That's what friends are for

That’s what friends are for Critical friends in a professional learning community

Reeks Praktijk in Onderzoek Nr. 3 Een initiatief van de lectoraten van Fontys Opleidingscentrum Speciale Onderwijszorg

Eerder verschenen: Nr. 1 - Jacqueline van Swet e.a.: Bouwen aan een opleiding als platform. Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling. Nr. 2 - Andy van den Berg e.a.: Tien keer beter! Leraren verbeteren hun onderwijspraktijk door onderzoek.

Al het mogelijke werd gedaan om de informatie in dit boek zo juist en actueel te maken als kan. Auteurs of uitgever kunnen niet verantwoordelijk gesteld worden voor mogelijke nadelen die lezers door eventuele onvolkomenheden in het boek zouden kunnen ondervinden.

Jacqueline van Swet, Barbara Roosken, Adriaan Ansems, Jan Siebelink, Luuk den Hartog

That’s what friends are for Critical friends in a professional learning community

Jacqueline van Swet, Barbara Roosken, Adriaan Ansems, Jan Siebelink, Luuk den Hartog That’s what friends are for Critical friends in a professional learning community Antwerpen - Apeldoorn Garant 2009 168 blz. - 23 cm D/2009/5779/16 ISBN 978-90-441-2439-2 NUR 840 Omslagontwerp: Grafische Producties/Fontys Hogescholen Foto voorpagina: Luuk den Hartog Foto achterflap: Derek van der Geld Eindredactie & Productiebegeleiding: Jan van Balkom Zetwerk & Opmaak: Grafische Producties/Fontys Hogescholen, Eindhoven © Fontys OSO & Garant-Uitgevers n.v. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Behoudens de uitdrukkelijk bij wet bepaalde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt, op welke wijze ook, zonder de uitdrukkelijke, voorafgaande en schriftelijke toestemming van de auteurs en van de uitgever. Garant Somersstraat 13-15, B-2018 Antwerpen Koninginnelaan 96, NL-7315 EB Apeldoorn www.garant-uitgevers.be [email protected] www.garant-uitgevers.nl [email protected]

Inhoud Voorwoord ......................................................................................................................7 Frans van Wijmen Column: Beter een goede buur dan een critical friend?..........................................9 Luuk den Hartog Introduction.................................................................................................................. 13 Jacqueline van Swet Everybody’s got to learn sometime........................................................................... 29 Barbara Roosken Content matter among critical friends matters..................................................... 65 Adriaan Ansems Being critical on friendly terms................................................................................. 95 Jan Siebelink A long and winding road.......................................................................................... 121 Luuk den Hartog Facilitating a collaborative enquiry group............................................................ 139 Jacqueline van Swet Frequently asked questions, provoking answers and an invitation to a dance ............................................................................................ 163 About the authors...................................................................................................... 167

Leeswijzer

Er is voor gekozen om dit boek in het Engels te schrijven. Dit omdat het past in een internationale context van een Erasmus Mundus-project. Elk hoofdstuk wordt voorafgegaan door een samenvatting in het Nederlands. Waar in de tekst gesproken wordt van ‘hij’ of ‘he’, wordt waar van toepassing ook ‘zij’ of ‘she’ bedoeld.

Reading guide

We have chosen to write this book in English. This was a natural choice because of the international context of the Erasmus Mundus project. Each chapter is preceded by an abstract in Dutch. Wherever the text has ‘hij’ or ‘he’ this is meant to include ‘zij’ or ‘she’.

Long live critical friends

Voorwoord

Pupils with Special Educational Needs deserve as much closeness and enthusiasm as the concept of ‘critical friends’. After all it is for them that we arrange learning communities in which the participants create a structure for shared learning and thus work on their professional development. I am proud that I may write a preface to this beautiful book. The Fontys Graduate School stands for introducing and stimulating research in Fontys University of Applied Sciences. The ultimate aim is that both students and teachers know and do the distinguished work of research in order to improve the quality of education and later on of their professional practice. In this way we see research as a way to improve education. This book is a classic example of the aspirations of Fontys Graduate School. It is the fruit of a research project. The researchers together explore, analyse and develop the concept of critical friendship. Students are for each other what we call in Dutch ‘maatjes’, buddies. Special is that they are ‘critical buddies’: they teach each other, they learn from each other, they help each other in research, learning and writing. It is even more remarkable that the concept of this master’s programme is used as a platform. This entails an infrastructure that is flexible, task-oriented, where design and delivery of the programmes are integrated, where knowledge is continuously refreshed. The platform is a meeting place where everybody involved learns with each other and from each other in a critical debate and where they collaboratively construct knowledge. Moreover, the platform is an infrastructure that offers a consistent entirety of educational aims, contents, methods and provisions. The context of this study is the international academic Erasmus Mundus Special Educational Needs course that Fontys OSO offers in collaboration with Roehampton University London and Charles University Prague. This graduate program is a splendid example of international cooperation. In many respects this book deserves to be cherished, to be practised and to be used as an encouragement for further development. It is critical in that it stimulates discussion, and friendly in that does so in a very kind way. Professor Frans C.B. van Wijmen, PhD JD Dean of Fontys Graduate School

7

8

Column

Beter een goede buur dan een critical friend? Luuk den Hartog De vraag: ‘wie was ik toen ik nog geen critical friend was?’, suggereert dat je niet als critical friend geboren wordt. Met andere woorden: mijn genotypische make-up predisponeert mij niet tot deze fenotypische expressie. Kijk Luuk, op deze manier maak je bepaald geen vrienden en test je, al na twee zinnen, de grenzen van een ieders inclusiequotient. Meteen een aardige illustratie trouwens van ‘geen betere friend dan een self-critical friend’. Maar wat voor vriend wil ik of kan ik eigenlijk worden? Die met een kleine v die zingt: ‘pas als je iemand hebt die met je lacht en met je grient, dan pas mag je zeggen: ik heb ’n vriend’. Of die met een grote V die lyrisch en indringend zegt: ‘baken en verhanger van borden, broeder maar van een andere moeder, zonder rivaliteit met wie ik samenloop en die mij begeleidt’. Komende uit een werkkring, de psycho-somatische gezondheidszorg, waarin CF staat voor een ernstige, levensduurbeperkende ziekte, lijkt mij nu duidelijk gemaakt te worden dat CF een levensverrijkende houding is, die mij, nog zoekende op een drukbevolkt platform vol reflecterende mensen in een neverending ontwikkeling, tot een beter en aangenamer mens zal maken. Ik ben kortom verhuisd van het ene jargonhuis naar het andere, waarin de woorden soms alleen nog een lokale betekenis hebben en waarin de bijsluiter of het woordenboek om de zoveel tijd vernieuwd wordt. Sommigen zeggen: ‘dat woord critical friend moet je gewoon niet vertalen’. Omdat het in het Engels iets anders betekent dan in het Nederlands? Staat er niet wat er staat? In mijn eigen Dapperstraat spreek ik het liefst mijn moeders taal. Of moet ik domweg toegeven aan mijn droom ooit polyglot te worden. Zou handig zijn, want het is bijna Pinksteren. Hoe tref ik mijzelf aan tijdens de StiP-bijeenkomsten?1 Ik stel veel vragen, misschien af en toe te veel. Dat moeten mijn vrienden maar uitmaken. Soms kan ik bijna niet wachten om een vraag te stellen. Moet ik mijn nieuwsgierigheid beter doseren? Hoe zou ik het vinden als anderen zoveel vragen aan mij zouden stellen? Stel ik me echt open voor wat mij gezegd wordt, of ben ik daar te eigenzinnig en te autonoom voor? Ik weet wel zeker dat het mijn intentie is mijn ‘vrienden’ 1

StiP: STImuleringsregeling Professionele ontwikkeling. Sinds 2000 kent Fontys Hogescholen het STiP-fonds. Daaruit kan op aanvraag van instituten een financiële bijdrage worden verleend voor het verrichten van een(promotie)onderzoek. Het STiP fonds beoogt nadrukkelijk de professionele ontwikkeling van Fontys medewerkers te stimuleren door financieel bij te dragen aan professionaliseringstrajecten die verder gaan dan trajecten die verondersteld worden gefinancierd te worden uit het normale scholingsbudget van het instituut.

9

That’s what friends are for

behulpzaam te zijn bij het op een zo hoog mogelijk niveau brengen van hun werk of hen een nieuw perspectief aan te reiken als dat al nodig is of als zij daar om vragen. Zouden zij het daar mee eens zijn? Ondertussen heb ik gemerkt dat de vragen meer effect en betekenis krijgen in de mate waarin het onderzoeksproces verder bij een ieder is gevorderd. Als je als onderzoeker meer greep op de door jou onderzochte materie begint te krijgen, worden de vragen beter en geldt: een goede vraag is het halve antwoord. ‘s Avonds belt mijn oudste dochter. Ze is arts van beroep en geheel in lijn met haar dagelijkse praktijk vraagt ze mij hoe het er mee is. Ik vertel haar wie ik als critical friend meen te zijn. Ik had haar al gedurende mijn antwoord wat horen zuchten. Uiteindelijk zegt ze, een enigszins strenge, adviserende toon aanslaand: ‘Weet je wat jij moet doen, pap? Je moet gewoon jezelf zijn. Dat heb je ons altijd geleerd en nou vertel ik het jou. Doe maar wat je alle jaren al gedaan hebt. Probeer nou niet iemand anders te worden dan die je bent; zoek het niet buiten jezelf. Wat ze bij jou op het werk een critical friend noemen, noemden wij vroeger thuis aan de eettafel ‘op een fatsoenlijke manier opbouwende kritiek leveren’. Dus jij denkt, stamel ik, dat ik al ben wie ik zoek te zijn? Dat ik na een hobbelige weg, soms staande voor een muur, toch mag zeggen: ‘Ich bin ein kritischer Freund’. Enigszins filosofisch, geleid door dit oeroude thema, vervolgen we lichtvoetig ons gesprek. De moraal in dit geval: geen betere vrind dan een kritisch kind. Deze column werd op 25 april 2008 gepresenteerd op de Fontys OSO onderzoeksdag.

10

Jacqueline van Swet Abstract in Dutch Dit boek gaat over critical friends, een voor velen intrigerend begrip. Het is echter Introductie tegelijkertijd een begrip dat zelden duidelijk is gedefinieerd en dat afhankelijk van de context een verschillende betekenis heeft. In dit boek wordt een aantal studies beschreven waarin een groep opleiders onderling en met studenten onderzoekmatig heeft gewerkt rondom het thema ‘critical friends’. Er wordt onderzocht wat het begrip ‘critical friends’ kan betekenen voor de studenten en voor de staf binnen een master programma. Tevens wordt onderzocht hoe in de praktijk gewerkt kan worden met critical friends. De onderzoeken zijn gedaan door vijf collega’s die allen werken bij Fontys Hogescholen. Onderzoek naar en door critical friends sluit nauw aan bij de strategische visie van Fontys ‘Idealisme in learning communities, een kwaliteitsstrategie’ (Fontys 2008). De onderzoeken zijn verricht in de context van de internationale academische Erasmus Mundus masteropleiding SEN (Special Educational Needs) die Fontys OSO (Opleidingscentrum Speciale Onderwijszorg) uitvoert in samenwerking met Roehampton University Londen en Univerzita Karlova Praag. Fontys OSO wil haar opleiding vorm geven als een ‘platform’, hetgeen betekent dat kennis interactief wordt ontwikkeld, dat de stem van alle betrokkenen wordt gehoord en dat alle deelnemers aan dat platform gezamenlijk verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor het leerproces (van Swet, 2008). Op een dergelijk platform doen ook de opleiders onderzoek. Hiermee dragen zij bij aan de kennisontwikkeling, fungeren zij als rolmodel voor de studenten en vergroten tegelijkertijd hun eigen vaardigheid in het doen van onderzoek . Fontys OSO heeft gekozen voor praktijkgestuurd onderzoek en voor een participerende wijze van onderzoek doen. Werken met critical friends is daarbij min of meer vanzelfsprekend, hoewel doel en werkwijze ervan nog een nadere omschrijving behoeft. Binnen de Erasmus Mundus opleiding is al eerder onderzoek gedaan naar critical friends, hetgeen geleid heeft tot de volgende omschrijving voor critical friends (van Swet, 2008): Een critical friend is een medestudent binnen een tutorgroep die een student behulpzaam is bij het doen van onderzoek en het schrijven van een onderzoeksverslag. Hij of zij doet dit door kritische vragen te stellen, zijn of haar eigen perspectief in te brengen in de discussie, informatie te geven of adviezen. De critical friend neemt geen verantwoordelijkheid voor de inhoud van het onderzoek of van het verslag of voor het proces hiervan. Dit betekent dat een critical friend concepten van hoofdstukken leest en deze van commentaar voorziet, dat hij of zij meedenkt over de onderzoeksvraag en de opzet van het

11


onderzoek, dat hij of zij mede een deel van de gegevens analyseert, etc etc. (p. 149)

In dit boek worden achtereenvolgens de verschillende deelonderzoeken door de vijf onderzoekers beschreven. Het gezamenlijke onderzoek past binnen de basisfilosofie voor onderzoek zoals die geformuleerd is in de platformgedachte die Fontys OSO aanhangt: 1. de onderzoekers zijn alle vijf eigenaar van hun eigen onderzoek en hebben dus zelf hun onderzoeksonderwerp en onderzoeksopzet gekozen, passend binnen hun werk voor Erasmus Mundus 2. de onderzoekers werkten samen, hadden een gezamenlijke focus voor hun onderzoek en presenteerden zich als samenwerkende groep naar de betrokken studenten 3. het onderzoeksproces is gebaseerd op principes van participatief actieonderzoek 4. de onderzoekers werkten samen als critical friends en zij ontwikkelden gaandeweg het proces een werkwijze als critical friends. Barbara Roosken deed onderzoek naar de leerstijlen van de studenten en vergeleek deze met de leerstijlen van Nederlandse studenten. Adriaan Ansems onderzocht of een on-line forum een bijdrage kan bieden aan de ontwikkeling van studenten tot ‘reflective practitioners’. Jan Siebelink onderzocht hoe het werken met critical friend groepen in lessen ‘academic writing’ het leerproces kan verbeteren. Luuk den Hartog onderzocht hoe wekelijkse reflectie rapporten en werken als critical friends ertoe kan bijdragen dat studenten ‘reflective practitioners’ worden. Zelf onderzocht ik hoe wijzelf als critical friends samenwerkten en hoe ik, als facilitator, dit proces kon bevorderen. In het laatste hoofdstuk worden conclusies getrokken, worden verdere vragen gesteld en worden de implicaties voor het werken met critical friends in een master opleiding besproken.

12

Introduction Jacqueline van Swet This book is a report about a study we did as a group of critical friends on the subject of critical friends. ‘Critical friend’ is an intriguing concept: at least it is for us and for the students involved in this study. In this book we limit ourselves to ‘critical friends’ as they appear in a master course where students meet each other, where students and tutors come together, and where tutors work together. The word ‘critical friend’ appears in many books and articles about research and about collaborative learning. However, it has rarely been defined clearly. The Longman Dictionary does not give a definition for the concept ‘critical friend’, but gives definitions for the separate words ‘critical’ and ‘friend’. (Longman, 2007) ‘Critical’ then means: criticize someone or something; important; serious or worrying; or ill. The verb ‘to criticize’ means: to express your disapproval and to express judgments about the good and bad qualities of something. (p. 372) Roget’s Thesaurus (Davidson, 2004) gives a number of synonyms for the word ‘critical’, such as: crucial, important, discriminating, serious, dangerous, difficult, fastidious, disapproving, disconnected. For the word ‘friend’ Longman (Longman, 2007) gives the following meanings: a person you like, a supporter, not an enemy, but instead someone who has the same beliefs, wants to achieve the same things as you, and who will support you (p. 645). A ‘critical friend’ is thus a rather broad concept and it seems worthwhile to explore it more fully in this book.

disapproving

criticizing worrying

Critical friend

important serious discriminating

someone who has the same beliefs

a person you like supporter

wants to achieve the same things as you

Figure 1: meanings of ‘critical’ and ‘friend’

13


Fontys OSO, Teacher Training College of Special Educational Needs, believes in the idea that knowledge should be constructed interactively and that learning is best done in participation, which is even more than just in interaction with each other (van Swet, 2008). Naturally, almost all students make use of critical friends during their study process, but this is not the same as incorporating and shaping a concept in such a way that it becomes part of the programme from an educational, didactic and pedagogic perspective. The aim of this study is to find out what the concept of ‘critical friend’ could mean to a master’s programme, both for the students and for the staff, and to indicate how that concept could work in practice and acquire a more formal position in a master’s programme. Intent The study was carried out by five colleagues from Fontys University of Applied Sciences. Fontys University is set to become an increasingly expanding ‘learning community’. In its mission statement Fontys refers to fundamental ideas that address the concept of ‘critical friend’ such as participation, sustainability, the importance of the broader context, citizenship (Fontys, 2008). This study encompasses this philosophy in many aspects. The researchers worked collaboratively as critical friends, each of them doing their own research, and at the same time working collaboratively with each other. The context of the study is the international academic Erasmus Mundus SEN course Fontys OSO offers in collaboration with Roehampton University London and Charles University Prague. The researchers are all involved as tutors in this course, all of them with a specific task. Sharing information and reflective thinking are important learning methods in this master’s course which aims to teach students how to become real academics with a reflective attitude. As researchers we recognise that this report on an action research project involves a double-layered process. We worked together as researchers, trainers and were each others’ critical friends, with Jacqueline van Swet as the initiator and later the facilitator of this process. This process is the scope of the research done by Jacqueline van Swet. At the same time four of us did action research on an aspect of our own work within the Erasmus Mundus course. Within our role as a tutor, we all encouraged critical friendship for students working on their essays and doing their research.

14

The platform concept and critical friends The idea that researchers should cooperate and involve others in their research is not new and has been stressed by many authors. Nowadays concepts such as professional learning communities (Dufour, 2004), learning organizations (Senge, 1990), communities of practice (Wenger, 1998, 2000), and professional communities (Altrichter, 2005) are used for this. Today’s popular concept of ‘professional learning communities’ has been defined in several ways in literature, with one common characteristic being that learning should always come first and that there should be deep, broad and sustainable

Introduction

learning (Hargreaves, 2007). Stoll & Louis (2007) give a clear definition of a ‘professional learning community’: an inclusive group of people, motivated by a shared learning vision, who support and work with each other, finding ways, inside and outside their immediate community, to enquire on their practice, and together learn new and better approaches that will enhance all pupils ‘learning’. (p. 5-6).

And at the same time these professional learning communities should contribute to a long-term and sustained cultural change in an organisation (Stoll, 2007). Our research group incorporates these characteristics in many aspects. However there is perhaps one specific addition, in that learning in this group is established primarily by doing research. In this sense the description of a ‘co-operative inquiry’ (Heron & Reason, 2006) or a ‘collaborative enquiry group’ (Jackson & Temperley, 2007) might be more appropriate. Jackson and Temperley (2007) feel that action research-based professional development in particular creates a good structure for shared learning, as it is fundamentally based on reciprocity. And that is exactly what we do - we do action research, one of our main goals is our own professional development, we want to work collaboratively and we try to create a structure for shared learning, during the research, but also in more extensive sense after this research has been done. Of course we hope at the same time that our research contributes to the body of knowledge, especially for Fontys and our departments within Fontys. Jackson & Temperley (2007) further describe so-called ‘knots’ and ‘threads’ as important ingredients to build sustainable networks. The collaborative enquiry group this study is about, can be seen as a knot where people actually work and learn together. Though threads and knots develop iteratively, ‘knots’ usually come before ‘threads’. Threads between networks and between knots can only develop by working in knots and should not be ends in themselves. At Fontys OSO we use the concept of a master’s programme as a platform, a term first used by Smith (2000). In his view the future of teacher education requires an infrastructure that is flexible, task-oriented, where design and delivery of the programmes are integrated, where knowledge is continuously refreshed. On such a platform schools, universities, teachers’ professional associations, teachers’ unions and parents’ groups would all have a role to play (Smith, 2000). The basic characteristics of this platform are twofold. First of all the platform is a meeting place where everybody involved learns with each other and from each other in a critical debate and where they collaboratively construct knowledge. Secondly, the platform is an infrastructure that offers a consistent entirety of educational aims, contents, methods and provisions (van Swet, Ponte, & Smit, 2007). It is, therefore, important to offer a consistent approach on the platform and to follow the rules of ‘walk your talk’. On a platform it is important that also teachers and teacher-trainers do research

15


themselves for several reasons. One reason is to add to the body of knowledge in teacher education and on master’s programmes. Another reason is that it gives an opportunity for teacher-trainers to ‘walk the talk’ and to be role models for their students. Moreover it gives tutors an opportunity to become more professional in doing research. The research orientation on this platform, the way of coaching students and the way participants on the platform collaborate, should basically complement each other and be consistent on the platform. Fontys OSO, as a University of Applied Sciences, has chosen for practice-led research and for a participatory way of doing research. Participation can be seen as an emerging new paradigm nowadays (Reason & Bradbury, 2006) and to Fontys OSO it means that research is done as much as possible in participation with all stakeholders. This philosophy of participation corresponds perfectly with the vision of Fontys University of Applied Sciences, which refers to itself as a ‘learning community’ (Fontys, 2008). In their Annual report 2007 subtitled ‘Kwaliteit in de learning community’ (‘Quality in the learning community’) they mention that in order to learn, people have to be willing to ask themselves critical questions about their own performance (Fontys, 2008). In practice-based research and especially in action research - one of the research approaches in this study - the division line between ‘researcher’ and ‘the researched’ is faded. Participators become co-researchers instead of informants and they are considered to be experts in their own situation. Many authors stress that especially action research should always be done in dialogue with colleagues (Altrichter, 2005; Kemmis, 2007; Ponte, 2002; Ponte & Smit, 2007; van Swet, 2008). Somekh (2006), for instance, formulating one of eight methodological principles of action research explains Action research is conducted by a collaborative partnership of participants and researchers, whose roles and relationships are sufficiently fluid to maximise mutual support and sufficiently differentiated to allow individuals to make appropriate contributions given existing constraints. (p. 7)

In addition Reason & Bradbury (2006) define action research as: ...a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which we believe is emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities. (p.1) 16

Introduction

Fontys OSO tries to implement the concept of critical friend in the infrastructure they have developed. For example, students are coached in how to conduct their research and how to write their dissertations in tutor groups where they are supposed to learn to be each others’ critical friends (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Knowles, 1980; van Swet & Ponte, 2007; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). The importance of critical friends in doing research Critical friends are not an aim in itself. In the master’s course under investigation here, the students are engaged in collaborative and cooperative exchanges of knowledge with reflective practice being one of the core issues. For example one of the rationales of the core module Research Methods and Enquiry is that the course develops the concept of the reflective enquirer. The core module IPPE formulates that the course presents the demands of postgraduate study as reflective practice. Donald Schön (1983) brought the concept of ‘the reflective practitioner’ to the foreground and gave a clear description of a reflective practitioner: the practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation. (p. 68)

Critical friends can be helpful in becoming a reflective practitioner in several ways and we will mention four of these. First of all critical friends can help practitioners to experience the above mentioned surprise, puzzlement or confusion and they can help to discover the implicit understandings in their behaviour. Secondly, critical friends can be helpful in the more technical part of doing qualitatively good research. According to Whitehead & McNiff (2006) critical friends can be important to improve the social validity of the research. This social validation can be done in meetings with critical friends and in validation groups. They define critical friends as follows: The responsibility of a critical friend is to be both a friend and a critic. As a friend, you are supportive and available to listen to the practitioner’s account of their research. As a critic, your work is to offer thoughtful responses to the account, raising points that perhaps the practitioner has not thought about. However, while your work is to offer responses, your work is not to be their counsellor, which means that you and the practitioner maintain a good professional working relationship for the duration of the research project. (p. 103)

17


Lately Marion Dadds (2008) added a new aspect of validity that demands collaboration by researchers, namely ‘empathetic validity’. She states that working in the context of a critical collaborative research group offers a context that leads to decentring from one’s own perspectives to a transformation of perspectives, understanding and feelings, which leads to improved action by the researcher. Moreover we think that working together as researchers adds to the validity of the research, which is especially important in practice-based research. As Groundwater-Smith and Sachs (2007) state in the ‘epilogue’ of the book: The quality of practitioner research: .. should be collaborative in its nature: Practice based research should aim to provide opportunities for colleagues to share, discuss and debate aspects of their practice in the name of improvement and development. The responsible ‘making sense’ of data collected from within the field of one’s own practice (through triangulation of evidence and other means) relies heavily on these opportunities (p. 117)

In the third place, critical friends are important because the studies we report on in this book aspire to be more than individual enquiries. We aim to do research at a group level and we even hope that our results will contribute to a wider network, that of Fontys OSO and Fontys University. In this sense we aim to do so-called ‘for me’, ‘for us’ and ‘for them’ research, as formulated by Reason (1999). He distinguished three research approaches which aim for knowledge development at an individual level, a group level or the level of the wider network. The first research approach (‘for me’) corresponds with the individual level. It relates to the knowledge development of an inquiring individual actor, in this case the individual researchers who all did their own action research. The second research approach corresponds with the group level. In this approach the query is addressed as a group, which is established for the purpose of collaborative learning and inquiry. In this case this refers to the shared focus of the research, that of promoting critical friendship amongst master’s students and working simultaneously as both critical friends and researchers. From our perspective, this ‘for us’ research could not be done without critical friends. The third approach aims at the wider network, in this case Fontys University or the students group and the institutes they work for (Reason, 1999; Reason & McArdle, 2007). The fourth aspect of the critical friend approach is that working collaboratively in a group of researchers offers a situation to test and develop arguments and to prepare oneself for a greater public. Group members can, in a rather safe environment, become aware of the mistakes, alternatives and strengths of their research and can gradually learn the skill of presenting, thus gradually forming a new identity (Altrichter, 2005). 18

Introduction

The context of the study: The MA Erasmus Mundus Since September 2005 Fontys OSO has been engaged, in a one-year Erasmus Mundus academic master’s course SEN, in cooperation with Roehampton University in London and Charles University in Prague. All students have either an adequate honours degree from an approved university or college in a related field of education, or a comparable professional award plus relevant experiential learning. The student group this book reports of is the third cohort, year 2007-2008, which consists of 24 students, ten women and fourteen men, coming from 15 countries: Albania, Bangladesh, Bhutan (2 students), China, Ethiopia, Ghana, India (7 students), Malaysia (2 students), Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Uganda (2 students). Their ages range from 26 to 57 years old. They all work as professionals in the field in their home countries, at universities and teacher training centres, as teachers or heads of school, as educational inspectors, as policy makers etc. To be awarded the master’s degree, students have to gain 90 credits under the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), of which 30 credits are for conducting small-scale research and writing a dissertation. Especially in a students’ group like this Erasmus Mundus group where students come from different countries and different cultures and where they differ widely in their values (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2007), in their learning histories and in their learning styles, we anticipated that a learning process in working collaboratively, in being critical and in becoming critical friends might be needed. Each year we invest much effort in the group process, in learning together and in being critical as academics are expected to be. From the start of the programme, we did action research on and within the students’ group (van Swet, 2008). The topic of the current research was that of becoming reflective practitioners and in particular what the influence of critical friends has on that process. In 2007-2008, the academic year of the present study, we did action research with a group of tutors on the topic of ‘critical friends’. The students participated in this research and were the respondents. They were informed at an introductory session where all researchers briefly presented their individual research topic and research design. Afterwards they were invited to participate in the research and most of them did - in one, two, or even three, of the studies. In this way students were free to participate or not without retribution or coercion. The Erasmus Mundus MA SEN programme The Erasmus Mundus students come to Europe to get a European master’s degree, which means that they must meet the requirements of a Western European master’s degree. One of the objectives of this master’s course is to enable collaborative and cooperative exchanges of knowledge. The handbooks for the master’s course give some further information about what is understood by this. ‘Study at master’s level demands a sophisticated approach. Its focus is on analysis and critique rather than on direct description.’ In assessing the students’ work,

19


high marks are given to work that displays evidence of critical evaluation, that uses practice to examine existing theory and through theory reflects upon practice in a general and specific sense. Arguments need to be justified and implications for future practice to be identified. (Rose, van Swet, & Siska, 2006). This study relates especially to the dissertation-module for which students are awarded 30 ECTS. The leaflet on the course gives the following information: The Dissertation is designed to enable students to undertake an extended piece of work in SEN within an area of their own interest relevant to their professional practice and in so doing, demonstrate the application of forms of educational inquiry and specific strategies for collecting, analysing, interpreting and validating data within a range of educational contexts within Europe and Internationally. The module is designed so that students may become autonomous and independent critical researchers in areas of advanced interest and concern in SEN education and practice. The module aims to provide a research focus for students to test arguments, assumptions, hypotheses and models of professional practice, including those relating to their own experience and provide for subsequent development of SEN practice within Europe and Internationally. Students will work on a substantial piece of research in SEN that is professionally relevant to them. They will be supported in this process by tutors. The Erasmus Mundus course starts annually in London where the whole student group spends the first two weeks of September. Then the group of students comes to Fontys OSO, Tilburg, from mid September until end of February. Apart from module sessions, school visits etcetera, the concept of becoming critical friends is discussed and practiced during group sessions. It is supported by using a webbased environment (Surfgroup) as a virtual office and meeting place for discussion, inter-sessional tasks are given to be done collaboratively in small learning groups, students discuss each other’s written work in academic writing courses, discussions in round tables are organised etc. Then the group went to Prague, in year 2008 for almost three weeks. In that year an Erasmus Mundus international conference was held in Prague, where each of the students presented his or her research during a poster presentation. After these preliminary courses, where the students stayed together as a group in each of the three countries in succession, a third of the students returned to the Netherlands to do their research and to write their dissertation. The other students did this either in Prague or in London. 20

Introduction

Research on Critical friends in Erasmus Mundus In earlier research on ‘reflective work’ and ‘critical friends’ in the Erasmus Mundus master’s course (van Swet, 2008) it was concluded that using each other as critical friends can help students in the process of writing their dissertations and can be a valuable approach which can improve the quality of the research and the final dissertation. The context there of tutor groups where students were coached in their research and in writing their master’s thesis, is of course different from the context here, where colleagues do action research on a shared topic and where they are each other’s critical friends and one is the facilitator. For that context a definition of a critical friend was formulated: A critical friend is a student in a tutor group who helps a fellow student to do his or her research and write a research report. He or she does this by asking critical questions, contributing his or her own perspective to the discussion, providing information or offering advice. The critical friend takes no responsibility for the content of the research, for the report or for the research process. A critical friend reads drafts of chapters and comments on them, helps the student researcher to think about the research question and the research design, helps with data analysis, and so on. (p. 149)

One of the findings was that the role of the tutor when acting as a critical friend, is rather complex. It was emphasized that a tutor is not normally a critical friend to the student. His or her role is to foster the process by which students act as critical friends for each other. But at the same time the interaction between the tutor and student may, display characteristics of the interaction between critical friends (van Swet, 2008). Based on these results, recommendations have been formulated and implemented for the Erasmus Mundus programme (van Swet, 2008): ◉◉ Pay explicit attention to all the participants’ expectations in relation to working with others as critical friends. ◉◉ Discuss the concept of critical friends, bearing in mind the participants’ life experiences, and focusing on issues such as trust and critical debate. ◉◉ Discuss the philosophy behind the idea of the critical friend, the reasons why critical friends are important and why this tutor group is working with this concept. ◉◉ Discuss the fact that students may also look for critical friends outside the tutor group and talk about how to deal with this. ◉◉ Define everyone’s tasks and roles as clearly and specifically as possible, placing particular emphasis on the role of the tutor: guardian of the process, provider of support on content, assessor, and critical friend. ◉◉ Discuss themes like language and culture and, if necessary, come to agreements on these issues: make yourself clear if there is something you do not understand, ask for extra time to formulate your sentences.

21


The design of the present research The research plan was based on fundamental views towards research as required on the desired Fontys OSO ‘platform’. For this project that meant: 1. the researchers had ownership of their own research. 2. the researchers worked together, had a collaborative focus of the research and presented themselves as a collaborative group to the students involved. 3. the research process was based on participatory action-research principles. 4. the researchers worked together as critical friends and they developed a way of working as critical friends during the process. The researchers involved in this study were those who responded positively to the invitation to participate in this research. The research is partly funded by Fontys and partly by Fontys OSO / FLOT. The group consists of five colleagues: three men and two women. Jacqueline van Swet was the facilitator of the group, the chair of the meetings, 55 years old, has worked for Fontys OSO for about 14 years, and as a teacher trainer for more than 25 years. She has done research before, finished her PhD in 1987, is a member of a research group at Fontys OSO and has been doing practice-led research since 2003. Jan is 58 years old. He met the Erasmus Mundus students every week and taught them academic writing. He has worked for Fontys OSO since 2002 and before worked as an English teacher-trainer in another Fontys department (FLOT). Barbara is 47 years old, she has been at Fontys FLOT since 1999. Barbara is a member of a research group in her department. Luuk, 59 years old, is a psychologist and has worked for Fontys OSO since 2004. He has been a member of one of the research groups since 2007. Adriaan, 49 years old, has worked for Fontys OSO since 2004. He started working as an educational technologist, will finish his own master’s in 2008, and since 2007 has been coaching students in writing their dissertations themselves. The study he did here was closely related to the dissertation for his own master’s SEN. What the reader can expect from this book The five researchers have their specific role in the course and thus have their own focus for their research. They studied an aspect of working with critical friends within their regular work in the Erasmus Mundus group. Working with such a diverse group is very special, for both the students and for the staff involved. Doing action research is even more challenging. Simply by doing research alone working strategies changed. They became more formal and more explicit. Hopefully this process has been fruitful, not only for everybody involved in the research, but also hopefully for the readers of this book.

22

Introduction

The topics that will be addressed are: Barbara Roosken is a lecturer in English and is involved in the course because of English language support for the students. She also provides sessions on cultural awareness in which one of the topics addresses the learning styles of the students related to their cultural backgrounds. Barbara Roosken did a study into the learning preferences of the students. She used a questionnaire designed by Manon Ruijters (2006) and tried to find out whether this questionnaire would be a valuable tool in defining a student’s professional learning. Adriaan Ansems is involved in this course as the person who organizes the online learning community and who trains students to make use of this online environment. He is interested in discovering whether an online forum contributes to the process of becoming a reflective practitioner in a tutor group of Erasmus Mundus Masters students acting as each other’s critical friend. For this research he invited students to take part in an online forum group. Jan Siebelink is also a lecturer in English and provides weekly sessions on academic writing. He tries to instigate collaborative group work in these sessions and he tries to encourage the students to collaborate as critical friends. His study concerns the processes that take place during his sessions with constantly changing groups of critical friends discussing passages of their own writing. He aims to find out how a methodology involving critical friends can enhance the learning process and the writing process in particular. Luuk den Hartog is one of the dissertation tutors. He aims to find out how students experience the writing of a dissertation. In particular he would like to know whether a weekly reflective report and critical friends contribute to becoming a reflective practitioner. Jacqueline van Swet is the programme convener for Fontys OSO of the Erasmus Mundus course. Since the start of the Erasmus Mundus programme she has done practice led research with staff and students collaboratively. In May 2007 she invited her colleagues to start action research within the Erasmus Mundus group on the shared topic of critical friends. Her study focused on the group of researchers who are collaboratively in a process of professionalization. How does this group work together, do they make use of each other as critical friends, and especially, how can a facilitator contribute to this process? The last chapter playfully reflects on the process and on the value of the critical friends’ concept. It offers some food for thought and invites you to a dance. 23


24

References Altrichter, H. (2005). The role of the ‘professional community’ in action research. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 11-23. Dadds, M. (2008). Empathetic validity in practitioner research. Educational action research; an international journal, 16, 279-290. Davidson, G. (2004). Roget’s thesaurus of English words and phrases: Penguin Books. Dufour, R. (2004). What is a ‘Professional Learning Community’? Educational Leadership, 6-11. Fontys. (2008). Jaarverslag 2007. Eindhoven: Fontys Hogescholen. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities; divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire: Open University Press. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2006). The practice of Co-operative Inquiry: Research ‘ with’ rather than ‘ on’ People. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research (pp. 144-154). London: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2007). Allemaal anders-denkenden. Omgaan met cultuurverschillen. Amsterdam Antwerpen: Contact. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities. New York: Mc Graw Hill; Open University Press. Kemmis, S. (2007). Participatory action research and the public sphere. In P. Ponte & B. H. J. Smit (Eds.), The Quality of Practitioner Research; Reflections on the Position of the Researcher and the Researched. Rotterdam, Taipei: SensePublishers. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. New York: Cambridge Books. Longman. (2007). Dictionary of contemporary English (4, 10th impression ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Ponte, P. (2002). Onderwijs van eigen makelij: Actie-onderzoek in scholen en opleidingen. Baarn: Nelissen. Ponte, P., & Smit, B. H. J. (2007). Introduction: Doing research and being researched? In P. Ponte & B. H. J. Smit (Eds.), The Quality of Practitioner Research; Reflections on the Position of the Researcher and the Researched. Rotterdam Taipei: SensePublishers. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Handbook of Action Research ( the concise paperback edition ed.). London: Sage Publications. Rose, D., Swet, J. v., & Siska, J. (2006). Programma Handbook Erasmus Mundus MA SEN. London, Tilburg, Praag: Erasmus Mundus. Ruijters, M. P. C. (2006). Liefde voor leren. Deventer: Kluwer Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Introduction

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Random House. Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: OPen University Press. Stoll, L. (2007). Professional learning communities. INSI Research Matters. The International Network for School Improvement., 31, 1-12. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities; divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire: Open University Press. Swet, J. v. (2008). Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling. In J. v. Swet, H. v. Huijgevoort, F. Cornelissen, J. Kienhuis, K. Smeets & K. Vloet (Eds.), Bouwen aan een opleiding als platform: Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling (pp. 11-23). Antwerpen, Apeldoorn: Garant. Swet, J. v., & Ponte, P. (2007). Reciprocal learning by experienced teachers and their educators on a master’s degree programme in The Netherlands. Journal of In-service-education, 33(1), 67-90. Swet, J. v., Ponte, P., & Smit, B. (Eds.). (2007). Postgraduate Programmes as Platform; a research-led approach. Rotterdam / Taipei: SensePublishers. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice. the Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 139-145. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action Research Living Theory. London: SAGE Publishers. Yost, D., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49.

25

26

Barbara Roosken Abstract in Dutch In dit hoofdstuk heb ik de leervoorkeuren vergeleken van een groep Bachelor Everybody’s got to learn studenten van de vakgroep Engels aan de Lerarenopleiding van Fontys sometime Hogescholen met een groep internationale studenten die een MA in Special Educational Needs deden bij OSO tijdens het academische jaar 2007-2008. Het onderzoek is gebaseerd op het instrument dat is besproken in het proefschrift van Manon Ruijters ‘Liefde voor Leren’ (2006). Mijn onderzoeksvragen waren: 1. Wat zijn de leervoorkeuren van een groep eerstejaars studenten Engels aan de Fontys Lerarenopleiding Tilburg? 2. Wat zijn de leervoorkeuren van een groep internationale studenten die een MA in Special Educational Needs doen bij OSO? 3. Veranderen de leervoorkeuren van deze twee groepen tijdens hun scholing? 4. Wat zijn de verschillen binnen de groep voor en na de scholing? 5. Wat vinden de studenten van het instrument van Ruijters en kunnen zij dit gebruiken bij hun professionele ontwikkeling? De B.Ed. groep bestond uit 18 studenten, 8 mannen en 10 vrouwen. Hun leeftijd was tussen 25 en 47. Ze waren allemaal Nederlands. De Erasmus Mundusgroep bestond uit 24 studenten, 10 mannen en 14 vrouwen. Hun leeftijd was tussen 26 en 57. Ze kwamen uit Aziatische en Afrikaanse landen en uit Nieuw Zeeland. Methode De vragenlijst die gebruikt is voor dit onderzoek is vertaald in het Engels. Het origineel kunt u vinden op: www.twynstragudde.nl. Er is een pre-test en post-test gegeven. Daarnaast heb ik focus groep interviews gehouden en een ronde tafel discussie. Resultaten Bij de pre-test heeft de EM groep ‘kennis verwerven’ (5,85) als hoogste voorkeur met direct daarna ‘oefenen’(4,8), ‘participeren’ (4,52) en ‘ontdekken’(4,28). De B.Ed. groep heeft ook ‘kennis verwerven’(3,56) als haar hoogste leervoorkeur, gevolgd door ‘ontdekken’(2,39), ‘participeren’ (2,11) en ‘oefenen’ (2,06). Bij de post-test zijn de voorkeuren van de EM groep niet zoveel veranderd als bij de B.Ed. groep. De EM groep heeft nog steeds ‘kennis verwerven’ bovenaan staan gevolgd door ‘oefenen’. De B.Ed. groep heeft nu ‘ontdekken’ als nummer een, met als gedeelde tweede plaats ‘kennis verwerven’ en ‘oefenen’. 27


Discussie Zoals was te verwachten van een groep docenten en onderwijs consulenten hadden de meeste studenten ‘kennis verwerven’ als hun belangrijkste leervoorkeur. Na de lesweken vertoonden beide groepen een grotere schakering qua leervoorkeuren maar ‘kennis verwerven’ bleef de favoriete keuze. Conclusies De belangrijkste conclusie is dat de EM studenten met name ‘kennis verwerven’ als hun favoriete leervoorkeur hadden terwijl de B.Ed. studenten in hun post test een duidelijke voorkeur uitspraken voor ‘ontdekken’. Tijdens hun training waar beide groepen werkten volgens de principes van ‘critical friendship’ zijn de EM studenten bijna niet veranderd in hun voorkeur. De B.Ed. studenten echter hebben ontdekkend leren als hun belangrijkste leervoorkeur uitgekozen.

28

Everybody’s got to learn sometime Learning preferences of Bachelor of Education students and Erasmus Mundus Master of Arts students of Fontys University Barbara Roosken The classroom is a place of high drama. You’ll never know what you have done to, or for, the hundreds coming and going. You see them leaving the classroom: dreamy, flat, sneering, admiring, smiling puzzled. After a few years you develop antennae. You can tell when you’ve reached them or alienated them. It’s chemistry. It’s psychology. It’s animal instinct. You are with the kids and, as long as you want to be a teacher, there’s no escape. Don’t expect help from the people who’ve escaped the classroom, the higher-ups. They’re busy going to lunch and thinking higher thoughts. It’s you and the kids. So, there’s the bell. See you later. Find what you love and do it. (Frank McCourt Teacher Man, 2005, p. 255)

This research report is based on the belief that teaching is a highly skilled activity, which, above all, requires classroom teachers to be able to respond to different learning preferences. Whether it is chemistry, psychology or animal instinct between you and the kids as McCourt says in his highly entertaining novel about his teaching career is something we are going to explore. The focus in this chapter is mainly on: what learning approaches do students adopt? What learning preferences do they have? These questions are essential to teacher education. The professional teacher’s job is to understand the learning processes as well as possible and to offer his or her pupils the benefit of that understanding. The process of what we call reflective teaching requires the maintenance of professional expertise. We may describe successive levels of expertise in teaching. First we have the student-teacher who goes to college and learns on-the-job, then there is the new teacher who, after her induction, needs to get used to full-time school life, and then there is the experienced teacher. The complicated nature of educational issues and the practical problems of classroom teaching ensure that a teacher’s work is never finished. One of our pre-service teachers explained to me: ‘I really enjoy my work but it is a constant struggle to keep it all going. If I focus on one thing I have to neglect another. For instance, if I work

29


with a particular child or group then I still have to keep an eye on what the others are doing; if I listen to someone reading a text in English then I am not in the position to help another child with her grammar exercise. It is not easy, but I would not want to look for other work.’ (Liz, focus interview B.Ed. Group)

During coaching sessions such dilemmas are often expressed, not only by experienced teachers but also, or even more so, by student-teachers. In my teaching context I often hear our pre-service teachers say that ‘teachers teach the way they learned’. Therefore, it seems essential that these pre-service teachers first become aware of the different learning preferences present in their classroom. Should they try to build up co-operative skills or should they focus on developing self-reliance and self-confidence? Should they treat each child as a ‘whole person’ or should they treat each child primarily as a ‘pupil’? This chapter is intended to provide a practical guide to preferred ways of learning and offers ideas for strategies to become aware of these differences. Research problem Each of us has a preference for the way we learn, which means not only how we receive information and process it but also how we learn to deal with real life situations including professional behaviour. In other words, learning is individually different. The outcomes and the processes of learning vary among students because of individual differences, such as learning potential, prior knowledge, approaches to and conceptions of learning, interest, self-worth, and so on. A teacher’s own preferred learning style might become his preferred teaching style. This means that maybe two-thirds of the class are repeatedly working outside their own learning preference. When a pupil constantly works outside his own preferred learning style it may lead to boredom and lack of motivation. Therefore, teachers need to become aware of the individual differences in ways of learning. Teachers are required to provide opportunities for pupils to practise skills and try out materials in a variety of ways and show them how to adapt these skills according to the context. Teachers, however, very rarely regard mistakes positively. They could use pupil mistakes as clues to help understand how a particular pupil thinks and what he needs to do to get beyond the mistake. Learning can be a conscious and explicit process but also a non-conscious and implicit process (Bolhuis, 2004). As a teacher you may have planned your lessons diligently - you know exactly what your students are supposed to be learning. But how are your students actually learning?

30

Furthermore, it is a fact that pupils will also learn outside the school environment, whether this is through the Internet, at home, at a museum, or on a school trip. This means that learning outside the school environment might emphasize other ways of learning than are being trained within the school context. Traditional methods and contents of learning are no longer adequate for the tasks of tomorrow.

Everybody’s got to learn sometime

Therefore, it is essential that teachers and other professionals in the field become aware of their own learning preferences and those of their pupils and peers. This awareness will help towards a better understanding of their professional learning. Working with Bachelor students of a teacher training college (referred to as B.Ed. from now on) and with an international group of Erasmus Mundus students participating in a Master’s programme for Special Educational Needs (referred to as EM from now on), I had the opportunity to study learner preferences in culturally diverse groups. In both settings students were required to learn to take the role of a critical friend. ‘A critical friend is a student in a tutor group who helps a fellow student to do his or her research and write a research report. He or she does this by asking critical questions, contributing his or her own perspective to the discussion, providing information or offering advice.’ (van Swet, introductory chapter, p. 21)

Our B.Ed. students do not only need to do action research in their final year of internship but are from the start involved in peer assessment and coaching activities. I wondered how workshops about learning preferences along with the regular teacher-training programme influenced the development of students’ awareness of differences in learning. One of my objectives was to compare and contrast the outcome of the learning preferences questionnaires of both the EM group and the B.Ed. group. I hope that by presenting this study to prospective teachers they might become more aware of the differences within their classroom and what they as teachers could do to reach out to their students. In addition, I examine how the tool, developed by Ruijters (2006), may be used in a multi-ethnic context. Research questions The research paper is aimed at illustrating and elaborating the following objectives: a) to give an overview of the various approaches to learning preferences used at Fontys Teacher Training College. b) to describe the differences in learning preferences between a multi-ethnic group of students who take an MA in Special Needs at our Faculty and a group of B.Ed. students of English as a Second Language. c) to explore how the tool developed by Ruijters may be a useful instrument to help improve the professional development of teachers and educators. 31


These objectives have raised the following research questions: 1. What ways of learning do student-teachers of English as a 2nd language at Fontys Teacher Training College prefer? 2. What ways of learning do students in an international special educational needs programme prefer? 3. Do learning preferences of these two groups change during the course of the teacher education and master’s programme? 4. Do these two groups differ in their preferred learning styles before and after their participation in an educational programme? 5. How do these students view Ruijters’ tool and do they connect this view to their professional development? Structure of paper This research paper starts with the introduction, the objectives and relevance of this research. In the following section I highlight three approaches to learning preferences. Next the research methods, instruments and methods are presented. I will then give the design and results of the student questionnaire. Finally, I present the results and a critical appraisal. This includes an evaluation of the research and provides recommendations for further research. Literature indicating differences in ways of learning Double loop learning at the Department of English

‘Are you a teacher?’ ‘What is a teacher? I’ll tell you: it isn’t someone who teaches something, but someone who inspires the student to give of her best in order to discover what she already knows.’ (Paulo Coelho, The Witch of Portobello, 2007, p. 86)

32

Before I zoom in on the various theories about learning preferences we first need to establish what we mean by learning. Or as Coelho says in his novel The Witch of Portobello: ‘What is a teacher?’ Learning is an immensely complex topic and in this research report I will simply touch the surface of some of the many issues that are involved. Of course, humans learned for many thousands of years before anyone talked about learning preferences and what to do with them. At its simplest, learning can be seen as a constant change in behaviour (Argyris and Schön, 1978). For Argyris and Schön, learning involves the detection and correction of error. Many of our students look for another strategy when something goes wrong. In other words, chosen goals and plans are operationalised rather than questioned. According to Argyris and Schön, this is single-loop learning. An alternative response is to question your learning approach or strategy, to actually subject them to critical scrutiny. By means of deep reflection the student is capable of changing his behaviour in order to improve his learning or teaching. This they describe as double-loop learning. It can be illustrated with the following figure:


Double loop learning

deep reflection

problem X solution Y Single loop learning Figure 1: Double Loop Learning, Argyris and Schön (1978)

For centuries, philosophers and psychologists have worked to analyse learning and this will undoubtedly continue. The result is that there are many alternative theories that attempt to describe the process. I have simplified this complex field by identifying the double loop learning approach, which has been of particular influence to the teaching and learning aspects in the Department of English at FLOT. I include an observation of one of the B.Ed. students that illustrates how our students become reflective practitioners: ‘Take, for example, the tenses in English. Every time I teach a child the difference between the past tense and the present perfect it is a test of willpower. I see a pupil do a gap filling exercise, trying to understand it, and it is so tempting to step in and show them what the answers are. It’s such an instinctive thing, but I know it is the wrong thing to do. They are learning and I already know how to do it. It is very difficult but each time it reminds me that I have to step back and let the child discover for himself. I know a lot and I can teach it to children. Who is to say they are learning anything!’ (Ray, focus interview B.Ed. group)

Bolster (1983) carried out an analysis of teachers as classroom decision-makers and suggested that since teacher knowledge is specific and pragmatic, it is resistant to development. Bolster argued that teachers will stick to routine practices and will find little incentive to change. Schön (1983) gave us an alternative view. He described the characteristics of ‘reflective practitioners’ and argued that it is possible to recognize ‘reflection-in-action’, in which adjustments to action are made through direct experience. This can be seen as a good example of double loop learning. As he put it: ‘When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique

33


case. He does not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not separate thinking from action … His experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his enquiry.’ (Schön, 1983, p.68)

Learning style preferences according to Kolb At our teacher training college we often refer to David Kolb’s learning cycle. According to Kolb (1984) there are four types of learning: students who focus on doing, those who focus on reviewing, students who focus on concluding or those who focus on planning. Kolb determined four phases of learning which he summarised in terms of skills belonging to a particular phase. ◉◉ Concrete experience (doing) ◉◉ Reflective observation (reviewing) ◉◉ Abstract conceptualisation (concluding) ◉◉ Active experimentation (trying out) The four phases have a logical order. If the learner has experienced something (doing) it is important to reflect on their experience (reviewing). Next the learner can make generalisations about their behaviour (concluding). In the final phase the learner may experiment (trying out) to see how they behave when performing a similar task in a different context. If you apply whatever you have learnt you will come across new dilemmas (concrete experience) which you then need to reflect upon. Kolb introduced the term experiential learning and gave us a useful model on which to develop our practice. This is called The Kolb Cycle, The Learning Cycle or The Experiential Learning Cycle. The cycle comprises of four different stages of learning from experience and can be entered at any point but all stages must be followed in sequence so that successful learning may take place. The Learning Cycle suggests that it is not sufficient to have an experience in order to learn. It is necessary to reflect on the experience to make generalisations and formulate concepts which can then be applied to new situations. This learning must also be tested out in new situations. The learner must make the link between the theory and action by planning, acting out, reflecting and relating it back to the theory (Davies 2008).

34


Concrete experience (doing/ having an experience) Active experimentation (Planning/ trying out what you have learned)

Reflective observation (reviewing/ reflecting on the experience)

Abstract Conceptualisation (concluding/ learning from the experience) Figure 2: Kolb’s learning cycle (1984)

Learning preferences according to De Caluwé and Vermaak The second model that is referred to at Fontys University comes from De Caluwé and Vermaak (1999). They distinguish five types of learning: the yellow-print, blue-print, red-print, green-print, and white-print thinking. Kolb’s learning preferences combined with the colour-coding of De Caluwé en Vermaak gives the following figure: Doers Thinkers Theoreticians Practitioner

Yellowthinkers X X

Bluethinkers X X

Red-thinkers X X

Greenthinkers X X X

Whitethinkers X

Figure 3: Vermaak and De Caluwé

De Caluwé and Vermaak opted for colours to describe the different change strategies often evident in a management setting. Both researchers are also members of a group of consultants that specializes in change and interventions. The model can be used to characterize dominant paradigms in groups or organisations. The model helps to paint a more complete picture of organisational issues within a classroom setting. I have identified a few characteristics for each of the five colours. Yellow-print thinking assumes that people change their standpoint only if their own interests are taken into account, or if compelled to accept certain ideas. They believe that getting everyone on the same wavelength is a change in itself. In blue-print thinking, people are expected to change if a clearly specified result

35


is laid down beforehand. Controlling the change by managing, planning and monitoring the process is considered feasible. The process and the result are deemed, more or less, independent of people. Red-print thinking strives to develop competencies and make the most of people’s talents. The aim is a good fit between what individuals want and what the organisation needs. People are rewarded (salary, promotion, bonus, a good evaluation) for desired behaviour or penalised (demotion, poor evaluation) for undesired behaviour. Green-print thinking has its roots in action-learning theories (e.g. Kolb, 1991, Argyris and Schön, 1978). It has expanded enormously in more recent-thinking on learning organisations (Senge, 1990) and is currently practised in the Dutch educational system. Changing and learning are conceptually closely-linked. The terms change and learning have very similar meanings. People are motivated to discover the limits of their competencies and to involve themselves in learning situations. They are provided with resources to learn more about effective ways of performing. The aim is to strengthen the learning abilities of the individual and the learning abilities within the organisation. White-print thinking is nourished by chaos-thinking, network theory and complexity theory, all of which are based on living and complex systems with limited predictability. It is defined as a process in which people interact according to their own norms without a map of what to do or how to get there. In whiteprint thinking, the dominant image is that everything is changing autonomously, of its own accord. Even though students of Fontys Teacher Training College are familiar with both the model by Kolb and the model by De Caluwé and Vermaak, I decided to use Ruijters’ tool for my study, as Ruijters also takes into account lifelong learning and learning-on-the-job. Nowadays students’ learning takes place in a variety of environments in and outside the formal education and training system. Lifelong learning encompasses learning for personal and social purposes as well as for employment-related purposes. In a similar way, Bolhuis makes a general distinction between learning by means of direct experience, learning through social interaction, learning by studying and learning through reflection. (Bolhuis, 2004). Learning preferences according to Ruijters The model I used during our workshops on learning preferences is based on the PhD dissertation of Manon Ruijters. The questionnaire, in Dutch, can be found on the internet.2 It proved to be an excellent tool to start a discussion on learning preferences with students. It gave us a common language to talk about 36

2

Simons, P.JR., & Ruijters, M.C.P. (2006) ISISQ5 Magazine, Language of Learning. From http:// www.twynstragudde.nl. Accessed at 19-01-2009.


didactics and abstract concepts of learning. Together with Simons, Ruijters (2006) developed the following five metaphors for learning contexts people may prefer. *

Imitation and observation

This metaphor adopts the day-to-day practice as its best learning context. These learners like to listen to examples of best practices and they show great respect for experts in the field. They learn by observing other people and by listening to opinions of peers. They analyse what tactics lead to success and try to learn the tricks of the trade by learning on-the-job activities. These learners do not like to play simulation games as they find this childish. They learn best in everyday reality where they feel they are being challenged to deal with complex situations. *

Participation

This metaphor emphasises the social aspect of learning. You learn together with other people by participating and by means of group work. These learners like sparring partners as they feel that this is a way to develop and voice their own ideas. It is essential for them to work in a group of people who trust each other. Discussion and interaction with a significant other is a highly effective method for these learners. *

Knowledge acquisition

These learners know what they want to learn; they aim for clear targets which they hope to achieve by means of a well-defined study track. They learn best in a structured way, preferably in a classroom setting with an expert teacher. As knowledge plays an important role, they are keen readers. Their focus is on acquiring knowledge and skills and these learners feel that one should avoid making mistakes. If they fail an exam they blame this on poor preparation, wrong planning or insufficient knowledge about the subject on their part. *

Practice

This metaphor focuses on learning-on-the-job, practical training and role-plays. These learners prefer a quiet, safe but realistic workspace where they can learn, experiment, ask questions and where they get time to think. It is important that somebody coaches them and tells them how to continue at crucial points in their training and/or career. In the case of mistakes they find it helpful to discuss these with their coach as they feel that you can learn a lot from your mistakes. *

Discovery

Living and learning are synonymous for these learners. They believe strongly in life-long learning. You do not only learn during your professional training but

37


continuously. It is therefore impossible for them to be in a situation that would not be educational. These learners feel restricted in the formal workshop setting or lecture theatre, as it is too structured for them. They thrive best in a surrounding that allows them a lot of freedom. They learn most from ‘jumping in at the deep end’. They prefer to find their own learning track; this does not necessarily have to be the most efficient track but more importantly the more interesting. Mistakes are part of their development because they keep the learner alert. If something takes too long or is too difficult they will find a way around the problem.

Learning by Key words Imitation and observation Role models, best-practice, real-life activities, pressure, complexity, implicit learning. Participation Dialogue, co-operation, trust, working communities, collaboration, discourse. Knowledge acquisition Objective knowledge, facts, experts, theory, transfer, explicit learning structured and goal-oriented learning. Practice Safe environment, repetition, skills, attitude, realistic but allowing time and support, explicit learning, try-outs. Discovery Giving meaning, self-regulation, inspiration, knowledge creation, production, critical analysis. Figure 4: Summary Ruijters in keywords ( Ruijters, p 214)

In principle not one of the learning preferences is considered better than the other. They all have their own qualities. Some objectives are easier to achieve within one specific preference. In the context of teacher training, for instance, the preference ‘practice’ offers many instances of trying out specific teaching skills; being able to work in a team easily fits in with ‘participation’; a taught course goes well with ‘knowledge acquisition’; more innovative and creative tracks are better within the ‘discovery’ preference; organisational skills – ‘this is how we do this here’ – is very effective within the ‘imitation and observation’ context. According to Ruijters, talking about learning becomes more informative and gets to the core of the matter if we acknowledge that her five preferences are in fact metaphors. She presents two essential questions for each metaphor. Imitation and observation ◉◉ What emotions make you want to learn? (‘Why do people say that they need peace and quiet when they learn? I prefer to work under pressure.’) ◉◉ What puts you in a thinking mode? (‘I like to spar with my fellow students.’)

38

Participation ◉◉ What does it mean to work with others? (‘When discussing issues with others I learn a lot.’)


◉◉

Under which circumstances does learning take place? (‘To develop my full potential I need trust and friendship.’)

Knowledge acquisition ◉◉ What is knowledge? (‘I first want to know the facts before I get into action.’) ◉◉ How do you acquire knowledge? (‘I prefer to listen to an expert or read a good book.’) Practice ◉◉ What do you do with mistakes? (‘Mistakes are an important source for learning.’) ◉◉ How do you organise coaching? (‘I really enjoy being coached by an expert.’) Discovery ◉◉ Why do you learn? (‘Out of curiosity.’) ◉◉ When does learning start? (‘You learn everywhere and always.’) Research Participants

The B.Ed. group consisted of 18 students, 8 males and 10 females. The ages varied between 25 and 47. They are all students of English as a second language and are studying to become teachers. They are all of Dutch origin. Few of them came to FLOT with another degree. The EM group consisted of 24 students, 10 males and 14 females. The ages varied between 26 and 57. They are all students of the MA in special needs offered by Fontys, many have a Bachelor degree and a few have a Master’s degree. They come from Asian and African countries and from New Zealand. Many are pre-service teachers, some are teacher trainers, (HRM) managers, advisors, coaches and others policy makers. Instruments Ruijters Questionnaire

I followed the procedure discussed in Ruijters dissertation, which you can also find in Dutch on the internet. The first step is to answer 8 questions. Every question has 4 answers. The respondents need to decide which answer is most suitable to them. The answers range from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘highly appropriate’ (5). The second step is to calculate their score by means of a table. The third step is to visualize their scores in a so-called situgram. Step four is the interpretation of their score. I will say more about this when discussing the results.

39


This is an example of the questionnaire followed by the table to record the scores. Name: How do I obtain knowledge? 1. By observing others. 2. By talking to others. 3. By taking part in learning activities. 4. By everything I do. How do I cope with mistakes? 5. I learn a great deal by making mistakes. 6. Mistakes keep me on my toes. 7. I try to avoid them by preparing well. 8. I learn more from success than from mistakes. How do I deal with my learning strategies? 9. By engaging with others about learning. 10. By reading about it. 11. By improvising. 12. By trying out new strategies. From whom do I learn? 13. From experts who are respected in their field. 14. From colleagues. 15. From innovators. 16. From anybody. How do I react to unfamiliar situations? 17. I jump in at the deep end. 18. I ask for advice. 19. I first practice in a safe environment. 20. I try to obtain as much prior information as possible. Do I like working together with others? 21. In dialogue with others I find solutions to my problems. 22. Only when it is more efficient. 23. Others help me to develop. 24. I turn to others when I need a sounding board for my ideas. Which feelings stimulate learning? 25. When I find it inspiring. 26. When I feel safe. 27. When I understand the material. 28. When I feel stressed and under pressure.

40

answer


How would I define knowledge? 29. As expertise. 30. As shared knowledge. 31. As theoretical knowledge. 32. As practical knowledge.

1= not at all 2= not very often 3= mostly 4= very often 5= always Please score every statement. imitation and observation question score participation question score knowledge acquisition question score practice question score discovery question score

1 2

8

11

15

18

24

28

29

=

total score -24 =

7

9

14

18

21

26

30

=

total score -24 =

7 5

10 12

13 14

20 19

22 23

27 26

31 32

= =

-24 -24

6

11

16

17

24

25

30

=

total score -24 =

3 3 4

total score = total score =

41


After having filled in the form you then need to copy your score in the following situgram.

imitation and observation

participation

knowledge acquisition

practice

discovery

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-12 -10 -8

Figure 5: questionnaire

After the first test, the so-called pre-test, I gave both groups a post-test. For the EM students this was organised on 25 February 2008 as they were leaving for Prague for another part of their programme soon after that date. For the B.Ed. students this was arranged somewhat later on 12 June 2008. Therefore the training period between the two tests for the B.Ed. group was 33 weeks and for the EM group was 21 weeks. My first two research questions ‘What ways of learning do student teachers of English as a second language at Fontys Teacher Training College prefer?’ and ‘What ways of learning do students in an international special needs programme prefer?’ could be answered after the pre-test. The third and the fourth question ‘Do learning preferences of these two groups change in the course of the teacher education and master’s programme?’ and ‘Do these two groups differ in their preferred learning styles before and after their participation in an educational programme?’ could be answered after the post-test results had been analysed.

42

Focus interviews and two round table discussions As I thought it important to discuss the results of the questionnaires in smaller groups I then organised four focus interviews to discuss their situgrams. In groups of nine, and sometimes only two people, we talked about the results and about the tool itself. The interviews lasted an hour each. During the focus group interviews I tried to create a relaxed and natural dialogue among a fairly small group of people. The group setting allowed some students to use the ideas of others as cues to more fully illustrate their own opinions. I operated as a moderator and observer and recorded each interview. Finally the two round table discussions dealt with the last research question: How do these students view Ruijters’ tool and do they connect


this view to their professional development? The following diagram describes our different test moments.

Introduction questionnaire Regular programme Questionnaire Focus group interviews

Round table discussions

EM Date pre-test 5/10/07 N=24 Courses on inclusion School visits Date post-test 25/2/08 N=17 Dates 22/11/7 and 29/11/07 N=5 and N=2 Date 5/10/07 N=24

B.Ed. Date pre-test 15/11/07 N=18 Courses on teaching TEFL course Date post-test 12/6/08 N=10 Dates 6/12/07 and 13/12/07 N=6 and N=9 Date 6/12/07 N=15

Figure 6: test moments

Procedure I organised a session with the EM group on 5 October 2007 and with the B.Ed. group on 15 November 2007. First I introduced the students to the tool by means of a power-point presentation together with some notes. After that I gave them the questionnaire. Confidentiality of the given answers was explicitly guaranteed. Students who were absent on the day of the first test were not asked to fill in the questionnaire at another date. Students who were absent on both days of testing were not included in the study. As a pre-teaching activity I asked our B.Ed. students to make a list of the various learning strategies they would come up with. During a number of brainstorming sessions I asked them what they considered the most effective way of learning. I have listed their answers in the following table; the first one received most of their votes. ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉

teacher’s presentation of material in class; teacher’s demonstration in class; teacher’s handouts; teacher’s reference to other materials; questions asked by teacher; listening to other students ask questions and the teacher’s answer; group work (group discussions) in class; informal contact with fellow students inside and outside the classroom; practical work in class; exercises done in class; assignments done outside class time. 43


I then presented our students with the research results of the Institute for Applied Behavioural Science (1954) that show that students learn best when they are asked to teach the subject to their peers. The Learning Pyramid gives the following results: Correlation between type of instruction and effective learning Type of instruction Lectures Reading Audiovisual media Demonstration Group discussion Practical Instruction to teach the subject to others

% of effective learning 5 10 20 30 50 75 90

Figure 7: Learning Pyramid, Bethel, Maine

The aspect of ‘critical friend’ features mainly in the bottom 4 categories; ‘demonstration’, ‘group discussion’, ‘practical’ and ‘instruction to teach the subject to others’. It is in these types of instruction that the students are asked to listen and co-operate with their peers. At Fontys Teacher Training College collaborative learning has been part of the programme for the past five years. On a regular basis students are asked to present their collective findings in portfolios and often have to show their work to fellow students by means of power-point presentations.3 As a final pre-teaching activity I asked our B.Ed. students to finish the following sentences. My lecturer should … To be a good teacher I need to … To be a good student I need to … My best students/pupils … Here the answers varied between ‘my teacher should have a good sense of humour’ to ‘ my teacher should help students to think for themselves’. On the one hand they wanted teacher-centred teaching and on the other hand they came up with the fact that free-thinking students would make excellent students. In short, students feel they benefit from good input by teachers but also feel the necessity to take responsibility for their own learning skills. In a final workshop on the concept of ‘critical friends’ I asked our students to 3

44

For more information in Dutch about the concept of Critical friend and how this is introduced at FLOT go to http://www.criticalfriendship.nl/texts/Katern%20Critical%20friends%20Magazine%20 ISISQ5.pdf


give feedback on which communication skills they thought were important when writing self-evaluation reports or when evaluating fellow students. As a group, we concluded that ‘observing other students critically’ together with ‘actively listening to others’ would be invaluable skills. When we started our research the group of Erasmus Mundus students had only just arrived in the Netherlands and were not familiar with the concept of ‘critical friends’. In his chapter entitled ‘Being critical on friendly terms’ Jan Siebelink describes how he conducted his course on academic writing. EM students were asked to be each other’s critical friend. The rule was that they were only allowed to ask questions and they could not make judgements or offer any solutions. Jan asked them to write down a positive comment and critical questions after they had read each other’s work. When both groups were familiar with the concept of a critical friend I presented the students with Ruijters’ questionnaires. These preliminary activities were extremely useful both for the students and for the researcher as it helped the group to brainstorm and bond together. The students could actually experience what it felt like to be each other’s critical friend and to convey ideas during round table sessions. Analysis I collected the students’ questionnaires and situgrams and composed a table with their individual scores. I then calculated their individual preferences, their highest and lowest scores and shared these results with them. In this way I could discuss their so-called allergies (minus scores) and their favourite preferences. Additionally, I could also make a group profile for both the B.Ed. and the EM group. It is important to note here that the average scores in the group profile also include negative scores, in other words students who have given minus scores to particular metaphors. A minus score for discovery, for example, means that the student is not too keen on jumping in at the deep end. For both groups I could indicate the highest and lowest score, give the percentages for every metaphor and give the average score per group in both the pre-test and the post-test. Results I would now like to consider the research questions presented in the first section of this chapter. Questions 1 and 2: What ways of learning do the individual students from both groups prefer?

I include a small sample of my data to illustrate how scores differed amongst the participants of one particular group. Consider, for instance, respondent 2 of the EM group in the following table. In his pre-test this person has a definite allergy for ‘participation’ whereas ‘knowledge acquisition’ receives the highest score (10). He clearly prefers studying the theory before bringing it into practice. He

45


attaches great importance to the transfer of knowledge. Respondent 6, however, has ‘participation’ as his favourite learning preference and ‘knowledge acquisition’ as his lowest score. respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

imitation participation observation -1 4 0 -6 2 6 -3 3 -6 6 5 10 -1 3 2 -2 2 6 2 1

knowledge acquisition 7 10 7 4 4 4 2 3 4 7

practice 2 4 8 2 2 6 3 0 4 4

discovery 0 2 9 -2 3 7 5 3 4 4

Figure 8: EM pre-test scores (sample)

The post-test gives us the following table. Participant 2 has a very similar score to his pre-test score. The only difference is that his scores are not as high as in his pretest moment. Respondent 6, however, has changed his preference considerably during the MA course as ‘participation’, ‘practice’ and ‘ discovery’ all receive 5 points. respondent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

imitation participation observation

1 2 2 8 1 -1 1 5 -2 -1

7 -3 7 6 4 5 6 2 2 3

Figure 9: EM post-test scores (sample)

46

knowledge acquisition

practice

discovery

11 8 9 7 5 0 4 1 -1 8

7 2 8 9 5 5 4 1 6 5

4 1 7 4 1 5 8 2 3 0


When you look at the pre-test results of the B.Ed. students, participant 9 stands out as he has three minus scores. This may imply that he isn’t at all interested in these three preferences but rather learns by ‘imitation’ and ‘discovery’. He was not present during the post-test so we do not know whether he might have changed his preferences in due course. Participant 1 has a rather negative overall score with 2 as the top score for ‘discovery’. His post-test score is even more surprising as his top score is 1 for ‘imitation’. It is essential here to discuss the individual profile with the student in order to see what he makes of the score. In this case the student felt that the post-test was more appropriate for him than the pre-test result. respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

imitation participation observation 0 -5 4 5 2 4 0 5 1 2 0 4 1 3 10 12 5 -1 4 6

knowledge acquisition 0 7 5 11 0 9 9 10 -2 9

practice -5 12 4 2 -1 10 3 7 -4 5

discovery 2 5 3 -1 1 8 -1 6 6 -1

knowledge acquisition -1 5

practice -4 9

discovery -4 -1

13 4 7 12 -1

3 3 10 3 -3

-3 7 10 -1 11

Figure 10: B.Ed. pre-test scores (sample) respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

imitation participation observation 1 -3 4 2 1 5 3 1 9

8 5 6 0 7

Figure 11: B.Ed. post-test scores (sample)

47


Question 3: Do learning preferences of these two groups change during the course of the teacher education and master’s programme?

In the previous section I looked at some individual scores of our participants. I would now like to move on to the group profile. First we look at the average learning profile of the B.Ed. group and the EM group. To determine this I compare the EM pre-test scores with the B.Ed. pre-test scores. We notice that some of the EM students have a clear allergy for ‘imitation and observation’, as there are 8 minus scores. For ‘knowledge acquisition’ and ‘practice’ nobody had a minus score which is remarkable. In the B.Ed. group one out of every four students has an allergy for one particular learning preference. The minus scores vary from 4 to 6 out of 18 respondents and they are evenly spread over the 5 metaphors. One respondent stands out as he only has minus scores. We may presume that he did not fully understand the exercise as respondents normally have one or more favourite learning preferences and one or more allergies (minus scores). Since there are just a few minus scores we may conclude that, on the whole, the respondents have quite a positive attitude towards learning. This is not surprising as many of them are either teachers or professionals that work in a teaching context. For most of the participants, however, it was also the first occasion in which they had to think about their preferences. People often get a more pronounced viewpoint when they take more time to reflect upon their actions and apply the double loop learning strategy. (e.g. Why do I take certain steps and how can I improve my learning strategy?). Figure 12 shows the average preferences of the B.Ed. and EM group in their pre-test. For the EM group ‘knowledge acquisition’ (5,85) is the most preferred metaphor, closely followed by ‘practice’ (4,8), ‘participation’ (4,52) and ‘discovery’ (4,28). ‘Imitation’ (0,61) receives the lowest score. The B.Ed. group also has ‘knowledge acquisition’ (3,56) as its most preferred learning metaphor, followed by ‘discovery’ (2,39) ‘participation’ (2,11) and ‘practice’ (2,06). Similar to the EM group, the B.Ed. has ‘imitation’ (0,94) as their lowest score. The B.Ed. scores are a lot lower than the EM scores. The EM group rated the metaphors with far higher scores than the B.Ed. group. There are very few minus scores amongst the EM group whereas the B.Ed. group has a respondent who scored -8 and even -9.

48


Figure 12: average profile B.Ed. and EM in pre-test Question 4: Do these two groups differ in their preferred learning styles before and after their participation in an educational programme?

Then the EM group was exposed to 21 weeks of training and coaching within the MA in Special Educational Needs programme that had ‘critical friends’ an important teaching paradigm. The B.Ed. group had 33 weeks of Teaching English as a Second Language course, practical training and coaching. How did this affect their learning preferences? Figure 13 shows the post-test results.

Figure 13: average profile B.Ed. and EM in post-test

Here you see when you compare and contrast figure 12 with figure 13 that the EM respondents score higher in their pre-test than in their post-test. ’Imitation’ (2,06) is still the least favourite of the five metaphors. EM students showed hardly any difference between ‘practice’ (4,59), ‘knowledge and acquisition’ (4,88) and ‘participation’ (4,53). The B.Ed. students hardly changed their scores of ‘discovery’ (2,4) and ‘practice’ (2,4). ‘Participation’ (2,6) received more votes in the post-test than in the pre-test. Also ‘knowledge acquisition’ (4,5) and ‘imitation’ (2,3) gained more votes with the B.Ed. students.

49


These two figures give a general idea of how the two groups responded to the questionnaires. This we could see as a group profile. Obviously, a preference with a large dispersion scored by a small group of respondents with very clear positive scores may receive a higher average number than a group of respondents who do not use 4 (very often) or 5 (always) scores. That is why we will also look at the order of preferences. So our next questions are ‘What is the respondent’s first choice?’ And ‘What is their fifth choice?’ What are the first choices and the fifth choices of the B.Ed. group and EM group?

Figure 14 shows the first choice amongst the EM group. More than one third of the group indicated that ‘knowledge acquisition’ was first on their list of learning preferences. This means that 37 % of the students prefer to know the facts before they start experimenting. When you look at their average score (figure 12) this score is somewhat surprising as you see that ‘knowledge acquisition’ (5,85) received a score quite close to ‘participation’ (4,52) and ‘practice’ (4,8). One quarter of the group consider ‘participation’ as their first choice and another quarter have ‘discovery’. Nine per cent vote for ‘practice’ and only four per cent for ‘imitation’.

Figure 14: first choice EM pre-test

When we do a similar exercise with the B.Ed. group we get a totally different picture. In their pre-test one third of the students chose ‘knowledge and acquisition’ as their preferred metaphor and the other third chose ‘discovery’. They show that they like to jump in at the deep end, they are self-directive and some of them find it hard to be led by someone else. They follow their own inspiration. ‘Participation’ and ‘practice’ both received 15 % and ‘imitation’ comes in last again.

50


Figure 15: first choice B.Ed. pre-test

To make the picture complete we also include the charts of the post-tests first choices. After 33 weeks of teacher training none of the B.Ed. students have ‘participation’ as their first choice (Figure 17). After 21 weeks of courses this learning preference is still popular amongst the EM students as 14 % of them chose ‘participation’ (Figure 16). Another striking difference is that the B.Ed. students have ‘discovery’ as their top preference (37 %). The EM group have ‘knowledge acquisition’ (31 %) as their number one preference, exactly the same as in their pre-test. We may also conclude that for the B.Ed. students ‘knowledge acquisition’ (27 %) still receives a second place together with ‘practice’ (27%), whereas the EM students clearly opt for ‘practice’ (23%) as their second most important preference.

Figure 16: first choice EM post-test

51


Figure 17: first choice B.Ed. post-test

Finally, we will briefly consider the students’ fifth choice in the pre-test. This indicates their allergies and is positioned at the other end of the scale. The EM students have ‘imitation’ (66 %) as their top score followed by ‘participation’. The B.Ed. students also have ‘imitation’ (43 %) as their least favourite learning preference. None of the EM students had ‘discovery’ (0%) as a fifth choice and none of the B.Ed. students had ‘participation’ (0%) as their fifth choice.

Figure 18: fifth choice EM pre-test

52


Figure 19: fifth choice B.Ed. pre-test

When we put all these scores together we get the following figure: EM highest preference pre post imitation 4% 14 % participation 25 % 14 % knowledge 37 % 31 % acquisition practice 9% 23 % discovery 25 % 18 %

B.Ed. highest preference pre post 10 % 9% 15 % 0% 30 % 27 %

EM lowest preference pre post 66 % 70 % 22 % 15 % 6% 0%

B.Ed. lowest preference pre post 43 % 28 % 0% 28 % 13 % 0%

15 % 30 %

6% 0%

25 % 19 %

27 % 37 %

0% 15 %

16 % 28 %

Figure 20: total scores Question 5: How do these students connect Ruijters’ tool to their professional learning?

The final part of my study focuses on two questions: ‘What do our students make of Ruijters’ tool?’ and ‘Does it have any relevance towards their professional development?’ I present some of the remarks made by our students on what they think of the 5 metaphors presented by Ruijters. The students wanted to remain anonymous so I use their chosen pseudonyms here. I first give the situgrams of 4 EM students together with their remarks followed by 3 B.Ed. students.

53


Figure 21: situgram Kajeela post-test

Kajeela: ‘I am an education officer for an international organisation for marginalised children. I work with street children. As class sizes vary between 80 to 90 children and sometimes even 100 children, it is impossible to treat them as individuals. Not as many girls go to school as boys as they are locked up or even kidnapped. So the individual approach we see in the Netherlands at the schools cannot be copied back home. In the Netherlands the focus is very much on the child whereas in my country the focus is on the curriculum. I studied by means of the old type of schooling: reading and studying reference books and attending lectures. At Fontys the students learn more by means of participatory learning. I used to be head of a primary school and I had no time for innovations. Now I try very hard to get my message across but it takes a lot of time. My situgram describes me quite well as I enjoy being taught by teachers who know their subject. In my everyday existence I need to experiment a lot as I need to find out what are the best school times for the children and how I can change the parents’ attitude towards schooling. I do, however, feel that respondents will answer the questions depending on their context. In the Netherlands I did not have to deal with projects so I feel that I could not do any experimenting or discovering. I mainly learnt from books here. That’s why my highest score is ‘knowledge acquisition’ (14) followed closely by ‘participation’ (12) and ‘practice’ (10).

54


Figure 22: situgram Jenny post-test

Jenny: ‘I am an education officer and an inspector. I feel my graph might change the longer I will stay in the Netherlands. I find the course on ‘Academic writing’ very helpful. My highest score ‘practice’ (6) illustrates this. It is followed by ‘participation’ (4), which is how the course on Academic writing is organised. My group says I can be very critical but I enjoy the group work a lot. It is the best thing we are doing. The co-operative learning strategy is good. Back home our classes often have 110 children and then when you group them they have to work together. Here we consult books and we interact a lot. I find this graph quite useful. What I miss is a preference on ‘imagination and critical thinking’. It is important to allow students to come up with creative things. To illustrate this I will give you two examples of what I mean here. As a warming up activity we were asked to bring in a photograph to present ourselves to the group at Fontys. You had to think about why you had picked this particular photograph. It developed your critical thinking. What could other people learn from that? A second example is taken from my situation back home. I used to teach primary school and I always asked children to draw something they liked. One day this little boy showed me a picture of his dad and the cup he used. He had also drawn a stick because his dad would punish him if he took his dad’s cup, he explained. So the stick showed me that there was mistreatment at home. The child expressed himself by drawing.’

55


Figure 23: situgram Deep post-test

Deep:’ Yes this graph is me. The metaphor ‘discovery’ (5) is closest to whom I like to be as a teacher. I find the dialogue with others very important. I focus a lot on ‘participation’ (3) as you will then develop concepts. Best practices also inspire me. I love personal freedom and chaos is no objection to me. I was inspired by the metaphor ‘learning by acting’. I once asked a class to act out chemical bonding. I put a boy in the middle and called him carbon and then four other children had to stand around him and so they acted out hydrogen. My visually impaired children enjoy learning by acting. We improvise and act out scenes. When I used formulas it didn’t work, the students didn’t understand.’

Figure 24: situgram Jojo post-test

Jojo: ‘I am very positive about this tool. At home we use forms on which teachers can write their feedback on the contents of the course and the teacher’s performance. In the future I can use these questionnaires when conducting a seminar or a workshop. The situgram helps me to visualize my learning preference and it gives me a starting point for a discussion with fellow-students about our learning preferences and how they are different.’ 56


Figure 25: situgram Maartje post-test

Maartje: ‘Yes, I suppose this is me. I recognize myself in this graph. I am not too fond of group work; I prefer working on my own. I like to plan ahead and I am task driven. I am not too fond of open questions. I really don’t like chaos. As long as there is structure I will learn.’

Figure 26: situgram Rai post-test

Rai: ‘No, this isn’t always me. I don’t always jump in at the deep end. It really depends on the situation. I was once asked to teach a class unexpectedly, without having prepared for it and I didn’t mind at all. I suppose that is a good example. But I can also imagine a situation in which I would have refused to take the class. Discovery fits best, as I obtain knowledge by everything I do, even outside college. I don’t like to be put in a box as I feel I will never fit in every context. I don’t just have one type. I have no specific preference.’

57


Figure 27: situgram Paul post-test

Paul: ‘No I don’t recognize myself in this graph as much as I would like to. When participating in this course (Listening and Speaking) it helps me a lot to hear someone talk Received Pronunciation so ‘imitation and observation’ should be quite strong here instead of negative, so an allergy. If another person talks to me with an American accent I tend to immediately copy this person, which is something I don’t want to do. As I never ticked score 5 (very much so), my scores don’t vary a lot. This tool is not as objective as it pretends to be. If the respondent doesn’t tick 4 or 5, your final score will stay around the 2 or 4. Conclusion and discussion This investigation has given us some intriguing results by comparing two groups of students. It contributes some evidence to the assumption that learning preferences and approaches do vary across social background and cultures. One limitation of our study was our relatively small sample size (42 for the questionnaires and 17 for the interviews). Consequently, we cannot generalize beyond our population pool. Our experiences with the learning preferences proved that most people recognized their profiles. A few students said that they found it difficult to answer the questionnaire, as they could not give a definite answer. They felt their scores would vary according to the learning context. One respondent said that in her role as a manager she needed to experiment and improvise more than in her role as a teacher. She suggested filling in two forms, one for each function. Another respondent complained that the questionnaire looked as if it was taken out of a Women’s Magazine. Most, however, were very positive about the tool and were sure they would incorporate the questionnaires and situgrams in their own teaching and wider professional responsibilities. The B.Ed. and EM average profiles

58

In this school environment there was an overall dominance of ‘knowledge acquisition’, which is not really surprising. These learners give great importance to the transfer of knowledge and the learning of particular skills. They often learn best when goals are set and learning processes are defined. They are advocates


of regular testing as they feel this is part of their learning process. In the various interviews I conducted the respondents mostly agreed that knowledge can be measured and that examination results give a clear indication of whether the student has understood the subject. The EM group generally consisted of older more experienced professionals. Most of them came from non-Western cultures. They showed a stronger preference for ‘knowledge acquisition’ than the B.Ed. group (see figures 12 and 13). The pretest indicates this very clearly. In the post-test, however, the EM and B.Ed. scores for ‘knowledge acquisition’ hardly differ. It seems logical that teachers and other professionals beginning in education favour ‘knowledge acquisition’ at the start of their teaching courses. As the training continues students’ preferences change to a far more dispersed preference in which all five metaphors are present although still with an emphasis on ‘knowledge acquisition’. First choices

If we next consider figures 14 up to 17 we may draw some conclusions about the differences in first choices within the two groups. Let us first look at the EM group by comparing their pre-test scores with their post-test scores. Between the two tests the group was engaged in a programme that had collaborative learning as one of its main teaching objectives. How did the group respond to this? Clearly the metaphor that is closest to this paradigm is ‘participation’. According to this tool the EM students were less enthusiastic about the participative learning preference as the score was reduced from 25 % to 14 % by the end of their training. ‘Practice’, however, increased quite considerably from 9 % to 23 %. If you were to put this into words, you could say that on average the EM student moved from being a learner who enjoyed the cut and thrust of discussion, sharpening and clarifying their ideas, to a learner who preferred on-the-job training, work experience and role-play. Their greatest concern is that whatever they have learned they would like to put into practice. In short, learning requires a peaceful, safe, not too complex, but realistic environment where students have the freedom to experiment and the opportunity to reflect. By the end of May most of the B.Ed students had finished their first traineeship in which they had to function as an independent self-reliant teacher. Next to their school experience they had all taken an intensive course in English as a foreign language. How did this affect their learning preferences? The post-test results clearly show that collaborative learning was no longer on their agenda as a first choice. The B.Ed. group did not use group learning as a major learning preference, instead they favoured more experiential-oriented learning as the preference ‘discovery’ received the highest score. Discovery-oriented learning is based on the premise that life and learning are synonymous. These learners do not really require their learning process to be supervised, but they prefer an inspirational teacher. Furthermore the B.Ed. group preferred to learn from experts in their field (knowledge acquisition) and by taking part in learning activities (practice).

59


This research shows that learning preferences are not fixed and universal but vary enormously within and between the two groups. The two sample groups are somewhat comparable in terms of their education programme but we cannot say that the EM group is a representative sample of professionals in a set number of non-Western countries. The EM group is a very culturally diverse group compared to the B.Ed. group. The two groups, however, also differ in age, gender, educational experience, in working experience and responsibilities. This means that we cannot draw any conclusions about possible differences in learning preferences between, for example, European, Asian and African countries. The interviews discussed in this chapter indicate that the contexts of our respondents may be an important influence on their learning preference. In this study the culturally diverse group demonstrated more interest in understanding knowledge through reading widely and deeply whereas the Dutch pre-service teachers preferred learning by doing and integrating the theoretical learning process with real-world experiences. The evidence that the learning of the EM group was motivated more by their intrinsic desire for knowledge than that of the Dutch counterparts is interesting and requires further discussion and empirical investigation. It seems that other factors besides learning environments may have influenced students’ choice of learning preferences as well. Accordingly, more observations are needed to help explain this finding. If we start from the idea that language shapes thinking it is essential that we first create an awareness of the different types of learning. If we do not have the words for a particular concept then it is impossible to talk about it. As Orwell said in his famous novel 1984:

60

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give the exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’, since political and intellectual freedom no longer


existed as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. … A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more know that equal had once had the secondary meaning of ‘politically equal’, or that free had once meant ‘intellectually free’, than for instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attached to queen and rook. There would be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable. Orwell Newspeak, 1949, pp.241-242, 250 (Bold print mine)

Orwell first states that a concept is unimaginable and therefore nameless. Next he says that a concept is nameless and therefore unimaginable. So is thought dependent on words? I do not want to digress into a discussion about whether our thoughts are couched in some silent medium of the brain, what Pinker calls a ‘language of thought’ or ‘mentalese’ (Pinker, 1994) but I do agree with Pinker that our thoughts are only voiced whenever we need to communicate them to a listener. Therefore we need to create a language that is useful whenever we want to talk about learning preferences with our students. People often simply assume that words determine thoughts. Thoughts are, as it were, trapped inside the head of the thinker. To know what someone else thinks about learning we have to ask him or her to be explicit and use concepts we as a group understand. This is exactly what Ruijters tried to achieve when she designed her five-metaphor approach. We may conclude that Ruijters has given us a language of learning and a tool that allows us to discuss our different learning preferences. In both her dissertation and a previous article (Simons, Ruijters, 2003) she points out that she needs to take the instrument a step further. It will be interesting to see how she will adapt the questionnaire and change the scoring of the questions. Until then, I will continue using this tool to help students talk about their learning preferences in workshops and to make them aware that their preference might differ greatly from their pupils, team members and superiors. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Sanneke Bolhuis for her coaching and support. Finally, it would be wrong of me to forget to mention the students of both groups and my four critical friends. It is amazing how much you can learn by hearing other professionals describe their learning experiences. It was worth every minute of the time they and our group of critical friends invested in it.

61

References Argyris, Ch., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: a theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bolhuis, S. (2004a) Leren en veranderen bij volwassenen. Bussum: Coutinho. Bolhuis, S. (2004b) Leerstrategieën, leren en verantwoordelijkheid. Bussum: Coutinho. Bolster, A., (1983) ‘Towards a more effective model of research on teaching’, Harvard Educational Review, 53 (3), 294-308. Caluwé, L. de & Vermaak, H. (1999). Leren veranderen. Amersfoort: Twynstra Gudde. Coelho, P. (2007) The Witch of Portobello. London: Harper Collins McCourt, F., (2005). Teacher Man. London: Fourth Estate. Davies, C. and Lowe, T. (2008), Kolb Learning Cycle Tutorial. Available online, http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php Dochy, F. (2000). Cöoperatief leren in een krachtige leeromgeving. Handboek probleemgestuurd leren in de praktijk Leuven: Acco Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (1954) Available online, http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/polovina/learnpyramid/about.htm Pinker, S. (1994) Language Instinct London: Penguin Books. Ruijters, M.P.C. (2006). Liefde voor Leren. Deventer: Kluwer. Senge, P. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Double Day Currency, 1990. Simons, P.R.J., Ruijters, M.P.C. (2003). Differing Colours of Professional Learning. Padova; EARLI conference. Schön, D.A., (1983). The reflective practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.

62

Adriaan Ansems Abstract in dutch Het doel van deze case studie is om te onderzoeken of een online forum de Content matter among ontwikkeling naar het ‘reflective practitioner’ -schap kan ondersteunen. Normaal critical friends matters gesproken wordt er mondeling informatie uitgewisseld bij gezamenlijke bijeenkomsten. In een online forum is de uitwisseling schriftelijk en asynchroon. Tijdens de Mastersopleiding moeten de studenten kritisch reflecteren op hun eigen vooroordelen, waarden en normen en moeten zij als ‘critical friends’ naar elkaar optreden. Om reflectie over opvattingen en gedrag te bewerkstelligen, zoals dat gewenst is van studenten die een master opleiding volgen, is reflecteren alleen niet voldoende. Kernreflecties zijn dan nodig. Reflecteren kan op een zestal reflectieniveaus plaats vinden en Korthagen heeft deze niveaus gekoppeld aan de inhoud van de onderwerpen waarop gereflecteerd wordt. Door de reflectieniveaus (waaronder ook de kernreflecties) te koppelen aan de inhoud van de inbreng in het online forum, kan er een verschil in reflectieniveaus zichtbaar worden tijdens de discussies in de case studie. Om de academische, cognitieve en vakinhoudelijke vaardigheden te verbeteren is een reflectie op kernniveau nodig. De aanname was dat gedurende de online asynchrone geschreven discussies tussen studenten die optreden als elkaars critical friends, het reflectieniveau zou toenemen. De resultaten van de verschillende aspecten uit de subvragen waren volgens de verkregen data uit de case studie veelbelovend. De participanten gedroegen zich als critical friends en stimuleerden elkaar om te reflecteren en om kennis uit te wisselen. Mijn interventies als tutor in de groep werden als positief ervaren en stimuleerden het reflectie proces en lieten de participanten nadenken waarom en waarover ze discussieerden in het online forum. De geschreven teksten maakten het mogelijk om de discussies te herlezen en opnieuw te overdenken. Schrijven helpt om je gedachten te structuren. Mede omdat je het voor een ander moet opschrijven. De asynchrone discussie maakt het mogelijk om eerst je antwoorden te overdenken voordat je ze opschrijft. En je hoeft niet meteen te reageren. Onderwerpen die betrekking hebben op de opdrachten die gemaakt moesten worden, werden als heel waardevol gezien. Discussies over de onderwerpen brachten meer kennis over de onderwerpen bij de participanten. De reflectieniveaus konden gekoppeld worden aan de inhoud van inbreng in de discussies. Volgens de participanten werd er meer en beter gereflecteerd als gevolg van de reacties van de anderen die als critical friends optraden. Maar op basis van deze case studie waar de deelnemers zelf hun onderwerpen konden kiezen, was er geen verschil in reflectieniveau. Het antwoord op de onderzoeksvraag in deze case studie is dan ook negatief. De belangrijkste bevinding uit dit onderzoek is dat als het doel van een online discussie is het groeien naar het ‘reflective practitioner’ –schap, dat dan ook het onderwerp van de discussie ‘het groeien naar het ‘reflective practitioner’-schap’ moet zijn. Door over deze onderwerpen ervaring uit te wisselen groeit de kennis over het onderwerp en kunnen de participanten reflecteren over het onderwerp. ‘The content matter of the discussion among critical friends, matters.’

63

64

Content matter among critical friends matters Discussions among critical friends on open topics in an online forum Adriaan Ansems Introduction In this chapter the focus is on the use of an online forum as a communication tool in a tutor group of four Erasmus Mundus students and a tutor. The four students, acting as each other’s critical friends, discuss about self-generating topics in writing and are in the process of becoming reflective practitioners themselves. The role of the tutor is to guide the discussions, add contributions, and take control of the discussions if necessary. In the context of this study usually exchanging information takes place in spoken language during face to face meetings in the classroom or in other situations. The purpose of this case study is to examine if the aspects of an online forum where participants in a tutor group act as each other’s critical friend is supportive to the concept of becoming a reflective practitioner. According to the Erasmus Mundus Programme Handbook: ‘European Master in Special Education Needs’ the students ‘are likely to have deepened their knowledge and understanding in SEN - subject areas, cross-curricular areas and support areas and to have enhanced their academic, cognitive, subject-specific and transferable skills.’ (Roehampton, 2007). The students are engaged in cooperative exchanges of knowledge with reflective practice being one of the core issues. During the master’s course the Erasmus Mundus students are expected to act as critical friends for each other in the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. Therefore, as future critical reflective practitioners they must critically reflect and examine their biases, beliefs, and attitudes. The context of this research is based on a social constructivist view of learning. One of the facts of the constructivist view of learning is that learners learn by constructing new knowledge based on their prior knowledge (Dewey, 1960; Piaget, 1973). Their prior knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts influence what they recognize about new knowledge and how they organise and interpret it (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Own concepts of own reality can lead to misinterpretation of new knowledge. So we need others to questioning our own knowledge and exchange thoughts and ideas in order to adapt own knowledge

65


to a more common representation of knowledge. This brings us to the research question: Can the use of an online forum support the process of becoming critically reflective practitioners for a tutor group of Erasmus Mundus Master students operating as each other’s critical friend? The sub questions of this research are: ◉◉ To what extent did the levels of reflection change during the discussions in the online forum in this case study? ◉◉ What is the participant’s role in an online forum in this case study? ◉◉ What function does discussion in writing serve in this case study? ◉◉ What function do the topics of discussions have for the participants in this case study? Critical friends in an online forum The starting point of reflection

According to many authors the reflection process is a proven concept for learning (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Carr & Kemmis, 2002; Dewey, 1960; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Larrivee, 2000; Moon, 1999; Schön, 1983). Reflection is a process of thinking back, analysing, re-evaluating professional actions and problem solving (Schön, 1983). The process of inquiry usually begins with the recognition of a problem, which implies one has a question in mind, or finds something puzzling or is aware of a difficulty, and subsequently proceeds to make an effort in understanding and solving it (Dewey, 1960; Loughran, 1996; Schön, 1983). Thus the identification of a problem in relation to a particular aspect of how one goes about finding a solution is often assumed to be the starting point of the process of reflection. Defence for reflection

66

If reflection starts with the recognition or awareness of a problem, there may be situations where ‘problems’ are not recognised to be able to initiate the reflection process. There are situations where subjective defences may affect the interpretation and recognition of information. Moon writes: ‘… emotional influences - such as avoidance of an area of thought – can steer the process of reflection more strongly than any other influence’ (1999: p. 29). These influences can both prevent or encourage the process of reflection. They encourage a reflection process because of the awareness of the inconsistency of a situation and therefore start the reflection process. On the other hand, emotions can trigger a defence mechanism that prevents the reflection process. Defence mechanisms, such as denial, rationalisation and projection, may hinder the acceptance of the reality or biased interpretation (Hamachek, 1995). Such factors are often so subtle that they do not catch our attention and are not likely to arouse any critical concern; thus, we may never recognise their influence. If a problem has not been recognised, we may assume that the content for reflection ‘does not exist’

Content matter among critical friends matters

to the person. Furthermore, certain habitual behaviours or practices become so automated that they seldom come to one’s attention. Besides, one is less likely to reflect on own practice if one is content with the existing practice (Chak, 2006). In these circumstances we are dependent on other’s to question our beliefs and our interpretations of own knowledge and to keep on acting as a reflective practitioner to be open for critique. Levels in reflection

In my belief, in developing changes in skills and attitudes necessary for study at advanced level as required from students in a Masters course and to become critical reflective practitioners, reflection is not enough. To enhance student’s academic, cognitive, subject-specific and transferable skills (Roehampton, 2007) a deep level of reflection is necessary. Korthagen (2005) makes a distinction in six levels of reflection as ‘levels of change’ based on the so-called Bateson model (Dilts, 1990) . The model connects the contents of the reflection process to the six levels of reflection. The model shows that there are various levels in people that can be influenced. environment

behaviour competencies beliefs identity mission

Figure 1: The onion: a model of levels of change (Korthagen, 2005).

Only the outer levels (environment and behaviour) can be directly observed by others. Reflection on the first four levels of reflection can be considered as more superficial. In attaining attitudinal changes, these levels of reflection are not sufficient. The ‘core of the personality’ is found at the two deepest levels, referred to as ‘Core-reflection’. According to Korthagen (2005) core reflection aims at more than just cognitive insight. Thinking, feeling, and wanting are all important in instigating new action on the basis of core quality. The levels of identity and

67


mission are the levels where attitudinal changes do occur. These refer to the level where practitioners reflect on essential questions such as: ‘Why am I doing this work?’ or even deeper questions about the meaning of life. If a student is willing to reflect on those core qualities attitudinal change can occur. All levels influence each other from inner to outer and vice versa, but this is not automatic. If the environment changes, behaviour automatically doesn’t change. Inner changes, especially the core levels, always influence the outer levels. For this case study I want to connect the six levels of reflection to the content of the contributions in the discussions. The six levels of reflection refer to levels on what people can reflect (Korthagen, 2004). Korthagen connects the levels of reflection to the following content descriptions. ◉◉ Environment: This refers to everything the person encounters outside him/herself and on what reactions take place. ◉◉ Behaviour: All things the persons actually do in the environment (observable actions). ◉◉ Competences: The integrated body of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that is the cause for observable behaviour not the behaviour itself. ◉◉ Beliefs: Ideas and convictions which are considered to be true. Beliefs are the foundation for our daily routine, and can offer space but also can restrict ourselves. ◉◉ Identity: The self, beliefs people have about themselves. ◉◉ Mission: Things like ‘what is my purpose in the world?’. When examining the contributions of the participants in the discussions the content can be connected to the content description of one of the six levels of reflection. In this case study the participants discussed about their experiences and thoughts in writing in the online forum and the discussions were automatically saved. Afterwards the written contributions were analysed and graded on one of the six levels of reflection. After analysing the levels of reflection of all contributions in the discussions it could occur that there is some change in the level of reflection of the participants during the case study as effect of discussing in writing and acting as each other’s critical friends. Out of the changes in the level of reflection there can be some findings interpreted to answer the research questions. Critical Friends

68

Being a ‘critical friend’ means giving feedback and helping one another in sharing personal values and beliefs (Larrivee, 2000). Interaction between learners and their peers is a necessary part of the learning process, as they build on and modify their existing interpretations (Dalgarno, 2001; Larrivee, 2000; Ponte, 2007). Our beliefs (Argyris, 1990) and our ‘mental models’ (Senge et al., 2001) are self-generating, often untested; we need critical friends to become aware of them. Learning to be a critical friend takes time and effort- the best way is to do the work yourself


(Larrivee, 2000). Asking provocative questions, offering criticism to each other and while being a trusted friend requires a balance on the continuum of being ‘critical’ on the one side and being ‘friend’ on the other side (Watling, D.Hopkins, Harris, & J.Beresford, 1998). Also unbalanced power relations in a group of critical friends can lead to distortion of the mutual relations. So the feedback given can be more or less critical depending on the person who receives the critique. In that case they do not help each other to disclose personal values and beliefs due to the power relation in the group. For me having a friend is to feel safe and having trust in that person. Giving regardless critique with no empathy shown can be interpreted as hostile and does not fit well the role of a friend. Although the word friend is used here the students are not really each others’ friends. Being a friend is another kind of relation than being a student is the same group. The students have to work together despite their preferred friends. As researcher you choose your critical friends among your colleagues or acquaintances, finding a balance between the role of friend and that of critical practitioner. The students can only choose among the other students who are novice critical friends in their tutor group. In this case study, the students may be hindered in their role as critical friends (Ponte, 2002) by the fact that they have different nationalities with their own concepts of friends and learning traditions. Ponte (2002, p: 169) distinguishes five functions (with the associated descriptions) of a ‘critical friend’ based on her research which I also used to design a quick scan: ◉◉ Exploration: questioning each other critically in order to clarify themes, contributing to critical analysis and interpretation. ◉◉ Informing each other: giving tips, advice and suggestions. ◉◉ Encouragement: putting fresh heart into people to continue, giving them recognition and showing appreciation. ◉◉ Exchanging ideas: talking about experiences with no strings attached. ◉◉ Modelling: learning from each other how things can be done. Various literature on reflection and the role of critical friends include items connected with the functions of being a critical friend (Biggs, 2003; Driscoll & Teh, 2001; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Mathias, 2005; Ponte, 2002). Based on the above functions and items I designed a quick scan which is a list of items on which the participants have to indicate what they think are important matters regarding acting as a critical friend. They also have to indicate if they think they are competent on these items. They fill in this scan twice; the first time before the online discussion starts and the second time when it stops. The differences between the two quick scans will be discussed in the interview. Online forum

The environment used for the discussions in this case study is an online forum in a closed virtual collaboration environment. At www.surfgroepen.nl the Erasmus Mundus course uses a collaboration workspace as the internet location where

69


all documents are placed and where communication between staff and students occurs. The online forum used is a web application where participants can start new discussions and contribute to the discussions with others on the internet; in jargon terms ‘starting a threat and posting messages’. The participants, as well as all other students, are registered members of the Erasmus Mundus learning community. The four participants were used to working with this environment. The online forum is another means of communication next to the usual channels used in this learning community such as face-to-face meetings, lectures, tutor meetings, and e-mail (Helleve, 2007). The online forum provides an extra opportunity to exchange knowledge at any time, at any place; not only to be used on a distance course but also in an on-site setting such as on the campus during the Erasmus Mundus course. It is asynchronous (not acting at the same time) communication and it is an extension of the normal classroom setting in time and place (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). The moment a contribution is posted it is visible on the online forum and others can read the contribution in their own time and place. Contrary to chatting or using a telephone or face-to-face meetings (synchronous communication) you do not have to be simultaneously active. As an individual member of the online forum you post your ideas to all members. The whole group can read your comments on a subject and they can interact from their own perspectives and opinions (Helleve, 2007; Vries, Meij, Boersma, & Pieters, 2005). As a result different reactions, opinions, and ideas are generated. This makes it possible to compare own thoughts and ideas with those of others and gives more insight in reconstructing own knowledge and possibly in becoming aware of own beliefs. The input of others can also point out irregularities in thoughts and raise awareness of different viewpoints and conflicting ideas. This makes it possible to start reflecting on own ideas and beliefs (Argyris, 1990; Burgt & Verhulst, 2003; Etherington, 2004; Hamachek, 1999; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). As a group the participants can work together in a collaborative way to construct new, own and shared knowledge (Helleve, 2007). Like every communication channel the use of an online forum has its own advantages and its disadvantages. Before starting to use an online forum this has to be taken in consideration. Because communication is in writing the members must be familiar with discussing in writing and good writing skills are preferable. The time between contributions does not speed up the discussion when there is an urgent question. The messages are posted to a group of users. For personal communication this is not the right channel, it is better to use private e-mail or sending a letter.

70

The contributions to the discussions are saved automatically and are presented chronologically per discussion topic with the date, time, and the name of the contributor. As a result participants are always able to look back and re-read all discussion (Dennen & Wieland, 2007). This makes it possible to join the discussion at any time. Without actually being involved in the discussion you can read all contributions and put in your own reaction without disrupting a current discussion with input that has already been contributed (Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). Because of the saved written contributions it is also possible


to read the discussion again and reflect on one’s own and others’ contributions. During this process the participant can re-evaluate others perspectives and reflect on their own actions gaining more insight into own thinking and beliefs (Helleve, 2007; Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). The characteristics and functions of an online forum look very promising to use in an educational environment. However it does not guarantee motivation to participate given the lack of face to face communication. (Helleve, 2007). The tutor/moderator in this online tutor group

In this case study I had the role of researcher, moderator of this online forum, and tutor of the tutor group. I had asked students from the Erasmus Mundus Masters course to participate in this case study. These discussions in the online forum were no integral part of the Masters course. Being a tutor is different from being a moderator in this group, both have different responsibilities. The tutor has a specific responsibility; to act as a role model, to take an important guiding role in encouraging other students to act as peer tutors, to organise, facilitate, follow and stimulate the learning and development process (van Swet & Ponte, 2007). The tutor pays explicit attention to the collaborative relationships in the tutor group: each member’s role, task and responsibilities must be clear. Being a moderator the person focuses on the online forum itself, he is facilitator of the process. A well facilitated online forum is a precondition for participating in discussions and increases the motivation to participate (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). The first action for the moderator is to allow the participants to become familiar to the existing online forum. During a face-to-face meeting before the case study started the participants are shown how the discussion application works, having the opportunity to post contributions themselves with the assistance of the moderator. The participants had known each other for at least 5 months and had been working with the collaboration environment for 4 months. Having access - they all had their own login names and passwords- and being familiar with the technical aspects of the discussion tool and connecting with the other members socially are important factors for having a constructive relationship in an online forum. Motivation for joining discussions is higher when participants are used to the environment and when they trust the other participants (Helleve, 2007; Salmon, 2002; Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). The moderator watched over the discussions and allowed the participants to play the main role. The moderator supervised the exchange of messages and should intervene when insulting, discriminating, or undesired texts were written and, when necessary, guided the discussion if it digressed from the topic (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). The novelty of using a forum is a motivating aspect in experiencing this way of communicating. Usually when the novelty has worn off motivation drops (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006) and then the role of the tutor is to engage the participants in keeping up the discussion and submitting their contributions. The tutor’s guidance, feedback, and presence are very important to maintain the participants involvement and motivation (Paz-Dennen & Wieland, 2007). Being observed and recognised by the tutor is very stimulating for participants

71


keeping them interested in the discussions (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). The participants in the case study are first time users of an online forum and they received guidelines from the tutor on how to participate in the discussions. According to Dewiyanti (2005) in order to maintain positive interactions in the learning process participants must have an awareness of what the different aspects are for using an online forum as a tool of reflection. In guiding the discussions the tutor must provide explicit and - clear instructions to the participants on how to operate in these discussions of this case study and to adapt these guidelines during the discussions. The guidelines for this case study are: The goal is to practice the role of a critical friend. The subjects are open. It can be a discussion on content or perhaps on reflection of an incident you experienced as a student of an academic course. Be open-minded and critical and respect each others’ opinions and believes. We are all equal members; you all can take the lead if you want. Try to read the new contributions regularly (every two days?) and reflect on what this new question or information does to you in relation to your perspectives or values. The participants in this online tutor group

72

In the online forum participants can communicate in an asynchronous way with the group. Exchanging ideas and thoughts with, and getting feedback from, others is the essence of learning. Therefore, the willingness from others to react is as important as it is in any discussion. When nobody reacts, the discussion drops dead. The messages can be read by all members of the group and every individual can decide whether or not to react to the contribution (Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). With internet access the members can choose their own place and time to read and react to the contributions. Without being interrupted by the presence of others - as in face-to-face meetings, they can re-read the written texts and write their own contributions in their own time and place. The asynchronous communication of an online forum means that the time factor is important. The participant can take all the time they need to think about the contributions of others and to reflect on their own and others’ ideas and thoughts (Helleve, 2007; Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). In face-to-face meetings the participants are expected to react spontaneously and do not have the opportunity or time to think extensively about the topics in order to be able to provide extra information. Due to the time available in an online discussion the participants can reflect on their contributions and become aware of deeper levels of reflection (Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). When communicating as critical friends, the participants must feel free to react and disagree with peers they trust (Helleve, 2007; Ponte, 2007) in an online forum as well as in face-to-face meetings. For those students who are more inhibited, participating in online discussions is far less intimidating than speaking in a classroom with all the other students present and focused on the speaker. Discussion in a classroom setting is often characterized by unequal participation due to personal characteristics such as timidity. An online


discussion can be a more comfortable environment particularly for students who feel uncomfortable about exchanging ideas and thoughts in a group (Benson et al., 2002). The contribution can be submitted at their own opportunity, time, and place without being confronted by the other participants in person. In an online forum it is possible to simply observe the on-going discussion without actually contributing to the discussion. In doing so, motivation to participate in the discussion and add contributions is no doubt enhanced. Online discussions and topics

The topics were left open to choice in this case study. Research suggests that the topics of discussions are an important factor in motivating participants to contribute to the discussions. It also confirms that topics concerning the course increase the motivation to participate (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005; Helleve, 2007; Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006). Expanding their knowledge by exchanging thoughts and experiences on related topics were beneficial for their results. On the other hand, personal topics were also interesting but the number of people sharing thoughts and ideas about self-generating topics were fewer. The common interest among the participants and the need to build knowledge on course-related topics generated more feedback on contributions than on selfgenerated topics. Discussion in written form in an online forum

Discussing and exchanging thoughts with others orally is different from writing them down. When writing down thoughts on paper, they stay on the page unchanged. Written thoughts and ideas can at a later stage be rewritten, rearranged, restructured, adapted with new insights and redefined, hence it can have a far deeper, reflective and educative function (Bolton, 1999). ‘Writing is a staged process involving reading, redrafting, editing, and sharing only when the writer is ready. These stages enable writers to reflect and consider their work before they involve another reader; so the writer can afford to say more to the silent page.’ (Bolton, 1999: 244)

Evidence shows when writing down experiences of one’s own practice for an audience, as in an online forum, it enables us to analyse and evaluate this practice more carefully (Whipp, Wesson, & Wiley, 1997). Writing down ideas and reflection for one’s co-mentor, tutor, supervisor, or critical friends offers clarity and surprising insight on our own ideas and thoughts. In this case study the participants write their questions, answers, and thoughts in an online forum. This demands writing skills of the members of the online discussions, or at least a preference for writing. By writing in an online forum where other participants contribute in the thread (the line of discussion) the participants can easily follow developments in the discussion. Also this online forum automatically sequence and arrange the contributions chronologically. The

73


logical presentation and the visual display of the discussions makes it easy to follow the submitted comments and opinions. The manner in which the written texts are presented allows participants to follow the process of reasoning in responses to their own, as well as others’, contributions (Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). Although the aspects and functions of using an online forum in an educational environment seem very promising, the aspect of motivation and participation as well as the lack of face-to-face communication are more uncertain. They disregard non-verbal signals and cues such as those apparent in face-to-face discussions (Helleve, 2007). Methodology Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to investigate how asynchronous communication in writing in a tutor group where participants act as each others’ critical friend in an online forum, is supportive in the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. The communication involved four Erasmus Mundus master students supervised by a tutor. In a period of 6 weeks the participants started discussions on personally-chosen topics and contributed to topics from others. The tutor (same as the moderator) monitored the whole period but did not actually contribute to the discussions in the first week. The purpose for this was so that tutor interventions would be visible in the levels of reflections. After the first week the tutor contributed to the discussions in order to promote a higher level of reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). Methodology and methods

The theoretical framework behind thinking, designing and constructing this qualitative research is based on a social constructivist approach in an interpretivist paradigm. Understanding the participants’ perceptions and their attitudes towards using an online forum in the process of becoming each other’s critical friend in a tutor group, will help to construct new knowledge on the context of this case study. The participants’ perceptions, meanings, and the experiences as interpreted by the participants themselves of the discussions in the online forum are all input for this research. This interpretive research attempts to analyse the case from the participants’ perspectives. As a researcher I am professionally and personally involved with the investigation. To avoid self-promotion (Herr & Anderson, 2005) I refer to the other researchers from the collective study as critical friends by presenting them my writings and doubts.

74

The participants in my case study are students in the Erasmus Mundus Master course. In the first meeting with the students the purpose of the research was explained to them. Their participation was voluntary and their input was purely scientific. The experiences and information given will not be used for any other purpose but for this research. The interviews have been recorded with the consent of the participants. The transcripts of the interview have been checked


by the participants and made anonymous. Only the researcher has listened to the recordings and no one else has had access to the data. The researcher has ensured that the publication of the findings would in no way enable individuals to be identified. The case environment

The four participants were used to working with the case environment and the tutor was very familiar with this technology. He was the administrator of the workspace and the initiator of choosing this environment for the Erasmus Mundus course. A special workspace for this case study was created with the name ‘CF research’. The members of the ‘CF Research’ group were the four students participating in the case study, the researcher as tutor, and the other four researchers as visitors with limited rights. The visitors could only observe the discussions without submitting contributions. Procedure

The procedure used will be presented chronologically. The methods used to carry out this research are a quick scan, interviews with the participants, and analysing the written texts in the discussions and the interviews.

Figure 2 Timeline procedure Plenary meeting with the participants

In a meeting with the four participants and the researcher, the research was introduced and the context and the purpose were explained. The online forum was introduced and demonstrated by the tutor. Pre-quick scan

Before the participants started the discussions, the pre-quick scan was filled in by the participants. By filling in the quick scan the participants indicate what they think are important issues related to acting as a critical friend. They must also indicate if they personally feel competent in these areas. In the interviews with

75


the participants the difference between the pre-quick scan and post- quick scan were used as input. One of the interview questions for the participants would be to reflect on the differences in their answers in the pre- and post-quick scan. The items in the quick scan are based on four functions of the ‘critical friend’ distinguished by Ponte (2002) based on her research: ◉◉ Exploration: questioning each other critically in order to clarify themes, contributing to critical analysis and interpretation. ◉◉ Informing each other: giving tips, advice and suggestions. ◉◉ Encouragement: inspiring people to continue, giving them recognition and showing appreciation. ◉◉ Exchanging ideas: talking about experiences with no strings attached. The function of modelling, the fifth aspect, was misinterpreted and the aspect of modelling wasn’t put in the quick scan by the researcher. Because of the exclusion of this aspect an extra question was included in the interview to compensate for this lack of data. This was the function of modelling- learning from each other about how things can be done. The online forum

The online forum used was a closed forum because of possible topics of confidentiality. The participants were familiar with the technical aspects of this forum. In this online forum the participants discussed topics of their own choice for 6 weeks. Post-Quick scan

The post-quick scan was exactly the same as the pre-quick scan. The only difference was the time that the participants were given to fill in the scan. The participants filled in the post-quick scan to give an indication of their opinions about how competent they felt as a critical friend and how important they considered the aspects of being a critical friend. The differences in the pre- and post-quick scan were input for the participant’s interview. The interview

Before the interview took place, the participants were informed about the questions that were to be asked in the interview and the results of their pre- and post-quick scan. All the interviews were semi-structured interviews (Robson, 2000) with questions concerning the topics of the interview having been devised in advance. The participants themselves could add information about experiences and subjects that were important for them. Seen through the eyes of others (Larrivee, 2000) they provided me with information I had never thought about. All interviews were carried out by myself personally, were audio-recorded (with permission of the interviewee) and analysed qualitatively. All interviews have been fully transcribed before the structural phase of the analysis. 76


Data gathering

The sources of qualitative data are the online discussions and the recorded interviews. Within the online forum all discussions were automatically saved. Back-up files were made in case of emergency. All contributions of all discussions from participants were available for later analysis. With every contribution the time, date, and contributor is saved in the discussion. Even the quoted message on which the participant reacts to, can be called up.

Figure 3: Posted message in a discussion in the online forum

The interviews with three of the four participants took place after they left the Netherlands. The web application Skype was used to interview the three participants in London and Prague. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for further analysis. Data analysis

The data from participants’ contributions in the discussions was analysed in both a quantitative and a qualitative manner. From every contribution the date, name of the participant, and the discussion were recorded. Every input in the discussions was given a grade based on the six ‘levels of change’ by Korthagen (2005). Therefore, if there was any change in the level of discussion during the case study this could be detected. The contributions were graded by the researcher. For validation purposes, examples of three graded contributions and examples of three ungraded contributions were sent to other researchers. The other researchers were asked to grade the three ungraded contributions based on the provided examples and the ‘levels of reflection’. The average results of the qualitative grading by the

77


other researchers were the same as those originally graded by the researcher. The data gathered from the interviews was analysed quantitatively. This was done by using an open coding process, based on the questions from the interview. When analysing the transcripts the original soundtracks were used to verify the content of the conversation. In order to understand the meaning of the written text better it was necessary to refer to the soundtrack itself in order to fully appreciate the content. As mentioned before communication between people in face-to-face meetings involves far more than the exchange of words alone (Helleve, 2007). Other signals such as facial expressions and hesitations provide extra information on the content of the message. The analysed data was presented to the participants and asked for their feedback by email (member check). The Results Levels of reflection

In the 6 weeks 86 contributions were made in the discussions. The analysis of the number of contributions per week reveals that the number of contributions per day fluctuated during the whole period (Table 1). In the beginning there were more contributions than at the end of the period.

Table 1: The contributions per day over the whole period.

78

In the beginning, when it was new, the participants expressed their excitement about using the online forum. Xie, DeBacker and Ferguson (2006) recognise that the novelty of the use of a new tool is a motivating factor. When people are used to the tool the motivation disappears. I recognise this from my practice as educational technologist when I was training people on using digital learning environments. This also supports the fact that the tool was easy to use, as confirmed by the participants. But the usability of a tool does not say anything about the usefulness of a tool. The levels of reflection can be connected to the content of the contributions so differences in the levels of the reflection could be detected. The contributions were analysed and graded on one of the six levels of reflection. After grading the contributions, it appears that all contributions can be divided in level 3 and 4. Out of the quantitative data it turned out that there were no levels 5 or 6 contributions.


For an attitude change core reflection is needed (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), therefore core reflections did not occur. If the levels did increase they did not reach the level of core reflection and that was an assumption in my case study. This is the first indication that in this case study the discussions in an online forum did not support an increase of the level of reflection to core reflections. Out of the quantitative data on the levels of the contributions, a change is apparent during the 6 weeks of the case study.

Table 2: Level 4 contributions in % during the six weeks

The percentage of level 4 contributions from the total number of contributions per week shows an increase in the level of contributions during the period of six weeks. However, during the case study three participants indicated that there were no changes in the level of reflection as identified in the onion of Korthagen (2005). According to N. the discussions speeded up the process of reflection but the level of reflection did not increase. And S. said during the interview: ‘now you mention it made me reflect on my beliefs’. Y. answers that she did encounter differences in reflection on the discussions due to the effect of input from her critical friends. She did not mention the levels of reflection. Analysing the quantitative data gathered from the discussions further supports these feelings of the participants. The number of contributions declined and only two persons remained in the discussions. In addition, one of them contributed mainly at level 4. This is why the level of the contributions appears to be higher in the last part of the case study. Therefore, this presents an incorrect image of what really happened. The level of reflection did not increase during this period. My assumption that the levels of reflection would increase during the discussions in the online forum was not correct. Afterwards the participants realised that they did practice reflection but were not aware of it during the discussions. I also conclude that statistics can give wrong information and triangulation is necessary for getting more trustworthy information. During the case study the participants didn’t feel they were in the process of becoming a reflective practitioner by participating in the discussions.

79


Both N. and S. realised, during the interview, that while the discussions were taking place they referred to their beliefs and values. Talking about it in the interview made them only in hindsight realise how useful it was in the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. During the discussion none of the participants mentioned having felt that they reflected on their values and beliefs. This means that my assumption that discussion in an online forum would increase the level of reflection was wrong in the context of this case study. Some participants noticed that during the discussions, reflection itself improved. In the next table (Table 3) the period of the actual input of the participants during the whole period is shown.

Table 3: The period of contributing by the participants.

Every participant contributed to the discussions but not throughout the whole period. Participant N. entered contributions the whole period. Participant I. contributed only for a short period. Participant I. stopped adding contributions in the second week and participant Y. in the fourth week. Only two of them contributed the whole period. Exchanging ideas and thoughts and getting feedback from others is the essence of the constructivist view on learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Etherington, 2004; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Thus the willingness from others to react is essential for learning, also in an online forum. When only two of my participants contributed to a discussion the motivation dropped as the reaction of participant S. shows: ‘So, it was kind of like not so motivating when it’s just always the two of us.’ Acting in face to face situations, it is easier to react in discussions. Especially when there are only two people exchanging information. Due to my linear way of carrying out this case study I did not notice that the two participants stopped using the online forum so early. In the next paragraph I will try to answer the question why the two participants stopped so early. 80


Why did the participants stop participating?

It is intriguing why I. and Y. stopped earlier to contribute to the discussions. The transcript was my only source and I started examining the transcript of both participants again with this question in my mind. These are the quotations from participant Y. that intrigued me. Participant Y: ‘Right. There was like when I was doing my own assignment which was ……. So I asked my friends views. …Because they all added their point of view to it and I was looking to it from just one point and I could write my conclusion within half an hour after getting response from them and they were very quick.’ This quotation of Y. says that she experienced the use of the online forum as very useful. She used it deliberately to work on her assignment. Participant Y. mentions in her interview that she is overloaded with assignments: ‘And second, during that time we were quite overloaded with assignments and all so. Actually I personally could not utilise it so much.’ Here participant Y. gives, to my opinion, the reason why she did not use the online forum any more. She felt overloaded with assignments. Participant Y mention about writing: ‘But sometimes writing can be difficult.’.’ Here she says that writing is difficult for her and communication in the forum is in writing. Hence this is also a clue why she stopped earlier. I think that for participant Y. the reasons to stop were: the overload she felt about the assignments and the difficulty she had communicating in writing that probably took too much time for her. She is positive about the use of the online forum itself. Therefore I see no reason to question the opinion of Y., when answering the questions in the interview, because she stopped earlier. These are the quotations from participant I. that intrigued me. Participant I. implies that her method of learning is looking at how others do things. ‘See, this group of four, we were not having that much interaction, to tell you the truth previously. That helped us developing our interaction and I’ve learned, for myself I’ve learned from others how do they do things. So I had that kind of experience.’ Participant I. likes to focus on one topic at a time and is confused when different topics are discussed simultaneously. ‘Because I asked about adaptive action education, somebody asked about action research and democracy. So many topics in between. So I could not get the link, because we had little tuff time to manage with our assignment and all.’ Here participant I. also mentions her lack of time to work on her assignment. I think that at least the combination of three reasons applies: learning style, focus on one topic, and the pressure of working on her assignment made her decide to stop contributing to the discussions. For participant I. there are no reasons to doubt her honesty when answering the questions. It is interesting to include the remarks of I. taken in consideration her learning style. Answer on research sub question 1: To what extent did the levels of reflection change during the discussions in the online forum in this case study?

81


The levels detected in the contributions were only level 3 and level 4. In the process of becoming a reflective practitioner core reflection, level 5 and 6, is needed. The levels of core reflection were not reached at all. Out of the quantitative data it appears that the levels of reflection did not change in the duration of this case study. Out of the qualitative data, the interviews with the participants, I can draw the same conclusion. Reflection itself improved during the discussions in the online forum. Tutor group

From the qualitative data out of the interviews it can be concluded that the functions of being a critical friend (Ponte, 2002) were present in the tutor group. Observing the discussion taught participant I. various aspects of being a critical friend which fits with her learning style. Participant I: ‘ I have learned how they acted as a critical group of friends.’ From the perspective of exchanging thoughts, examples and experiences, the role models were very important. The possibility of exchanging thoughts and ideas, and in becoming aware of how others think about certain subjects, was considered very important. Another advantage of being a member of an online group is that of not being overpowered by another person in the discussion. This online forum works especially well for those participants who do not feel comfortable in a group in a classroom setting (Benson et al., 2002) or, out of my experience, in a chat environment where synchronous discussions take place. In this online discussion everybody could be involved without feeling offended or overpowered. Participants had the time to construct their responses in a better way (Helleve, 2007; Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). The comment of others added different perspectives about the topics (Dalgarno, 2001; Larrivee, 2000; Van Swet & Ponte, 2007). Questioning others as part of the role of a critical friend was not necessary for participant N. She stated that the discussion continued naturally and stimulating questions were not necessary. For participant S. thinking deeper about the topics themselves and questions from the others made her reflect on why she asked a particular question. Participant S.: ‘So, kind of like asking reflecting questions from critical friends and all. So it makes you kind of self reflect.’ Participant Y. liked it when critical friends challenged her thoughts and did not feel offended. Participant N found it interesting to have comments from others, adding that it gave the discussion a different aspect. The participants knew each other beforehand and felt amongst friends. This made it easy to accept the input from others without feeling offended. As critical friends they were open to receiving criticism or expressing their own views (Ponte, 2002).

82

According to the participants the items in the quick scan were relevant to the content of the case and were quite clear. All participants had been discussing the critical friends concept from the time the Masters course had started five months earlier. Their view on the importance of certain aspects of being critical friends did not change much. Generally they found it very important. Their competence


on the aspects of being a critical friend was high and this neither did not change much. Y, and S. both experienced the period of time as too short to have any effect on the change of competences listed in the quick scan. Participant Y; ‘So, I must honestly say that in my competence level there is not much change in this process. Though, I find it useful.’ Answer on a part of sub question 2: What is the members’ role in an online forum in this case study? As member of this tutor group the participants acted as critical friends according the five functions of being a critical friend (Ponte, 2002). They felt free amongst equals to express themselves in their own time and place and were open to each other as friends. The comment of the members added different perspectives to the topics, and questions challenged the thoughts of the participants. The members experienced this online forum as safe in comparison with a face to face meeting where members can become overpowered by others. This online forum works especially well for those participants who do not feel comfortable in a group in a classroom setting. For others who do feel comfortable in a classroom setting this advantage of an online forum is of no importance. Role of the tutor

My role as a tutor in this particular case was to support the process of developing higher levels of thinking and reflection in this tutor group. Participant N. felt observed when the tutor was present in the online forum and at the same time she felt recognised. Feeling the presence and guidance stimulates the participants to participate as Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson (2006) mention. My interventions as a tutor were questioning the thoughts behind the contribution of the participants. Mostly the interventions were at level 4 (questioning beliefs). Some interventions were at level 3, questioning knowledge, skills, or attitudes. The interventions of the tutor made the participants reflect on their contributions, and gave them a different perspective on the topic. Participant S. : ‘You came in and you questioned us from a different perspective.‘ Participant N stated that when the tutor participated, it boosted the whole discussion process. When everybody responded to each other she felt more motivated. Participant N: ‘..sort of took a more academic platform like some of the terms you were asking and you were using. So, I guess, it does give us a different perspective.’ However, sometimes discussions digressed from topic, according to the participant S., when the tutor asked questions related to reflection of the discussion rather than questions about the content of the discussion. Participant S: ‘Not, really. It made me stop on my tracks and think back. Oke, why is he asking this question? You know, and then I had to explain. Not really boring, it’s just like, yeah. It’s a good insight I suppose’ Out of the reaction of the participants I conclude that the interventions invited them all to think. The participants were focusing on the topic itself rather than on their own acting or behaviour. At the start of this case study I asked them to

83


act as critical friends and they did in the discussions. My questioning was on a different topic or rather on a different level. That was not understood by all participants. I realised that I did not get the answers that I wanted but as effect of my interpretation of the ethical guidelines to respect the meaning and actions of my participants I did not go deeper on that. Answer on a part of research sub question 2: What is the members’ role in an online forum in this case study? The role for me as the tutor in this tutor group was to support the process of developing higher levels of thinking and reflection. My interventions were questioning the thoughts behind the contribution of the participants. Some interventions had a positive influence on the reflection process and others distracted the participants and made them think on what they were discussing. The interventions made the participants think and were mostly level 4 interventions. Online forum

The experience of the participants was that it took time to write contributions to the discussions, especially when they were involved in several discussions, but it was worthwhile. The participants noted that exchanging information gives a better understanding about content. The participants found the online forum very useful for different people to comment on their ideas and thoughts. When Participant Y. participated in the discussion she became very enthusiastic about contributing her own ideas. She had time to think about her ideas and write them down in her own time. Overall the participants enjoyed exchanging thoughts and ideas in the online discussion forum. They found it very useful. The participants indicate that writing asynchronously gave them time to reflect on the meaning of what others were saying. Participant Y. admits that sometimes she read a contribution and then just closed the discussion without giving a reaction. In a forum the reactions are delayed and sometimes digress from the topic. The time factor, as result of asynchronous communication, is a benefit for thinking over your answers. On the other hand sometimes the time between the contributions is too long to maintain a continual process. Staying interested can become difficult.

84

The participants experienced that having a record of the discussions made it possible to look back and learn from the discussions (Dennen & Wieland, 2007) without actually participating in the discussions. The participants felt that it took time to write the contributions to the discussions, especially when they were involved in several discussions, but it was worthwhile. Participant N. : ‘The time, I did find it did take a lot of time. But I think it was quite worth while spending that time.’ The participants were very positive about the possibility of rereading and rethinking about the contributions. As a participant and as a guest you can follow the discussion and understand what has been said. You can also participate at a


moment of your own choice. When looking back at written texts it is possible to learn from other discussions without actually participating. The participants appreciated the discussion in writing because of the possibility to think beforehand on how to react to contributions. Participant I. experienced that when putting their thoughts down in writing it became definite so they needed to be very careful about what they wrote as Bolton stated (1999). Participant Y. felt that the manner of writing must be clear to everybody, as in writing for an audience (Whipp, Wesson, & Wiley, 1997). Participants S. and I. felt they could write in their own time and were not forced to join discussions or give immediate responses as in face-to-face meetings. They even have the option not to respond at all (Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech, 2007). Answer on research sub question 3: What function does discussion in writing serve in this case study? In the online forum the members acted together to comment on each other’s ideas and thoughts. The participants were discussing about self chosen topics. An online forum provides the opportunity to think over the answers before adding them in an asynchronous way. On the other hand sometimes the time between the contributions is too long to maintain a continual process. Staying interested can become difficult. Discussing in writing gives the opportunity to reread all contributions. The participants can write in their own time and are not forced to join discussions or give immediate responses as in face-to-face meetings. They even have the option not to respond at all. And writing down thoughts, the contributors must be very careful with what to write. The audience must understand what your message is. The topics in an online forum

The discussions are started by one person and others contribute to the discussion. There were 7 discussions on different topics started by the 4 participants during the six weeks (Table 4). Every discussion has a different number of contributions.

Table 4 : The contributions per discussion and per participant.

85


The topics were chosen by the participants and were therefore relevant to at least one of them. Participant I. added that ‘being interested’ was a necessity for joining the discussions. If there is no need, than there is no interest in the discussion.’ Among all participants the motivation to contribute was high when the discussion has common interest and was related to the assignments. Also research suggests that the topics of discussions are an important factor in motivating participants to contribute to the discussions. Not all discussions were interesting for all participants, so some discussions stopped soon and others lasted longer (Table 5).

Table 5: Period of discussions in days.

Later on, the participants made fewer contributions. Out of the interview I gathered that for all participants the completion of their assignments prevailed over the online discussion. Only a few messages were posted at the end of the period. During the interviews, when the participants and I talked about the aspects of a reflective practitioner they realised that they felt that the online forum was useful in the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. I did not intend to do so as researcher but it happened during the interview. It was the first time that I talked on a higher level with the participants about the discussion in the online forum. During the interview I asked questions and those made them think and reflect on what happened in the online forum in the case study. That made them realise what they had done.

86

When analysing the transcripts I realised that, for the participants in the interviews, when talking about what it means to become a reflective practitioner and exchanging thoughts about this subject their understanding of the matter increases. In this case study the topic ‘what does it mean for you to become a reflective practitioner’ is not discussed. This was not helpful in the process


of increasing the understanding of being a reflective practitioner. I believe that students need to discuss their experiences of becoming a reflective practitioner in the course with their tutor and with their critical friends. Answer on research sub question 4: What function do the topics of discussions have for the participants in this case study? The topics of the discussion motivate the participants to add contributions in the online forum. Amongst all participants the motivation to contribute was high when the discussion has common interest and was related to the assignments. If the topics are not interesting, the need to contribute drops down. Discussing on the topics in the online forum increases the knowledge of the participating contributors about the topic. During the interview the participants and I talked about what the participants did in the online forum. That made them reflect on what they had done. This made me as researcher realise that one of the topics of the discussions in this case study had to be the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. By discussing this topic the knowledge could increase and therefore could support the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. Context of the Erasmus Mundus Masters Course

The participants think that an online forum is a good tool to use in a small group (between 4 to 6 people). The group of critical friends could still continue even when they return to their own countries. If this environment is used there should be a tutor involved. Even a student could be assigned that role. This tool should be introduced in the student group when www.Surfgroepen.nl is introduced. The discussions must not be obligatory. Participant Y did not believe in reflection in the beginning. Afterwards she became convinced about the importance of implementing reflection in her own practice. Nevertheless, this did not only happen during the time of the case study. Exchanging information among the students about their experiences, their countries, and on subjects from the course, is very important. This can be done in the online forum. The participants experienced an online forum as useful especially to use at the start of the course and as communication tool after they return to their own countries. Answering the research question My research question was: ‘Can the use of an online forum support the process of becoming critically reflective practitioners for a tutor group of Erasmus Mundus Masters students operating as each other’s critical friends?’ Out of the answers on the sub questions on the characteristics of an online forum I can conclude the following. The participants acting as each other’s critical friends stimulated each other in reflection and constructing knowledge. My interventions as tutor had a positive influence on the reflection process and made the participants think about what they were discussing. Discussions in writing help to re-read and re-think

87


the discussions. It helps to structure thoughts and ideas before actually writing them down. Communicating asynchronously give participants time to write on their own time and does not force them to join discussions or give immediate responses. Topics related to the assignments and therefore relevant topics motivate the participants to add contributions in the online forum. Discussing on the topics in the online forum increases the knowledge of the participating contributors about the topic. The levels of reflection could be connected to the content of the contributions so differences in the levels of the reflection could be detected. The separate answers on the sub questions looked very promising for a positive answer to the research question. But in this case study the answer to the research question is that I could not detect any changes in levels of reflection of the participants. More specifically there were no reflections on the core levels of reflection which deal with developing changes in skills and attitudes necessary for both studying at advanced level as required from students in a Masters course and becoming critical reflective practitioners. Therefore the actions in this online forum did not support the process of becoming critical reflective practitioners. A reason why it did not support the process is, to my opinion, that during the case study the participant did not discuss their experiences about becoming a reflective practitioner. Evaluation

At the start of my research I knew I wanted to research the use of an online forum in the Erasmus Mundus course. I had several options to do research on. Do an action research on my performance as tutor. Do a case study about the use of an online forum. Another possibility was to do a research on critical friends in an online forum. I did not know a lot about the characteristics of an online forum. How to communicate asynchronously? How to communicate in writing? How to communicate in a tutor group with a tutor and critical friends? How to become a reflective practitioner? I had to answer the above questions before I could do research on my performance as tutor or that of the critical friends in an online forum. These topics were also interesting but to research which aspects support the context of an online forum of a tutor group where students act as each other’s critical friends in the process of becoming a reflective practitioner seemed complicated enough. This way of doing research is close to my holistic view on all the aspects of the use of an online forum. In my work I incorporate all aspects of a context to find a solution for possible problems. Before researching my own action as tutor I must understand the concept of discussing in an online forum.

88

This study is a small scale and exploratory flexible design case study and the findings of the case study are not to be generalised. With limitations of resources in leap time and hours I realise that my research result is merely the answer from a too small group of students and therefore it cannot be the only solution or an answer to the issue. Looking in this context at this particular case brings understanding of the process, and perhaps the research gives me in-depth sight into issues, which can lead to adaptations, but it is certainly not the aim to generalise. The findings


must be considered as the common interpretations of the members of the case study, the participants and the researcher. The findings could be a start for further research. That is why this is an exploratory flexible design case study; explore the process of discussion in an online forum. The concept of discussing in an online forum can be supportive of the process of becoming a reflective practitioner. In this case study where there is no face to face contact the benefit is that we have the time to rethink our answers and questions. We must structure our thought before or during the writing of our contributions. Therefore our ideas can be more carefully considered as in face to face situations where reactions are more spontaneous and intuitive. The contacts between the participants are not face to face so we can not benefit from body language but on the other hand the participants are not overpowered by others like they could be in face to face situations. The discussion about topics increases the understanding of the topic. So discussing the topic of becoming a reflective practitioner increases the knowledge of becoming a reflective practitioner. My recommendation is to do the case study again and add a discussion on this particular topic and then maybe the answer to the research question can be a positive one. Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my participants for their time and effort in participating in my research. Many thanks also to my four critical friends for their time and involvement in my research. I learned a lot from them about the process of doing research and the critical comments I received from them during our meetings and by mail. Special thanks to other colleagues and friends, who made time to listen to me and helped me with checking grammar, spelling, and the transcript. Doing this research with this group of critical friends mattered. References Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science: concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Benson, D. E., Haney, W., Ore, T. E., Persell, C. H., Schulte, A., Steele, J., et al. (2002). Digital Technologies and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Sociology. Teaching Sociology, 30(2), 140-157. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Bolton, G. (1999). Stories at work: reflective writing for practitioners The Lancet, 354(9174), 243-245 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn (Expanded Edition ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press. Burgt, M. v. d., & Verhulst, F. (2003). Doen en blijven doen, voorlichting en compliancebevordering door paramedici. Houten/Antwerpen: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

89


Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2002). Becoming Critical. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Chak, A. (2006). Reflecting on the self: an experience in a preschool. Reflective Practice, 7(1), 31-41. Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer Assisted Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183-194. Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From Interaction to Intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297. Dewey, J. (1960). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking in the educative process. Lexington, MA D. C.: Heath & Company (Original work published 1933). Dewiyanti, S. (2005). Learning together: a positive experience. Open University Netherlands, Heerlen. Dilts, R. (1990). Changing belief systems with NLP. Cupertino: Meta Publications. Driscoll, J., & Teh, B. (2001). The potential of reflective practice to develop individual orthopaedic nurse practitioners and their practice. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 5, 95-103. Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a reflexive practitioner; using our selves in research. London Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage. Hamachek, D. (1995). Psychology in teaching, learning, and growth. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hamachek, D. (1999). Effective teachers: What they do, how they do it, and the importance of self-knowledge. In R. P. Lipka & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp. 189-224). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 213-224. Hatton, N., & Smith, d. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teacher & Teacher education, 11(1), 33-49. Helleve, I. (2007). In an ICT-based teacher-education context: why was our group ‘the magic group’? European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 267284. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. London: SAGE. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77-97. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17. 90


Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in Reflection: Core Reflection as a Means to Enhance Professional Growth. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 11(1), 47–71. Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: becoming the critically refelctive teacher. Reflective practice, 1(3), 203-307. Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practica: learning about teaching and learning through modelling. London/Washington: Falmer Press. Mathias, H. (2005). Mentoring on a Programme for New University Teachers: A partnership in revitalizing and empowering collegiality. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(2), 95-106. Michalsky, T., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2007). Developing Students’ Metacognitive Awareness In Asynchronous Learning Networks In Comparison To Face-To-Face Discussion Groups. J. Educational computing research, Vol. 36(4) 395-424, 2007, 36(4), 395-424. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Learning & Professional Development, Theory & Practice. London: Kogan Page Limited. Paz-Dennen, V., & Wieland, K. (2007). From Interaction to Intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: the future of education. New York: Grossman. Ponte, P. (2002). Actie-onderzoek door docenten: uitvoering en begeleiding in theorie en praktijk. Leuven-Apeldoorn: Garant. Robson, C. (2000). Small-Scale Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. Roehampton. (2007). Programme Handbook: European Master/Magister in Special Educational Needs. London: Roehampton University. Salmon, G. (2002). E-Tivities; The Key to Active Online Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Schön, R. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books Inc. Senge, P., Cambron-Mccabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2001). Lerende Scholen Een Vijfde Disipline-boek. Schoonhoven: Academic service. Swet, J. v., & Ponte, P. (2007). Reciprocal learning by experienced teachers and their educators on a master’s degree programme in The Netherlands. Journal of In-service-education, 33(1), 67-90. Swet, J. v., & Ponte, P. & Smit, B. (Ed.) (2007). Postgraduate Programmes as Platform. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers. Vries, B. d., Meij, H. v. d., Boersma, K. T., & Pieters, J. M. (2005). Embedding e-mail in primary schools: Developing a tool for collective reflection. Journal Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 167-183.

91


Watling, R., D.Hopkins, Harris, A., & J.Beresford. (1998). Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea? Implications for School and LEA Development Following an Accelerated Inspection Programme. In L. Stoll & K. Myers (Eds.), No Quick Fixes: Perspectives on Schools in Difficulty. London: Falmer Press. Whipp, J., Wesson, C., & Wiley, T. (1997). Supporting Collaborative Reflections; Case Writing in an Urban PDS. Teaching Education, 9(1), 127-134. Xie, K., DeBacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditonal Classroom Through Online Discussion: The Role of Student motivation. Journal Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67-89.

92

Jan Siebelink Abstract in Dutch Een groep internationale studenten werd gedurende een periode van ruim vier Being critical on friendly maanden vertrouwd gemaakt met samenwerken als critical friends in kleine terms groepen. Dit gebeurde in het kader van een cursus Academisch Schrijven in het Engels, een onderwijsarrangement bestaande uit een uur instructie en oefening en een uur waarin studenten eigen werk met medestudenten bespraken. In dit onderzoek lag de focus op de tweede helft van de sessies. Voor de gehele groep studenten die de sessies bijwoonden gold dat het Engels een vreemde of tweede taal was, wat het extra lastig maakte om de conventies van academisch taalgebruik te leren beheersen. Als model voor de critical friend werd gekozen voor de beschrijving in Petra Ponte’s (2002) Onderwijs van Eigen Makelij. Een critical friend is in dit model iemand die vragen stelt zonder te oordelen of ongevraagd met oplossingen te komen. In een groep critical friends exploreren studenten samen problemen, informeren ze elkaar en moedigen ze elkaar aan, worden ervaringen uitgewisseld en staan ze model voor elkaar, d.w.z. dat ze van elkaar leren hoe een probleem benaderd kan worden. Het onderzoek richtte zich op de effectiviteit van samenwerken als critical friends bij het leren beheersen van academisch taalgebruik, met name vanuit het perspectief van de studenten. Ook werd gekeken naar de rol van de begeleider van dit proces. De veronderstelling was dat studenten door een grote mate van ownership van het eigen leerproces en een interactieve uitwisseling van kennis eerder zicht zouden krijgen op hun eigen manier van leren dan in een meer traditionele leeromgeving. Een van de uitkomsten van het onderzoek was dat het voor deze groep in het begin niet gemakkelijk was om samen te werken volgens Ponte’s basisregels. Hierbij speelde de eigen visie op onderwijs en kritisch lezen een rol, een visie die nauw verbonden was met de onderwijstraditie in het land van herkomst. Toen studenten eenmaal gewend waren aan het samen leren als critical friends, zagen ze er voornamelijk de voordelen van in, zoals een gegroeid bewustzijn van hun eigen werkwijze door het bekijken van eigen werk vanuit het perspectief van de ander. Ook een beter inzicht in het eigen taalgebruik werd als opbrengst genoemd. Een bijkomend voordeel was dat de drempel voor deelname aan de discussie, die door zowel de culturele achtergrond als de beheersing van de taal voor veel studenten in het begin hoog was, door het werken in kleine groepen aanzienlijk werd verlaagd. Een zwak punt in de methodiek was dat er geen eisen waren gesteld aan de aard van de vragen, met als gevolg dat veel vragen niet over de taal maar over de inhoud van de teksten gingen. Dit leidde tot discussies die in het kader van de doelstellingen van academisch schrijven minder relevant waren en vroeg dus om een aanpassing van de basisregels. Voor de rol van de begeleider was oorspronkelijk uitgegaan van die van model critical friend. In de loop van de periode werd duidelijk dat een wisselwerking tussen interventies waar nodig en rolmodel critical friend waar 93 mogelijk beter was afgestemd op de behoeften van de studenten. De belangrijkste


uitkomst van het onderzoek was dat de basisregels voor samenwerken als critical friends door de studenten als zeer zinvol en motiverend werden ervaren, maar dat de effectiviteit van de werkvorm nog verhoogd kon worden door enkele kleine aanpassingen. Dit betrof met name het versterken van de focus op taalgebruik en het koppelen van docentfeedback aan feedback door studenten.

94

Being critical on friendly terms:

progressing towards academic literacy through collaborative learning as critical friends Jan Siebelink

‘An old friend of mine always says: ‘People learn twenty-five per cent from their teacher, twenty-five per cent from listening to themselves, twenty-five per cent from their friends and twenty-five per cent from time.’ Paolo Coelho (2007), The Witch of Portobello. Harper-Collins. p.203

It is the novelist’s privilege that he does not have to support the statements of his characters by data or by quoting sources, but even so Coelho’s words ring true. Whether or not the old friend had ever heard of social-constructivist theories, his division of the ways in which people learn is very much in line with modern insights. In this study I will describe an academic writing course which focuses on the way in which we learn from our friends. Obviously, the educational setting has implications for the role of the teacher as well. To what extent time and reflection enhance the learning process is for the students to decide. Context The Erasmus Mundus programme has been described in the first chapter. Even though Erasmus Mundus students are experienced professionals in their respective fields - virtually all of them have one or more bachelor or master’s degrees when they embark on the programme - there are considerable differences in their command of English. The language test they take in Roehampton at the beginning of the year (figure 1) consists of a multiple-choice part dealing with a wide variety of grammar topics and a writing assignment which involves reading and summarising two short texts. The results of the test usually indicate that roughly one third of the students would be well-advised to spend some extra time on their language skills, and writing in particular. Cohort (students) 2005 (17) 2006 (22) 2007 (22)

Grammar test (max. 50) 36.7 39.3 36.5

Figure 1: Results of the Roehampton language test

Writing test (max.21) 15.9 17 16 95


For this reason, it was decided right from the start of the programme in 2005 to invest in an academic writing course in Tilburg which the students follow from mid-September to February. The appendix gives a broad outline of the content of this course. Of the wide range of skills involved in the production of academic texts, the course was originally designed to concentrate on the paragraph and ‘lower’ levels. The idea behind this was that ‘higher’ levels are concerned with academic thinking and therefore beyond its scope. Most, if not all, of the Erasmus Mundus students have a mother tongue which is not English and in order to be able to deal with their written assignments (there are several of these throughout the programme, culminating in the master dissertation), they need practice in the basic linguistic skills (Swales & Feak, 2004; Schmitt, 2005). The original objectives of the course: ◉◉ Vocabulary. Students are advised to collect useful vocabulary in a vocabulary notebook, listing ‘chunks,’ collocations and useful terminology. This task is different for each individual student because of background, choice of research question and individual style. Apart from the notebook, there are some general guidelines like mastery of the Academic Word List, a list of 570 high-frequency headwords accounting for a coverage of 8.5% of all academic texts (Nation, 2001). ◉◉ Grammar. By mutual agreement, a number of grammar topics are chosen. The main point is that students become aware of their own strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the use of articles is a hurdle for students whose native language does not have articles or uses them in different ways. The internet offers a wide variety of sites where students can practise their grammar skills at whatever level of difficulty they prefer. The course should help them to find these sites. ◉◉ Syntax. All students have some experience in producing written texts, either in English or in their native language, but academic writing is a more formal variety of the language, which can also be seen on the level of sentence construction. ◉◉ Paragraph. The paragraph incorporates all of the above and in addition imposes a kind of format (the topic sentence and supporting sentences, paragraph patterns) which can be helpful when students are called upon to produce longer texts. As such, the paragraph forms a bridge to academic literacy (taking into account the reader’s perspective, the writer’s positioning, avoiding illogical leaps of thought, etc.). It might be argued that an understanding of paragraph structure is a requirement for the production of any piece of academic writing. There is also a practical consideration: a paragraph is short enough to be read and discussed within a short period of time. In week 1, invitations for an interview were mailed to students whose language test was below average. They were asked to draw up an individual action plan based on the model described in Coffin (2003) and given information on where to find study materials. Some of them made use of this, but not all. 96


Over time, it became clear that students needed information on a wider range of topics associated with academic literacy and these were added to the course. The course was set up in such a way that the first hour would consist of formal instruction and exercises and students would spend the second hour discussing texts, preferably their own. From the outset, it was clear that the course was to play a supportive role in an already full programme and should therefore not entail an additional workload. If possible, students would be asked to submit texts produced in the context of other course modules. The topics discussed in the first half of the sessions depended partly on the requests and preferences of the students themselves and were therefore subject to constant change. The methodology could best be described as form-focused instruction with a view to enhancing language awareness and the practical application of knowledge in the form of learning by doing and reflecting on the writing process. The teaching methods used in this part of the course were fairly conventional, however, and this study will focus on the second half of the sessions. From the beginning in 2005 an effort was made to encourage student collaboration. Some students were experienced writers and given the size of the group it was impossible to provide individual coaching. During the sessions students were introduced to the concept of working together as critical friends and were invited to submit textual contributions for discussion in groups, but in the first few years group work was not a structural part of the sessions. Also, in the absence of a clear working procedure, group work sometimes produced undesirable results. It takes courage for students to subject their own written work to peer review and one of the first prerequisites in these situations is an educational working environment which is non-threatening. On some occasions in the past, the critical rather than the friendly element tended to dominate the discussions, thus making other students reluctant to undergo a similar experience. Since students worked together in several small groups, it was difficult for the supervisor to keep track of what was happening in all the groups and intervene where necessary. One obvious solution was to present students with fragments from text material and dissertations produced in earlier years, but it was equally obvious that much more could be learned if students were put in a position where they were asked questions about their own work, especially ‘to make explicit what they may understand on a more tacit level’ (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 78). What was needed was a set of clear guidelines as to how critical friends are expected to behave. Research question In 2007 an action research project was started in the context of a group effort to examine the efficacy of working together as critical friends. In her introductory chapter to this book, Jacqueline van Swet accounts for the choice of this research topic, which ties in perfectly with the Fontys OSO ‘vision of interactive professionalism and interactive knowledge construction’ described by Ponte (2007, p. 20). In the academic writing class, students were asked to work together

97


within the framework of a set procedure. Basically this meant that collaborating as critical friends became a methodology with certain rules and conventions. The importance of laying ground rules for the procedure has been stressed by many authors (e.g. Ryan, 2005; McLean & Ransom, 2005; Coffin, 2003), as well as the fact that these rules do not come naturally to all students but have to be learned (Beach & Friedrich, 2006). The purpose of this study is to find out how effective the methodology has been, both as a procedure and in terms of outcome. In an academic writing course, the objectives of collaborative learning as critical friends are narrowed down to the improvement of language skills. However, as Schmitt (2005) points out, academic writing is not just about developing language skills, but involves ‘learning to use the conventionalised language of the community’ (p.68). Because of the socio-cultural features of academic writing (Lillis (2001); Casanave (2002); Schmitt (2005); Hutchings (2006), to name only a few examples), academic literacy is a more appropriate term than academic writing. Some of these socio-cultural conventions are explicitly dealt with in the course (e.g. the coherence of paragraphs, the stylistic conventions of quoting and referencing, the avoidance of plagiarism, etc.), but others require a long learning process. Casanave (2002) and Winter & Badley (2007), for instance, stress the importance of interaction with academic texts, ‘learning the serious game of merging the voices of published authorities with your own.’ (Casanave, 2002, p.66). However, even apart from the fact that this is not a skill which is easily learned – and in a second or foreign language at that - this type of interaction involves ‘questioning received knowledge and reconstructing it through the writing process, and this can be at odds with some cultural learning styles’ (McLean & Ransom, 2005, p.55). Given the limited amount of time available, therefore, it would sound over-ambitious to call the achievement of academic literacy a course objective, but the course may well represent a step in the process of achieving it. The central research question of this study is ‘Can students improve their academic literacy through working together as critical friends?’ On the one hand, the object of research is the methodology which has been adopted, but on the other hand this methodology has obvious implications for the role or roles of the tutor in charge. This places me in the position of a reflective practitioner (Schön, 1983) who by observing his own practice seeks to improve it. It also confronts me with the awkward dilemma of being both a researcher and a tutor and therefore both an outsider and an insider (Herr & Anderson, 2005). From the central research question a number of attendant questions can be derived: ◉◉ In what way(s) has the critical friend group procedure changed compared to experiences in earlier years? ◉◉ What ground rules are necessary in making the methodology effective in academic writing classes? ◉◉ What is expected of a tutor supervising the critical friend sessions? 98


◉◉

Does the methodology produce any results in terms of enhanced language skills? ◉◉ How do students evaluate the procedure? The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of integrating collaboration as critical friends in an academic writing course, thereby placing the study within the definition of a programme evaluation (Mertens & McLaughlin, 2004). Critical friends: a review of the literature After this brief survey of the educational and research context, it is now time to look at the ways in which teachers and scholars have already researched the role of critical friends in academic writing classes. The number of publications in this field is staggering, although most studies share common elements which are often contextualised to meet the researcher’s personal objectives. It is also necessary to define some of the key terminology, since terms like ‘peer review’ and ‘critical friends’ are open to a great many different interpretations. There are numerous references to the combination of peer review and academic writing in the literature. This does not necessarily mean that the two are always integrated. In Lloyd (2007), for instance, writing is basically approached as a lonely process, where group work and peer review are considered as an afterthought. Even when peer review is given a more central position in the writing process (e.g. Berg, 2000; Coffin, 2003; Beach & Friedrich, 2006; Pajares & Valiante, 2006; Longfellow et al., 2008), the actual procedures during group sessions are either unclear or take place in an educational setting which is too far removed from the situation in the academic writing course described above to be practical. On closer inspection it usually turns out that tutors play an important role in supervising group work. In addition, the groups described are always small and the participants are students of a much younger age. Griffiths (2003) lists various ways of working with small groups, but the main perspective is that of the teacher or supervisor, a perspective which is difficult to realise in a classroom where four or five small groups are at work simultaneously. It was not enough, therefore, to settle for peer review. What I needed was to create an environment where students could engage in collaborative peer review without the constant presence of a tutor. In other words, small groups of critical friends working as autonomously as possible. Critical friends come in a great variety of guises, from the person who enables you to look at your problem through a critical lens (Costa & Kallick, 1993) to the multifaceted consultant described by Kember et al. (1997). What all critical friends have in common is that they are good listeners and respond to problems and questions with integrity and a positive attitude. Of course the two words appear to contradict one another, but as Swaffield (2002) points out, ‘this has resonance with the injunction ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’’ and ‘the importance of giving feedback about the task rather than the person’ (p.3). Swaffield’s main topic is an examination of the contextual factors determining the relationship between the

99


critical friend and his or her ‘client’, a point which has also been raised by Costa & Kallick (1993). They suggest a number of basic guidelines for critical friends, but concede that the quality of the interaction ultimately depends on relational factors, both of a professional and a personal nature. There is also a cultural dimension. McLean & Ransom (2005) cite several situations where students with a nonEuropean background felt hesitant to engage in discussions with a European tutor and showed a tendency to avoid cross-cultural mixing. Therefore, if students are to work together as critical friends without a tutor to supervise the proceedings, it is imperative to have a clear and explicit behaviour model making the working environment safe enough for any student to speak his or her mind. Ponte (2002) operationalised the guidelines for critical friends in a set of simple rules aimed at helping the person who wants to discuss a situation or who, in the case of academic writing, wants to present a text. The rules are that critical friends should only ask questions, that they do not make judgments and that they do not offer solutions. These rules apply at the start of the discussion and protect a writer from having to take a defensive stance. Ponte also distinguished five functions of the critical friend during the ensuing discussion, stipulating that the decision as to how the discussion would develop was the prerogative of the person who owned the problem. In an article on reciprocal learning in tutor groups, Van Swet & Ponte (2007, p.72) provide the English translation of these five functions: ◉◉ exploring: questioning each other critically in order to clarify themes, contributing to critical analysis and interpretation; ◉◉ informing each other: giving tips, advice and suggestions; ◉◉ encouraging: inspiring people to continue, giving them recognition and showing appreciation; ◉◉ exchanging ideas: talking about experiences with no strings attached; ◉◉ modelling: learning from each other how things can be done. Although the groups described by Van Swet & Ponte (2007) consist of students and teaching staff, the procedure is straightforward enough to be used by small groups of students without a tutor. With a few minor alterations to compensate for the absence of a tutor, this was the educational setting presented to the students at the beginning of the course. They were asked to read a text submitted by a writer who was part of the group, comment on it in the form of questions and refrain from giving judgments or solutions, unless they were explicitly asked to do so. Every question was to be preceded by a positive comment on some aspect of the text. In addition, a timekeeper was appointed to guarantee that each member of the group was given an equal opportunity to take part in the discussion. The introduction to the five functions followed a week later.

100

Given the fact that the Erasmus Mundus students were all highly motivated and experienced learners, this educational setting was thought to meet the conditions for the course as a platform where students could exchange knowledge and experience. As Ponte (2007, p.27) formulates it, ‘courses have to guarantee a


level of schooling laid down by others, but at the same time, they must ensure that students are given sufficient scope to gear their work and schooling to each other.’ Not surprisingly, Ovens (2003) and Pajares & Valiante (2006) mention autonomy in writing choices and collaborative writing groups as two of the most important conditions promoting motivation. McLean & Ransom (2005) stress the importance of a degree of student ownership of what is being taught. However, Beach & Friedrich (2006) point out that, even though students learn a great deal more when they discuss their own work, they may regard peer comments as less authoritative than teacher comments, which is even more the case in groups of non-European students. Research has shown that this is not necessarily true. Cho et al. (2006) describe an interesting experiment in which students received written comments on their work both from other students and from subjectmatter instructors without knowing who had provided the feedback. The purpose of their research was to examine the nature of the comments and their ‘perceived helpfulness’ (p.264) and the findings showed that peer feedback was felt to be just as helpful as expert feedback. What did make a difference, and this is supported by Beach & Friedrich (2006), is that directive and praise feedback were felt to be more helpful than judgmental and negative feedback. It would appear, then, that for collaboration as critical friends to be successful, students need training in both the ground rules and critical thinking skills and also need to be made aware of the fact that peer feedback is potentially as helpful as expert feedback. The Roehampton language test had made clear that individual language skills in the Erasmus Mundus group varied considerably. Students were aware of this. Evaluations in earlier years had shown that their preferred solution to the problem was an even stronger emphasis on form-focused instruction. However, this was not really an option, if only because it would be very time-consuming. Moreover, there is considerable doubt about the learning outcomes of form-focused instruction. Many studies (e.g. Candlin & Mercer, 2001; Kumaravadivela, 2005) have shown that instruction does make a difference, but this only happens when it is firmly embedded in interactional activities. Macaro & Masterman (2006) give a brief description of the debate on the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction. Their research led them to the conclusion that explicit instruction does lead to better results in grammar tests, but whether it leads to gains in accuracy in production tasks is tenuous at best. Also, academic writing embraces more than grammatical accuracy and as Lightbown (2004, p.75) pointed out, ‘progress in language acquisition is not always marked by increases in accuracy.’ In any case, concentrating on grammar instruction would imply a teacher-centred approach. Longfellow et al. (2008) studied the level of satisfaction of first-year students in an undergraduate peer-assisted learning programme. In this programme, academic writing skills were taught in formal lectures, after which third-year students ‘facilitated ... writing seminars’ (p.94). One of their most important findings was that ‘successful ‘expert’ students may be better equipped and better placed than lecturers to pass on these particular skills to novice students’ (p.103). The word ‘expert’ refers to the fact that these students had been trained to run the seminars.

101


In the first session of the academic writing course, the Erasmus Mundus students had been asked to comment on a passage which had quite a few shortcomings in grammar, vocabulary and structure. When after the discussion I showed them my own list of comments, it appeared that collectively the group had identified every single one. They had the knowledge and the purpose of the critical friend groups was for students to share this knowledge. The educational setting as described above also affected my own role as a teachersupervisor. In the first half of each session, my role was that of an instructor, providing information and discussing the answers to exercises and other assignments. In the second half, when students formed critical friend groups, my role was that of a facilitator. So far, my experience with earlier Erasmus Mundus cohorts has never given me cause to agree with De Vita’s (2005) observation that many international students ‘hold negative preconceptions about group work’ (p.76), but to some students group work, the rules for critical friends and the experience of critically examining each other’s work were certainly unfamiliar. To facilitate the proceedings, the logical role for the facilitator would seem to be that of a role-model critical friend. After all, asking students to refrain from judgments and directive comments could hardly be reconciled with the role of a supervisor constantly pointing out how things should be done. Finding a balance between these two extremes is not always easy – Griffiths (2004) consolingly describes small group teaching as ‘among the most difficult and highly skilled of teaching techniques’ (p.92) – but it is further complicated by the fact that international students often expect a teacher to behave in accordance with their own expectations of a teacher. McLean & Ransom (2005) argue that ‘all perceptions about appropriate behaviour in a tutorial operate within a cultural framework’ (p.49) and give quite a few examples of misunderstandings caused by a didactic approach which is quite common in Europe but perhaps not elsewhere. A possible compromise is described in Englert et al. (2006), who report on a teacher who successfully combined the roles of facilitator and instructor in what they call a ‘combination of step-in and step-back moves’ (p.208). In a writing class, she ‘stepped in’ to instruct or inform whenever she felt that students did not have the necessary knowledge, but after that she ‘stepped back’ again by leaving the students to do their own problem solving and thinking aloud about the text. Judging from students’ reactions, this is probably the most effective way to run the academic writing course, but before looking at the data supporting this assumption, here is a brief survey of my data collection methods.

102

Method According to Herr & Anderson (2005), member checking is an essential element for insider research. If multiple perspectives are taken into account, it becomes more difficult for a researcher to interpret data in an unwarranted way. Also, in the absence of a control group, in this particular case member checking is the most effective way to determine the validity of the findings. The quotation from Paolo Coelho at the beginning neatly summarises the limitations of this validity:


it is difficult for any student to pinpoint exactly where, when and how his or her academic writing or indeed academic literacy improved and to what extent the methodology contributed to this improvement. However, the data as described below will hopefully offer sufficient scope to view the methodology from different angles, making it possible to formulate some conclusions, tentative though they may be. ◉◉ during each session, there were four groups of students discussing a text contributed by one of the group. If there were fewer than four students who had written a text, a group would receive a fragment from an earlier dissertation. Students were asked to write down a positive comment and critical questions. Even though this was done on a voluntary basis and some students did not find the time to fill in the forms, it yielded a sizable amount of questions. The expectation was that the question forms (QFs) would concentrate on Ponte’s (2002) encouraging and explorative functions. The informative aspect was more or less ruled out by the ‘no judgment, no solutions’ rule and exchanging and modelling were expected during the discussion rather than at the start. One interesting research angle was whether the nature and the quality of the questions would change as the programme proceeded. ◉◉ in October and early November, students were asked to fill in evaluation forms which were meant to determine whether or not they felt comfortable with the procedure (Evaluation Form A (EFA), 1 – 4); ◉◉ on 19 November they were given a questionnaire with open-ended questions (EFB) probing into a number of difficulties reportedly experienced by international students (McLean & Ransom, 2005) and asking the students’ views of the effectiveness of working in critical friend groups. ◉◉ on 25 February 2008, the final evaluation form (EFC) was filled in, with students evaluating the course, their progress in academic writing and their ideas of the ideal critical friend. ◉◉ five students volunteered to participate in a focus group interview. They were sent a list of topics for discussion a week in advance. As it turned out, there were two interviews, one with four students and at a later date an interview with one student (Interviews; page numbers refer to the transcript). The interviews took place shortly after the group had filled in the EFB and were partly intended to find out to what extent (if any) students had been over-polite in their answers. ◉◉ Because it was impossible to observe both the critical friend group processes and my own role as a facilitator, I asked a colleague to attend three of the sessions and record her observations on video. The recordings were then discussed and evaluated in accordance with a technique called School Video Interaction Guidance. ◉◉ Finally there are my own observations of group activities. 103


Analysis The QFs were anonymous and voluntary, which means that the questions and comments were handed in only by students who had taken the trouble to write them down. With an average attendance of about 20 students, they account for some 60% of the questions asked. The questions are of course only the starting-point of the discussions. Students could use the forms to ask one question, but there was room for several questions and comments. In order to make use of a coding system, these had to be listed separately. When they were coded on the basis of Ponte’s (2002) five functions with a further distinction between FORM and CONTENT, the positive feedback could be categorised as ENCOURAGING, as expected. However, where the questions were expected to be in the EXPLORING domain, some of them were in fact directive comments thinly disguised as questions (‘Why did you choose to leave out references?’ QF8Oct, ‘Where are the page numbers with the direct quotations?’ QF3Dec) or even directive critical comments (‘Learn to use appropriate words to describe your ideas exactly’ QF5Nov). This directive feedback ranged from giving advice or solutions (‘Consider revising 6th line of para 1 as ....’ QF15Oct) to an occasional judgmental comment (‘Writer seems to get lost here’ QF15Oct) and was categorised as INFORMING. There were no clear instances of EXCHANGING and only one or two of MODELLING (‘There is a clear indication that the writer is following the chapter guideline – linking this chapter to chapters 2 and 4’ QF21Jan, coded as ENCOURAGING), but as my observations and the recordings show, there were a few visible instances of these in the sessions.

104

Questions and comments ranged from very short ( ‘What is the audience of this text?’ QF8Oct, ‘Good grammar.’ QF28Jan) to quite lengthy (‘What is the relationship between the priorities set by the United States and France on the one hand and the other countries on the other?’ QF8Oct). On average students wrote down 3.6 questions and comments where the minimum was 2. As to the nature of the questions and comments, three main trends are obvious: ◉◉ McLean & Ransom (2005) present a list of researchers who studied the reasons why critical thinking often presents a challenge for international students (p.54ff). It is interesting that the comments indicate that the Erasmus Mundus group was prepared to be critical from the start, even though some students admitted that the experience was new to them. ◉◉ In the case of ENCOURAGING and EXPLORING, there was a marked preference for commenting on CONTENT rather than FORM. This was different in the INFORMING domain (18% of the total), where there was a slight preference for FORM. The reason for this was apparently that it was felt to be easier to criticise the language or structure than the content of a text. ◉◉ There were fluctuations in the nature of the questions which were probably associated with features of the texts under discussion, but none of the functions changed much over time. However, the questions about paragraph structure and coherence became more detailed as the course drew to an end (‘Would it help to clearly state the choice of method in the beginning of the intro instead of embedding it in the middle of the


para?’ QF21Jan), indicating that students had become more aware of the problems of planning their text. For many students, working as critical friends was a new concept and it took some time and persuasion for them to get accustomed to the procedure. This could be observed in a number of ways. Firstly, there was the manner in which the feedback was formulated. As students got to know each other better, they apparently experienced the setting as non-threatening enough to interpret the ground rules laid down at the beginning more loosely. As a result, comments were more frequently formulated as comments and no longer disguised as questions. Secondly, the early video recordings showed some start-up problems with group formation and seating arrangements (students sitting with their backs turned to another group member, group members addressing the timekeeper instead of the writer). A recording made towards the end of the course showed how the group had developed a smooth routine. Thirdly, the early weeks revealed evidence of what Hutchings (2006) calls ‘socio-cultural practices.’ Some male students tended to be long-winded in introducing their questions – I remember one particularly lengthy introduction which culminated in the question of whether a sentence might not be improved by adding a comma – and had to be dissuaded from the idea that academic writing required the use of ‘grand’ words. In later sessions, group interaction had visibly become more dynamic, with questions and answers sometimes coming in quick succession. A final factor influencing the proceedings was my own behaviour as a supervisor. My notes make clear that in the first few weeks I was searching for the most effective way in which to facilitate the critical friend groups. I was fortunate in having video recordings made by a colleague who is an experienced coach. The evaluations of the recordings were a great help in that they gave me cause to reflect on the quality of my instructions and my roles as supervisor (giving feedback such as ‘What I hear is a solution, not a question.’) and role model critical friend (which chiefly meant that when I joined a group my interventions were phrased as questions). After the first five weeks my notes showed that students felt comfortable with the ground rules, choosing their own timekeepers and behaving as true critical friends. Whether this could be attributed to a growing familiarity with the procedure or the fact that students felt more at ease with one another or both could not be determined from observations alone. To shed some light on this, there were the evaluation forms. In the evaluation forms EFA 1-4 covering the first five weeks, students were asked about the procedure and learning outcomes. The first question dealt with the grammar or academic writing topic of the first half of the session, to ensure that I was not telling them things they already knew. Answers underlined that students appreciated the information (‘Refresher session to remind me again of the good way of writing paragraphs. Useful ‘signposts’’; ‘How to analyse a paragraph, its coherence, development of ideas, its structure in general.’ EFA2). The importance of these topics was later confirmed in the interviews: 105


What we are doing now is also to improve our writing skills, about the language, about academic writing. We can talk about our educational ideas, which of course is the basis for writing, but that doesn’t mean we are able to write. So where are we in the language? Did we make a mistake in making the sentence? In our arrangement? We don’t know that. (Interviews, p.13)

The four forms confirm that working as critical friends is a skill that has to be learned. Undoubtedly helped by the fact that the concept of critical friend also featured in other parts of the Erasmus Mundus programme, students quickly picked up the main ideas and tried to model their behaviour accordingly. A crucial aspect of the evaluation was how the writers - students who presented their own text for discussion - felt about the procedure. In EFA1, keywords in the description of the activity were ‘friendly, lively, active, helpful, useful, cooperative.’ As learning outcomes students mentioned – in addition to various aspects of language learning - that they were ‘learning to be a critical friend, how to give feedback, how to be critical in a constructive way,’ and that listening to the viewpoints of others (more than half of the students mentioned ‘different perceptions’ or ‘ different perspectives’) made them reflect on their own learning and writing. There were some concerns. One student said ‘People are sensitive. They need consideration and sensitivity in giving feedback. If this is the rule, giving comments will work positively.’ Another remarked: ‘Getting there slowly. It is a new concept.’ and ‘It will take a while to absorb the critical reflective skill.’ A third added gruffly: ‘Some had a lot to say. Not very helpful comments.’ But the large majority were positive: ‘It’s a very useful exercise; it’s easy to evaluate or criticise others’ work, but it helped to imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of the writer.’ The writers themselves were asked to indicate how they had experienced the discussion on a scale of 1 (very critical) to 5 (very friendly). The outcome was 5. As for the critical friends, they described their attitude as 1 (3 students), 3 (8 students), 4 (one student) and 5 (five students). Different perceptions indeed. This positive tone was continued in EFA2, which did not have a single negative comment. Not that everything was easy: several students found it ‘difficult not to give solutions’ and ‘easier to identify with a writer if I have the same cultural background.’ One writer commented ‘Never take the readers for granted. They are intelligent and can interpret well.’ Possibly it was this same writer who had experienced the discussion as ‘very critical.’ The others chose 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. The group as a whole described working in the critical friend groups in terms of ‘improving critical skills and reflection skills, learning from criticisms, learning from others’ and ‘seeing things in a new light’. 106

Recurring keywords in EFA3 and EFA4 were ‘insight, better understanding, different perspectives, open and honest, alert, reflection, listening to others, sharing


ideas.’ By now students were also identifying factors which influenced the quality of the interaction: Being critical depends on my relationship with the writer. It is easier to be more critical if I know this person better (EFA3); (I feel) comfortable enough as most of us know each other quite well by now (EFA3); Earlier I was not too comfortable, but after attending a few sessions I am (EFA3); My perception of group work and comfort in group work is improving (EFA3); Not really the way it should be: writers try to defend their writing (EFA3); You don’t see their intervention as criticism but helping you move on (EFA4); improve my skills to shut up and listen sometimes (EFA4); I learnt that the critical friend should only provide questions to help the writer think deeper, and not recommendations (EFA4).

Learning outcomes showed a gradual shift in focus from the procedure to writing skills: ‘organising ideas coherently; the importance of choosing words; referencing’ EFA4). Writers and critical friends alike experienced the learning environment as non-threatening and productive even when they received or expressed criticisms. The second half of November marked a shift in the type of text that was to be produced. So far, students had been free to choose any topic or type of text, but from week 8 of the course the format of the contributions was to be based on the chapters of a dissertation. Obviously, most students had not yet started on their dissertation yet, so the contents of the text had to be left to their imagination, such as writing about data analysis before any data had been collected. To support them in this, they were provided with a brief description of the chapter content and a model page from an earlier dissertation. This break in the program was a good moment for a broader evaluation of the course. Where EFA was chiefly concerned with monitoring the learning process, EFB, which consisted of 14 open-ended questions, concentrated on my own research questions. Added to these were a number of questions based on what McLean & Ransom (2005) and Schmitt (2005) had identified as possible problem areas for international students. To start with the latter, the Erasmus Mundus group, consisting as it did of graduate students who were also experienced professionals, was largely a-typical. They felt at ease with the organisation of the sessions, had no difficulty understanding the course objectives, they were pleased with the quality of teacher explanations and they felt comfortable enough to ask questions whenever they liked. There were two questions which demanded some attention. When asked if they preferred many nationalities in a group to groups consisting of members with the same cultural background, nine students expressed a strong preference for the former, while six students said that this did not really matter to them. This was not quite in agreement with my own observations of the critical friend groups and some of the comments made earlier in the course and was therefore a matter to raise during the focus group interview.

107


In my case, I would not even consider the cultural background, because each one here came as an individual. Because we come from Uganda, from India.’ (Interviews, p.10) ‘Because they are my friends and they are from Bhutan and we met here in Europe, but you find I am not in a group with somebody from my continent. There is a way interest quickly grabs you and you find yourself associated with somebody. (Interviews, p.10)

The second point of interest was the question about communicating in English. Seven students said they did not find this a (major) problem, four mentioned having some problems but said they were learning to deal with them, three said they found it difficult to join in discussions and two found it problematic (‘sometimes’ and ‘to quite a large extent’). The number of students who expressed concern in this area was rather larger than I expected, although I had observed that during the discussions some students did not use all the time allotted to them. One student wrote: ‘I was wondering how these classes cater to the needs of the students, I mean individual needs. This class is a mix of people with different levels, different needs, weaknesses and strengths. Is it possible to satisfy everyone?’ I raised the point during the interviews and was told that the weaker students needed more individual attention: In my view, the teacher’s input for this level is quite enough (...) but there are variations. Of course if we are of different levels you should give input to everyone, each of us, but that is not possible and for this, as (...) says, you should make groups on the basis of our level.’ (Interviews, p.3) ‘Particularly the way you provide the examples and so on is very important. Don’t think that we are good in the language. We need a lot of things of which you probably think ‘This has all been acquired, don’t want to waste time on that. (Interviews, p.14).

The individual action plans of week 1 had been a good idea, but these were signals that I could have spent more time on the follow-up. As a result of these comments, I promised written feedback to text contributions from that moment on, but only after the texts had been discussed in critical friend groups. Effectively this meant that if students adhered to the schedule, each one would have received written feedback by the end of the course. EFB also asked students about their experiences with the critical friend groups. Fifteen students filled in the form, but because questions were sometimes left unanswered or answers covered more than one category, the numbers in parentheses show some variation. 108


1.

hy do you think the methodology of working together as critical friends was W chosen? The question was asked to find out if students had reflected on the method. Students mention a number of different reasons: ◉◉ sharing ideas and knowledge (5) ◉◉ insight in the way you work (3) ◉◉ critical thinking skills (2) ◉◉ expressing feelings without being shy (2) ◉◉ supporting and learning from each other (2) ◉◉ experiencing how this methodology works (2) ◉◉ teacher-independence (1) ◉◉ ‘It provides a platform for in-depth learning processes by way of different viewpoints, ideas, criticisms and discussions’ (1)

2.

What has become clear to you about the concept of critical friends? ◉◉ critical friends change the way you think, they open your eyes (5) ◉◉ working as a group is better than working on your own (3) ◉◉ criticism can be positive (2) ◉◉ we are all equals / it has boosted my confidence (2) ◉◉ it is a useful technique (1) ◉◉ the importance of listening (1)

3.

In what way did the procedure give you a sense of having learned something about your writing process? ◉◉ looking critically at my grammar, lexis, structure and context (6) ◉◉ it has made me more conscious of the way in which I write (6) ◉◉ sharing ideas and learning together was helpful (3) ◉◉ I don’t know if it affected my style (1)

4.

Does the methodology strike you as an effective one to learn about writing? ◉◉ yes (11) ◉◉ yes, but it is only one of the methods (1) ◉◉ can’t say (1) ◉◉ no (1)

5.

How do you use what you have learned in your writing assignments? ◉◉ I use the handouts of the Academic Writing class (9) ◉◉ I try to get feedback from critical friends (5) ◉◉ ‘I now have developed a sense of need for someone to check my writing. I also place myself as an outsider to my texts’ (1)

6.

Can you make any suggestions to improve the course? ◉◉ make several drafts / read your work again and again (2) ◉◉ more instruction on grammar and style (2) ◉◉ read more of what others write (1) ◉◉ bring in my ‘own voice’ in a piece of writing (1)

Figure 2: Experiences with critical friend groups

109


Halfway through the course, the majority of the students indicated that from the methodology perspective, working and learning in a critical friend group were successful. However, when this topic was discussed during the interviews, it became clear that the critical friend group itself was interpreted in different ways. The differences of opinion concerned group arrangements and the quality of the interaction. I had usually left the formation of groups to the students, only intervening when the groups were unevenly distributed. As a result, the groups were different every week. One student felt that this interfered with the learning process, arguing that deep learning could only be achieved when a group developed good personal relationships: I do not feel satisfied if I am in a group of four, and he makes remarks on my text, and the following week I change to another group. ... If we keep on changing, then we are not developing. We remain at a certain level. (Interviews, p.7)

Another saw the critical friend groups in the academic writing sessions as a form of training: That is in a real professional setting, but in the class I look at it very differently. In our class the objective is not to master the art of being critical friends. I look at the exercise that you use in our class as a learning activity. ... We need not really be concerned about reaching a very high level of being critical friends. (Interviews, p.7)

The way in which the sessions were organised favoured the second point of view. By the time students started writing their dissertations, the course would be over and they could choose their own critical friends for the ‘real thing.’ However, working together in the same group for several weeks on end could be more productive if students were encouraged to rewrite their texts after the sessions. It might also lead to group processes involving incompatibility of characters or irritation, so in the end I decided not to intervene. The interviews also touched upon my own role in the sessions. One consequence of being a role-model critical friend was that I kept my interventions down to what was strictly necessary, so as not to disturb the interaction. Although there were no explicit references to this in EFB, the students were more outspoken in the interviews. Because of my background, for example, a teacher means a lot to me. If he approves, then I feel ‘yes!’ but when you leave us alone and then we share and then the session ends: ‘Was it right?’ ‘Was it wrong?’’ .... If you go around, make some remarks and say ‘yes’, some sort of approval, you help us build confidence. (Interviews, p.2) 110


This was very much the kind of reaction to the role of facilitator described by McLean & Ransom (2005). However, though several others admitted that they partially agreed, there was some room to look at the situation in a different light: Partially I agree with (...)’s comment on your input as a tutor, because we also come from a cultural background where a teacher is seen as more knowledgeable, who is there to guide you. ... You could be more active, going around the room and giving input in terms of saying ‘Yes, you are right.’ But I thought being critical friends was an exercise where you do not really talk about what is right and what is wrong or approving and disapproving of things. It is a way of trying to listen more to what friends have to say. (Interviews, p.3)

One aspect of being a critical friend is the freedom to give an opinion or solution if one is asked to do so. I had always responded to direct questions, but apparently not all students were prepared to make use of this possibility. To answer the question about enhanced language skills, EFB was not conclusive. Although the majority of the students mentioned language aspects such as grammar, lexis and structure or referred to writing skills in a more general way, the QFs show that students often focused on the content of texts rather than the language. The QFs asked them to specify whether the questions were about grammar, vocabulary or structure, but also offered the option ‘another aspect:.....’ and this option proved to be quite popular. In February 17 students took the Grammar test again. The results showed a slight improvement compared to the results in August, but of the six students in this group who scored below average (36) in August, only one showed a significant improvement and all six students still scored below average. Cohort 2007 group result (n=17) students < 36 (n=6)

Grammar test August 07 36.4 (out of 50) 29.2 (out of 50)

Grammar test February 08 37.8 (out of 50) 30.2 (out of 50)

Figure 3: Grammar tests August 2007 and February 2008

Where accuracy was concerned, there was no significant overall improvement. In itself, this was hardly surprising. The test focused on word and phrase level, whereas the QFs and observations showed that when students discussed language aspects, they tended to concentrate on paragraphs or occasionally on sentences and rarely asked about specific word forms or grammatical constructions. For better language results on word and phrase level, therefore, the students themselves needed a stronger focus on form. So it appeared necessary to add an extra language dimension to the ground rules which had laid down how students should behave in a group of critical friends. 111

In the second half of the course I introduced a few changes inspired by the


comments made by students. By providing individual written feedback I could warn students about possible problem areas in their language. As to the ground rules, which had been strictly adhered to in the initial stages of the course, the last video recording made in February shows that for both the students and myself there was some truth in the saying ‘You’ve got to know the rules before you can learn how to break them,’ meaning that by then the working environment felt natural enough for a relaxed interpretation of the rules. In February the course came to an end and the moment had come to ask myself whether I had found answers to my research question and sub-questions. Discussion and conclusion The first sub-question was whether the critical friend procedure had changed compared to earlier years. The answer to this question was unequivocally affirmative. ‘Action research deepens reflection on practice toward problem solving and professional development’ (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p.29). In other words, because of a more structured approach and my own heightened interest, students took the activity more seriously than earlier cohorts. Frequent member checking also contributed to this, because it required students to verbally express their experiences and the evaluation forms show that they, too, reflected on the process. The answers to the first two questions in figure 2 show a much greater awareness of the potential of the methodology compared to my earlier experiences of group work. Understanding the concept of critical friend had given an added value to the collaboration.

112

The main difference in the 2007-2008 course had been the introduction of the ground rules. The second sub-question took a close look at what ground rules would make the methodology effective in an academic writing class. Most of the ideas expressed in the first two questions in figure 2 can be related to Ponte’s (2002) ‘no judgments, no solutions’ rules. However, to be effective in a writing class, these rules were not sufficient. Observations and evaluation forms show that for most students the methodology worked. They were discussing their own written work, looking at it through the eyes of others and learning about their own style of writing. Even when there was some criticism about the way in which the groups had been formed, this arose out of a sense that building up relationships could improve the dialogue. However, one drawback of student ownership of what was being discussed was that time which might have been devoted to paragraph or sentence construction was in fact spent discussing the content. I observed one group who were discussing a model text about learning styles and who – perhaps out of respect for the authorities mentioned in the text – refrained from commenting on the language, but talked about learning styles instead. To be effective in a writing course, therefore, the method needed a stronger focus on form. This could be accomplished by incorporating focus on form in the ground rules. Given the fact that it took time to get accustomed to working in critical friend groups, it would have to be a gradual process. One way to introduce the idea might be for the facilitator to intervene on a regular basis when students


concentrated on what was said rather than the way in which it was said. Another way was to ask the writers to bring a language topic to the critical friend group which they had encountered in the writing process. After all, their written text only showed the solutions they had chosen, not the struggle to find these solutions. This idea was inspired by my own critical friend group, where I had experienced that formulating a clear question was directly related to a high learning outcome. There was of course the likelihood that sometimes a critical friend group would not have the knowledge to solve a language problem. One student even went so far as to suggest that the focus on content was actually evasive behaviour to avoid having to face this lack of knowledge. What we are really doing up to now is critically looking at the content. Not how we could write. That is minimal. (Interviews, p.14)

For me, this meant that I should state explicitly that in these situations students were free to ask for guidance, modelling my behaviour on the step-in and stepback method described by Englert et al. (2006). Obviously the critical friend group should first make an effort to collaboratively construct knowledge, but as Tan (2003) puts it, ‘the success of convergent tasks depends on the possession of expertise and knowledge by the group’ (p.11). The third sub-question, ‘What is expected of a tutor supervising the critical friend sessions,’ may therefore be answered by specifying a dual role. Even as a role-model critical friend, a tutor / facilitator should recognise those situations where a self-initiated intervention is called for and those moments when it is necessary to step in. My fourth sub-question was what the methodology produced in terms of enhanced language skills. As was argued earlier, this question is not easy to answer. The grammar test did not show any significant improvement, but there was definitely progress in writing skills, confirming my earlier quotation from Lightbown (2004) that there is more to academic writing than accuracy. The text contributions in the second half of the course were better planned, with logical transitions between sentences and paragraphs. Students showed an awareness of the conventions of an academic style of writing, so much so that sometimes they overcompensated, for instance in avoiding the use of the first person. My feedback shows that for most students their weaknesses could be narrowed down to a few problem areas peculiar to their own style of writing. Having identified these weaknesses, they could search for ways to deal with them. Asking writers to bring in a question about their use of language to the critical friend groups might help them to focus on their own problem areas sooner. Ultimately, it was up to the students to determine to what extent the academic writing course and the critical friend groups in particular had contributed to their writing skills. The third and fourth questions in EFB show that the majority had experienced an increased language awareness and felt that their writing had improved because of the critical friend methodology. Obviously, a two-hour

113


course could hardly be the sole factor in their learning process. EFC was filled in by 17 students in February 2008 and contained three questions about writing. All students agreed that they felt more at ease with academic writing than at the beginning of the programme in August 2007. When asked to what factors they ascribed their progress, it appeared that they had learned in a number of different ways. On a scale of 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), they ticked the following factors: reading and studying other writers a prolonged stay in an English-speaking environment attending classes on grammar and writing topics discussing your work with critical friends in class discussing your work with critical friends in other situations other (please specify): writing (1 student) self-reflection, positive attitude, determination and diligence (1) practice (1)

4.35 3.24 4.12 4.18 4

Figure 4: factors contributing to progress in writing skills

These students had spent a great deal of time reading and studying other writers, so it was no surprise that this factor should be the dominant one. However, the combined instruction and critical friend groups of the academic writing class came in a good second, corresponding to the answers given to the fifth question in Table 2 in November. In the students’ perception, then, the methodology had clearly enhanced their writing skills, but it was only one of the factors leading to progress. Figure 4 also seems to indicate that the majority of the students had found their own critical friends outside the sessions. Other questions in EFC showed that all students intended to continue working as critical friends in the near future and had clear ideas about what they looked for in a critical friend. Professionalism, a critical attitude and academic writing skills scored high marks. Finally, I asked them whether they had personally experienced the five functions of a critical friend identified by Ponte (2002). The answers were predominantly affirmative. On a scale of 1 (not or hardly experienced) to 5 (this happened very often), exploring, informing each other and exchanging ideas scored 4.24, encouraging 4.18 and modelling 3.94. My fifth sub-question was ‘How do students evaluate the procedure?’ These figures appeared to indicate a positive answer. As far as student satisfaction was concerned, therefore, the methodology had succeeded.

114

What I set out to do was to create a non-threatening environment where small groups of critical friends could work autonomously. The evaluations show that this was a feasible undertaking. Even if some students would have appreciated a more teacher-centred approach, they conceded that working in small groups


promoted a greater degree of participation than would have been possible in the group as a whole. When asked if working in small groups would lower the threshold to taking part in the discussion, one student said: Definitely. There is no question. Some people do not speak, not only because they are afraid of the language, but this is how they are. It is culture. How you grew up, and how you were trained. (Interviews, p.15).

The main research question of this study was ‘Can students improve their academic literacy through working together as critical friends?’ From the findings outlined above I can conclude that the methodology has been effective, but could be made more effective by incorporating a stronger focus on language into the ground rules, which would also affect the role of the facilitator. A change which was already implemented in the 2007-2008 programme was the provision of written feedback after text contributions had been discussed in the critical friend groups. Apart from this, a few practical changes would improve the efficiency of the course. Giving critical friends access to text contributions prior to the sessions and asking writers to revise their text afterwards might encourage students to focus on details rather than general questions and comments. Finally, the video recordings of group processes, especially at the beginning, might have accelerated the students’ learning process if they had seen them one week after the discussion instead of several months later. These, then, are the changes which will be implemented in the 2008-2009 programme. Throughout the course, my own group of critical friends came together on a regular basis. On several occasions I could ask them to look critically at the instruments I intended to use and the data I had collected. I therefore want to end this study with a note of thanks to my colleagues and critical friends and to Trees Das whose video recordings and evaluations gave me valuable insight into my own role. References Beach, R. and Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S. and FitzGerald, J. (Eds). Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 222-234). New York, London: The Guildford Press Berg, E.C. (2000). Preparing ESL Students for Peer Response. TESOL Journal 8 (2), 20-25 Candlin, C.and Mercer, N. (Eds). (2001). English Language Teaching in its Social Context, a Reader. London: Routledge. Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (Eds). (2005). Teaching International Students. London: Routledge. Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, N.J. & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 115


Cho, K., Schunn, C.D. and Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on Writing. Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novice Peer Reviewers and Subject Matter Experts. Written Communication, 23 (3), 260-294. Coffin, C. (2003). Teaching academic writing: a toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge. Costa, A.L.and Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49-51. De Vita, G. (2005). Fostering intercultural learning through multicultural group work. In Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (Eds). Teaching International Students (pp. 75-83). London: Routledge. Englert, C.S., Mariage, T.V. and Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S. and FitzGerald, J. (Eds). Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 208-221). New York, London: The Guildford Press. Griffiths, S. (2004). Teaching and learning in small groups. In Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (Eds). A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (2nd ed., pp. 91-104). London, New York: Routledge Falmer Herr, K. and Anderson, G. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation. London: Sage Hutchings, C. (2006). Reaching students: lessons from a writing centre. Higher Education Research & Development 25 (3), 247–261. Kember, D., Ha, T.K., Lam, B.H., Lee, A., Ng, S., Yan, L. and Yum, J.C.K. (1997). The diverse role of the critical friend in supporting educational action research projects. Educational Action Research, 5 (3), 463-481. Kumaravadivela, B. (2005). Understanding Language Teaching: from Method to Post-method. London: Routledge. Lightbown, P. (2004). Commentary: What to teach? How to teach? In Patten, B. van (Ed.) Processing Instruction. Theory, Research and Commentary (pp.65-78). Mahwah, N.J. & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lillis, T.M. (2001) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge. Lloyd, M. (2007). Developing academic writing skills: the PROCESS framework. Nursing Standard, 20, 40, 50-56 Longfellow, E., May, S., Burke, L. and Marks-Maran, D. (2008). They had a way of helping that actually helped: a case study of a peer-assisted learning scheme. Teaching in Higher Education,13(1), 93-105. Macaro, E. and Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10 (3), 297-327. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S. and FitzGerald, J. (Eds). (2006). Handbook of Writing Research. New York, London: The Guildford Press. McLean, P. and Ransom, L. (2005). Building intercultural competencies: implications for academic skills development. In Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (Eds). Teaching International Students (pp. 45-62). London: Routledge. 116


Mertens, D.M. and McLaughlin, J.A. (2004). Research and Evaluation Methods in Special Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ovens, P. (2003). A Patchwork Text Approach to Assessment in Teacher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(4), 545-562. Pajares, F. and Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S. and FitzGerald, J. (Eds). Handbook of Writing Research (pp.158-170). New York, London: The Guildford Press Patten, B. van (Ed.) (2004). Processing Instruction. Theory, Research and Commentary. Mahwah, N.J. & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ponte, P. (2002). Onderwijs van eigen makelij. Procesboek actieonderzoek in scholen en opleidingen. Soest: Uitgeverij Nelissen. Ponte, P. (2007). Postgraduate education as platform: a conceptualisation. In Swet, J. van, Ponte, P. and Smit, B. (Eds). Postgraduate Programmes as Platform, a Research-led Approach (pp.19-36). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ryan, J. (2005). Improving teaching and learning practices for international students. Implications for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. In Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (Eds). Teaching International Students (pp.92100). London: Routledge. Schmitt, D. (2005). Writing in the International Classroom. In Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (Eds). Teaching International Students (pp.63-74). London: Routledge. Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Swaffield, S. (2002). Contextualising the Work of the Critical Friend. A paper presented at the 15th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Copenhagen, 3-6 January. Swales, J.M. and Feak, C.B. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Essential Tasks and Skills (2nd Ed). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Swet, J. van and Ponte, P. (2007). Reciprocal learning by experienced teachers and their educators on a master’s degree programme in The Netherlands. Journal of In-service Education, 33(1), 67-90. Swet, J. van, Ponte, P. and Smit, B. (Eds). (2007). Postgraduate Programmes as Platform, a Research-led Approach. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Tan, B.T. (2003). Does talking with peers help learning? The role of expertise and talk in convergent group discussion tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 53-66. Winter, R. and Badley, G. (2007). Action research and academic writing: a conversation. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 253-270.

117


Appendix: the Academic Writing course in Tilburg Academic Writing course: about fourteen two-hour sessions divided into Academic Writing topics: general Critical Friend Groups: students instruction and exercises discuss text fragments Introduction: plenary session in which 1 Introduction: aspects of academic writing; during the sessions the focus students comment on a text sample. Awareness of the different aspects will be on a selection of these (e.g. or ‘levels’ of a text. Introduction to paragraph structure, style, grammar, the concept of critical friend and the vocabulary). ground rules.

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13

Twelve sessions discussing topics (not necessarily in this order), some of which are suggested by the students themselves:

Six sessions in each of which four students contribute and present their own text material (>250 words).

Grammar topics ◉◉ tenses ◉◉ use of the passive voice ◉◉ conditional clauses ◉◉ -ing-form or infinitive ◉◉ parallel constructions ◉◉ modal verbs ◉◉ punctuation ◉◉ articles

Students learn to work within the framework of the critical friend group. A ‘timekeeper’ sees to it that every group member is given the opportunity to comment and ask questions.

Academic writing topics: ◉◉ paragraph structure ◉◉ vocabulary notebook ◉◉ referencing ◉◉ plagiarism ◉◉ aspects of academic literacy: being explicit, developing writing strategies, etc.

Six sessions devoted to the six chapters of a dissertation based on the Roehampton Dissertation Handbook: ◉◉ Introduction ◉◉ Literature Review ◉◉ Methodology ◉◉ Analysis ◉◉ Evaluation ◉◉ Conclusion

Handouts to go with each of these topics + exercises (if relevant).

14

118

Students contribute their own samples based on these chapters and are given a handout with the guidelines for each chapter as well as a ‘model’ page from an earlier dissertation. A language test focusing on accuracy Final evaluation of the course, (similar or identical to the test taken in focusing on collaboration as critical friends. September)

Luuk den Hartog Abstract in Dutch Studenten sluiten hun opleiding vaak af met het maken van een meesterstuk, A long and winding road ook wel thesis of ‘dissertation’ genoemd. Zo ook bij Fontys OSO in de eenjarige Erasmus Mundus academische masteropleiding Special Educational Needs. Uit eerder onderzoek komt naar voren dat studenten het een moeilijke, maar leerzame opdracht vinden. Wordt het werkstuk met succes afgerond dan is dat een belangrijke stap in de richting van een reflectieve, onderzoekende houding die noodzakelijk is voor de professionele uitoefening van hun beroep. Deze studie onderzocht hoe studenten het maken van een dissertation ervaren. Tevens werd nagegaan welke bijdrage critical friends en het schrijven van een wekelijks reflectieverslag hadden. Inzicht hierin is van belang om de vormgeving en de kwaliteit van de opleiding verder te verbeteren. Daartoe werd een explorerend onderzoek uitgevoerd onder vijf studenten uit evenzoveel landen. Gedurende drie maanden stuurden zij de onderzoeker wekelijks een reflectieverslag. Twee keer hadden zij in deze periode een geplande ontmoeting met hun critical friends. Tenslotte werden hen aan het einde van het onderzoek in een groepsinterview tien vragen voorgelegd. Het schriftelijk materiaal werd vervolgens geanalyseerd. Voor de studenten bleek het schrijven van een dissertation niet alleen een nieuwe en uitdagende opgave te zijn, maar voor een aantal van hen ook een die soms gepaard gaat met spanning en onzekerheid. Studenten van wie de reflectieverslagen een meer cognitieve inhoud hadden, toonden deze emotionele reacties niet. Het schrijven van een wekelijks verslag en het frequente contact met critical friends droegen elk op hun eigen wijze bij aan de ontwikkeling van een kritische, reflectieve houding, waarschijnlijk vooral als deze twee gelijk op gaan. Enkele relevante aandachtspunten voor de opleiding worden aangedragen.

119

120

A long and winding road Students’ experiences when preparing a dissertation Luuk den Hartog As you set out for Ithaka hope your road is a long one, full of adventure, full of discovery. K.P. Kavafis (1994, p. 88)

Those who seek to enter the scientific community have to undertake trials to prove that they can display ‘appropriate’ behaviour. After earning the diploma he or she will be measured against standards that are applicable in that forum. Thus, he has to abide by a behavioural code with explicit principles that ensures a ‘correct practice’ of the profession (VSNU, 2004). The writing of a dissertation or a thesis, as a test of mastery, is usually the last step in the entry process. The students show, by argumentation, their ability to be competent in a field of research and thus prove to have mastered the academic rules with this assignment. There are also rules in their interaction with colleagues. As a student he has had the opportunity to practise giving correct feedback during his education. Skills like discussions and peer reviews can then be put to good use. His remarks can subsequently contribute to improving the quality of the work done, including his own and that of others. In the scientific field he has become a critical friend. There is much debate surrounding the notion of a ‘critical friend’ and it is important to define it clearly (Swet, van, 2008). Linguistically it is a figure of speech, an oxymoron, belonging to the family of paradoxes. It has Greek etymological roots in which the meaning of ‘sharp’ or ‘smart’ (oxy) and ‘stupidious’ or ‘dumb’ (moros) are united. The expression ‘critical friend’ suggests a contradiction between the two words. However, formulated as an opinion, nobody wants a friend who is not critical and everybody wants a critical attitude to be expressed in a friendly manner. This somewhat reverses the paradox and gives the concept a more pleonastic character. Consequently, it is about practical skills that needs to be acquired through upbringing and education and thereby an ability to function intellectually and fraternally on the platform of the scientific community (Costa and Kallick, 1993). At this platform a critical wind is always blowing and subsequently ‘discomforting dialogues’ can then take place (Kelchtermans, 2007, p. 107). This study focuses on the dissertation, the ‘piece de resistance’ of a Masters education. We would like to explore how students feel about this particular coursework and what value they assign to writing reflection reports. Furthermore, students were asked to reflect on the influence of critical friends. In the following

121


discussion, we refer to literature that may offer some answers to these research questions. After that, we will state the research methodology undertaken in the search for evidence. The results will be presented in a powerful and appealing manner in order to draw clear and convincing conclusions. Literature review Writing a dissertation

122

Students usually write a dissertation during the final year of their Masters education. For them it often is a first encounter with scientific methods of enquiry. The emphasis in writing a dissertation is on the development of a research attitude. Meta-cognitive skills such as critical thinking, interpretation and evaluation also receive much attention. Ahlstrand and Bergqvist (2004) asked their (Swedish) students what they had learned from writing a dissertation. The students named matters such as ‘better insights’, ‘deeper understanding’ and ‘specialization in the subject area of their study’ (p. 11) as integral learning outcomes. Academic writing, as a specific style of writing, also contributed to that. Beforehand, the students were reluctant about this assignment and found it a difficult task. Afterwards most of them found that it had been a useful contribution to their training as a teacher and thus can then use the knowledge and skills developed in later practise. Although it was purported by the institute, students appeared to make little use of critical friends, in both cognitive as well as relational aspects. Its effect could even be negative as ‘students’ reading each other’s work may be too permissive and friendly. If students rely on this critique alone, the resulting thesis may be of a poor quality’ (p. 11). The reason why students are not inclined to turn to each other is attributed to the vast time pressure under which the work has to be done (Ahlstrand and Bergqvist, 2004). Because of time pressures (theses have to be finished in 10 weeks), students can be very self involved and find few opportunities to study the work of others critically. Due to this short time span the students are forced to work independently and in a disciplined manner. The (Finnish) students studied by Maaranen and Krokfors (2007) were given much more time to do their final paper. They were allowed to work on it for at least a year. At the end of this time period the researchers asked 9 female students, near graduate teachers, to reflect on their assignment and their personal development. The students wrote a 4 to 8 page essay on this matter based on an assignment which asked students to ‘critically analyse your research process and your development as a researcher during it’ (p. 364). On the basis of a content analysis of their exploratory, qualitative case study Maaranen and Krokfors concluded that ‘we view both writing the masters thesis report, as well as reflections on it, as important features, when students are taught to be inquiry-oriented, reflective practitioner researchers’ (p. 371). They thereby recognize the importance of joint reflection and ‘sharing thoughts’. However, this possibility has not (yet) been created by their institute. According to the researchers and students, reflection can be stimulated by the input of reflective practices of others. One of the students put it this way: ‘an important factor in my research was a colleague who did her research on the same subject. Long phone calls and pedagogical discussions of

A long and winding road

our common topic provided the best feedback a researcher could receive’ (p. 367). The students considered the ‘doing’ component of their research as an important learning process. Increasingly, they have integrated theory with their own practise and developed their cognitive and practical research skills. Journal writing or ‘journaling’

The reflective journal that students keep can be described as ‘a learning exercise in which students express in writing their understanding of, reflections on, response to or analysis of an event, experience or concept’ (Ballantyne & Packer, 1995, p. 30). It knows many applications in several fields (Bain et al, 1999; Boud, 2001), but the essence is ‘its progression beyond the mere reporting of facts or events to engaging the student in cognitive or reflective interaction with the material’ (p. 30). Numerous advantages are attributed to writing such a journal, among which encompass the facilitation of reflection, the encouragement of critical thinking and the stimulation of professional development. Srimavin and Darasawang (2003) regard journal writing as a way of achieving a more conscious position and according to them it is the first phase of reflection. Boud (2001, p. 9) describes it aptly as ‘making sense of the world and how we operate in it’. According to Walker (2006) the student’s involvement with his own learning process increases because of the reflective writing process and through that he adopts more selfguidance. Moreover, writing is superior to speaking, according to Beed (2005, p. 163), ‘because writing, through deliberation and word choice, can lead to more explicitness in expression’. That which is taken in by the student in his report, the so called journal entries, is usually analysed qualitatively by researchers (Walker, 2006). The level of reflection is often looked at, because ‘there is consistent evidence that the level of reflective analysis and sophistication in students’ journal writing varies widely, ranging from simple description in which little if any reflection is evident, to highly sophisticated self-dialogues in which several perspectives are explored’ (Bain et al., 1999, p. 52). An example can be found in Ballantyne and Packer’s (1995) study, where they give 13 doctoral level students the task to write approximately 300 words every week in relation to the lectures they attended or in response to reading assignments. Thus, the ‘students were expected to develop critical, reasoned responses to the material presented and to integrate course concepts with their own personal and professional experiences and observations’ (p. 31). From an analysis of the written material four answering styles became clear. The analytical style emphasised higher cognitive and evaluating activities. The extracting style describes an event and distils the central points from that. In the affective style, feelings are expressed or self-evaluating answers are recognizable. Lastly, the course-feedback style focuses on complaints and any suggestions regarding parts of the course taken by the students. The first two styles are characterized by cognitive responses (Ballantyne and Packer, 1995), the other two contain non-cognitive responses. For most students, especially those with the analytical and extracting styles, journaling appears to be ‘an effective technique for encouraging reflection on learning, clarification and analysis of concepts and connections of course content with personal and professional

123


experiences’ (p. 42). Their data suggest that when a student is too involved with the course feedback style the effectiveness of writing declines. Most students in the study of Ballantyne and Packer show a positive attitude towards keeping a journal. They believe that writing has contributed to ‘helping them to clarify their thinking and personalize the course content’ (p. 40). The weekly writing has led the students to invest more time and effort in reflecting. Without this assignment they would not have had the discipline to do so. A few students regarded the assignment as a waste of time or a general nuisance. They appear to have mainly concentrated themselves on the course design and the teaching approach rather than on exploring and critically analysing the concepts and content presented. A couple of other students mentioned that they reflect naturally and that writing does not add much. The students found the ‘solitary nature’ a weakness in their writing. Their recommendation, therefore, is to discuss the reports in small groups. Ballantyne and Packer support this recommendation (note also: Kember et al.,1996) and believe that ‘if the development of students’ reflective ability is seen to be the aim of the journal writing exercise, the opportunity for students to expose, discuss and receive feedback on their reflections is likely to enhance the learning process’ (p.43). Students may find that a dialogue about their reports makes a valued contribution to a high level of reflection, but whether this conception is measurable, is still questioned (Bain et al., 1999). Critical friends

124

It is reasonable to assume that critical friends can contribute to the development of students into reflective practitioners. Their cognitive and relational skills thus become more evident during shared critical reflection and it can be presumed that they will then affect others. Ponte (2002, p. 53) distinguishes five functions of a critical friend. The exploring function can be described as ‘making enquiries towards one another in view of clarifying a problem or topic introduced and informingly searching for different perspectives in its analysis and interpretation’. An example of a relational skill is the function of comforting or encouraging: ‘encouraging each other to go on, giving each other the recognition that action research can sometimes be frustrating and difficult, appreciating each other for what is being done’ (p. 54). We come across these dimensions again in the description of Costa and Kallick (1993, p. 50). They characterize a critical friend as ‘a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person’s work as a friend. A critical friend takes the time to fully understand the context of the work presented and the outcomes that the person or group is working towards. The friend is an advocate for the success of that work’. Van Swet (2008) is inspired by this description and elaborates on these aspects in her research. For a balance between the concepts of ‘critical’ and ‘friend’, mutual trust in a group of students appears to be mandatory. Trust has to be built in order for everyone to expand on their professional comfort zone (p. 138). Coming into contact with different perspectives is another aspect, i.e. ‘looking through another lens’. That often proves to be an enlightening experience for the students that were questioned: ‘listening and forgetting for a


moment your own convictions, really trying to get the others’ perspective’ (p. 139). Especially in the first phase of their own research, in formulating their research question, students appear to benefit from ‘another lens’. What critical friends do as well is give each other feedback. A student from Van Swet’s research is quoted in this context: ‘their questions triggered me and lead to new ideas. Why this, why that, frank criticism makes me think more; they helped to funnel on sub areas’ (p. 141). One of Francis’ students (1995, p. 234) expressed her development as ‘my first perception was that as a critical friend your job was to provide solutions. Instead, the critical friend should extend your thoughts so that you can reach your own solutions. Questioning and understanding your partner’s belief is vital to being a critical friend. The type of language you use is vital especially in forming mediating questions directed at engaging thinking’. At the end of her research Van Swet (2008) ambitiously gave her own definition of the concept ‘critical friend’. We refer to that definition integrally, not just because it gives a clear, practical impression of the concept, but also because we will get back to it in our discussion. She suggests the following description: ‘a critical friend is a fellow student within a tutor group, who is helpful to another student in the research and writing of a research report. He or she does so by asking critical questions, contributing his or her own perspective into the discussion, giving information or advice. The critical friend takes no responsibility for the content of the research or the report or its process. This means that a critical friend reads concepts of chapters and comments on them, that he or she thinks along about the research question and the planning of the research, that he or she also analyses part of the data, etc etc.’ (p. 149). Methodology Participants

Five students, three women and two men, participated in the study. They were between 31 and 58 years of age (average 43 years) and coming from India, Malaysia, Albania, Pakistan and Ghana. They were all experienced in their field of work and wanted to graduate with an academic Masters in Special Educational Needs. The Erasmus Mundus course programme composes of 90 ec in total of which 30 ec can be earned by writing a dissertation. Procedure

All students of the 2007/2008 cohort attended a meeting in which the research project was presented by the author. They were invited to participate in the study. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed (Bera, 2004). Five students enlisted voluntarily; they had the right to withdraw from the research at any time. In a follow up meeting with these students practical arrangements were made. The students were asked to send (by mail) the author a weekly reflective report of about 200-300 words on preparing and writing a dissertation. The instruction was to ‘write a reflective report in which you are allowed to reflect on any (dominant) feeling, thought or idea about the writing of your dissertation’. Between November 25th 2007 and February 18th 2008, the students were asked to mail 15 reports.

125


In weeks 5 and 11 of the data gathering phase they were to discuss their reports with their critical friends, being the other members of the participating group. The students also reported on these meetings. Compliance with the procedure was high, 67 of the possible 75 reports were received (between 11 and 15 per student). One meeting with critical friends was not attended by all participants due to the pressure of other assignments. Students met in two- or threes at different times. At the end of the 13-week period a group interview was held by the author in which a number of questions were asked. The questions were to be answered in writing. During the interview the atmosphere in the group was open and relaxed with a high level of trust and honesty. Between each question a short discussion on some of the answers took place. The meeting lasted about 90 minutes. The following 10 questions were answered by the students: The first four questions served to prepare the students for the reflection and each question was then to be answered with a maximum of five keywords. a. When dwelling upon writing a dissertation I think/feel….. b. When dwelling upon writing my reflection reports I think/feel….. c. When dwelling upon the contribution of my critical friend(s) I think/feel…. d. When dwelling upon my development as a reflective practitioner I think/ feel…. 1. Dwelling upon writing your dissertation, how would you characterize the past three months? Please be as specific as possible. 2. Do you think or feel that making a weekly reflection report is helpful in writing a dissertation? Please be as specific as possible. 3. Do you think or feel that the two planned meetings with your critical friend(s) did make a contribution in the process of writing a dissertation? Please be as specific as possible. Specify who your critical friends are and whether they belong to the Erasmus Mundus group. 4. Which factors and/or persons were most influential in the process of writing your dissertation? Please be as specific as possible. Name the most influential first. 5. Did you notice any personal/professional changes when writing and reading your reflection reports? Please be as specific as possible. Name as many changes as are relevant in your case. 6. At the end of this session you now have the opportunity to mention what you consider important and valuable but did not mention earlier. 126


Data analysis

Two sources of written data were available: the reflective reports and the answers to the interview questions. All the answers to the questions were combined for each respondent resulting in a personal story (see 3.1.). These five stories served as a database and were summarized into a ‘thick description’ (see 3.2.) concerning the topics that included ‘writing a weekly reflective report’, ‘the writing of a dissertation’ and ‘critical friends’. These topics thus reflect the questions asked. The reflective reports were frequently and closely read by the author so that a holistic picture arose of the issues the students considered important (see 3.3.). Converging and diverging trends in the data are highlighted in the conclusion. Generalizations were avoided due to the small-scale and explorative nature of the study. Results The results will be presented below. First of all the answers to the questions asked in the interview were summarized in the form of a personal report. As an example the report regarding student P is given. Interview: example of a personal report

P loves to put her ideas and thoughts onto paper as it gives her a sense of order. Moreover she can check over and over again whether she has had the discipline to execute certain intentions. In this way she can see whether she has made any progress in her dissertation. If so, this then gives her certainty and confidence. She tries to be self-critical about that. All of this makes it important and pleasurable for P to make a weekly report. Aside from that, it gives her the opportunity to improve her academic writing. P doubts her abilities to sufficiently grasp the subject, which is close to her heart. She needs a lot of affirmation for that, which she tries to find by reading a lot and talking to relevant people. Her motivation to write the dissertation is great, although she dreads it tremendously. She considers it the greatest challenge of the coming months and questions, ‘will I be able to do it?’ P would like to become a professional and is therefore willing to constantly work on her development. Moreover, she states that ‘it is vital for my academic and personal life’. P finds a positive influence of critical friends (who derive from the Erasmus Mundus group) on her motivation. Student S was her most important critical friend. In the two meetings she discussed the attainability of her dissertation (-subject). She wanted some certainty on that. Aside from that, she acquainted herself with the subjects to be researched by her peers and with their methods of data collection and their vision on undertaking their research. She attained a lot of confidence from these activities concerning her own subject and approach. Others have also supported her in difficult matters regarding the dissertation: she named teachers, meetings with external experts and the contacts with the college staff about practical issues. P finds critical friends important in learning in general and says that everybody is a potential critical friend who she can learn something from.

127


She has intrinsic motivation and innate interest for the subject (dyslexia) and hopes that others in her country will profit from it. P also mentions her buddy school where she has been able to witness inclusion in practice. In the beginning, P thought the research she participated in would take her a lot of time and energy. However, on reflection she believes that it has given her a great deal: she has become more motivated, has overcome obstacles in writing the dissertation and has taken knowledge of different perspectives (academic and professional). Interview: thematic summary of the answers

Writing a weekly reflective report The assignment to write a reflective report every week forces the students to stand still and dwell upon their thoughts, ideas, feelings and about the events of the past week that are relevant to them. Some choose a fixed moment in which they are concentrating exclusively with their dissertation. They thus focus their thoughts and reach critical analysis. This leads to intensification and sometimes to finding ‘meaning’ and it is as if they can look ‘into’ and ‘behind’ something. Writing provides an added value and it is more than a casual thought. When something has been methodically put on paper, it functions as a monitor that makes it possible to check whether what has been written down was realized during the course of the week. If so, it gives a feeling of satisfaction and self-confidence. If not, students will then try to take measures to counter this; new intentions are then formulated. Writing a reflective report keeps the students actively involved in their dissertation. They have to show some discipline however as other assignments need their attention as well. A collateral effect is that the students regard it as a good practise for their writing skills. According to the students, writing a weekly reflection report has contributed to their development into a conscious reflective practitioner. They have discovered the importance of reflection through writing. The emphasis on their own experiences is increased by it. A student remarks that her critical thinking is stimulated and that she has come to consider it part of her professionalism. This exemplifies an attitudinal shift, which she considers to be of great importance when undertaking research. Consequently, she declares she will continue her reflective writing. Some students wonder if it would be better to teach reflection more explicitly.

128

Writing a dissertation The students have been busy writing a proposal for their dissertations. Doing research is mostly a new experience for them; they have never done it before, an unknown world has to be entered. The students do not perceive the assignment as easy and thus it causes a certain tension and uncertainty which may lead to them seeking support and confirmation, for example with the critical friend and the tutor. A difficult, but challenging period lies ahead of them. Not all students regard it alike. Some associate writing a dissertation solely with cognitive skills such as thinking, formulating, reflecting, discussing and do not report on their emotions


and doubts. These students seem more businesslike and focus more on themes that have greater links with the process of research itself. The subject chosen by the students breathes an air of challenge and motivation because it interests them, is close to their hearts and because the students suspect it to be meaningful and valuable for their own practice. Some openly doubt their capabilities to research the subject well. Sometimes they set standards that are too high for themselves and already appear to aim for a high score in the final assessment. Thinking about the dissertation leads to the discovery of several sides of the subject of research. Moreover they discover in this way their own ideas, views and attitudes. Most students enumerate the things that come to mind for them including the subject and the matching research questions, the research methods that need to be chosen and finding their participants. It is their conviction that time will have to be spent on searching for and reading literature. A student claims to be aware of the fact that profound thinking about his subject will lead to the frequent reformulation of his research questions. Critical friends Students find critical friends very important and influential. They are motivated to keep working on the assignments. One even says that without them they would not have made any progress with certain assignments. They function as a model: ‘this is how they deal with their work. I can compare myself to that’. During discussions they give a further and better insight in the research process. Their input provides confidence. It is possible that they expose strong and weak points in their work which they had not yet seen themselves. Most students have critical friends that come from the Erasmus Mundus group. One also has a critical friend outside this group. She keeps in contact with them through the phone and/or mail. One student would like to have a more frequent contact with each other, but according to her, there is no time for that in such a busy programme. She suggests the creation of a better time plan in order for it to succeed. Most students are open and supportive during the meetings. They try to think critically and to be of service to others in answering the questions asked. One student reports that she has difficulties with receiving negative feedback. She considers feedback which is both positive and negative as constructive. She doubts her own analytic ability to help others. Critical friends bring clarity where the student has not yet reached it himself. Because of their feedback they are helpful in reformulations in thoughts and processes, e.g. the research questions. The two scheduled meetings do not have a direct influence as such. Especially the more frequent, self-planned meetings are important. All students have experienced the significance of cooperation and discussion. They regard it as an integral part of their education. Besides that, a more personal meaning is allocated to critical friends, one that stretches beyond a mere professional relationship. The weekly reflective reports

The reflective reports have been thoroughly read and analysed by the author several times. What stands out, is that the students do not all share the same

129


130

approach in describing their findings. We believe we can distinguish two types of reports through emotional and cognitive dimensions. The more emotionally orientated report is written by students P and S. They report their processes in terms of their experiences in writing their dissertation. They point out what they have come across and thought in the concerning week, without explicitly going into the contents of their thoughts. Thereby, they communicate the existence of a thought and the emotional aspect of their thinking, but not exactly what they have thought about. These students thus often use in every report, words that refer to emotions. They speak of insecurities, doubts, worries and stress. The dissertation is constantly present ‘at the back of my mind’ (student S, report 2). S regards the assignment as very difficult and struggled with it: ‘the literature review, I am told, is supposed to be a critical analysis of literature. How to do that!!’ (report 1). P questions the significance of her subject, but when she is reassured by her tutor, she writes: ‘this is really important for me as I now know that my research is not trivial or insignificant as I had feared it to be. My biggest worry is over now’ (report 6). During the process they have a great need for support and desire for more guidance from the institute: ‘the tutor has to clarify some doubts’ (student S, report 4). These students seem to be wanting to hear from the people around them if what they are doing is right or not, if they are on the right track. The critical friends, the tutors and the teachers play an important role here. Their approval gives some relief and relaxation: ‘it was a relief to know that she did not find my research questions to be vague’ (student S, report 12). If this fails to occur, for example because the tutor does not respond fast enough, the uncertainty and doubt will persist. They assign more value to the opinion of the tutor and the teachers than to that of the critical friends: ‘I find that although critical friends are very useful in our dissertation journey, sometimes input from professionals is so important to give us multi-dimensional perspectives of our research. Certainly their experience and expertise in the field help us to enrich our own learning process’ (student P, report 11). Students who lean more towards a cognitively orientated form of report very seldomly resort to the emotional vocabulary as pointed out above. Because of that we have less insight in the effects of writing a dissertation on them. Their writing style is more formal and conceptual. In response to an event, a thinking process is described that focuses on content. Through thinking the students come to explore the subject and show their findings and conclusions. They sometimes refer to literature or come to the conclusion that they should search for more literature about a certain aspect. The findings are linked with their own research which is at hand and needs sharpening in terms of questioning and methods to be used. The students M and Mu are the best of examples of this. Student E is less easy to classify. In his first five reports he appears to belong to the cognitive type, because he explicitly describes his thoughts, later on he changes his method of reporting and leans more towards a process of description. He does not use any emotional words. An example from students M’s report is: ‘during the academic writing session, someone presented to us the introduction of her dissertation, which is related to the cooperation between parents and professionals. On reading her paper, my


reflection went to the role that parents have to improve the learning capacity of their children in cooperation with teachers, if the latter really listens to the parents’ (report 1). The immediate reason for thinking about ‘the role of parents having children with disability to make the schools adapted to their children’s needs’ is named here. Student M connects this subject to her own research subject which has not yet been fully unfolded. From her reports, it becomes clear that she asks herself many critical questions, which include questions that may not always have to do with her dissertation. It is as if she makes ‘thinking reports’ in response to what she has encountered, which stimulate directly, or indirectly, the handling of the dissertation or different personal opinions. While writing, she searches for her own perceptions of something. Student Mu writes: ‘during the last week I studied a few case studies relating to special education needs. Both are case studies but completely different with regards to the methods used for data collection and analysis. This issue leads me to Bell’s (1999) statement that there are various types of case studies which can be undertaken to study an individual or group. This statement made me think of some important questions, i.e. what sort of case study approach, methods of data collection and analysis should be adopted for my dissertation’ (report 2). Conclusions and discussion Below the research questions, as formulated in the introduction, will be answered in an integrated manner: the topics that are relevant to the study will be globally discussed and acknowledged as interrelated. Wherever possible new questions and suggestions are mentioned. Francis (1995) purports that students should be given the opportunity to reflect on the subject numerous times during a lesson. She calls this the ‘giving of quiet time’. For the students this is a new experience which they are positive about: ‘it helps you to search what your true feelings are towards something. You begin to own it rather than just take on what the lecturer says’ (p. 236). It contributes to the process of personal ‘meaning-making’. Some of our students also show signs of the fundamental meaning that silence and concentration have on reflection. In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, as a form of active rest, the student takes a moment to stand still and find words. He thus provides himself with a possibility to formulate and figure out the personal meaning of an event, feeling or thought. Student S puts it this way: ‘every Sunday I took aside some time to reflect, which I would not, perhaps, have done otherwise’ (reaction to question 3). Damen (2007) speaks in this context of ‘private reflection’. The answers found by the student within himself, can then be tested on others. That also happens in Francis’ approach (1995): ‘through a process of systematic coupling of personal recall of lived experience, collaborative consideration of different viewpoints, and specific time for written reflection, we establish the notion of critical friendship as a way of reconstructing personal meaning-making’ (p. 236). In this way she prevents the activity of writing a reflective report from being an independent act that, moreover, can be regarded as ‘solitary’ by students like Ballantyne and Packer’s

131


132

(1995). Hence, the reflection becomes ‘public’ (Damen, 2007). Also Kember et al. (1996) agree with that and highlight that ‘reflective journals, in combination with peer discussion, proved to be a potent force towards students constructing their own understanding’ (p. 220). In our own research we consciously created two opportunities for the students to discuss their reflective reports with each other. We assumed that it would be possible that students, under the influence of each other’s perspectives, changed the nature of their reports. That did not appear to be the case, because the constant and frequent interaction these students have with each other was not taken into enough consideration. Therefore, the two scheduled meetings will probably not have a significant contribution of their own. Student Mu: ‘the critical friends meetings which were very helpful for essay writing and the dissertation were the ones we planned ourselves’ (reaction to question 3). Why student E. altered his reports, is hard to explain. He did so after one of the scheduled meetings after which he possibly adjusted his opinion about the nature of the assignment. The weekly writing of a reflective report is, according to most students, useful and has psychological advantages. Besides the ordering and monitoring functions, the student can view his positive development during the assignment and thus this may improve his confidence. When the student has the discipline and commitment, it keeps him involved with the task ahead of him. Writing actively and focussed is a way to encapsulate the ethereal characteristics common to casual thinking and feeling. It creates the possibility to bring the private and public reflection into contact and stimulate the development into a conscious ‘reflective practitioner’. Because we cannot expect students to be instantly enthusiastic about writing reflective reports, according to Francis (1995), we will have to support them so that they acknowledge the value of writing ‘as stimulating growth, increasing selfawareness and confidence’ (p. 241). The importance of critical friends is great. In the responses of our students, we recognize the functions that Ponte (2002) distinguishes, including the model function. Also on the basis of social comparison, students discover where they stand in the preparation and execution of the task. In mutual contacts both the cognitive and the socio-affective competences of one another are appreciated. The social intercourse is respectful. One of our students doubts her abilities to make a contribution to the work of others analytically speaking. Of course it is up to the other person to decide if and when a contribution is valuable. In a group of critical friends the chance of the functions being represented sufficiently is the highest. Because of that everyone has the chance to have a more or less valuable part at any given time. A relevant question is how a group of critical friends, in which each member has a clearly described study goal to reach, should be composed. The same goes for the question, which tutor should be connected to which group. Students prove to have cognitive and relational expectations of tutors as well. It is the impression that students like it when tutors are competent in the field investigated by the student. That increases his status and leads to a greater influence on a psychological level, especially as far as encouragement and reassurance are concerned. Practically speaking the student wants a quick response to the work


he handed in, especially at the beginning of the proposal or dissertation. It is important that the tutor is aware of this supporting process role. After a sometimes long period of time, does the student finally feel that he is on a right and clear track then the tutor can fulfil his role differently. The support-seeking behaviour of the student appears to depend on the psychological phase in which he finds himself with regard to his project. If he feels insufficiently orientated on the assignment, then this will possibly show in the nature and frequency of the questions he asks his teacher, critical friend or tutor. Writing a dissertation is new to most students. A lot of things are new for the Erasmus Mundus students. They have ended up in a foreign country, far away from home, where all kinds of new assignments await them. They meet fellow students there who, like them, have chosen and are motivated for this adventure. They will learn and live together. During their education, they are immersed in a climate in which developing an academic attitude is of utmost importance. Almost every moment is utilized to reflect and share thoughts. Despite the mutual dependency that usually arises when people live so closely together, critical friendships remains possible and is highly appreciated as part of the education. Mutual trust and safety, on which critical friendship is based, are noticeable by the open and honest manner in which the students interact with each other. They mutually influence each other and consider one another as a source of motivation to take up and finish their tasks. They test the best way of shaping their work on each other. It is here, in the early phases of the assignment, that the constructive feedback of others is most frequently asked. For example, they may question the subject of their project or query the choice of participants. Possibly characteristic for this group, in accordance with its situation, is the vision on critical friendship that goes further than the definition quoted earlier (Swet, van, 2008): ‘being a critical friend goes beyond making us better professionals. It does make us good human beings. I do believe that’ (student S, reaction to question 10). The solidarity seems to put more emphasis on the friendship side and sometimes floats in the direction of ‘friends for life’. Dramatic life events during their stay in the foreign country may enhance this. Even more remarkable and deserving is that it does not seem to be at the cost of the critical attitude expected by the education. Or is it not remarkable at all? When the Erasmus Mundus students are at the end of their one-year academic Masters education, they declare to have learned a lot and to have changed in several ways. They can go back to their own country to share their new discoveries with others. Their journey has been long, sometimes capricious, and full of adventurous challenges; they have been enriched by knowledge, experiences and friendships. To, at last, speak with the words of the Flemish poet Miriam van Hee (2007): and when we then finally stood at the top, captured by light we saw all as clear as was once promised to us (p. 28).

133


Acknowledgement I would like to thank the five students who participated in this study. Although you have returned to your faraway countries you should know that you have left valuable traces in my heart: you will never be anonymous to me. Your luggage will probably be unpacked by now. I hope you have hit upon treasures, some expected and above all some unexpected ones. Fare thee well. References Ahlstrand, E. & Bergqvist, K. (2004). Thesis in teacher education–research orientation and professional relevance. Linkoping University: Department of Behavioural Sciences. Bain, J.D. et al. (1999). Using journal writing to enhance student teachers’ reflectivity during field experience placements. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 5 (1), 51-74. Bain, J.D. et al. (2002). Developing reflection on practice through journal writing: impacts of variations in the focus and level of feedback. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8 (2), 171-197. Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (1995). The role of student journals in facilitating reflection on doctoral level. Studies in Continuing Education, 17, 1&2, 29-46. Beed, P.L. et al (2005). The power of reflective writing for students and teachers. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Reading, 163- 168. The International Reading Association. British Educational Research Association (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research. London: BERA. Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New directions for adult and continuing education, no. 90. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 9-17. Costa, A.L. & Kellick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51, 2, 49-51. Damen, I. (2007). Making pictures in front of a mirror. A cognitive perspective on reflection in learning. Tilburg University: dissertation. Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: a window to preservice teachers’ practical knowledge. Teaching & Teaching Education, 11 (3), 229-241. Hee, M. van (2007). Buitenland. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij. Kavafis, K.P. (1994). Verzamelde gedichten. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij. Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Capturing the multidimensionality of teacher professionalism, broad and deep reflection. In: J. v. Swet, P. Ponte & B. Smit (eds.). Postgraduate programmes as platform. A research-led approach. (pp. 97-110). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense publishers. Kember, D. et al. (1996). Encouraging critical reflection through small group discussion of journal writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 33, 4, 213-220. 134


Maaranen, K. & Krokfors, L. (2007). Time to think? Primary school teacher students reflecting on their MA thesis research processes. Reflective Practice, 8 (3), 359-373. Martin, M. (2005). Reflection in teacher education: how can it be supported? Educational Action Research, 13, 4, 525-542. Pauw, I. & Ven, P-H van de (2005). Wat reflecteert een reflectieverslag? Een retorisch onderzoek. VELON Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 26 (1),1423. Ponte, P. (2002). Onderwijs van eigen makelij. Soest: Uitgeverij Nelissen. Swet, J. van (2008). Critical friends. Kritisch en vriendelijk: een geslaagde combinatie. In: J. v. Swet, H. v. Huijgevoort, F. Cornelissen et al. Bouwen aan een opleiding als platform: interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling. (pp 127-152). Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant. VSNU-werkgroep (2004). De Nederlandse Gedragscode Wetenschapsbeoefening. Amsterdam. Walker, S.E. (2006): Journal writing as a teaching technique to promote reflection. Journal of athletic training, 41, 2, 216-222. Zuckerman, T. & Rajuan, M. (2008). From journal writing to action research: steps toward systematic reflective writing. Zeitschrift Schreiben, 11 Juni, on line access.

135

136

Jacqueline van Swet Abstract in Dutch In dit hoofdstuk wordt beschreven hoe de onderzoekers zelf als critical friends Facilitating a collaborative hebben samengewerkt en hoe ik mijn drie-dubbelrol als mede-onderzoeker, als enquiry group programma leider van de Erasmus Mundus opleiding en als ‘facilitator’ van het onderzoeksproces heb vormgegeven. Er is dus sprake van actie-onderzoek waarin ik mijn eigen rol tot object van onderzoek heb gemaakt. De onderzoeksvraag is: Welke acties en welk gedrag van mij bevorderen het onderzoeksproces en hoe kan ik bevorderen dat de onderzoekers elkaar benutten als critical friends? Op een platform zoals Fontys OSO dat voor ogen heeft, is het vanzelfsprekend dat ook opleiders onderzoek doen en dat zij daarbij met elkaar samenwerken en elkaars critical friend zijn. Een groep die op een dergelijke manier onderzoek doet, kan gezien worden als een ‘collaborative enquiry group’ (Jackson en Temperley 2007). Er is onderzocht hoe de samenwerking in onze onderzoekers-groep optimaal vorm kan krijgen en wat de bijdrage van een facilitator daaraan kan zijn. Het onderzoek is kwalitatief van aard. De gegevens zijn verzameld op basis van verslagen van bijeenkomsten, van ingevulde vragenlijsten na bijeenkomsten, en van interviews met de onderzoekers. Enkele belangrijke resultaten: Samenwerken als critical friends kost tijd en emoties. Zo kost het tijd om vertrouwen in elkaar te krijgen en is het belangrijk om wederzijdse verwachtingen ten aanzien van de samenwerking te expliciteren en onderling af te stemmen. Werken als critical friend is een kwestie van geven en nemen en van het vinden van een goede balans hierin. Samenwerken als critical friends is wellicht meer een attitude dan een concrete vaardigheid. In de periode waarop dit onderzoek betrekking heeft, hebben de onderzoekers tijdens hun bijeenkomsten veel samen gediscussieerd en gereflecteerd over het onderzoek en over de te gebruiken concepten, en dat was voor ieder een waardevolle ervaring. Ieder had verschillende verwachtingen ten aanzien van de samenwerking en de gedachten ten aanzien van het samenwerken als critical friends ontwikkelden zich in de loop van het jaar. De onderzoekers hebben, naar hun mening, echter slechts in beperkte mate echt als critical friends samengewerkt. Mogelijk mede omdat dit onderzoek slechts de periode tot aan het schrijven van het onderzoeksverslag in de vorm van dit boek, betreft. Een facilitator kan een belangrijke bijdrage leveren. Deze bijdrage dient afgestemd te zijn op de specifieke kenmerken van alle groepsdeelnemers: op hun kernkwaliteiten, hun valkuilen, hun uitdagingen en hun allergieën. En op de

137


groepsinteracties en groepsprocessen die plaatsvinden. Daarnaast verschillen de verwachtingen ten aanzien van de werkwijze en de functie van een facilitator voor de deelnemers. Een facilitator hoeft niet alle begeleidende taken zelf uit te voeren. In dit onderzoek werd het als positief ervaren dat de facilitator haar taak deelde met de andere groepsleden en dat ieder hierin een aandeel kon hebben. Op die manier kan samenwerkend en duurzaam leren plaats vinden, waar de deelnemers eigenaar blijven van hun eigen onderzoek en van hun eigen leerproces en van het gezamenlijke leerproces. Er is dus niet een beste manier om een goede facilitator te zijn. Een belangrijk aandachtspunt bleek de tijdsinvestering te zijn. Het is belangrijk dat er voldoende bijeenkomsten gepland kunnen worden, dat deze een voldoende lange duur kunnen hebben en dat het gehele project een voldoende lange duur kan beslaan.

138

Facilitating a collaborative enquiry group

How critical friends can become important, serious, crucial, discriminating and supportive friends Jacqueline van Swet In this chapter the focus is on the group of researchers themselves. How did they work together? Were they each others’ critical friends? Particular attention is given to the role of the facilitator in this process. I did action research on the group process of working together as researchers on the shared topic of ‘critical friends’. My role was both facilitating the research process, being the programme convener of the Erasmus Mundus course for Fontys OSO, and doing this action research. In my view, these tasks are related and are supposed to be a normal part of my job. As a Fontys OSO-employee I feel that I ought to do research on my own practice, such as the Erasmus Mundus course; action research is therefore a good choice. As a member of a research group and as a senior lecturer I feel that I should encourage my colleagues to do research as well as being a role-model for them. As Fontys OSO aims at being a ‘platform’ where research is done by colleagues and by students, collaboratively wherever possible, forming a what could be called ‘collaborative enquiry group’ (Jackson & Temperley, 2007) was a logical step. Having said that, this does not mean that I felt it was an easy part of my job. That’s why doing action research on it was so challenging. My role particularly as facilitator, as the initiator of this research-initiative, as well as feeling responsible for the results of the research, made the whole process a challenge for me. The questions I try to answer in this research are : To what extent are my actions and behaviour helpful in the research process and how can I stimulate the researchers to make use of each other as critical friends ? Subquestions are : Is the concept of Critical Friend clear for the researchers and do we all give it the same meaning? How can I best perform my role as facilitator in this research process? Working as critical friends in a learning community Fontys OSO aspires to develop into the direction of a so-called ‘platform’ (van Swet, Ponte, & Smit, 2007) where all participants construct knowledge collaboratively in the area of, and on behalf of, children with special educational needs. Earlier (van Swet, Ponte, & Smit, 2007) we described a platform as an

139


infrastructure for our training courses and based this description on the ideas of Smith (2000): a consistent set of educational goals and contents, educational working methods and organizational measures and as a meeting place where researchers, teachers, students and other involved people learn from each other and have discussions. On such a platform research should have a central position and it should be taken for granted that research has that position. Doing research means for Fontys OSO: practice led research, in a cooperative and participating manner. The platform concept means for Fontys OSO that both students and staff do research and that this research is done collaboratively. In the introduction chapter the reasons why doing research together and why critical friends are important, have been formulated already. Working collaboratively can advance the quality of the research done. It can help to decenter from own perspectives, to transform perspectives, understandings and feelings, and thus lead to better ‘empathetic validity’ (Dadds, 2008). It also offers a situation to test and develop arguments, to become aware of mistakes and to practise the skill of presenting (Altrichter, 2005). This all demands cooperation between researchers, between researchers and colleagues, between researchers and participants in the research, between researchers and the field. (Altrichter, 2005; Kemmis, 2007; Ponte, 2002; Ponte & Smit, 2007; van Swet, 2008). The researchers in this collaborative study all work in the Erasmus Mundus course and all focus on the topic of ‘critical friends’. They form a research group, nowadays often called a ‘professional learning community’ (Hargreaves, 2007), a co-operative inquiry group (Heron & Reason, 2006) or maybe even better said so-called ‘knot’ within a ‘collaborative enquiry group’, where the researchers work and learn together (Jackson & Temperley, 2007). The researchers in this study each have their own specified research question within the framework of the broad topic ‘critical friends’. To some extent they all ‘did their own thing’ within the broad framework of the stated aims (Somekh, 2006). None of the terms mentioned above exactly match with how the research group in this study worked together, but yet there are many similarities. For example Heron and Reasons (2006) description fits well: Co-operative inquiry is a way of working with other people who have similar concerns and interests yourself, in order to: (1) understand your world, make sense of your life and develop new and creative ways of looking at things; and (2) learn how to act to change things you may want to change and find out how to do things better. (p. 144)

140

And that is what the researchers in this study do: their shared concern and interest is to create conditions in which the students in the Erasmus Mundus course will study and work as critical friends and to find out ways how they can do that better. They intend to work collaboratively and to do research collaboratively and they hope that in the end this will improve their own praxis as tutors in the Erasmus


Mundus course. They meet every three weeks and share their experiences and discuss their thoughts and plans. More precisely this seems to be what Heron and Reason (2006) call a ‘same role inquiry’, because the co-inquirers all have more or less the same role in the Erasmus Mundus course, and they are researching aspects of their practice within that role. The exception is for myself, because I do this research not in the role of tutor in the Erasmus Mundus course, but I am the programme convener of the Erasmus Mundus course and the facilitator of the research in my role as senior lecturer. Heron & Reason (2006) distinguish further between inside inquiries and outside inquiries. Inside inquiries are groups where the action occurs in the same place within the group. In outside inquiries the group members do their research outside in their own practice and come together for reflection, sharing data, planning next actions and so on. This last form resembles best the way the researchers in this study collaborate. Literature mentions characteristics ‘professional learning communities’ should acquire to function effectively. Hargreaves (2007) for example mentions seven principles, of which three seem to be of significant importance in the context of this study. First of all there should be depth, which means that the group really concentrates on the important issues, that they engage in ethical deliberations and that there is courageous questioning. The second one is breadth, which means that the group develops shared learning and leadership, that the whole context is focused on learning and growing, that the cycles of planning, as in action-research, are a kind of routine. To reach enough breadth and depth, feelings of collegiality and trust amongst the group members are very important.The third principle is endurance, for which facilitation, time and support by principals are important conditions. The requirements for good professional learning communities as mentioned by Hipp & Huffman (2007), based on ideas of Hord (1997), are in line with these conditions Hargreaves mentions: ◉◉ Shared and supportive leadership ◉◉ Shared values and vision ◉◉ Collective learning and application ◉◉ Shared personal practice ◉◉ Supportive conditions (relationships and structures) Facilitating the critical friendship In this section the focus will be on the process of collaboration in the research group and especially on the contribution of myself as the facilitator to that process. It is clear from practice and literature that a facilitator has an important role in research and of course also in action-research (Ponte, 2002). The relationships between the members of this collaborative enquiry group have specific characteristics - they are colleagues, work on the same project and there is no

141


hierarchical relationship, apart from the fact that I am the facilitator and the programme convener of the course involved. It is interesting to explore these relationships in this study and focus especially on my position and actions as the facilitator. Cornelissen did a study in the Dutch context on the characteristics of coaches coaching action-research and the role of the coach, basing his thoughts mainly on Ponte’s work on action research and the role of the coach. (Cornelissen, 2006, 2008; Ponte, 2002). He describes these characteristics and offers a conceptual framework of these characteristics (in Figure 1), where he subdivides four different layers: motives, attitude, knowledge and skills. 1. The motives of the coach in action-research are collaborative knowledge construction, relating to the person and his situation, and establishing ownership of the action research. 2. The attitude of the coach should be transparent and supporting the process rather than the product. 3. The coach should know how to do action research and how to coach. 4. A coach needs skills in three dimensions: tasks, communication and knowledge-areas. Tasks include being flexible, making concepts explicit, suggesting, stimulating and fostering strength. Communication skills comprise of being open, making explicit, being critical, creating trust and respect, time management, and communicating in a concrete way. The knowledge areas are connecting, focusing, bringing up for discussion, and using passion.

Figure 1. The framework of the facilitation characteristics In: Cornelissen, F. & Van den Berg, E. [Forthcoming]. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall...: A Study into the Characteristics of the Facilitation of Teachers who conduct Action Research. Educational Action Research. 142


This model has been developed for coaching of action-researchers in general, and it does not pay explicit attention to coaching a group instead of an individual researcher (Kant & Sprenger, 2004). Kant and Sprenger focus in their book on facilitating ‘kenniskringen’ (literally: knowledge circle) especially on groups and on the role of the facilitator in groups, however, these groups do not necessarily do research. A ‘kenniskring’ is, in their definition, a platform where people who search similar knowledge, can meet each other. The facilitator should, in their view, mainly shape the conditions and offer support, so the members of the group can learn. A facilitator has thus three main roles: supporter, motivator and monitor. In the role of supporter he helps to develop good communication, helps to set the rules and the goals of the group. In the role of motivator he contributes to setting the tone of the meetings where each can contribute actively, where differences between members are valued, where the focus is on what goes well. As a monitor he discusses his observations and makes the members aware of group processes so the group can improve the way they function. Therefore, it is interesting to see whether we can find these characteristics mentioned by Cornelissen in this group. Secondly, we would like to see whether the roles of a facilitator of a research-group as decribed by Kant and Sprenger (2004) are present. Another aspect when working as groups, is the group process (Remmerswaal, 2003); Kant & Sprenger (2004) describe five phases in the lifecycle-process of ‘kenniskringen’: 1. the start, initiated by one person, mostly the later facilitator, where the members of the group meet and explore their expectations and their shared learning questions 2. legitimizing learning in order to create an effective learning environment; the focus is on the relations and this phase ends as soon as agreements about the way of working have been made 3. shaping, through collaborative activities bonding grows between the members 4. consolidating, which is the growing phase, the phase of give and take, where all members take their responsibility for the group 5. finishing/phasing out According to Cornelissen (2008) the coach is more guiding in the start of the coaching process and can become more supporting later (see figure 2). Thus in the beginning of the process the coach is more explicit in framing his expectations and starting the actions. But he should never take over the responsibility for the action research; that stays with the researcher during the whole process.

143


Guiding

Supporting

Figure 2. Facilitation process of action research: balance between guiding and supporting In: Cornelissen, F. & Van den Berg, E. [Forthcoming]. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall...: A Study into the Characteristics of the Facilitation of Teachers who conduct Action Research. Educational Action Research.

144

At Fontys OSO we did an earlier study on critical friends in master’s courses, where we studied the process of critical friends in student groups coached by a tutor (van Swet, 2008). Some of these findings can easily be applied to collaborative enquiry groups, where the main difference is that participants are not students, but colleagues doing research together. One of the problematic issues we discovered in these student groups was the role of the tutor. Can a tutor be a critical friend and tutor at the same time? Our conclusion was that a tutor is not normally a critical friend to the student. His or her role is to foster the process by which students act as critical friends to each other. The interaction between the tutor and student may, however, display some characteristics of the interaction between critical friends. Moreover, the more clarity in the role of the tutor, the more space there is for the feeling of critical friendship. We also formulated recommendations for the organisation of tutor groups, such as (van Swet, 2008): ◉◉ Pay explicit attention to all the participants’ expectations; what are their expectations with regards to working with others in the tutor group, the stages the group will go through, and the different positions that may be adopted? ◉◉ Discuss the concept of critical friends, bearing in mind the participants’ life stories, and pay attention to issues such as trust and critical debate. ◉◉ Discuss the philosophy behind the idea of critical friends, the reasons why critical friends are important and why this tutor group is working with this concept. ◉◉ Discuss the fact that students may also search for critical friends outside the tutor group and discuss how to deal with this. ◉◉ Define everyone’s tasks and roles as clearly and specifically as possible, pay particular attention to the role(s) of the tutor which can be a guardian of the process, a provider of support on content, an assessor, a critical friend. ◉◉ Discuss beforehand how the group will respond if a member does not keep to agreements.


◉◉

Use the ‘here and now’ to practise critical friend skills and make use of modelling as much as possible.

Methodology Aim of the study

The main research question that has been formulated is: To what extent are my actions and behaviour as the facilitator helpful in the research process and how can I stimulate the researchers to make use of each other as critical friends? More specifically, we are interested in : 1. The concept of ‘critical friend’ : Is this concept clear for the researchers and do all of them give it the same meaning? What expectations do the researchers have of each other as critical friends? 2. The coaching process : How can I best fulfill my role as facilitator of the process of working collaboratively? Data gathering

This research has been shaped as action research. I was the initiator and later the facilitator of the collaborative enquiry group and I studied how this group functioned as critical friends. The researchers were both researchers of their own research and participants in my research and they were well informed about this double role. As is always the case in action research, I thus studied my own behaviour, which meant an extra challenge on the usual balance of keeping enough distance and being empathetic and involved. The approach chosen was to do the work of facilitator as well as possible and not more just because of the research. Data has been gathered and recorded as well as was possible. This meant taking notes of the meetings (which was a regular procedure), having one meeting videorecorded (which was a rather common activity in Fontys OSO), keeping reflective logs (part of the regular programme), and filling in questionnaires (which took more effort and led to some forms going missing). The qualitative data was collected from: ◉◉ Notes of 13 meetings of the research group (from June 2007 till June 2008); especially the discussions on the topic of critical friend were recorded extensively ◉◉ Verbatim transcript of one of the meetings (November 2007) ◉◉ Reflective logs held by the group members (evaluation forms after every meeting and more personal logs from researchers): All researchers were supposed to fill in an evaluation form after each meeting with items such as personal learning focus, how communication was as critical friends, what the results of being critical friends were? ◉◉ Reflective questionnaire on the organisation of the collaborative research. Seven items were rated from 1 (rated badly) to 5 (rated as very helpful).

145


◉◉

◉◉

Examples included how researchers had been invited to participate, the facilitation (160 hours in total), the results the study should give (a book and a workshop), the meetings of 2 ½ hours each every month, how roles and tasks were distributed amongst the researchers and how the research had been embedded in the organisation. Questionnaire about the meetings and what was discussed during the meetings: Twenty-one items were rated from 1 up to 5 based on their relevance for the research and on the quality of how these were performed. Examples are inform each other about literature, discuss ethical guidelines for the research, discuss the research designs, discuss the first data that was collected. Individual interviews August 2008 based on the first data.These interviews served as a member check and as a method to get more in-depth data. The researchers had read the summaries of their written reflections, the results of the questionnaires and the portraits that had been written about them. A set of leading questions for the interview had been sent to them. At the end of the interview the ‘core quadrant’ method (Ofman, 1998), especially focused on being a researcher, was used to get more in-depth information about each individuals’ core qualities, pitfalls, challenges and allergies in relation to doing research collaboratively and working as critical friends. In a core quadrant a person gives an overview of four characteristics: a) their core quality; b) their pitfall - which can be seen as the down-side of the core quality, when strength becomes a weakness; (c) their challenge, which is the complementary quality of the core quality and which should be balanced with the core quality; (d), their allergy, people who have, for this person, too much of their challenge, which could lead to conflicts. A sound core quadrant fits well, can be built from all the four corners and can thus be checked on accuracy. In the interview the researcher and I together checked the accuracy of each core quadrant by applying the twelve checking questions Ofman (1998) formulated. Ofman (1998) saw this core quadrant method as an excellent way for self reflection.

The action plan

In action research there is always a systematic improvement plan, followed by several cycles of data gathering and improvement-actions. In this study the action plan drawn at the beginning of the collaborative research, has been followed partly and has been revised according to the steps the group took, to the progress of the researches and to what I thought to be the best way of performing. In fact that is how the group would have behaved also without this study. The main difference was that, because of the study, there was more reflection and more shared reflection on the process than usual. I was, thus, well-informed about how the researchers experienced the meetings and could use that information to adapt the process. In practice, however, this information did not lead to profound changes. 146


The action plan was based on the fundamental views of research on a platform, as formulated in the introduction of this book: ◉◉ the researchers should have as much ownership of their research as possible. This actually meant: a. lecturers involved in Erasmus Mundus were invited to participate in the project and were totally free to accept this invitation or not b. researchers formulated their own research question and were free to plan their own research design c. I was initiator and facilitator of the process, but this did not mean that I was the main responsible person for the project ◉◉ the researchers worked together, had a collaborative focus of the research and presented themselves as a collaborative group to the students involved. By this we mean: a. the collaborative focus of the research was ‘critical friends’ which meant that all research questions should involve in some way the topic of ‘critical friends’ b. the methodology was based on practitioner-research c. there were regular meetings where researchers met and attuned their research designs and research process ◉◉ the whole process was based on participatory action-research principles, which meant for example that the research design could be changed if necessary ◉◉ the researchers worked together as critical friends and they developed a way of working as critical friends during the process. The results of earlier studies done at Fontys OSO on critical friendship would be the starting point. This meant more concrete: a. schedules for meetings were set and clear agreements were made about chairing, preparation, taking notes, roles and tasks. b. discussions about expectations towards each other and towards being critical friends were held, especially at the beginning of the project Data-analysis

Qualitative analysis has been conducted, with the aim of giving meaning to the data. In this study we are looking for what we call ‘created’ knowledge and it will be a creative process of knowledge-construction where all participants in this study are invited to participate. I as a researcher am not a distant observer and researcher, but I am part of the reality, in this case of the enquiry group and we as researchers are interacting with one another in this process (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006): Because you would see yourself as interacting with others, you could see your own process of interaction as a process of testing and critiquing what you already know and transforming it into something better. (p. 23) 147


Therefor analysis has been done in phases: describing the data, disaggregating the data into smaller parts, seeing how these connect into new concepts, and providing the basis for a fresh description. (Gray, 2004) All qualitative data has been transcribed verbatim and has been qualitatively analyzed using an open-coding process, based on the research questions1. The resulting significant text segments and the ratings given in the questionnaires were presented to the participants (member checks), asking for feedback either by email or in the interview that followed. Counter-evidence for working as critical friends, problematic experiences with the facilitator and other problems that arose in working as critical friends, were explicitly sought, both in collecting and in analyzing data. While analysing and coding, critical remarks were reported separately and supporting remarks were checked against the opinions of the other participants. During analysis, the focus was on main trends in the material and on differences between participants. This resulted in a kind of ‘portrait’ of each participant, which served as a starting point for an individual interview which resulted in richer individual portraits. Results The findings of the study are presented in this section. The data relates to the period from the start of the project until June 2008, the moment the researchers started analysing data and writing their research report. First an impression of the meetings is given. This impression is based on the qualitative data from notes, reflective logs and evaluation forms. These meetings were the most important moments of being each other’s critical friend. Between these meetings there was not much contact between the researchers. As we are interested in improving practice, relatively more attention is given here to the negative and critical remarks. The overall picture in this section might, therefore, be slightly negatively biased. Secondly, a more individual and personal portrait of each of the four participants in the study is given. This portrait also includes data from the interviews held end of August. Finally, we also answer the Research Questions. A general impression of the meetings as seen by the researchers

148

In the following an evaluative report of the qualitative data is given and, where relevant, the scores (only a general overview) of the researchers on the questionnaires is reported. Answers in the questionnaires are scaled answers, ranging from 1 to 5. In the questionnaire about the organization (questions I – VI) 1 means the working method was experienced as very badly and 5 as very well. In the questionnaire about the relevance of aspects of the meetings and the qualities of how we performed these, scaled scores from 1 to 5 are given as well. One means a low relevance or quality and 5 a high relevance or quality. From this questionnaire either the mean scores of the four researchers are given or all four scores.


The more individual reports are given in the individual paragraphs later. Organisation of the meetings There were 13 meetings, all lasting 2 1/2 hour. Researchers varied in their evaluation of this; scores on question V (Rate the organisation: the 3-weekly sessions of 2 ½ hours?) the answers varied from 2,3,4,5 and on question VI (Rate the roles and tasks of chairing, taking notes etc?) the answers varied from 3,4,4,5. The organisation of the group was described as good. A duration of 2 ½ hours per meeting was important to create an open atmosphere. How rules and tasks were assigned to people was experienced as appropriate. The frequent evaluations, in written form and at the end of the meetings, proved to be valuable. It was not always possible to stick to the agreements, mainly because of the heavy workload all researchers had and because teaching students took priority over doing research. The meetings were well-attended: only three times was one person reported absent, and three times one person missed part of a meeting. In the first meetings rules were agreed on for preparation, working with surfgroup, sending material to each other four days before a meeting, the time schedule per meeting, mail contact in between the meetings, etc. The questionnaires indicated (questions 5,6,7) that these aspects were rather relevant - mean relevance scores for all three questions 4; and that the quality of how we performed them was a bit less: mean quality score 3. Each meeting ended with a short reflection and several times I asked whether the structure of the meetings suited the participants. There were no suggestions for a real change. Agreements were made on how to work together, but these were not always followed. The reason given was that people were too busy. Question 7 referred to the feedback that was given towards each other when agreements were or were not put into practice. Mean score for relevance for giving such feedback was 4 and for its quality was 3. Visions on critical friends In discussions about what critical friends mean for each individual, it became clear that all participants had a different importance and the concept of critical friend had a different meaning to all of them. In the questionnaire these discussions were evaluated as rather ‘relevant’ (question 17: scores 3,4,4,5) with a bit lower score on ‘quality’ (score 2,3,4,4). Question 9 referred to the meetings in which my research was the discussion item. The mean score for relevance was 4 and for quality was 3. The group members had different expectations of and opinions about critical friendship and did not experience the critical friendship in the group as enriching as would have been possible. In their opinion it took time before the group was accustomed to one another and before we could be really critical towards each other. 149


In their opinion the discussions about critical friends helped to get to know one another and to reflect on the critical friendship in the group. For example in a meeting in October 2007 the group concluded that we had not been critical enough towards each other and that we ourselves were still in the beginning stages of critical friendship. The research itself From the beginning, the formulation of the research questions was a core topic during the meetings. It was evident that all researchers were responsible for their own research; they actively formulated their research question and related them closely to their work within Erasmus Mundus. Topics that were addressed were: ◉◉ the response of the students’ group towards their involvement in the research. This involved questions 4, 10, 13 and 16. A mean score for relevance of 4 on all the questions and for quality 4, 4, 4, 3; ◉◉ the agreements about ethical guidelines, which involved question 11. For relevance a mean score of 4, for quality a mean score of 3; ◉◉ co-ordination of the actions towards the students, which involved question 5. A mean score for relevance of 4 and for quality of 3; ◉◉ a shared framework for the research and synchronizing the studies where necessary and where possible, which involved question 12, a mean score for relevance of 4 and for quality of 3; ◉◉ discussion of the data, how to analyze it,and how to get more data for example, by specific interviewing techniques such as the solution-focused miracle question, or in focus interviews. This involved question 15, with a mean score for relevance of 4 and for quality of 3; ◉◉ inviting a colleague methodologist, relating to question 18, with a mean score for relevance 3 ½ and for quality of 3; ◉◉ discussion on interesting literature on our topics, involving question 3, with a mean score for relevance of 4 and for quality of 3. ◉◉ the publication that was to be produced. We discussed first drafts of chapters (question 14), with a mean score for relevance of 4 and for quality of 3. Later in the year we discussed the book and made agreements about the procedure. This involved questions 8,19 and 20. The mean scores for relevance were for all three 4 and for quality either 3 or 4. ◉◉ the presentation we had to do for colleagues. This involved question 21, with a mean score for relevance of 4 and for quality of 3.

150


The individual reflections of the researchers Barbara’s view as formulated in evaluative forms, logs and interview

Core quadrant : Core quality persistence Allergy indifference

Pitfall insistence Challenge letting go

Barbara formulated her individual learning targets two-fold : ‘How to approach my research ?’ and ‘How will we work as a group ?’ Barbara is based at Fontys Teacher Training College which is another department within Fontys University, located in the same building as Fontys OSO. She felt a bit apart from the other members of the team and at the same time found the difference in culture between FLOT and OSO interesting and challenging. In her opinion there were advantages in having critical friends outside her own department. Discussion topics in OSO were sometimes a bit too focused on‘soft skills’ instead of ‘hard skills’ such as knowledge and skills. She was more pragmatic, concrete, preferred to talk about content. In the beginning she questioned whether she should go on with the research. She was very busy and lacked time. Sometimes the discussions were too long-winded for her. She got irritated and experienced irritation amongst the others. She did not like the sultry meeting-room without windows. But gradually she experienced that team members were more tuned in and the cooperative learning became more interesting. Meetings became moments of reflection, of rest and relaxation, learning by discovery; away from the chaos of her daily work. This open attitude gave rise to learning and she became more and more curious. She experienced the cooperation as pleasant and open.The group members were different, which was positive in her view. Group members did not always succeed in asking open questions, according to her. There were moments of too many judgemental comments. During the sessions Barbara was active in asking questions and giving feedback to others. She asked feedback on how to analyze her data. Whenever she needed to take important decisions she used to check these in the group. For her critical and friend were not two opposites. She experienced Jacqueline as a motivator and not as a monitor. She felt that she should be her own supporter and did not expect that role from anybody else. Jacqueline was a role-model, somebody who reminded the group of their responsibilities and who offered the opportunity to have meetings together, three hours long, she also offered the motivation to make that much time. That was an important role - the first half hour of a session was needed to get aligned again. Jacqueline helped to shape the communication and to make sure that there was good contact and an open attitude.

151


She looked forward to the book the group would write about their research and was, at the same time, a bit worried. She assumed that writing would be a difficult process and wondered about the criticism she might get. She was a bit afraid that everybody would not take enough time to read each others’ chapters, which was essential to making it a whole. Adriaan’s view as formulated in evaluation forms and logs

Core quadrant : Core quality broad, meta-level thinking Allergy narrow-mindedness

Pitfall lack of definition to thoughts Challenge defining a focus

Adriaan formulated a number of individual learning targets:‘Find the question behind the question’, ‘ What is the relation between critical friend and reflective practitioner?’ ‘How to analyse data’, ‘What is the difference between the procedures of how to behave as a critical friend and the attitude you are working towards’.

152

He realized that his expectations of critical friends were rather elevated from the outset of the project. Overall he felt that there could have been more discussion together about each individuals’ research. In his opinion understanding critical friendship needs to grow, which ultimately happened in this group. Feelings of trust grew, which gave space for discussion, criticism and compliments. However, in his opinion the group did not really work collaboratively and did not really do research together. To be critical friends there should be a good balance between private and collaborative ownership of the research. He felt that the group members supported each other professionally, but they were not friends. Friends should be more than involved colleagues. The only thing that bound this group was the room where the meetings were. Before and after the meeting group members hardly met and did not talk about their research. He would have liked more mail contact between meetings, where questions could have been asked. He gradually discovered that his concept of critical friends is an attitude and not merely a skill or trait, and one which can be learnt. This insight helped him to be more positive about the situation and brought him ‘back to earth’ as he himself formulated. In his opinion good critical friendship takes a great deal of time, otherwise it does not work and remains superficial. The meetings had taken a lot time, in fact 35% of the time available for the research. He feels there needs to be a balance in the time you are willing to invest in others and what you get in return. He was sometimes disappointed, for example when he hoped to get support for decisions he had made or was going to make and then found out that the only support was that he was expected to decide himself. Similarly, after a meeting where he had sent his material and in his view clear questions well in time to the


others, he was equally disappointed when he did not get any feedback on it during the meeting. What bothered him especially was the fact that he did not know how that came about. Had he himself done anything wrong? Having said this, it was a pleasant experience for him to attend a next meeting where he got advice without asking for it. On several occasions the meetings helped him in his research. For example Luuk’s questions and the irritation he felt at first, were very helpful in the end. ‘Luuk really touched me on the important issues.’ He learned for example that discussions, reflections and questions from critical friends could help to discover your own subconscious presumptions and blind spots. For him it was interesting to discover a totally new way of approaching messages. Not jumping towards solutions, but discovering first the question that lay behind a message. Adriaan would have liked to see more direction in the beginning, more criticism towards behaviour and more discussions on meta level of how the group worked together. In his opinion, at a later phase, when group members know more about what a critical friend is, the facilitator can be more supportive and focus on the group process. He experienced Jacqueline mainly as a supporter and a motivator; both are more on the ‘friend’ side. She was the chair of the meetings and the facilitator. He would have preferred her to have been more the monitor as well, somebody more on the ‘critical’ side, who gave instructions and pointed out where things went wrong, who reminded group members of their responsibilities. In his view, group members should be responsible for their own research and the whole process and he felt that this did not happen enough. Jan’s view as formulated in evaluative forms and logs

Core quadrant : Core quality openness to new ideas Allergy people who stick with the tried and true

Pitfall lack of selectivity Challenge focussing

Jan formulated the following learning targets : ‘Get a shared vision towards the concept of critical friend’ and ‘Get a clear view of the necessary data to get insight into the meaning of critical friends for academic writing’. Jan wrote in his reflective forms that the questions and remarks of the critical friends made him think and reflect. He realized that he was sometimes too quick, taking decisions and doing certain actions before discussing these in our meetings. He discovered that each intervention implicated a decision, which you were not always aware of. He learned especially from the diversity of each’ way of contributing to the discussion. For him the meetings were a safe place, however critical and intrusive the questions

153


could be. He already observed after a few months that everybody had got used to each other and that the atmosphere had become more relaxed. He felt positive after the sessions, which was a good sign for him. But he did not have the feeling that the group members really did research collaboratively. It is possible that this might happen in the coming months, when the writing process starts. He learned in this process of working as critical friends that it was his own responsibility to prepare the sessions and ask the right questions. In his opinion he did not gain as much from the meetings as he could have done. Only when you prepare well for the meetings, can you expect valuable feedback from critical friends and only then give and take can be in balance. For him the fact that the group members did not bring forward solutions was a positive experience. He also gained more insight into group processes and how they worked. Jan would have liked a more fixed time schedule per meeting and he would have liked meetings about the theoretical foundations of qualitative research. He felt that Jacqueline allowed a lot of space during the meetings and that everybody listened well to each other. Working as a group helped in setting the framework for the research, such as defining the ethical rules. Working as a group led to more personalized relations between the group members. In his opinion the group members shared the roles of supporter, motivator and monitor. Jacqueline was more the chair and responsible for the infrastructure of the meetings. Jan would have preferred group members chairing the sessions alternatively. It would have caused resistance if Jacqueline had called the others to order. Allocation of group roles went smoothly, without much explanation. Also when Jacqueline was not present, the meetings went on, in the same way, which is a positive sign in his view. It would have demotivated him if she would have taken a more monitoring role. Luuk‘s view as formulated in evaluative forms and logs

Core quadrant: Core quality asking analytical questions Allergy people who don’t demonstrate any doubts

Pitfall relentness questioning Challenge acceptance positions of another

At the beginning of the project Luuks learning targets were: ‘designing a conceptual frame’ and ‘search a knowledge domain for the research question’. Later he mentioned data-analysis, giving and asking feedback.

154

Luuk was explicitly focussed on analysing and asking critical questions during the sessions. He made efforts to really understand his colleagues and then tried to help his colleagues to stick to the core of their topic. He also recognized that he might come across as very critical because he does not stop asking and analysing.


A central topic for Luuk was the balance between give and take. In his view an important aspect of being critical friends was to be as critical as possible in order to help your colleague. That should be a normal attitude, constructive per definition, and should not be experienced as an attack. It satisfied him when he experienced that his feedback was welcomed and that it helped the other. He sometimes was afraid that he overpowered the meetings. He himself was helped by remarks from a critical friend about double and triple loop learning or when he got advice concerning literature he could read, without explicitly asking for it. He preferred short reflections at the end of each meeting. For him a safe climate was important and he realized that he checked if it was safe enough to mention things every time. In the beginning Luuk reminded the group that he wanted to focus on the research and did not want to expand too much. He liked the discussions about ideas, but these should be sensible and not too broad. Reflecting on the process, he would have preferred a tighter working schedule, for example in the process of writing his chapter. He would have liked more teaching in the meetings. More structure, more strictness in keeping to agreements. At the same time he realized, that everybody had other work to do as well and that within the Fontys OSO culture doing research is not a priority and that there was not yet a good infrastructure for doing research. In his professional work he has always been the expert, the helper and used to working very individually. As a critical friend he felt that you have to decide together, that in a way you lose your autonomy, which meant confusing your identity and he wondered if he really wanted to share that much. In the same period he did research in another research group which worked in pairs. By the end of the process he concluded that probably working in pairs, together on the same research question, would have worked better for him. Luuk had two reflective questions. One about the group composition; he would have preferred a group of people with more equal research-expertise. The other one about the double role of Jacqueline, who was both the Programme Convener of the Erasmus Mundus group and the ‘facilitator’ of the group. In his opinion the content of the Erasmus Mundus course had been too much of a discussion topic. He would have preferred a stricter focus on the research alone. Jacqueline’s own learning targets and explicit starting points as the facilitator

Core quadrant : Core quality perceiving and creating interconnectedness Allergy dogmatic, overly-compartmentalised individuals

Pitfall focussing on connection too much and in too early a stage Challenge allow the other to discover connections on their own tempo

155


For myself a central and returning learning focus was the balance between directing and giving space to grow, to find a good mix of my input: not too much or too little. That was important from the very beginning, when colleagues were invited to join in the research and where the collaborative research focus was formulated. I tried to help contribute to a relaxed athmospere, where trust could develop and at the same time researchers could be critical towards each other. It was very important for me to contribute to the feeling of ownership of the research as well as ownership of the meetings and also of the process of critical friendship. That meant that everybody should be given enough space to have input during the meetings. Meetings should be enjoyable moments of the week, they should give energy instead of taking energy away, they should have value and should contribute to the research. At the same time we promised to finish the research in one year and to publish a book and organize a small conference or workshop for the entire University. In my role and position I felt responsible for these outcomes. One important dilemma was how much input as regards content of research I would give and thus position myself more or less in the role of ‘expert’ or focus more on egalitarian relations and on shared leadership. I decided not to give much information, to focus more on the process than on the product, and to give input mainly by asking critical questions about issues as the underlying research paradigms, methodology, ethics. I realized however, that content-information and knowledge about how to do research was important as well. I referred the researchers to books or to other sessions where they could find more information or professionalize themselves. Answering the research questions The concept of ‘critical friend’ : Is this concept clear for the researchers and do all of them give it the same meaning ?

156

During the meetings there were several discussions about everyone’s opinion on what a critical friend was and how we acted as critical friends for each other. The concept was not clear at all at the beginning and from the information above it became clear that the researchers involved in this research had different opinions about critical friends and that their views developed during the project. Here follows a summary from what this research yielded on this topic: ◉◉ Critical friends is a case of give and take, a balance of your own investment and what you get back; ◉◉ Critical friendship means something different for different people; an optimal critical friend is not the same for everybody; ◉◉ How everybody profits from working as critical friends is related to personal learning style; ◉◉ Becoming critical friends is a process; ◉◉ In order to develop critical friendship it is important to invest in mutual trust;


◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉

Critical friends evaluate continuously if it is safe enough to ask a (critical) question; Being critical friends is hard work; if you prepare your own questions you will get a better result from your critical friends; Being critical friends takes time and effort; Being a critical friend is more an attitude than a skill; Working as critical friends helps to find the question behind the question; Working as critical friends is ‘emotional’: the emotion of disapppointment (you still have to decide yourself; the others have only little time for you), the emotion of joy (if somebody gives advice or a valuable perspective or if somebody is pleased by your questions).

The coaching process : How can I best perform my role as facilitator of the research process?

From the data above and especially from the individual portraits of the four researchers it became clear that there were many differences between the researchers according to their expectations of the collaborative work, of the leadership offered by me, of critical friendship, of the input I should give as regards methodological content and other support needs. All researchers, and the facilitator as well, had their own pitfalls and their allergies for certain character types. During this project there were moments that the researchers got irritated or even considered to leave the project. However, they all stayed, finished their research, tried to be critical friends for one another as well as possible, and together we wrote the book. A result for which we were collaboratively responsible and for which we all felt collaboratively responsible. A good facilitator should be a good observer, should cope with these individual differences, should coach the group process, should facilitate that all group members will realize the best possible outcome and should have an empowering attitude.Thus a facilitator should be flexible and help each individual to display their core qualities and talents, to use these talents and thus, to contribute to the group process. If a facilitator succeeds in this aspect, it assists the group in becoming a real and sustainable collaborative enquiry group, with the conditional characteristics of being an effective and sustainable professional learning community, requiring shared and supportive leadership, where collective learning takes place with all members able to contribute and where group members can be each others critical friend. At the same time a facilitator should be aware of the possible pitfalls, the allergies, the challenges. Not only of each individual group member but also of the influencing forces between the characteristics of the five core quadrants involved. For example, two of the researchers mentioned as their pitfall that they can be very insistent. But at the same time challenges and core qualities might match very well. For example, Luuks core quality of asking analytical questions can be very helpful for colleagues whose challenge it is to stay focused, such as Jan and Adriaan. The four researchers differred in their evaluations of my role as a facilitator.

157


They experienced the group meetings as pleasant, which can be seen in the good attendance numbers of the meetings. The target of stimulating, motivating and thus contributing to the ownership of the research has been obtained. Though agreements, for example, about deadlines for handing in agenda items, have not always been met, the researchers until the end of the process felt responsible for their own research and had their chapters ready (almost) at the agreed moment. When I could not be present during meetings, the group went on in the same spirit and with the same results, and all felt comfortable with this. Two of the researchers mentioned that they would have liked more of a monitoring role; the other two said that if I would have taken the lead more they would not have liked it or that it would have caused resistance. Finding an optimal balance is thus not only a matter of skills or attitude for the facilitator, but also depends on the attitude of the group members. Some of the researchers mentioned that they would have liked more input as regards methodological contents. These are thus important issues for discussion in groups like this. To summarize, it can be stressed that facilitators should use their strengths and talents in guiding the group process and the collaboration between the group members and there is obviously not one way to be a good facilitator. Of course each facilitator can improve on the job, as I could have performed my role better. Reflection on the own facilitatorship, if possible in a systematic way as by action-research, is an important tool for further professionalization for facilitators.

158

Here the actions and attitudes that have been helpful in the process of working as critical friends and those that could be improved are examined. Analysis has been done on the texts where respondents say that things changed, that they got inspired again to participate, what helped them to be a critical friend. From this research I learned that in order to promote effective critical friends partnerships between the members of a collaborative enquiry group, a facilitator should especially : ◉◉ share leadership from the beginning and discuss this topic explicitly ◉◉ make sure that all group members have the experience of being a valuable critical friend towards each other, which means standing back as facilitator where possible ◉◉ decide on agenda items collaboratively ; take account of the difference in interests among the group members (theoretical items, brainstorm sessions, debate, practical advice, giving information, etc.) ◉◉ organize and keep an eye on facilitating the research (infrastructure, support, possibilities for professionalization on doing research) ◉◉ keep a good time schedule per meeting ; take care of a good balance between taking the lead and letting things go; avoid too much time being spent on or by one of the members ◉◉ start meetings with reflections on the period in between the meetings ◉◉ organize short reflections at the end of each meeting. ◉◉ support the group members in being responsible for their own learning


◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉ ◉◉

process, for example by preparing the sessions and formulating their questions beforehand help to establish an open attitude that makes group members curious support group members to listen to each other, help group members get used to each other and to establish a relaxed atmosphere be a role model in the attitude of critical friend be sensitive towards your own feelings and intuition and be prepared to discuss these feelings in the group

Discussion of the results Now it is time to relate what has been said earlier about working as critical friends in a professional learning community or in collaborative enquiry groups and the role of the facilitator as described in literature to the findings in this study. The dimensions for a professional learning community as mentioned by Hipp and Huffman (2007) are important. The researchers did not experience a genuine shared practice together, partly caused by their busy daily work as teacher-educators. They met only during the meetings. Possibly, if we had been more explicit about this, and had discussed the diverse ways of how we could work together, this might have had a positive influence on the group process. For example we could have defined our group from the beginning as a so-called ‘outside inquiry’ group (Heron & Reason, 2006). Unspoken and unclear expectations towards the collaboration were evident in this analysis. During the meetings much time was spent on sharing visions and values, on making concepts clearer (Cornelissen, 2008), which are important activities according to Hipp and Huffman (2007). Everybody valued these discussions positively. My contribution in shaping the conditions that supported this dialogue during the meetings were shown to be very important. The meetings with deepened discussions, for example where the concept of critical friends were discussed, were experienced as positive and valuable. These meetings met the criteria for depth and bredth, as described by Hargreaves (2007), they contributed to establishing shared values and vision (Hipp and Huffman, 2007) and they established ownership (Cornelissen 2008). The characteristics in the coaching framework as Cornelissen (2008) described, were all performed in the group ; some a bit more and others a bit less. In a collaborative enquiry group these tasks are all important, but do not have to be done by the facilitator alone. My strategy as the facilitator of the group was to carefully observe what was going on and to give space to group members to perform these tasks at any given moment where that happened. In their evaluation the researchers said that they valued that approach, that they remember the moments during the meetings where they performed ‘facilitator’ tasks and that especially those moments have been positive experiences for them. Examples were when Luuk asked analytical questions or asked for clarification, when Barbara asked about deadlines to be met or when Jan showed his data-analysis. Looking at the skills of the facilitator that Cornelissen mentions, in this study

159


one of the important skills has been ‘ flexibility’. This skill seems to be important because the researchers differ so widely in their expectations towards the collaboration and in their core-qualities, pitfalls and allergies. Another important skill has been to make things explicit. Although much time has been spent on discussing concepts and expectations in order to make these more explicit, this research shows that even more time could have been spent on this, especially on discussions about each’ expectations towards the collaboration. The underlying motive of a facilitator to promote ownership of the research has shown to be very important. My target of stimulating, motivating and thus contributing to the ownership of the research has been obtained. The form of leadership I showed was mainly supportive, not greatly monitoring. As a supporter I helped in setting the rules and the goals for the group and for the meetings. Everyone, apart from Barbara, recognized my role as a motivator. Barbara explicitly said that she would be her own motivator. None of the four experienced my performance as a monitor as major. Two of the researchers, Adriaan and Luuk, would have liked me to have taken that role more, the other two, Jan and Barbara, would have lost their motivation if I had done that. Reflecting on this, it will be a challenge to find a way of monitoring that is suitable for all participants. Maybe more explicit discussions of observations, feelings and intuitions, the group process as observed, could be a good strategy - as Adriaan stated more communication on meta level of the group processes, of critical friendship, and of what is going on. Or in other words as mentioned in the framework of Cornelissen : a more transparant attitude. Reflecting on the phases of the group process and the role of the facilitator in each of these phases, it seems that the group only went through the first three phases : the start, legitimation of learning and collaborative activities. By August, when the individual interviews were held, the researchers had just started writing their chapters. From the end of August we began reading each others’ drafts and maybe that was the start of real collaborative work. This resembles with what Somekh (2006) writes reflecting on a collaborative action research. In her view the effort and intimicy in collaborative writing brought the researchers understandings that could have easily passed by unnoticed in the rush of action. As a facilitator I experienced that during the process the focus of my guiding shifted (Cornelissen, 2008). As Cornelissen mentions : in the beginning I was focussed more on making things explicit, such as the establishment of group roles and working procedures. Later I focussed more in keeping to the agreements, and meeting deadlines. I did not experience a shift in becoming more supporting than guiding later in the process. Supporting and guiding have both been important throughout the whole process, although the focus changed.

160

Working together in this collaborative enquiry group has been a special experience. For me, and as far as I know for all of us. As Somekh (2006a) stresses, doing action research together, and possibly especially doing action research together, presumes


an intense engagement and an intense desire of each participant to collaborate in the shared project. To cite her : To be effective and productive, collaborative (action) research needs to start with a recognition of the need to be honest about problems, spend time listening to one another and respect cultural difference, in terms of assumptions, relationships, methods and working practices. (p. 102)

In this collaborative process we have constructed knowledge creatively and interactively. I realize that this chapter has become a rather personal report and that it is and should be open to criticism. It is the story of us five and generalizations beyond our group and our context cannot be made. Critical comments from readers will be wellcomed. I hope that this story has been interesting to read and that it might help other collaborative enquiry groups to become an even better group than we have been. For me it has been a valuable experience and I have enjoyed the collaboration in this group. In my view we succeeded in working collaboratively. I hope I have contributed a bit to our critical friendship. In my perception my fellow-researchers have contributed a lot ! I would like to thank them for their cooperation, for being the participants in this action research, for their openness and for their friendliness. We have been important, serious, crucial, discriminating and supportive friends for one another. References Altrichter, H. (2005). The role of the ‘professional community’ in action research. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 11-23. Cornelissen, F. (2006). Laat vernieuwing groeien! Een onderzoek naar begeleidingskenmerken van leerkrachten die actieonderzoek uitvoeren. Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Cornelissen, F. (2008). De begeleiding van actieonderzoek. In J. van Swet, H. van Huijgevoort, F. Cornelissen, J. Kienhuis, K. Smeets & K. Vloet (Eds.), Bouwen aan een opleiding als platform: Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling. Antwerpen Apeldoorn: Garant. Dadds, M. (2008). Empathetic validity in practitioner research. Educational action research; an international journal, 16, 279-290. Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world. London: SAGE Publications. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities; divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire: Open University Press. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2006). The practice of Co-operative Inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘ on’ People. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research (pp. 144-154). London: Sage Publications. 161


Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2007). Using assessment tools as frames for dialogue to create and sustain professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities; divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire: Open University Press. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: what are they and why are they important? Issues about change, 6(1), 108. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities. New York: Open University Press Kant, J., & Sprenger, C. (2004). Faciliteren van kenniskringen; Praktijkboek voor begeleiders van groepen die kennis willen delen en ontwikkelen. Soest: Nelissen. Kemmis, S. (2007). Participatory action research and the public sphere. In P. Ponte & B. H. J. Smit (Eds.), The Quality of Practitioner Research; Reflections on the Position of the Researcher and the Researched. Rotterdam Taipei: SensePublishers. Ofman, D. D. (1998). Bezieling en kwaliteit in organisaties (5 ed.). Utrecht: Servire Uitgevers BV. Ponte, P. (2002). Onderwijs van eigen makelij: Actie-onderzoek in scholen en opleidingen. Baarn: Nelissen. Ponte, P., & Smit, B. H. J. (2007). Introduction: Doing research and being researched? In P. Ponte & B. H. J. Smit (Eds.), The Quality of Practitioner Research; Reflections on the Position of the Researcher and the Researched. Rotterdam Taipei: SensePublishers. Remmerswaal, J. (2003). Handboek Groepsdynamica: een nieuwe inleiding op theorie en praktijk. Soest: Nelissen. Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Swet, J. van (2008a). Critical friends. Kritisch en vriendelijk: een geslaagde combinatie. In J. v. Swet, H. v. Huijgevoort, F. Cornelissen, J. Kienhuis, K. Smeets & K. Vloet (Eds.), Bouwen aan een opleiding als platform. Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling (pp. 127152). Antwerpen - Apeldoorn: Garant. Swet, J. van (2008b). Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennis ontwikkeling. In J. v. Swet, H. v. Huijgevoort, F. Cornelissen, J. Kienhuis, K. Smeets & K. Vloet (Eds.), Bouwen aan een opleiding als platform: Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve kennisontwikkeling (pp. 11-23). Antwerpen, Apeldoorn: Garant. Swet, J. van, Ponte, P., & Smit, B. (Eds.). (2007). Postgraduate Programmes as Platform; a research-led approach. Rotterdam Taipei: SensePublishers. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action Research Living Theory. London: SAGE Publishers. 162

1

The software package Atlas.ti 5.2 was used for the analysis of the textual data. Berlin: Scientific Software Development.

Frequently asked questions, provoking answers and an invitation to a dance

In this final chapter we will once again highlight the concept of ‘critical friend’. It is our aim to define it more precisely so that we may set it apart from concepts like collegial consultation and helpfulness. We will do this by presenting a few ‘frequently asked questions’ (FAQ), which will give us sufficient room to be playful, serious and provocative. In this way the discussion around the concept of ‘critical friend’ and its precise meaning can continue in a vivid and constructive manner. The answers we give will not necessarily coincide with the content of the previous chapters. We invite you to first write down your answers to the questions. In this way you will put some pressure on yourself which may lead to more personal and sharply formulated answers. By being explicit you will highlight the differences and resemblances with the answers below. Critical friendship is complex. In one of his essays (chapter I-28) the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (15331592) describes friendship as ‘the domain of like-minded desires.’ In his view the main duties of a friend are to warn us and reprimand if necessary. This then is what we expect from our readers. Therefore, we would appreciate it to receive your answers. Let’s dance! Can anyone be a critical friend?

The answer to this question is ‘yes’. But it should be clear what we mean by ‘critical friend’. The concept would no longer be meaningful if it could not be distinguished from helpfulness, sympathy or peer coaching. An essential characteristic of a critical friend is that someone who wants to learn by seeking support for doing a task or solving a problem can appeal to him. The person who asks this question decides if he needs a critical friend who concentrates on the process (the focus on coaching) or on the domain specific knowledge (the focus on cognitive expert knowledge) that corresponds to the question asked. In any case the two make up a contract in which tasks and obligations are made explicit. In this way impulsive behaviour can be avoided and the aim of the relationship will stay clear. Reflection, or better still the stimulation of selfreflection by the questioner, is part of the core behaviour of a critical friend. When I was writing my dissertation, my father constantly advised me on linguistic matters like spelling and sentence structure. I am very grateful for that. Can he be considered a critical friend?

You should be grateful to your father wanting to do this for you. It might even be that your relationship has been enriched by it. Possibly, he advised you to apply for a language course so that he can be more proud of you than he already was. But

163


this form of helpfulness, which fortunately we come across very frequently, does not belong to the core concept of ‘critical friend’. We are critical of any definition which is too pragmatic because it is dangerous to give too much weight to spurof-the-moment behaviours without focussing on essentials. Nor do we consider asking critical questions or stimulating feedback in a student group consistent with our view. No matter how motivating they are. A critical friend commits himself to an ‘outspoken’ relationship of which mutual trust is the basis. Often the relationship itself is the object of reflection and evaluation. In this responsible role the critical friend is detached and does his utmost to reach the goals formulated by the questioner. However, does not have the final obligation to succeed in solving the problem. When I send my written work to my tutor it takes a while before I get my answer. I do not like that and it makes me uncomfortable. Do you think my tutor is aware of this?

In his primary roles as teacher or assessor a tutor is not a critical friend. In any professional relationship it is advisable to be explicit with regards to mutual expectations. Practical issues can then be dealt with very easily. If your tutor frequently behaves like this you should make him aware of it. He ought to correct his behaviour because it shows little respect and empathy for the student. Students have many questions especially at the start of a new assignment and therefore they want their feedback as soon as possible. That is a normal desire when you have to do something you never did before. Fortunately, you can also turn to your fellow students. However, we know from experience that the tutor’s opinion is not only appreciated very much but that from the student’s perspective it outweighs the opinion given by peers. The student considers the tutor to be a teacher and an authority who also is an expert in the domain the student is interested in. What would it mean for the ‘meesterstukken’ and dissertations if critical friendship became a matter of course?

Many students already make use of critical friends in their research. We strongly believe that this should become a compulsory element. Especially in our field – that of special educational needs - critical friends could be very important in that they make us aware of our own beliefs and mental models. This would add to the validity of the research. In their research report students should include their critical friends: who were they? why these people in particular? what happened? In sessions and in the coaching process critical friendship could be discussed and practised. And it is not just the students, of course. In their own research, teachereducators should invite critical friends to join their projects. Obviously we should not forget that critical friendship takes much time, but it is time well spent. I would like to be a critical friend for my colleague. What skills do I need to become a good critical friend?

164

The main task of a critical friend is to listen very closely to what your colleague has to say. You need to have a clear focus of the dilemma or issue your colleague would like to investigate. Furthermore, you should have a positive attitude towards your

Frequently asked questions, provoking answers and an invitation to a dance

colleague and at the same time you need to ask provocative questions such as: ‘Would it have made any difference if you …?’ Another important skill is to show empathy; be prepared to put yourself into your colleagues’ shoes. What language do I use as a critical friend?

We have already referred to the fact that it is very important for the critical friend to have a positive attitude. He shouldn’t be emotionally involved, as he needs to look at the issues raised by his colleague with detachment. Instead of pointing out that what he says is not very logical (or just plain rubbish), a critical friend would say things like ‘What do you think this leads to?’ ‘Could you give me an example of what you mean here?’ ‘Can you say a bit more about this?’ Note that the critical friend only asks questions and does not offer any solutions. He checks whether he has understood correctly by asking: ‘Do we agree that you need more data?’ or summarizing: ‘So what you say is that you disagree with this method?’ However, he never judges so as not to force his colleague to defend himself. Can I become a critical friend without knowing anything about my colleague’s subject?

Certainly, you can become a critical friend without having any domain specific knowledge. Make sure that you ask your colleague to describe his particular situation. Ask him for numerous examples, his on-the-job training experiences, how he operates, his context, his theoretical input. In short, his motivation and his aims. I am a novice teacher. Can my coach be a critical friend and an assessor at the same time?

In the critical friend process it is impossible to combine the role of assessor and critical friend. These two roles need to be kept separately at all times. Your colleague should feel safe and free to explain whatever he has on his mind without having to think that he is being monitored at the same time. He should never be forced to adopt a defensive role but rather be challenged to move onto another track or delve deeper into the issues he has raised with you. If you find yourself in a situation where you as a teacher are asked to coach a new colleague, make sure from the outset that your role is to help him to grow into his role as a novice teacher and try not to assess him. The critical friend should never be asked to provide an assessment report of a novice teacher. Make sure that the critical friend activities and the assessment are given to two different people within the school. I have been a teacher for several years. How could I become a critical friend of my pupils?

It will be a very difficult task to combine these two roles. As a teacher you are often seen as the expert and pupils come to you for quick answers. It is possible, however, to change roles within a teaching session as long as you make this explicit. You may for instance first want to give some input to your pupils and then move to a Q and A session. In this case you become the critical friend and you make sure that you do not provide any solutions but give feedback and support to your pupils. 165


How can I reflect on my learning process as a critical friend?

Discuss the following questions together with your colleague after the sessions. What have you learnt about the particular issue your colleague raised? What have you learnt about the questions underlying this issue? What have you learnt about your role as a critical friend? It is recommended to first think very carefully about your answers before you discuss them with your colleague. Epilogue: what do students say about critical friends?

As we have seen, there are many interpretations of the concept critical friend. We would like to close our contribution by presenting you with several definitions provided by the Erasmus Mundus Group of the present academic year, 2008-09. ‘A critical friend in academic circles is a colleague who is told to dissect your academic writing. In other words he puts your academic writing under a microscope bringing out the strengths and weaknesses of your text. He does this with caution and he is ready to suggest alternative answers.’ ‘He is a neutral person, able to give constructive feedback, not to criticize or impose his own ideas.’ ‘He is a friend with whom I study together, discuss and agree to disagree.’ ‘Critical friends are building skills in critical thinking.’ ‘His goal is to help improve his partner’s work by asking questions to clarify issues. Suggestions or advice should only be given when asked for.’

166

About the authors Adriaan Ansems Fontys University of Applied Sciences/ Teacher Training College of Special Educational Needs

[email protected] Adriaan Ansems studied Mechanical Engineering at Fontys Teacher Training for Vocational Education. After his graduation he started in 1988 with the development and implementation of educative software for vocational education. He was Programme Co-ordinator of professional courses on Multimedia and E-learning. He also has international experience in train-the-trainer courses in Multimedia and E-learning. He has worked for Fontys OSO since 2004 as educational technologist. Adriaan is involved in the implementation process of the IT environment Sharepoint at Fontys. At the moment Adriaan is finishing his Masters of Arts in Education at Roehampton University, London. drs. Luuk den Hartog Fontys University of Applied Sciences/ Teacher Training College of Special Educational Needs

[email protected] Luuk den Hartog is a registered health care and educational psychologist. He graduated at the State University of Utrecht in 1976. He has worked as a diagnostic and psychotherapeutic professional who was mainly clinically oriented. He moved to Fontys University of Applied Sciences in 1999. He has been working at the College of Special Educational Needs since 2004. He is a member of the Research Network on ‘Evaluative Practice’ in which the effectiveness of several interventions in education and youth health care is researched. drs. Barbara Roosken Fontys University of Applied Sciences/ Teacher Training College

[email protected] Barbara Roosken studied English Language and Literature at Nijmegen University. She then moved to Sheffield University where she was lector of Dutch Language and Literature and taught courses in American Literature from 1985 to 1990. She has been working at the Department of English Language and Literature at Fontys Teacher Training College in Tilburg since 1990. She has written two course books on teaching English as a foreign language and published several articles. At present she is coordinator of the B.Ed. Course at Fontys and website manager of the Teacher Development Special Interest Group of IATEFL. She teaches English

167

and American Literature in both the B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses. Since 2005 she has given sessions on Cultural Awareness to the Erasmus Mundus group. drs. Jan Siebelink Fontys University of Applied Sciences/ Teacher Training College of Special Educational Needs

[email protected] Jan Siebelink studied English Language and Literature at Groningen State University. After some ten years of teaching English at various secondary schools, he joined the department of English at the Teacher Training College in Tilburg in 1982. He taught speaking and writing skills and specialised in modern and historical linguistics. After a three-year interlude of being employed as a courseware developer, he was involved in a number of IT programmes for secondary and higher education. In 2002 he transferred to the Teacher Training College for Special Educational Needs of Fontys University of Applied Sciences. At present he is engaged in programmes for Remedial Teaching and School Video Interaction Guidance. He has taught an Academic Writing course in the Erasmus Mundus programme since the start of the project in 2005. In 2008 he became Programme Co-ordinator of Erasmus Mundus at Fontys OSO. Jacqueline van Swet PhD Fontys University of Applied Sciences/ Teacher Training College of Special Educational Needs

[email protected] Jacqueline van Swet graduated in educational psychology at the University of Groningen in 1977. During her degree course and since graduating she has worked as a clinical psychologist, as a mediator and teacher-educator in several fields: education for the mentally retarded, health education, and special educational needs and inclusive education. She has combined this work as a teacher-educator with clinical work with children in a wide range of contexts: at school, in the family, in hospital and in residential care. She gained her PhD on research into educational aspects of a somatic disease in 1987. She has written a number of books and articles, many of which open up her clinical and academic experience to the general public. Over the years she has held several administrative positions in the field of social work and education. She has worked for Fontys OSO since 1994 in several positions. Since 2003 she has been a member of the ‘Kenniskring’ (Research network) ‘Interactive knowledge-construction and interactive professionalism’, where practitioner research and action research are central issues.

168

That's what friends are for

That's what friends are for

Suggest Documents