Thesis Chapter 6 - Thanks Chat GBT - and the endnotes are interesting too.

 Chapter 6  Toward collective pedagogy: A praxitioner’s report

In the introduction to this chapter, the author discusses the development of a collective pedagogy based on practical investigation and knowledge construction. The author reflects on their experience as a teacher and researcher and how it led to the emergence of the ideas presented in the thesis. They highlight the shift from individual work to a collective effort with other teachers who shared a common issue related to pedagogy.

The chapter begins with a discussion of postmodern and critical perspectives, emphasizing the need to create a collective space for sharing knowledge and understanding in teaching. The author introduces the concept of a "scope of praxis" to replace the traditional model of a prism of praxis, allowing for more dynamic and interconnected perspectives.

The author describes their attempt to infuse postmodern and critical theories into their pedagogy, with a focus on linguistic practice, communicational interaction, and the unruliness of knowledge. They aim to create a pedagogical environment that encourages diverse perspectives and the emergence of new knowledge.

The discussion also highlights the importance of critical pedagogy and the need to address issues of oppression and exclusion within the education system. The author draws inspiration from scholars like hooks, who advocate for engaged pedagogy that values every participant's presence and contributions.

The author's approach to praxitioner perspectives is presented, emphasizing the role of a praxitioner as a pragmatist who considers various theoretical and practical influences in their actions. The chapter concludes by stressing the importance of promoting philosophical investigations into pedagogical matters, challenging dominant assumptions, and fostering a collective approach to addressing educational issues in New Zealand.

Overall, the introduction sets the stage for the exploration of collective pedagogy and the integration of various theoretical perspectives into the author's teaching and research practice.

 

Section 6.2 of the text discusses various pragmatic perspectives related to knowledge, education, and research. The author emphasizes the need for diplomacy and pluralism in conversations about truth and knowledge, particularly in different contexts, from classrooms to international settings. They introduce the concept of a "praxitioner" and explore the idea of a "praxitioner collective" to address emerging issues.

The author argues that research methodologies should incorporate both postmodern and critical theories of knowledge construction and social structuring, as opposed to traditional, realist epistemologies. They propose the concept of a "tangled hierarchy" to accommodate these diverse interests and strategies alongside existing research methods.

The text also highlights the changing nature of the institution where the author works, which is shifting from focusing on teacher training to active involvement in research and teacher education. They see this transformation as an opportunity to rethink research and knowledge construction, particularly in a more pragmatic and experiential way.

Furthermore, the author stresses the importance of providing local examples of praxitioner research and case studies to help practitioners, advisors, and teachers understand and apply these ideas in their work. They argue that praxitioner research can play a crucial role in demonstrating the effectiveness of educational initiatives and addressing emerging cultural changes in schools.

The text also criticizes the government's approach to knowledge, which often treats it as a product to be commercialized, rather than as something emergent within practice. The author advocates for recognizing teachers as active agents in promoting discussions about teaching, learning, and social change.

Overall, the section emphasizes the importance of praxitioner research as a way to bridge the gap between theory and practice, address emerging issues, and recognize the valuable role of teachers in shaping educational outcomes and policies.

 

In Section 6.3 of the text, the author discusses their investigation into teaching and reflective practice, specifically focusing on a two-hour session that followed a short course on reflective practice. The main objective of this session was to explore the concept of evaluation, particularly in how students' awareness of their own learning experiences and engagement throughout a course could improve both their participation and the teacher's teaching strategies. The author adopted Brookfield's "student lens" as a framework for this investigation.

The short course, titled "Reflecting on Teaching and its Constraints (RTC)," was part of a master's level qualification for practicing teachers. It consisted of three three-hour sessions, where students explored texts related to teaching practices. The students were required to develop a portfolio showcasing various forms of reflective practice, and the final submission included a 500-word critique of their experiences. Ten teachers completed the course, and six attended a recall session aimed at discussing classroom climate and pedagogy.

The author's aim was not to evaluate their own teaching but to engage the teachers in a discussion about creating an "Engaged Learning Space." This space was defined as a place where people want to be, where learning is important for the learner, and where there is some organization related to learning. The author shared this concept with the teachers and engaged them in discussions about engagement, critical pedagogy, and the role of teachers in the learning process.

The discussion highlighted the importance of the value students place on learning, which can depend on how they perceive its future value. The collective learning process, where everyone's perspectives were sought, was found to be highly motivating. The group also explored the various roles that teachers can take on in facilitating learning, using the term "pedagogue."

Overall, the author's focus was on understanding and discussing the concept of an "Engaged Learning Space" and its components as an emerging-object, rather than evaluating their own teaching. The goal was to encourage dialogue and reflection among the teachers involved.

 

In this section of the text, the author explores what contributes to the development of an Engaged Learning Space and what can disrupt it. The discussion unfolds in a series of activities during a session with teachers. The first activity involves the author leaving the room while colleague Adrienne Roberts leads a discussion about the characteristics of their learning community and what makes it special. The group emphasizes the importance of values such as love (aroha), respectfulness and hospitality (manaakitanga), and spirituality (wairuatanga) in this space. They also discuss the importance of collective well-being and concern for each other within a community of learners.

The second activity involves groups of teachers brainstorming and classifying words that describe the qualities of a pedagogue (teacher) within idealized learning spaces. The first group's array of words focuses on a teacher's responsibility for managing, valuing responses, and connecting with learners. The second group's array emphasizes collective values, shared responsibility, and the teacher's role in fostering well-being within the group.

The author reflects on the differences between the two groups and the implications of these differences for teaching and learning. They question whether a more collective approach, which values a sense of community and shared responsibility, might be more beneficial for students. The author also discusses the need for open and heated discussions within praxitioner collectives, emphasizing the importance of addressing and not quelling anger or tensions in the classroom.

Overall, the text explores the idea that the quality of a learning space is influenced by the values, responsibilities, and communication styles of both the teacher and the students. It suggests that fostering collective values and diverse perspectives can lead to a more inclusive and engaging learning environment.

 

In Section 6.4, the author aims to explore ways in which shared, reflective investigations into praxis (the practice and theory of teaching) can encourage teachers to question existing practices and acknowledge the socially constructed nature of knowledge. The following key points are discussed:

1. Focus on Pedagogy: The author found it valuable to concentrate on pedagogy, rather than solely on teaching and learning as individual activities, when evaluating the effectiveness of interactions. Insights about pedagogy emerged when students and teachers analyzed their own learning experiences, often through tools like Critical Incident Questionnaires. These insights were more effective in enhancing the pedagogical setting than routine evaluations.

2. Learning Continues Beyond the Classroom: The author emphasizes that learning doesn't conclude within the confines of a single session or workshop. Ideas discussed or written about in class can stimulate further thinking and influence future actions. Therefore, the author suggests that creating an Engaged Learning Space requires a sense of closure, providing time and space for reflection.

3. Towards Collective Pedagogy: The text advocates for the importance of pedagogy in the planning of courses and teaching sessions. It argues that discussions around pedagogical praxis should be central to ongoing professional development and that pedagogy needs to gain prominence within educational discourse. This shift is seen as crucial for empowering teachers and facilitating more effective professional development.

4. Power and Authority in Pedagogical Settings: As the nature and ownership of knowledge is contested, the dynamics of power and authority in pedagogical settings become increasingly complex. The author asserts the importance of teachers who theorize, emphasizing that within an Engaged Learning Space, both teachers and students are engaged in learning about the curriculum and each other's understandings. The flow of power within a community of learners is influenced by summative assessments, raising questions about the use of power in teacher education.

5. Challenges in Discussing Power and Authority: The author raises questions about where and how issues related to power and authority in pedagogical settings are discussed among teachers. The point is not to contribute more to the existing literature but to acknowledge the complexity and dynamics of these issues.

Overall, this section encourages a shift in focus towards pedagogy, emphasizes the importance of continued learning beyond the classroom, and raises questions about the dynamics of power and authority in teaching and learning environments.

 

In this section, the author addresses the limitations of reflective practice in education and suggests a broader perspective that includes democratic considerations and the development of engaged learning spaces. Key points discussed are as follows:

1. Narrow Focus of Reflective Practice: The author observes a common pattern in the literature of reflective practice narrowing its focus to technical aspects of teaching, often overlooking the wider democratic aspects envisioned by educational philosopher John Dewey. The author acknowledges that their own attention has also been primarily focused on technical issues related to teaching.

2. Rethinking the Classroom: The author questions the conventional view of classrooms, which often revolves around assessing students and evaluating teachers. They suggest a shift towards viewing classrooms as engaged learning spaces, emphasizing a more holistic approach to teaching and learning.

3. Importance of Closure: The text emphasizes that the way learning situations are concluded is crucial for ongoing learning. Without the opportunity for students to reflect on their learning experiences before leaving the classroom, valuable ideas may be lost.

4. Reflective Questions for Praxitioners: The author provides a set of reflective questions designed to encourage praxitioners (teacher-practitioners) to think beyond their personal teaching practices and consider broader issues related to social justice, power, and social construction. These questions aim to foster political awareness and challenge existing assumptions within educational settings.

5. Collective Praxitioner Research: The text introduces the concept of collective praxitioner research, which involves praxitioners in ongoing discussions about teaching praxis, leading to the development of collective understandings and knowledge construction. The author argues that this approach has the potential to generate ongoing praxitioner theorizing, praxitioner research, and collective understandings about emerging objects.

6. Fostering Collective Praxis: The text highlights the importance of fostering collective praxis, where collective knowledge construction and social justice interests are kept at the forefront. It is seen as a way to re-enfranchise dislocated communities by involving them in understanding, caring, and changing the structures that constrain them.

In summary, this section calls for a shift from narrow, technical reflective practice to a more holistic, democratic approach that focuses on engaged learning spaces and encourages collective praxitioner research for the betterment of education and society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After-words: Rhizomic forms of writing and thinking

In the "After-words" section, the author reflects on the nature of their thesis, which has taken a rhizomatic form, and discusses the following key points:

1. Rhizomatic Form: The thesis is described as having a rhizomatic structure, meaning it is intricately interconnected, allowing for multiple pathways through the content. Despite its complexity, the title, "Toward Collective Praxis in Teacher Education: Complexity, Pragmatism and Practice," serves as a stable anchor for the thesis.

2. Functions of Rhizomatic Writing: This form of writing allows for complexity and creativity that traditional theses may not permit. It also creates a redundancy where any section can be eliminated without affecting the overall understanding, as the ideas echo throughout the text.

3. Holistic Approach: Each argument proposed in the thesis is ever-present, contributing to a holistic text, and many sections invite further discussion, even though some conversations were omitted due to the requirements of a qualification thesis.

4. Teasing Boundaries and Conventions: The author acknowledges breaking boundaries and conventions when necessary but always openly. This approach is driven by relevance to their teaching and avoids unnecessary constraints.

5. Text as Shared Understanding: The text itself is seen as representing shared understanding, akin to how collective research might emerge in a shared document. By employing exhibits, glosses, and other devices, the text becomes more accessible and allows fresh voices to enter the conversation at any point.

6. Role of Exhibits and Glosses: Exhibits serve as reference documents that can be interpreted differently over time and challenge assumptions. Glosses, on the other hand, are the stories of individual participants that interact with the text, creating a dynamic relationship between the collective and the individual.

7. Living in the Thesis: The author states that they are not "lost in a good thesis" but rather "living in one," blurring the distinction between the thesis and reality.

In summary, this section emphasizes the rhizomatic nature of the thesis, its potential for fostering creativity and complexity, and its function as a living document that reflects shared understandings and encourages ongoing dialogue.

 

 

I did not ask Chat GBT to summarise the following - perhaps I should

Toward ludic ways of understanding

Chalmers distinguishes global anti-realism from stronger forms of anti-realism.  

Global anti-realism raises the question of how language of any kind, including scientific language, can engage with, or hook into, the world.  … We are forever trapped in language and cannot break out of it to describe reality “directly” in a way that is independent of our theories.   Global anti-realism denies that we have access to reality in any way, and not just within science. (Chalmers, 1999: 227-8)

A pragmatist is not globally anti-realist, as such, any more than any other scientifically educated person is anti-realist.   Chalmers goes on to remind the reader that we are all, in a sense, global anti-realists: he doubts that “any serious philosopher holds that we can come face to face with reality and directly read off facts about it” (ibid 228), but this is, he argues, a weak thesis from which little can be gained. He argues that, although we cannot describe the world unless we are working within a theoretical framework we can nevertheless test the adequacy of those descriptions by interacting with the world.  Claims are one thing  but their truth or falsity is another. 

 

Let me rerun those last two sentences again, but this time I shall report on a conversation I heard as I wrote them …  “He argues that, although we cannot describe the world unless we are working within a theoretical framework  ---

            “Is this a language game? Is a theoretical framework a language game?” asks Piglet who has been reading Wittgenstein.  

“I think so” says Pooh.

--- we can nevertheless test the adequacy of those descriptions by interacting with the world.  

" Claims are one thing ---

“A linguistic kind of thing!” says Piglet.  

“A proposition kind of thing!” says Pooh.

--- but their truth or falsity is another."

“An experiential kind of thing”, says Piglet. 

“An empirical kind of thing!” says Pooh.

Pooh and Piglet wonder whether they are right, and whether they should consult with Christopher Robin.

In the end they decide that they are the ones who have to live in the forest - and if it works for them then it is goodenough  (pragmatic internal coherence) - but they will talk it over with Christopher Robin - some day - because he understands about forests too, and he has been to school - he might see it differently - it would be worth a conversation anyway (pragmatic external correspondence).

Instead, I asked it to interpret the above - I rather like the result: . 

In the passage titled "Toward ludic ways of understanding," the author discusses the concept of global anti-realism, which questions how language, including scientific language, can represent or relate to the world. Global anti-realism asserts that we are always confined to using language and cannot directly describe reality independently of our theories. It denies that we can access reality in any way, not just within the realm of science.

The author contrasts this with the position of pragmatists, who are not globally anti-realist. Pragmatists, including scientifically educated individuals, do not entirely reject the notion of accessing reality through language and theories. Instead, they acknowledge that we can only describe the world within a theoretical framework. However, they also maintain that the adequacy of these descriptions can be tested by interacting with the world. Claims (descriptions) can be made, but their truth or falsity is a separate matter and can be evaluated through empirical experience.  Tested (Bron) or investigated (Elaine)?

The playful dialogue between Pooh and Piglet, inspired by the philosophy of Wittgenstein, highlights the idea that while theoretical frameworks and language are essential for describing the world, they are like "language games" or "linguistic kind of things." The truth or falsity of these claims is determined through empirical experiences, which are "experiential" or "empirical kind of things."

Ultimately, Pooh and Piglet, representing a pragmatic perspective, emphasize that if their way of understanding and living in the forest works for them, it is "good enough" based on pragmatic internal coherence. However, they also consider consulting with Christopher Robin, who has a broader perspective and could provide an external correspondence, demonstrating a pragmatic external perspective. This passage illustrates the interplay between language, theory, and experience in understanding and interacting with the world.