Developing Holistic Practice Through Reflection, Action and Theorising by a Primary School Teacher

8/10/2019 Developing Holistic Practice Through Reflection, Action and Theorising by a Primary School Teacher

1/15

Developing holistic practice through reection, action andtheorising

Mirn Glenn*

Inver National School, Barnatra, Ballina, Ireland

(Received 6 February 2011; nal version received 8 August 2011)

This article outlines how I, as a primary teacher engaging with a self-studyaction research process, have come to a deeper understanding of my practice. Itexplains how I have also come to an understanding of why I work in the way Ido; of how this understanding inuences my work, and the signicance of thisnew understanding. My work as a teacher frequently includes doing collabora-tive digital projects with my class. As I engaged in research on my practice, Iinitially experienced difculties problematising this work. I struggled to achieveclarity not only with engaging in critical thinking but also with articulating myeducational values. I found Mellors idea about the struggle helpful as heexplains how the struggle is at the heart of the research process. My newunderstanding around these collaborative projects emerged in terms of holistic

practice; clarifying my ontological values and learning to think critically. I amnow generating an educational theory from my practice as I see my work as a

process for developing spiritual and holistic approaches to learning and teaching.I conclude by outlining what I perceive to be the signicance of my work and

its potential implications for education.

Keywords: action research; self-study; critical thinking; reective practice;holistic curriculum

Introduction

In this paper, I will outline the process of the self-study research I undertook on my

work as a teacher. The paper examines how, through reection on and thinking crit-

ically about my work, I gained new insight and understanding of my practice and

developed a new epistemology of practice. Initially, I set out to examine the value

of the inclusion of digital technology in my work as a primary school teacher, but

as I began to engage more deeply with the process of self-study I realised that the

focus of my research had less to do with digital technology itself and more to do

with an ability to think critically and to clarify what my educational values were. I

will conclude by examining the inuence my research had on my own work prac-

tices, on the practice of colleagues and its potential inuence on policy.

In the beginning . . .

I teach in a small primary school on the west coast of Ireland. I have always had a

keen interest in how digital technology might enhance teaching and learning and

*Email: [email protected]

Educational Action Research

Vol. 19, No. 4, December 2011, 489502


2/15

this interest sparked what, for me, has been an exciting learning journey. My work

with digital technology was initially quite experimental as there were few formal

guidelines on how technology should be used in schools in Ireland at that time. In

my initial explorations with digital technology, I liked to encourage my young stu-dents to use images (and later video) and sound recordings to help them broaden

their ability to express themselves. I established a web space wherein the students

could publish their own work and reach an audience that was wider than the audi-

ence of their small rural classroom. I encouraged my pupils to use digital cameras

and audio recorders to interview people outside the school and use their recordings

to create projects. I hoped that these projects would enhance the learning process

not only for themselves but for other students also who might view my students

work on the Web. My students used email to make links with other schools in other

locations throughout the world and to establish interesting projects with them. I also

encouraged my classes to use digital cameras to record the changing seasons and to

focus on nature as it evolves outside the classroom.

My rst foray into research was to see if my collaborative projects were of edu-cational benet to my students. As I explored the various approaches to research, I

was drawn initially to the ideas of action research and self-study. The idea that I

could research my own practice, develop a theory from that work (McNiff and

Whitehead 2010) and share that theory with others appealed to me. I liked the ideathat this theory was a living theory (Whitehead 1989), in that it was live and drawn

from the aliveness of real practice and not the ubiquitous one-size-ts-all theory that

frequently ts few individual teachers or students (Schmertzing 2007). I was drawn

too by the idea not only of working toward improving my practice, but also of work-

ing towards doing something that might improve the quality of lives for others. I

now see, however, that these initial forays into research, while being imbued withenthusiasm and energy, were lacking in depth and understanding. This paper outlines

how I gained a somewhat better understanding of my work in subsequent years.

One of the projects that I undertook as part of my investigation at that time, was a

Learning Circles Project. This is a biannual event where groups of schools from all

over the world participate in collaborative projects, organised by iEARN.1 We were

one of a group of six schools and our objective was to share elements of our geogra-

phy, culture and history with students from the other schools while exploring their

history and culture through their submissions to the project. This programme utilised

email and postal mail. The children wrote up projects on each of the topics and

shared them with our partner schools. We shared work on characters from history,

local recipes, local folktales, local animals and creative writing.2

My young students were excited about learning through the reading and writing

of their email messages. When asked her opinion on using email, which was a

fairly new technology in my school at the time, one of my students, Rose, said:

Its like theyre really there with you, like on the phone to you. Leo responded:

Its better than the phone. Youll know that theyll remember what you said

because they can keep it and read it later (Field notes, 3 November 1999). The

children were animated by writing their emails, or writing up their Learning Circle

Project. A growing sense of geographical exploration also featured; Susie com-

mented (26 January 2000): In our Learning Circles we get to know things about

the world. Ann Maries comment was: Its good to tell other children what lmswe watch. Then we can compare the things we are interested in with what they are

490 M. Glenn


3/15

My initial ndings indicated that my work, in the form of digital projects with

my classes, was commensurate with what was considered to be good practice at that

time. I did not problematise the term good practice at that time, I simply accepted

the ideas and suggestions made by the literature at that time (see Glenn 2005). Iwas no longer the sage on the stage and my students were becoming co-creators

of knowledge together and alongside me (Vygotsky 1962). My students were learn-

ing the collaborative skills of a learning community (Wenger 1998) and taking

charge of their own learning. They were also becoming multimodal (Mayer 2001)

in their own learning processes and how they expressed their learning. Heppell

(2001, xvi) points out that educators continuously make the, error of subjugating

technology to our present practice rather than allowing it to free us from the tyr-

anny of past mistakes. I felt I had crossed that threshold outlined by Heppell and

had allowed technology to liberate me. I felt I had mastered the integration of tech-

nology in my teaching fairly successfully.

Reection on practice: learning that I still had a lot to learn

As time went on, and I moved on to the next phase of my research, I had a grow-

ing sense that I was missing something crucial. I had yet to gain an in-depth under-

standing of my practice. I used Whiteheads (1989) model of asking myself Whatare my concerns? Why am I concerned? to help me investigate my work. I enjoyed

reading critical pedagogy writers and at the time I read the works of Cuban,

Chomsky, hooks and Freire with absorption. I remember reading Chomskys ideas

around how once you are educated, you have already been socialized in ways that

support the power structure (2000, 3) and how your ability to think critically about

the education system and other systems has already been modied before you areeven aware of it. I remember feeling a certain degree of smugness in my own per-

ceived sense of my ability to think critically and feeling a certain sense of pity for

those poor educators who were unable to think critically about their work or the

education system. I had a lot to learn.

As part of my research process, I kept a reective diary and engaged in

reective thinking. I took hastily scribbled notes as I tried to engage in reection-

in-practice (Schn 1983) during my normal busy school day. I used these often

nearly illegible notes as an aide memoire to inform my more formal reection-on-

action at the end of the day. I found that I frequently reected on the mechanics

of teaching and learning and that my journaling techniques frequently consisted ofisolating methodological errors in my teaching and then planning how to improve

them. For example, on one occasion, I made a note in my journal that I had not

heard the voice of one of my students, Katie, once throughout the day. My reec-

tions on this suggested that this was an unfair situation and that I should take action

in terms of making sure to engage her in conversation in future on a daily basis.

My subsequent reections on the action I had taken suggested quite victoriously

that I had remedied the situation and that all was now well. While at one level this

was a worthwhile exercise, I am now acutely aware that Freire (2006) and Kemmis

(2006) recommend that the process of critical thinking should not adhere to the

methodology or the practical aspects of teaching alone. Freire (2006) believed that

issues of power, oppression and culture existed in many aspects of education, andhe sought to unravel their existence. While initially I felt that the issues of power,

i d l h d li l i i l l l b

Educational Action Research 491


4/15

my eyes and see that Freire was in fact right. As I look back on my concerns about

Katie, I can see that, perhaps, she felt oppressed and voiceless in a culture that val-

ued the correct answer as the only suitable answer. Perhaps, I had not adequate time

to give to Katie, to hear her thoughts and to engage with her meaningfully withinan ever-burgeoning and demanding curricular system. Now years later, I still do not

know why Katie did not speak in class. However I know why I do not know. I rea-

lise that at the time, I did not have the capacity to pose critical questions that would

examine issues around oppression or power.

I held few critical thoughts as I engaged in my initial reective exercises and

my reective journal fell victim to what could be termed as victory narratives.

Marcos, Snchez, and Tillema (2008) are rightly critical of meaningless victory nar-

ratives and reective journals that deal solely with providing solutions to mundane

classroom situations without adequate critical engagement. In subsequent years I

learned to write a more critical journal. I learned through beginning to engage criti-

cally with the literatures around reection (for example, Argyris and Schn 1978;

Dewey 1933; Carr and Kemmis 1986; Schn 1983) that I should assume very littleand question the givens. I learned the importance of recognising and developing

an understanding of my ontological and epistemological commitments in terms of

my educational values.

Educational values

McNiff and Whitehead (2010) remind teacher-researchers how important educa-

tional values are as part of an action research process. They explain that educational

values are the underpinning principles of an educators professional life as they try

to work in the direction of these values. As a practitioner engaging in self-study,I needed to be aware of what my values were, not only because they were core to

my being as an educator but because these values were also the overarching ideals

towards which I needed to work. Whitehead talks about how the practitioner-

researcher, claries, in the course of their emergence, in the practice of educational

enquiry, the embodied ontological values to which they hold themselves account-

able in their professional practice (2005, 1). As I tried to identify what my educa-

tional values were, I found this to be a difcult process. I knew I held values such

as respect, creativity, social justice, spirituality, equality and care as educational val-

ues. I could see these values in my interactions with my students. For example, I

knew that if a child in my class misbehaved, I tried always to address the misbe-haviour empathetically and to encourage them to talk through the behaviour and to

see how this behaviour was perhaps unfair and disrespectful of others. I knew that

this was different to the traditional ways of dealing with misbehaviour where the

child is reprimanded, punished perhaps, and instructed not to behave like that again.

I could explain my actions in terms of holding values around respect, social justice

and care. While these values were interrelated and sometimes interdependent, they

were also very diverse. I sought to nd a linking thread between them and to gain

the clarity mentioned by Whitehead above.

Difcult questionsI was part of a PhD study group at that time. Our group met regularly to discuss

i h i i h lf d li i h d i

492 M. Glenn


5/15

practice. As I struggled to come to terms with my educational values and as I bat-

tled with how I might become more critical in my thinking, a further, even more

demanding, question loomed into sight. I needed to tackle Whiteheads (1989) ques-

tion How can I improve my practice? as it was a key aspect of the research. Iexperienced difculties addressing that question and indeed I have only begun to

address it now, years later.

In my study group, my colleagues and my tutor posed questions such as Why do

you do what you do? They asked why I felt digital technology was important and

they queried why I engaged in doing projects with my students as I did. They ques-

tioned why this was important for me and for my students. I found little clarity in the

jumbled responses I gave. I just knew and felt at an intuitive level that I was

involved in productive work and that digital technology helped the learning process.

Amidst this turmoil and confusion, I came across the writing of Nigel Mellor

(1998), who talks about the struggle and explains how his struggle in his practice

and in his research was at the heart of the research and that struggle became the

methodology itself. He wrote about the messiness of action research thus:

I know I have a goal, which is that I want to look at my job but I don t know whatthe questions are to ask but I will know when I get there . . . It is only by gettingstuck in and . . . being confused and asking questions: What am I doing? Why am Idoing it? that it becomes clear . . .(Mellor 1998, 454)

I seemed to have difculties with the most important aspects of my research: I

could not articulate my educational values, I did not know how to begin to improve

my practice and I could not articulate why working with digital technology was soimportant to me.

Into the light . . .

As I continued to ask myself Why do I do what I do?, I gained condence and

drew solace from Mellors struggles. As I reconciled myself with the idea that con-

fusion was a natural part of the research, I began to see that I was developing a

more coherent insight into the question How can I improve my understanding of

my practice? and that this question needed to be addressed before I could make an

attempt to improve the practice itself. Gradually some clarity came. I will discuss

the process of the clarication of my thinking and gaining new insight into my

practice under the following headings: Holistic practice; Clarifying my ontologicalvalues; and Learning to think critically.

Holistic practice

I saw that there was a close link between creativity and spirituality, through

engaging with the literature in these areas. Lucas (2001, 39) describes creative peo-

ple as: questioning, experimental, risk-takers, being able to make mistakes and

being able to see connections between things. I saw my project work as being

similarly creative. The idea of seeing connection between various aspects of my

work was key to my research. I found the writing of Miller (2007) to be illuminat-

ing as I sought to answer the question Why do I do what I do? He outlines holis-

tic practice in education in terms of making connections. He lists intuitive



6/15

earth connections and soul connections as being integral to a holistic curriculum.

These connections were central to the digital projects I was organising in my class-

room and I now began to develop an understanding of my work as a holistic prac-

tice.I began to understand that my use of technology in the classroom was tied in

with the idea of being creative and of making connections between discrete subject

areas; between the classroom and the people outside; between school and the world

of nature; and between school and community. Noddings (1999, 3) talks about

how: educators can recognize everyday spirituality through poetry, music, biogra-

phy, ordinary conversation and even just slowing things down once in a while

and letting the students look out the window. Pausing the busy-ness of the day

occasionally to stop and listen to the body and its surroundings can be part of this

process too. McCarthy (2001) draws an even stronger link between creativity and

spirituality, and suggests that sometimes the terms can even be interchangeable. My

own understanding of spirituality in education is aligned to Millers thinking. Miller

explains spirituality in education as a sense of awe and reverence for the life thatarises from our relatedness to something both wonderful and mysterious (2007, 4).

I began to see that interconnectedness and relatedness were at the heart of the pro-

jects I did with my students and that digital technology was a means of supporting

or enhancing the projects.Now the focus of my work was beginning to shift. Initially I had been drawn to

the unquestioning use of technology as the primary focus of my work. Gradually, I

began to see that my project work was less to do with the technology itself, and

more to do with the outward expression of my underpinning commitment to work-

ing holistically in school. The focus of my work was no longer on technology, but

on how its inclusion might enhance, support and inspire teaching and learning in aholistic way. The changes in my actual practice were nearly imperceptible to the

onlooker, but the change inside me and my understanding of my work practices

was enormous.

I was drawn to the writings of the Irish philosopher and poet John ODonohue,

who uses the term web of betweenness to describe the connecting threads where,

there was a sense that the individual life was deeply woven into the lives of others

and the life of nature (ODonohue 2003, 132). While ODonohue was neither

referring to education specically, nor to technology at all, I believed his thinking

could be very relevant to education and educational institutions. When, as an educa-

tor, I experience occasions when I weave my life into the lives of others and intonature, my educational vitality is enlivened and my connections with others are

strengthened. ODonohue laments the fact that the web of betweenness is unravel-

ling and needs to be re-awakened:

As in the rainforest, a dazzling diversity of life-forms complement and sustain eachother; there is a secret oxygen with which we unknowingly sustain one another. Truecommunity is not produced, it is invoked and awakened. (ODonohue 2003, 133)

Finally, I began to see that the projects I undertook in my classroom were an

expression of these ideas. I had unconsciously perceived my classroom as a part of

ODonohue

s idea of community

. I had been seeking to make the education pro-

cess more holistic for my pupils and myself by trying to invoke (ODonohue

2003 133) and actively build the connections between the classroom and the

494 M. Glenn


7/15


8/15

being able to see why I chose to work in the way I had chosen. I began to

understand that my work was an expression of my desire to experience education

as a more holistic process; to diminish the ever-growing sense of fragmentation that

seems to permeate much educational thinking; and to see each student as a younghuman being who needs to be nurtured and guided towards reaching their potential.

As I began to make meaning of my project work, I saw that I was engaging in

many of Millers (2007) connective practices as outlined above. I could now

develop an understanding of my work in a more coherent manner.

Learning to think critically

My ability to think critically improved once I realised that I too was one of those

teachers, about whom Chomsky (2004) spoke, who was unable to think critically: I

was part of a system that Chomsky describes as: a form of indoctrination, that

works against independent thought in favour of obedience . . .

that keep[s] peoplefrom asking questions that matter about important issues (2004, 24). I was now

seeing my educational world with new eyes. As I began to develop an understand-

ing of my work and of the values that underpinned my work, I also began to ques-

tion situations that were the accepted norms of everyday school life. I began to see

how issues of power, oppression and culture existed in many aspects of education,

as suggested by Freire (2006). I began to see how fragmented and disruptive the

education system often can be. When I reected back on Katies silence (see

above), I saw that while it was laudable for me to notice her silence and to act on

it, it had needed deeper reection. Now when similar situations arose in my class, I

could problematise them. I could locate Katies silence in the bigger issues of

power, oppression and culture as suggested by Freire (2006). I could now ask ques-tions such as: Does Katie only speak when she is sure she has the right answer?

Is she encouraged by her culture to be silent and to express no opinion? Does she

experience school as an oppressive experience? If I insist on including her in class

discussions, am I intimidating her further?

Developing a theory of practice

Drawing on Whiteheads (1989) ideas of using ones values as the guiding princi-

ples by which a reective practitioner might live their life, I now could begin to

look to my values to see if I was living in their direction in my everyday practice. I

found discrepancies in many aspects of my work as I experienced myself as what

Whitehead (1989) calls a living contradiction. When I experience myself as a liv-

ing contradiction and I become aware of areas of my practice that are not commen-

surate with my values, I know that these are the areas of my work that need

attention. For example, as outlined above, I hold equality as an important educa-

tional value. However, I could see that while I held a value around each of my stu-

dents having equal access to learning, where each child would be given the

opportunity to learn to the best of their ability, some students were experiencing dif-

culties with learning because of the emphasis placed on mathematics and language

skills. I was experiencing myself as a living contradiction because I held a strongvalue around each child reaching their potential and yet, in my everyday work, I

hi if h i d l kill h i kill

496 M. Glenn


9/15

in the world. I was acting in direct conict with my values, and so this became one

of the areas on which I focused.

As my research into my practice developed, I began to use those recently articu-

lated values as criteria to evaluate if, in fact, I was developing a better understand-ing of my practice as I sought to develop a theory of practice from my work.

Whitehead and McNiff (2006) call these criteria that have been drawn directly from

ones values living standards of judgement, and I will demonstrate how I estab-

lished my living standards of judgement below. As I collected data in the process

of my research, I used the criteria that I had established to demonstrate the validity

of my work to transform my data into evidence. I used this evidence to establish a

theory from my practice in terms of offering descriptions and explanations of my

work. Let me demonstrate this process with one section from my project here.

The standards of judgement I used to evaluate my work were drawn directly

from my educational values. In this example I will focus on just one of these stan-

dards based on my value around nurturing the connections between education and

the natural environment. The criterion for this standard of judgement is drawndirectly from this value. I evaluated my work in terms of knowing how and why I

develop ways of working that nurture the connections between learning and the nat-

ural environment and the outside world beyond the classroom. I used the data I col-

lected from my work with a small project on a local landslide to submit asevidence that I was, in fact, developing a better understanding of my work. This is

what happened (see Figure 1).



10/15

On the morning after the landslide, a school colleague and myself brought our

pupils to see the effects of the landslide. We travelled along the path of the land-

slide and took photographs and recorded the damage we saw. We gained rst-hand

insight into the destruction that had been wreaked by the landslide. When wereturned to school, we discussed what we had seen, read some literature about land-

slides and learned why they might occur. The pupils wrote about their observations,

uploaded their photographs and published them on the school website. While the

event had some small amount of media coverage at the time, the reports the chil-

dren wrote were of great value to people who had emigrated from the area but who

still owned property locally, and therefore had a keen interest in the damage that

occurred. Many emailed us and thanked us for the information the children pro-

vided to them.3 While this was a small project, it is clear that it embraced many

aspects of curriculum, linking subject areas such as literacy, geography, science,

Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) and mathematics, and drew on the

multiple learning styles of the students I teach. It was connected very closely with

nature at its most dramatic and wildest. The project also made connections with thewider community. It was rewarding for the children to have questions sent to them

about their reports because it showed that their work was of value to others. I could

now make a clear link between knowing how and why I develop ways of working

that nurture the connections between learning and the natural environment and theoutside world beyond the classroom. I could see the connection between my class

and the natural environment; between science, history, geography and literacy;

between class and life outside the classroom. I was using technology to extend that

connection further, in terms of encouraging my class to create web pages to connect

with a wider audience. I was gaining a better understanding of my practice.

While I have only drawn on some small aspects of my research for the purposeof this paper, I have now reached a stage in my research that I am claiming as my

original contribution to educational theory and practice: that I have developed an

epistemology of practice which is informed by the fact that I know what I am doing

in my practice and I know how I have come to practise in this way. I am claiming

that I am developing an epistemology of practice that is grounded in dialogical,

holistic and inclusional ways of knowing (Whitehead and McNiff 2006). I perceive

the interconnectedness of people and their environment as a locus for learning and I

believe that people can develop their own learning potential and create their own

knowledge, through improving their capacity to establish and nurture relational

practices. I believe that technology can be a vehicle for enhancing such interconnec-tedness and creativity.

Signicance of this work

I believe that my research led to some change both at an individual and at an

organisational level and that it may be in the process of being inuential at policy

level.

As I reect on the signicance of my research for myself, I know that I am now

a more critical educator. I know that, through reection on and thinking critically

about my practice, I have gained new understanding and insight into my work. I

can now ask myself Why do I do what I do? and make a good attempt at answer-ing it. I have become more aware of how I can question the givens and norms of

d hi h i i h i l i h

498 M. Glenn


11/15

reect and do little else (Freire 2006, 66); I choose instead to engage in authentic

praxis (Freire 2006, 66), where reection leads to action. I look for ways to

include children of all intelligences and abilities in the learning process. Sometimes,

I nd this involves the inclusion of digital technology and sometimes it does not. Inow query the relevance of top-down reform by remote control (Tyack and Cuban

1995, 10) and one-size-ts-all educational programmes. Instead, I try to explore

ways of teaching and learning that embrace holistic and multiple ways of coming to

know, and that enable me to meet the needs of the children I teach as I try to create

an environment for them to reach their potential.

It is also of signicance for me that I now perceive myself as both teacher and

theorist. I have crossed the boundary between teacher and researcher, and, in cross-

ing it, it seems to have diminished somewhat (MacLure 1996). While I work as a

classroom teacher in a primary school, I perceive myself as a researcher and as a

theorist also. I am aware that the hybridity of my role can pose some problems.

Because I am no longer afliated to a university because I have completed my PhD

studies, accessing current journals, books and quality literature on education can bedifcult and/or expensive. I am frustrated by the difculties I experience in locating

affordable, quality literature. I have also found that access to educational confer-

ences is problematic. Furthermore, the organisers of conferences rarely advertise the

conference outside third-level institutions, and many of us outside that system aredependent on word of mouth or Internet trawling to discover their existence. Then,

attendance at these conferences can be problematic also. Even though teachers are

on occasion permitted to leave their classes to attend such events, adequate substitu-

tion is rarely, if ever, provided for them. As a result, classroom teachers are effec-

tively excluded from attending many educational conferences. As both a researcher

and a teacher, it is imperative for me to keep abreast of current thinking and ideasaround best practice. When one is effectively excluded from such access, then an

uphill battle ensues. Pithouse, Mitchell, and Weber (2009) remind us, however, that

adversity and exclusion are powerful motivators for teacher researchers. They say

that this motivation develops, the kinds of professional understanding and inquiry

that were too often missing from the canon of teacher education (Pithouse, Mitch-

ell, and Weber 2009, 44).

I, too, have found that the hybrid nature of my role has its positive aspects too.

Because I am a practising teacher, I am privileged to know, live and understand

classroom teaching as it really is. I do not need to interpret someone elses thoughts

and ideas to develop an educational theory. Instead I can look at my own schooland my own classroom and use my own lived practice and experiences to theorise

my practice.

Generalisability and replicability are not part of my understanding of the out-

comes of a self-study process. When I undertook my research, I was not aiming to

develop a theory or a programme that should be replicated or foisted upon other

teachers. Instead I was hoping to develop a theory that would give me a better

understanding of my practice; that might improve my practice and enhance the

learning environment for my pupils. Many critics of action research condemn action

research as an acceptable form of research because of its inability to bring about

educational change (see Waters-Adams 2006). However, I nd that when I share

my thinking with other educators, they are often enthusiastic about my thinking. Ido not try to force my ideas on them; instead I invite them to listen to my ideas, to

h f h l d k h i f h h



12/15

inuencing educational change in a small but relevant way. I have been involved in

designing sections of face-to face and online programmes for the inclusion of digital

technology for teachers wishing to engage in professional development programmes

for some years.4 My input always focuses on how digital learning can enhance andembrace holistic approaches to teaching and learning. They feature connection and

inclusion as key aspects. Participants speak favourably of these and feedback is

always of a positive nature. Some teachers experiment with my ideas and sugges-

tions and use them in their own teaching.

The possible inuence of my research on policy is percolating slowly also. The

Teaching Council (in Ireland) is developing a framework of continuing professional

development for teachers. It is currently developing a comprehensive continuing

professional development framework in consultation with the stakeholders.5 It is

also reviewing and accrediting programmes relating to the continuing professional

development of teachers and will make policy proposals to the Minister for Educa-

tion and Skills. Recently, three teacher/researcher colleagues and myself approached

the Teaching Council of Ireland to remind them of the importance of including self-study and action research in forthcoming professional development programmes.

The Teaching Council listened to us and is currently funding an action research pro-

ject in which we, four postdoctoral teachers, will each lead a group of practising

teachers as they investigate their practice and their understanding of their practicewith a view to gaining insights into and improvements in their work. While this

work is currently ongoing, my colleagues and myself are quietly condent that we

will generate enough excitement and passion about self-study action research that it

will become as important an approach to professional development as any of the

traditional, externalist approaches to examining education that are currently popular

(Pithouse, Mitchell, and Weber 2009).

To conclude

In the research process, I developed a new understanding around my digital projects

such that I can now perceive them as processes for developing spiritual and holistic

approaches to learning and teaching. I have developed an epistemology of practice that

draws on dialogical, holistic and inclusional ways of knowing and which is exempli-

ed in the relationships that I nurture with and for my class and is enacted in the pro-

jects we undertake. Like Palmer (1993, xxv), I found that my quest for a holistic way

of knowing [had to] be translated into practical ways to teach and to learn.

I look forward to continuing my hybrid life of teacher and researcher. I know Iam engaging in what Schn (1995) termed a battle of snails and that my battle

may take some time. I hope that the hegemony that exists in the academy, in terms

of the exclusion of the authentic voice of the practitioner, will not disillusion me

and that it will continue to charge my creative batteries and inspire me instead. Like

Kemmis (2006, 474), I hope that as I continue to engage in my research I have the

capacity to question and explore the way things are and to imagine and explore

how things might be.

Notes1. See www.iearn.org.2. You may view the project online: http://www.inver.org/ceantar/Learning Circle.

500 M. Glenn


13/15

3. You can read more online: http://www.iol.ie/bmullets/Lanslide/index.html.4. See, for example, http://www.into-elearning.com/course/info.php?id=58.5. See http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/section1/default.asp?NCID=558.

ReferencesArgyris, C., and D. Schn. 1978. Organization learning: A theory of action perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action

research. London: Falmer Press.Chomsky, N. 2004. Chomsky on miseduation. Oxford: Rowman and Littleeld.Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. A restatement of the relation of reective thinking to the edu-

cative process. Rev.ed. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.Freire, P. 2006. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Glenn, M. 2005. How can I use Internet based collaborative projects (ICPs) to improve my

practice? In ICT in Irish primary schools, ed. G.M. Enright and D. OGrady. Limerick:MIC.

Heppell, S. 2001. Preface. In ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum, ed. A. Loveless andE. Ellis, xvxix. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

hooks, b. 2003. Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.Kemmis, S. 2006. Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action

Research14, no. 4: 45976.Lucas, B. 2001. Creative teaching, teaching creatively and creative learning. In Creativity in

education, ed. A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, and M. Leibling, 3544. London: Continuum.MacLure, M. 1996. Telling transitions: Boundary work in narratives of becoming an action

researcher.British Educational Research Journal22, no. 3: 27386.Marcos, J.J., E. Snchez, and H. Tillema. 2008. Teachers reecting on their work: Articulat-

ing what is said about what is done. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 14,no. 2: 95114.

Mayer, R.E. 2001. Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McCarthy, K. 2001. Poised at the edge: Spirituality and creativity in religious education. InCreativity in education, ed. A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, and M. Leibling, 12643. London: Con-tinuum.

McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead. 2010. You and your action research project. 3rd ed. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Mellor, N. 1998. Notes from a method. Educational Action Research 6, no. 3: 45370.Miller, J. 2007. The holistic curriculum. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education . Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. 1999. Longing for the sacred in schools: A conversation with Nel Noddings.The Spirit of Education 56, no. 4: 2832.

ODonohue, J. 2003. Divine beauty: The invisible embrace. London: Transworld Publishers.

Palmer, P.J. 1993. To know as we are known

Education as a spiritual journey. New York:Harper Collins.

Pithouse, K., C. Mitchell, and S. Weber. 2009. Self-study in teaching and teacher develop-ment: A call to action. Educational Action Research 17, no. 1: 4362.

Schmertzing, R. 2007. Expert researchers and school practitioners: An historical perspectiveon the marginalization of practitioner research and the silencing of practitioner voices.

Journal of Education 188, no. 1: 124.Schn, D. 1983. The reective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:

Basic Books.Schn, D. 1995. Knowing in action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology.

Change 27, NovemberDecember: 2734.Tyack, D., and L. Cuban. 1995. Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Vygotsky, L.S. 1962/1978. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Waters-Adams, S. 2006. Action research in education. http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/res-



14/15

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, J. 1989. Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, howdo I improve my practice? Cambridge Journal of Education 19, no. 1: 13753. http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/livtheory.html (accessed January 2011).

Whitehead, J. 2005. Living critical standards of judgment in educational theorising. Paperpresented to a Symposium on Creating and Testing Inclusional and Postcolonial LivingEducational Theories, 2005 Conference of the British Educational Research Association,September 15, at the University of Glamorgan, UK. http://www.actionresearch.net/writ-ings/bera05all/jwbera05pap.htm (accessed February 2011).

Whitehead, J., and J. McNiff. 2006. Action research: Living theory. London: Sage.Yoshida, A. 2002. Martin Buber, education as holistic encounter and dialogue. In Nurturing

our wholeness: Perspectives on spirituality in education, ed. J. Miller and Y. Nakagawa,12539. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.

502 M. Glenn


15/15

Copyright of Educational Action Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Developing Holistic Practice Through Reflection, Action and Theorising by a Primary School Teacher

Documents

Transcript of Developing Holistic Practice Through Reflection, Action and Theorising by a Primary School Teacher