How to Support Self-Study Research? A Polyvocal Dialogue

• In Event: Polyvocal Professional Learning Through Self-Study Research

Abstract

1.Objective
In several countries, teacher educators have been supported in self-study through purposefully planned projects. Research on these projects resulted in guidelines for supporting self-study research. However, the question remains: How can we use these guidelines to further promote self-study? The objective of this paper is to take this issue one step further, through a self-study dialogue between three colleagues about how to advance our knowledge about supporting the growth of self-study research as a form of planned professional learning.

2.Theoretical framework
One of the first studies about a systematic approach to self-study was Hoban’s (2007) Australian project that identified six guidelines for teaching self-study. Following that, projects in the Netherlands and in the USA built on and fine-tuned Hoban’s work (Author C et al., 2011). In New Zealand, Davey et al. (2011) studied the participants’ processes of collaboration in a self-study group. More recently, Vanassche and Kelchtermans (2015) added to knowledge about supporting self-study from a Belgian group, drawing attention to the relationship between the teacher educator’s professional development and his/her context.

3.Methods
Our main methodology was to dialogue on two levels (Roth & Tobin, 2004): 1) Discussing and reflecting on a collaborative practice; 2) Moving up from data presentation and description to theory, while preserving the voices of individual authors (metalogue). Guilfoyle et al. (2004) and Berry and Crowe (2009) identified important elements of dialogue, such as the use of multiple sources and working with collaborators to gain alternative perspectives. In this study, we collaborated through bringing our different viewpoints of: insider perspective (one of the facilitators of the Dutch project); insider perspective (one of the participants of the Dutch project); and outsider perspective (critical friend).

4.Data sources
Our data sources included the research carried out on the Dutch project, our two-level dialogue, and information from other relevant studies.

5.Results
We found that it is difficult for starting self-study researchers to move from a problem of practice to a researchable question, particularly because there is a widespread idea that a question related to the researcher’s own practice cannot be viewed seriously. Managing this issue with participants is an important initial task for facilitators. The importance of community was also highlighted, as a safe environment for participants to further develop their identity as teacher educators-researchers and as a space to prepare a presentation or publication to share the outcomes of one’s self-study publically. Because many teacher education institutions lack a (self-study) research culture, beginning self-study researchers also need support for continuing their work and in taking their changed identity into their world of work.

6.Significance of the study
Dialoguing proved to be productive and satisfying for our learning about self-study processes and to provoke thinking about needed supports. We consider that the metalogue method has potential for future self-study research. Our dialogue focused on three themes: the problem of the personal; the strength of the community; and the world outside. These themes require more attention in developing self-study research with teacher educators.

Authors

• Janneke Geursen, Leiden University

• Amanda K. Berry, RMIT University

• Mieke L. Lunenberg, VU University Amsterdam