Modes of Knowledge Comfort Zone
Reflection on: Whitty, G., & Furlong, J. (2017)
After reading and reflecting on the article, I think my comfort zone is positioned in a reclined and at times lazy manner in the practical knowledge cluster, but it overlaps with the integrated knowledge cluster and aspires (with the bold intent of beginning this EdD) to the academic knowledge.
I closely identified with the experiences Darren shared above of how teachers and schools often characterise and differentiate between the academic knowledge and theorising of lectures during Initial Teacher Education, and the practical and real-time knowledge and experience of student placements in schools. This epitomises the authors’ assertion that knowledge traditions are ‘social projects’ (p15). However, the social project of learning practical knowledge in the ‘pedagogically oriented primary school’ (p34) is generally more valued than engaging fully and deeply with the singular traditions of academic knowledge. I valued the theoretical input during my PGCE but the demands of teaching practice (and perhaps the legacy of the ‘normal college’ (p30) tradition) inevitably make it challenging for student teachers to focus on anything else other than enhancing their practical knowledge.
Most of my core professional learning experiences have been firmly rooted in the practical knowledge domain. These include teacher conferences, courses, and ‘practical’ books outlining pedagogical methods and techniques. They also include more informal spheres of practical knowledge on social media, which were not mentioned or acknowledged in the paper, on Twitter or Facebook. Also, self-organised (as in not by established and credited organisations like Education Scotland or Educational Institute of Scotland) teacher conferences and informal ‘unconferences’ such as TeachMeets.
Action research (p40) would be my experience of integrated knowledge; founded in the process of collaborative curriculum-making and development at a local and national level. The Latvian tradition of ‘Pedagogija’ (p39) matches closely my experience of action research. In hindsight, I emphasised the practical framework more than the intellectual framework, and the knowledge gained was more objective than normative. I would always hope that improving my technical practise and ability to teach would be particularly inclusive or be specific on improving a particular area such as writing or maths, but these ‘profane’ (30) experiences of integrated knowledge seldom made strong connections with academic knowledge. They certainly didn’t offer or add new insights to academic knowledge. The academic knowledge informing the action research was often summarised, second-hand, and therefore definitely not cumulative. It lacked a values-driven underpinning of how they might ‘contribute to the development of society’ (p19). I think an overestimation of the technical and practical, and an underestimation of ‘sacred’ (P19) theoretical academic discourse did limit my understanding of these curriculum-making experiences and their overall value beyond the four walls of my classroom. However, the process of teaching is an inherently reflexive act, and I wouldn’t belittle them to the extent of labelling them ‘undifferentiated mush’ (p19).
My experience of the ‘New Science of Education’ (p28) is how teacher dialogue and framing of discussion has changed during my career. Research evidence and being research-informed has become a valued commodity of an effective teacher. Citing a piece of educational research that is evidence of ‘what works best’ (P28) is used by many as a shortcut for bridging the gap between academic knowledge and integrated knowledge. However, I would argue that a ‘what works’ mindset has limited my understanding even further. It is relatively easy to become reliant on judgements and ideas that work well for other teachers, in other schools and other systems. Also, the promise of ‘increased professional independence’(p29) has been inhibited by greater teacher performativity and accountability through measures such as standardised testing and the ‘generic mode’ of teacher effectiveness (p30)
Finally, the friction between objective practical knowledge and normative academic knowledge dominated much of my thoughts after reading the article. I battled hard just trying to get my head around the definition of ‘normative’. Did it refer to the ‘big picture’, a philosophy, an overarching theory, a preferred view of the future, or something characterised as utopian or idealistic and perhaps intentionally distant from the ‘expert technical knowledge’ (p23) of the classroom? The Scottish Curriculum For Excellence and the GTCS (General Teaching Council of Scotland) Standards for teacher professionalism are arguably normative in their aim and reach for improving society. However, as policy documents they remain coolly distant from each other, overlapping where necessary but not fully integrated with the academic and practical knowledge domains that surround them. Also, teachers answer the question of ‘Educational research’ as being to ‘make a difference’ (p46), I wonder what specific difference they are referring to and how many differences there are within that bold statement across all teachers. Therefore, I agree with the authors when they state that the,
‘normative strand in Educational knowledge is today so rarely commented on, so rarely discussed, and where it is still in use, so rarely justified’ (p45).
