Testing assumptions

An ISTE inquires into perceived conflict between two of her basic assumptions (or “governing variables”, see pages 133–135 ). The ISTE’s inquiry was closely connected to that of the teachers whose learning she was facilitating. For both the ISTE and teachers, the experience of dissonance proves a catalyst for continued inquiry and learning.

As I set out to examine my ISTE practice in gifted and talented education workshops, I was prompted by Spillane et al. (2002) to investigate two assumptions I hold about my own practice:

• firstly, that I am able to establish a learning environment that feels “psychologically safe” and is conducive to risk taking and open discussion

• secondly, that I hold back from radically challenging teachers to examine their practice and make substantive changes for fear of damaging that environment and negatively impacting on teachers’ self-esteem.

It seemed to me that if these were true, the second assumption would negate any benefits gained by the first!

My inquiry took place over six months. I worked with a group of five teachers on three occasions. We analysed existing teaching strategies and units of work and, where necessary, developed ideas for change. Each session ended with a questionnaire. We also met at different times for two interviews. The experiences of one of the teachers are described below. They reflect evidence and elements common to others in the group.

In the first workshop questionnaire, the teacher mentioned the “comfortable environment that facilitated open discussion” but added, “I cannot see past time constraints, curriculum requirements, department expectations, behaviour issues.”

After workshop two, she reported that “listening to others”, “reflecting on the last term”, and “open dialogue with the facilitator” assisted her learning. However, the nature of the barriers appeared to be more personal than in the previous meeting. She reported “sometimes feeling overwhelmed by all the things one could be doing” and “at times feeling inadequate despite knowing I am doing my best”. This resonated for me with the personal and emotional reactions identified by Spillane et al. and with my concern about the possible negative effects of challenging teachers’ practice.

However, I also recognised Spillane et al.’s dissonance as a catalyst for change, particularly when she continued, “I think I need to understand more about the workshop content and how to use it – feel the fear and do it anyway.” This caused me to wonder about my own “fear” and to what degree it holds me back.

By session three, the teacher was enjoying the “open and honest discussion” and “sharing ideas and resources”, and she wanted more time “to create new units with these ideas in mind”. All in all, this tended to suggest that change was under way. She had felt “safe” and challenged, and her self-esteem was still intact.

In the final interview, she talked about her expectations of students and said, “My desire to support them in being self-efficacious and self-responsible is now greater than my need to rescue them.” These words, I realise, are pertinent to my practice also!

I interpreted such responses to imply the co-existence of a psychologically safe environment and cognitive challenge in the workshops. Although the findings indicate support for my first assumption and not the second, this is not the end of my investigation. A new layer has been exposed and new questions have arisen. Teachers may be indicating changed thinking, but its transfer to their practice and its impact on students is unknown. I need to introduce this focus to my workshops and grapple with how and when to guide teachers’ inquiry into the effects of their practice on students – all this while maintaining a safe but challenging environment!

Return to top