a community of learners: promoting teachers to become learners
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 21 November 2014, At: 02:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practicePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
A Community of Learners: promoting teachers tobecome learnersShoshana Keiny aa Ben‐Gurion University of the Negev , Beer‐Sheva, IsraelPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Shoshana Keiny (1996) A Community of Learners: promoting teachers to become learners, Teachers andTeaching: theory and practice, 2:2, 243-272
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060960020206
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1996 243
A Community of Learners: promotingteachers to become learnersSHOSHANA KEINYBen-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Introduction
My story is about a collaborative group of teachers and researchers, including meas the facilitator, who jointly strive to create a new framework of teaching/learning, a new concept of curriculum and of knowledge. The participants comefrom an Environmental Education High school and from two research institutes inSdeh-Boker, which is a campus of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
A few words about Sdeh-Boker will help form the background to the story.Sdeh-Boker is associated with Ben-Gurion, who chose this remote settlement inthe desert as a retreat from his rich political career. It was then, in the early 1950sa Kibbutz of some 50 young members, who experimented with new ways of livingin the desert. For Ben Gurion they symbolized the idea of the desert as a majorresource.
This deeply-embedded idea of the Negev, the Israeli desert, as a resource, stemsfrom the fact that two-thirds of the country are (or rather were) a desert. How togrow food, and how to survive in the desert, are thus real existential questionsthat required unique solutions, both by the Nabateans (the inhabitants of 2000years ago) and not less so today. Life in modem times calls for more complex,economical solutions, which in turn lay the foundations for the development ofnew fields of scientific research. Thus the desert becomes a scientific, technologicalas well as economic resource. However, coupled with the scientific endeavour isa new and growing ideology, that springs from a vision of human beings ascapable of turning the desert into a garden, create new ways of life, and within ahistorical perspective generate new forms of culture and faith. In this respect, thedesert can be viewed as a cultural and spiritual resource.
The Negev desert as a challenge became Ben-Gurion's vision; his message forthe new generation was a call to take up this challenge and generate novel ideasand creative solutions, in terms of science, technology and society. This vision waspartly actualized by the establishment of the Sdeh-Boker campus, adjacent to thekibbutz, consisting of a Scientific Desert Research Institute (DRI), of high inter-national reputation for interdisciplinary research and the Ben-Gurion Archives(BGA), an institute for research on recent Jewish History. A third institute wasinitiated soon after, an Institute for Environmental Education (IEE), with the ideaof developing an orientation to environmental education through curriculum
1354-0602/96/020243-30 © 1996 Journals Oxford Ltd
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
244 S. Keiny
development, in-service courses for teachers, etc. Affiliated to the IEE were twoexisting schools, the EE high-school and Sdeh-Boker Field School. Yet the orien-tation of field schools in Israel, which are owned and run by the Nature Preser-vation Association, is somewhat different from the one associated with BenGurion. Emphasizing the issue of people returning to their biblical land, they seetheir main task in arousing people's awareness to the history and archeology ofthe country, and to its natural habitat. In terms of the desert they prefer tomaintain it, regarding development as exploitation of the environment rather thanpreservation.
The EE high-school is a boarding-school whose target population is nature-loving students from all over the country. It has developed a unique EE core-curriculum, which is basically interdisciplinary, system-oriented, and seeks tointegrate students with their environment. The first task achieved by the IEE wasto conceptualize the EE core-curriculum to a theory of practice, termed Sdeh-BokerVersion of Environmental Education, and to construct a model for EE curriculumdevelopment (Keiny et al., 1982).
Various changes have taken place since, and the founding teachers have mostlybeen replaced by new ones, less committed to the EE ideology. Succumbing to thedemands of a regular high school, the school has somewhat lost its uniquenessand its attraction for the selective population of students which it enjoyed in thepast. This forms the background to my story about the collaborative educationalendeavour which is the subject of this article.
Collaboration has become almost a slogan in educational research. As Har-greaves points out, it is often a case of 'contrived collegiality', imposed fromabove, and serving the management (whether of a school or a school system) toperpetuate the existing order (Hargreaves, 1994). Collaboration in our case is notan end but a means for creating a community of learners, consisting of teachersand researchers, all of whom are recognized as professionals, though of differentkinds, who take part in a mutual process of learning based on their jointexperience, which they strive to conceptualize into a new theory of teaching/learning practice. In this respect they are partners in knowledge reconstruction.
Using MacMurray's idea of a community as a personal—not a functional—association, our community maintains equal relations between different peoplewho, notwithstanding their individual differences, can recognize and treat oneanother as equals. Participants in this context can express their uniqueness aspersons (MacMurray, 1957; Fielding, 1995). Another way of looking at it isthrough the metaphor of 'sharing each other's castles' (Somekh, 1995), which tome emphasizes the mutuality of the relationship. In terms of the learning process,our idea of a learning community is very different from the common conceptionof learning, according to which 'expert knowledge' is transmitted from re-searchers, who are considered as 'knowledge producers', to the teachers who areseen as 'knowledge users'. We, the researchers, did not act as experts in thisrespect, and the teachers were not any less generators of professional knowledge.Using Goodson's terms, we saw it as a valuable 'trade-off between two partiesthat are differently located in structural terms (Goodson, 1992). This suggests that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 245
true collaboration between the academy and teachers could enhance the develop-ment of a new narrative of action, which would also empower the teachers as agroup to acquire a fuller picture and thus greater control of their professionallives.
True collaboration is voluntary, and not imposed by an outsider. Participationin the project was likewise based on free choice, yet the reason for joining was notthe same for the different parties. Starting with myself and my own reasons forinitiating the project, I shall then elaborate on the other participants' purposes andtheir motivation to join in the adventure.
STS—a national trend
A call to integrate science, technology and society was made in 1992 by ahigh-level national committee the task of which was to evaluate science educationon all levels of schooling. Regarding science and technology as social phenomenaconnected to everyday life, they postulated, would make these subjects morerelevant and meaningful. Responding to this trend, a proposal for an STES(Science, Technology, Environment and Society) project was submitted, and ac-cepted. The project consisted of three universities collaborating with severalschools. Our story is about one such school.
The STS trend, though similar to EE, puts emphasis on society as context,suggesting a complex relationship between people within modern society. Scienceand technology as important aspects of modern society are also closely connectedwith genuine social and environmental problems. Thus the explicit aim of theSTES project was to develop curriculum units that would broaden awareness andresponsibility toward real social and environmental problems.
The Underlying Cybernetic Conception
The STES project gave me the opportunity to revive our ideas manifested in theSdeh-Boker version of EE, and to spell out more explicitly the underlying cyber-netic conception. Before continuing with my story I shall briefly explain what Imean by the cybernetic conception.
Conceptions are characterized by the way they deal with the following threetypes of questions:
• The ontological question—or what is the nature of the world? of reality?• The epistemological question—what is the nature of knowledge?• The ethical question—what is the nature of man or of society? (Aviram & Keiny,
1992)To introduce the cybernetic conception I draw a comparison between it and thepositivistic conception, based on the above three questions (see Table 1).
Ontologically. According to the positivistic conception, the world, namely objects,events and processes, exists independently of human perceptions and all thoughtor theory of them. The phenomena of nature are manifestations of the rules of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
246 S. Keiny
TABLE I. A comparison between the two conceptions
Conception Positivism Cybernetics
OntologicallyWhat is thenature of theworld?of reality?
EpistemologicallyWhat is thenature ofknowledge?
EthicallyWhat is thenature of society?
The world existsindependently of humanperceptions or theories.
Phenomena are themanifestations of the rules ofNature,Science discovers them.
Knowledge is an outsideobjective entity, organized indisciplinary bodies
Society is hierarchicalTeachers are at the bottomof the pyramid of knowledgeconstruction
Reality is man's perceptionwhat he has experienced.
Since we have no other access toto the world 'out there',the rules of Nature areconstructed, or invented
Knowledge is subjective.There is no one truth,knowledge is multifaceted.Scientific knowledge is whatthe scientific communityaccepts as the bestinterpretation, and is thusopen to change.
Democratic society,interactive and collaborative.
Second order cyberneticsemphasizes responsibility andpersonal involvement.
nature. It is the role of the scientist to reveal them. In this sense scientific theoriesare discovered.
According to the cybernetic conception, 'reality' is a person's perception or, inother words, what has been experienced only, since we have no other access to theworld out there. In Glasersfeld's words:
Since Kant and Hume it is clear that we have no access to reality. Theonly way is to construct our own interpretations, own realities, and adaptthese subjective constructs through trial and social interaction until theyfunction with sufficient success. We can arrive at viable (feasible, exist-ing) solutions and models only, which are formed 'until further notice'.There is never any reason to believe that this construction is the only onepossible ... (Glasersfeld, 1987)
In other words, scientific theories are invented and not discovered and, as such,there is no one correct answer, or one 'correct' representation of the world.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 247
'Reality' is the sum of all the different conceptions of reality held by theparticipants in a particular context.
Epistemologically. Knowledge according to the positivists is an external objectiveentity, consisting of structured bodies of knowledge or disciplines. Each has adistinct boundary, created by its specific concepts and methodology.
According to the cybernetic conception, knowledge being an individual con-struction is subjective. We each construct our idiosyncratic concepts, whichthrough social interaction, language and discourse 'fit' but never completely'match' (Glasersfeld, 1989). Thus, it follows that there is no one truth. Knowledge,as in Kurosawa's Rashomon, is multifaceted. What is claimed to be scientificknowledge is that which the scientific community has accepted as the bestinterpretation of the world, leaving open edges for a possible new theory, whichwill offer wider explanatory power (Kuhn, 1962).
Ethically. The positivistic idea of a society is hierarchical, distinguishing betweendifferent professional groups, between experts and non-experts. There is a distinctdivision between theory and practice, between researchers as knowledge con-structers, and practitioners as knowledge users. Thus in terms of knowledgeconstruction, the researchers are at the top of the pyramid; curriculum developers,interpreting this knowledge to curricular knowledge, are stationed in the middle;while the teachers as 'users' or knowledge transmitters, are at the very bottom ofthe pyramid (Keiny, 1987).
In contrast, the cybemeticians' main principle is 'interaction', in the sense ofinterdependence and interrelatedness between the different components of theworld in the natural context (such as between organisms and inanimate matter,between human beings and the biosphere, etc.) as well as within the differentcomponents of the social context. This implies a more democratic orientation ofsocial interaction and collaboration, a society based on mutual respect towards theother and his or her right to be different.
Yet this kind of interaction is only 'first order cybernetics'. 'Second ordercybernetics' relates to the relationship between persons as observers and theirreality or world, as subject of study (Maturana, 1994). Humans, as the onlycreatures aware of their and the others' actions, are both actors and reflectors ontheir actions (MacMurray, 1957). In Foerster's terms it implies taking responsi-bility for one's observations and interpretations of the world, for one's system ofknowledge and one's personal conception (Foerster, 1992; Maturana, 1992).
By now I hope it is clear why I chose to define the underlying conception interms of cybernetics. Constructivism, being in a sense value-free, can deal with theontological and epistemological aspects, yet it cannot answer the ethical claims ofa conception, the humanistic or moral aspects so essential for an educationalorientation. As compared to the positivistic values of objectivity and neutrality,the cybernetic idea of society is more egalitarian and collaborative. Its aspiredvalues are personal responsibility and involvement.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
248 S. Keiny
Creating the Group
As indicated already, in true collaboration, every member joins voluntarily.Accordingly, when I introduced the STES project to the EE high-school principal,he suggested I meet Hava, a leading teacher, who he thought might be interested.Hava listened patiently to my brief sketch of the project (which was not yet veryclear to me), and returned with an alternative idea, initiated by a team of threeteachers: Hava—a biology and geography teacher, Dan—an English and com-puter-science teacher, and Oren—a history teacher. During the summer holidaysthe team submitted a proposal for a new integrative curriculum, entitled 'Desertand Desertification', for 10th graders. Its main focus was to involve the studentwith individual research studies, on topics they themselves chose, under the titleof desert and desertification. Another important aspect of this project was to usethe Internet as a way of collecting information from different countries. Announc-ing their curriculum as a 'Kidlink' project, they invited 'Netters'—teachers, stu-dents and researchers—to join the adventure of learning about the desert anddesertification. At the time of our first meeting, the first responses from Alaska,and Australia had already arrived. By the end of the year, some 50 teachers andtheir students, from all over the world, internetted with the school.
'Desert and Desertification'—the Teachers' Initiative
Reading their proposal, I could trace the teachers' general concept of thecurriculum. In 'Notes for the teachers', they wrote:
This is not an ordinary program nor is it an ordinary curriculum. This isa framework that you, the teacher, will have to fill with relevant subjects... By relevant we mean here relevance to the student, to the teacher, tothe curriculum or to your environment.
Collaboration with the other institutes was also mentioned:
We will make contacts with experts from academic institutes who arewilling to work with participants of the project, students and teachers ...
Among a long list of educational goals, I choose to quote the following:
—Creating a global and technological learning environment;—Creating a study environment in which students and teachers will learn from
each other;—Developing an independent student who will be able to generate questions,
look for answers and prepare a report about his/her study;—Involving students and making them responsible for the process of learning.
There was no mention in their proposal of the contents of the curriculum (whichit seemed to me they took for granted) yet the underlying pedagogical ideas of theproposal, I thought, were congruent with that of the STES. More specifically, interms of the teacher's role, they emphasized the teacher's responsibility in formu-lating the content as well as the pedagogical basis for the curriculum. The idea of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 249
a learning community, with a mutual process of learning between different parties(teachers and students) and where students can develop as autonomous learners,was similar to our conception of learning. I was particularly attracted to theiridea of 'technological environment' in the sense of opening new venues ofinformation, and extending the concept of curricular knowledge.
The principal, who fully endorsed the teachers' initiative in terms of the newDesert & Desertification project, had his own idea of school change which hevoiced somewhat later: he believed that teachers should be given an opportunityto teach their 'pet' subjects or topics, apart from their usual formal obligations. Aspecial niche was allotted within the timetable, for the full range of topics,providing open choices for the students. The assumptions underlying his rationalewere a) that teachers need this outlet to compensate for all their other burdens; b)that they teach best those issues which are of personal interest for them; and c)that an open 'supermarket' of subjects gives the student an opportunity to chooseand thereby to engage in more meaningful learning. Thus he did not believe inradical changes. Times have changed and ideologies, like Environmental Edu-cation, have lost their old glamour. School change, he thought should be inter-preted by each teacher in his or her own way. His role was to grant the space andensure the necessary means.
Both teachers and principal were keen to create a framework of collaborationwith researchers from the two other institutes. I believe that apart from gainingtheir assistance in supervising students' projects, they regarded them as neigh-bours and parents, as part of the Sdeh-Boker community. The idea was discussedwith the directors of each of the Institutes. Both accepted the initiative, and sixmore participants were recruited: Saar—a desert architect, Moti and Ruth (whowas also a parent of one of the participating students), desert agriculture special-ists from the Desert Research Institute; Avi and Edna, two graduate students ofJewish Recent History, and Orna, a curriculum developer, all three from the BenGurion Archives Institute. Aviva, a teacher of physics, joined too. Altogether wewere 4 teachers, 6 researchers, and myself as facilitator.
What were the reasons for the researchers to join in? Evidently, each had his orher own reason to join, and more so, to stay through the whole year. As we shallsee later, they had no idea what it would entail. I believe they were all open tonew adventures, and sensitive to the need to bring about change in the teachingand learning setting.
As for my own fundamental interest in promoting change, having been in-volved in various school change projects, based on the idea of teachers asreflective practitioners whose knowledge resides in their practice, I saw collabora-tion between teachers and researchers as a means of creating a community oflearners as a medium for mutual reflection and conceptualization of professionalknowledge. Rather than a rational set of predictable behaviours, or teaching asproblem-solving, I see the profession as an interplay between theory and practice.In this respect, a framework for teachers' curriculum development such as theSTES project could be seen as a site for teachers' professional development. TheSTES, as a model of collaboration between the academy and the school, appeared
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
250 S. Keiny
Praxis
Reflection! I Action
FIG. 1. A hypothetical model for teachers' conceptual change.
to be an opportunity to bring about conceptual change. This point will beelaborated later.
The Framework of the STES Project
The framework of the project (as is evident from the above events) was moreimprovisationally formed by circumstances, than preplanned. It consisted of threedifferent contexts:
1. A collaborative multidisciplinary group of four teachers, six researchers, andmyself as facilitator, portraying a wide and multidimensional conception of thedesert and desertification.
2. A l0th-grade classroom, which served as experiential site for the teachers topractice the new curriculum.
3. The Internet, which connected the teachers, and later their students fromdifferent countries, such as USA; Japan, Peru, Canada, France, England, Alaska,Australia, among others.
This framework was also congruent with our idea of conceptual change, namelythe 'Double-loci model' for conceptual change (Gorodetsky et al., 1993). (SeeFig. 1.) The teacher in the model (T) is exposed to two interdependent contexts; asocial and a practical one. The social context is a group where teachers canexchange their different ideas of teaching and engage in a dialectical process ofreflection in the group (Keiny & Dreyfus, 1989). The second context is theclassroom, the teachers' actual locus of practice, where they can experiment withthe new ideas and reflect on (or in) their experience, conceptualize experiences,and reconstruct their practical knowledge. There is no necessary sequence
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 251
between the two loci: the practical context can also precede the social one, andthey are mutually dependent (Keiny, 1993b).
This model also represents the promotion of two forms of knowledge construc-tion. The individual teacher's personal practical knowledge is constructed andreconstructed through teaching experience in the classroom context, and higherorder knowledge of the profession is constructed through the dialectical processof reflection and elaboration in the group context. Thus an optimal setting for theparticipants' (teachers and researchers) conceptual change was provided withinthe framework of the STES project.
Conceptual Change
Various theories of conceptual change (CC) have been suggested in the literature(Duit, 1994). The most influential theory, developed by science educators andphilosophers of science, is the Initial Conceptual Change theory (Posner et ah,1982). Based on the work of Piaget, Kuhn, Lakatos, Toulmin and others, it is apurely cognitive mental model perspective. The Phenomenographic theory ofconceptual change challenges the cognitive mental perspective, suggesting insteadan experientally-based perspective (Linder, 1993; Marton, 1986). Accordingly CCimplies a change in the person's relationship with the world. As compared to theinitial theory that deals mainly with a change in science concepts, such as energy,heat, photosynthesis, etc., the latter theory focuses on the significance of thecontext of specific conceptions. The emphasis is on enhancing students' capabili-ties to distinguish between conceptualizations, and to appreciate the functionalappropriateness of their conceptions in a particular context.
The STS movement, as stated above, and our own project's emphasis, is on thesignificance of scientific knowledge for the actual life of the students. Students arenot only expected to understand the natural and technical phenomena aroundthem, but to become aware of the impact on their lives of a society dominated bytechnologies of many kinds, and to take responsibility in dealing with authenticproblems. In this respect, context is seen as an integral aspect of cognitive events.In other words, we understand CC not merely as a change in cognitive, mentalperspective, but rather as experientially based, in the sense of changing theperson's relationship with the world. Conceptual change would imply a shift fromthe positivistic orientation which underlies the way science education (as well asother subjects) is currently implemented in the school curriculum, towards a newcurriculum based on the cybernetic paradigm. This entails an epistemic change inthe teachers' meta-knowledge of science, namely their views of the nature ofscience, as well as a change in their meta-cognition, in their views of the learningprocess.
In the following part of the paper I shall relate the story of the group. Weeklymeetings were all audiotaped, and transcribed protocols of each meeting werehanded out to all participants, encouraging them to use these as a basis for furtherreflection. For me they served as a database, which I studied over and over,attempting to understand the learning process of the group. This database, which
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
252 S. Keiny
I term the group-discourse or group-narrative, I regard as an independent entity,a 'group-self' (Avraham, 1972). I looked for methods of analysis which do not splitit up or differentiate between what was said by whom, methods that would bestpreserve the dynamics of the discourse and its interrelation to the action it initiatesand reflects upon.
Analysis of the Group Discourse
Emerging Themes
The first group meetings helped participants establish the group norms. Forexample, the whole group, which was seen as a 'steering group', met regularlyevery week. The teachers also formed another group, a working team, in orderjointly to prepare their classroom activities. These activities were reported on inthe steering group meetings, as subject for reflection, elaboration and furtherplanning.
It is important to understand that although I was head of the project and actedas facilitator, the group functioned as a self-propelled, self-directed, autonomousgroup (Herbst, 1976), making its own decisions. The first group meetings wererich in content, major themes emerged which could be identified later in thediscourse. In the following section of the paper, I shall use some excerpts from thefirst four group meetings to identify these themes.
The Desert. Starting with the subject matter, as defined by the title of the curricu-lum unit we were aiming to develop, the concept of the Desert became a centraltopic in our discussion. The following excerpt, taken from the first group meeting(2.10.1994), deals with the participants' idea of the desert:
Dan:—I would like to emphasize that our choice of the desert stems fromour world-view.Oren:—My goal, actually the reason for my joining the project is to finda way to make learning a more attractive and interesting activity. Thedesert as an interdisciplinary topic has the potential to open up, tomotivate the kids.Orna (researcher):—I would appreciate it more if we broaden the conceptto include the spiritual aspects, not merely the desert as a physical entity.For example, the idea of man coping with the desert.
It is clear that the desert, as key issue of the curriculum, was conceived differentlyby the participants. Some see it as value-laden (world view), others as aninterdisciplinary topic which could trigger the students' motivation. As a human-istic researcher, Orna is concerned by the teachers' restricted, ecologically-orientedconcept of the desert.
The idea of extending the concept is picked up in the second group meeting (9.10. 1994). Reporting on the teachers' working team, Hava says:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 253
Hava:—We discussed how to connect the internet to classroom activities.A vivid description of the Peruvian desert, which lies along the seashore,came through the internet ... we thought of sending them a descriptionof yesterday's rain in the desert ...Orna:—Why not use this example from Peru, to illustrate a different typeof desert, thus extending the concept ...Dan:—The idea is to see it as another source of information.
The above excerpt illustrates the role of the Internet as understood by differentparticipants. It seems that at this early stage of the group, it was seen as extendingour scope of information, rather than elaborating and broadening the concept ofthe desert. The desert as a multi-disciplinary and multifaceted concept became thecenter of discussion in the third group meeting (16. 10. 94):
Hava:—When asked what would you be interested to research, thestudents' answer was: the impact of the desert on man's way of thinking.Here is evidence that we are not stuck with the physical aspect onlyAvi (researcher from the BG Archives Institute):—I still don't see whereI could help them. No one seemed interested in questions such as thedesert as a strategic space for the State of Israel or BG's conception of thedesert ...Moti (researcher from the Desert Research Institute (DRI)—or the Negevas an integral part of Israel's future ...Saar (DRI):—... or another example, what brings man to live in thedesert, the desert as perceived by modern man. Such questions couldwell fit BG's vision.
This excerpt illustrates the researchers' growing initiative to deal with the conceptand broaden it to include current social questions. It was here that I sensed adeeper underlying tension between the teachers' and researchers' idea of thedesert. The orientation of the latter, which adheres to Ben Gurion's ideology, wasresented by the teachers. They were more pedagogically oriented, regarding thedesert rather as a trigger for research questions, and were eager for their studentsto define their personal projects. This became their main concern:
Dan:—Being socialized to follow their teachers' cues, no wonder theyfind it difficult to engage in independent thinking. We should put it moreexplicitly, that they are responsible for their learning.Hava:—I agree but how can we encourage them to ask questions?
This led to the idea of organizing a visit to the institutes that might arousequestions. The purpose of the visit and its expected objectives, were dealt with inthe third group meeting (16. 10. 94):
Dan: Before planning the visit we should discuss what we want toachieve. How does it connect with the students 'learning'?Orna: If our aim is to teach them to do their individual studies, I would
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
254 S. Ktiny
suggest they meet a researcher and get him to tell them about theproblems he or she faces.Dan: It should open up different sources of knowledge, show them whatcould be gained from each institute.Saar: Instead of exposing them to a wide range of research activities, Iwould suggest focusing on one issue only, and elaborate upon its severalaspects, and the different connected systems. Take for example the issueof 'Sewage recycling', we could show how it is connected to micro-biology, agriculture, to human-systems, etc. Here I see the 'click' for thestudent.
The excerpt displays what I mean by a heterogeneous group setting, in whichparticipants from different points of reference portray their unique ideas, addingto the multi-perspective discourse. Thus the visit could concretize the topics, openup a wide range of choice, or it could focus on methods of research, exposing thestudents to the way researchers think. Alternatively, on the practical level, it coulddemonstrate the possibilities of access to the institutes. Lastly, it could be used toillustrate the interdisciplinary character of the research problems.
The Participants' Conception of Their Roles. Another important theme was the role ofthe researchers; I will trace this theme through the first four group meetings. Myopening words in the first group meeting (2. 10. 94) touched on my idea of thegroup work and the participants' roles:
... Our first objective is to build a collaborative framework, based onequal relationship between different parties, that are each a professionalin his area.... our intention is not to 'help' teachers, or teach them howto teach. The common goal of this group is to develop a new kind ofcurriculum, namely a new way of teaching and learning.
After sketching what I mean by a new kind of curriculum, I continue:
The group's role is to form a reflective framework where we can ques-tion, inquire, plan and test new teaching/learning activities, and thusconstruct jointly our new theories of curriculum, of knowledge, oflearning and teaching.
My words, I felt, met with general consent, yet I doubted how much of it wasactually understood the way I meant it. The two following responses illustrate thepoint:
Oren: I understood the main role of this forum was to help us. Aroundthe table are experts in different fields. The students could be linked tothese various fields, through you.Saar: Surely, we shall be willing to help the kids within the generalframework, but my main interest, the reason I came here is to develop anew methodology of learning.
The excerpt reveals two different conceptions regarding the role of the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 255
researchers. The teacher at this early stage tends to see them as experts whose taskit is to interest the students in their field of research. The researcher on the otherhand sees his role in terms of developing a new type of curriculum. Thisdifference was elaborated further in the second group meeting (9. 10. 94):
Ruth: We are aware of your obligations, your responsibility to teach,while I see our goal as kind of watch-dogs ...Am: As teachers you are occupied with what to do in the classroomtomorrow, while we can philosophise, throw out ideas. You want to beopen to our ideas, yet you keep thinking how to implement ...
The excerpt voices the feeling of disjunction between the parties, the differenceswhich at this stage were not seen as valuable, but rather as obstacles. One way toovercome them is for the researchers to share in the teaching obligations, as wassuggested later in the same meeting:
Saar: Would you mind if I attend your next classroom activity? I shall sitquietly ...Hava: Your presence can only contribute. Moreover, I would ask you totake part in the discussion, you can respond to the students' proposals.
Yet there was a lingering feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the researchers.The visit to their research institutes only strengthened this sense of being 'used' asexperts rather than real partners. This feeling was explicitly expressed in thefourth meeting (24. 10. 94):
Saar: I would like to see myself more involved and contributing.Orna: Are we a team of partners at all, it seems to me that you see usrather in terms of service givers ...
The theme of the participants' conception of their role could be rephrased as'What is the nature of the collaboration in the group?' In the following section ofthe analysis, this issue will be pursued further.
Analysing the Discourse in Terms of Action Research Cycles of Learning
I regard teachers' development (my own included) as an ongoing process ofinquiry into one's own teaching, a continuing effort to understand and make senseof it, both on the micro level of one's own context, and the macro level of theprofession. Within the framework of the STES project, the teachers were exposedto two simultaneous contexts of reflection, the practical classroom context (wherethey could try out the newly-formed ideas, and reflect on their action) and thecollaborative group. As seen already, the group was free to create its own agendaand pursue issues perceived to be of high priority. My role as a facilitator was toenhance reflection by modelling it, and to ensure a non-judgemental learningenvironment, where members feel free to express themselves. Later, as will beseen, participants acquired the art of reflection, and took this role over. However,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
256 S. Keiny
all of us (teachers and researchers) were learners, learning through inquiring,through researching our own action.
For this reason, I chose Kurt Lewin's Action Research model as a frame ofanalysis. The model assumes that the group process could be regarded as learningcycles, each consisting the following four stages:
• Sensing a source of discomfort, or a problem;• Planning an active experimentation;• Experimenting and data collection, triangulation, etc.;• Reflection that leads to new understanding, or to reconstructing of previous
knowledge, in other words, to a redefinition of the problem (which leads backto Planning II ...) etc.
Starting with the fifth group meeting, five cycles of learning were identified. Theiranalysis will illustrate the group learning process, in terms of the themesidentified above.
First cycle
1. Sensing or identifying a problem: (5th group meeting; 4.11.1994). Opening themeeting with a brief reflection on the previous group meetings, I highlightedthemes that had been raised, such as:
• The goals of our curriculum—and how to reach them;• The issue of interdisciplinarity;• The different roles of the teachers and researchers.
I suggested the group decide on which venue to proceed. After a lengthydiscussion, in which a whole range of new ideas was opened up, the choice wasmade, and the group decided to tackle a simple practical problem, introduced byone of the researchers:
Ruth:—I would like us to plan the next classroom activity.
It seemed to me at first sight that this practical suggestion was simply the easiestway out, yet later, in the planning stage I realized there was more to it. Planningthe next activity actually touched on the themes of the role of the researchers andinterdisciplinarity (among others).
2. Planning stage: (continues in 5th group meeting). Partly because of the researchers'motivation to be more involved, and on the other hand, the teachers' perceiveddifficulties in explaining this new way of teaching to the students, the groupplanned a meeting between the 'scientific' researchers and small groups ofstudents, accompanied by-their teachers. The idea was to expose the students tointerdisciplinary problems, and the research activity carried out in the Institute forDesert Research.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 257
3. Data collection: (6th group meeting; 11.11.1994). The meeting opened with theparticipants' feedback on their meetings with the students:
Moti:—A group of 3-4 boys took part in the discussion, the others werepassive.Saar:—I tried to get them to talk but with minimal success, managing tosqueeze a few remarks here and there ...Orna:—I found they are not capable of functioning in the abstract, Ibelieve though that we were much more successful on the scientific-methodology levelDan:—We had no such problems in my group, the students were activeand inquisitive coming out with good questions.
4. Conceptualization: (continues in the 6th group meeting). Elaborating on in thesefindings, the group was able to disclose some of the hidden, more tacit issues,such as:
• The students' lack of interest in the project;• Their feelings of uncertainty with respect to what is required of them;• Ambiguity is contagious, we seemed to have passed it on to the students.
The discussion, which was continued in the following (seventh) group meeting,closed the first cycle, with my words of reflection. I described the experience as an'unfreezing stage', a reshuffling of some of our basic assumptions, (for example,the assumption about the researchers' ability to get the students interested in theirresearch; or about the students' ability to see the relevancy of this research activityto their own learning, etc.). I emphasized 'unfreezing' as an important, evennecessary stage for promoting higher order learning.
The second cycle
1. Sensing, or reformulating the problem: (7th group meeting; 18.11.1994). How totrigger students' interest in this new type of classroom activity? (this is anotherway of questioning our function as a group). Elaborating on the problem, it wasthen processed into a number of more operational questions:
• How to encourage students to generate questions?• How to open up more areas of interest?• How to create a framework that grants the students freedom of choice?
2. Planning: (7th group meeting). The discussion focused mainly on different waysof teaching, portraying a whole range of preferences in terms of educational andteaching styles. The decision of the group was to encourage diversity, let eachteacher take his or her preferred course of action.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
258 S. Keiny
3. Data collection: (8th group meeting; 25.11.1994). The meeting opened with eachteacher relating his or her experience in the classroom:
Oren:—I took them to the library, exposing them to 7 files containinginformation on the issue of the desert, which I assumed would triggertheir interest and generate questions. I admit, with very moderatesuccess.Hava:—I wrote on the blackboard 'Desert and Desertification' drawing 10arrows, which I asked them to fill in, it was very exciting
Dan and Ada both report on the visit, organized by Ada (a researcher in the BenGurion Archive Institute), for Dan's students. The idea was to expose them tovarious sources of information, and different ways of data collection (for example,diaries and authentic documents; computerized documents, original texts, internetinformation, etc.). The students were then encouraged to try out different ways ofretrieving information.
Ada:—They became so involved that they were in no hurry to leave, juststayed on and continued working. I admit that after all this talk abouttheir indifference, their interest and personal involvement surprised me.
4. Conceptualization: (9th group meeting; 30.11.1994). The implicit message of thegroup was to legitimate the teachers to follow their personal inclinations, and bydoing so to enrich the group with a variety of examples. Thus three differentstrategies of teaching were experimented with. The collaborative strategy of ateacher and a young researcher, achieved new goals, such as exposure of thestudents to a modern conception of an archive, where all documents are comput-erized. But what was not voiced in the discussion were the more implicit effectsof the visit, on both the teachers and students, regarding their biased attitudestowards the Ben-Gurion Archives. An underlying tension, which had alreadybeen sensed in the first group meetings, here emerged. As mentioned in theintroduction, Ben-Gurion symbolizes the concept of development, of inhabitingthe desert and turning it into a garden, while the school for EnvironmentalEducation is rather 'green' oriented, emphasizing that the desert should bepreserved. I believe that the clash between these two contradicting ideologies wassubtly disclosed, and the teachers' awareness was raised about these hiddenassumptions, which had not been questioned.
The third AR cycle
1. Sensing, or reformulating the problem: (10th group meeting; 7.12.94). The human-istic researchers, it seemed, gained more confidence and were now more able tovoice their concerns. They claimed that up to now, the idea of Desert &Desertification had been dealt with in the 'scientific' context only. Talking aboutthe extension of knowledge, they felt that the more humanistic, historic and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 259
cultural aspects of the desert should be introduced. In this way we also extend thestudents' range of choice, before they decide on their individual topics of study.
2. The planning stage (12th group meeting; 25.12.1994). The question of howto extend the concept of the desert, and thereby the range of potential topics forthe students' individual studies, was never brought up in the group. Rather, theteachers actually did the planning within their team, reporting on it at the openingof the meeting:
Tomorrow we shall expose the students to a totally different experience:a meeting with a desert landscape sculptor at the break of dawn.
3. Data collection (13th meeting; 1.1.1995). The teachers very enthusiastically relatedtheir experience in the desert:
Hava: It was for me a very strong emotional experience, the combinationof his artistic ideas with the break of dawn over the Zin valley, was mostpowerfulOren: The students were all there with him, responding naturally to hisinstructions, all behaved perfectly, no discipline problems ... They saidthat they were immensely moved, though not necessarily agreeing withhis views.Aviva: The sculptor exemplified a person who is capable of opening upnew ways of looking. In this respect it is unlike any other learningexercise
4. Conceptualization (continued in the 13th group meeting). Reflecting on the data, theparticipant researchers began questioning the teachers on the nature of what theydescribed as a 'moving experience': why should this be considered a learningexperience.
Moti: We have to find out what was there that made the experience sospecialOrna: Holistic learning maybe, which adds the affective and emotionalaspects to the cognitive domainSaar: Could we conclude that 'experimental learning' is more effective?Dan: We repeatedly declare that the products of this new learning (ofDesert and Desertification) would be different, and unique to eachlearner. This experience proved the case. Each of us teachers actually hadhis personal unique experience.
The scientist were still doubtful:
Moti: I see here a breaking down of the conventional learning framework.Is that what we meant when we started? I certainly had no such idea.
Two important points were indicated in this cycle: firstly, the group startedfunctioning as a community of learners, in the sense of listening to each other and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
260 S. Keiny
accepting differences. The humanistic researchers were able to make their point,which was taken seriously by the teachers, and turned into a classroom activity.The second point concerns the evaluative role of the researchers. As the teacher'sbecame carried away by the 'moving experience', the researchers took on the roleof evaluators. By questioning whether the exposure to the desert landscape at thebreak of dawn could be regarded as learning, the discussion moved to deal withhigher level issues such as what is considered as learning. This is what I mean bymeta-learning.
The fourth AR cycle
1. Identifying a problem: (14th group meeting; 8.1.1995). How to evaluate this type oflearning?
2. Planning. Neither the identification of the problem, nor the planning were donein the group. The teachers took the initiative, planned their next classroomactivity, and implemented it.
3. Data collection. (14th meeting). The meeting opened with the teachers reportingon their activity:
Oren: We took the students to a nearby spot, facing the Zin valley, gavethem 3 sheets of paper, pencils, and ample time to put down theirimpressions in whichever way they wished. They sat there for over anhour in complete awesome silence, writing or drawing (displays thestudents' sheets). We did not interfere, we also sat down to work.Hava: For years I have been meaning to write something about the desertand never got around to do it. Here it just poured out ...
4. Conceptualization: (continued in the 14th group meeting). The teachers' reportopened a heated discussion in the group; the following excerpt illustrates it:
Oren: The results indicate their sense of being at one with the idea of thedesert.Saar: I cannot see any connection between these sheets of paper and oureffort to trigger their inquiry, their observation. To what extent can wesee this as a learning experience?Dan: I can see three points which illustrate their process of learning: thereis data collection, interdisciplinarity, and holism ... I also see here (in thesheets of paper) a function between theoretical knowledge and otherkinds of knowledge. To me the most authentic knowledge is that of thelearner himself, whether teacher or student.Shosh: What we are discussing here is what is learning?
This cycle demonstrates clearly how the reflective group enhanced the partici-pants (mainly the teachers') conceptualization of their experience. Typical for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 261
teachers, who are rather action-oriented, they chose to cope with the question byaction, rather than discuss the problem of how to evaluate this kind of learning inthe group. Instead, they planned an activity, but being 'good teachers' they alsoresponded to this activity as learners. By reflecting on their experience (as teachersand learners) they were able to confront the question of what is learning. Had theybeen dealing with the question of how to evaluate learning within a theoreticalcontext, they would have probably cited their 'espoused theories' based onBruner, Piaget, etc., theories which as such are not really functional. By conceptu-alizing their experience they were able to cope with the question in a moreauthentic and meaningful way (see Dan's comments in the last excerpt).
My argument here is not concerned with whether their answer is right orwrong. I believe it indicated some confusion and ambiguity, (and anyhow, whocan give a simple answer to the question what is learning). What I want to stressis their attempt to deal with this high order question from their own referencepoint, from their own personal experience. This is what I mean by conceptualizingpractice or experience, and it relates to Dewey's idea of doubt as the beginning ofknowledge. Dewey believed that inquiry begins with doubt, or from a confusingand obscure situation, and goes on to make the situation determinate. Theinquirer is not an outside spectator, but actually in transaction with it. Inquirydoes not remove doubt by recourse to a prior adaptive integration, but byinstituting new environing conditions that occasion new problems, so that there isno such thing as a final settlement (Schon, 1992).
The 5th AR cycle
1. Identifying or reformulating the problem: (15th group meeting; 22.1.1995). Thechallenge which was thrown out by the facilitator at the end of the previousmeeting was taken up by the group: what is learning, and how can we evaluatelearning?
2. Planning: (continued in the 15th meeting; 22.1.1995). Hava, the leading teacher,opened the meeting by suggesting that in the following week, in the teachers'absence (for some reason or other), the next class activity would be taken over bythe group.
Hava: ... not merely as 'baby-sitters', feel free to plan the activity.
The next (16th) group meeting (29. 1. 95), which was participated in by theresearchers only, was dedicated to planning the next classroom activity as a kindof an evaluative framework. The idea was that the researchers would interviewthe students in order to learn about the progress made in their research projects.Together the researchers produced an open interview sheet, which aimed toconvey (first and foremost) their interest in the students' work, and their desire tohelp. Secondly, its purpose was to trace the progress of their individual studies,in terms of identifying a research question, choosing their methodology of datacollection, developing original thinking, etc. Thirdly, by focusing on the students'
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
262 S. Keiny
understanding of some key concepts, such as interdisciplinarity anddesertification, the interview would try to trace the students' conception of thenew paradigm of learning. This interview sheet, after being endorsed by theteachers, was used simultaneously by four different researchers, each meetingwith a group of 8-10 students. Judging by the students' feedback, (which theyrelated to their teachers) and by the enthusiastic feedback conveyed by theresearchers, the activity was most successful.
3. Data collection or Triangulation: (17th group meeting; 11.2.1995). The researchersopened the meeting by presenting their respective interview findings. Slowly asthey related in detail their experience, (which in many cases was put in writingwith copies handed around), a multidimensional picture was unfolded, disclosingthe students' conceptions of their learning, of both their classroom and individualprogress.
4a. Conceptualization (continued in the 17th group meeting). Triangulating the stu-dents' feedback with that of the teachers (as reported in the previous meetings) aswell as the researchers, led to critical reflection in the group. As a result someimportant points were highlighted, such as:
• The students did not connect the 'Desert and Desertification' classroom activi-ties with their personal research projects.
• They felt that a lot of time was wasted because of lack of supervision.• The focus of the project for the students was the desert, 'desertification' they
found irrelevant.• Involvement being one of the declared aims of the project, they asked to be
more involved• They were totally unaware of our group's existence, of the regular weekly
group meetings.
These points came as a shock to the teachers. Their reaction was a thunderoussilence, while exchanging notes between them. It seemed that they were too hurtto be able to treat this information as a basis for reflection.
4b. Conceptualization: (18th meeting; 18.2.1995). I opened the meeting by acquaint-ing the group with Kurt Lewin's AR cycle, after which I analysed the last groupmeetings, using the four stages of the cycle as criteria:
• Sensing, or identification of a problem:—How to evaluate the project?• Planning an active experimentation—constructing an open interview instru-
ment, as part of an evaluative framework.• Data collection—collecting the students' feedback, and thus tracing their prog-
ress within the learning process.• Triangulating this data with the teachers' and researchers' feedback.• Reflection that leads to new understanding. In other words reconstruction of
our previous knowledge in terms of the students' learning process.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 263
I stressed that this cyclic process (which actually stemmed from the teachers'request) was aimed to collect data. The purpose of this data collection (some ofwhich was sensitive and loaded) was to triangulate the students feedback withthat of the teachers and the group, and highlight the incongruities, the multi-perspectives of the classroom activities. The aim of the process was to reach abetter understanding about learning. Another way of looking at the process is asan indication of the effectiveness of the group as a learning group, a test of thedegree of collaboration. I believed that our efforts to reach a better understandingof the issue, (which is our aim) will also strengthen the group as a community oflearners.
Whether it was the impact of these words, or rather the time factor (a wholeweek to brew on the unexpected new information), this opening triggered theteachers' flow of reactions:
Dan: We have to go to the students and listen to what they have to say.They feel they are not being treated as partners, we should try togetherto build a collaborative framework.Aviva: They are at a stage in their research projects where they need morepersonal supervision.Oren: I believe we have to negotiate with the researchers, who is respon-sible for what....Ada: We want to take more responsibility, I assume that by being moreresponsible, taking a more active part in the classroom, we shall be lessof a threat....
A reflective discussion followed which led to some practical decisions in thegroup, with respect to a plan of change. It was decided that we invite students toparticipate in the group meetings, leaving them to choose their representatives.The issue of desertification, which obviously had been neglected, would be thefocus of the following classroom activity. Moti, one of the scientific researchers,was invited to give a talk on the subject and thus trigger a classroom discussion.
To conclude, the analysis of the group learning process in terms of actionresearch cycles illuminates the gradual building up of the group into a communityof learners. The first cycle, which actually dealt with the issue of collaboration inthe group, or how to involve the researchers in the classroom, ended with ratherdisappointing results. It portrayed little collaboration on the part of the teacherswho were not yet ready to accept the researchers as partners, but saw them ratheras service-givers. The researchers, on the other hand, realized in this first cyclethat teaching is not that simple. Their assumptions about triggering the students'motivation by exposing them to their research projects, proved wrong. In thesecond cycle another question loomed up: how to stimulate the students' interestand motivation? Different strategies were tried by the teachers, and the first budof partnership was created.
This spelled a new type of collaboration, in which the researchers functioned asa resource for new ways of data collection. The third and fourth cycles became aturning-point with respect to collaboration. The teachers seemed to take the lead,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
264 S. Keiny
by planning and implementing, while the researchers encouraged reflection andconceptualization. A new type of collaboration was achieved, based on differentpeople playing different roles, yet maintaining an equal relationship by respectingeach other as professionals. The teachers did not resent the researchers' role asevaluators, neither their critical reflection, and were able to take up the challenge,namely to ask themselves what does learning mean. This ideal image of collabora-tion was somewhat disrupted in the fifth cycle, however. It seemed that theteachers, while encouraging the researchers to help in evaluating the students,were not yet prepared for collaboration in the sense of allowing the 'learningcommunity' members to express themselves freely as persons. The feedback oftheir students was painful, and it took time for them to recover and be able toreflect on the situation from an outside perspective.
As the group facilitator I had to cope with difficult questions, such as: how tocreate a balance between critical reflection and learning as a growth process? Howto allow participants to voice themselves as persons and yet be open to the others'views? It seems that the teachers, by asking the researchers to take the role ofevaluators, unintentionally created an asymmetrical situation. Not wanting to takethe role of the leader, I refrained from intervening, hoping to enhance instead theself-directive autonomous nature of the group. Judging by the results, I tend toregard those painful moments as examples of learning, in which participants areable to regard their action from a different point of view, and become liberatedfrom their 'tunnel-vision'. This is a moment of reflection, that arouses self-exploratory questions. In this respect the last cycle indicated a breakthrough withrespect to the group collaboration, after which they were more able to recognizeeach other's right to express him or herself as persons, and thus they developedinto a community of learners.
Collaboration in Knowledge Generation or Theory-Building
The purpose of this second analysis of the group discourse is to trace the processof mutual learning in the group toward achieving new understanding, in terms ofknowledge construction. As was stated above, the double-loci model for teachers'conceptual change, represents not merely two contexts, the practical and thesocial, that involve the teacher, but also two forms of knowledge construction.Using Fenstermacher's terminology, two forms of teachers' knowing can bedistinguished, stemming from two different modes of inquiry: practical inquirywithin the classroom, that yields TK/P (teacher knowledge/practical), and themore formal inquiry, which characterizes the social reflective context, yieldingTK/F (teacher knowledge/formal) (Fenstermacher, 1994). The interplay or tensionbetween these two contexts, or forms of inquiry, I believe, is critical for the processof reconstructing knowledge, or building new teaching and learning theories. It isthe facilitator's responsibility to create this tension in such a setting, by probingand teasing out reflection or self-inquiry, and eliciting from the teacher the kindof knowledge-in-action which is tacit in nature. Without this kind of dialogue,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 265
Concrete experience
Active experimentation «- -• Reflective observation
Abstract conceptualization
FIG. 2. Model of Experiential Learning (Kolb & Fry).
there is little chance to breed alternative ideas, or 'alternative stories'. Thefacilitator, I believe, should be much more actively involved in the dialogue, inorder to enable both parties to actually share each other's castles. His task is tohelp the teachers move between the two types of inquiry.
In the STES project, there are several researchers from different areas ofknowledge. Assuming that their mode of inquiry is formal, the interplay betweenthe collaborating participants is more intense. This interplay brought me back toKolb and Fry's concept of 'dialectical tension', a tension which exists betweendifferent components of experiential learning (see Fig. 2). A dialectical tensionbetween a here-and-now experience and theoretical conceptualization; betweenactive experimentation and reflective observation, stimulates the learning process,and enhances the participants' mutual learning.
Fielding (1995) refered to Kolb and Fry's model in terms of different styles oflearning. Partidpants in a heterogeneous learning group could be viewed asrepresenting these four preferred learning styles (Fielding, 1995). Assumingthat the teachers' preferred form of inquiry or learning is practical, based onhere-and-now experience, and that the researchers' form of inquiry or preferredlearning is formal, implying more abstract conceptualization, these compo-nents could serve as criteria for analysis, for tracing the interplay between theteachers' and researchers' roles in the generation of new understanding or newtheories.
To trace this interplay the following excerpts were taken from the groupdiscourse:
The 20th group meeting (12.3.1995). The development of a curricular module on'Desert & Desertification' was the issue that opened the group meeting. This wasthe assignment the group had to submit by the end of the year. Reminding thepartidpants of the STES project meeting, scheduled for next month, at which each
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
266 S. Keiny
group of teachers, would be expected to present the general plan of theircurriculum module, I asked for suggestions of action.
Hava: I see no problem, all our classroom activities are recorded, we canhand over the list.Ada: We can pick some major issues which have been discussed here, andexamine how, or to what extent they were dealt with, in the classroom.
These two responses illustrate two different orientations to curriculum develop-ment. The teacher's is clearly a concrete one, while the researcher's is moreabstract and reflective. In terms of the curriculum model, the teacher's implicitmodel is prescriptive, while the researcher's is reflexive.
The 22nd group meeting (19.3.1995). This opens with Hava's announcement of astudents' conference next Monday, inviting the group to participate. The idea ofthe conference, originated by one of the researchers, was to deliberate on somekey concepts, which the group felt needed elaborating. Yet Hava, the leadingteacher, had a different aim in mind, namely to help the students with theirindividual projects. These conflicting aims are conveyed in the following excerpt:
Moti: I understood that the point was 'desertification'.Oren: It is pertinent to convene now, before the end of term vacation, andhelp scatter the fog, leaving them feeling better with respect to theprojects, I suggest we open the conference with a lecture ondesertification.
Moti agrees to open the topic of desertification for discussion. He resents the ideaof a lecture, instead he would like to raise a few points:
Moti: I am concerned with the fact that their projects do not relate to thetime dimension, but rather convey the here and now. I am disturbed bythe fact that they are focused on the classical static orientation, com-pletely unaware of the dynamics of change. That is why I am keen ondeliberating on Desertification as a key concept. As a dynamic concept itcould open up questions such as:
• Is desertification a negative or a positive process?• Is it a natural cyclic process?• Is the external aid of food and medication positive?• How does this kind of interference inhibit natural processes, etc,?
Orna: It reminds me of a film The politics of hunger' which deals withthe so called 'aid' the western countries offer, for example, to theperiodical dry seasons in the Sahal region in Western Africa. These arereal ethical questions. To what extent the huge food transports actuallyhelp the local population, or paradoxically, result in perpetuating thesituation, by restraining local initiatives.Hava: It sounds exciting and most important, yet I would like to dedicate
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 267
the day to their personal projects. I suggest we ask them to report eachwhere they stand and what kind of help they need, and from there arriveat desertification.
Moti opened the issue of desertification in the students conference, as planned.The discussion that developed was most stimulating, drawing the students' activeparticipation. The teachers were content, admitting that it succeeded in openingup many new aspects, venues of thought, as well as real ethical questions. Apartfrom the struggle between the parties over who controls the students' learningprocess, the excerpt illustrates the tension between the two opposing orientations:the concrete here and now situation, of reacting to the students' perceived needs,and the urge of the researchers to function on a more abstract, conceptual level oflearning.
The 24th group meeting (30.4.1995). This took place after the STES project meetingof all the developing groups of teachers, and dealt with the growing need toproduce a draft of a curricular module on Desert & Desertification. The STESproject meeting gave a broader perspective to their task as curriculum developers,and their obligation to produce the module.
Moti: I see this as a stage of evaluation, yet how can we evaluate ourwork before the students' projects are submitted?Ada: I would like to make a distinction between evaluation and curricu-lum development. We began with no real curriculum, only ambiguousideas and a list of aims. Today retrospectively, we are in a position wecan write it down. The class can be seen as an experiential site, in whichwe can test our work, find out to what extent did we actually reach ouraims.Moti: You mean that the curriculum module we develop would reflectwhat we actually did here?
Moti's comments about evaluation reflect a rather linear Tylerian conception ofcurriculum, as compared to the dynamic, more cybernetic concept, introduced byOrna. This is also an Action Research orientation, whereby the classroom is seenas a medium for testing teaching activities, and their congruence with the curricu-lar manifested aims. This idea is picked up by another researcher, who rephrasesit in different terms:
Ruth: I agree, it is the 'working principles' that we have to extract, inorder to produce the curriculum module that can be ready for a repeatedexperimentation. By implementing it again, whether by our teachers, orby others, we can test the applicability of these principles.
Ruth's new concept of 'working principles' emphasizes the idea mentionedalready, of theoretical constructs, which are extracted from the classroom experi-ence, and form the rationale for the developing curricular module. It is also an
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
268 S. Keiny
illustration of 'abstract conceptualization', the researchers' preferred mode ofinquiry, or learning. In terms of curriculum development, she also portrays an ARorientation. The teachers' reaction is reflected in the following excerpt:
Hava: In order to produce a curricular module for another teacher to use,we have to state the rationale and give a few examples, for him to apply.We have no interest in producing a 'cook-book', the kind I saw someother STES groups developed.Dan: I am not afraid of a curriculum framework, a curriculum is notnecessarily a 'cook-book'.Oren: By formulating a curriculum module, we shall fall into the same pitwe wanted to avoid ... our aim was to create a breakthrough ...D. (teacher): But even an open school has a curriculum....
This short excerpt illuminates the teachers' idea of the curriculum. As wasmentioned above, the whole idea of developing the new curriculum 'Desert andDesertification' sprang from their deep concern around the existing curriculum,and their joint urge to create a 'breakthrough'. Yet it seems to me that both Havaand Oren are still very much anchored in the classical idea of the highly-structured curriculum (a cook-book) they strongly want to break out of. I see theirsuggestion of a module that contains the rationale plus examples for the teacherto follow, though unstructured, as essentially not much different from the pre-scribed type of curriculum. Dan seems less captured by the classical concept of thecurriculum, and is thus not afraid to use the term. It indicates to me that he hasreconstructed the concept, so that it now includes a much broader idea, such as anopen school curriculum.
Saar: When I come to think of it, the students were pressed to choosetheir topics before we exposed them to the wider aspects of the issue, orthe desert. One of our conclusions today, could be to expose them firstand only then they make their choice of topic.Facilitator: This is a good example of our method of curriculum develop-ment, how to extract from our experience a few principles, such as theone suggested by Saar. Another example is the landscape sculptor. Hisactivity was subject to our reflection, and deliberation. Today we have torationalize the activity. What aim did it serve? We cannot just give arecipe: 'Invite a sculptor'....
Saar voices his own grappling with this new idea of working principles, orextracting constructs from classroom experience. By using an example, he is ableto illustrate the process. My response, which serves to elaborate the idea, illus-trates the role of the facilitator, as I understand it. This is what I mean byoscillating between the two modes of learning, using concrete examples to explainabstract theoretical constructs, and thus engaging the teachers in a more formalmode of learning.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 269
A new aspect of the curriculum is introduced in the following excerpt:
Am: It is pertinent for us to find a way to advertise our work, not merelyas something unique, which was carried out in a unique setting. Everycurriculum stems from an ideology. Our ideology should form theframework, the underlying basis of our curriculum.Aviva: I see the importance of developing a curriculum module mainly interms of our own benefit, of a better understanding of what we do here.Saar: I have no interest in an esoteric curriculum, unless it is of valuebeyond our local experience. One of our group's main messages, as wellas that of the internet, is that there are different methods of collectinginformation, of attaining knowledge, and that it is our job to prepare ourstudents accordingly. This I see as the main message of our curriculumunit. We have to show how it can be done.
This last part of the discourse touches on the moral aspect of the curriculum, whatAvi calls the curriculum's ideology. For the module to be applicable for any otherteacher, in any other setting, the ideological framework (in our case the STESrationale) should be clearly formulated. Aviva, from her practical point ofreference, emphasizes the teachers' need to understand better, as the main incen-tive for this curriculum development process. Saar brings the discussion toclosure, tying up the whole group's endeavour, with a sound logical as well asmoral rationale.
Analysis of the discourse in terms of this dialectical tension helped me tounderstand better the nature of the collaborative group, and the function playedby the different participants. I believe this analysis justifies my rather intuitiveidea of the heterogeneity of the group, as a means of enhancing and stimulatingthe group's self-inquiry, its learning process. The researchers who participated inthe group (except Orna, who was a curriculum developer) had no formal knowl-edge of education. Yet, as researchers, their formal theoretical mode of inquiryhelped to create the dialectical tension with the teachers' more practical mode ofthinking and conceptualizing. That does not mean to imply that teachers are notable to engage in theoretical, abstract conceptualization. My main argument is thatwithin their school context (as a 'landscape' that transmits 'sacred stories' whichare embedded in the positivistic, underlying conception of the school system),they are inclined to function instrumentally, in other words, to conceive their rolein terms of transmitting curricular knowledge. This is so strong that even in thisnon-conventional high school for Environmental Education, and with this groupof creative innovating teachers, their new curriculum plan seemed to lack 'wings'.Similar examples could be found in different countries all over the world,examples of innovations, (for example, connected to the introduction of computersinto the school, and to the use of new information sources like the Internet) andinnovative ideas generated by teachers which do not achieve the expected break-through. The bottom line is that no real change will be achieved without thenecessary conceptual change that teachers as well as researchers and adminis-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
270 S. Keiny
trators have to undergo, to liberate themselves from the dominant 'sacred stories'and allow them to create multiple alternative ones.
Discussion
I began the project with the idea of a 'learning community', a diverse group ofpeople who are able to maintain equal relationships by respecting each other asprofessionals. The teachers were all experienced, and in many respects experts intheir profession. The researchers were more heterogeneous in age, status andexperience, ranging from full researchers to graduates. Intuitively I saw theheterogeneous reflective group as an optimal medium: a collaborative, rich,interactive group, one that enhances inquiry, deliberation and reflection, andenables its participants to express themselves as persons.
By extending the idea of the collaborative group in the STES project, I expectedto achieve a breakthrough in terms of knowledge. To extend the concept ofknowledge to include experiential, authentic, context-bound problems, subjective,and open to different interpretations, knowledge which is not neutral but value-laden. The Internet opened another way of communication and knowledge search,which broke through geographical distances as well as different cultures. Thisextension of the conception of knowledge turned out to be the main achievementof the project, and was clearly reflected in the curriculum module 'Desert andDesertification' which was developed by the group. The module's rationale openswith following guiding principle: 'Exposure of the students to different aspects ofthe issue, to alternative sources of knowledge and different ways of data collec-tion'. The other guiding principles are developing an autonomous learner, andcreating different frameworks of collaboration.
Yet, in terms of collaboration, such a heterogeneous group created new prob-lems which were non-existent in my previous collaborative projects (Keiny, 1993).In all these frameworks of collaboration, my basic assumption was that a group isa powerful medium of change. As compared to a dyad consisting of a teacher andresearcher, a group can maintain a more equal and less threatening relationship,and a more effective sharing of responsibility (Keiny & Dreyfus, 1989). Analysis ofthe STES group process of learning in terms of action research cycles indicatedthat in the first stages of the group work, instead of collaboration, a strugglebetween two different parties occurred. The teachers who were responsible for theactual classroom activity had difficulty in accepting the researchers' reflectivecomments. They tended to regard them as 'outsiders' who do not share the realtask of teaching, and did not allow them to trespass onto their territory and sharein the responsibility of teaching. To break out of this 'catch' situation, whichhindered the participants' capacity to reflect, the teachers had to undergo atraumatic and painful experience. Only after 3 months work were they ableto accept and recognize each other's differences and start functioning as acommunity of learners.
Using Kolb and Fry's model of experiential learning, I tried to observe thedialectical tension between the teachers' and researchers' different types of pre-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
A Community of Learners 271
ferred learning. The excerpts reveal two different, extreme viewpoints at thebeginning. Only gradually, with the advancement of collaboration, the partici-pants came to recognize each other as different persons with different ways ofthinking. They became able to listen more carefully and accept the other'sperspective, or different point of view as legitimate. For example, the researcherslearned to respect the teachers' sensitivity to their students' feelings, while theteachers learned to appreciate the researchers' theoretical contribution, in terms ofdealing with neglected concepts such as 'desertification'. This tension enhancedthe process of mutual learning, which was reflected in their final endeavour ofproducing the curriculum module. The interactive mutual process of reflection inthe group resulted in a radical process of change of both researchers and teachers:a change from disciplinary to interdisciplinary orientation, as well as a changefrom the conventional subject-centered teaching, to a new style of classroomactivity where the teachers' main role is to stimulating students' autonomouslearning.
We regard this change as fundamental in school reforms, such as the oneclaimed by the STES project. Our claim is that teachers' conceptual change cannotbe induced from above. Neither can it be promoted by teachers alone, for examplein frameworks of school-based curriculum development. A collaborative frame-work of teachers and researchers, one that develops to function as an effectivecommunity of learners, is the necessary medium for conceptual change.
Correspondence: Shoshana Keiny, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva,87105, Israel.
ReferencesAVIRAM, A. & KEINY, S. (1992) Enhancing autonomy: the school the teacher and the student.
Unpublished paper.AVRAHAM, A. (1972) Le Monde Interieur des Enseignants (Paris, Epi Editeurs).Dutt, R. (1994) Conceptual change approaches in science education. A paper presented in the
symposium on Conceptual Change, Jena, 1994.FIELDING, M. (1995) Beyond collaboration: on the importance of community, in: D. BRIDGES & C.
HUSBANDS (Eds) Consorting and Collaboration in the Education Market Place (London, FalmerPress).
FENSTERMACHER, G. (1994) The known and the unknown: the nature of knowledge in researchon teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, pp. 3-56.
FOERSTER, H. VON (1992) Ethics and second order cybernetics, Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 1,pp. 9-19.
GLASERSFELD, E. VON (1987) Learning as a constructive activity, in: C. Janvier Problems ofRepresentation in Teaching and Learning Maths (Hillsdale)
GLASERSFELD, E. VON (1989) Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching, Syntheses, 80,pp. 121-140.
GOODSON, I. (1992) Studying Teachers' Lives (London, Routledge).GORODETSKY, M., Hoz, R. & KEINY, S. (1993) The relationship of teachers' collective conception
and school renewal. A paper presented in the International conference on ScienceEducation in Developing Countries: From Theory to Practice, Jerusalem, 1993.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
272 S. Keiny
HARGREAVES, A. (1994) Changing teachers changing times: teachers' work and culture in thepostmodern age (London, Cassell).
HERBST, P .D. (1976) Alternatives for Hierarchy (Holland, Nijhoff).KEINY, S., ORION, E., YAHAV, I. & SHACHAK, M. (1982) Sdeh Boker Version of Environmental
Education, pp. 60-77. Sdeh-Boker campus, internal publication.KEINY, S. & SHACHAK, M. (1987) Educational model for environmental cognition development,
International Journal of Science Education, 9, pp. 449-458.KEINY, S. (1987) Enhancing teachers' professional development through a dialectical process of
reflection, Studies in Education, 48, pp. 449-458 (in Hebrew).KEINY, S. & DREYFUS, A. (1989) Teachers' self-reflection as a prerequisite to their professional
development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, pp. 53-63.KEINY, S. (1993) School-based curriculum development as a process of teachers' professional
development, Education Action Research, 1(1), pp. 65-93.KOLB, D.A. & FRY, D. (1975) Towards an applied theory of experiential learning, in: C. I. COOPER
(Ed.) Theories of Group Processes, pp. 33-57 (Wiley).KUHN, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd edn) (Chicago, University of Chicago
Press).LINDER, C.J. (1993) A challenge to Conceptual Change, Science Education, 77, pp. 293-300.MACMURRAY, J . (1957) The Form of the Personal (London, Faber & Faber).MARTON, F. (1986) Phenomenography—a search approach to investigate different understand-
ings of reality, Journal of Thought, 21, pp. 28-49.MATURANA, H.R. (1992) Reality: the search for objectivity, or the quest for a compelling
argument, in: Language, Emotion, the Social and the Ethical Washington (ACS publication).POSNER, G.J., STRIKE, K.A., HEWSON, P.W. & GERTZOG, W.A. (1982) Accommodation of a scientific
conception: towards a theory of conceptual change, Science Education, 66, pp. 211-227.SOMEKH, B. (1995) Inhabiting each other's castles: towards knowledge and mutual growth
through collaboration, Educational Action Research, 2, pp. 357-378.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tem
ple
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
02:
38 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014