Teacher Education Provoking Curriculum:
Curriculum Provoking Teacher Education
Darren E. Lund, E. Lisa Panayotidis, Anne M. Phelan, Jo Towers, Hans Smits
Faculty of Education, University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta
Positioning
In this collaborative presentation we undertake to provoke and be provoked by new
interpretive meanings around curriculum, based on our experiences as teacher
educators. We provide a series of narrations about how each of us has come to
understand “provocation” within/of/about curriculum and how it is enacted,
subverted, and mediated in the Master of Teaching (MT) Program, an inquiry-based
and field-oriented program, by us, our students, administrative structures and the
socio-cultural world in which we are embedded. Collectively, we are provoked to
expand the notions of provocation, disillusionment, nostalgia, despair and
melancholia. As you read we ask you to consider how this telling provokes you.
Working in the Midst of Program Change in Teacher Education as a
Provocation
The narratives that follow represent strands of experience and interpretation, told
against a common background. They intertwine and echo each others’ motifs, not
entirely coming together to form a unified and complete picture, but rather, suggesting
ways that practice and experience in teacher education may be understood as a
provocation—as a “call.” The narratives can perhaps best be understood indeed as
currere—that constant struggle to understand both the educational paths upon which
we set to journey, and what that begins to offer in terms of understanding self,
responsibility, and the work with which we have been entrusted as teacher educators.
Thus there is an overall picture here, framed by certain commonalities of background,
and yet resisting closure as a complete work. Understood perhaps better as narrative
possibilities, the five parts that follow suggest in Paul Ricoeur’s terms the difficult
work of mimesis in narrative—the effort to give meaning and shape to our actions
(Ricoeur, 1983). The effort of mimesis is to link together, in a sense, background, our
present understandings, and reconfigured hopes for understanding differently. All
three moments require interpretive moves. And thus, although the background may be
common to all of us, it may also be understood differently in terms of how, in
Ricoeur’s terms, it pre-figures our current practices and understandings. Likewise,
with where we find ourselves presently, and what we might hope happens in future
encounters. We can tell our stories together, but the voices are not necessarily
singular. Both separate and together they illustrate how understanding lives in the
dialectic of difference and moments of congruence.
All five authors represented here are responding to the provocation of a major change
in a teacher education program. Approximately eight years ago, the Faculty of
Education at the University of Calgary, partly by economic necessity and partly as a
response to the question of what should constitute good teacher education, underwent
a dramatic change. A “traditional” four year B.Ed. program, with its array of
recognizable courses, was transformed into a two year after-degree program with a
radically different philosophy and structure. Premised on the principles of being
inquiry-based, learner-focused, field oriented, the program itself served as
provocation—as a call to learn and teach differently.
Student teachers were no longer to be seen as mere recipients of received knowledge
of teaching and professors as purveyors of expert knowledge from their chosen fields
of study. With its core idea of teaching as practical judgement or wisdom, the task of
both learning about and teaching about teaching became a challenge of how to link
the particulars of experience with broader knowledge of education, teaching, and
pedagogy, but not without the detour through biographies and interpretive
engagement. Or, in Deborah Britzman’s terms, it was not without the realization that
pedagogic experience is also a “psychic event” (Britzman, 1998).
As the narratives show, even in the most ideal situation, to take up teacher education
in the terms set out for the program would be a difficult undertaking. Although the
context for the work we do is likely never “ideal,” certain practical, institutional and
cultural conditions, and the effects of power conspired to create a situation in which
teacher education practice, rather than being assumed as a smooth function of the
program, was experienced in ways that were disruptive of certainties and identities.
These narratives reflect that disruption and uncertainty, showing as well how
background and context served as a provocation for each of us in our own work, and
reflect our own biographies and orientations. Anne was one of the founders of the MT
Program, and in addition to guiding it administratively, has provided much of the
theoretical and philosophical understandings that underpin the program. Her own
work in curriculum, feminist theory, and professional practice has provided our group
with a richer understanding of the possibilities and limits of practical wisdom, a theme
of the narrative, melancholia.
Jo, Lisa, and Hans became faculty members when the program was becoming fully
established in terms of numbers of students. Jo’s narrative reflects a deep concern for
her students’ experiences which is derived from her understandings of enactivism and
cognitive theory as a mathematics educator, and from her responsibilities as a “house
leader,” an administrative position in our program that requires her to deal with the
immediacy of students’ experiences in the program. The difficulties such
responsibilities offer is the theme of the narrative, disillusionment.
Lisa brings to the discussion the importance of historical perspective and
understanding along with post-structural analyses of how images of school and
practice play out in our everyday educational lives. The perspective she brings to our
overall narrative helps to disrupt the taken-for-grantedness of educational practices,
but at the same time opens up possibilities for re-imagining them. This tension is
explored in the narrative, nostalgia.
Hans’ work in the program has, from the outset of his appointment, carried
responsibility for working with partners in the field and in the last few years,
coordinating the MT Program as a whole. That experience has, as reflected in the
narrative, provocation, raised the question of what warrants our actions as teacher
educators, and how we respond to both difference and the weight of history and
traditions.
Darren’s appointment to our faculty is the most recent and, as the narrative despair
relates, he feels acutely the tension between the pull of the school and the possibilities
offered by the university. He embodies that tension but is alert to the experiences of
his students in the program, who are also caught in many ways between romanticized
visions of teaching and the real difficulties faced by teachers in classrooms, between
hope and what can become a kind of despair.
The discussions that follow also illustrate the task of interpretation that each of us
took on individually and as a group. Responding to the invitation to participate in the
Provoking Curriculum Conference, and writing our presentations and this paper, also
provided an opportunity to both revisit and attempt to understand our experiences in
different ways. Certain texts became key for our deliberations. Among those cited in
the references, Stephen White’s Sustaining Affirmation (White, 2000) was particularly
helpful in thinking about how our own practical judgements and lives could be
sustained without, on the one hand, appealing to certainty in terms of foundations, but
on the other, allowing a “stickier” sense of commitment and understanding. In
White’s terms, practice has to rest on something. In rejecting technical rationality as a
firm foundation for teacher education practice, there is, nonetheless, something else
that should harken our attention, something that helps frame the ethical and practical
impulses of our work.
Thus, White’s discussion of a “weak ontology” as a basis for action seemed to
provide some hope and guidance for our own attempts to understand practice and
what might constitute a curriculum of teacher education. His elucidation of the
“existential realities” of language, natality, finitude, and sources, allowed us to begin
to explore our experiences, as reflected in the narratives, in terms of how we speak
and write about the meaning of teaching and practice; what possibilities exist for our
“selves” and our students in the background of things; the responsibilities inherent in
taking on the task of bringing new people into a profession; and always with the
knowledge of our limits—and indeed the limits inherent in any program—however
well conceived.
The themes of provocation, disillusionment, nostalgia, despair, and melancholia may
provoke a sense of sadness, but that is not the intention (although to provoke emotion
certainly is!). White’s discussion of melancholia is helpful in understanding that the
“melancholic turn” is not simply sadness, but that it “refers specifically to the
redirection of attachment from the object to that which is constituted by this
redirected force of desire,” and that its significance lies in the “ambivalent reaction to
loss” (White, 2000, p. 199).
That ambivalence may be experienced as “mourning” but it also opens up spaces for
thought and possibly action, but in ways that may redirect attention, and, in fact,
deepen the way that we live out our responsibilities as teacher educators.
References
Arendt, H. (1977). Between past and future. New York: Penquin Books.
Ayers, W. (2001). To teach: The journey of a teacher (2nd Ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Back, S. & Phelan, A. (In progress). Cultivating the Inner Eye in Teacher Education.
Draft Manuscript.
Bhabha, H. (1992). “Postcolonial authority and postmodern guilt,” in Lawrence
Grossberg et al., eds., Cultural studies: A reader. New York: Routledge. pp. 65-66).
Britzman, D. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects. Toward a psychoanalytic
inquiry of learning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Caputo, John. (2000). More radical hermenutics. On not knowing who we are.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Dunne, J. (1993). Back to the rough ground. Practical judgement and the lure of
technique. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Division of Teacher Preparation. (2002). Handbook for the B.Ed. Master of Teaching
Program, Year 1. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
Eno, Brian. Virgin Records. Theme song from “The Son’s Room. (2000). Sacher
Film: Bac Film, Studiocanal, France.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of knowledge, trans. Alan Sheridan. New
York: Pantheon.
Garrison, J. (1997). Eros and Dewey: Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Jenkins, Keith. (1991). Re-thinking History. London and New York: Routledge.
Lilburn, T. (1999). Living in the world as if it were home. Dunvegan, ON: Cormorant
Books.
Lund, D. E. (2001). Promoting human rights in the conservative heartland of Canada:
A practical/theoretical approach to school-based activism. The Journal of Intergroup
Relations, 28(2), 63-72.
Lund, D. E. (2002). School activism for social change: Linking social justice research
to practice. Notos: Journal of the Intercultural and Second Languages Council, 3(2),
4-11.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a
teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ricoeur, P. (1983). Time and narrative, Vol. 1. (tr. K. McLaughlin and D. Pellauer).
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Solway, D. (2000). The turtle hypodermic of sickenpods: Liberal studies in the
corporate age. Montreal, QC: Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Summerfield, R. (2003, February 5). U of C president sets stage for cuts. Calgary
Herald, pp. A1-2.
Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, S. (2000). Sustaining affirmation. The strengths of weak ontology in political
theory. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
About the Authors
Darren E. Lund is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at the
University of Calgary. His research interests include social justice pedagogy and
student and teacher activism.
E-mail: dlund@ucalgary.ca
E. Lisa Panayotidis is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at the
University of Calgary. An interdisciplinary cultural historian, Panayotidis’ research
and teaching focuses on the historical and cultural function of the arts in education in
Canada.
Anne Phelan is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University
of Calgary. Her interests lie in teacher education and curriculum studies. She took a
leadership role in the conceptualization of the Master of Teaching Program, the
program under discussion in the above article.
Hans Smits is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, University of
Calgary. His areas of study and teaching include social studies education, action
research, and hermeneutics.
Jo Towers teaches at the University of Calgary with an expertise in Math education
and complexity theory.