphasize the social nature of reflection, teachers have two opportunities to receive assistance from their peers in an MPQ review during the term. Teachers consistently report that these exercises are some of the most valuable conversations they have had about teaching and learning because they have to reflect deeply about what their research question actually means and what they intend to study in their research. They express this not only about the MPQ review concerned with their own research but also about all the sessions that review their peers’ research questions. Social practices such as the MPQ review support teachers’ ability to listen and think more deeply about their practice because “… collective reflection can be a fruitful tool for enriching and widening one’s thinking” (Lupinski et al. 2012, p. 87). For example, very early in the process, a teacher will write a fledgling research question on the board for review by peers such as “How can I help students to become more self-directed?” A question such as this offers a good starting point. Peers are encouraged to ask questions (not to offer advice or suggestions) such as “What grade level is this?” “What do you mean by self-directed?” and “What ideas do you have to help your students become self-directed?” Peers inquire why the teacher wants to study this issue and what the teacher expects to discover. During

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 109 the first few sessions of the MPQ review, teachers learn that the format of their research question makes a difference, that their locus of control may shape their question, and that they have support in their peer group. Some of the most produc- tive sessions are ones in which the teaching assistant does not have to say a word. The probing comes entirely from one’s peers. Once the process is underway, the discussion often delves deeply into sharing teacher’s beliefs and theories about teaching and learning. In this forum teachers ask exploratory questions of other teachers in a non-­ threatening and safe environment. Typical questions might ask the sharing teacher what specific technical or general educational terms in their research question (e.g., motivation, interest, engagement) mean. Other questions might tease out underlying assumptions or norms. Teachers in this exercise are encouraged to ask questions to which they do not know the answers, ones that urge the presenting teacher to con- sider and reconsider the expectations and particularities of the research question being posed such as “What if your research demonstrates the opposite of what you are hoping for?” Providing advice or answers to questions is discouraged so that the sharing teacher leaves, not with a solution or answer, but with more on which to reflect. For the sharing teacher, the reflection continues after the exercise is com- pleted. Each member of each group invests him/herself in the other group members’ research projects. This is an initial phase in being members of a learning community of inquiry, an important social aspect of learning to become reflective teachers. 6.3.3  Protocols to Structure Reflective Conversation Protocols designed to structure conversations allow teachers to delve into each oth- er’s problems and issues with the intention of raising questions that will help to create an atmosphere conducive to critical reflection. Therefore, when teachers choose a question for their Master’s Project research, they learn various methodolo- gies for analyzing and interpreting their data, including a set of protocols for work- ing with peers who assist each teacher in deciding what kinds of data to collect and how to analyze them. Teachers are introduced to both the Collaborative Assessment Conference Protocol and Interrogating the Slice Protocol that are defined and explained on the website of the National School Reform Faculty (2014) [http://www.nsrfharmony. org/free-resources/protocols/a-z], which aim to guide and structure conversations between professionals about what student work might reveal to a teacher. Throughout these exercises, emphasis is on the collaborative nature of analysis and reflection. In fact, it would be impossible for a lone individual to analyze student work (or teacher work, for that matter) using these protocols. In addition, other aspects of the action research project employ protocols fash- ioned specifically for the purpose of teaching collaboration and reflection during the courses. These protocols include one for discussing research articles, one for ana- lyzing observations, and one for discussing data, each with the intention of

110 J.C. Senese ­investigating research topics or deepening understanding. Teachers do not use these protocols only one time. The analysis of a research article, for example, is used five times during one course in order to develop the habits of collaborative reflection. Through repeated exposure to such practices, it is hoped that teachers learn to inter- nalize the behaviors that will help make them reflective practitioners (Kaasila and Lauriala 2012). Typical responses to this activity often reference the reflective aspect of participation: This protocol really forced me to look at what I thought was my “‘best practice’ and wonder WHY I thought it was the ‘best.’ … hearing someone say out loud something that I might disagree with reminded me that there are people that hold these views and that they are not necessarily bad people, just people with whom I disagree. I know it is important for me to remember this when thinking or talking about controversial issues. Another protocol, the Research Article Protocol (see Appendix A), assists teach- ers in learning about their research topic with peers who are investigating other research topics of their own. This protocol requires small groups of teachers to discuss a piece of literature that only one of them has read. As a weekly assignment, each teacher reads and summarizes two pieces of literature in order to develop back- ground on a possible research topic. They then use one of those articles as the stimu- lus for a discussion using a protocol that asks them to summarize the important parts of the literature in 5 min. The sharing teacher also poses a question to the group to help guide their discussion about the article. During the next 8 min., the sharing teacher does not speak but listens to the discussion about the article and the posed question. In a 2-min. debriefing, the sharing teacher can respond to or request more discussion from the group. In less than an hour, each teacher in a group of four has summarized an article, posed a question related to a research question, heard from peers, and walked away with new insights about the topic. One teacher summarized her experience this way: Another positive is that all members contributed to the feedback. I received some extremely helpful feedback from my group and hope that I contributed to their questions as well. The group thought of some questions that allowed for strong, meaningful discussions. 6.3.4  Peer Debriefing to Reflect with Others Many protocols that structure reflection capitalize on peer debriefing “… where a teacher ‘confides in trusted and knowledgeable colleagues and uses them as a sounding board’ (Schwandt 2007, p.  222, or as Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) refer to as an outside or external evaluation or perspective” (as cited in Hail et al. 2011, p. 74). In some ways this resembles having a critical friend, but differs in that the peers who debrief can change from week to week in order to encourage a greater variety of responses for consideration and reflection.

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 111 Because “reflection and inquiry are most effectively introduced to pre-service teachers as social practices associated with the teaching profession within which they are learning to participate” (Connell 2014, p.  19), teachers learn from peer debriefing that teaching does not have to be an isolating profession. Instead of trying to figure out alone how and why learning occurs because of teaching practice, a teacher may greatly benefit from support and interactions with colleagues. So often in schools, peers only gather for meetings that may not be conducive to the deep analysis that reflection requires. True reflection has to be planned to be productive. It rarely if ever happens spontaneously. Time spent in peer debriefing has been shown to benefit teachers as well as their students for the following reasons. First, peer debriefing insures that teachers listen to each other because built into each protocol is a time when the sharing teacher does not speak but listens and takes notes. Second, peer debriefing insures that teachers are working in tandem with the sharing teacher, not to solve the teacher’s problem but to investigate more thoroughly the issue at hand. Third, each protocol has time limits for specific steps to occur. Teachers learn to focus their discussion and comments because they must. This combination of features in protocols can cause “a shift in perspective” (Hail et al. 2011, p. 79) for the sharing teacher, a hall- mark of reflective practice. An example of how peer debriefing works in these classes can be appreciated when teachers are introduced to methods for analyzing the data that they have col- lected for their Master’s Project action research. At this time teachers most often work collaboratively to unravel the data, describe it, and manipulate it. For example, coding is introduced as a way to look for patterns and meaning in the data. Students first code a published excerpt of an interview and then, together, they practice the skill with their own data. Using a protocol, they spend time in class working in small groups to begin the process of coding the data of each member of their group. In this way, teachers begin to reflect on the meaning of their data while generating multiple interpretations and ideas with their peers. The social nature of the process reinforces the benefit of teachers working together. One such instance stands out in my mind. A teacher analyzing student work had posed a question for her peers to consider. She was puzzled by one of her student’s failure to answer correctly some questions on a math test. She did not detect a pat- tern in the student’s errors and asked her peers to see what they thought. After mull- ing over the test and not really finding a pattern, one colleague suddenly exclaimed, “Oh, I see what she did!” Everyone’s attention was riveted on the teacher who had the insight. She reported to everyone that the girl in question had not read any of the directions to the problems. Her answers were actually fairly logical responses to each question but only if she had not read the questions or directions to the test. The student apparently thought she was saving time by immediately attacking the math problems. That insight would not have occurred to the sharing teacher by herself, and she learned a valuable lesson about how to help this particular student to improve. This example verifies a conclusion reached by Hail et al. (2011) that “This give-and-take [in peer debriefing] may lead to different or clearer comprehension. It

112 J.C. Senese often challenges the teacher/researcher to rethink initial findings or explore varied conclusions” (p. 75). In another instance a primary teacher asked students to draw their classroom. One girl’s drawing intrigued the teacher so he shared it with his peers for consider- ation. After their discussion of the artifact, the teacher reflected on the responses and at his peers’ urging, he asked the student to explain her drawing. The teacher said it was then he realized that the student had felt isolated in the room. Given his teach- ing practices at the time, asking his student for input was a significant change in that teacher’s practice. This would not have happened if he had not used his peers to help him reflect on the meaning of the student’s drawing. These examples demonstrate that “framing and reframing” (Loughran 2002, p. 42) issues or problems of practice may lead to a richer understanding of practice. The kinds of knowledge and awareness that evolve from reflective activities such as these may be technical or practical, but they can also be deeper. As Vince and Reynolds (2009) noted, reflective practice develops The ability, for example, to draw upon a range of metaphors, images and emotions; to engage aesthetically as well as rationally; and to see relational dynamics within situations, allows for the generation of different ways of thinking and acting within practice. (p. 92) 6.3.5  L istening to Reflect One of the difficulties of teaching teachers to be reflective practitioners is providing them with numerous ways in which to practice reflection (Cornish and Jenkins 2012; Jay and Johnson 2002). Teacher educators seek ways to help teachers to investigate a variety of possibilities or frames when discussing another teacher’s problem or situation and to avoid a meandering conversation that can be all too common in education. Protocols help to frame these conversations and provide ways to insure that the conversation is structured and productive. In many of the protocols, the teacher who is sharing the issue spends time listening to another teacher or group of teachers who reflect back what they have heard. There are often specified times for a teacher to talk and to listen. Requiring the sharing teacher to listen allows that person to concentrate on what others are saying. Later the sharing teacher may comment on or question or ask for elaboration from others, but having a chance to simply listen and not be concerned with responses or explanations offers opportunities for the sharing teacher to be reflective. This technique is used in sev- eral class exercises such as when teachers describe their favorite teacher, discuss a piece of research literature, or report on classroom observations they have made. Although these instances are not necessarily problems in practice, a method of reflection is taught and reinforced by repetition. Later on teachers employ similar listening skills when they analyze and interpret their data.

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 113 6.3.6  D eveloping Different and New Perspectives Through Reflection A principal reason for encouraging reflective practice in education is to develop each teacher’s ability to cultivate a variety of perspectives to enrich understanding. Jay and Johnson (2002) noted that Within any given situation, different perspectives yield different results. Culture, race, gen- der, developmental level, and personal history give all people different perspectives, but reflective practitioners are sensitive to various perspectives. So a given classroom scenario might be considered from the perspective of another teacher, a student, a counselor, a par- ent, and so on. When we consider alternative perspectives or varying ways to approach a problem, we discover meaning we might otherwise miss. (p. 78) One protocol has been particularly effective in cultivating perspective as an important aspect of being reflective and altering perceptions and practice. The Multiple Perspectives Protocol (http://www.nsrfharmony.org/system/files/proto- cols/multiple_perspectives_0.pdf) from the National School Reform Faculty is designed to help teachers achieve multiple ways of seeing and understanding edu- cational issues. During this activity, each teacher in a group of about eight adopts a role to participate in an exercise about investigating a question of practice posed by one group member. In other words, the participants do not discuss the issue as them- selves; they create different personalities who then respond to the question on the table. The original protocol offers examples of roles they might take on such as a principal, a teacher of another subject or grade, or even a student. Once they see how the discussion works, teachers often risk more diverse and challenging roles. I have witnessed excellent investigative discussions with some teachers assuming the role of an executive of a major corporation, a Picasso artwork, Dory the fish from the animated film “Finding Nemo,” a disgruntled janitor, and others. If the adopted character permeates the performance and provides a meaningful response as that character, the discussion can truly explore the issue. This protocol, as with all the others, relies on strict time limits, so the discussion is succinct and concise. With this particular protocol, an entire discussion that addresses multiple perspectives on a teacher’s question takes only 10 min. For this exercise, each teacher takes a turn posing a question and the roles change each time. The 5-min. debriefing of this activity after each round always reveals how adopting an alternate persona forced each teacher to see the problem through someone else’s lens. That means that the teacher who posed the question for discus- sion gets a variety of viewpoints for consideration; it also means that the partici- pants must think creatively to consider another’s position. This protocol is especially helpful in making reflection social because “Comparative reflection involves seek- ing to understand others’ points of view, which may be incongruent with one’s own” (Jay and Johnson 2002, p. 78). The sharing teacher benefits from hearing alternate perspectives from a variety of role-plays while all the other participants are urged to see educational issues from a vantage point not their own.

114 J.C. Senese Another protocol, Protocol for Peer Analysis of a Data Set (see Appendix B), is directly related to soliciting diverse interpretations of data. After teachers have col- lected data for their action research projects, they begin to organize it in ways that they think logical or meaningful. Following this protocol, they share a data set with their peers and ask for ideas on ways in which to analyze and/or interpret the data set. Very often the peers will bring different perspectives to the discussion, offer varied methods for analysis, and suggest new meanings for the data. Teachers repeatedly report that they learn the value of working collaboratively with their peers because the disparate points of view help them to see new facets of the data. 6.4  C onclusion In this chapter, I proposed ways in which teacher educators (and by extension, class- room teachers) might assist teachers to develop the curiosity and openness to be truly reflective. As Loughran (2002) so eloquently noted, “Simply being encour- aged to reflect is likely to be as meaningful as a lecture on cooperative group work” (p. 33). If reflective practices are to be internalized and become part of each teach- er’s practice, the emphasis in teaching about reflection must shift from finding answers to being curious, from being encouraged to reflect to being instructed in ways to reflect. That requires a new mindset and a different set of skills. If teachers leave the Master’s program recognizing the ever-evolving nature of learning to teach, they will have gained something valuable for continuously improving their practice, and they will continue to ask themselves, “How do I know what I think I know?” Appendices Appendix A: Research Article Protocol The Research Article Protocol was designed to provide a structured and efficient way for teachers to share and investigate the meaning of research texts with others. Each participant has the opportunity to explain one research article and share one question about that article while the listeners assist the sharing teacher in under- standing the literature. Each teacher can learn from the other’s research. The benefit of using a protocol for this conversation lies in the compressed time for each stage of the conversation that focuses each participant. For the experience to work, it is important to adhere to the format and time limits. 1. In groups of three or four, the sharing teacher summarizes one of the research articles along with one of the questions, while the two listeners take notes but do not respond (5 min. in a group of three, 4 min. in a group of four).

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 115 2. The two or three listeners ask questions about and/or comment on the meaning of the text, the interpretation of the text by the sharing teacher, and/or the per- spective or emphasis placed on the text by the sharing teacher. They may interact with each other; the sharing teacher does not respond but takes notes (8 min. in a group of three, 6 min. in a group of four). They may address any (but not all) of these issues or other issues raised by this particular article: • Does the researcher define technical terms or terms with multiple understandings? • Does the researcher measure change? Are these measurements appropriate to this research? • Does prior research on this issue corroborate the findings or conclusions of this research? • What data collection methods are used and are they appropriate for this research? • What constitutes the sample  – size, demographic information, grade level, school type, socioeconomic situation, geographic area, etc.? • Does the research include primary sources (interviews, field observations, documents, anecdotal evidence)? • Does the researcher exhibit bias? Does the researcher explain biases? • What assumptions has the researcher made? • What cultural implications are considered? • Is the research replicable or has it been replicated? • How does this research stand up over time (longitudinal studies)? • What variables are considered? What variables are not considered? Does the researcher control for differences? • Does the researcher use multiple data sources? Does the researcher subscribe to triangulation of data? 3 . The sharing teacher then chooses to address the questions or ideas that have caused deep reflection about the research topic or the research (2 min.). 4. The other teachers take turns being the sharing teacher and follow steps 1–3 (15 min. each in a group of three, 12 min. each in a group of four). Appendix B: Protocol for Peer Analysis of a Data Set The Protocol for Peer Analysis of a Data Set was designed to provide a structured way for teachers to learn from describing and listening to a discussion of data analy- sis methods for each other’s data sets. After each participant has the opportunity to share the MPQ, the participants assist the sharing teacher to unpack the meaning of a data set. Each teacher can learn from the other’s experience. The benefit of using a protocol for this conversation lies in the compressed time for each stage of the conversation that focuses each participant. For the experience to work, it is important to adhere to the format and time limits.

116 J.C. Senese 1 . In groups of three (or four), the sharing teacher provides the MPQ and a data set to the other teachers (2 min). 2 . The two (or three) other teachers silently read the data set, noting possible ways to analyze the data to help resolve the MPQ (3 min). 3 . The two teachers share their ideas about analyzing the data with each other (10 min, 8 min for groups of four). The sharing teacher does not respond but takes note of: • Data analysis methods that have already been attempted • Data analysis methods that have not been attempted but should be • Data analysis methods that may not be useful • Unclear or confusing data analysis methods • Improved ways to analyze the data 4 . The sharing teacher comments, questions, and discusses with the other teachers on the suggested data analysis methods that helped deepen his/her thinking or understanding of the data (5 min, 3 min for groups of four). 5 . Each teacher in turn becomes the sharing teacher (20 or 16 min each). 6. After everyone has completed the protocol, the whole class debriefs on ideas that emerged from sharing the data analysis (15 min). References Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educa- tor. Dordrecht: Springer. Connell, M.  T. (2014). Recovering the social dimension of reflection. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 17(2), 5–24. Cornish, L., & Jenkins, K.  A. (2012). Encouraging teacher development through embedding reflective practice in assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 159–170. Hail, C., Hurst, B., & Camp, D. (2011). Peer debriefing: Teachers’ reflective practices for profes- sional growth. Critical Questions in Education, 2(2), 74–83 Retrieved from https://academyed- studies.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/halehurstcampfinal.pdf. Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85. Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2012). How do pre-service teachers’ reflective processes differ in rela- tion to different contexts? European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 77–89. Kotzee, B. (2012). Private practice: Exploring the missing social dimension in ‘reflective practice’. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(1), 5–16. LaBoskey, V.  K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York: Teachers College Press. LaBoskey, V. (2004). The methodology of self-study. In J.  J. Loughran, M.  L. Hamilton, V.  K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 816–869). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teach- ing. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge.

6  How Do I Know What I Think I Know? Teaching Reflection to Improve Practice 117 Lupinski, L., Jenkins, P., Beard, A., & Jones, L. (2012). Reflective practice in teacher education programs at a HBCU. Educational Foundations, 26(3–4), 81–92. Mertler, C. A. (2014). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.. National School Reform Faculty. (2014). Harmony education center. Retrieved from http://www. nsrfharmony.org/free-resources/protocols/a-z Onwuegbuzie, A.  J., & Leech, N.  L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron? Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41(2), 233–249. Ryan, T. (2005). When you reflect are you also being reflexive? Ontario Action Researcher, 8(1), 2. Retrieved from http://oar.nipissingu.ca/PDFS/V812E.pdf Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Senese, J. C. (2005). Teach to learn. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1), 43–54. Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.. Vince, R., & Reynolds, M. (2009). Reflection, reflective practice and organizing reflection. In S. Armstrong & C. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 89–104). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.. Wheatley, M. J. (2009). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to the future. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Winch, C., Oancea, A., & Orchard, J. (2015). The contribution of educational research to teachers’ professional learning: Philosophical understandings. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 202–216.

Chapter 7 Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy in Primary Schools Karen McLean Abstract  Preparing tomorrow’s teachers calls for understanding of the changing literacy landscape heavily influenced by technological advancement, and the impli- cations of this changing landscape for effective literacy pedagogy. Using reflective practice as a vehicle for learning this chapter explores perspectives of the prepared- ness of undergraduate pre-service teachers to teach literacy in primary schools through their engagement in process-orientated approaches to teaching and learn- ing. It describes a community partnership model where the platform for learning through reflective practice is provided in authentic contexts. Policy and practice implications are discussed with an emphasis on the role of reflective practice in teacher education. 7.1  Introduction This chapter is underpinned by the contention that reflective practice has an impor- tant role to play in undergraduate teacher education. In times when the literacy landscape is changing in ways that reflect continual technological advancement (Razfar and Gutiérrez 2013) it is important that tomorrow’s teachers are well pre- pared to teach literacy in these diverse and ever-changing contexts. The culturally and linguistically diverse nature of teaching in Australian classrooms is highlighted in the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group [TEMAG] (2014) report. In this report it is recommended that teacher education programs better equip graduate teachers to cater for the diverse learning needs of students. This reality presents challenges in undergraduate teacher education where traditional approaches are increasingly scrutinised for their relevance in a contemporary world (Ryan 2014). These challenges are found in the preparation of strong literacy teachers where it is K. McLean (*) 119 Australian Catholic University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 R. Brandenburg et al. (eds.), Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices 17, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_7

120 K. McLean argued that pedagogical approaches for teaching literacy should seek to seamlessly interweave technology and literacy in ways that are more closely aligned to literacy practices in society (Honan 2012). For universities this requires moving beyond traditional approaches where the dissemination of information is at the core of delivery and toward process orientated approaches where active inquiry facilitates learning. In this chapter it is contended that the use of reflective processes aimed at engaging pre-service teachers (PSTs) in inquiry into their literacy teaching practice has the potential to foster understanding of the complexities of teaching. This is achieved through viewing the development of “pedagogical expertise … as a learn- ing process that combines theory and practice in ways that help to build knowledge” (Loughran 2012, pp. 37–38) and continue long after graduation. Inquiry approaches in PST literacy education are appealing because they provide a way for addressing the needs and concerns of PSTs through problematising prac- tice. This is important in the current literacy education climate where tensions exist around teacher accountability measures for teaching literacy skills and the imple- mentation of standards-based reforms (Hodgson 2011). In this current climate there is a danger that the preparation of PSTs to teach literacy may be reduced to a pre- scribed curriculum with little scope to explore pedagogical approaches and innova- tive practices. In Victoria, Australia the Department of Education and Training [DET] (2013) describes innovation in education as practices where teachers extend beyond what they do well and try new or different approaches and ideas. The chal- lenge in preparing strong literacy teachers, it would seem, is to provide a framework or a model for enabling PSTs to engage with curriculum in innovative ways, which also build confidence and competence to teach literacy in diverse primary education contexts. This chapter provides insights into the use of reflective practice in the authentic context of after school learning clubs, as part of an undergraduate pre-service teacher education course. In this research I was interested in PST perspectives of a community partnership model (CPM) that used a reflective practice platform for PST learning. I describe the CPM and how reflective practice was used to provide a framework to assist PSTs to think systematically about their practice as literacy educators. The chapter begins with an overview of the literature that informed the development of the CPM. It then describes the approach to reflective practice used in this research and a rationale for its use in a literacy program in an undergraduate teacher education course. This is followed by an outline of the sociocultural theo- retical perspective informing the work and a description of the findings from inter- views with PSTs. I conclude by presenting some implications for wider use of this model for teacher education courses, particularly in relation to using reflective prac- tice in teacher education.

7  Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 121 7.2  L iterature 7.2.1  The Changing Literacy Landscape and Teacher Education Contemporary research and commentary in literacy education has brought attention to the need for expanded views of literacy as social practice (Gee 2004; Street 2003) to influence curriculum and pedagogy. This influence can be seen in the Australian Curriculum English (ACARA 2015a) where digital technologies are interwoven across the interrelated strands of language, literature and literacy. With the continual emergence of new technologies, the influence of these contemporary views on peda- gogical practices continues to evolve and challenge educators. For tomorrow’s teachers this highlights the need to graduate from teacher education courses with more than familiarity with the English curriculum. For PSTs it may be that the jour- ney to becoming an “expert pedagogue” (Loughran 2012, p. 183) requires a willing- ness to explore and interrogate their own literacy teaching practices in diverse literacy education contexts. In the research reported here I was interested in how the reflective processes embedded in a literacy education unit at a university might assist PSTs to engage with the English curriculum in ways that inspire rich insights into praxis. Contemporary theorists argue that effective pedagogies for literacy teaching and learning must extend beyond a narrow focus on skills toward opening the minds of learners to literacy possibilities in a multiliterate society (Snyder 2008). For teach- ers, this requires a focus that extends beyond print and paper-based literacies to incorporate a range of meaning-making practices which occur within and across social and cultural contexts. These include digital communication practices and the use of oral-, visual-, and performance-based texts in the English curriculum. It is argued that teaching in these complex literacy learning environments requires teach- ers to consider the literacy values that remain constant in times of change and ensure that these values are embedded in approaches to literacy teaching (Reinking 2010). Further, the need for teachers to have a repertoire of strategies to draw upon, or to “command a range of learning strategies, and to be cognitively aware of the peda- gogical means that enable the student to learn” (Hattie 2012, p.16) is also high- lighted. These claims are particularly relevant in undergraduate teacher education courses where the quality of teacher education programs is under increasing scru- tiny (COAG 2014; TEMAG 2014). One way that literacy values (Reinking 2010) and strategies drawn from evidence-b­ ased methods (Hattie 2012) may influence future literacy teacher prac- tice is through the power of reflection. In the current educational context, the influ- ence of standards-based reforms are found in teacher education where debates around literacy standards of graduates have been called into question (TEMAG 2014) and have influenced the development of standards for teachers internationally (DfEUK 2011; ECANZ 2016; Education Services Australia and AITSL 2014). Similar to the debates surrounding literacy standards that are occurring in early

122 K. McLean childhood, primary and secondary sectors there is a danger that a skills-based agenda in literacy teacher education will undermine the fundamental purpose of university education to open minds to possibilities through critical and creative thinking. This in turn, raises concern about future innovative literacy teacher prac- tice. In this research I was interested in understanding the extent to which reflective processes in a CPM contributed to PST perspectives of their preparedness to teach literacy in the primary school. 7.2.2  R eflective Practice and Teacher Education The role of reflection in supporting professional practice is recognised in Australia and internationally. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011) states that teachers “identify their own learning needs and analyse, evaluate and expand their professional learning both collegially and individually” (p.  4). Similar views of teacher professional learning can be found in United Kingdom (DfEUK 2011) and New Zealand (ECANZ 2016) teacher standards where evalua- tion and reflection are requirements of professional practice at all stages of the teaching career. Preparing PSTs to teach in the field is a complex process fraught with underlying tensions associated with teaching about teaching (Loughran 2007). When describ- ing approaches to professional learning Loughran (2012) emphasises the impor- tance of examining practice from a learner and teacher perspective. Through reflective processes aimed at examining teaching and learning from these perspec- tives it is suggested that teachers develop expertise. Thinking about professional learning in this way was important in the research reported here because PSTs were placed in a position where they were both teacher and learner and hence were chal- lenged to consider their own practices from these perspectives. In their work Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2004) describe three types of relation- ships between knowledge and practice, which influence approaches to practitioner-­ based inquiry. These are: knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice and knowledge of practice. The first, “knowledge for practice” (p. 611) is described as inquiry that aims to build content knowledge or a knowledge base around a particu- lar field of teaching. The second, “knowledge in practice” (p. 612) is described by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2004) as the building of practical knowledge and has a strong problem-solving element. The third, “knowledge of practice” (p. 614) values the learning that occurs through participation in inquiry communities and may extend beyond the understanding of individual practice to broader agendas such as social and cultural issues. The literature identifies two approaches that are relevant to the implementation of reflective practice in teacher education. These are deep and surface approaches. Deep approaches to learning are distinguished from surface approaches through an emphasis on higher levels of thinking, such as reflection and application (Biggs and Tang 2007). Surface approaches, on the other hand, are characterised by rote

7  Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 123 ­learning, listing and other similar strategies that require memorisation and low-level comprehension skills such as naming (Biggs and Tang 2007). It is deep approaches to learning that are of particular interest in the teacher education context because these approaches offer a way to develop rich understanding of complexities associ- ated with teaching in contemporary learning environments. Deep approaches to learning are widely accepted as useful in teacher education for providing insights into teaching practice (Biggs and Tang 2007) through in-­ service and PST engagement in reflective practices. In describing approaches to professional learning Loughran (2012) highlights the importance of learning from experiences through a process of observation, documentation, reflection, decon- struction and reconstruction of practice. This conceptualisation of a process for reflective practice provides a useful way for thinking about preparing PSTs to teach literacy in primary classrooms and has the potential to be applied to a diverse range of learning contexts. Schön (1983) uses the term “reflection-in-action” (p.128) to describe the prob- lem solving aspect of reflective practice. Through his work Schön shows us how “knowing and doing are inseparable” (p. 165) in inquiry and how the reflective prac- titioner uses problem setting to frame and reframe a problem in ways that move knowledge from tacit to explicit. Thinking about practice in this way can be useful not only for seeing practice from a teacher and learner perspective, but also in exploring different approaches and noticing new aspects of praxis (Loughran 2012). In the PST education context problem analysis approaches, such as those described by Schön (1983) involving systematic reflection on frames, have the potential to enable PSTs to build strong pedagogical knowledge. Some models of reflective practice embrace the social aspect of learning where learning occurs through sharing multiple perspectives and experiences. Brandenburg (2008) describes this social aspect of reflective practice through her use of “round- table reflections” in undergraduate teacher education. These roundtable reflections contribute insights into teaching and learning practices through exposure to differ- ent ways of “understanding interactions, events and incidents” (Brandenburg 2008, p. 76). Reflective practice strategies such as roundtable reflections offer a way for learners to construct knowledge by learning through their interactions with others. Other models, which incorporate the social aspect of learning in reflective prac- tice, include co-teaching models where the responsibility for teaching and learning is shared among two or more teachers and/or PSTs. Murphy et al. (2013) describe the use of a co-teaching model in pre-service science teacher education where co-­ teaching provided a structure for “reflection on theory, praxis and practice” (p. 176). The model embraced a sociocultural theoretical perspective aimed at empowering in-service and PSTs to work together to increase their confidence to teach science in primary schools. This model reported by Murphy et  al. (2013) used Vygotsky’s (1978) theorisation that learning occurs first on a social level and then on an indi- vidual level. The influence of Vygotsky’s (1978) theorisation was important in Murphy et al.’s. (2013) work because it informed the way that teaching teams in their research planned science-learning experiences for the children.

124 K. McLean 7.2.3  Rationale The literature identifies concerns associated with the preparedness of graduate teachers to teach literacy in primary schools and limitations of traditional methods of university instruction in this process (TEMAG 2014). The purpose of the research reported in this chapter was to gain insight into PST preparedness to teach literacy in primary school contexts through their engagement in reflective practices in a community partnerships model. Insight into the problem was sought through the exploration of PST perspectives and experiences of learning in the CPM. In ways similar to those described by Loughran (2012) the approach taken in this research situated PSTs as both teacher and learner (Loughran 2012). Using deep approaches (Biggs and Tang 2007) and in particular the reflective practice process (Loughran 2012), PSTs were encouraged to move beyond familiarity with curriculum docu- ments such as Australian Curriculum English [ACE] (ACARA 2015a) and towards understanding of curriculum content and underpinning theories in practice. As part of this process, problem analysis (Schön 1983) was used to frame PSTs’ concerns or needs constructively and collaborative approaches, including round table reflec- tions (Brandenburg 2008), were embedded in the reflective process to encourage joint construction of knowledge about literacy teaching and learning. Consideration was also given to how the three types of relationships between knowledge and prac- tice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2004) were represented by PSTs and informed by their experiences of working in a co-teaching model (Murphy et al. 2013). 7.3  T heoretical Perspective With roots in constructivism the reflective practices employed in this research focused on the construction of knowledge through experiences and interactions (Loughran 2012). The CPM described in this chapter was particularly influenced by a Vygostkyian (Vygotsky 1978) view of knowledge as socially constructed. Sociocultural theory is commonly used in educational research to understand the learning that occurs through interactions in social and cultural contexts (John-­ Steiner and Mahn 2011). In the research reported here, sociocultural theory informed the CPM through co-teaching, which provided a structure and authentic context for planning, implementation, reflection and evaluation. This collaborative aspect of learning, foregrounded through shared responsibility, was similar to co-teaching described by Murphy et  al. (2013) where it was acknowledged that using a Vygotskian perspective embraced the notion that learning occurred on a social and individual plane. In this work a sociocultural perspective was important because it recognises that the development of professional expertise is shaped through interac- tions with others about “reflections on experience” (Loughran 2012, p.  183) and was used here to provide a support for PSTs to reflect on challenging aspects of praxis.

7  Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 125 7.4  What Is the Community Partnership Model (CPM)? The CPM came out of a partnership between a university and a local community service agency, and was implemented in schools in the form of after-school learning clubs. These clubs were run in schools that were considered relatively disadvan- taged on the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) Index of Community Socio-Economic Advantage (ACARA 2015b) and met the agency’s pro- file for targeted community service. Students who participated in these learning clubs included students from disadvantaged family backgrounds, students with learning difficulties, and students from culturally and linguistically diverse back- grounds. From the University’s perspective, diversity of students was an important aspect of the CPM as it provided PSTs with experiences catering for a range of learning needs. A further key component of the model was co-teaching. The useful- ness of co-teaching as a model for examining pedagogical practices has been reported by Murphy et al. (2013). Co-teaching in the CPM aimed to support PSTs to engage both collegially and individually in learning about professional practice in ways similar to those described in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011). In the CPM the use of co-teaching differs from other mod- els where teachers, or teachers and PSTs, work collaboratively in small groups to plan, implement and evaluate curriculum and engage in professional discussions to improve their teaching and students’ learning. In this model PSTs worked in small groups with other PSTs and were supported by a university lecturer to deliver an after-school literacy program. This is significant because the after-school context provides an authentic platform for PSTs to engage with theory in practice, interro- gate their own beliefs and understandings about literacy teaching and learning, and be supported by their peers and a university-based expert to develop effective pedagogy. The CPM described here differs from delivering a program in schools during school hours, or as a part of practicum experience, because the after-school context enables PSTs to be supported to establish effective pedagogy without barriers asso- ciated with practicum experiences. These barriers in the school-day context include limitations associated with adhering to prescribed curriculum content, pressures to adopt particular pedagogical approaches and constraints associated with whole school organisations (e.g. timetabled sessions). Findings from a study by Roth et al. (1999) provided insights into how co-teaching provides a context for teacher learn- ing that is more appropriate than traditional workshops. In the CPM described in this chapter I was interested in how reflective practices embedded within this co-­ teaching structure could assist PSTs to build knowledge of praxis and enhance com- petence and confidence to teach literacy in the primary school.

126 K. McLean 7.5  The Implementation of the Community Partnership Model The CPM was embedded in two literacy education units in PST education courses at a regional university. The first of these units was a core unit with a focus on pre- paring PSTs to teach in the middle and upper years of primary schooling. In this unit the after-school learning club was referred to as Digi-Tell. In Digi-Tell students in years three to six at participating primary schools volunteered to participate in a 5-week program. The program had a focus on technology for literacy learning and was a digital storytelling program where participating children learned about the language features and structure of a chosen text type. As a part of this program stu- dents created digital texts for sharing with their families and the school community. The second of these units was an elective unit with a focus on the use of storytelling for literacy teaching and learning in the early years. This after-school learning club was called Tell Tales. Tell Tales was a 5-week storytelling learning club for students in the first 3 years of schooling (Foundation to Year Two in Australian schools). In this learning club PSTs used retelling strategies and implemented creative and dra- matic art activities to foster oral language development and a love of literature in young children. For example, puppetry including sock puppets, paper mâché and shadow puppets were popular as well as the use of drama, music, art and sequencing activities. In these learning clubs a co-teaching group of three to four PSTs taught a group of approximately five children for 2 h per week in an after-school mode for 5 weeks. Up to 15 co-teaching PST groups delivered learning clubs in each participat- ing school. Each co-teaching team was responsible for planning, implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of their program that was designed using the Australian Curriculum English (ACARA 2015a). A staff member from each school was pres- ent at each session to provide administrative or organisational support. In keeping with a sociocultural theoretical perspective, the process for support- ing PSTs to engage in learning through the CPM was carefully scaffolded. Wood et al. (1976) describe the concept of scaffolding as the process where a capable adult supports the learner to control those elements of a task, which are beyond the learn- er’s capacity. In the model described here, the learning process was carefully scaf- folded by the university lecturer to support PSTs to engage in the reflective process through the use of planning templates and inquiry tools, such as problem analysis templates. Additionally, preparation for teaching in the learning clubs was scaf- folded through the delivery of systematically planned workshops prior to imple- mentation, which were aimed at supporting co-teaching groups to use the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2015a) to plan appropriate and innovative learning club programs.

7  Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 127 7.5.1  Reflective Tools and Processes A range of observation tools were introduced to assist PSTs to reflect on teaching from a learner and teacher perspective. Tools such as meeting templates were intro- duced to support collaborative processes. During the implementation period the tra- ditional lecture and tutorial mode was modified to include whole group reflections and small group problem solving activities to support PSTs to interrogate their prac- tice. These included a problem analysis framework and problem scenarios for whole group and roundtable (Brandenburg 2008) reflections on practice. These reflective activities aimed to assist PSTs to frame a problem, identify the practices used and provide alternative evidence-based strategies and practices to move knowledge from tacit to explicit (Loughran 2012; Schön 1983). Other reflective processes that were incorporated included the use of reflective journals for recording critical incidents (Brandenburg 2008; Kosnik 2001) and the use of a text connection literacy teaching strategy aimed at fostering higher order thinking. The text connection literacy teaching strategy requires learners to make connections between new knowledge and previous knowledge. In literacy education contexts these connections are described as text to self, text to world and text to text connections (Keene and Zimmerman 1997). As part of the reflective process, this strategy was modified to enable PSTs to establish connections between the problem and their experiences, the problem and literacy theories and the problem and liter- acy practices in broader social and cultural contexts. A further reflective tool for assisting PSTs to reflect on how their expertise was shaped through knowledge of practice (Loughran 2012) was the use of a road map (Gibbs 2006). This tool provided a pictorial method for co-teaching groups to docu- ment and reflect on their learning journey and was implemented using active listen- ing strategies (Covey 2004). PSTs also used learning logs to document their own and the children’s learning. These learning logs provided a stimulus for professional discussions and problem analysis within co-teaching teams. Collectively, the reflec- tive practices embedded in this CPM aimed to enable PSTs to learn about teaching literacy through their experiences of reflecting on, deconstructing and reconstruct- ing practice (Loughran 2012). 7.6  Data Collection and Analysis Focus group interviews (Krueger 2009) were conducted with volunteer PSTs who had been involved in Digi-Tell and Tell Tales learning clubs. Interview questions were orientated toward identifying PST perspectives of the co-teaching experience and teaching and learning experiences in the CPM.  These questions were open-­ ended to encourage rich conversation among all group members (Lichtman 2013). Sample interview questions included, “Describe any elements of co-teaching that supported your learning in this unit. How has this experience supported or hindered

128 K. McLean your confidence or competence to teach literacy in the primary classroom? What will you take from this experience into your literacy teaching practice?” Focus group interviews were conducted with 34 PSTs who participated in the CPM. These focus group interviews were carried out after the completion of Digi-­ Tell and Tell Tales in schools, and at the end of the university semester. Interviews were transcribed by a transcript company and then analysed using an inductive approach (Grbich 2007). This inductive approach employed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis moving through the phases of famil- iarisation, initial code generation, searching for, reviewing and defining themes to the final phase of producing a report. Using this approach, I was interested in the relevance, rather than frequency, of identified themes to the investigation of the problem. As a part of this process, participants were assigned pseudonyms and each focus group interview was coded using FG and a number (e.g. FG4) to ensure data could be checked and validated. The research reported here was limited to a regional community and PSTs from one University. The extent that the findings can be applied more broadly, or are transferable to other contexts, are limitations that can only be addressed through further research. As is common in qualitative research this research sought to gain insights (Bazeley 2013) into PST perspectives of learning through their experiences in the CPM in ways that might inform current debate and further research. 7.7  Perspectives of Reflective Practice in the CPM The data analysis process identified three main themes in relation to PST experi- ences in the CPM. These were (1) the reflective processes and cycle; (2) confidence and competence to teach literacy; and (3) anticipated future literacy teacher practice. 7.7.1  The Reflective Processes and Cycle in the CPM PSTs described their experiences of the reflective processes and cycle used in the CPM in terms of supporting their learning in ways similar to those outlined for professional engagement in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011). This was particularly evident where PSTs described opportunities to carry out in-depth analysis of their own and children’s learning throughout the reflective cycle as contributing to their professional development: I liked how you [PSTs] planned your unit, you implemented your unit and then you anal- ysed your unit or you did the learning log. That’s something we need to be able to do. We need to plan, implement and then analyse. (FG4, Kat)

7  Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 129 …implementing and then reflecting … I’d say definitely the learning logs and learning stories. I’ve never really had to analyse the learning of one child and study that child and their actions in depth … I felt that was of benefit to my learning … (FG4, Jan) These and other similar comments were in reference to small group, whole group and individual reflective practices which incorporated the processes described by Loughran (2012) of observation, documentation, reflection, deconstruction and reconstruction of practice. Reflective comments such as these, seemed to be indicat- ing PST awareness of the importance of identifying “what is and what is not effec- tive in their own practice” (TEMAG 2014, p. 16) through a process of continual reflection on teaching practices and students’ learning. Other aspects of being a teaching professional (AITSL 2011) were highlighted in PST comments about learning collaboratively and collegially using reflective pro- cesses. Here PSTs’ comments resonated with Schön’s (1983) description of know- ing and doing as inseparable where observing each other’s practice challenged PSTs to think about their own: I think it [co-teaching] makes you reflect on your own teaching. Watching somebody else … you might see something that they do and think, ‘I like the way that they do that, maybe I can try and incorporate that’. (FG5, Ella) PSTs also valued the opportunity to reflect individually on their own teaching performance in the CPM. It seemed that the authentic context of the after school learning club prompted PSTs to be conscious of their role in engaging children in literacy learning. This was particularly important in these learning clubs where chil- dren initially signed up for the duration of the program but where attendance was subject to each individual child’s engagement in the literacy programs delivered by the PSTs. This view was captured by one PST who described an awareness of the need “to be engaging every week or they [students] wouldn’t come back, so you were assessing yourself to make sure you were better every week” (FG4, Len). High levels of critical reflection are described in Standard 6.3 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011) where graduate teachers are expected to be able to identify their own professional learning needs and engage in appropriate professional learning to improve their practice. The level of reflection described by PSTs through their experiences in the co-teaching model suggested high levels of critical reflection that were distinctly different to other reflection activities at University and on practicum: We talk about reflection a lot and we go into our placement [practicum] and we do reflection and journal, but not having somebody there [in learning clubs] such as the actual teacher in the room the whole time we had no choice but to reflect on it [the implementation of the session] and actually really reflect on it. Because you actually had to go back the next week and extend upon it [the learning], whereas if you were just teaching the class [on practicum] and you go and talk to the teacher it’s, ‘Oh yes, I don’t think that went so well, I wouldn’t do it that way next time’ … (FG2, Thelma) The depth of reflection that was deemed by PSTs as necessary for a successful program seemed to be indicative of deep approaches like those described by Biggs and Tang (2007), where learning through reflection is applied in practice. It further

130 K. McLean seemed that the notion of being accountable to team members and children were key drivers for these deep levels of reflection. Other elements of being a teaching professional including working collegially to problem solve and improve outcomes, were also described by PSTs. In one example listening to the contributions of all team members was considered important in the delivery of an effective literacy program: Pete and I worked really well together in the fact that he listened to what I had to say and I listened to what he had to say, and then we talked about, and usually combined our ideas to make a better activity. (FG6, Ash) In another example, recognition of multiple perspectives within the team was attributed to drawing out the individual strengths of team members in ways that enhanced the professional engagement of all team members: We’ve got different strengths, we’ve got different ideas, discussing those, exploring them helps improve us all. (FG7, Rani) PSTs further described the “experience of speaking to parents in a professional environment” (FG3, Heather) as important for their development as teaching pro- fessionals. The process of reflecting on their practice and students’ learning seemed to offer support for PSTs to answer parent questions and tell parents about their programs. These types of comments suggested PST awareness of professional qual- ities such as those described by AITSL (2011), where respect and professionalism are evident in all interactions with the school community. Elements of the professional engagement domain (AITSL 2011) were further evident in PST reflections of the team meeting process where the focus was on group sharing of problems, ideas about practice, and observations of children’s learning and their own teaching practices. These aspects of teacher practice were similar to knowledge in practice described by Cohran-Smith and Lytle (2004) where group member’s probed into issues arising from their experiences of teaching and learning in an effort to enhance outcomes and improve practice. For example, PSTs described working together to modify planning after finding out that students dem- onstrated more or less knowledge about the chosen text type than was indicated for their year level in the Australian Curriculum. There was also recognition that in these and other similar team discussions, group members needed to be well pre- pared. This was described in terms of doing the research and providing the evidence base because “there was no point bringing information to the team that was not accurate or going to help” (FG2, Kara). PSTs noted that structured team meetings fostered understanding of important professional aspects of being a teacher including valuing and utilising each other’s strengths, working professionally, placing trust in team members to fulfil their role and finding their voice as a contributing team member: I think it’s also about finding your own voice within the group. You don’t want just to sit back and listen and go, ‘Well they might know a bit more about this topic than I do, so I’m just going to sit back and let them put down their opinions because they may be more cor- rect than me’. So it’s about finding your own voice, knowing what you know and still con- tributing to what’s going on. Being able to go, ‘Yes, I agree, let’s do this’, or ‘I think this, do

7  Using Reflective Practice to Foster Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy… 131 you?’ – to be able to present your own ideas while accepting their [other group members] ideas and … having confidence in your own opinion. (FG2, Kara) The opportunity to reflect individually and collegially was recognised by PSTs as facilitating professional knowledge. AITSL (2011) emphasises that teachers need to know their students, the content, and the English curriculum. In this research PSTs described the use of templates for individual reflections and observations as useful tools for advancing professional conversations in teams: We had them [Australian Curriculum English content descriptors] at the bottom of our notes [individual learning logs] … so we could look back at them [in team meetings] and say, ‘When they made this statement, they were talking about the characters.’ So it sup- ported the content descriptor we had [identified]. We tried to bring it [discussion] back to our notes every week … so we didn’t get to the end [of the program] and think, ‘I don’t know whether they’ve achieved it [learning outcome] or not.’ (FG5, Rhonda) Comments by PSTs such as this one, were of interest because the connections that PSTs made between curriculum content, learning outcomes and assessment were similar to those described by Biggs and Tang (2007) where the learning activ- ity, intended outcomes and assessment are aligned for effective teaching. 7.7.2  Confidence and Competence to Teach Literacy Through Learning in the CPM Participation in the CPM contributed to PSTs’ professional knowledge and practice in ways that supported their confidence and competence to teach literacy in primary school contexts. This was described by PSTs in terms of knowledge of the Australian English curriculum, of students and of effective literacy teaching practices. The professional knowledge domain of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011) emphasises the requirement for graduate teachers to know their students and the curriculum well. PSTs involved in the CPM reported oppor- tunities to delve “deep into the curriculum … and see outcomes from planning” (FG2, Hayley) in ways that were not typical of practicum or learning in other units at University. This was further described in terms of “having a better understanding of it [Australian Curriculum English] and having a knowledge of different ways to present [teach] literacy in the Australian curriculum” (FG2, Hayley). Here, PSTs comments seemed to be describing growth in professional knowledge in ways simi- lar to those described by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2004) for developing knowledge for practice where content knowledge is developed through inquiry. Confidence to teach using the Australian Curriculum was also reported in terms of organising an effective learning sequence (AITSL, Standard 2.2) where PSTs reported, “we did the planning, we linked it to the curriculum, we saw the outcomes, we implemented it” (Kath, FG6). PSTs were further able to make connections between their learning in literacy units at University and applying this learning to practice in the learning clubs. For example, one PST described the importance of: