Interruptions: Revitalizing Teacher Agency and Reflection-in-Action in the Classroom

• In Event: 63.041 - Collaborative and Interdisciplinary Work by Teacher Educators as Researchers: A Response to Difficult Times

Abstract

Objectives: Despite strains of resistance, teachers are notoriously rule-abiding. This over-adherence to rules can be both ineffective and at times dangerous: Ineffective in that an over-adherence to rules can deter responsiveness to children and context, and dangerous in that teachers are entrusted in the care of others and therefore acting ethically requires that they consider the implications of their actions. We argue that reflecting about actions is key to being both effective and ethical teachers. Yet, teachers need support in doing this thinking. We describe a practice we have developed called Interruptions as one such support.

Theoretical Framework: With a focus on effectiveness, Donald Schön argues that only with reflection can practitioners be responsive to the complex and situational context in which they work. Adding an ethical component, Hannah Arendt (1958) similarly finds that to act ethically one must constantly think “what [one] is doing” (p.5). Though Schön emphasizes the importance of reflecting in the midst of acts, teacher education tends to focus understandably on the thought that occurs before or after a lesson. We incorporate an ethical dimension, and show how Interruptions enact comprehensively what it means to reflect-in-action.

Modes of Inquiry: We have conducted two iterations of Interruption. Each iteration included four visits in the co-author’s pre-service early childhood and elementary methods courses. During the visits we Interrupted each other’s teaching with questions, different perspectives on a given issue, and additional examples of practices from our own teaching experience. The purpose of the Interruptions was to elucidate decisions we were making and the implications of particular actions. In the second iteration, undertaken in the ensuing semester, an additional purpose was to showcase differences between us. We met before each visit to review the lessons we separately had planned and discuss potential Interruptions. Some Interruptions were pre-planned and some were spontaneous.

Data sources: We draw on teaching journals composed after each visit, surveys conducted after each Interruption that included short answers and a Likert scale, and nine focused interviews with students from the two classes.

Results: Students consistently commented that the Interruptions revealed the kind of thinking that we brought to our practices. In hearing the thinking of two professionals, many reported that they now saw there could be multiple ways to teach a concept. Students noted that as a teacher one must choose actions based on the context, one’s instructional goals, and a commitment to teach children ethically. Finally, students articulated that they could apply our work to their own decisions as teachers.

Scholarly significance: As argued, teachers must be able to make their own decisions to be both responsive and ethical. Our study revealed how challenging this can be and provided a method for supporting pre-service teachers. In laying out what we did and how the students responded, we hope teacher educators will be inspired to support proactively their own students’ reflection-in-action. In doing so, we see ourselves as joining a resistance to current trends that reduce teaching to scripts and rules.

Authors

• Cara Elizabeth Furman, University of Maine at Farmington

• Shannon Larsen, University of Maine at Farmington