Preservice teacher inquiry: Creating a space to dialogue about becoming a social justice educator

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Preservice teacher inquiry: Creating a space to dialogue about becoming a social justice educator Marvin Lynna,, Rene´e Smith-Maddoxb a

Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Maryland, College Park, 2311G Benjamin Building, MD 20742, USA b The Posse Foundation, Los Angeles, USA

Abstract In this paper, we reflect on our experience with an experimental inquiry component within a teacher education program in a large urban city on the West Coast of the United States. This learning space, which is referred to as ‘‘Inquiry,’’ promotes the integration of theoretical and practical knowledge through reflection and dialogue. We highlight how this inquiry-oriented process enabled preservice teachers to reflect on and dialogue about existing ideals of social justice and equity with regard to teaching diverse learners. This process acknowledges that alternative learning spaces in teacher education programs that address ways of observing, questioning, and inventing may well be a valuable strategy in the development of social justice educators. While the process is a valuable one, we offer a critical analysis of our own processes. In particular, we discuss the need for the creation and implementation of strategies that help pre-service teachers build their capacity to teach in diverse urban classrooms. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Framing the issues in teacher education In the United States,1 the need to change the form and function of teacher education is a topic of much debate (Goodlad, 1994; Sarason, 1993). Specifically, issues such as the recruitment, preparation, licensure, and renewal of competent teachers have come to the forefront in the debate over teacher education reform (Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996; Zeichner, Melnick, & Gomez, 1996). The widely pubCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 5783;

fax: +1 301 314 9055. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Lynn), [email protected] (R. Smith-Maddox). 1 The study focuses specifically on teacher in the United States. To that end, all references to teacher education, diversity and the challenges that lie ahead refer specifically to phenomena that shape the context of teacher education in the United States.

licized task force report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (Darling-Hammond, 1998) underscores these concerns when it argues that the quality of teacher preparation, to a large extent, influences the quality of teaching. In response to the issues facing teacher education, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers across the United States are designing and implementing numerous strategies to socialize preservice students in purposeful and positive ways (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Gitlin, 1990; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Oakes, Rogers, Bailis, & Metcalfe Lopez, 1998; SmithMaddox, 1998; The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986; The Holmes Group, 1986). The progress towards more coherent teacher preparation programs in the US include: raised admission standards, core curriculum, increased exit

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

requirements, extended clinical practice, the use of student cohorts, the employment of portfolios, and the development of university–school partnerships (American Association of College for Teacher Education (AACTE), 1991, 1994a, b). Yet, while every facet of teacher education in the United States is undergoing serious transformation, many scholars contend that the numerous efforts are sometimes seen as an end in themselves, disconnected from any broader issues such as social justice and equity (Giroux, 1985; Giroux & McLaren, 1986; Zeichner, 1993). Kirk (1986) has pointed out that ‘‘teacher education consistently fails to produce teachers who have a critical insight into their democratic role and function as teachersy and the role of schooling in society’’ (p. 155). Establishing the moral purpose of teaching and teacher education means reconceptualizing and highlighting it in the reform efforts of preservice education in the United States (Fullan, 1993). In response to these broader concerns in teacher education, some teacher education programs in the US are socializing teachers for diversity by recasting the curriculum to give greater emphasis on multiculturalism, equity, and social justice (see, for example, Ladson-Billings, 1992; Oakes, 1996; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). But the complex and difficult process of learning how to teach in effective ways so that schools can move students toward world-class standards and achievement is not a settled matter. While the knowledge gained in courses, seminars, directed readings, clinical experiences, practical, and other types of field experiences builds student teachers’ capacity to develop the skills needed to move their students toward higher levels of understanding and more proficient performance, it is unlikely that these experiences alone are sufficient to build ways of good teaching that are attentive to issues of social justice and equity. It follows that those concerned with preparing teachers for culturally diverse classrooms are required to challenge traditional teacher preparation practices and consider ways to cultivate the multicultural sensitivity of preservice teachers. Efforts in this area have gained tremendous momentum. King, Hollins, and Hayman (1997) have championed the need for concrete models of transformed teacher preparation programs that prepare teachers to develop their own level of social/ cultural awareness and competence and provide them with the tools for engendering such awareness and competence in their students. Zeichner and Liston’s (1987) work, for example, addresses goals for

95

preparation of teachers ‘‘who are both willing and able to reflect on the origins, purposes, and consequences of their actions, as well as on the material and ideological constraints and encouragement embedded in the classroom, school, and societal contexts in which they work’’ (p. 23). King and LadsonBillings (1990) described their attempts to help preservice teachers consider multicultural competence and critical perspectives ‘‘as a continuum that begins with self-awareness and knowledge and extends to thinking critically about society and making a commitment to transformative teaching’’ (p. 26). Our work draws heavily on these scholars’ insights. Because the emphasis of this article is on creating an alternative learning space that facilitates and deepens preservice teachers’ understanding of learning how to teach in urban schools, we pose the following the question: How do you explicitly and consistently link theory and practice within teacher education programs where student teachers critically analyze the social, moral, and political dimensions of teaching while developing subject matter expertise or pedagogical content knowledge (Schulman, 1987)? To answer this question, in this paper, we examine a situated learning experience called ‘‘Inquiry.’’ In this context, over the course of a year, we made progress in understanding how prospective teachers individually and collectively learned to: (1) discuss an idea or concept that has social justice relevance; (2) analyze their emerging teacher identities to see how their instructional decision-making expresses purposes and goals, both anticipated and unanticipated; (3) make defensible choices regarding their classroom; and (4) establish a community of practice where they developed pedagogical habits for self-directed growth. In addition, we offer a critical analysis of the limitations of inquiry as an approach to making fundamental changes in the way teachers think about their students and the role and function of classroom teaching. In doing so, we interrogate our own practices as teacher educators and researchers committed to transforming in teacher education. 1.1. On becoming social justice educators: the agenda of an inquiry-oriented teacher education program In 1994, the Teacher Education Program (TEP) at West Coast University2 reorganized its 1-year 2 West Coast University is a pseudonym for a large elite public university located on the western coast of the United States of America.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 96

M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

credentialing program to focus on the moral and political dimensions of teaching in urban schools. The newly structured 2-year Master of Education and credential program offers multiple subject instruction (elementary) and single subject instruction credentials (secondary). These credentials include an emphasis in either cross-cultural language and academic development (CLAD) or bilingual cross-cultural language and academic development (BCLAD). The TEP at West Coast University seeks to prepare prospective teachers to approach curriculum, teaching, and learning from socio-cultural and constructivist perspectives. In their training, student teachers learn how to use critical inquiry, dialogue, reflection, and social responsibility in order to promote social justice, caring, and an equity pedagogy in urban schools. Students who enroll in TEP do it because of the expressed emphasis on social justice and a commitment to work with students in urban schools. In their training, TEP students move through the academic and fieldwork program in a cohort team. Their team assignments are determined by either an elementary or secondary focus. In Year 1, preservice teachers (called ‘‘novices’’) participate in courses, fieldwork, seminars, and practicums. Activities that attempt to ground the student teachers in the knowledge and skills required to bring about meaningful changes in teaching and learning include conducting case studies and participating in student teaching. During Year 2, students (called ‘‘residents’’) are employed full-time as classroom teachers by school districts to teach in local low-income urban school sites while they complete requirements for their Master’s of Education degree. On-site school district practitioners mentor residents. They also receive support via field visits and seminars provided by TEP faculty and staff (Oakes et al., 1998). During the time in which the study took place, the 1997–1998 school year, there was a considerable debate about whether or not the TEP was living up to its goal of preparing preservice teachers to work in urban classrooms as social justice educators. For example, there was discussion about whether the student teaching placements were appropriate given the overall goals of the program. Some students complained that the program put too much emphasis on building relationships with a nearby suburban school district—one of the wealthiest school districts in California—while ignoring more needy schools in a nearby urban school district—

one of the most worst performing districts in the entire nation. It was important for us to strongly consider these issues of consistency of program goals and their implementation as we went about trying to create spaces for preservice or novice teachers to dialogue about social justice. As researchers with different levels of investment in the program—the first author was, at that time, a doctoral student who worked fairly closely with a number of TEP students informally and the second author was an instructor who taught a social foundations course to all students in the TEP— were forced to recognize that while an ‘‘orientation’’ towards social justice was embedded within the program, there were serious questions about whether or not these ideas could be properly implemented given the challenges we described. We were concerned about how this reality would affect our ability to engage teachers in meaningful dialogues about social justice dialogue. This presented an obvious challenge. Recognizing and being upfront about the challenges we faced, we continued our research because of our belief that Inquiry, as an approach to helping teachers interrogate their own assumptions and develop new understandings, would provide a useful tool for helping teachers move toward greater understanding about issues of social justice. 1.2. Using critical reflection and dialogue: a framework for inquiry-oriented teacher development and learning The TEP program at WEST COAST UNIVERSITY utilizes ‘‘inquiry.’’3 as an approach to engage preservice teachers in critical reflection about their practice. Inquiry is a guided experience for preservice teachers to challenge existing beliefs, assumptions, and understandings about teaching and learning while valuing their experiences, knowledge, and voice. Inquiry, as American social philosopher Dewey (1938) conceived it ‘‘does not merely remove doubt by recurrence to a prior adaptive integration’’ but ‘‘institutes new environing conditions that occasion new problems,’’ with the result that ‘‘there is no such thing as a final settlement’’ (p. 8). In short, Dewey is suggesting that Inquiry is a method of critique that produces the disposition to further Inquire in the beliefs and values driving pedagogical 3

The inquiry component was being piloted with both novices (first year students) and residents (second year students).

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

norms and practices. In other words, Inquiry should be a method of unfixing regularities and entrenched practices. Informed by Dewey’s theory of Inquiry, Sirotnik and Oakes (1986) explain how this strand of thinking and action comes together: critical inquiryy is a methodological perspective that embraces both traditional and alternative forms of inquiry while being driven by a critical theoretical perspective as the sine qua non for school renewal and the increased potential for school change. This kind of commitment to active inquiry will permit those in schools to know their schools in ways that provide both the impetus and direction for change. And this, of course, is what we envision as a renewing school (8; italics in original). Sirotnik and Oakes’ (1986) methodological approach to educational change suggests that a ‘‘dialectical process of critical reflection and dialogue’’ (p. 8) demands that we inquire into the beliefs and values driving pedagogical norms and practices. As such, critical inquiry is based on an interest, for example, in changing practice from its more traditional modes of teaching. Thus, how likely is it that teacher education will be open to a critical inquiry process? How, in other words, do prospective teachers go about challenging their beliefs, values, and actions? Reflection and dialogue are two pedagogical tools used to achieve this objective. They are probably best thought of as related and overlapping components of the inquiry process, rather than discrete methods. These pedagogical tools, however, are as old as they are new and as clear as they are vague. As for insights that have transferred into teacher education, a particular notion of examining beliefs and values is that of a reflective practitioner. Scho¨n (1983, 1991) defines the reflective practitioner as one who can think while acting, respond to uncertainty in its context, and deal with potential conflicts. The reflective practitioner works to make her tacit assumptions explicit, recognize the problematic, and ‘‘name’’ and ‘‘frame’’ the context under scrutiny. Scho¨n’s idea of ‘‘reflection-in-action’’ is consistent with Dewey’s thinking on this topic. The way in which the term reflection is used in the teacher education literature contributes to this perspective. Zeichner and Liston (1987) outlined a three-dimensional notion of critical reflection which includes: (1) teachers’ technical ability to achieve

97

goals and learning objectives; (2) teachers’ consideration for the learning context and interest in assessing the competing perspectives and worth of educational goals; and (3) teachers’ ideological interest in the struggle for social justice. This paradigm suggests that educators should be examining unarticulated assumptions and alternative perspectives while considering how to work within a framework that is specifically political. This includes the emphasis on a critical discourse, which connects pedagogical practices to the imperatives of democratic education. In contrast, Smyth (1992) is very sceptical of the way some educators suggest reflective practice may improve teaching as well as learning. According to Smyth, reflective teaching often deflects the center of control while still making bureaucratic control central to effective teaching. As a result, ‘‘the social relationships of centralized power have remained firmly in place and unaltered’’ (p. 271). Interrogation of power relations, critiques of global capitalism, and scrutiny of social contradictions fall by the wayside because they are sometimes seen as topics unrelated to educational outcomes. Thus, the decision to determine what are legitimate topics for reflection inevitably means contending with competing interests. In turn, resources (i.e., time to reflect) are allocated based on what the individual or collective views as important. Fostering individual self-questioning and a laissez-faire ethos become the hidden goals of the move toward reflective practice because ‘‘there is simply no other game in town’’ (p. 280). In short, as long as educators are busy reflecting on their practice, they lack the insights needed to truly create an emancipatory education where they educate the spirit and mind of other people’s children. For this we need to reflect, for example, on teacher learning and how it inscribes the very process of learning how to teach. Smyth’s position encourages teachers to form what Barry Kanpol calls ‘‘group solidarity’’ (p. 292). This view makes pedagogical reform a more viable possibility because it allows individuals to become part of a collective in which they are learning to question schooling and classroom life. Moreover, Smyth emphasizes the notion of teacher ownership of reform when he writes, ‘‘If there is to be any genuine ownership by teachers, it is important that such descriptions be in their own language’’ (p. 296). It seems warranted that ownership of change should be put in the hands of those who are most affected by changes being promoted.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 98

M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

Through dialogue which promotes reflection teachers can move towards a fuller understanding of the ways in which they can unravel the complexities of their own beliefs about their students as well as the demands of teaching in diverse contexts. Taking on this perspective, teachers function professionally as ‘‘transformative intellectuals’’ (Giroux, 1985; Giroux & McLaren, 1986). Giroux (1988) points out that: Through dialogue, the norms of cooperation and sociability offset the traditional hidden curriculum’s emphasis on competition and excessive individualism. In addition, the process of group instruction provides students with the opportunity for experiencing, rather than simply hearing about, the dynamics of participatory democracy...[Thus,] by establishing a close relationship with teachers and peers, students are given the chance to understand that an analytical, codified body of experience is the central element in any pedagogy. This helps both students and teachers to recognize that behind any pedagogy are values, beliefs, and assumptions informed by a particular world-view (pp. 39–40). Thus, the use of reflection and dialogue is linked to the novice and expert teachers’ ability to ultimately reform curriculum and instruction, and by extension, to consciously build relationships with parents and communities in order to help a diverse group of students learn more powerfully and productively (Darling-Hammond, 1996). 2. Methods and researchers roles In Fall of 1997, our research team negotiated with a Team Coordinator4 (also the Director of TEP) to pilot an inquiry component with her team of preservice teachers. Since the Director of TEP was a participant in a TEP faculty inquiry group she was familiar with this alternative process. We agreed to meet once a month for one hour with her elementary team of novice teachers to facilitate their thinking about key social justice issues in teaching for diversity. The idea of creating an inquiry group was introduced to the novices in the last hour of a weekly three-hour seminar. In our 4

In TEP, Team Coordinators supervise a cohort of preservice teachers and teaches the seminar along with Team Leaders (graduate students with teaching experience). This supervisory arrangement also provides field support.

first meeting, we explained that we were interested in getting them to voluntarily think deeply about their emerging identity as social justice educators. Inquiry would be a learning space that would allow them to do the kind of reflecting and thinking out loud that would move them toward the type of teacher they wanted to be. This process would entail the observing, questioning and critiquing of established practices and policies while conceiving new and alternative pedagogical approaches. We emphasized the importance of having the time and a space to grapple with issues (e.g., how to include all students’ needs in the planning of their teaching, what is the clearest way to represent a concept, what makes learning in a content area easy or hard, how to master new content and pedagogy and integrate them into practice, how do you align your pedagogy with instructional policies, how do you create real opportunities for all students to master demanding learning goals) relating to teaching and learning. They were also told of other places (within TEP and school districts) where Inquiry was occurring and how their efforts were organized (Smith-Maddox, 1998, 1999). They listened intently to our description. Initially they did not respond to the proposition. As the session ended, they informed us that they wanted to take a week to think about what it would mean to participate in inquiry and that they would inform us of their decision the following week in seminar. A week passed. We eagerly returned to the novices’ seminar to get an answer. In general, the novices seemed to approach the notion of inquiry with quiet trepidation. For the most part, they sat quietly and looked rather perplexed while the dialogue facilitator searched for some sign that they were, in fact, interested in participating in this process. Several questions were raised about the inquiry process. For example, novices wanted to know what makes inquiry different from what is done in the directed field seminar? Embedded in this question were issues relating to whose voice and what experiences shape decisions about where inquiry sessions would occur, what was its purpose, why it was necessary, and what did participation in this process mean. From our experience as a participant-observer in an inquiry-based reform effort with experienced teachers (see, for example, Smith-Maddox, 1999), we understood the strained relation that can exist between the researchers and those studied. As a result, it was important that we not alienate the novices from the process. We

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

wanted to make sure that the student teachers’ questions or conversations were not marginalized or silenced. In this instance, answering questions about this process, recognizing the novices’ personal knowledge, encouraging the group to determine its operating rules were ways in which the researcher and the student teachers came to a mutual understanding of how inquiry could address the needs of the group. Race was also a factor. We suspected that since we—the researchers—were African-American and the novices were not—seven of them were AngloAmericans, four were Mexican-Americans, and three were Asian-Americans; all were women—that they may have had serious reservations about what would be the ‘‘tenor’’ of conversations on equity. This presented both a challenge and an opportunity. It was challenging because it would make it difficult for us to discern whether or not novices would be engage in real ‘‘truth-telling’’ about issues of race, class and inequality since they were inquiring about social justice in the company of knowledgeable African-Americans who, themselves, were experts in areas of race, ethnic studies and education. On the other hand, it presented us with a distinct opportunity because we could work hand and hand with novice teachers to help them ‘‘think-through’’ the problems they were encountering in the classroom by applying critical pedagogical theory to help illuminate the hidden curriculum in schools (Freire, 1973). Ultimately, all fourteen novice teachers preparing to become elementary school teachers agreed to participate in Inquiry. Because these novices took the foundation course together, they would also have an opportunity to identify important issues and discuss their representation in course readings, instructional strategies, and student teaching. This set the stage for them to listen to alternative voices and to take control of their own learning. To reconstruct our understanding of the Inquiry process and the learning that takes place in such a setting, we have drawn on relevant literature, field notes, interviews, and transcripts of recorded sessions. 2.1. Subsequent inquiry sessions: dialogical topics that emerged in inquiry sessions Drawing on Friere’s problem-posing method (1970, 1973), the inquiry sessions were guided by posing questions about schooling, classroom life,

99

and issues of concern to the novices. These questions were meant to engage the inquiry participants in a dialogical process of reflection where they would identify and name the problem most pressing to them. Initially, the Inquiry participants were uncertain about who would speak, who would listen, and how we should proceed. Not surprisingly, they seemed accustomed to what Freire (1970) has called the ‘‘banking system of education’’ where students are regarded as passive consumers waiting for knowledge to be deposited by the professor. As our work progressed, however, many of the novices were willing to surrender their dependency on the professor’s knowledge repository. They were ultimately posing questions they wanted to address, analyzing the causes of schoolbased problems, and suggesting some solutions to those problems as they sought to be agents for change. Since the novice teachers were scheduled to visit various school sites, their observations were used as a basis for our discussions. We invited the novices to initiate a discussion and to react to each others responses. In trying to find the minimum conditions for promoting dialogue about teaching, learning, and emerging teacher identity, we carefully listened to alternative points of view. We frequently elaborated or commented on what we understood, raised questions and encouraged inquiry participants to reveal their thoughts and ideas, and requested clarification on perspectives we did not understand. Students expressed interest in being able to discuss issues such as: defining socially just teaching and juxtaposing it against forms of socially unjust teaching, analyzing their observations of classrooms they were visiting, bridging theory (put forth in courses) and practice, and determining what teachers should know and be able to do in order to be effective teachers in urban schools. In the pages that follow, we will examine how we were able critically examine and pose questions about issues such as ability grouping and tracking, teacher autonomy and choice, student teaching assignments and placements, and the quality of their observational experiences. In one of the early sessions, the novices articulated their understanding about and experiences with ability grouping. While engaging in this discussion, students were being asked to evaluate their own beliefs about this longstanding practice while taking into account divergent views and counter-arguments posed by others in the group. A student teacher began the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 100

M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

discussion by providing the group with an example of a classroom where ability grouping was the norm. When she asked the guiding teacher why she had chosen to organize her class in this way, the teacher told her that ‘‘she does it for classroom management reasons.’’ (Transcript, 11/7/98, p. 1). In this instance, the student teacher was able to assess a situation, and then inquire with the teacher in order to get more information. The teacher’s response only further substantiated the novice’s understanding that deeply held beliefs of teachers about the utility of ability grouping continue to legitimize this instructional grouping. Another student talked about how some classrooms get constructed as ‘‘low-ability’’ classrooms. She commented: y many of the children who are hard to control or hyper were placed in low ability groups. These students were often assigned to beginning teachers. Also, a lot of new teachers end up getting the children of parents who the school thinks won’t complain or argue about their child’s class assignment (Transcript, 11/7/97, p. 2). Our experience suggests that the novices’ individual ideas about ability grouping were tied to what they learned in the social foundations course, their personal experiences (where most of them were labelled college preparatory or gifted), classroom observations, and student teaching. These experiences provided the student teachers with an extensive collective knowledge base from which to critique the features of tracking systems. At this point in the session, the dialogue facilitator posed a question: ‘‘What is the role of tracking?’’ A student unabashedly responded: ‘‘I think it’s just easier for the teacher because students’ needs can be met with common learning goals, instructional activities and materials. The teacher doesn’t have to think of ways to teach diverse learners with one lesson plan.’’ (Transcript, 11/7/97, p. 3) Another student interjected and asked her how she would deal with children of varying ability and skill levels in one classroom context. After reflecting on her response, the student who made the prior comment concerning the utility of ability grouping provided her cohort with an example of a class where a teacher organized students in small heterogeneous reading groups (4–6 students). She indicated that she found this classroom to be far more equitable and studentcentered. Several other novices began to provide examples (e.g., building expert–novice relationships between students where students see each other as

resources) of heterogeneously grouped classrooms that worked well. Novices found themselves rethinking their assumptions about the effectiveness of ability grouping through the discussion of their student teacher experiences. In another session, a novice began to talk about how she had convinced a teacher to change from homogenous to heterogeneous grouping after having shown her several research articles (Oakes, 1985) on the benefits of heterogeneous student grouping. This was a critical point in the dialogue because though most student teachers seemed sold on the efficacy of mixed ability grouping, they had not begun to critically analyze this approach. Students were linking theory to practice by drawing relationships between what they were observing and what they had studied in the teacher education program. Research on mixed ability grouping helped students see beyond the limitations of current classroom practice. This was an important step in the discourse. Much of this inquiry on ability grouping revealed how inquiry participants expressed their interest in and understanding of such an educational practice as well as how they spend some time analyzing it. Throughout our dialogue, other complex questions were raised such as, 1. How do you deal with the inequities in urban classrooms? 2. How do you deal with hostile school environments that oppose transformative perspectives? 3. How do you forge relationships with the school community and the surrounding neighborhood? and 4. How do you create opportunities to learn for all students? Inquiry became a space where novices could reflect openly and honestly about these issues while drawing important relationships between theory and practice. In reference to question one, a teacher talked about the tension between allowing students the freedom to express themselves in the classroom and having an unmanageable classroom. She remarked ‘‘Sometimes I feel like people are suggesting that I should allow my students to do whatever they want because they are underprivileged. I don’t think this will help them.’’ At that point, there was another discussion regarding the difference between an ‘‘equity pedagogy’’ that sets high academic and behavioral standards for students of color and oppressive pedagogy that punishes children being

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

expressive. The novice began to realize that equity was not to be equated with low standards or disorganization. In other sessions novices talked about various strategies they might undertake to deal with ‘‘opposition’’ from teachers who do not share their values or how to get parents and others in the community to support their efforts to proffer a social justice agenda in their classrooms and in their schools. During Inquiry, the preservice teachers tapped into their personal knowledge base and reflected on their assumptions and beliefs about ability grouping while connecting with related researches discussed in the foundation course. The dialogue promotes reflection on the student teachers’ experiences. This process seem to assess their practical knowledge and carry forward their understanding of the teacher’s role in implementing educational practices and the ideas of educational reform (i.e., de-tracking). Implicitly, Inquiry has the propensity to transform social relations in the classroom and to raise an individual’s level of consciousness about relations in society, which have inherent benefits for the individual, the classroom, and the school community (Freire, 1970; Giroux & McLaren, 1986; Shor & Freire, 1987). For this to occur, however, dialogue must be relevant to the context in which it is taking place, and be grounded in trust and respect of others, as well as in a willingness to share and transform ideas. 2.2. The learning and development of novice teachers participating in inquiry In our attempts to create a learning space to facilitate dialogical teaching among novices, we have found that taking into account their unique perspectives of the inquiry process is critical to understanding how to enable them to enhance their classroom effectiveness, their own professional development, and ultimately the academic performance of their students. To assist the inquiry participants in reflecting on their experience in Inquiry, we interviewed them after eight sessions. The interviews were conducted in the third quarter of their preservice training. At this point in their training, the student teachers have taken required courses, completed their observation and practical, and many had received their teaching assignment for the upcoming school year. Provided with opportunities to speak about their experiences, student teachers often express how a learning space such as Inquiry helped them to

101

confront their own biases and to consider critical perspectives that led to their self-actualization. One student teacher stated: Well, we’re putting our ideas on the table. And we’re helping each other, talk about the myths we may have about teaching and learning. For example, if I had an opinion about a certain ethnic group, or an attitude toward something that I didn’t see as being racist, prejudiced, or stereotypic, by presenting it to the [Inquiry] group, it helps me not to be colour-blind. When you’re teaching, you may blame the kids for not learning, but the teacher may be the problem. I think Inquiry helps you to see your mistakes as a social justice educator and not just the mistakes the kids are making. When you talk about what you’re doing, other people can help you to see what you’re not seeing. Dewey (1938) description of Inquiry illuminates the way it causes introspection on one’s own position. For instance, as the interview progressed, Evelyn discovered the importance of a learning environment that facilitates active learning, which maximizes prospective teachers’ ability to read important meanings regarding their assumptions and beliefs. The above analytical discussion further illustrates the way in which she connects her personal and professional knowledge to her student teaching experiences. What is distinctive is that becoming a social justice educator means to reorient yourself to learn from a variety of perspectives, even if it is sometimes difficult and challenging. This is the insight we want to make available to student teachers when we provide opportunities for them to become acquainted with a dialogical method. To know how to attend to such realities, our interviews with the inquiry participants allowed us to focus on the learning that took place in Inquiry. In particular, we wanted to know what was learned in Inquiry, what were the benefits, what were the drawbacks, and how the novices’ pedagogical practices might develop from participating in Inquiry. In Inquiry sessions, participants created alternative learning experiences that help them shape their pedagogy so that it is aligned with their philosophy of teaching and notion of a social justice educator. Another student commented: Inquiry makes me talk about things that I probably wouldn’t talk about otherwise. For

ARTICLE IN PRESS 102

M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

instance, I can go on and on about how I can’t pinpoint what it is that makes me a social justice educator. Well, inquiry forces me to think about the reasons I want to be a social justice educator. For example, I was flabbergasted when I was told to talk about how my lesson plan connected to issues of social justice. I’m thinking I didn’t write it for that purpose. Participating in [inquiry] makes me come up with specific ways to connect theory with reflection and action. It’s easy for me to say, oh, I’m a social justice educator. It’s another thing to demonstrate why and how. For student teachers, inquiry is a process of learning pedagogical practices. It involves shaping their teacher identity in spite of deeply held beliefs and values. These comments reveal a commitment to a trend of taking control of your own professional development that cannot be summarily dismissed. It is important for us to understand the utility of Inquiry and how we might find more productive and fulfilling ways to reinforce the students’ dual roles of teacher and learner. The student teachers recognize the advantages of Inquiry. They make public their understanding of (or lack of understanding) what it means to be a social justice educator by asking a repertoire of good questions. As a result, shared sense-making was stimulated by the dialogue in Inquiry. The student teachers found themselves in multiple roles of listener, discussion leader, critic, and learner. Against these advantages of creating their own learning space, concerns about the form of Inquiry suggest that student teachers have limited opportunities to integrate their personal knowledge with professional knowledge into the process of learning how to teach. In such a learning context, this suggests that teacher education may need to concentrate on a developing both a repertoire of good things to do in the classroom and multiple ways in which student teachers can articulate their misconceptions, naive thinking, hidden assumptions and prejudices, and analyze their perceptions of teaching, learning, schools, and children. Finally, a student had this to say: I think it’s definitely letting me know that some of the best ways of understanding how effective is your teaching is to talk about your strategies with other teachers. And to use the sessions as a time to talk about your successes and failures. It is also a time for the other novices to help you formulate your ideas, to see what you know and what you’re not seeing.

Overall, the responses above suggest that inquiry participants struggled to make sense of their opportunity to learn the pedagogical habits and tools for self-directed growth that have meaning for and are useful to their common interests in becoming social justice educators. A strong commitment to a social justice agenda, however, does not necessarily make all student teachers amenable to reflection and dialogue. Some regard the inquiry process as useful to their development, while others did not find it a priority. While the question-posing process helped move us beyond a monologue, it did not always provide a structured technique that some student teachers preferred or promote the intended in-depth dialogue about self-knowledge, schooling, teaching, and classroom life. Teaching student teachers to reflect and dialogue requires a sustained effort on the part of teacher educators and their students where they are co-learners in the process. It is clear, however, that constructing a problemsolving situation that is grounded in the prospective teachers’ learning and experiences will develop their individual agency and critical thinking ability. As Richert (1992) states: As teachers talk about their work and ‘‘name’’ their experiences, they learn about what they know and what they believe. They also learn what they do not know. Such knowledge empowers the individual by providing a source for action that is generated from within rather than imposed from without (p. 196). Moreover, the novice teachers’ comments indicate, as Hooks (1994) puts it, ‘‘that teachers must be actively committed to a process of self-actualization that promotes their own well-being if they are to teach in a manner that empowers students’’ (p. 15) Given this perspective, she further argues that what’s important is an ongoing critical examination of ways of knowing and habits of being. In our case, inquiring about teaching and learning not only fosters a critical exchange between inquiry participants, but also further strengthens their group solidarity. By group solidarity, we mean an active engagement between participants about their values, ideas, and shared concerns with teaching practices. In particular, Inquiry sessions exposed the competing norms of pedagogical practices, which novice teachers as learners cross boundaries and confront differences by making overt that which is often embedded and hence unquestioned in the process of learning how to teach.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

In summary, we found that participation in the dialogical process promotes a disposition toward critical examination and shared appreciation of what it means to be a social justice educator. Teachers were afforded the opportunity to: (1) consult with each other on their understandings of teaching and learning; (2) deliberate on the problems of teaching along with their possible solutions; (3) reflect on the subtleties and complexities of classroom life, which include the social, cultural, and technical dimensions of teaching; (4) reflect to a greater degree on their preconceptions of teaching and learning with diverse students; and (5) examine their roles as reflective practitioners with the ability to interrogate how structures of beliefs that are endemic to teacher culture can isolate them for their own work; and (6) cultivate the capacity to examine how structures of beliefs (that are sometimes taken for granted or at other times resisted) in teacher cultures can alienate them from their own work, colleagues, and students. These six dimensions measure up to some of the design principles now being recommended by commission reports and teacher educators (AACTE, 1991, 1994a, b; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). It also takes into account pedagogical practices that are being undertaken in in-service and preservice teacher education programs, including those reform initiatives aimed at promoting greater equity among culturally diverse student populations and ongoing inquiries into their own teaching practice. 3. Conclusion In this paper, we have described how inquiry is used and summarized findings from our work, which revealed aspects of the inquiry process in use. Our hypothesis was that a situated learning experience such as inquiry would enable prospective teachers to develop pedagogical habits and skills necessary for self-directed professional growth and socialize them, individually and collectively, to participate as full partners in the restructuring of teaching while grappling with issues relating to equality and justice. Further, we believed that what we learn from novice teacher Inquiry might help us

103

develop create alternative learning experiences that help student teachers shape equity-based pedagogies that have concerns about social justice at their core. While we are hopeful that novice teachers’ participation in continuous dialogue about social justice issues may have helped them overcome certain barriers that ultimately prevent teachers from learning to incorporate a social justice perspective in their teaching, we are also aware that there is evidence to suggest that dialogue alone insufficient to change what are often entrenched views and dispositions regarding minority learners (Artiles, Barreto, Pena, & McClafferty, 1998). We hope that by teaching novice teachers to ‘‘inquire’’ into their own thinking about how their practices can enhance or complicate social justice goals for their classroom, they will continue this practice as they become fulltime teachers. Our work was designed to promote critical thinking. To that end, our hope was to get teachers to begin to think of themselves as ‘‘intellectuals’’ with the ability to ‘‘think-through’’ important social justice problems in the classroom. It was not our goal to encourage inquiry participants to implement ideas and practices external to them. Instead, we urged participants to analyze pedagogical practices, determine what practices interrupt patterns of inequality, create instructional activities in which knowledge can be produced, evaluate their instructional decisionmaking and the results of their own actions, execute strategies to transform their pedagogy, and adopt pedagogical practices that are mutually informing for them and their students. Inquiry created the conditions and cultivated the capacity for novice teacher participants to critically examine how the structures of beliefs (that are sometimes taken for granted or at other times resisted) in teacher cultures can alienate them from their own work, colleagues, and students. Thus, in this case, those preservice teachers participating in Inquiry had the opportunity to create pedagogical conditions in which they crossed boundaries of pedagogy (Giroux, 1993). That is, through critical reflection and meaningful dialogue, novice teachers examined the moral, practical, and technical dimensions of teaching while exploring the endless possibilities of innovative pedagogical ideas and the complex kinds of processes needed to implement them. When we examined the ways in which the concepts of reflection and dialogue promote continuous

ARTICLE IN PRESS 104

M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105

learning and development, we found that the novices interrogated the institutional structures, which create obstacles to liberated forms of teaching and learning. Inquiry sessions allowed novice teachers the opportunity to draw some connections between theory and practice. Furthermore, inquiry gave prospective teachers the space to reflect on the manner in which they might ‘‘operationalize’’ theories and research and begin to think about how they could, in fact, construct classrooms with social justice as a central component of the curriculum. In other words, the novices were beginning the process of thinking critically about how one, in fact, implements a social justice agenda in the context of an urban classroom. Inquiry allowed them the space to be able to think about how this might be done. In this capacity, novice teachers were learning to become both ‘‘advocates’’— that is, someone working in their students’ best interests by giving them access to opportunities and helping them understand how knowledge must be viewed critically—and ‘‘analysts’’, that is, continuously evaluating their thoughts about knowledge and how they can facilitate learning (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Greene (1984) underscores this point by arguing that educators need to create public spaces to dialogue as a precondition for incorporating the kind of learning demanded by new standards and reform ideals in their classrooms: We need spacesy for expression, for freedomy a public spacey where living persons can come together in speech and action, each one free to articulate a distinctive perspective, all of them granted equal worth. It must be a space of dialogue, a space where a web of relationships can be woven, and where a common world can be brought into being and continually renewedy There must be a teachable capacity to bring into beingy a public composed of persons with many voices and many perspectives, out of whose multiple intelligences may still emerge a durable and worthwhile common world. If educators can renew their hopes and speak out once again, if they can empower more persons in the multiple domains of possibility, we shall not have to fear lack of productivity, a lack of dignity or standing in the world. We will be in pursuit of the crucial values; we will be creating our own purposes as we move (p. 296). If research and practice in teacher education are to be improved, we believe that a problem-posing

method must be integrated into the current structure of teacher education. However, we recognize that inquiry is not a panacea. Alone, it will not radically improve troubled schools in the United States. As Gay (2000) suggests, social justice teachers need to be able to more than just ‘‘talk’’ about social justice. They must be able to effectively implement strategies that are going to improve the achievement of marginalized students in urban schools. This suggests that teachers have ‘‘pedagogical content knowledge’’ (Schulman, 1987) that guides them as they develop specific strategies that are going to help all learners in their classrooms achieve at the highest levels. We recognize that while our conversations with teachers about the teaching and learning process was useful, teachers themselves would be responsible for developing the necessary dispositions and skills for operationalizing these ideas in the classroom. In addition, while teachers were engaging in self-reflexive dialogue about the importance of social justice and the effectiveness of certain practices in the context of urban classrooms, we did not ask them to focus on their identities. Research and theory suggests that asking White teachers, for example, to think critically about their whiteness shapes their views on teaching and learning as well as how they see minority students is useful in helping them come to fuller understandings about the importance of social justice teaching (King et al., 1997). Regrettably, in our Inquiry sessions, we created a ‘‘safe environment’’ by allowing students not to deal with the messiness of racial and ethnic identity and its relationship to the development of a social justice practice. We will need to conduct further research in order to ascertain the possible affect our work may have had on these teachers’ classroom practice after they left our program. However, we are certain about one thing: the teachers at least learned the value of learning to confront their own notions of teaching and learning. We hope that this will help teachers to build and create communities of practice that continue to address issues of social justice among their teacher colleagues and their students even when there is inconsistency between their professional preparation and the norms of the schools in which they work. References American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (1991). Rate V: teaching teachers: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: AACTE.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Lynn, R. Smith-Maddox / Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2007) 94–105 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (1994a). Setting standards and educating teachers: A national conversation. Washington, DC: AACTE. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (1994b). Teacher education policy in states: A 50state survey of legislative and administrative actions. Washington, DC: AACTE. Artiles, A. J., Barreto, R. M., Pena, L., & McClafferty, K. (1998). Pathways to teacher learning in multicultural contexts. Remedial and Special Education, 19(2), 70–89. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5–17. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5–15. Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. L. (1996). The changing context of teacher education. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 14–59). CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action for freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review Monographs. Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New york: Seabury. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of education reform. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. NY: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. A. (1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education, 376–379. Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: the case for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 213–238. Gitlin, A. D. (1990). Educative research, voice, and school change. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 443–465. Goodlad, J. L. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greene, M. (1984). Excellence: Meanings and multiplicity. Teachers College Record, 86(2), 296. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. King, J. E., Hollis, E. R., & Hayman, W. C. (1997). Preparing teachers for cultural diversity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. King, J. E., & Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). The teacher education challenge in elite university settings: Developing critical

105

perspectives for teaching in a democratic and multicultural society. European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 1(2), 15–30. Kirk, D. (1986). Beyond the limits of theoretical discourse in teacher education: Toward a critical pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 155–167. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996e). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Oakes, J. (1996). Making the rhetoric real. Multicultural Education, 4–10. Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Bailis, P. & Metcalfe Lopez, E. (1998). UCLA CLAD/BCLAD experimental program: Biennial report to the commission on teacher education. Richert, A. E. (1992). Voice and power in teaching and learning to teach. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teacher education cases and critique (pp. 187–197). Albany: State University of New York Press. Sarason, S. B. (1993). The case for change: Rethinking the preparation of educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Sirotnik, K. A., & Oakes, J. (1986). Critical inquiry for school renewal: Liberating theory and practice. In K. A. Sirotnik, & J. Oakes (Eds.), Critical perspectives on the organization and improvement of schooling (pp. 3–93). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. Smith-Maddox, R. (1998). Preparing prospective teachers to meet standards. Centre X Quarterly, 10(3), 1–9. Smith-Maddox, R. (1999). Inquiry about an inquiry-based reform. Urban Review. Smyth, J. (1992). Teachers’ work and the politic of reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 267–300. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared Teachers for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. The Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author. Zeichner, K. (1993). Connecting genuine teacher development to the struggle for social justice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(1), 5–20. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23–48. Zeichner, K., Melnick, S., & Gomez, M. L. (1996). Currents of reform in preservice teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.