Kidsfirst Kindergartens Bush Street Centre of Innovation - 2006-08

Chapter 6 How we did it: Research as collective learning within praxis

“Trust the process” (Bush Street saying, 2007)

The challenge in this research was to capture teacher thinking, to identify our underlying assumptions, and look for and address our blind-spots. In this chapter we describe the innovative processes we used to gather and analyse our data. Because we view the spaces in which we work (and live and think) in sociocultural terms (Rogoff, 1998, Fleer, 2006), we see our research as being grounded in collective learning. We addressed the challenge of documenting teacher thinking by developing a process of writing “one-pagers” in which we document, very briefly, our thinking around just one point or issue (Mayo, Henson & Smith, 2008). When one-pagers are shared with others, they open up fresh discussion, insight and questioning. The one-pagers became the unit of analysis in our investigations into central character story. No matter what issue or excitement arose, we could record it quickly and informally as we jotted down our thinking, or we could slow down and think deeply. The object in either case was to write insightfully about an aspect of our work. This report is, effectively, a summary of the insights we have gained by documenting our thinking within one-pagers. In this chapter we explain how we came to “trust the process” of using one pagers to clarify our thinking and record our collective learning. Our learning, like a braided river (see Insert 6.1), may seem to ramble, but when we come together we find our collective knowledge has grown. We often took different paths but we were heading in similar directions and met ourselves further down the track.

Insert 6.1 A braided river as a metaphor for research and learning This view of the Harper River in the Canterbury high country shows the meandering braids of the river against a backdrop of mountains and rugged terrain. We see our journey as a Centre of Innovation as comparable with the journey of the waters of the Harper. Each braid has a potential myriad of routes to follow across the gravel plain. Where individual braids combine the current becomes stronger. We celebrate the braids of individual thought that vary from the main streams but are still part of the same river. The image represents our journey of understanding, both of central character story and of our research story, and it also grounds us in the realities of our lives, our connections to Canterbury and the magic of the New Zealand landscape.

In this chapter we discuss our praxis as a team of researchers. Praxis is a key word because it reminds us that we are concerned with blending theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge so that both knowledge systems gain from the process. At the same time, praxis reminds us that the purpose of this work is social good: through praxis we aim to address social inequity. We were adamant, for example, that this research report be written in a way that is accessible to teachers (we are restricting its size and deliberately using a variety of strategies to make the document attractive and portable). At the same time we aim to report on our learning in this project in ways that will impact on educational policy-making and future research into educational practice.

6.1 Research overview

Kay and Helen began working on this project in 2005 by applying to become a Centre of Innovation. During 2006 when Ali Wegner from Christchurch College of Education was the research associate the team worked systematically on gathering and analysing data from video recordings of central character sessions and focus group interviews with parents. Through this work the teachers identified the values that underpin their practice (see Chapter 2) and established methodical practices in recording and analysing data. After an institutional merger, and a period without a research associate, Elaine took over the role in May 2007.

Methodology This research sits in an action research framework where the critique of current practice leads to change within the project. As is shown in section 6.2 (below), this research is informed by ideas from sociocultural, pragmatic, complexity and post-structural theories. Learning is understood within this project as being to do with developing habits of mind or learning dispositions and working theories; learning is active and holistic; it links knowledge, skills and attitudes (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 44). This is in line with post-structural thinking where “Knowledge becomes the ability to perform effective actions” (Kvale, 1996, p. 19). Te Whāriki highlights the four broad principles of empowerment, holistic development, family and community, and relationships: this research is grounded in the same principles. The partnerships and processes we have developed within this project show the relevance of sociocultural thinking to research methodology: we have come to view research as “collective knowledge construction within a community of praxis” (Bush Street insight, November, 2008).

Methods When we say that one-pagers have been our unit of analysis we mean that our various investigations into specific questions have been summarised into one-pagers and that we continue to add one-pagers into our data as fresh insights emerge during our analysis. Some of our detailed methods of data gathering and analysis are documented throughout this report. In chapter 3, for example, we described some of the ways we have used tools to clarify our understanding of central character, chapter 4 traced the emergence of our Wall of Strategies (p. 42 )and chapter 5 described how we used a brainstorming process to identify key learning outcomes for children.

Ethical considerations Ethical approval for this project was obtained initially from Christchurch College of Education (2006) and latterly from University of Canterbury. The parents/caregivers of all the children attending the kindergarten were informed about the process and permission was sought for their children to be involved in the programme. In every case where a child’s image is used within any publication the parents have given approval for the image. Except where parents have requested otherwise, all children’s names within this document are pseudonyms. The names of all adults are real and used with the full knowledge of the person concerned.

6.2 Praxis-oriented research: merging theory and practice

One-pagers have allowed us to call on all sorts of ideas and theories as we grapple with understanding what is happening around us. This project has been underpinned by a variety of theoretical understandings of praxis-oriented research which includes:

Insert 6.2: Smyth’s four critical questions (1)  Describe - what do I do? (2)  Inform - what does this mean? (3)  Confront - how did I come to be like this? (4)  Reconstruct - how might I do things differently?

Critical, emancipatory approaches Action research involves us in being critical about our own practice. We like the term “emancipatory” because it highlights the idea that this kind of research is about creating a fair and just society where people are not disadvantaged because of their gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, where they were born, etc. Within research the word “critical” has high status (a critical friend is one who helps you). Smyth (1992, p. 295) identifies four questions (see Insert 6.2) that are at the heart of critical research. These questions challenge us, as researchers, (1) to describe what we do in practice, (2) to become informed by questioning how these actions might be understood and how they impact on the lives of other people, (3) to confront the assumptions we carry and to identify the social structures that encourage us to act in ways that are not emancipatory, and (4) to ask how we might act differently, politically, strategically so that our actions are more socially just. This is praxis-oriented research because each of the participants is actively thinking about how his or her individual actions and words impact on those with whom they work and about how to work collectively to foster social justice. 

Self-organising systems This research recognises the importance of understanding the complexity of self-organising systems (Johnson, 2001; Mayo, 2003; Davis and Sumara, 2006); it conceptualises collective learning as a self-organising system where the free flow of information enables the collective to adapt, continually, to changing circumstances. Within self-organising systems we see that patterns of change vary over time. The braided river photo (Insert 6.1) reminds us that some things, like the mountains and scree slopes, change slowly over centuries; other things like the plants and snow cover, have an annual cycle; the flow of water changes moment by moment. Similarly, education can be seen holistically as changing over time: we have little effect on cultural practices (the change over centuries) yet we are trying to look holistically at the learning of children and, by looking back over the years at the changes we make on a day to day basis, we are trying to ensure that our teaching addresses both long-term and short-term educational goals. As well as seeing the individual child as a learner, we see the whole education system as a learning system to which we can contribute.  Complexity thinking reminds us that social problems are “wicked problems” that cannot be solved – they need to be re-solved over and over again. “Societal systems have no goals to be achieved, rather they have relations to be maintained” (Skyttner, 1996, p. 248).

Knowledge as emergent This research conceptualises knowledge as emerging both within the individual learner and within the community as a learning entity as ideas are constantly tested for their validity. Knowledge grows as we build patterns of understanding around our experiences – this applies to infants learning to speak and to researchers who notice patterns within their observations. Knowledge emerges in praxis. “The movement from low-level rules to higher-level sophistication is what we call emergence” (Johnson, 2001, p. 18).

Complicated vs complex Complicated machines, like cars, can be understood by pulling them apart and examining their complicated components.  Complex systems on the other hand cannot be understood in this way: when we look at component parts of complex systems they are just as complex as the original. (Davis & Sumara, 2006). In this study we have seen how the complexity of the curriculum is echoed in the complexity of the teaching in a term through central character, and in the daily stories and in the decision making of the moment. None of these time spans can be broken into simple component parts, yet by looking at them all as nested entities we can see how our understanding of one level informs our understanding of others.

“Both/and” rather than “either/or”  Within the social sciences (unlike some of the physical sciences) there are no “best” theories. Instead of seeking a single explanatory model in this research we have checked out the usefulness of a variety of models and used those that have enabled us to better understand or explore our ideas. This fits well with a pragmatic approach to understanding knowledge: Cherryholmes (1999) argues that pragmatism is an approach that lets us work toward the kind of future we would like. This approach to understanding the value of theory fits well with emancipatory descriptive research such as this where we are seeking to understand our praxis.

Imagery, metaphor, narrative As described in chapter 2, story is a powerful educational tool – it both fosters individual learning and carries cultural messages from generation to generation. We have used imagery and metaphor extensively to help us clarify where our understandings are shared and how our thinking differs. We have found our understanding of issues increases if we ask “What works about this metaphor, and why?” and “Where does this metaphor break down?” For example, we value the braided river metaphor because we see that while the pattern of braids seems similar they are actually very different: this helps us explain the similarities and variations in our patterns of thinking. Creativity and innovation in the way we worked and played with ideas and metaphor have kept our enthusiasm and interest up.

Working in a third space In this project the teachers, Kay and Helen, were the teacher researchers and the research associate, Elaine, had the job of supporting them and guiding them in their action research. We came from different backgrounds and we were trying to develop fresh knowledge around our research questions. Late in the process we found it useful to think about our work in terms of Bhabba’s (1994) notion of a third space which is created when two different cultures interact: Kay and Helen work together as teachers in a kindergarten where the purpose is to support children’s learning; Elaine is an academic researcher who had no specialist knowledge of early childhood education; together we built a space where our knowledge and experiences have generated fresh understandings in our third space which is this project. We do not need to become experts in the spaces of the others, but we all have specialist expertise to bring to our shared space in which we create fresh thinking. This understanding has given us the flexibility to be confident and creative in our work of describing central character.

Praxis-oriented research Praxis is a term that reminds us that in this research we are actively investigating (a) our practices as teachers and researchers and (b) the impact of our actions on those around us: we are actively critiquing and modifying our practices as we learn about their impact. As part of these investigations we are also (c) seeking out the ideas of others, through conversation and by reading: we are seeking different points of view and adjusting our thinking as we learn. Praxis also refers to social justice and the notion that (d) our words and actions are geared toward overcoming injustice and inequity. These ideas resonated for all three of us: we came to realise that at a very deep level we had similar ideas about why we treasure education.

6.3 One-pagers as a research tool

Because we had the theoretical strength of understanding a praxis-oriented approach to research, and had experience of New Beginnings Preschool’s Centre of Innovation Project (Wright, Ryder and Mayo, 2006), Kay and Helen were freed to play with their ideas and sort out how to describe their teaching. We needed to get in the habit of noticing the detail of what we did, questioning why we acted in particular ways, spotting times when we acted differently from the norm, talking openly about troublesome thoughts, exploring our underpinning assumptions, and documenting all of this. No small challenge! We dreamed up the idea of one-pagers (Henson, Smith & Mayo 2008).

Because many varied ideas were flowing and our conversations bubbled, we needed to document the key ideas; we decided to record our ideas on single pages of paper. This strategy would allow us to focus on one braid in the river, rather then the overall emerging pattern of collective knowledge. We could deal with one point at a time and produce documents that could be sorted in various ways. The page could have any format at all, from scribbled to word processed, but it had to address only one issue or idea. If it was a simple idea, the page might have very few words on it. If it was a summary of a collective brainstorming session on the links between Te Whāriki and an incident within a particular character story then the page might look like a series of bullet points. A particularly tricky situation might lead to several one-pagers in which the incident might be described, or some emotional reactions documented. A one-pager might be a thoughtful reflection of how the other person might be feeling. In some cases three people wrote one-pagers about the same planning issue and then discussed their different views and made a joint decision. Sometimes visitors, parents and student teachers contributed one-pagers around their experiences.

The one-pager approach worked really well for us. Kay uses her writing to clarify her thinking and to grapple with emerging ideas: she writes lots of one-pagers because it suits her style. Helen thinks about issues and writes one-pagers around the areas where we need documentation that we identify as important: she writes fewer one-pagers because she likes to write for a specific purpose; it suits her style. Elaine writes one-pagers when they are needed strategically and can be used in several places (in other research projects, for example): one-pagers suit her style.  Weaving our one pagers like merging the braids in a river, more one-pagers are generated as the collective is strengthened by the individual writing.

One-pagers were a tool for research but they are not research reports – they provided the insight that makes writing a report easier because we have sorted the ideas and the analyses and how they relate to other items (synthesis). The data is at hand, and the writing becomes easier.

6.4 Research as collective learning within praxis

In this chapter we have introduced many ideas that contribute to the theoretical underpinning for this research. We recognise that the ideas have not been discussed in detail (limited space allows for no more) and that this kind of calling on post-structural and emergent theorising is not common in reports such as this. We suggest, however, that this project demonstrates the potential of praxis-oriented research such as this to generate valuable insights into effective practice that are of value to other teachers. At the same time, it demonstrates the potential, the value, of teachers and university academics collaborating to grapple with fundamental issues to do with improving teaching and learning

 “Tip the bucket” is another Bush Street phrase that has become central to our work. It expresses the realisation that often, as we construct new ideas and understanding, more learning will arrive to change the shape of what we have already assembled. Kay and Helen devoted the cover of one of the milestone reports (see the photograph) to an image of sand being tipped over their very excellent work in building a sand castle.

Helen’s reflections

Initially, we thought the purpose of the COI project was to fill the ‘bucket” with ideas and our research would be complete when the bucket was full. However, through questions from each other and visitors and others in the programme the bucket of ideas was often tipped upside down and our carefully placed thoughts poured out. We were often surprised at what was created in this process, painful though it was. The process of tipping often added to previous ideas; sometimes it covered them to be rediscovered later. It took many bucket tippings for us to realise it was safe to put things in the bucket and have it tipped and rearranged – it was part of the research process. The process of bucket-tipping allowed us to explore our thinking more deeply and from many different angles.

The sandcastle is ever changing and not what we originally planned, but we are often surprised when we look back and see what has been formed.

6.5  Summary of our approach to research  

In this chapter we have shown how a praxis-base approach to research focuses on building collective knowledge through the sharing of experience.

This approach has allowed us to use story to tell our own story. It has allowed us to foster and celebrate the emergent creativity of central character stories.

Our research story evolved. Through central character story children, families and teachers learn the value of connections among past, present and future as well as connections to people, places and things.

Central character story allows us to weave many personal story strands into an ongoing collective narrative.

This research has also opened up a fresh methodological approach to data gathering and analysis. We have shown that focusing on one idea at a time allows busy teachers to document and record complex ideas in ways that are both manageable and purposeful.