#CharacterEducation and #SelfWriting

I’ve been tweeting a bit lately about Character Education and what I’m calling Being-Centred Education. In my mind, these are merging with ideas that I’m formulating around Foucault’s Self Writing. So I guess it’s time for me to try and put some of these thoughts together and put them out there for correspondence.

During the course of my doctoral research into EduTwitter, I’ve been reading a bit of Foucault. I’ve been drawn, though, not to his big theme stuff on things like power or Panopticism, but rather towards some of his lesser-known ideas. I shall write more about these once I’ve completed my thesis, but the one that has really caught my imagination is a little essay he wrote titled Self Writing. I don’t intend to give a detailed exploration of that essay here, but I will endeavour to give a summary (I managed to do a three minute summary at #TMBrownhills with which I was reasonably pleased!).

IMG_1665

Foucault looks to two concepts from the Greco-Roman past: the hupomnemata and correspondence. The former is what Foucault describes as an “experience book”:

“a material record of things read, heard, or thought, thus offering them up as a kind of accumulated treasure for subsequent rereading and meditation” (Foucault, 1997, p.210),

Through this activity, these snippets are incorporated into the subject’s Self. This act of consuming the already-said and representing it enables the material to become part of the fabric of the subject’s being.

The second element, correspondence, is the act of offering up one’s writing to the critique of another. This creates a cycle of feedback and discussion which further develops the very being of the subject engaged in the process.

Foucault suggests that Self Writing exists somewhere between and outside of these two elements. A combination of the experience book and correspondence with a critical other.

For me, it seems quite obvious that engaging in EduTwitter is itself an act of Self Writing and I’d encourage more teachers to do it! Furthermore, I think that blogging is an ultimate expression of this kind of Self formation and re-formation.

I was fortunate enough to attend the University of Birmingham’s Philosophy of Education conference Thinking About Teaching in October 2017 where I was inspired by Gert Biesta as he spoke about his conception of the Three Domains of Educational Purpose. Biesta (Biesta, 2015b, 2015a, 2007) points out that schools generally tend to be pretty good at qualification and socialisation; they are perhaps not so good at subjectification:

“which has to do with the ways in which education ‘impacts’ on the personhood of the child or student, promoting such qualities as, for example, autonomy, criticality, independence, compassion, or grown-upness” (Biesta, 2015b).

This is what I mean by Being-Centred Education: a deliberate focus on how to be in the world, inspired by Biesta but also by other ideas about what education – or more precisely, schooling – should be for. I’m a keen advocate for improving the effectiveness of classroom teaching in order to help pupils gain good exam grades; I have been attempting to incorporate what I’ve learnt (so far!) about Cognitive Load Theory into my own pedagogical practices. However, it concerns me if schools have too heavy a focus on these aspects.

My current school has a strong ethos that I would argue sits within Biesta’s domain of subjectification. As a result, I believe that our pupils hold excellent attitudes towards their communities and towards society in general, and that they develop a strong sense of ethical leadership as they go out into the world.

For me, this is the essence of Character Education – Education with a clear moral purpose to help children and young people to grow in their knowledge about themselves and their place in the world and, bit by bit, to change the world for the better.

But it isn’t only our pupils who should be encouraged to reflect upon their own sense of Self and how they wish to nurture and cultivate it. For me, this is the best way to shape effective staff development. Teachers, and school leaders, should be encouraged to actively and continually reflect on their own practice. They should be encouraged, also, to expose themselves to the gaze and critique of others; not through the patently redundant and fruitless trauma of top-down, high-stakes lesson observations, but through a carefully considered narrative account of themselves as teacher.

So, get your colleagues to sign up to Twitter. Get them to blog. And, most importantly, Tweet like you’re Foucault.

References

Biesta, G. (2007) WHY ‘‘ WHAT WORKS ’’ WON ’ T WORK : EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE AND THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH that teaching should be or become an evidence-based profession has recently come tional research that were commissioned by the Department for Ed. Educational Theory, 57 (1): 1–22

Biesta, G. (2015a) Improving education through research? From effectiveness, causality and technology to purpose, complexity and culture. Policy Futures in Education, 14 (2): 194–210

Biesta, G. (2015b) Teaching, Teacher Education, and the Humanities: Reconsidering Education as a Geisteswissenschaft. Educational Theory, 65 (6): 665–679

Foucault, M. (1997) “Self Writing.” In Rabinow, P. (ed.) Ethics, subjectivity and truth. The essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984. Volume 1. New York: The New Press. pp. 207–222

 

Advertisements

(not) Action Research

I had the great pleasure of attending the SSAT National Conference in Manchester (#SSATNC17), which provided a rich mixed-bag of speakers, including the ever-brilliant Paul Kirschner, and the utterly inspiring Professor Phil Scraton who spoke about his work uncovering the lie about the Hillsborough Disaster.

In addition to the main stage speakers, there were a wide range of breakout sessions; my favourite of the conference being Shaun Allison (@shaun_allison) talking about the great work he and his team at Durrington have been doing to develop a research-informed culture of practice.

One session I was particularly looking forward to was on Action Research. I have long believed that Action Research is a potentially powerful tool for teachers and school leaders to bring about small but radical changes in practice. But I have been frustrated, really, with the poor reputation that Action Research seems to have with some amongst the education community.

So, as I sat in the session on Action Research, I couldn’t help find myself a little saddened, and beginning to understand why AR has such a poor reputation. The projects which the session leaders were discussing were perfectly reasonable and clearly had the potential to improve, for example, staff wellbeing. But I became increasingly curious as to what bit of this was actually AR. Having teachers conduct investigative projects and engaging in reflective practice is, on the whole, a Good Thing as far as I’m concerned – but why not call it something like Research Informed Reflective Practice, or just Reflective Practice? Why use the monicker Action Research?

As Professor Stephen Gorard (@sgorard) tells us in his book Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences (2013), much of what is called Action Research bears little resemblance to what was initially conceived by Lewin, originator of the term Action Research, who called for scientific rigour. According to Gorard:

Unfortunately, other commentators have used Lewin’s title of ‘action research’ to describe their own approaches, which are nothing like this. They eschew the robust science called for by Lewin, and take on only the idea of participatory reflective progressive problem solving. (p154)

So, I asked Gorard what he thought about teachers going Action Research, to which he gave this response:

Looking through the #ActionResearch hashtag on Twitter reveals quite a range of ideas and projects, some of which actually look quite interesting. But very few seem to be in the original, Lewin, mould of AR. Furthermore, I think it would actually be pretty difficult for teachers to engage properly in AR. Lewin said that AR “will have to include laboratory and field experiments in social change” (cited in Gorard, 2013, p.153). It is conceivable that, if working with researchers in universities, teachers could participate in elements of AR but, quite frankly, we do not have the resources at our disposal to actually run proper AR projects. At the very least, teachers do not have full access to journal libraries in order to conduct proper literature reviews; neither do we have adequate research design and methods training to conduct this type of work. I wish we had, and hope that this will become the norm at some point in the future. But as things stand, teachers simply cannot engage in proper AR.

I wonder if the term Action Research is being applied to not-actually-action-research projects in the hope of giving it a sense of academic rigour, or purposefulness, to add weight to what they are doing. Sadly, in my view, it has the opposite outcome – it can look like teachers play-acting at being academics, and we really don’t need to do this.

I think what these teachers are doing is, in the main, pretty good: engaging in an informed process of deliberate reflective practice, trialling interventions and strategies with their own pupils and colleagues, and assessing the effectiveness. I would urge more teachers and school leaders to foster a culture where this becomes standard practice. I would encourage teachers to take up their digital quills and write reflective blogs – to engage in Self Writing.

But let’s not call it Action Research. Let’s call it what it is: Reflective Practice, or Research Informed Problem Solving. Or teaching.

 

 

References

Gorard, S. (2013) Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences London: Sage

 

What is a Tweacher?

In this blog post, I attempt to summarise a section of my EdD thesis which explores the ways in which participants in #EduTwitter and members of the Tweacher Society construct an identity in their exchanges online. This exploration is viewed through a Foucauldian lens, taking as a theoretical framework Foucault’s What is an Author (Foucault, 1991).

Foucault essentially presents the author function as being a separate entity to the subject behind it. For example, our cultural representation of the author figure of Shakespeare has been constructed over the centuries such that it may or may not hold very much resemblance to the subject – the man who penned the plays and sonnets. Furthermore, how might our perception of the author be affected by a new discovery?

For example, should we discover that Shakespeare was not born in the house with which he is associated, it might alter our understanding of the life of the man, but it would not change the nature of our relationship with the text of Hamlet. “But if we proved that Shakespeare did not write those sonnets which pass for his, that would constitute a significant change and affect the manner in which the author’s name functions” (Foucault, 1991, p.106). The words would remain the same, the iambic pentameter would be intact, and a quatrain would still be a quatrain. But our relationship with the Statement would be fundamentally altered. And what if we were to learn that Shakespeare had actually written a work which we had previously ascribed to a different author? How might our relationship with that work be affected?

And what if the writer uses a pseudonym? In what way then do we related to the author and is this different from how we might relate to the subject behind it? It is easy enough to point to examples in literature and popular culture where pseudonyms are employed for different reasons, from George Eliot to Mark Twain; from Vic Reeves to Keith Lemon. To what extent is our relationship to the what-said affected by our conception of the who-said? Does the quality a ‘debut’ detective novel suddenly improve when we learn that it is written by J.K. Rowling? Or is its quality diminished by a perceived association with ‘children’s books’?

This plays out daily on #EduTwitter, where the what-said is overshadowed by responses that focus upon, or are influenced by feelings towards, the who-said. There are a number of high profile tweachers who, it seems, are likely to receive negative or hostile responses purely because of who they are and not because of what they have said. Perhaps I’ve been guilty of such responses myself. Perhaps there’s a certain inevitability about this. My own animosity towards certain national newspapers is likely to taint my personal reaction to anything they may publish. Similarly, anything that Gove says is likely to upset people just because it is Gove saying it. So there is nothing new or surprising about this, perhaps.

On #EduTwitter, we see some figures who quite deliberately and consciously construct a presentation of Self which, perhaps, they wish to market. Those with a consultancy to promote, or a book to sell. There is, of course, nothing wrong in this per se.

But I think to some extent we all do this, whether consciously or not. We all play games of identity construction and identity presentation on Twitter. And it is possible to have some fun with those games. Equally, it is possible to make a deliberate effort to shape the Self, through the articulation of ideas, views or beliefs, or through the questioning and interrogation of the ideas, views or beliefs of others; the interrogation of Statements. And, through our use of Twitter, to open up that Self in turn for interrogation bringing about the constant feedback loop to enable on-going formation and re-formation of the Self.

 

Reference

Foucault, M. (1991) “What Is an Author?” In Rabinow, P. (ed.) The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. [online]. New York: Penguin. pp. 101–120. Available from: https://monoskop.org/images/f/f6/Rabinow_Paul_ed_The_Foucault_Reader_1984.pdf

Outstanding Teacher Job Adverts – #rEDRugby 17 Part 3

In my previous post, I gave a brief comment on the changing usage of the term outstanding, noting how Google nGram Viewer reveals a shifting from its use as a term of economics to one of glorification.

In this post, I’d like to return to a favourite topic of mine which is the language of teacher job advertisements. I find these fascinating. I’m intrigued by what they may say about our profession in general, but also about the schools that write them. What version of a teacher is being promoted as ideal? What kind of school is being promoted as ideal?

Each of the advertisements below were selected from the TES Jobs website in or around June 2017. I have removed any references to the names of the schools, or academy chains.

The first that I’d like to look at is this one:

1.

Deputy Headteacher – Curriculum and Standards

We have outstanding students and our aim is to always provide an outstanding education for all of them. As a school we will constantly strive to make the learning experiences of our students the best it can be. We aim to fill their days with happy memories and experiences so that they enjoy their learning and develop a thirst for knowledge and make the best progress possible and the greatest success in examinations. xxx (part of xxx Multi-Academy Trust) is a mainstream, non-selective, comprehensive school for students aged 4 -16. xxx School is built on traditional values. Pivotal to this is a positive ethos and culture of learning and success for all students. There is particular regard to outstanding achievement for all students whatever their academic starting point and a commitment to lifelong learning for all stakeholders.

I like the way this advert attempts to do something different with the term outstanding, subverting our expectations. Notice how, despite using the term three times, there is no direct request for an outstanding teacher. Rather, the students are outstanding and the school aims to provide an “outstanding education for all of them”. Furthermore, “There is a particular regard to outstanding achievement for all students”.

There is an interesting mix of student-centred philosophy where the school aims “to fill their days with happy memories and experiences”, along with the claim that the “school is built on traditional values”.

It’s all going pretty well isn’t it, until we hit that final word: “stakeholders”. Meh.

 

Now for one of my all time favourite job adverts.

2.

Teacher of English + TLR

‘To be, or not to be: that is the question’… Are you passionate about teaching English? Looking for a step up in your career? Or are you wanting to be supported to develop into Leadership? Then xxx would love you to be a new member of our English department! 

The xxx Academy are looking for a passionate, enthusiastic and dynamic English Teacher to join our successful Academy. ‘We recruit for attitude and train for skills’ so if you are interested in leadership we have the opportunities available within the Department. 

 

There’s clearly been some thought put into this one. Someone has decided that a good way to attract strong candidates for English teaching might be to quote Shakespeare. And if you’re going to quote Shakespeare, why not go for perhaps the most famous line? Indeed! Here, they’ve taken this line – a line which perhaps challenges indecision – to be about being brave. To apply, or not to apply: That is the question. The ad goes on to ask if the potential applicant is “Looking for a step up in your career?” And I like the final sentence of the first paragraph: it’s very encouraging.

But wait. Let’s take another look at that Shakespeare quotation. This is taken from Hamlet and at this point in the play, our Danish Prince is contemplating the unthinkable. This isn’t about having the courage to face your fears and do something great. The man is contemplating suicide. In context, this is regarded as a sin. Hamlet is trying to decide which is better – to face the horrors of what he has to do in order to avenge the murder of his father by his uncle (who has then married his mother becoming his step-father too), or to end it all and face the eternal damnation of hell.

What is this school saying about itself?

Oh, and the ad goes on to use the word “passionate”. No, this isn’t my favourite advert of all time. I hate it.

 

Let’s see if another advert for a teacher of English post can improve the mood.

3.

Second in Charge of English

More than just an exceptional classroom practitioner, you’ll be a thought leader in English – supporting the rapid evolvement of the department and placing us at the forefront of innovation and best practice. You’ll make sure that no child is left behind and that every student enjoys clear direction in order to ‘Aspire, Endeavour, Achieve’.

What is “evolvement”?

 

 

fin

 

“Outstanding” My #rEDRugby 2017 Talk Part 2

Yeah, I know; it’s been ages since I wrote Part 1.

In this post, I want to give a brief account of observations I made about the use of the word “outstanding”. This was one of most mentioned words  in my survey of words that annoy on EduTwitter.

I admit that the methodology here wasn’t particularly academic! But it may serve as the beginning of an interesting analysis of the developing use of this word in educational discourse, amid discourse more generally.

I used the Google nGram viewer to compare the lexemes satisfactory and outstanding, identifying these two terms as being highly associated with Ofsted. The fist term has, of course, disappeared from the lexical set used by Ofsted. Perhaps this was in recognition of the feeling that satisfactory no longer meant satisfactory in its description of schools, having shifted to mean something akin to “not good enough”. I shan’t include anymore discussion of the word satisfactory here because it is redundant in terms of educational discourse.

The resulting nGram looks like this: OutstandingSatisfactory

The blue line for outstanding indicates a massive rise in usage between 1920 and 1940, where it begins to ebb, but remains in use. This Google tool gives links enabling you to view the texts listed for particular time periods.

For the period 1880-1900, we see that the texts listed are mostly to do with discourses around economics, where outstanding is used to mean an owed amount of money. Outstanding1800s

 

Compare this to the list of texts for the period 1994-2004:

Outstanding2000

 

Here, most of the texts use the term outstanding to mean something akin to “standing out for being particularly good”. There are examples of outstanding personalities such as sportspeople. There’s also a biographical text with the subtitle “An outstanding life”. There’s also, amusingly for me although I don’t know why particularly, there are several texts in a series of American craft projects.

There has clearly been a shift in usage between these selected periods, suggesting a move from the economic to that of celebrating achievement: what might be labelled The Cult of Outstanding. And I think this is reflective of the trend in education in terms of usage of this term, where there has been a rise of the cult of outstanding lessons, or worst still, the outstanding teacher. It’s with great relief and pleasure that I note Ofsted’s clear attempts to move us away from the cult of the outstanding teacher by dropping lesson gradings and so on.

Now, it needs to be noted that Google nGram viewer defaults to texts published in the USA; repeating the search to include the search term UK yields a similar trend. The default settings of the nGram viewer are but one potential problem for using it in any meaningful academic research, although people have done so. However, it is, at least, an amusement. But more than that, as I said above, it can I think offer the beginnings of a potential analysis.

It might also interest (or amuse) some readers to ponder the etymology of the term outstanding too.

In my next post, I shall return to a favourite topic of mine: Teacher Job Adverts.

Words, Words, Words Part 1 #rEDRugby 2017

I was honoured to be invited to speak at ResearchED Rugby, and it was an absolute delight to attend this event. It’s impressive to see so many teachers, academics, and educationalist come together on a Saturday to share their views, beliefs and ideas about education, teaching, and learning. And it is humbling to be surrounding by such good stuff.

This blog post is Part 1 of an exploration of some of the ideas I presented during my talk.

 

Part One

ThisIsNotAPipe.png

(Image taken from https://foucault.info/file/margritti-not-pipe-jpg)

 

Michel Foucault wrote a book about this picture (1). It would be foolish of me to attempt to summarise what Foucault has to say about how this image operates and the astonishing juxtaposition that it presents. I have used this image in my teaching as a beginning to semiotics – this is not a pipe, but a representation of a pipe. We recognise this representation because we are imbued with a cultural recognition of that object.

The painting, by Magritte, presents us with a juxtaposition that jars our perception. The title of the painting is The Treachery of Images and Magritte himself said of it:

The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it’s just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture ‘This is a pipe’, I’d have been lying! (2)

The point of using this in my teaching is to lead into the notion that words themselves are, in fact, representations – signs which point to a potentially huge array of possible meanings, depending upon context.

At this point in my talk, I briefly mentioned why I think discourse studies are important in education, which is summed up in this quotation:

“The ways we think and talk about a subject influence and reflect the ways we act in relation to that subject. This is the basic premise of discourse theory” (3)

I am very keen to embrace the kind of empirical studies that talk to us about how children learn and the kinds of teaching interventions that are most likely to yield the best learning for our pupils. However, I am even more keen to encourage my colleagues to look beyond such studies and to embrace the theoretical and, perhaps, more quantitative kind of work that might be conducted. Education, after all, is a human endeavour and such endeavours are ultimately personal and social.

The name of the talk upon which this blog post is based comes, of course, from Shakespeare’s Hamlet where we find this glorious little exchange:

Polonius:   What do you read, my lord?

Hamlet:   Words, words, words

Polonius:  What is the matter, my lord?

Hamlet:  Between who?

(Hamlet 2:2)

This is, of course, a joke. At this point in the play, Hamlet is playing the fool, pretending (is it a pretence?) to be mad in order that he can say the unsayable to uncover the murderous truth of his father’s death. Throughout the play, he shows utter contempt for Polonius, mocking him and making lewd comments about his daughter – the former object of Hamlet’s love, Ophelia, who herself is driven insane by Hamlet’s cruel words. Oh, and the murder of her father.

In this short exchange, Shakespeare makes a wonderful play of the notion of double meanings. But the joke only works if we understand the various meanings and connotations of the words at play. Even the word words is used to manipulative effect, like a private joke between Hamlet and the audience. And the word matter is also the subject of semantic tomfoolery. These are only effective if we know how these words actually work. This is a nice example of how the signifiers can be twisted to point in unexpected directions.

In the discourse of #EduTwitter, and education in general, words as signifiers can be used to point to intended meanings, but can also reveal some intriguing thinking and ideas. Often, the words can point in twisted ways to produce unintended consequences.

The Discourse of #EduTwitter

It would be unrealistic to imagine that I could present here a detailed critique of the discourse of teachers and educationalists on Twitter; it is dense and fast moving. However, there are a few things that have emerged over recent weeks that have caught my interest.

The first is around the very event upon which this blog post is based – #rEDRugby, its speakers, and the very notion of research. I have blogged separately about this, but I also spoke on Saturday about what I consider to be the flawed analogy between education and medicine. However, I think that could warrant a blog post of its own, so I shall leave that for another time.

I then picked out a small selection of words that I perceive as being either dominant in the discourse of #EduTwitter, or of sudden and significant impact:

  • Trad
  • Prog
  • Troll
  • Dick

It would be quite possible, I think, to explore each of these in some detail. One could chart a genealogy of each term in turn, unearthing the layers of history to determine, in a Foucauldian sense, the conditions in which these notions have come to be. However, I don’t intend to embark on such an exercise. But I do want to emphasise what I see in the discussion around these terms which is the emergence of a clear sense of the teacher as a defined subject: a professional (whatever that term means) who conforms to a set of social and discursive practices. There are, of course, written doctrines of such codes of conduct – they can be found in any person specification in a job advert, in the national teacher standards documentation, and in what appears to be arising as part of the Chartered College of Teaching. However, there also seems to be an unwritten code of ethics at play; certain lines that should never be crossed.

The terms trad and prog are positional in relation to pedagogical beliefs and practices – some would say tribal positioning. The term troll is certainly one of some controversy – being used by some to refer to perceived abusive behaviour, and being being decried by others for being, in itself, an abusive term. And equally, dick crosses certain lines which some commentators found wholly inappropriate whilst others found the reaction to be exaggerated. It is not my intention here to comment on the rightness or wrongness of using any of these terms, but rather to use them as markers, signifiers, of a general discourse of teacher identity and professionalism which I find quite interesting. There is clearly something about the public presentation of the teacher which is deemed to be important. It could be interesting to chart the development of the figure of the teacher and how that has been, perhaps, problematised with the advent of social media.

In the next part, I shall explore the kinds of #EduWords that fellow tweachers find annoying.

 

References

(1) Foucault, M. (1982). This Is Not A Pipe. (J. Harkness, Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from: https://monoskop.org/images/9/99/Foucault_Michel_This_Is_Not_a_Pipe.pdf

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

(3) Karlberg, Michael (2005) The Power Of Discourse And The Discourse Of Power: Pursuing Peace Through Discourse Intervention International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 10, Number 1 http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol10_1/Karlberg_101IJPS.pdf?scrlybrkr