Implementing Duoethnography in Preservice Teacher Education Classes

• In Event: Advancing Curriculum Studies Through Duoethnography: Adapting a Research Methodology to a Form of Pedagogical Inquiry

Abstract

The purpose of our collaborative self-study is to describe our experience using duoethnography as a pedagogical tool that compelled teacher candidates to think critically about themselves, their assumptions, and their teaching choices and actions (Cole & Knowles, 2000) through their understanding of diversity and mental health.

Within the educational community, self-study of teacher education practices has emerged as an important field of inquiry. By examining our own teaching practice we first wanted to explore why we continue to place the responsibility of the learning (constructivism) on the students. Second, we wanted to bridge the artificially distinct sphere of student versus teacher candidate (Elijah, 2004) by offering a concrete strategy to do so. Last, we hoped that the description of our experience “positively challenge[s] and change[s] teaching and teacher education practices more generally” (Loughran, 2004, p. 155).

We framed our study around the philosophical paradigm of constructivism where knowledge “lies in the minds of individuals who construct what they know on the basis of their own experiences” (Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2013, p. 29). To unveil that embedded knowledge we encouraged teacher candidates to both critically and self-reflect throughout the duoethnographic process.

Upon receiving REB clearance our data sources consisted of the final duoethnographic assignments from 125 participants along with course feedback forms in addition to our own research journals documenting the research process.

The results indicate that duoethnography employed as a pedagogical tool was successfully implemented to purposefully deconstruct one’s personal biography contextualized around the exploration of phenomena, in this case diversity and mental health. When undergoing a duoethnography, the teacher candidates were pushed out of their comfort zone when faced with the intimidating task of looking deep inside themselves through both modes of reflection to determine why they do what they do when they are teaching young people. As a result they were able to determine whether congruency in their thinking, feelings, and values actually existed. If there wasn’t congruency, they had the opportunity to explore why, and potentially shift their thinking.

In spite of the challenges we faced working with discontented teacher candidates, for us it was a risk was worth taking since many pre-service teachers valued the experience stating that they would implement duoethnography with their own students when given the chance. In the end, we determined that this exercise illuminated that as teachers we have the autonomy in choosing how we want to approach our teaching and learning practice. Do we want to enter this profession with an open mind willing to listen to more than one side of an issue and give attention to alternative views? Do we want to be responsible teachers who carefully consider the choices of our actions by interrogating our biases? And finally, do we want to remain wholehearted, committed to seek every opportunity to learn? If yes, duoethnography can serve well as a pedagogical tool that can open the door for pre-service teachers to teach and learn in this manner.

Authors

• Hilary Ann Brown, Brock University

• Joseph Barrett, Brock University