In the Service of Learning and Activism - ERIC · As part of teacher preparation ... , the PSP was...

Vera L Stenhouse & Olga S. Jarrett

51

Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2012

In the Serviceof Learning and Activism:

Service Learning, Critical Pedagogy,and the Problem Solution Project

By Vera L Stenhouse & Olga S. Jarrett

Prevailingpoliciesandpracticesinteachingsuppressteachers’autonomyintheclassroom,leavingstudentssubjectedtoscriptedprograms,standardizedcurricula,andpassiverotelearning(Leistyna,Lavandez,&Nelson,2004;Sleeter,2005).Suchformsofteachingoftenruncountertothosethatsupportcriticalthinking,joy,andequity-orientedlearning(Christensen,2009;Nieto&Bode,2008;Sleeter,2005).Incontrasttotraditionalpedagogy,scholarssuggestthatstudent-centered,demo-cratic,participatory,andactivistformsofpedagogyprovidemeaningfullearningexperiencesthatarelibratoryandempowering(DuncanAndrade&Morrell,2008;Fisher,2007;Freire,1998;Shor,1980/1987).Shor(1992)states:

Vera L Stenhouse is a project director for a federally-funded service-learning grant and Olga S. Jarrett is a professor, both in the College of Education at Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Thedifferencebetween empowering and tradi-tional pedagogy has to dowith the positive ornegative feelings students can develop for thelearning process…Their consequent negativefeelingsinterferewithlearningandleadtostronganti-intellectualismincountlessstudentsaswellastoalienationfromciviclife.(p.23)

Tocounteractdisempowermentfrequentlyexpe-riencedineducation,in2001theauthorsinitiatedaProblem Solution Project(PSP)inthesecondyeara

In the Service of Learning and Activism

52

two-yearurbancertificationandMaster’sprogram.ThePSP,designedtopromoteempowermentoffirst-yearurbanteachersandtheirstudents,involvesbothservicelearning(Anderson,Swick,&Yff,2001;Claus&Ogden,1999;EPA,2002;Hart,1997;Werner,Voce,Openshaw,&Simons,2002)andcriticalpedagogy(Freire,1970,1998;Shor,1992).Theintentionwasto involveteachersandstudents inservice,notascharity(King,2004)butasavehicleforsocialchange(Claus&Ogden,1999;Freire,1998).JarrettandStenhouse(inpress)discussthefirstsixyearsofthesecondyearPSP. In2004,theauthorsbeganimplementingaPSPintheprogram’sfirstyear,toenablepreserviceteacherstoexperiencecivicallyengagedlearningusingastudent-centered,participatoryapproach.Thepurposeswereto:(a)encouragepreserviceteachers’ownactivepracticeandparticipationinidentifyingproblemsandforgingsolutionsand(b)modelhowtheymightconductaPSPintheirownclassroomsthefollowingyear.Thisarticledescribesfiveyearsofimplementingfirst-yearproblemsolutionprojects.

Service Learning Service learningcombinesservicewithcommunityconnectionsandacademicapplications,enhancingstudents’academicgrowthaswellasencouragingcom-munityawarenessandsocialactionskilldevelopment(Moore&Sandholtz,1999).Amongthevariousmodelsofservicelearning,EylerandGiles(1999)recommendbalancedprogramswithmeaningfulservicecoupledwithlearninggoalsandre-flection.Theirresearchfoundthatlinkstocoursework,diversity,reflection,andcommunityinputaidstudent learning.Student learningandcommunitybenefitshouldbesimultaneous.GeletaandGilliam(2003)state“awell-plannedservice-learningprojectallowsstudentstolearnanddevelopthroughactiveparticipationinacarefullyplannedservicethatisspecificallydevelopedtomeetandaddressrealcommunityneeds”(p.10). Aspartofteacherpreparation,variousprogramsincludeservicelearningasameansofchallengingorenhancingpreserviceteachers’abilitiestoworkinvariousschoolsettingsandasmallbodyofresearchindicatestheeffectivenessofsuchprograms(Anderson,Swick,&Yff,2001;Bringle&Hatcher,1996;Brown,2005).Throughfieldexperiencesandservicelearningopportunities,preserviceteachersareencouragedtointeractacrossracial,cultural,geographic,orsocioeconomicset-tingstoenhancetheirknowledgeandexaminetheirdispositionsregardingvariouspopulations(Boyle-Baise,2002;Brown,2005;Brown&HowardII,2004). Typically,courseinstructorsselecttheservicelearningopportunityorprovidechoicesforstudentssuchasworkingwithP-12studentsinaneighborhoodschoolandlocatingcommunityorganizationsassitestoengagepeoplewhoarecultur-ally/linguisticallydiverse,homeless,andhungry/foodinsecure(Anderson,Swick,&Yff,2001).InthePSP,however,preserviceteachersselecttheserviceopportunity


53

andtheinstructorhelpsfacilitateimplementation.Inthisway,thePSPisaservicelearningprojectinfluencedbycriticalpedagogy.

Critical Theory/Critical Pedagogy Criticalpedagogy,grownfromtheseedsofcriticaltheory(seeDarder,Bal-todano,&Torres,2008;DuBois,1903/1970;Freire,1970,1998;Giroux,1993;Lankshear&McLaren,1993;Wink,2000),isdefinedinvariousways;however,oneofitsimportanttenetsplacesthesiteofcritiqueandtransformativeinitiativeswithinschoolsandothereducationalspaces.Acriticalapproachcentersonchal-lengingthestatusquoandcritiquinghowvariousdimensionsofpowerarewieldedinsocietyandwithinone’sowncontext(Kincheloe,2005). Shor (1992) offers a critical pedagogy approach that guides teachers andstudentsthroughaproblemposingframeworkthatchallengesrepressiveformsofeducation.TheintentandpurposeofthePSPisguidedbyShor’s(1992)“agendaofvalues”(p.17)whichinvolvescultivatingempoweringeducationalexperiencesforstudentsandteachersthatareparticipatory,affective,problem-posing,situated,multicultural,dialogic,desocializing,democratic,researching,interdisciplinary,andactivist.Thoughpresentedasadiscretelistofitems,inpracticethesecharacteristicsoverlap(seeTable1). Shor(1992,p.55)presentsthreewaystoengenderanempoweringpedagogyintheclassroom:(a)topically,(b)academicallyor(c)generatively.Agenerativeapproach,whichisatthecoreofthePSP,entailsseekingtopicsforlearningfromstudents.Consequently:

[I]n thecontextof true learning, the learnerswillbeengaged inacontinuoustransformationthroughwhichtheybecomeauthenticsubjectsoftheconstructionandreconstructionofwhatisbeingtaught,sidebysidewiththeteacher,whoisequallysubjecttothesameprocess.(Freire,1998,p.33)

Independently,servicelearningandcriticalpedagogyoffersubstantivecon-siderationsforengaginglearnersacrosslevelsanddisciplines.Conjointly,servicelearningandaspectsofcriticalpedagogyhavethepotentialtobecatalystsforaformidable emancipatory educative process yielding a pedagogy of possibilitytowardsthetransformationofhumanexperience.

Service Learning and Critical Pedagogy Bridgingempoweringeducationandservicelearning,ClausandOgden(1999)connecttheeffectofservicetoawidercontextualpurposeandvision,statingthatservicelearning

shouldbecentered,fromtheoutset,aroundthepursuitofconstructivechange.Questioning,dialogue,planning,reflection,andactionshouldallbeframedbythepurposeofachievingmeaningfulreform.(p.73)


54

Mergingservicelearningwithcriticalpedagogy,asinaPSP,holdsthepromiseofprovidingauthenticlearning,knowledge,andskillsthatenablestudentsandteach-erstocontributeactivelyinthe(trans)formationoftheirworlds.ThePSPcountersaneducationdonetostudentsbyprovidinganeducationinconcertwithstudents.Combinedaspectsofserviceandcriticalpedagogyadvancethenotionofservice

Table 1Shor’s Characteristics of an Empowering Education

Participatory Toreclaimactiveparticipationinthelearningprocess,studentsmustbe givenopportunitiestoparticipateintheirownlearningratherthanbeing passiverecipientsoftheexperiencesaroundthem.

Affective Ahealthyrelationshipbetweenstudentandsubjectmatterrequires nurturingaffirmingandhopefulsentimentswithintheteachingand learningprocess.

Problem-posing Learnersidentifyproblems,issuesandconcernsthroughquestioning theircontext(s).Thisprocessisintendedtodemocraticizethelearning environmentandconfrontpowerdynamicswithinthelearningsetting andsocietyasawhole.

Situated Learningisgroundedintheexperiencesofthelearner.

Multicultural Situatinglearningcultivatesdiscoursethatreflectstheculturaldiversityof thestudentsandincreasesstudents’ownershipoftheireducation.

Dialogic Thelearningenvironmentisbuiltonaprocessthatisastudent-centered, teacher-directed,reflectivespacethatbalancesstudentandteachervoice, teacherdirectivesanddemocraticexchanges.

Desocializing Anacknowledgementofstudents’educationalandsocialconditioningthat canleadtodeepeningaconceptualunderstandingofacceptablenorms andbehaviorsthroughexaminingthedaily,familiar,andhabitualaspects oflifeinformedbypersonalandsystemiccircumstances.

Democratic Theprocessineducationthatallowsformaximumstudentparticipation ratherthanlimitstheirparticipationbyrigidstructuredlearning disconnectedfromtheirlives,language(s),andinterests.

Researching Teachersandstudentsareinvitedtoinvestigate,analyze,critique,rethink, contemplate,andcommunicateonthesubjectsortopicsoftheir learning.

Interdisciplinary Anapproachthatdrawsuponmultipleacademicdisciplines,bodiesof knowledge,andmultimodalresourcestobuildunderstanding.

Activist Insiststhatstudentstakeanactiveroleintheirlearning.Studentsshould alsolearnaboutactionandtakeactiontoaddressproblemsposedinthe classroomorthelargersociety.


55

learningbeyondsociallyisolatedprojectsintoazoneofempowermentinthelivesofstudents,inthisinstance,aspiringteachers.

Purpose of Study Usingmultipledatasources,thisqualitativestudydescribestheimplementa-tionofthePSPandaddressesthefollowingquestions:

WhataspectsofShor’s(1992)empoweringpedagogywereexperiencedbythepreserviceteachersandinstructorduringtheprocessofimplementingaPSP?and

HowdidparticipatinginaPSPuncoverthechallengesandtensionsofimplementingservicelearningwithcriticalpedagogy?

Methodology

Participants Fivecohortsofpreserviceteachers(N=99)participatedinprojectsbetween2004and2009.Mostofthepreserviceteacherswerefemale.Approximately66%ofthepreserviceteachersidentifiedthemselvesasWhite.Theracialand/orethnicself-identificationsoftheadditionalpreserviceteacherswereasfollows(frommosttoleastnumbers):Black,AfricanAmericanorAfrican(Ethiopian,Ghanaian,andLiberian),Latina,IndianAmerican,Indian,Asian(Cambodianheritage,KoreanAmerican),NativeAmerican-White,andBi-multi-racial.

The Project and Context ThefirstyearPSPisanassignmentinwhichparticipantsasagroupidentify,andattempttosolve,aproblemoftheirchoosing.Implementedinaprogrampreparingpreserviceteacherstoworkinelementaryschoolswithamajorityofraciallyandlinguisticallymarginalizedstudents,thePSPwassituatedinacourseonculture,education,andcommunity.Thecourseinvolved15sessions,2.5hourseach,acrosstheFallandSpringSemestersoftheprogram’sfirstyear.Whiletakingcoursework,allparticipantsinternedfourorfivedaysaweekinPK-5thgradeclassrooms. Thepurposeofthecoursewastoexaminethesociopoliticalcontextofschool-ingwithintheUnitedStates,theroleofcommunityasaneducativeresource,andtherequisiteknowledge,skills,anddispositionsforenactingculturallyresponsivepedagogyacrossall subjects.Thefirstauthor,who taught thecourse,providedopportunitiesforintrospectionaswellascriticalexaminationoffactors affectingteachingandlearningsuchasidentity,curriculumcontent,privilege,andsystemicdiscrimination.Thecoursefosteredalearningenvironmentthatengenderedarangeofemotionsandperspectives.Courseassignmentsrequiredpreserviceteacherstoexaminetheirown,peers’,andstudents’culture,ethnicity,race,class, religion,


56

sexualidentity,language,andotherfacetsofdiversity.Suchexaminationswereintendedforpreseviceteacherstoapplytotheirunderstandingstotheirimplicationsfortheirpractice. IncorporatingthePSPintothecoursewasmeanttoprovidepreserviceteach-ersanopportunitytoexercisetheirautonomyandworkasacollectivetomakeadifferenceintheirspheresofinfluence.UsingShor’s(1992)generativeapproach,preserviceteachers:(a)brainstormedproblems,concerns,andissuesregardingtheircohort/program,school,community,nation,orworld;(b)selectedoneproblemfromtheirbrainstormedlist;(c)implementedasolutiontothechosenproblem;and(d)wrotereflectionsontheoverallprocessandselectedcohortproject.

Data Sources Datasources included the following: (a)electronicmailexchangesamongcohortmembersandwiththeinstructor;(b)classmembers’Webblogpostings;(c)instructornotesonthebrainstormingsessions,decisionmakingprocessandclassdiscussions;(d)instructorreflectionsontheprocessofimplementingtheassignment;and(e)cohortmembers’end-of-coursereflections.Inparticular,82participantssubmittedend-of-coursereflectionsthatentailedresponsestopromptsabouttheirthoughts,feelings,andideasregardingthePSPprocess,thechosenproject,whatwentwell,andchallengesexperienced.Alldatasourceswereusedtochronicletheprocess,timeline,andoutcomesofthePSPforeachcohort.

Data Analysis Dataanalysiswasafour-foldrecursiveprocess.Todescribetheexperiencesofeachcohortandtoanswerbothresearchquestions,thefirstauthorinitiallyperusedallthedatasourcestocraftadescriptivenarrativeoftheprocessandimplementa-tionforeachcohort.Alldatawereusedtoestablishthesequenceofeventsandtheprocessengagedinbyeachcohortincludingthebrainstormedtopics,decision-makingprocess,andprojectoutcomes.Theresultsofthisanalysisarerepresentedinthevignettesbelowabouteachcohort. Second,beyondinformingthedescriptivenarrative,anadditionalanalysisofthepreserviceteacherend-of-coursereflectionswaswovenintothevignettes.Eachreflectionwasanalyzedformainpointsregardingtheprocess,choice,andfeedbackonwhatwentwellorchallengesexperiencedthroughoutthePSP.Specifically,thefirstauthoriterativelyanalyzedreflectionswithinandacrosscohortsuntilthemesbecameevident(Miles&Huberman,1994)creatingamatrixoffirstlevelcodes.Asareliabilitycheck,theauthorsindependentlyreadthedatamatrixforsimilari-tiesanddifferencesamongcohortsandnotedthemes.Codesweresubsequentlyclustered into broader categories reflecting participants’ common impressionsanduniquecommentaries.ThefirstauthoruseddatasourcessuchasWeblogsandelectronicmailexchanges,tocorroborateordisconfirmtheresultsoftheanalysisofreflections.


57

Duringthissecondphaseofanalysis,sixthemesbecameapparentthatinvolvedissuesrelatedto:(a)time;(b)decision-making;(c)groupdynamics;(d)theeffectof thePSPasanassignment; (e) theeffectof thechosenproblem/project;and(f)theaffectiveoutcomesduringtheprocess. Asdiscussedfurtherintheresults,althoughthesethemesweredistinctinthedata,theywerealsointerconnected.Forexample,issuesrelatedtotime,suchashowlongittooktoarriveatadecisiononafocusproblemaffectedgroupdynamics. Third,toanswertheresearchquestionregardingwhataspectsofShor’s(1992)empowering pedagogy experienced by the preservice teachers and instructorduringimplementationofthePSP,theprecedinganalyseswerefurthersubjecttoanexaminationofif,how,andwhenShor’s(1992)11characteristicsofanempoweringeducationwereevident(seeTable1).At theoutset, thePSPwasdesignedtoincludetheparticipatory,problem posing,anddemocraticchoice-makingaspectsofShor’sempoweringpedagogy.Ana priorianalysisusingShor’sempoweringpedagogycharacteristicswasconductedbythefirstauthoronthepreserviceteachers’end-of-coursereflectionsandinstructorreflections.Again,theadditionaldatasourceswereusedtocorroborateordisconfirmtheresultsoftheanalysisofreflections. Theresearchquestionfocusedonthechallengesandtensionsexperiencedbythepreserviceteachersandtheinstructorledtoafourthanalysiswithinandacrosscohorts.Analysisofpreserviceteachers’reflections,instructorreflections,andtheresultsfromoverlayingShor’sempoweringpedagogycharacteristicswerereviewedcomparativelyandopen-codedforpatterns(Miles&Huberman,1994)relatedtotheintersectionsofservicelearningandcriticalpedagogy.Thisanalysisyieldedlessons learned regarding the challenges and tensionsof implementing servicelearningfromacriticalpedagogicalstance.

Results

Vignettes on Each Cohort’s Experience Cohort I (2004-2005). CohortIbrainstormedalistof22problems.Aswascustomary for all cohorts, problemswere read aloud and everyonehad anop-portunitytoclarifyoraddideas.Theinstructortypedthelistanddistributedittothecohortforreview.Usinganinstructorinitiateddecision-makingprocess,eachcohortmembervotedforthreeproblems.Theinstructortalliedalltheidentifiedselectionsandsharedtheresultswiththecohort. CohortIinitiallydecidedtocollectclassroomresources(i.e.,materialsandmoneyformaterials)thatcouldbeusedbycohortmembersduringtheirinternship.Soonthereafter,theyextendedtheirfocustoincludethingstheycoulduseduringtheirfirstyearofteaching.Thecohortdeterminedthefollowingareasinneedofattention:whereandhowtoraisemoneyforresources,howtoobtaindonationsfrombusinesses,wheretostorecollectedmaterials,andwhattypesofresources


58

wouldbeobtained(e.g.,books,supplies,otherclassroommaterials).EarlyinSpringSemester,thecohortreviewedandreconsidereditsintentions,whichhadexpandedtoestablishingalibraryorresourceroomforthemselvesandprogramgraduates.Asthepreserviceteacherssuggestedideasandreportedinformationfromtheirresearchareas,theydeterminedthattheirinitialideascouldnotbeimplementedintheremainingamountofcoursetime. ThreeclassespriortotheendoftheSpringSemester,onecandidateraisedthepointthatperhapsthecohortshouldconsidergatheringmaterialsnotfor“them-selves,”butfortheschoolsinwhichtheywereinterning.Thefinaldecisionwasmadeatthepenultimateclass. Cohort Imembersdecided touse theirownmoney topurchaseeitheronehardcoveroronesoftcovermulticulturalbookasthankyougiftsfortheschoolsinwhich theywere interning.Theypurchasedbooksrequestedby the librarian(mediaspecialist)attheirrespectiveschoolsorbasedontheirownknowledgeofmulticulturalbooksfromtheircoursework.Cohortmembersbroughttheirbookstothelastclass,shrink-wrappedthem,andincludedawrittennoteofthankstothestudentsandteachersofeachschool.Thefiveschoolsinwhichthepreserviceteacherswereclusteredreceivedfourbookseachfortheirrespectivelibraries.Asonecandidatewrote,“Seemedlikeitwasareallygoodchoicegivenourteachingplacements…Ilikedtheideaofgivingbackinasituationwhereweweregivenopportunities”(2005). Overwhelmingly,theprocess,choice,andchallengesrevolvedaroundtimeasrepresentedbythefollowingseriesofquotations:“[ThePSPwas]difficultwithourschedulesandtimeconstraints.Ifeellikewechangedourscopeafewtimesaswereallyrealizedourconstraints;”“Ithinkitisagreatprojecteventhoughwedidnothavemuchtimetodoit;”and“ThebiggestchallengewasTIME!” Despitethetimechallengesoftheprocess,thepreserviceteachers’reflectionswerepredominantlyfavorable:

It is a great learning experience conducting a problem solution project…Itdemonstratestheorganization,roles,andresearchthatmustbeimplementedtosuccessful[ly]accomplishanyproject/taskintheschool.(2005)

TheprocessisNOTEASY.Inorderforaproblemsolutionprojecttoworkalltheparticipantsmustbeactive.Alsomakingdecisionsandeveryonebeingonthesamepagemakestheprojectalengthyprocess.However,onceeveryoneistogethertheproblemsolutionprojectisverypowerful.(2005)

CohortIresearched,dialoged,initiated,andimplementedasolutiontheyfeltviableandmeaningfulwhileworkingtogetherasagroup.Thepreserviceteachers’reflectionsexpressedpredominantlypositivesentimentstemperedbytheissueoftimeandthepersistentrenegotiationoftheultimatesolutiontotheiridentifiedproblem.

Cohort II (2005-2006).CohortIIproposed18problemsandnarrowedthemtothreethroughtheprocessdescribedforCohortI.Afterdiscussion,CohortIIvoted


59

tosecuremonetaryresourcestosupportfinanciallychallengedcohortmembersasneededandidentifiedthefollowingconsiderations:theexactpurposeofthefunds;howfinancialneedwouldbedeterminedandbywhom;whowouldreceivethefunds;whatwerethetaximplications;whatweretheshortandlongtermconsequencesofsecuringfunds;howwouldthefundsbeallocated;whowouldmanagethefunds;andhowwouldthisprocessandprojecthonorthecohort’schosenname. The resulting contentious process reflected strong support, resistance, andconfusion.Tensionswerecatalyzedbytwofactors:(a)preserviceteachers’disparateperceptionsoftheactualneed,value,andreachoftheprojectand(b)acontesteddecision-makingprocessexacerbatedbytheinstructor,whorequestedafinalvotebyelectronicmailthatgarneredonlysixvotersoutoftheexpectedtwentyone.These results led to concernsofwhetherornot the lownumberofvotes trulyconstitutedapopulardecision,whileotherscontendedthatnotvotingwhengiventheopportunityshouldnotimpedeprogress.Threepreserviceteacherssharedthefollowing:“Ithinkitwasasoundprojectbutitneverhad‘group’supportandeven-tuallybecameassociatedwithnegativity”(2006);“Iwashesitantatfirstbecauseitfeltselfish…”(2006);and“Withalltheissuesfacingeducation,whywouldwepicksomethinglikethis?”(2006). Aftertwoclasssessions,aswithCohortI,theinstructorproposedtheideaofanadministrationteamtofacilitatetheongoingprocessbyleadingclassdiscus-sionsanddecision-making.Fourcohortmembersvolunteeredtobeontheteam.Givenpersistentcohortchallenges,theteamcreatedanopen-endedquestionnaireto determine classmates’ impressions, suggestions, and concerns regarding thePSP.Twoteammembersreportedthequestionnaireresultsduringclassalongwithrecommendationsformovingforward;however,athirdmemberpubliclydisagreedwiththeproposeddirection.Oneofthetworeportingteammembersstated:“IfoundmyattemptstogivevoicetoallmembersofthegroupwereheavilycriticizedtothepointthatIfeltnodesiretoparticipateintheprojectatall…ourgroupwassignificantlydivided”(2006).Thiseventledtothevoluntarydismantlingoftheteam.Thefourthoriginalteammemberremainedandthreewerereplacedwithnewvolunteers. Under the new administration team, the project continued to morph fromsecuringfundsneededwithinthecohorttoamoreexpansivenotionofsolicitingfundsavailabletobothcurrentandfuturecohorts.ThefinaloutcomewasaletterfromtheCohortinsupportofagrantthattheprogramdirectorwasseekingfromafederalfundingagency.Thegrant,whichwasnotfunded,wouldhaveincludedstipendsforprogramparticipantsduringtheirfirstyearoftheprogram. Characteristicofthiscohort’sviewsoftheprocess,challenges,andchoiceweredisparateperceptionsofthechoiceofproblem,theprofoundinfluenceofcohortmembers’interactions,andthedegenerationofa“greatidea”thatsimulta-neouslycreatedanimosity.Thepreserviceteachers’2006commentsbelowshowthediversityofviewpoints:


60

Idonotagreewiththechoice—IwasagainstitinthebeginningandIstillam.

Ithinktheprojectisworthwhileandamlookingforwardtoworkingonit.

Idon’tthinkthegroupeverreallyagreedtoaproject.I’mstillnotsurewhatisgoingon.[We]encounteredsevereresistancewithinthegroupinallaspectsoftheproject.

Waytoomuchtimewasspentarguingovervoting…Therearemanystrongper-sonalitiesinthegroup.

Itwasaniceideabutitcausedtoomuchanimosityamongstus.

Cohort II’smain issueswere challengeswith thedecision-makingprocessandtheperceptionofhelpingselfversusothers.Theysaidverylittleaboutwhatwentwellorwhattheylikedabouttheprocess.Groupdynamicsprovedtobeasignificant factor in theoverallnegative feelings towards theproject.However,amidstthetensions,variousmodelsofleadershipemerged,insightsintotheroleofparticipationindecision-makingwereevident,andnotionsofwhatenablesasuccessfuldemocracywereexpressed.

Cohort III (2006-2007). Cohort III brainstormed 21 problems. Unlike theopen-endedbrainstormingoftheprevioustwocohorts,thesecondauthorsuggestedcategoriestobeginthebrainstormingprocess:cohort/program,school,community,nation,andglobal.Also,inslightcontrasttopreviouscohorts,theinstructorfacili-tatedamoreopen-endedcohortleadershipprocess.Ratherthancraftingspecificteamstomovetheprocessforward,theinstructorsimplyallowedmorewaittimetoprovideanopportunityforcohortmembers tovolunteerfor themselveshowtheywantedtoorchestratetheprocess.Throughamostlydialogicprocess,CohortIIIchosetotrytoimprovethequalityofmentorteachersintheprogram.Thosewhowerehavingdifficultywiththeirmentorteacherswereacatalystforchoosingthisproblem.Althoughmostcohortmembershadpositiveexperienceswiththeirmentorteachers,affectinghowmentorteacherswereselectedandassessedseemedacollectivelyworthwhileendeavor. CohortIIIspentconsiderabletimelearningthehistoryoftheprogramandproceduresforselectingmentorteachers.Uniquetothiscohortwasthedecisiontosolicitinputfromprogramfacultyandstaff.Atthecohort’srequest,theinstruc-torinvitedtheprogramdirector,afacultymember,andaninternshipsupervisortoclasstorespondtoquestionsregardingprogramhistory,methodsofselectingmentorsandmatchingthemwithpreserviceteachers,lengthoftimerequiredforprogramchanges,andidentifyingdecisionmakerswhocanadvancechange.Onecohortmembersurmisedthat,“Generatingalistofquestionstoaskstaffmemberswentwellaswellasthediscussionthatthequestionshelpedfacilitate”(2007). Because of the in-class exchange, the program director instituted severalchangesin thementorprocessbefore thecohortsubmitteditsfinalproposal totheprogram.Changesincluded(a)invitingthepreserviceteacherstotheinitial


61

mentororientation,(b)revisingthementorteacherrecruitmentbrochure,and(c)continuingencouragementofthepreserviceteacherstorecommendteacherstheythoughtwouldmakegoodmentorteachers. Cohort III decided to develop a form to provide weekly quantitative andqualitativefeedbacktoprogrampersonnelabouttheirexperiencewiththeirmen-torteacher.Althoughthepreserviceteachersweregivenanend-of-the-semesteropportunitytoevaluatetheirmentorteachers,thiscohortdecidedweeklyfeedbackwouldprovideamoreaccurateandsubstantiverecordofamentorteacher’sadher-encetotheprogram’sgoals.Theseformsweretobefilledoutbycohortmembers,given to their supervisors, and thenplaced in thepreservice teachers’programfoldersforfutureusebyprogrampersonnel.Asamplepromptfromtheformwas,“How‘constructivist’innaturedoyouperceiveyourmentorteachertobe(scaleof10-1)?”Open-endedquestions,included:

(a)Doyouthinkthismentorteacherreflectsaculturallyresponsiveap-proachtoteaching?

(b)Doyouthinkthispersonisanidealmentorforanaspiringteacher?Why/Whynot?

Withrespecttochoice,CohortIII’spreserviceteachersrepeatedlymentionedthevalueandvalidityoftheprojectevenifitwerenotwhattheymighthavepre-ferred.Asthesetwocohortmembersshared,

….itwasextremelydifficulttogeteveryonetoagreeaseveryonehastheirownperspectivesandexperiences.However,Ifeltitwasagoodexperienceforustoworkonsolvingaproblemasacohort.(2007)

Iwishwehadchosenaproblemoutsideofourgrouptohelpus lookbeyondourselvestothoseinmoreneed.However,Ifeelthatanythingthatcanbedonetothebettermentofthisprogramisvaluableaswell.(2007)

Althoughgrouptensionsexistedwithinthecohort,theydidnotreachcompa-rableheightsasCohortII,andthiswasreflectedintheiroverallsatisfactionwiththeproject.Fromtheirperspective:

…ourgroupfacedsomeissuesduetothetensionsthathadcometoexist….Someofusseemedtohavedifferentvisionsofwhattheprojectwas.However,wedidhavesomegooddiscussions,ideas,andIthinkwetrulyattemptedtobringaboutpositivechange.(2007)

SimilartoCohortII,CohortIIIfocuseditsenergiesonsupportingacurrentandlongtermprogramneed.Thiscohortspentmostofitstimedeterminingthehistoryandcontextoftheproblembyinvitingprogramandstaffmemberstopar-ticipate.Althoughhavingaproblematicmentorwasaconcernforonlyafew,thecohortpursuedaconcernthataffectedthesuccessoftheprogrambydevelopingaquestionnairedesignedtoimprovementorteacherselection.


62

Cohort IV (2007-2008).CohortIVbrainstormed56problems.Fromtheoutset,CohortIVeliminatedproblemsaddressingnationalandglobalconcerns,reasoningthatthesewereneitherrealisticnortangibleenoughtobepursuedsuccessfully.Similartopreviouscohorts,choosingaproblemwastimeconsuming.InthelatterpartofFallSemester,thecohortdecidedtosupportabookdriveforaschoolinwhichtwopreserviceteacherswereteaching. Thecohortmembersinterningattheschoolprovidedinformationregardingtheirschool’sinitiativetocollect300booksforallgradelevels,giventhelackofbooksavailableforstudents.Thecohortverballyagreedtocontributetothebookdrivebyorchestratingvariousopportunitiestocollectbooks,includingpreparationofabookdonationboxforthedepartment,Internetpostings,Websitesearchesforbooksales,andrequeststolocalgrocerystorestocarrycollectionboxes.Individualswhodidnotactivelysecurebooksvolunteeredtobe“placeholders”wherebookscouldbestoredordelivered.Furtherintheprocess,onecandidateaskedforfundsfromthecohorttopurchasebooksatasale.Amajorityofcohortmembersgavepersonalfundstoapoolofmoneyfortheirpeertospendatthesale. Amonthbeforethelasttwoclasssessions,preserviceteachersbroughtinallthebookstheycollected;onecohortmemberbroughtacollectionofflatboxes;andanotherbroughtlabelsshehadprintedidentifyingthebooksasagiftfromthecohort.Theinstructorconstructedboxeswhilethecohortmembersformedanas-semblylineoftheirowndesign.Somepreserviceteacherssortedbooksbygradelevelandpastedthelabelsinthebooks.Bookcarrierswith(instructorsupplied)cartscollectedthesortedbooksandwheeledthemtoanothergroupwhoboxed,sealed,andlabeledtheboxwiththeappropriategradelevel.Intotal,CohortIVsecured,sorted,labeled,andboxedover800children’sbooksthatweredeliveredbyinternsattheschool. SimilartoCohortI,thelastdayofcollectiveworkpreparingthebookswasahighlightofCohortIV’sprocess.Despitefeelingtheprocesswas“tough”and“longandtiring,”theyfeltthattheendresultwas“great”and“worthwhile.”Succinctlycapturedbyoneparticipant’sstatement:

Ithinkhavingalotofadultsagreeononetopicwasdifficult.Ialsothinkgettingeveryoneinvolvedwasdifficulttoo.Ithinktheactualdaywesortedthebooksanddistributedthemwentverywell.(2008)

Satisfaction with the end results was tempered by some cohort members’observationsofgroupapathyandperceivedlackofleadership:

ThebiggestproblemIsaw/feltwastheoverallapathyofthegroup…Becausetherewasno‘leader’itwasmoredifficult.(2008)

However,onecohortmemberfeltthat

thefrustrationanddisagreementactuallyledustogrowth.Lifeisaboutworkingoutdifferencessoitwasgoodforus.(2008)


63

CohortIVmembersmentionedfrustrationwithtime,eachother,andtheinstructor’sroleyetreportedsatisfactionwiththeendresults.Aswithpreviouscohorts,arrivingatadecisionwasachallenge,theinteractionsamongcohortmembersaffectedtheprocessandtheprojectmorphedovertime.

Cohort V (2008-2009).CohortVposed117problems.Thistimetheinstructoraskedthecohortwhattypeofdecision-makingmechanism(s)itwantedtoadopt.Dur-ingthesecondsessionofclass,a“keep-scratch”methodsuggestedandfacilitatedbycohortmemberswasusedtonarrowdownthetopicsto50choices.Theydrewlinesthrough“scratched”itemswhile“keep”itemsremainedonthelist.Eventually,threeideasremained,eachfocusedonsupportingthecohort:developingastudentadvisorycounciltointerfacewiththeprogramfaculty,creatingateacherresourceWebsite,oracombinationofboth.SeveralclasssessionsintheFallweredominatedbydiscus-sionandproblemsolvingonhowtoselectthefinalproblem.Thecohortultimatelydecidedtovoteona“new”problem(aformerlyscratchedissue):hunger. Thedecisiontoaddresshungerwasmadeonthefinaldayofclassbeforethewinterbreak.Uniquewiththiscohort,theinstructordevelopedtheremainderofthecoursecontentbasedonthecohort’sselection.Forinstance,inthefirstSpringSemesterclass,theinstructorinvitedaguestfromthelocalcommunityfoodbankwhodiscussedthepolitical,social,andeconomicsystemsthatinfluencehunger,mythsandfactsregardinghunger,andavarietyofways(includingcontributingtoafoodbank)toaddresstheissueofhunger. Aninitialideawastoconductafooddrive.Eventually,thecohortparticipatedinoneoftwooptionstheydevised.OnewastodeveloparesourcelistforschoolsdetailinglocalresourcesandorganizationstosupportP-5studentsandfamiliesexperiencingfoodinsecurityandhunger.Thelistwasdistributedforusebycoun-selors,teachers,andotherschoolpersonnel.Thesecondwastovolunteerforthreehoursatalocalcommunityfoodbank—anopportunityorganizedbyoneofthecohortmembers.Volunteeringatthefoodbankentailedsortingandpackingfoodfordistributiontoorganizationsandagenciesservingthoseinneedoffood.Asreportedinthereflections,theirsortingandpackingeffortsinvolved4,547poundsoffoodthatwouldgotoapproximately3,031families.ForCohortV,decision-makingandarrivingatacohesiveactionplanweremosttimeconsumingandpromptingsometodisengage.LikeCohortsIandIV,theyratedtheculminatinggroupactivitypositively.OnememberofCohortVexpressedthat:

Withmostissuesthatneedattention,timeisalwaysoneofthegreatestchallengesobstructingprogress.Withthisparticularprojectourcohortspentasignificantamountoftimeworkingtochooseaproject.Yetbecausethisprocessofchoosingbecamesolong,Ithinkpeoplebegantodisengage.(2009)

AnotherCohortVmembershared:

Whenwecompletedtheproject,Ifeltreallygoodaboutmyself.Icouldseethat


64

myfellowcohortmemberswerefeelingthesameway.Ienjoyedseeingthatourcohortwasabletoworktogetherasagrouptogetacommontaskorprojectac-complished.(2009)

Vignette Results Synthesis Inall, thefivecohortsparticipated in identifyinganddiscussingproblemsacrosssixcategories:(a)30self-help(cohort/programfocused);(b)49schoolsite;(c)41localcommunity;(d)39national;(e)33global;and(f)6“other.”Table2

Table 3Choices of Problem Solution Projects

Year 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 CohortI CohortII CohortIII CohortIV CohortV

Issue/ Multicultural Financial Mentor Securing HungerProblem resources& resources teacher booksfor materialsfor forcohort selection elementary cohort students

Project Multicultural Letterin Developed Children’s Developed booksgiven supportof formfor book resourcelist; asgiftsto grantfunds preservice collection volunteered school onbehalf teachers’ forone atacommunity placements ofthe ongoing school foodbank fortheir program assessment libraries ofprogram mentor teachers

Table 2Select Examples of Brainstormed Categories across Cohorts

ProjectType Examplesacrosscohorts

Self-help/Cohort Securingfinancialsupport,addressingpersonalandprogramstress,and improvingmentorteacherscreening

SchoolSite Curriculummodifications,schoolservices,studentfoodandnutrition, andstudent’slackofrecess

Community Hunger,homelessness,beautification,andcivicparticipation

Nation Investigatingevacuationplans,varioussocialinequities(basedonrace, gender,orsexualorientation),gentrification,theNoChildLeftBehind policy,Iraqwar,healthcare,socialjusticeandhumanrights.

World War,poverty,immigration,humanrights,climateandpollution

Other Outreachtoanimals,environmentalissues


65

summarizesbrainstormedtopicsandTable3representstheinitialissues/problemsandfinalimplementedcohortprojects.Thefinalprojectwasnotalwaystheprojectinitiallychosenbythecohort;nevertheless,thepreserviceteachersnotedsatisfac-tioninhavingconcreteresultseitherfortheirschoolsorcommunity. Tovaryingdegrees,allthecohortsfeltchallengedbytimeandthedecision-makingprocess.Lackof timewasmentionedbymost in somecohorts and atleastsomeineachcohort.ForCohortI,theoverwhelmingchallengewastime.Insubsequentcohorts,decision-makingwasmostchallenging,aswasnavigatingthegroupdynamicaroundtheperceivedneed,viability,timeframe,andprojectscope.Whetherbrainstorming18or117problems,cohortmembers,intheirview,startedwithloftyideasandendedupwithmorelimited,lesstimeconsuming,andmore“do-able”plans.Mostcohortsweresatisfiedwiththefinalchoice,thoughsomemembersweredisappointedthattheprojectwasscaleddownandlessfarreachingthaninitiallyintended. Instancesofgroupaccordbolsteredpreserviceteachers’feelingsofwhatwentwell,whilegroupdissentionoftenyieldednegativesentimentstowardtheoverallprocessorproject.Thestressofdecision-makingappearedtoeitherdividethegroupormakethegroupmorecohesive.CohortIIhadthemostnegativeexperienceasitstruggledwiththedecision-makingandimplementationprocesses.Incontrast,CohortIexpressedthemostfavorablesentiments.

The Problem Solution Project and Shor’s Empowering Education Tovaryingdegrees,allaspectsofShor’s(1992)empoweringpedagogywereexperiencedbythepreserviceteachersandinstructorduringtheprocessofimple-menting a PSP.The process of brainstorming, problem selection, and problemsolutionaffordedopportunitiestoengageproblem posing, participatory, dialogic, and democratic processes.Selectingaproblemandgeneratingsolutionsfostereddialogicanddemocraticprocessesexercisedthroughoutthedecision-making.Thepreserviceteachersmostoftenmentionedthebrainstormingaspectasaconstructivepartoftheprocess.Subsequentdiscussionsandchoicemakingprovedthemostvisceral,astheystruggledtoengageeachother,ideas,andtheirvoices.Decision-makingtookvariousformsmeanttostimulatefullactivedemocraticparticipationandcivicresponsibility.Selectingone’stopPSPchoicesledtoattemptsatconsensusdecision-makinginterspersedwithmajorityrulevoting,particularlyattheheightofastalemateamongideas.Votingoccurredmorethanonceduringtheprocessoftenleadingtomorediscussionratherthanadecision. Allprojectsweresituatedinthepreserviceteachers’personalorprofessionalrealities,whetherself-help,school,orcommunitybased.Theselectedproblemsweredrawnfromcohortmembers’needsandconcerns.Participationinsolvingthemwassituatedintheirpersonalandprofessionalknowledge,skills,andexperi-ences(e.g.,grantwritingorInternetnetworking). Inallcohorts,memberswereinvolvedinresearchwhichservedtheirproject


66

outcomesinthreeways:establishingcontext,determiningthefeasibilityofanidea,andsolicitingfeedbackorinputtofurtherstreamlineproposedactions.Forexample,researchonthehistoryof theprogramprovidedcontextfor thementorteacherselectionproject.Askingtheprincipalabouthostingaschoolfundraiserhelpeddetermineitsfeasibilityasanidea;andsolicitinginputfromschoolpersonnelonspecificneedssuchasbooksorissuesofstudenthungerinformedproposedactions.Theinstructoralsoprovidedarticles,personalexperience,orinvitedknowledgeableguestspeakerstocontributeinformationandresourcesonanissue. LessexplicitlyevidentinthePSPprocessweremulticultural and interdisciplinarycharacteristics.Developingmulticulturalunderstandingamongallcohortmemberswasamajoraspectofthecourseitself.Onoccasion,acohort’stopicexplicitlyad-dressedmulticulturalmatters,asinthepurchaseofmulticulturalbooks.Also,thetopicstheyselectedwereinterdisciplinaryaddressingsocialstudies,mathematics,physiology,economics,multiculturaleducation,andliteracy. ApurposeofthePSPwasforpreserviceteacherstoexperienceactivepartici-pationintheirlearningandmakeadifferenceonanissuetheydeemedimportant.Withrespecttoactivistnotions,thepreserviceteachersconsistentlyexercisedtheircapacitiestoengage,resist,oradvancetheprocessinwaysthatmadeadifferencetothemselvesandtoothers. Asaresultoftheireffortsandtheinstructor’sfacilitation,thePSPfosteredaf-fectiveresponsesfromthepreserviceteachers.Affectiveresponseswerecatalyzedbythreefactorsidentifiedbythreeormorecohorts:time,decision-making,andgroupdynamics.Althoughcohortfeelingstowardstheirrespectiveprojectswerepredominantlypositive,lackoftimetoexecutethefullscopeorextendthereachofanintendedprojectwasaconsistentissue.Timewasalsolinkedtofeelingsaboutthedecision-makingprocessaslaboredandprotracted. Adecision-makingissueinvolvedtheperceptionofself-helpprojectsas“self-ish”or“self-serving”asopposedto“helpingothers.”Allcohortsstruggledwiththeintentofaproject toservecohortmembers’needsrather thantheneedsofothers,affectingtheirfeelingsabouttheprojectandoneanother.Yet,duringdeci-sion-making,cohortssometimeseliminatednationalandglobalproblemsclearlyinvolving“helpingothers”as“unrealistic”toaddresseffectively. Groupdynamics,thethirdsourceofaffectiveexperiencesamongmembersandtowardstheproject,wereperiodicallynotedinpreserviceteachers’reflections;however,mostofitseffectwaswitnessedbytheinstructorwhocorroboratedpre-serviceteachers’sentimentsabouttheircohortmembers’behaviors.Reflectionson group dynamics included preservice teachers’ commentary and assessmentregardingthe“group”(e.g.,“stronggrouppersonalities,”“irritationofthegroup,”“resistancewithinthegroup,”“workingasagroup,”“groupapathy”).Groupdy-namicsheavilyshapedprojectchoice,decision-making,andimplementation.Fromtheinstructor’svantagepoint,relationalqualitiesexhibitedamonggroupmemberswereencouraginganddisturbing.


67

CohortIspokemostfavorablyabouttheinteractionswithinthecohort.Senti-mentsof“feelinggood”weresharedinCohortIVandV,particularlyabouttheculminatinggroupactivity.Incontrast,CohortIInotedstrongunfavorablegroupinteractions.Mostrespondents’sharedlittleornothingaboutwhatwentwellwiththeproject.CohortsIIIthroughVexperiencedamixtureofsentiments;however,alongwithCohortII,interactionsamongcohortmemberselicitedangstregard-ingthePSPprocess.Reflectionsaboutcolleaguesincluded“toomanyopinions,”“animosity,”“arguments,”and“toomany leadersnotenoughservants.”Cohortmembers also described their peers as being apathetic and at times describedthemselvesasdisengagedfromtheprocess,asindicatedbythecomment:“Iwasthoroughlydetachedfromtheexperience”(2008). Cohort members expressed several reasons for their limited participationandenthusiasm.Thereasonsincludedotherprogramdemandsontheirtime,theprotractedPSPdecision-making/problem-solvingprocess,andbehaviorsoftheirpeerstheyviewedasnotproductive. Inadditiontotime,thedecision-makingprocessandgroupinteractions,ade-socializingeducationalsoelicitedaffectiveresponses.Shor’sdesocializingaspectofanempoweringpedagogychallengesthedominanceofteacher-talk,unilateralauthority,andtheonusofknowledgeandpowerresidingexclusivelywiththeteacher.InstrumentaltomodelingthePSPwastheinstructor’sabilitytonotbeatthecenterduringkeystages.Preserviceteachers’feelingsabouttheroleoftheinstructorinattemptingtofosteranempoweringenvironmentweredisparate:someappreciatedthestudent-centerednature;othersfounditunhelpfulorunexpected.

Ilikedhowyouguidedusthroughtheprocess.Yougaveusguidelinesandthenyouletusdeveloptheproblem,givingusfeedbackaswewent.

Ithinkyoushouldhavetakenmorecontrol.

Iwasshocked thatMs.Veracouldsit therequietlyandbepatientwithusallalong—itwouldhavebeensoeasyforhertostepinandmoderate.Iguesswearen’tusedtoallofthisautonomy…

Thefreedomtoexerciseautonomywasoftenstressful,ifnotsimplyunfamiliartosome.Theinstructorofferedminimalscaffoldingandstrategicdeflectionasthepreserviceteachersdrovetheprojectswithalevelofautonomynotlikelyexperi-encedintheirschooling. Achallengetodesocializationwasthecohort’sexpectationthattheinstructorbetheprimaryleaderintheprocess.Astheinstructor,thefirstauthortriedtoshiftthelocusofcontroltothepreserviceteachersbyfunctioningasafacilitator,recorder,mirror,andresource.Facilitationtooktheformofsponsoringopportunitiesforpre-serviceteacherstolead,guide,anddirectconversationsanddecision-making.Beingarecorderentailedtakingnotesandusingthemtorecapaspectsofthegroupprocess.Asamirror,theinstructorprovidedsummationsofdiscussionsandencouragedpre-


68

serviceteacherstospecifynextsteps.Lastly,asaresource,theinstructorsuppliedinformationaspartofcoursework,allottedin-classtimetodiscussandimplementthePSP,sentelectronicmailcorrespondencetopreserviceteachersbetweensessions,andoffereduniversityresourcesbymakingcopies,inquiries,orcontacts. Preserviceteachers’reflectionsdidnotspecificallynoteissuesregardinglead-ershipamongcohortmembers;however,fromtheinstructor’spointofview,theytookonleadershiprolesthatincludedbeingfacilitators,mirrors,resources,problemsolvers,problemgenerators,ideainitiators,actionplanners,persistentquestioners,doers,andadvocatesfortheirparticulardesiredproject.Eachcohorthadadifferentrelationshipwithleadership.Thefirstcohortdemonstratedmoresharedleadership.Noonevoiceorperspectivedominated,butmembersspokeupandlistened.Thesecondcohort illuminatedunpleasant aspectsof leadership;wherebyas cohortmembersmighttakecharge,theyalsobecometargetsfornegativecriticismandridicule.CohortsIIIthroughVexhibitedamixtureoftheextremeexperiencesbe-tweenCohortIandII.Thecohorts’experienceswithacriticalpedagogyapproachrevealedthewaysinwhichtheyhadheretoforebeensocializedintheireducationalhistory.Leadingandexercisingautonomywithintheprocessprompteddiscomfort,tension,andopportunity. Shor’s(1992)11empoweringpedagogycharacteristicsconsistentlyaddressedduring thePSPwere:problemposing,participatory, situated,decision-making,dialogic,democratic,researching,affective,anddesocializing,withmulticulturalandinterdisciplinaryaddressedtoalesserdegree.Cohortmemberandinstructorreflectionsfurthershowedfundamentaleffectsofgroupdynamicsandleadershipexpectations.

Lessons Learned Eachcohortexperienceilluminatedchallengesandtensionsregardingimple-mentationofservicelearningwithcriticalpedagogy.Wereflectonlessonslearnedforourownbenefitandtoassistotherswhoseektoempowerandresistoppressivepresentationsofteaching,service,andlearning.AmacroviewofthePSPprocesswithinandacrosscohortsrevealedthesignificantpresenceofpower:thepowertomakedecisions,thepowertolead,thepowerofgroupdynamics,thepowerofasocializingeducation,andtheillusionofsharedpowerwithinthecontextofcriticalpedagogy.

The Power to Make Decisions Intypicalformsofservicelearning,participantshavechoicespresentedbytheprofessororbyserviceorganizations.Whileservicelearningcanyieldbenefitsnomatterwhomakesthedecisions,thePSPextendsthedecision-makingprocess.Preserviceteachers’perceptionsoftheirscopeofinfluenceandthedecision-makingprocessstronglyinfluencedprojectoutcomes.


69

Duringdecision-making,preserviceteachersimposedtheirownlimitationsontheiroptions.Astheynarrowedandrefinedchoices,theyconsideredwhatconstitutedarealisticorfeasibleproject,consideringtimeandoverallprogramdemands.Theseconsiderationsaffectedtheefforttheyfelttheycouldcontributetotheprojectandinfluencedtheextentoftheproject.Ratherthanviewthedecision-makingaspartofthework,reflectionsconfirmedthatselectingadefinitivetangibleoutcomewasseenasthepointwheretheworkcouldbegin. Thedecision-makingprocesswasinitiallyapproachedenergeticallyforeachcohort.Ahybridbetweendemocraticpractices (taking avote) and striving forconsensusensued.Astimeprogressedandarrivingatacollectivedecisionbecamemoreandmoredifficult,preserviceteachersadopteddifferenttechniquestoengageordisengagefromtheprocess.Aswitnessedbytheinstructor,recurringdifficultywithcommittingtoamethodofmakingadecisionandseeingitallthewaythroughaddedtothechallenges.Consequently,thegroupsoftenexperiencedinadequatedecision-making (Bradford, Stock, & Horowitz, 1953). Eliciting more explicitdiscussionofdifferentformsofdecision-making(e.g.,RobertsRulesofOrder,consensus,majority rule, rock-paper-scissors,coinflipping)mighthaveprovedbeneficialfortheinstructortopursue.Atthesametime,developingpatienceandofferingadequatetimefordecision-makingprocessessuchasbuildingconsensusmustalsobeconsideredinlightofthecourseandprogramstructure.

The Power to Lead Facilitating thePSPmeantensuringpreservice teachers’authorityover theprocesswasnotunderminedbytheinstructorbeingtooauthoritarianortooquickto intervene or solve a problem during silent or verbally tense moments.Theinstructorwasconsciousofthelikelihoodthatmaintainingaprimaryrolewhilefacilitatingwouldsustainthedominanceoftheinstructor’svoiceandpotentiallydampenuninterruptedcohortmemberdialog.Effortstoextendleadershipoftheprocesstothecohortswerewelcomedandresistedwithinandacrosscohorts. Preparingteachers toexerciseleadershipskills is importantfordevelopingtheirabilitytobeadvocatesfortheirstudents(Haberman,1995;Ladson-Billings,2009).Cohortmembersdidexerciseleadershipinmultipleways.SomevolunteeredtoleadandassumeresponsibilitiesduringthevariousPSPstages.Consistently,theynotedthatbrainstormingproblems(whichtheyoftenfacilitated)wasthemostenjoyableaspectofthePSP.Theearlystagesofdecision-makingwerealsometwithenthusiasm.Forthreecohorts,thefinalactivitiesorchestratedbypreserviceteacherswithlittleornoinputfromtheinstructoryieldedfavorablefeelings.Leadershipwasexercisedmoreeasilywhengroupmembersperceivedtheywereinaccord.Sustainingleadershipduringthecontentiousmomentseitherencouragedgrowthorpromoteddysfunction.


70

The Power of Group Dynamics Regardinggroups,Wheelan (1990,p.13) states, “Groupsmobilizepower-fulforcesaffectingindividuals.Agroupisnotsimplyacollectionofindividualsworkinginconcert…thebehaviorofindividualsingroupsisregulatedasmuchbythegroup’snorms,needs,andfearsasbytheindividuals’internalmotivators.”Preserviceteachersreportedbeingmotivatedordisengagedbyinternalandexter-nalforcesanddeterminedtheirlevelof(non)participationbasedonrelationshipsamongmembers.InitialfeelingsofexcitementregardingconductingaPSPwereconsistentlystrainedbythenecessitytobeacollectivebodyindecidingonauni-versallysatisfyingtopicandbythemannerinwhichtopicsshouldbeaddressed.Asreportedbyvariouscohortmembersduringclassdiscussions,groupmembers’personalitieswereafactorinhowtheydealtwitheachotheraswastheirminimalcomfortlevelwithconflict.Fromtheinstructor’spointofview,itwasthegroupdynamicthatappearedtocreatethemostconflictandlearning. Bradford,Stock,andHorowitz(1953)positthatgroupconflictoftenentailsimpatience,disagreement,orcomplaintsthatagroupistoolargetobeinagreement,allsentimentsexpressedbyvariouscohortmembers.Conflictamongparticipantsandideaswasreadilyviewedasnegativeorsomethingtobeavoided,ratherthanopportunityforgrowth.ConflictledCohortItoshiftfromgatheringmulticulturalresourcesforthemselvesandfuturecohortstogivingbookstostudentsintheirinternshipschools.ConflictledCohortIItodevelopaquestionnaire.Conflictbe-tweenideasledCohortVtohunger.Creativeuseofconflictisavaluableskillforaspiringchangeagents. Lastly,thegroupexperiencedout-of-classinteractionsandexpectationsthataffectedclassdynamics.Althoughtheinstructorwasnotprivytoalltheout-of-classexchangesamongcohortmembers,itwasevidentinclassthatamicablerelationshipsoutsidethecoursebenefitedgroupcohesionanddiscussionandthatout-of-classclasheshadanegativeeffect.Furthermore,thepreserviceteachersnotedfeelingstressedandfatiguedastheyendeavoredtomeetprogrammaticexpectations.

The Power of a Socializing Education

Thesocializingeffectsofeducationshouldnotbeignoredinthepracticeofimplementingcriticalpedagogy.Schoolsaremajorsitesforconditioningstudentsintosocial,political,economic,andculturalconventionsandtransmittersofsocietalnormsandexpectations.Commonintheschoolingexperiencesofmanypreserviceteachersareemphasesontherightanswerversusmultipleperspectives/interpreta-tions;theindividualversusthecollective;majorityruleversusconsensus;outcomes(i.e.,grades)versusprocess;certaintyversusambiguity;complicityversusconflict;unilateralversusmultidirectionalpower.AccordingtoShor(1992,p.24),“thepar-ticipatoryclasscan…provokeanxietyanddefensivenessinsomestudentsbecauseitisanunfamiliarprogramforcollaborativelearning…” Writtenandverbalcommentsaswellasdirectobservationbytheinstructor


71

suggestthatimplementingthePSPwasan“unfamiliarprogramforlearning.”Anempoweringeducationwasnot thenorm, as evidencedbypreservice teachers’anxietyover thePSPprocess,demandsformoredirectivesfromtheinstructor,impatiencewithdecision-making,frustrationwithindividualcohortmembers,inadditiontoself-disclosedapathyandsilenceasaresponsetotheaforementionedchallenges. Shor(1992,p.139)suggeststhatstudentslearn“habitsofresistance”thatsubsequentlyinfiltrateademocratic/criticalclassroom.Suchhabitscanunderminetheworkofeducatorsseekingtoinvitestudentstoparticipateinanempoweredlearningenvironment. Theinstructorintendedtomodelaninvitationtoempowerment.AsuccessfulPSPmeantpreserviceteachershadtoparticipateintheirownlearninginoftenunfamiliarways,resultingindialog,collectiveengagement,ambiguity,conflict,andsharedresponsibilityforteachingandlearningwhichconsciouslyanduncon-sciouslydestabilizedthepreserviceteachers.Some,butnotallofthemappreciatedtheexerciseinautonomy,despiteitschallengingmoments. Exercisingautonomyisnottraditionallyafacetofasocializingeducation,yetitisacharacteristicofanempoweringenvironment(Coble,2010;Short,1994).Therefore,ifthegoalofateacherpreparationprogramistodevelopchangeagents,advocatesandstarteachers(Haberman,1995),ordreamkeepers(Ladson-Billings,2009),preserviceteachersneedopportunitiestoexercisetheirautonomyandex-aminehowtheyhavebeensocialized.

Critical Pedagogy and the Illusion of Shared Power Althoughdesignedtosharepower,facetsofthePSPprocessstillstructurallymaintainedadynamicofpowergroundedinthestatusoftheinstructor.Ellsworth’s(1998)question,“whydoesn’tthisfeelempowering?”framesacritiqueofcriticalpedagogy’srepressivequalities.AccordingtoEllsworth(1998,p.306),“strategiessuchasstudentempowermentanddialoguegivetheillusionofequalitywhileinfactleavingtheauthoritariannatureoftheteacher/studentrelationshipintact.”Asdiscussedbelow,thisillusionisevidentinthePSP. Theinstructorsoughttorecastthemoldoftheclassroom;however,doingsodidnotnegatethestructuralexpectationsalreadyembeddedinacademia.AnillusionofsharedpowerwashighlightedbythefactsthatthePSPwasarequiredassign-mentinarequiredcourseforwhichthepreserviceteachersearnedpointstowardstheiroverallgrade.Classdiscussionsandreflectionsrarelyincludedthesefactsbuttheyundoubtedlyaffectedhowsomecohortmembersperceivedtheirprocessandcalibratedthetimelineoftheproject.Forinstance,aself-assessmentfromonepreserviceteacherclaimed:“Istartedworkingtowardsagrade,notasolution.” Assertionsbytheinstructorthattheprojectbecollectivelyimplementedcre-atedanillusionofsharedpower.Duringtopicselection,somepreserviceteachersaskedtheinstructoriftheycouldimplementmultipleprojects.Thisquestiontypi-callyaroseduringmomentsofdebatebetweenideasandreflectedthedifficultyin


72

decidingononeprojectthateveryonecouldsupport.Theinstructoracknowledgedtheyproposedasolutiontotheirdecision-makingproblembutthattheintentionwastocometoacollectivedecision.Requiringthemtoworktowardsagroupdeci-sionwasacoreaspectofthePSP.However,thisrequirementraisesthefollowingquestions:Whentheinstructorrejectsaposedsolution,whataretheimplications?Ischallengingademocraticprocessbyinstitutingaunilateraldecisioninlinewithcriticalpedagogy? Shor(1992)contendsthat,“ademocraticprocessmeansthatstudentscannotdowhattheywantwhenevertheywant.Thestructureisdemocratic,notpermis-sive”(p.160).However,thepowertonegatestudentvoicestillrequiresrecognition.Thepersonsharingpowerultimatelyretainspowerparticularlyifthepersonisinapre-establishedpositionofauthority.Theauthorswerepromptedtoexaminehowtheinstructorcouldinvoketenetsofcriticalpedagogywhilepresentinganillusionofsharedpowerandmutualauthorityintheclassroom. ThePSPyieldedcomplexanddisparateexperiencesanduncoveredways inwhich power affected decision-making, leadership, group dynamics, educationalsocialization,andanunderstandingofcriticalpedagogy.Poweraffectedsentimentsofempowermentanddisempowerment.Thoughitmightappearcounterintuitivetodiscusstheroleofpoweranditsdisempoweringpossibilitiesinthecontextofempow-erment,thepreserviceteachers’reactionstotheunfamiliarityofbeing“given”powermayfosteracognitiveshiftinthenormativewaystheyconceptualizeeducation. Thelessonslearnedaboveyieldedotherpossibleconsiderationsforexamination.InconjunctionwithparticipatinginaPSP,theeffectsofotherprogramfeatures(i.e.,mentorteachers,othercoursework)onthepreserviceteacherscouldbeassessedfortheirsenseofpreparedness,perceptionsofthemselvesaschangeagents,andaspractitionersofcriticalpedagogy.Suchinformationwouldbeusefulforexpandingprogrammaticknowledgeandimplementationofteacherpreparation.

Implications and Considerations for Teacher Education Despite,orperhapsbecauseof,thechallengesinsharingpowerandlearningtofunctioneffectivelyasagroup,thePSPappearstohavevalueasacourseas-signment.Aworthygoalforteacherpreparationistoprepareteacherstobechangeagentsforthebenefitofstudents’educationaloutcomes.IncorporatingaPSPinthefirstyearoftheprogramgrewfromtheauthors’concernsthatpreparingteacherstobechangeagentsshouldincludeopportunitiestoactuallyeffectchange.ThePSPhelpedparticipantslearnaboutdecision-making,groupdynamics,communityneeds,andhowtohelpsolveanissueofconcerntothem.Thisshouldstrengthentheir ability to function in a school faculty aswell as encourage them to looktowardseachotherratherthanjusttoauthorityfiguresininitiatingchange.Theyalsolearnedaboutsettinggoalsandabouttheeffortittakesontheirparttomakesomethinghappen.


73

ThePSPisintendedtomodelawayinwhichservicelearningcanbecoupledwithcriticalpedagogy,fosteringpreserviceteachers’empowermenttocreateanopportunityforlearningandsocialchange.Lettingthemdecidetheprojectdirec-tionandscopewasoverwhelmingregardlessofwhethertheprocesswasembracedorresisted.Incontrasttotheirownschoolingbackground,thePSPgavethemtheexperiencetonavigategroupdynamics,lead,choose,participate,andfeel. Furthermore,structuralissueswithinthecontextofcarryingoutaPSPshouldbeacknowledged.ThelengthofthecourseinwhichthePSPisimplemented,wherethePSPfitspedagogicallyintheoverallprogramofstudy,andtheskillsetoftheinstructortoteachfromacriticalpedagogyapproachshouldbeconsidered. EngaginginthePSPwasintendedtoprepareteacherstoimplementsimilarprojectswith their students, requiring them to shift from a teacher dominancemodeltoacollaborativemodelinwhichthestudentsandteacherworktogether.Basedonapreliminaryanalysisofreflectionsofcohortsexperiencingtheproj-ectintheirfirstyearandsubsequentlyimplementingitwiththeirstudentsinthesecondyearoftheprogram,itappearsthatparticipationhadaneffectonthewaytheyimplementedtheproject,includinganticipatingthetimecommitmentfortheproject,managingtheamountoffreedomtheyallottedtotheirstudentsindeci-sion-making,andfeelingpreparedforpotentialconflicts.ImplementingthePSPmayaffecttheirteachingmethods,allowingstudentstofollowtheirinterestsandtodoschoolworkinmeaningfulways. Lastly,theaffectiveresponsesthroughoutthePSPstronglyindicatetheneedforcontinuedattentiontotheroleoffeelingsintheclassroom.Moreoften,reportsontheteachingandlearningprocessemphasizecognitiveelements;however,thepreserviceteachersclearlyexpressedthewaystheirsentimentshadaneffectontheirlearning,whetherpositiveornegative.

In the Service of Learning and Activism Servicelearningbydefinitionisaneducationalexperiencewithserviceandacademicpursuitslinkedinvariousways.Engaginginservice,evenwhencombinedwithreadingsandreflectiontypicalofservicelearning,canleaveparticipantswithdeficitperspectivesorfeelingsofhelplessness.Mergingservicelearningwithcriti-calpedagogychallengespaternalisticordeficitperspectivesandoffersaconcretewaytoengagestudentswithcriticalpedagogy.APSPinvitescriticalelementsofservice,learning,andactivismtowardscraftinganempoweringeducation.Servicelearningandcriticalpedagogyalreadysharefeatures(Claus&Ogden,1999);how-ever,critiquesofservicelearningpositaneedformorecritical,counter-hegemonic,multiculturaleducationfocusedapplicationsthattackleissuesofpower(Cipolle,2004;Ethridge,2006;King,2004;O’Grady,2000).ThePSPwasdesignedtochal-lengelimitationswithinservicelearningwhileimplementingacriticalpedagogyoftenviewedastooabstractand“theoretical”toputintopractice.


74

Theproblemsolutionprojectappearstopossessapedagogy of possibilitythatshiftsservicetoadvocacybyengagingstudentsintheindividualandcollectiveworkofaddressinganissueoftheirchoosing.Thepossibilityinvolvesenvisioningabettersociety,school,orprogramandtakingactiontowardthatend.Theempow-ermentandexperiencedevelopedthroughthePSPcangiveteacherscourageandskillstocounterunjustandineffectiveeducationalpractices.Potentially,abodyofteacherspreparedaseffectivechangeagentscantransformthedisempoweringeducationalpracticessoprevalentineducationtoday.

ReferencesAnderson,J.B.,Swick,K.J.,&Yff,J.(Eds.)(2001).Service-learning in teacher educaiton:

Enhancing teh growth of new teachers, their students, and communities.Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationofCollegesforTeacherEducation.

Bringle,R.G.,&Hatcher,J.A.(1996).Implementingservicelearninginhighereducation.Journal of Higher Education,67(2),221-239.

Boyle-Baise,M.(2002).Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse com-munities.Williston,VT:TeachersCollegePress.

Bradford,L.P.,Stock,D.,&Horowitz,M.(1953).Howtodiagnosegroupproblems.Adult Leadership,2(7),12-19.

Brown,E.L.(2005).Service-learninginaone-yearalternativeroutetoteachercertification:Apowerfulmulticulturalteachingtool.Equity & Excellence n Education,38,61-74.

Brown,E.L.,&HowardII,B.R.(2004).Becomingculturallyresponsiveteachersthroughservice-learning:Acasestudyoffivenoviceclassroomteachers.Multicultural Educa-tion,12(4),2-15.

Christensen,L.(2009):Teaching for joy and justice: Re-imagining the language arts class-room.Milwaukee,WI:RethinkingSchools.

Cipolle,S.(2004).Service-learningasacounter-hegemonicpractice:Evidenceproandcon.Multicultural Education,12(4),12-23.

Claus,J.,&Ogden,C.(Eds.).(1999).Service learning for youth empowerment and social change.NewYork:PeterLang.

Coble,B. (2010).Amixedmethodapproach tounderstanding teacherempowerment inGeorgiaschoolsafterimplementationofthenochildleftbehindlegislation.Unpub-lisheddissertation.EmoryUniversity.

Darder,A.,Baltodano,M.,&Torres,R.D.(Eds.)(2008).The critical pedagogy reader. (2nded.)NewYork:Routledge.

DuBois,W.E.B.(1903/1970).ThesoulsofBlackfolk,InB.T.Washington,W.E.B.DuBois,&J.W.Johnson(Authors),Three Negro classics: Up from slavery,The souls of Black folk,The autobiography of an ex-colored man(pp.207-390).NewYork:Avon.

Duncan-Andrade,J.M.R.,&Morrell,E.(2008).The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools.NewYork:PeterLang.

Ellsworth,E.(1998).Whydoesn’tthisfeelempowering?Workingthroughtherepressivemythsofcriticalpedagogy.Harvard Education Review,59(3),297-324.

EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2002,September).Servicelearning: Education beyond the classroom.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

Ethridge,E.A.(2006).Teachermodelingofactivecitizenshipviaservice-learninginteacher


75

education.Mentoring & Teaching,14(1),49-65.Eyler,J.,&Giles,Jr.,D.E.(1999).Where’s the learning in service learning?SanFrancisco:

Jossey-Bass.Fisher,M.T.(2007).Writing in rhythm: Spoken word poetry in urban classrooms.New

York:TeachersCollegePress.Freire,P.(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.NewYork:SeaburyPress.Freire,P.(1998).Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage.NewYork:

Rowan&Littlefield.Geleta,N.E.,&Gilliam,J.(2003).Anintroductiontoservice-learning.InTeacherEduca-

tionConsortiuminService-Learning,Learning to serve, serving to learn: A view from higher education(pp.10-13).Salisbury,MD:SalisburyUniversity.

Giroux,H.(1993).Literacyandthepoliticsofdifference.InC.Lankshear&P.LMcLaren(Eds.),Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern,(pp.367-377).NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Haberman,M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty.WestLafayette, IN:KappaDeltaPi.

Hart,R.A.(1997).Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care.London,UK:EarthscanPublications.

Kincheloe,J.L.(2005).Critical pedagogy primer.NewYork:PeterLang.King,J.T.(2004).Service-learningasasiteforcriticalpedagogy:Acaseofcollaboration,

caring,anddefamiliarizationacrossborders.Journal of Experiential Education,26(3),121-137.

Ladson-Billings,G.(2009).Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American students(2nded.).SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.

Lankshear,C.,&,McLaren,P.L.(Eds.)(1993).Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Leistyna,P.,Lavandez,M.,&Nelson,T.(2004).Criticalpedagogy:Revitalizingandde-mocratizingteachereducation.Teacher Education Quarterly,31(1).

Miles,M.B.,&Huberman,A.M.(1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Moore,K.P.,&Sandholtz,J.H.(1999).Designingsuccessfulservicelearningprojectsforurbanschools.Urban Education,34(4).

Nieto,S.,&Bode,P.(2008).Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5thed.).NewYork:Pearson.

O’Grady,C.(Ed.).(2000).Integrating service learning and multicultural education in col-lege and universities.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Shor,I.(1992).Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Shor,I.(1980/1987).Critical teaching and everyday life.Chicago:TheUniversityofChi-cagoPress.

Short,P.M.(1994).Definingteacherempowerment.Education, 114(4),488-492.Sleeter,C.E.(2005).Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-

based classroom.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.Jarrett,O.S.,&Stenhouse,V.L.(inpress).ProblemSolutionProject:Transformingcur-

riculumandempoweringurbanteachersandstudents.Urban Education.Werner,C.M.,Voce,R.,Openshaw,K.G.,&Simons,M.(2002).Designingservice-learning


76

toempowerstudentsandcommunity:JacksonElementarybuildsanaturestudycenter.Journal of Social Issues, 58(3),557-579.

Wheelan,S.A.(1990).Facilitating training groups: A guide to leadership and verbal in-tervention skills.NewYork:Praeger.

Wink,J.(2000).Criticalpedagogy: Notes from the real world (2nded.)NewYork:AddisonWesleyLongman.

In the Service of Learning and Activism - ERIC · As part of teacher preparation ... , the PSP was...

Documents

Transcript of In the Service of Learning and Activism - ERIC · As part of teacher preparation ... , the PSP was...