Transcript Representations of practice - Southern Illinois University

1st Meeting
SE Disciplinary Commons
29th August 2009
Based on the presentation by S. A. Fincher
Useful Sharing
Stated Goals of the Disciplinary Commons
•
•
To document and share knowledge about teaching
and student learning in software engineering
courses
To establish practices for the scholarship of
teaching by making it public, peer-reviewed, and
amenable for future use and development by other
educators: creating a teaching-appropriate
document of practice equivalent to the researchappropriate journal paper
Why “useful” sharing?
•
•
•
Because most sharing isn’t.
•
Calls on a research model of social networks – of
how knowledge passes across institutional
boundaries
•
“Until recently, professional development for
teachers has been embedded in a sacred story of
research disconnected from practice.” (Olson)
“Transfer of best practice”
 What’s “best”? For who? How? With what evidence?
Rhetoric of dissemination
 Publish at conferences
 Case studies, pedagogy papers, database of good
practice, “toolkits”, ...
Research (for a moment)
•
•
•
•
Research is an activity that stands outside of any
one institution.
Researchers gain internal value/kudos by activity
that is validated by an external community of peers
and indicators (papers published, grants awarded,
prizes won) over which the institution has no control.
It happens “elsewhere”.
A corollary of this sort of external network is that
research information is exchanged between
institutions as a matter of course.
Teaching is not research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teaching is specific and situated.
It’s located in institutions, and in subject matter.
I teach (literally) in the same room you teach in, we
are seen to be doing “the same thing”.
No external visibility: no external esteem.
So, I’m having problems teaching public static
void main – where can I get help?
I’m the only one teaching Java and staff developers
don’t have the domain knowledge to help.
Information about teaching stays at home.
Secondary rhetoric
•
As well as the “dissemination of best practice”
rhetoric, there is another currently pervasive
discourse that works to blur the distinctions between
teaching and learning
•
•
•
•
“Research-led teaching”
“Scholarship of teaching”
“Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)”
Linking Teaching and Research in Disciplines and
Departments Jenkins, Healey & Zetter, 2007
Zukas & Malcolm
•
“If we reject the conventional ‘acquisition’ argument
that research is about creating disciplinary
knowledge whilst teaching is about disseminating it,
then the distinctions between research and
pedagogy begin to blur; instead, both have to be
understood as sites of disciplinary knowledge
production”
Zukas, M. and Malcolm, J. (2007) ‘Teaching, discipline, net-work’ in Skelton, A.
(ed) International Perspectives on Teaching Excellence in Higher Education
London: Routledge
Representing teaching as itself
•
•
•
Educational research is not teaching
 and I would defend disciplinary-specific educational
research as a legitimate research area
Treating teaching as research maybe an interesting
argumentative position, but its not useful
But what does it mean to treat teaching as
teaching? How may we represent it appropriately?
How can we share what we do effectively?
History of practice
•
•
If not from within my institution, and if not from
“papers”, what about other published material?
Well … what, exactly?
 Architecture
• preserves its creations in both plans and edifices
 Law
• builds a case literature of opinions and interpretations (and
Religion, too – think Talmudic scholarship)
 Chess, bridge, ballet
• all have traditions of preserving both memorable games and
choreographed performances through inventive forms of
notation and recording
•
“Teaching is conducted without an audience of
peers. It is devoid of a history of practice.”(Shulman)
Representation of Our Practice?
•
I’m not sure what it is, but I have some thoughts on
what it’s not:
 It’s not a journal paper (reports something quite different)
 It’s not made up (not a case study)
 I doubt it’s abstracted (no “buyer’s context”)
•
“In a society that attaches particular value to
‘abstract knowledge’, the details of practice have
come to be seen as nonessential, unimportant, and
easily developed once the relevant abstractions
have been grasped. Thus education, training, and
technology design generally focus on abstract
representations to the detriment, if not exclusion of
actual practice.” (Brown & Duguid)
Representation of Our Practice?
•
•
•
•
I’m not sure what it is, but I have some thoughts on
what it’s not,
 It’s not a journal paper (reports something quite different)
 It’s not made up (not a case study)
 I doubt it’s abstracted (no “buyer’s context”)
An appropriate representational form is important if
we are searching for solutions to our problems,
looking for ideas to adopt, and also if we are crafting
material to share. From either side of the exchange,
similar questions emerge.
What detail is important?
What features are salient?
Problems of knowing
•
•
•
If we’re going to usefully share practice, how do we
identify what educators think is important, is salient?
One way would be to look at the way teachers
classify the kinds of knowledge they draw on: the
way they think about things.
There have been several attempts to describe this.
Attempts to describe a practitioners’
epistemology of practice: Lee Shulman
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
content knowledge
general pedagogical knowledge, with special reference to those
broad principles and strategies of classroom management and
organisation that appear to transcend subject matter
curriculum knowledge, with particular grasp of the materials and
programs that serve as ‘tools of the trade’ for teachers
pedagogical content knowledge, that special amalgam of content
and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own
special form of professional understanding
knowledge of learners and their characteristics
knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the workings of
the group or classroom, the governance and financing of school
districts, to the character of communities and cultures
knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values, and their
philosophical and historical grounds
Attempts to describe a practitioners’
epistemology of practice: Max Van Manen
Noncognitive knowing:
•
Knowledge resides in action as lived
•
Knowledge resides in the body
•
Knowledge resides in the world
•
Knowledge resides in relations
 in our confident doing, style, and practical tact
 in habituated acting and routine practices
 in an immediate corporeal sense of things
 in our gestures, demeanor
 in being with the things of our world
 in situations of at-homeness, dwelling
 in the encounter with others
 in relations of trust, recognition, intimacy
Attempts to describe a practitioners’
epistemology of practice: Anderson & Page
•
•
Technical knowledge
 (“academic knowledge is technical knowledge”)
Local knowledge
 (“includes the narratives that are idiosyncratic to a local
school or community setting … included within this domain
is knowledge of local politics, and local cultures and subcultures”)
•
Craft knowledge
•
Personal knowledge
 (“consists of the repertoire of examples, images,
understandings and actions that practitioners build up over
time”)
Personal, but not idiosyncratic
•
•
•
We can all recognize something in all these
classifications
We can “read” our experience against them
“narratives are key components in the authentic
study of teaching, for until we understand the
context and appreciate the perspectives of those
involved, any understanding of what it means to
teach and learn will remain fragmented and
disconnected from the real world of teaching”
(Olson)
It’s not simple
•
“Sharing complex knowledge requires time devoted
to either personal interaction or thoughtful
documentation of one’s expertise, or both.”
(Hinds & Pfeffer)
Disciplinary Commons
•
models of call the “Commons”: situations where
individuals take collective responsibility for common
resources
•
•
Definitely a model of “useful sharing”
For teaching, might it be away of producing (and
curating) appropriate, long-lasting representations of
practice?
Disciplinary Commons: Aims
•
•
To document and share knowledge about teaching
and student learning.
To establish practices for the scholarship of
teaching by making it public, peer-reviewed, and
amenable for future use and development by other
educators: creating a teaching-appropriate
document of practice equivalent to the researchappropriate journal paper.
Disciplinary Commons: Structure
•
•
•
A Commons is constituted from 8-20 practitioners
sharing the same disciplinary background, teaching
the same subject – sometimes the same module –
in different institutions
Meet monthly throughout an academic year
During meetings practice is shared, peer-reviewed
and ultimately documented in course portfolios
Disciplinary Commons: Participation
•
•
•
Part of the sharing is cross-institutional peer
observation of teaching.
We learn an unusual amount about the practices in
other institutions (otherwise only obtainable by
“charismatic embedding”)
This, it turns out, has high internal value
Disciplinary Commons: Reification
•
Documentation of teaching practice is:
•
Commons portfolios have:
•
•
 Rare
 In non-standard (& therefore non-comparable) forms
 Common form
 Persistent, peer-reviewed deliverable
Power of portfolios is multiplied when there are
several examples available for a disciplinary area
Commons archives provide a rich set of
contextualised data, charting and calibrating
development over time
Disciplinary Commons: Portfolio form
six sections:
• Have
 Context





Content
Instructional Design
Delivery
Assessment
Evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
Each section consists
of an artefact and a
commentary.
Detail and discussion.
Evidence and
narrative.
What and why.
Personal, but not
idiosyncratic
OK, I lied
•
•
Those neat representations from other areas?
They are not as self-contained as I might have led
you to believe
In the diagramed deal, five diamonds doubled was the contract at both tables.
In the other room, North opened two diamonds! After Rengstorff (East) passed,
South responded two spades, and Krekorian (West) overcalled three hearts.
North was still there with four clubs; East raised to four hearts; South bid five
diamonds; West doubled; and all passed.
East led the heart king. The best play was to ruff that in hand, play a spade to
the ace, ruff a spade, ruff a club and basically continue with a crossruff. That
would have led to down one. But North won with dummy’s heart ace and
discarded his spade queen. Then he ruffed a heart; ruffed a club, bringing down
West’s ace; and cashed the diamond ace, getting the bad news.
Now came the spade ace, a heart ruff and a club ruff. At this point, if West had
overruffed and cashed his two trump winners, it would have resulted in down
three, because East had the club queen. But West, defending carefully,
discarded. Declarer could take only one more trick by trumping a card. West
then ruffed the club king, drew trumps and claimed down three.
In the given auction, Woods (North) bid four no-trump to ask his partner to
choose a minor.
West led the heart jack. Lev (South) started correctly, ruffing in the dummy,
playing a spade to his ace, ruffing a spade, ruffing a club, ruffing a spade and
ruffing a club with the diamond nine. West overruffed and returned a heart,
South winning with his ace, ruffing the spade six and discarding a heart on the
club king. West ruffed to give this position:
West correctly led the diamond king, which should have resulted in down two,
but when declarer won with his ace and played the spade five, West erred by
discarding. Now South could lead another spade and score dummy’s diamond
ten with a coup en passant for down one.
commentary
exposition
interpretation
In the diagramed deal, five diamonds doubled was the contract at both tables.
In the other room, North opened two diamonds! After Rengstorff (East) passed,
South responded two spades, and Krekorian (West) overcalled three hearts.
North was still there with four clubs; East raised to four hearts; South bid five
diamonds; West doubled; and all passed.
East led the heart king. The best play was to ruff that in hand, play a spade to
the ace, ruff a spade, ruff a club and basically continue with a crossruff. That
would have led to down one. But North won with dummy’s heart ace and
discarded his spade queen. Then he ruffed a heart; ruffed a club, bringing down
West’s ace; and cashed the diamond ace, getting the bad news.
Now came the spade ace, a heart ruff and a club ruff. At this point, if West had
overruffed and cashed his two trump winners, it would have resulted in down
three, because East had the club queen. But West, defending carefully,
discarded. Declarer could take only one more trick by trumping a card. West
then ruffed the club king, drew trumps and claimed down three.
In the given auction, Woods (North) bid four no-trump to ask his partner to
choose a minor.
West led the heart jack. Lev (South) started correctly, ruffing in the dummy,
playing a spade to his ace, ruffing a spade, ruffing a club, ruffing a spade and
ruffing a club with the diamond nine. West overruffed and returned a heart,
South winning with his ace, ruffing the spade six and discarding a heart on the
club king. West ruffed to give this position:
West correctly led the diamond king, which should have resulted in down two,
but when declarer won with his ace and played the spade five, West erred by
discarding. Now South could lead another spade and score dummy’s diamond
ten with a coup en passant for down one.
http://www.hastingschess.org.uk/2009/commentary.htm
Community context
• One of the biggest dilemmas facing any chessplayer, especially those below
The
of modern
opening
theoryorisrelynow
so great
masterextent
level, is whether
to employ
main line openings,
on less
theoretical sidelines. The extent of modern opening theory is now so great that
that
to play main lines requires an enormous of work,
to play main lines requires an enormous of work, and many hours of home
and
many
ofmost
home
preparation
andasstudy.
preparation
andhours
study. For
amateur
players, burdened,
they are For
likely
to be, with job, family, dog and mortgage, the requisite time is simply not
most
amateur players, burdened, as they are likely to
available. Even if the flesh is willing, the spirit is frequently weak. Regardless
be,
witha job,
family,
dog
mortgage,
themoves
requisite
of results,
lot of players
simply
findand
it boring
to trot out 15-20
of
established theory at the start of each game, and prefer to use their own
time
is simply not available
heads, from the very beginning of the game.
Historical
context
inevitably, one finds far fewer players who eschew main line
• At GM level,
openings, but there are some brave souls still willing to do so. The Brits, ever
The Brits,
since
"English
Chess
since theever
"English
Chess the
Explosion"
of the 1970s,
haveExplosion"
always had a of the
reputation
preferring had
offbeatalines.
Quite apart for
from preferring
Mike Basman, the
high lines
1970s,
haveforalways
reputation
offbeat
priest of recondite opening schemes, players such as Tony Miles made a
… English
players
havethat
done
a huge
amount
tonot
make
healthy living
with openings
the average
Russian
GM would
been
seen dead
employing.
Tony's
apogee was hisand
successful
1.e4 a6 2.d4
b5
openings
such
as the
Trompovsky
f4-Sicilian
respectable
against Karpov, but other English players have done a huge amount to make
openings such as the Trompovsky and f4-Sicilian respectable.
http://www.hastingschess.org.uk/2009/commentary.htm
•
The top boards of round six in this year's Hastings Masters
showed opposite sides of the offbeat openings coin. The
biggest story of the day came on board two, where top
seed Emanuel Berg faced what liked a tricky pairing as
Black against Stephen Gordon. In the event, though, the
genial Swedish GM brought off a sensationally easy
victory, thanks to a highly unusual opening choice
1.d4 context
d5 2.c4 e5
•Game
Albin
isisananextremely
guest at
atGM
GMlevel,
level,although
The
Albin
extremely rare
rare guest
•The
although the mercurial Alexander Morozevich has used
the mercurial Alexander Morozevich has used it
it successfully
onaafew
fewoccasions.
occasions.
I cannot
trace
successfully on
I cannot
trace
anyany
examplesofofBerg
Bergplaying
playing itit before,
before, so
come
examples
soititmust
musthave
have
as aas
complete
surprise
to Stephen
Gordon.Gordon.
come
a complete
surprise
to Stephen
Synthesis of forms
•
•
•
So each of these representational forms is, one way
or another, in text or in person, accompanied by a
narrative exposition.
I still don’t know what a good (strong/appropriate)
representation of teaching is, but to be useful - as in
all these other areas - I think it must be situated and
specific and guaranteed by personality.
These are not characteristics of research
representations.
Why might Commons portfolios be candidate
representations?
•
•
•
•
All Commoners are expert
Commoners work together to discover, interpret and
re-interpret new material
Resultant public documentation is contextual,
comparative and collegial
A Commons portfolio is the product of a unique
voice. Each chosen artefact is paired with an
accompanying narrative.
It’s not simple
•
•
•
“Sharing complex knowledge requires time devoted
to either personal interaction or thoughtful
documentation of one’s expertise, or both.”
(Hinds & Pfeffer)
Useful sharing requires interacting with people who
are most interested in what I do. The highest value
input is from colleagues who do the same thing –
teach the same subject – as me.
I suggest that it means leveraging discipline over
institution in a way that is analogous to, although at
the same time quite orthogonal to, research activity.
References
•
•
•
•
Margaret Olson, Narrative Epistemology in Practice.
Curriculum Inquiry 27:4, 1997
John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, Organizational Learning and
Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working,
Learning, And Innovation. Organizational Science 2:1, Feb
1991
Lee S Shulman Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the
New Reform. Harvard Educational Review 57:1 March 1987
Gary Anderson & Bonnie Page Narrative Knowledge and
Educational Administration: The Stories that Guide Our
Practice in The Knowledge Base in Educational Administration:
Multiple Perspectives Edited by Robert Donmoyer, Michael
Imber, James Joseph Scheurich SUNY Press, 1995
References
•
•
•
•
Max Van Manen The Practice of Practice in: Manfred Lang, John
Olson, Henning Hansen & Wolfgang Bünder (eds.) Changing
Schools/Changing Practices: Perspectives on Educational Reform
and Teacher Professionalism, Garant,1999
Pamela Hinds & Jeffrey Pfeffer Why Organizations Don't “Know What
They Know”: Cognitive and Motivational Factors Affecting the
Transfer of Expertise, in Mark Ackerman, Volkmar Pipek and Volker
Wulf (eds.) Sharing Expertise, MIT Press, 2003
Bridge narrative:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/crosswords/bridge/30card.html
Disciplinary Commons: see
http://www.disciplinarycommons.org
There are links to individual Disciplinary Commons from that page (for
example, introductory teaching of programming)
Acknowledgements
Josh Tenenberg and Sally Fincher jointly devised the
Disciplinary Commons model
The first US Disciplinary Commons was made possible by
funding from the Washington State Board of Community
and Technical Colleges, the University of Washington,
Tacoma.
The first two UK Disciplinary Commons were made possible
through the award of a National Teaching Fellowship 2005
to Sally Fincher, via a workpackage of CETL ALiC and a
TQEF small grant from Leeds Metropolitan University
Original slides by Sally Fincher, University of Kent
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5
License.
Sally’s current project:
http://www.sharingpractice.ac.uk