2. Presentation Structure
Strategic Leadership on Partnership Learning
Key factors pivotal to sophisticated collaborative
practice
Distinct pedagogy
Key characteristics of Partnership Learning
Role of the learner
Exemplification of Partnership Learning
3. Strategic leadership on Partnership
Learning as a form of collaboration
Acknowledgement that collaboration is challenging
(dynamic, multifaceted, multiple starting points, time
constraints, disturbing) – requiring strategic leadership
Seeing changes to partnership as a moment of
opportunity
Identification of beliefs & values
Encapsulating beliefs and values within an explicit
vision:
Distinct relationships
Professional development
Distinct pedagogy
4. Key factors that were identified as pivotal to
more sophisticated collaborative practice
Clear leadership at all levels – ownership
Explicit understanding by all those involved of its
rationale, role and purpose – contextualization
Debate and opposition are encouraged – contestation
Structured time and space and processes for sustained
‘conversations’ need to be created – conversation as
enquiry
Roles and capacity or disposition(s) in collaborative
inquiry need to be systematically developed –
professional development
5. Partnership Learning: A distinct
pedagogy
Reflective – self-conscious learning process
Intentional – agency and choice
Collaborative – intra-professional
6. Key Characteristics of Partnership
Learning
Views of Subject Quality of Teacher Individual Degrees of
Knowledge learning implied Characteristics Collaboration
Replication Pre-structural Pragmatic Co-existence/Co-
Reflection dealing with ordination
action
Formation Unistructural Pedestrian Co-operation
Multistructural
•Reflection that modifies
or remedies
•Reflection on action
Transformation Multistructural Enlightened Collaboration/Co-
Relational ownership
•Reflection as planned,
with a focus
•Profound reflection
that produces personal
meaning
7. Partnership Learning: Role of learner
Question: who is the learner?
Partnership Learning mindful of Michelangelo’s motto I
am still learning
Moving deliberately to a more open, facilitative and
interpretative pedagogic paradigm (Rowntree,1987)
Closed vs Open
Manipulative vs Facilitative
Transmission vs Interpretation
8. Exemplification of Partnership
Learning at Hope
Centre for Child and Family
New Professionalism research project
Newfield Partnership Plan
Widening Perspectives module
Involvement of non - QTS staff and professionals in design and delivery
of ITT
BA QTS concurrent degree
Developing practices in curriculum development and design (aspirational
TLA philosophy, PoT, dialogic seminars, embedding of Masters Level
learning)
Notion of QTS graduate
Editor's Notes
In self-examining and critically reflecting on my position and role towards the reconceptualisation of Partnership practices I am modeling some of the core dimensions or key capacities associated with the distinct pedagogy. As argued by many my practice will be improved through systematic reflection (Refs). But, an equally important purpose for sharing such a level and depth of reflection is to create a learning experience through which changes in beliefs, values and related practice(s) can be brought about in others. Here, the “…analytic self is abandoned towards approaching questions of epistemology, action etc from the perspective of ‘myself within this context” (Cook and Brown, 1999, p. 64). Such thinking is akin to Action Research and is encapsulated in Whitehead’s notion of ‘Living Theory’. Whitehead (2008) explains how “A Living theory” is an explanation produced by an individual for their educational influence in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of the social formation in which they live and work” (2008, p. 104). Such a methodological approach and associated methods appeals to me. However, at this stage in the New Professionalism research project I am not able to draw upon the whole approach. But it remains an attractive and stimulating area to consider as part of improving practice in a powerful way.
Changes to partnership to be offered as a moment of opportunity, in the belief that: (1) the existing model of Partnership does not harness, sufficiently, the potential of collaboration or ‘collaborative advantage’; (2) that practice has become institutionalised in an unquestioning way; and, (3) that those collaborating are doing so because they have always done so and will just carry on collaborating in what Mary Douglas describes in a ‘fatalistic’ way (Walsh and Kahn, 2010). In working towards the production of a valid account of my strategic leadership on reconceptualising partnership practice(s) in ITT and educational development in respect of it, time has been spent exploring my own beliefs and values. With a view to exploring these in an iterative manner I decided to articulate them in pod-cast format. The pod-cast was also transcribed verbatim by myself and shared with others for comment. In preparing for the articulation of my beliefs and values a range of documents authored by myself were drawn on to consider in terms of likely tensions between rhetoric and reality, and alignment with one another. The range of documents, all linked to my work in ITT, included: a visioning statement for the Faculty of Education, written as part of my presentation when being interviewed for the post of Director of BA QTS; my personal Philosophy of Teaching Statement; the aspirational teaching, learning and assessment strategy for ITT at Hope; Hope graduate profile; and New Professionalism research proposal. The range of text were then converted into “word clouds” via Wordle. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text and, in this context, allowed me to observe key concepts or ideas that were prominent in my writing within and across related aspects of my role within ITT. Initial content analysis of my articulated beliefs and values, led to a series of propositional statements. These were then coded and categorized with a view to gaining insight into the way in which I am conceptualising Partnership Learning at Hope (see below). The conceptual or visioning statement acts as a useful starting point for me to start leading on any reconceptualising of practices, giving a strategic overview, as it does, of the key components of Partnership Learning being proposed. In identifying key aspects of the proposed model of partnership, key indicators of performance can be identified, against which data can be collected and judgements made. Visioning Statement: Partnership Learning at Hope comprises distinct relationships in which honesty, integrity, respect and sensitivity prevail. Across all Partnership Learning a climate of trust must prevail in which everybody is made to feel good about themselves within a context of high expectations. Partnership Learning at Hope draws on the collaborative energies of all those professionals working and learning in the field of education. Partnership Learning at Hope is viewed as professional development (IPD, EPD and CPD) and is pivotal to the promotion of a distinct set of beliefs and values for all professionals involved in education to act. Fundamentally, these beliefs and values see “education as a means to humanizing society and facilitating the flourishing of humanity” (Liverpool Hope website, 2010). Teacher education at Hope is to do with enhancing people’s lives. An exploration and sharing of beliefs and values around humanizing education will always be the starting point for all partnership learning at Hope. And these beliefs and values are central to the purposes of aims of the partnership, and notions of ‘quality’. Partnership Learning at Hope is associated with a distinct pedagogy in which all concerned are involved in ‘productive inquiry’. To engage in productive inquiry is to be actively pursuing a problem, puzzle or point of fascination. Productive inquiry includes a broad range of actions; it is not haphazard; it is informed or ‘disciplined’ by the use of theories or concepts. Equal attention is placed on implicit-group knowledge and knowing (i.e. on our interactions with the social and physical world) alongside explicit-individual knowledge (i.e. that which we possess in our heads). The type of learner that is being promoted at Hope is one who is resourceful, reciprocal, resilient and reflective (i.e. able to take forward their own learning) as well as knowing what it means to promote good learning in others. Partnership Learning at Hope must promote high subject knowledge amongst students of all the curriculum subjects that they are expected to teach.
Previous inquiry into intra-organisational collaboration has highlighted a number of pivotal factors of good collaboration. Such a distributed model of leadership and ways of working and learning, as outlined above, is set against prevailing practice within the context of ITT which tend towards rules/regulatory and hierarchical ways of working and is likely to be resisted by those ‘bounded’ individuals who tend to dominate institutional cultures and practice. As Vice Dean with responsibility for Teacher Education and the reconceptualisation of partnership practices I am keen to adopt a more distributed model of leadership. This is evidenced in the New Professionalism research project itself and developing practices in respect of curriculum design and delivery, and emerging partnership plans with special schools and early years settings. From the outset, the reconceptualising of partnership practice(s) has involved and will continue to involve extended discussions with others. Particular emphasis, to date, has focused on rationale, role and purpose of partnership and the pedagogy associated with high quality personal and professional development.
The centrality of what is being termed Partnership Learning has emerged as one of the critical aspects of the New Professionalism project, and Hope’s Centre for the Child and Family. Here, Partnership Learning , informed by a distinct pedagogy, involves intra-professional learning (e.g. academics, teachers, experts and students) across boundaries in the field of teacher education. This pedagogy “is fundamentally opposed to any view that involves a simple, nicely portioned transfer of knowledge: it foregrounds the human learner as the active and autonomous maker of knowledge.” (Pokerson, 2005, p. 472). The conceptualizing of Partnership Learning in this way reflects our developing understanding of the importance of two closely related concepts, Learning to Learn (L2L) and Learning how to Learn (LHTL) as essential qualities of successful lifelong learning in teacher education (i.e. initial professional development, early professional development and continuing professional development). For the purpose of this presentation both concepts are associated with a concern for ways of working and learning comprising reflection , intentional learning and collaboration . This level of learning, where the learner becomes conscious of his or her perceptions of the world in general, of how they were formed and how they might be changed, is rare (Bateson, 1987). Deakin-Crick (2007) in her paper LHTL: the dynamic assessment of learning power discusses LHTL and related concept of “LP” (i.e. particular dispositions, values and attitudes, with a lateral and temporal connectivity) in terms of a paradigm shift towards a relational and transformative model of learning, in which the creation of interdependent communities of intentional learners provides a basis for the integration of traditional academic skills and outcomes with the learning dispositions, values and attitudes necessary to meet the demands of a networked society. The notion of temporal connectivity and lateral connectivity, as discussed by Deakin-Crick (2007), are of particular interest in terms of the promotion of Partnership Learning : temporal connectivity refers to a ‘way of being’ in the world that orientates a person towards changing and learning over time and in different contexts, and lateral connectivity refers to the ideas embedded in a sociocultural view of learning in which the learner is a ‘person in relation’ to other people and to cultural tools and artefacts in which learning is frequently mediated through the interactions of learning relationships…
As part of the New Professionalism research project conceptions of knowledge and one’s role in the promotion of it (replication, formation, transformational) have implications for the quality of teacher learning promoted and can be associated with particular type of level of learning. The more discerning conceptions of one’s role in the promotion of subject knowledge and teacher learning imply, in part, a level of learning and depth of reflection associated with L2L and LHTL. Transformative views of knowledge reflect/imply a relational and multistructural level of learning (Biggs, 1999) in which an appreciation of the significance of the parts in relation to the whole is intimated and connections made. Further implied, is that reflection is planned with a focus involving systematic, research activity with a clear sense of purpose; talk involves sharply focused observation, is informed by data, involves evidencing and justifying one’s ideas and beliefs and making judgements through one’s action. Profound reflection that produces personal meaning is also alluded to (i.e. reflection that generates new ideas, strategies and personal theories; ‘analysing’ talk; ‘evaluative’ talk; ‘creative’ talk related to producing new ideas and solutions). Formational views of knowledge imply that knowledge of teaching is acquired, bounded by policy and established practices, regulated by ‘experts’. A unistructural level of learning can be associated with this view of knowledge. Here, simple and obvious connections are made, but their significance is not grasped. A multistructural level is also possible. Reflection that modifies or remedies is likely to be experienced/engaged with: ‘pause’ talk, ‘wait’ talk; the talk of modification and re-adjustment – ‘let’s think again’ talk . Also likely is reflection on action in which knowledge and understanding is reshaped and reviewed through interpersonal talk (e.g. dialogue, discussion, questions to promote reflection; talk to produce agreed, shared modifications to action on proposed actions). But, there is also evidence of less sophisticated (replication) conceptions, which, in turn, are likely to lead to impoverished practice. Here, a pre-structural level of learning (Biggs, 1999) is suggested in which unconnected information, which has no organisation and makes no real sense, is simply acquired. Reflection at this level of learning tends towards dealing with action and, as such, is instructive, involving reactive talk and talk that deals with the immediate. Previous research into intra-organisational collaboration (Diamond and Rush, 2009) has been drawn on to give critical insight into existing partnership practices as a form of collaboration. In this research the key characteristics of ‘enlightened individuals’ associated with good or promising collaborative practices were highlighted as: reflective, nurturing, informed, open, displayed enjoyment, dialogic, engaged, rigorous, confident, conceptually driven, professional, reciprocal and progressive. Conversely, weak collaboration was associated with ‘pragmatic’ individuals who were: novice; naïve; dominated; reactive fearful; silenced; fragile; in crisis; detached and parochial in their thought and action. This research also showed that the nature of the individual and the quality of the relationships between these individuals could be depicted in the four, hierarchically inclusive, degrees of collaboration: Co-existence – in which the interaction between individuals is almost non-existent. Activity is task related, monitored, resource driven and compliant. Co-ordination – in which the individuals are focused. Each person has an assigned role, roles are hierarchical and, as such, dialogue is positional. Co-operation – in which the relationship between individuals is dialogic. Within defined parameters, decision-making is shared; individuals are involved in joint problem solving and open to innovation. Collaboration/Co-ownership – in which individuals are not limited by rules or accepted ways of doing things, assume a shared responsibility, listen attentively.
In reconceptualising partnership practice(s) at Hope, a central tenet emerging is that of professional development for ALL (as part of ipd, epd and cpd) As Michelangelo motto implies we are all still learning…implications for the the quality of relationships that are promoted as part of partnership practices… Since it is rare for students, in partnership with more expert others as learners , to be continuously involved in a self-conscious learning process, careful thought needs to be given to practices that position academic staff and teachers or other professionals as exercises of an authoritarian, intellectual authority. Such autocratic ways of being encourages an accepting and conforming, rather than questioning, stance. It also measures a rather limited range of abilities, and can lead to a negative backwash of surface learning. The ways in which Partnership Learning is to be conducted at Hope and the student perceptions of their role in such learning, will strongly influence the ways in which learning and personal development, are perceived in relation to each other. In moving deliberately to a more open, facilitative and interpretative pedagogic paradigm, existing practice will be analysed on a number of overlapping continua as set out by Rowntree (1987): Closed vs Open : how prepared are we to discuss with one another as participants in the partnership our approaches and assumptions concerning learning, knowledge, etc? Manipulative vs Facilitative : do we want students to take on board our views and approaches, or do we seek to help them to develop their own meanings and learning processes? Transmission vs Interpretation : do we see the education process as principally concerned with the transmission of functionally-based knowledge, or with the wider interpretation of its use, linkages and relationships? Key concepts that are brought into sharp relief in respect of Partnership Learning are: power ; knowledge and student involvement . In terms of power, the embedding and enactment of L2L as a distinct pedagogy of Partnership Learning will involve a fundamental power shift, especially between the student and those in authority. Many academics and teachers or other professionals might be reluctant to relinquish such control. However, Rowntree’s pedagogic paradigms above provide fertile ground for debate, and indeed, the post-modern era, with its questioning stance to the finality of knowledge as end product may raise learners’ expectations for increasing degrees of exchange and debate around pedagogic processes (Rawson, 2000; Keenan, 1993). The reciprocal nature of knowledge acquisition and creation, and the question of what constitutes valid knowledge within the remit of ITT are two important areas that will require discussion and debate. A view of knowledge as finished product will need to be considered alongside study as a learning process. The potential tyranny of specialisation and the continuing relevance of particular forms of knowledge will also need to be questioned. Indeed, the acquisition of personal knowledge will need to be approached without limitations imposed by redundant but over-influential forms of knowledge. Fundamentally, active involvement of the student with the process (e.g. learning objectives, learning design and assessment), will be of primary importance.
