From ‘Good Student’ Towards Adaptive Teacher:
Learning to Stay Engaged in the Discomfort of Adaptive Challenges
“If leaders expect real learning, critical thinking, and change, then discomfort should be normalized. I always tell my students, ‘If you’re comfortable, I’m not teaching and you’re not learning. It’s going to get uncomfortable in here and that’s ok. It’s normal and it’s part of the process.”
(Brown, 2012, pp. 198-‐199) “Your classes pulled me out of my comfort zone and into a place of learning and growing through failure and trying. I think that is what I needed to help transition me into a teacher.”
(Teacher candidate unsolicited written feedback) Introduction – Working with a group of secondary teacher candidates prior to moving into their internship, I asked what questions were most pressing for them at this juncture. Several surprised me:
• “How can I better control my stress? This is something that I really need to work on.” A comment from one of the strongest teacher candidates in the group.
• “How do I remain confident in the face of horrible mistakes?” • “I feel confident in my creativity and ‘teacher intuition,’ problem is, I fail to hold back
fear and doubt in these situations.” These comments should not have surprised me. Learning to teach in ways that are responsive to the diverse strengths and needs of students in schools today, aligned with professional and community expectations (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, & Hammerness, 2005), and in alignment with what we are passionate about, -‐ what we value and love as educators (Ayers, 2001; hooks, 1994; Palmer, 1993; Palmer & Zajonc, 2010; Rendon, 2009) is an incredibly complex endeavor. It typically requires novices to transition from an identity as “good student” (Author, 2007), -‐ highly focused on getting good grades and accustomed to somewhat linear, cognitive, externally-‐referenced, and organized learning within a classroom setting – towards an identity as adaptive teacher engaged in nonlinear, emotional, self-‐regulated learning riddled with ambiguity within the complexity of contextualized practice and the process of inquiry (Bransford et al., 2005). Thus, novices are shifting towards engaging within the dynamic classroom system where change is the norm and not the exception” (Bransford et al., p. 50) and conflicting values and contextual constraints must be navigated (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Soslau, 2012). Novices frequently describe this identity transition alongside initial experiences in the classroom as chaotic (Author, 2007; Britzman, 2003; Cochran-‐Smith & Feiman-‐Nemser, 2008; Hammerness et al., 2005). Despite this, I had forgotten the discomfort novices navigate as they transition from ‘good student’ into adaptive teaching.
Candidates’ description of this transition as chaotic seems apt and warrants attention as it is only through an encounter with the unknown, -‐ what we are unable to predict or detect as orderly -‐ that we can recreate ourselves (Wheatley, 2006). The transition from ‘good student’ towards adaptive teacher results in just that as novices are actively engaged in work that prompts a recreation of oneself. Within Western culture, it is easy to forget the central role of encountering the unknown during transitions from one state to another.
“…the experience [of the unknown] is a profound loss of meaning – nothing makes sense in the way it did before…growth always requires passage through the fearful realms of disintegration…We [in Western culture] believed there were straight lines to the top. If we set a goal.., we would get there, never forced to descend into confusion or despair. These beliefs led us far from the processes by which newness is created” (Wheatley, p. 119).
Thus, in this manuscript, I explore novices’ transition from ‘good student’ towards ‘adaptive teacher’ through the nuance of their experiences as they navigate the self-‐described discomfort of learning to teach adaptively. Furthermore, I explore those factors that emerged as significant in helping candidates learn to relate to the nonlinearity and confusion they inherently experience during this transition. Below, I make the case for this research focus by exploring what we know about adaptive teaching along with why people often fail to adapt when they face adaptive challenges. This section paints a picture of what candidates accustomed to being ‘good students’ must move towards in order to teach adaptively so teacher educators can better support candidates’ movement towards adaptive teacher during their time in licensure programs. Situating the Study within the Literature Adaptive Teaching. Although adaptive teaching has been identified as the “coin of the realm” in teacher education (Bransford et al., 2005; Cochran-‐Smith & Feiman-‐Nemser, 2008) and as the ’gold standard for learning’ in How People Learn (National Research Council, 2000) it remains an under-‐researched concern within the literature (Soslau, 2012). We know little about the best ways to help novice teachers become adaptive teachers and opportunities for teaching novices to develop practices of adaptive teaching during field experiences are seldom mentioned in the literature (Soslau). Despite this, field experiences are well-‐known to support novice teachers’ development of adaptive teaching (Britzman, 2003; Hammerness et al., 2005; Soslau, 2012). Soslau (2012) provides a working definition of adaptive experience: In her words, “adaptive experts learn to
• Question what seems to be familiar and/or recognizes the novelty of problems • Prepare for future learning by being aware of, articulating, and assessing their own
instructional decision-‐making • Develop into a self-‐regulated learner engaged in learning from their own teaching
• Experiment with instructional decisions in the classroom while managing adverse effects to pupils…
• Develop the understanding that an effective solution for one particular situated problem may not necessarily suit another (p. 770).”
Bransford et al (2005) emphasize that prospective teachers must be supported in preparing for the tasks of adaptive teaching by developing “inquiry skills that support ways to look at student learning and adapt accordingly” (p. 77). Setting conditions for novices to grow as adaptive teachers also depends on novices “encountering novel problems continuously,… being freed from urgent external need to perform,” and developing a worldview that recognizes learning may be complex, messy, and unexpected (Verschaffel, Luwel, Torbeyns, & Van Dooren, 2009, p. 348). In what follows, I more fully unpack adaptive teaching and how teacher educators can set conditions for novices’ growth in this domain. Adaptive teaching entails efficiency and innovation as complementary opposites rather than discrete entities working against each other. Bransford et al (2005) discuss adaptive teaching as having two dimensions, efficiency and innovation. Adaptive teaching is an upward-‐trending line that is a balance of efficiency and innovation over time. Although efficiency and innovation could be perceived as oppositional to one another, the literature clearly emphasizes the complementary nature of these perceived opposites along with the relationship between efficiency and innovation. Thus, it is imperative that teacher candidates’ learning happen along both dimensions throughout their time in licensure programs and beyond as “movement along one dimension alone is unlikely to support the development of adaptive expertise” (p. 51). If efficiency becomes the predominant focus, novices are likely to become routine experts, who excel at solving particular types of problems but fail to learn from adaptive challenges throughout their careers (Verschaffel et al., 2009). Thus learning and transfer must be reconceptualized “as something more than the ability to apply previously acquired skills and schemas” once in context (Bransford et al., p. 51) towards an ability to “participate on the ever moving flows of activities and knowledge” (DML Research Hub). Within the context of adaptivity in mathematics education, this concept is elaborated further.
“It is inappropriate to think of strategies as ready-‐made methods or techniques that are available…waiting to be selected and applied in a particular situation.” Instead, “flexible mental calculation can be seen as an individual and personal reaction with knowledge, manifested in the subjective sense of what is noticed about the specific problem. As a result of this interaction between noticing and knowledge, each solution ‘method’ is in a sense unique to that case, and is invented in the context of a particular calculation…It is not learned as a general approach and then applied to particular cases…The ‘strategy’ (in the holistic sense of the entire solution path) is not decided, it emerges” (Threlfall, 2002 in Verschaffel et al., 2009, p. 344)
Thus, teacher education that focuses on how to teach, -‐ methods -‐ as “mechanistic applications” limits teacher candidates’ exploration of the “messy questions of what to teach and why particular methods are suitable” and consideration of “the curriculum and its presentation…in dialogic relationship to the lives of students and teachers” (Britzman, 2003, pp. 62-‐63). Novices’ encounter with these sorts of questions and relationships require ways of engaging that starkly contrast those many candidates have constructed as ‘good student’ (Author, 2007). If novices’ growth as adaptive teachers is valued we must consider: What efficiencies contribute to the development of adaptive teaching rather than setting conditions for novice teachers to become fixed in their routines? Innovation requires an ability to work within ambiguity and uncertainty along with failure. Novice teachers’ growth as adaptive teachers is connected to growing within both the innovation and efficiency dimensions. And learning to teach innovatively “often requires the ability to ‘unlearn’ previous routines,…includes the ability to ‘let go’ of previously held beliefs and tolerate the ambiguity of having to rethink one’s perspective” (Bransford et al., 2005, p. 51). Various educators speak to the inherent need to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty in order to engage in teaching and learning adaptively (Alhadeff-‐Jones, 2009; Bransford et al., 2005; Britzman, 2003; Hammerness et al., 2005). True innovation, then, is inherently vulnerable, risky, and emotional in nature. Few are willing to take the types of risks required for real innovation (Brown, 2012) or to experience the consequences associated with stepping outside of what is socially and culturally different (Keller, 1983). Hammerness et al (2005) support this perspective stating that “lifelong learning along the innovation dimension can be highly emotionally charged, and the capacity to consider change without feeling threatened is an important ability” (pp. 360-‐361). Yet, as Heifetz (1994) explains “the ultimate impediment to adaptive change” is often that the
“distress generated by the challenge and the changes demanded is too great, leading people to resist the pain, anxiety, or conflict that accompanies a sustained interaction with the situation. Holding onto past assumptions, blaming authority, scapegoating, externalizing the enemy, denying the problem, jumping to conclusions, or finding a distracting issue may restore stability and feel less stressful than facing and taking responsibility for a complex challenge. These patterns of response to disequilibrium are called work avoidance mechanisms” (pp. 37-‐38).
In working with teacher candidates over the years, common work avoidance mechanisms I have observed include: getting mad at the professor when working with students becomes challenging or when there are no easy answers to questions and blaming students for challenges encountered and turning them into the enemy. Thus Heifetz’s (1994) work reinforces the importance of intentionally helping novices learn to work with ambiguity, uncertainty, and nonlinearity as a normal part of learning to teach since the vast majority of challenges novices face are adaptive. His work also indicates that considering change without feeling threatened does not happen automatically. Innovation also relies on exploration and play with one’s teaching practice, -‐ “to practice in the musical sense rather than just practicing (in the mimicry sense) what has been held up…as a model; teachers must create classrooms often in ways and situations that their
teachers could not have anticipated” (Ricca, 2012, p. 45). In order to explore one’s teaching practice, take risk, and entertain the uncertainty and necessary failure associated with this sort of learning, candidates “need to feel a level of trust, support, and confidence from their instructors and from their supervisors.” (Clarke, Erickson, Collins, & Phelan, 2005, p. 172) and be “freed from urgent external need to perform” (Verschaffel et al., 2009, p. 348). Without this “space of safety and permission,” little exploration or play can happen and candidates may be less likely to consider their teaching practice as a site of learning, where they make mistakes and adjust accordingly. Further, without a sense of comfort in exploring one’s teaching practice “you’re going to feel an amazing state of anxiety” (DML Research Hub). Thus, valuing adaptive teaching also requires us to consider: How do we explicitly support novices in learning to innovate and create within the uncertainty, ambiguity, discomfort, and nonlinearity of their own teaching practice? Since much of what is required of adaptive teachers diverges from habits and beliefs of ‘good student’ an explicit focus on the discomfort novices consistently experience as they make this transition is critical if we want candidates to move into their internship more fully as ‘adaptive teachers’. Theoretical Framework – Theoretically, this study is grounded within applications of complexity science (Gell-‐Mann, 1994) within the fields of organizational management (Palmberg, 2009; Wheatley, 2006) and leadership studies (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz et al., 2009) alongside several educational theorists’ work with complexity theory (Clarke et al., 2005; Davis, 2003; Davis & Sumara, 2006; Jones & Corner, 2012; Ricca, 2012). Complexity theory is well suited to an exploration of candidates’ transition from ‘good student’ towards adaptive teacher since “the critical stake associated with a complex way of thinking requires being able to tolerate the continuous negotiation between order and disorder” (Alhadeff-‐Jones, 2009, pp. 62-‐63): ‘good student’ being traditionally associated with order and adaptive teacher being associated with a capacity to navigate the disorder and uncertainty one regularly encounters in teaching. Within a complexity frame, the emphasis is on the nonlinear, dynamic, and varying connections and interactions between interdependent agents within a system (Palmberg, 2009). It is important to note that a “learner can be considered simultaneously a coherent system, a complex of interacting unities, or a part of a grander unity” (Davis & Sumara, 2006, p. 14). In other words, learners are complex adaptive systems working within other complex adaptive systems. This frame is particularly important within the field of education, which tends towards an “overwhelming commitment to linearity and linear causality, inscribed in institutional structures, classroom resources, developmentalist theories, curriculum intentions, and pedagogical methods” (Davis, 2003, p. 44). In what follows, I describe key principles of complex adaptive systems (CAS) relevant to this study and provide a sense of the potential of studying teacher candidates’ transition from ‘good student’ towards ‘adaptive teacher’ using complexity theory. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) Overview.
There is insufficient space within this study to examine all relevant features of complex adaptive systems as they apply to teacher education. The following essential attributes of CAS inform this study.
“A CAS can only be understood in the context of its environment. It is by contemplating the whole, and the relationships and interactions between agents, that one understands a system; not by absolute knowledge about each agent…CAS are not predictable in detail, because of their interdependencies and nonlinearity. However, it is still possible to find inherent order in the complex systems” (Palmberg, 2009, p. 485).
Three significant concepts are unpacked further: 1) Within CAS, how agents in a system connect (relationships) tends to be more important than the agents themselves (Jones & Corner, 2012), 2) It is possible to detect order within CAS even though incredible complexity is initially perceived, and 3) When working to understand CAS we must learn to sense wholeness and maintain complexity rather than working to reduce it. Relationships matter more than individual agents. Within CAS, the relationships among “elements of the system are fundamental to the system itself” (Jones & Corner, p. 398). Thus in this study the focus is not on the attributes of the individual teacher candidates participating in this study nor on my attributes as the teacher educator. Instead, I focus on the processes of connection between and among candidates, myself, and the experiences we shared together. This approach allows for an exploration of 1) the dynamic process of learning to teach, 2) the nature of relationships that contribute to learning to teach adaptively rather than engaging as ‘good student’, and 3) candidates’ relationship to the discomfort associated with this transition. Detecting order within CAS depends on the simple rules structuring the CAS. Complexity theory helps us look at how order and new behaviors emerge from very complicated, nonlinear systems “and conversely, how complex behavior and structure emerges from simple underlying rules” (Cooke-‐Davies et al., 2007, p. 52 in Jones & Corner, 2012). These simple rules are neither too constraining nor too limiting (Davis & Sumara, 2006) and make it possible for a CAS to “handle varying environments…filled with obstacles without” the need for external directives or control mechanisms (Palmberg, 2009, p. 486). Further, these rules “determine only the boundaries of the activity, not the limits of possibility” (Davis & Simmt, 2003, p. 154). The key concept here is that simple rules can lead to complex behaviors that are inherently ordered. More importantly, these complex behaviors arise from “interactions among agents rather than being imposed upon the CAS by an outside agent or explicit, detailed description” (Zimmerman et al., 1998, p. 26 in Palmberg, 2009). Connecting this principle to teacher candidates’ transition from ‘good student’ towards ‘adaptive teacher’, then, it becomes apparent that the complex behaviors of many novice teachers often cited as perennial problems within teacher education (Soslau, 2012) are a reflection of the simple rules structuring their participation in the CAS of teacher education as a whole (field experiences, campus based coursework, etc.). It is possible, then, to create
a new set of simple rules that leads novices towards different complex behaviors, -‐ those more aligned with adaptive teaching. This is one of the primary thrusts of complexity theory: it “compels researchers [and teacher educators] to consider how they are implicated in the phenomena that they study” (Davis & Sumara, 2006, p. 15). Segall (2002) encourages an examination of the simple rules at play within teacher education in asking teacher educators to consider, “How and what are student teachers positioned to learn? How is the process of coming to know related to the knowledge being produced?”(p. 81). This principle helps me explore those simple rules that emerge as relevant in helping candidates stay engaged with the transition towards adaptive teacher in this study. CAS requires maintaining wholeness and complexity rather than reducing it. Complexity requires a capacity to contemplate whole rather than a primary focus on analyzing the parts. Within complexity science a complex phenomenon is understood to be
“irreducible. It transcends its parts, and so cannot be studied strictly in terms of a compilation of those parts. It must be studied…at the level of its emergence. Classrooms aren’t just collections of students, schools aren’t just collections of classrooms. As such, complexity science provides a means to read across cognitive, social, situated, critical, cultural, and ecological discourses – without collapsing them or their particular foci into unitary or coherent phenomena” (Davis, 2003, p. 43).
So, the art in research grounded in complexity science is to maintain and manage the complexity, rather than reducing it, while, at the same time, seeing through the complexity to the “underlying structures generating change” (Senge, 1990, p. 290). Learning to sense the wholeness of a system and maintain its complexity is difficult and requires “new perceptual techniques. A systems world cannot be understood by looking only at discrete events or individuals” and our “traditional analytic skills can’t help us” (Wheatley, 2006, pp. 140-‐141). Instead we must learn to “move past cognition into the realm of sensation” by allowing ourselves to “pick up impressions, to notice how something feels, to sit or with a report and call upon intuition” (Wheatley, 2006, p. 140). Sensing the whole of a system might also be accomplished by learning to “hold our attention at two levels simultaneously” by inquiring into the part while holding “the recognition that it is participating in a whole system” (p. 141). This principle informs my data presentation and analysis and shapes the implications that emerge from this study. Methods I and guided teaching This study is based on Secondary Master’s in Teaching candidates’ experiences in a first quarter methods course (Methods I) and field experience (guided teaching), which was an integral component of Methods I. In Methods I, candidates from various disciplines engage with lesson planning, formative assessment, culturally responsive pedagogy, and standards-‐based instruction within the context of guided teaching. The structure of this course has been intentionally and collaboratively designed to foster teacher candidates’ growth as adaptive teachers (building efficiency in some of the technical processes of teaching and providing a space for candidates to innovate and experiment within a safe environment). Candidates learn to plan for instruction by observing students’ responses
and generate adaptations based on ongoing observation of student response. They also analyze student learning and identify next instructional steps based on these analyses to inform their planning. Within guided teaching, candidates are intentionally situated in dialogic relationship (Britzman, 2003) with students in contexts where they can experiment and adapt to students’ responses without being overwhelmed by the complexity of whole class dynamics. In guided teaching the entire Methods I group of secondary teacher candidates are paired up and, with this partner, co-‐teaching a small group of diverse students (approximately 4-‐8) within a public school classroom. Candidates work with their small group of students over 5-‐7 teaching days spread throughout the quarter. All candidates in Methods I are working towards the same final learning aims and performance task (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), allowing us to use class time on campus in ways that support candidates’ construction of instructional plans based on what they are learning from their students. These broad learning aims and performance task are collaboratively generated by the cooperating teachers and myself at the outset of the quarter. Candidates are responsible for generating learning targets specific to each teaching day while working within the broader aims and towards the final performance task. In this version of Methods I, candidates worked with students to help them learn to distinguish between fixed and growth mindset (Dweck, 2006; Johnston, 2012) and share personal stories of the power of growth and fixed mindset in their own lives. In a growth mindset frame individuals relate to challenges by continuing to learn from them rather than perceiving failure as a measure of self-‐worth (Mindset Works Inc., 2002-‐2011, p. 5). Methods I and guided teaching are intentionally designed to mutually influence one another: the field experience influences and shapes the direction of the course and the course influences and shapes the nature of the field experience (Ricca, 2012). Based on dialogue with teacher candidates, candidates frequently experience Methods I and guided teaching as one would culture shock. The structures they are accustomed to within the classroom and that typically help them feel safe are fundamentally different within this experience. Learning is assessed formatively (including self and peer-‐assessment) rather than reported as grades on assignments throughout the quarter. The professor’s role is as a facilitator of inquiry into student learning and teaching. Candidates are guided through naming their own learning and questions rather than being told what they must do or know. In light of this, I have learned to help candidates see the structures at play in this inquiry experience so they can begin feeling safe within this new set of structures, -‐ which are often invisible to them. When using Figure 2 with candidates on the first day of class, I asked candidates to share previous inquiry experiences they had experienced with others. Initially, I received no response. After defining inquiry, one candidate shared an inquiry experience which other candidates could use as they worked in groups to compare and contrast inquiry and traditional learning environments.
Figure 2 – Structures at play in inquiry vs. traditional learning environments
After this class, I left with the distinct impression that candidates were working to build a language to talk about inquiry because it was very unfamiliar to them. Some of the words they used to describe inquiry in contrast to a traditional learning environment included: time never ending, less fear of being wrong, productive discourse (in process vs. final outcome & individuality matters), challenge, democracy, active engagement, have to want it, intrinsic
(extrinsic matters but isn’t the direct focus), mutual, humility. I then asked candidates to review the course syllabus and label course structures that supported learning as inquiry. I hoped that by explicitly naming the structures in place candidates would be able to maintain a sense of safety, even without traditional structures in place. Further, we constructed class norms tied to attributes of successful inquiry learning environments (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 – Generating norms in an inquiry learning environment
Candidates co-‐created the following norms:
• Take risks and be vulnerable. We’ve got your back! • Embrace, respect, and learn from different experiences & emotions. • Ask for help/humility/be realistic/be kind & gracious to yourselves. • Be open to changing…our learning is never finished.
These norms were distinct from previous quarters when I was not as explicit about inquiry or adaptive teaching within the course.
As the course instructor, I was learning how to better support candidates’ learning within an inquiry environment. A couple of decisions made diverged from my work with candidates in previous quarters. First, because this is a methods course, part of my work is to help candidates become familiar with a variety of instructional strategies and assessments. The challenge previously was that candidates grasped for strategies, which felt certain, rather than staying creatively engaged with student feedback and thinking, which felt less solid. So, in Methods I/guided teaching, I asked candidates to observe and analyze student feedback and thinking after each teaching day and this informed our collaborative planning sessions in Methods I. In addition, I created an online bank of resources and encouraged candidates to relate to strategies as tools to respond to what was emerging in context, -‐ what they knew about their students -‐ rather than right answers. Another modification made was a fundamental shift in the nature of feedback given (Brown, 2012) in relation to standards outlined in high-‐stakes, standardized assessments within our program (e.g. edTPA). Whereas I previously used feedback to help candidates align their actions with professional standards, this quarter I used feedback to accomplish two aims: articulating candidates’ strengths that were unique to who they are and what they value as teachers, and helping candidates leverage their strengths while working with professional expectations to strengthen their teaching practice and clarify what they want as teachers. This was a difficult step for me to take as a professor within a highly standardized environment. Often I had to literally stop myself in the act of giving feedback intended to help candidates ‘do it right’ and reframe my intention. I wanted my feedback to help these candidates step into their potential as educators, -‐ into their coherence as complex adaptive systems (Davis & Sumara, 2006). When I observed candidates fearfully complying with my feedback and becoming overwhelmed, I encouraged them to trust themselves and try out their ideas. Mode of inquiry and data sources Study design At the outset of Methods I, I did not intend to conduct research. However, course evaluations were noticeably higher than previous quarters, encouraging me to dialogue further with candidates. I was curious why there was a significant shift in their response to Methods I and guided teaching and had a hunch that candidates more successfully navigated the discomfort of this experience than previously. I conducted focus group dialogues approximately 8 weeks after candidates’ completion of Methods I when candidates were enrolled in Methods II. According to candidates, in Methods II they were creating unit plans that, for many, were disconnected from their practicum and most were primarily observing in their practicum. This emerged an important contrast and shaped candidates’ perceptions of Methods I and guided teaching. All ten candidates from Methods I were invited to participate in 2-‐hour focus group dialogues. Seven participated. One provided written responses to focus group questions since she forgot to attend. All of the candidates from Methods I self-‐identified as Caucasian; most had attended upper-‐middle class schools. One of the women had attended school in Eastern Europe while growing up and mentioned many times how stressful it was to learn in a way where the teacher was not giving answers from the podium up front. Candidates
were broken into two small groups for these dialogues in order to create space for all to engage substantively. In addition to data from focus groups, I draw on materials I used and received in teaching Methods I (e.g. candidate work, photographs from class, observations of candidates’ work with students, teaching materials I developed). I also draw on my experiences in teaching Methods I in previous quarters. I facilitated focus groups since the knowledge generated during Methods I was integrally connected to the relationship candidates and I shared within the context of guided teaching (Clarke et al., 2005). Thus, I could engage with candidates (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005) in a way an outsider would not have been able, -‐ using “language grounded in shared experiential context” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 195). The dialogue candidates and I shared can be considered narration; together we were creating “plots from disordered experience, giving reality a ‘unity…that the past [did not possess] so clearly’” (Riessman, 2003, p. 334). Focus groups allowed candidates and I to engage in a relational process of inquiry as a means of imagining, exploring, naming together the potential in what we had experienced (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005). Focus groups also created potential for us to “take the interpretive process beyond the bounds of individual memory” (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005, p. 903), which felt important in detecting the underlying complexity or wholeness of the experience. During the focus group, I worked to decenter my role as researcher and asked questions intended to help candidates synthesize, rather than fragment their experiences (Riessman, 2003) by encouraging them to stay connected with both their intuitive and analytic capacities (Rendon, 2009). For example, I asked candidates, What moments with your students felt most alive? Further, I practiced staying open to what questions I might need to ask that were not pre-‐planned based on what was emerging in the focus groups. Learning from and with the data In working with the data, I initially transcribed the voice recordings of focus group dialogues word-‐for-‐word. Next, I read through all of the data multiple times and began memo-‐writing about significant moments in the focus group data. My process was similar to Charmaz’s (2006) description of ‘incident to incident coding’, -‐ comparing segments of candidates’ stories that were both similar and different. I paid particular attention to the language employed by candidates throughout analysis, since I left the focus group with the impression that candidates were actively working to generate language to describe the somewhat foreign experience of Methods I and guided teaching. Also, during initial coding, I re-‐visited all course materials (e.g. Announcements posted to Blackboard, course presentations and handouts) and re-‐read candidates’ work (e.g. end of quarter learning synthesis, analyses of student learning, observations of students and corresponding instructional adaptations) to reconnect with the nuance of our time together. After initial coding and memo-‐writing, I revisited key features of complexity theory to generate categories well-‐suited to trends in the data. I cut apart key incidents and grouped them into the complexity categories. In so doing, it became apparent that: 1) the most powerful stories shared by candidates often contained elements of multiple categories, and 2) I needed to find a way to present the data that allowed for a means of honoring the wholeness of candidates’ experience alongside helping the reader notice the nuance of
these incidents. At this point, I created an untreated found poem (Butler-‐Kisber, 2010; Glesne, 1997), as a means of “representing holistically what otherwise might go unnoticed” (Butler-‐Kisber, p. 234). This research methodology aligned well with the conceptual framework of complexity theory since research poetry is a “whole that makes sense of its parts; and a poem is parts that anticipate, shadow, undergird [sic] the whole” (Richardson, 1997, p. 297). Thus, found poetry allowed me as a researcher to manage, rather than reduce the complexity of the data that emerged in this study to make it easier for the reader to engage in the complexity without getting bogged down in lengthy prose (Lahman et al., 2011). Several rules shaped the creation of this untreated found poem. First, I used words taken verbatim from the focus group interviews. I kept only those words that best depicted candidates’ relationship with the discomfort of the transition from ‘good student’ to adaptive teacher. And I maintained the intactness of candidates’ stories through chunking within the poem rather than mixing candidates’ words up line by line. Throughout, this process I learned by listening to candidates’ words and working with these data, the literature on adaptive teaching, and complexity science to see what emerged and how they drew one another out into a greater whole. This is also well-‐aligned with the principles of complexity theory that conceptually ground this work. Upon completion of this poem, I sent it to all participants to seek feedback and their perceptions of this poem. I received a couple of emails from candidates congratulating me on completing the poem but none offered feedback. Data analysis This found poem is intended to provide a sense of the wholeness of what emerged within the Methods I and guided teaching CAS to help us explore 1) candidates’ relationship to the discomfort, nonlinearity, and distress encountered during this transition and 2) the simple rules that shaped candidates’ capacity to stay engaged within discomfort and nonlinearity. Within this poem, the headings juxtapose factors at the heart of ‘good student’ and adaptive teacher that contributed to the onset of discomfort and distress for candidates. My comments are in italics. Throughout, candidates reference what they describe as “chaos” and “chaotic” as they encounter the nonlinearity of teaching. Although they use these terms in ways that diverge from how complexity science defines chaos, I have left their word choice intact. A synonym for chaos in this poem might be discomfort, confusion, or candidates’ experience of nonlinearity. I invite the reader to take a step back while reading, to sense the order within the complex whole that candidates share. Found Poem Does anything stand out as unusual about our time together? It was unusual to have this feeling. Like getting a little lost. I really value it now
Yeah, the uncertainty of it all. Constant state of confusion -‐ Almost cyclical. ‘Ok, we’re going to do this. I don’t really know what I’m doing.’ Try to do it. You would rein us back in with feedback Then try again and then keep getting confused, not confused in a bad way, lost or confused. However you want to put it.
On a yo-‐yo all quarter, ‘Ah, I’m falling. I’m going.’ You rein us back in. We talk each other down And then ‘Nope, I’m falling.’ A sense of constant chaos. The first week I’m used to getting a sense What does the professor want? Where are we going? I’ve figured out the order of the class. Now I know what to do. And get comfortable. that’s not what happened there is no comfortable. ‘Ok, I’m not the only one who feels like this’. Everyone’s feeling this We’re [not] the crazy cohort who can’t figure this out. This is normal Work with the chaos. I feel like in [the campus-‐based course this quarter] I’m doing better on the assignments. I [emphasis on I] feel better. But your class creates the kind of teacher I would rather be. I don’t want to plan to teach [students] how to write an intro paragraph and then we’ll write it [as planned] That’s not going to happen. Ever. From Perfectionism To Learning Through Taking Risks & Experimentation On a pedestal
I put myself there. So perfect and it’s comfortable here. I feel so good about myself. And then suddenly, ‘Oh, it’s not true.’ You have to understand Other stuff counts. Look at yourself. Don’t [put] too much pressure on your negatives. Don’t look for negatives negatives negatives. Don’t think about failure like it’s the end of the world. You have to work through that. In a way, you discover yourself. It’s something new to me. I have never been exposed to classes like that. Being true to yourself. You want to do it. Doesn’t depend on anybody else. We look[ed] at our own mindsets. ‘Yeah, I’m a perfectionist…’ I’m going to mess up. There’s nothing perfect about [teaching]. A big weight off. It’s nice that happened right away I have to be where I am and grow from it. This attitude let me get over Feeling of needing perfection Allowed me to embrace learning [Methods I] was just this genuine educational experience Where it wasn’t the grade, It wasn’t making the teacher happy, Just how much am I willing to put in How much am I willing to learn? It was me trying to force the ‘4’ [when self-‐assessing on the rubric] When really I knew it was a ‘2’ Trying to justify it was my ‘ah-‐ha’ moment. ‘I’m not here to make a 4
or to make [professor first name] happy. I’m here to learn something To become a better teacher through this process.’ ‘Yeah, we’ve been learning about growth mindset for how many weeks and I’m still trying to push a 4. What am I?’ How do you think it would have been different if you weren’t teaching growth mindset? [With no hesitation] Oh, it would have been completely… I don’t think I would have come to the same conclusions at all. Learning What I Want as a Teacher: From External to Internal Referencing ‘Oh my gosh. How do we do this? I want to know I’m going to get a good grade on this.’ We stopped Who is [professor first name]? not the person here to grade us tell us how to do something specifically This is the essence of learning I’m doing this as a fulfillment of my own destiny, of what I want to do what I want to be and how well I want to do this myself. Obviously you give us a grade, but knowing you’re the kind of person that doesn’t care about that was really nice for us to realize and experience. A place where you can move forward together without panic, which is what I’m used to. To help me trust myself You trusted us to do something. If we brought something to you you’re open, ‘Hey, we want to try this’ You would be like,
‘I’ve got your back. Yeah, let’s make it work. Definitely.’ Knowing I can do that because I have your support in it has helped me know I can maybe not in all situations I’m not always going to have someone like a superior that’s ok with me trying something new. But knowing that there’s an open space did let me trust myself at least for a while during that class. Day 5 planning worrying that, it’s crazy saying, you wouldn’t be ok with it somehow. It might have been seen [as] lazy like we had failed and so we’re just going to let it go and [the kids] can just do whatever they want. In reality it was us finally realizing maybe [the kids] needed more control. Very intentional. Not superficial failure and giving up. That’s what I was afraid you would see. And then you were like, ‘Sure. Great. Go with it.’ Obviously that’s what we need. Opportunity in the first quarter, – not where there’s no bottom -‐ to be able to fail, especially when we’re teaching growth mindset. Not ‘I’m not sure it’s going to work and maybe you should…’ Just, ‘Sure. Try it. See what happens. I’m excited.’ That’s what we got from you. Over and over and time and time again There was opportunity for trust It’s on us. Was that a weird thing to get from a teacher? A normal thing to get from a teacher? It was all very very new to me.”
It’s totally ridiculous. that’s part of the reason we were so confused last quarter. We knew we loved you and your class ‘It’s a good feeling going into the class’ It was so different from what we’re used [to]. We’re used to grades and not distrust but expectations. having to prove yourself. From ‘The Perfect Lesson Plan’ to Using Student Response to Plan How do you think your experiences with your kids would have changed if you had been more prepared going into the experience? It would have been very different. The first quarter would have been, ‘Oh, it’s nice and normal’ and then I would have gotten to the second quarter and been like, ‘Oh, I know how to do lesson plans, Let’s go do this’ and then, ‘AHHHHH!’ It would have been frustrating, ‘Oh, I get lesson plans’ and then, ‘Oh, I don’t actually’ because now there’s these kids and it’s chaotic and I thought I had this all under control. It’s nice [to get] the initial reaction to chaos out of the way. It was so useful to experience with the kids and use that to inform my feedback as I was learning how to use lesson plans. I almost wish we were doing more of that with our unit plans for [Methods II]. I feel the same. I think about how much I learned last quarter and how much I’m learning [in Methods II] I’m not learning nearly as much Because I’m not involved in it. I can take all this information that I’m putting into my unit plan, but there it goes
and there it stays. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not connected to my practicum. so it’s just kind of there Feels clunky and weird. Something doesn’t feel so real about it. Like a hypothetical classroom. We’re just now [past mid-‐quarter] thinking about student-‐based evidence. I should constantly be thinking of it, yet when it came to unit planning it wasn’t even part of my thought process really. It wasn’t real, you know. But in the moment of that going on last quarter, I totally didn’t like it. But now I can see it was necessary to throw us in there and then respond and learn that way. That’s better for me as long as the environment… being in those small groups was a safe place to do that. And the topics we had… it wasn’t like you could mess it up. I’ve struggled with confidence most of my life. I came out of your class less confident but in a good way I felt awkward in front of the kids I didn’t know how to do things And it was a good thing Giving me a direction. I knew where I was going now. More confidence that I can get there. From ‘I Need to Know Ahead of Time’ to ‘I Can Remain Engaged Moment to Moment’ Most important is definitely dealing with the chaos. Obviously I wasn’t particularly comfortable with [it] four months ago just being able to function with it Not let it get me down. This is how [teaching] is
and being able hang onto that. A lot of things we learned about were good but being able to hang onto that in all the uncertainty. Very valuable to get me to let go Loved that we were actually in a classroom First quarter. Not necessarily a comfortable class. Yeah, chaotic. Dealing with the uncertainty Hardest for me. Being in a dark hole is not something I enjoy. I felt it was so harsh, but I got the idea. You have to be there to actually understand how to figure out stuff in the moment, which is kind of interesting. As Jared and I were planning lessons, we were like, ‘I think they’d like this. I think they’d respond to that’ [At some point], ‘We’re never going to know. We’re just going to have to do it See how it goes.’ Do the best we can to figure something out The [last teaching day] was the only time we got out of the bubble of thinking we knew how they would respond. We thought there had to be so much structure control we had to be leading. And when we let them go Weren’t worried about the outcome, We trusted them in the process. From Learning as Intellectual Towards Learning as Holistic I’m thinking that [Methods II] takes the emotion out of it.
[Methods I] got us thinking in the moment: adaptability, being flexible, thinking about feedback,… the dynamics of the classroom. We were learning those progressions and stuff, but it was more the emotional, How I’m going to react. We got the sense of what it’s like to be a teacher The things you have to do external from lesson planning. I’ve had a lot of classes that were hard work intellectually challenging and had me off my rocker intellectually. But I always felt very in control. Like back in my box. I’ve never had [a class] that messed with me on a more emotional level. How do you think teaching growth mindset to your kids influenced your experiences in Methods I, if at all? It’s interesting I see it in little tiny moments. Times where two or three of us would ‘Ahhh. This class is driving me crazy’ And someone would make a flippant comment ‘You’re showing fixed mindset.’ We’d do that a lot. And rather than continuing to complain get upset, We all laughed Started talking about something else. It came up a lot and it broke the tension. We weren’t having fixed mindset discussions, just little comments here and there. Gosh, we did throw that at each other a lot. Yeah, for sure. It was a tool to interrupt the fear cycle That happens in this adaptive environment? I think so.
It’s funny because you didn’t have to do it seriously. Yeah, it was very jokey But something was really real about it too From ‘I Can’t See Anything Happening’ Towards ‘Even If I Can’t See It, Something Might be Happening’ You gave feedback Pointing out things I wouldn’t see as being evidence of something happening. Really important to me, I didn’t know what to look for so I was really insecure. Seeing that you saw things that I didn’t see ‘Oh yeah, I guess that did happen. I just didn’t see it’ that has changed the way I look at things. I’m not so insecure When I don’t see anything going on In the back of my head ‘Well maybe there’s stuff going on I’m just not seeing it, I’ve been there before now. So I’m going to keep going. It’s not that I’m horrible at [teaching].’ Maybe I’m not seeing the whole thing. Discussion Candidates’ Relationship with Discomfort Encountered in Transition to Adaptive Teacher. Candidates describe their relationship with the discomfort encountered during the transition toward adaptive teacher as an oscillation, -‐ cyclical or like being on a yo-‐yo. In one moment, they believe they are able to do what is needed and engage in the process and in the next they find themselves buried in doubt and fear, -‐ certain they cannot do what is needed and falling back into trying to figure out what the professor wants. The tasks of adaptive teacher felt vague, confusing and like getting lost. Yet, candidates repeatedly emphasize that these feelings were important and valuable. They depict the uncertainty, which they refer to as chaos, as a mediating factor in their engagement with technical course resources, such as lesson plans. As one candidate explains, the challenge was to stay connected with what she knew and what she wanted in the midst of this discomfort. Further, candidates emphasized that they had learned more rapidly within the discomfort of Methods I and guided teaching than in a more comfortable, decontextualized Methods II. They attributed this to various factors:
1) being involved in the flow of feedback and information from students. Rather than information going into a lesson plan and staying there because no students were responding to it, candidates explained that this information had served as a catalyst to their learning in Methods I, even if it felt unnerving. They felt more comfortable with tasks of learning to teach that were less contextualized, but explained that this comfort was linked to their ‘good student’ identity and dislike of failure rather than helping them become an adaptive teacher. Candidates liked the co-‐evolution of learning with students and relied on student feedback to plan lessons. In other words, student feedback became a catalyst for their own learning, which felt uncomfortable for the ‘good student’ yet necessary for the ‘adaptive teacher.’ However, this reliance on student feedback quickly became less central in their thinking when focusing on learning teaching techniques out of context the following quarter. 2) being engaged as a whole person in context (Lave & Wenger, 1991), which required them to navigate more than the intellectual dimension where they felt safe and in control. It required them to navigate the emotional dimension of teaching, -‐ identifying what they wanted, trying it out with no guarantee of success, and learning to adapt and respond in the moment rather than implementing a plan regardless of student response, and 3) being able to get a sense of what teaching really entails beyond the technical dimensions, which helped them gain a realistic sense of teaching as a whole. This helped give them a sense of direction that resulted in confidence for future learning. Finally, candidates explained that had they postponed learning to relate to the discomfort of the nonlinear task of teaching, -‐ planning out of context during their first quarter – they might then have had a harder time working with students. Candidates postulated they would have been confident in their ability as lesson planners and perceived students as getting in the way of their sense of control. They would have likely perceived students as the source of the unpredictability they would have encountered. Similar to the rigidifying effects of believing the world is too orderly and predictable that comes with routine expertise (Verschaffel et al., 2009), candidates suggest delaying their encounter with the transition to adaptive teacher might make the transition out of ‘good student’ more distressing for both candidates and students. Instead, candidates came to experience the discomfort of adaptive teaching as something that could not be controlled. They could not plan the perfect lesson. They could not know ahead of time how students would respond. But they could work with this nonlinearity, -‐ coming to accept this as a normal part of teaching. Simple Rules That Influenced Candidates’ Complex Actions In addition to the patterns noted above, candidates’ words in the found poem revealed two simple rules that influenced their engagement throughout the experience. These rules surfaced throughout the poem multiple times and in multiple forms, which leads me to believe these rules were influential in shaping candidates’ capacity to stay engaged in the discomfort they were encountering. Based on candidates’ description of the centrality of
these principles in shaping their response to encountering and adapting to discomfort, I have identified these rules below as follows: It is through experimentation and failure that I learn. It is safe to take risks and fail. Candidates emphasized repeatedly the importance of being trusted in their process as learners and given a safe space to experiment and learn from failure. At the same time, this was foreign and confusing to them. While having this space and support encouraged learning through experimentation and failure, this very openness was disorienting and uncomfortable for candidates, who explained they were more accustomed to specific expectations and an environment based on distrust, proving oneself, and panic as one candidate explained. It took some candidates all quarter to move towards more consistent engagement as adaptive teachers (learners) and away from ‘good students’ (performers) who excel at figuring out and doing what the professor wants but struggle to figure out what they want as teachers. Nonlinearity, unpredictability, and discomfort are part of teaching. I can work with these rather than using work avoidance mechanisms to push away the adaptive challenges I encounter. Teaching growth mindset to students in guided teach, emerged as significant in helping candidates stay engaged in the discomfort of adaptive challenges. When candidates encountered discomfort, they shared this with peers, who were often able to interrupt the work avoidance mechanisms candidates are most prone to, -‐ judging themselves as inadequate, blaming students as the source of uncertainty and trying to control students, and blaming the professor for lack of clarity and answers. Instead candidates moved out of the certainty associated with ‘good student’ and became open to questions and uncertainty. For example, one candidate explained that receiving feedback about what I saw as evidence of learning helped him stay open to the possibility that learning might be going on. Initially, he would have judged himself as a horrible teacher because he did not know what he was learning at that moment. Later he became able to stay with the experience without knowing what was coming of it but also without believing he was doing something wrong. Becoming able to distinguish between growth and fixed mindset, then, helped candidates keep the distress of transitioning from ‘good student’ towards adaptive teacher within manageable levels in ways I had not expected or observed until the focus group dialogues. It helped to normalize discomfort as a part of learning rather than associating discomfort with a ‘problem’ or ‘something’s wrong.’ Thus, candidates’ work with growth mindset encouraged them to relate differently to the discomfort and uncertainty of moving towards adaptive teacher than they would have as ‘good students.’ Much more consistently, candidates were able to stay engaged when facing adaptive challenges. Contributions and significance Several implications and questions emerged from this study that inform teacher education. First, very early in their programs of study, candidates can become accustomed to learning from the discomfort of adaptive challenges rather than maintaining their ‘good student’ tendencies. They can become better adapted to working within a dynamic, nonlinear environment, even if they had previously constructed their identity around a more orderly,
linear environment. However, this is a significant and challenging transition. Yet it is essential if we want to support candidates’ learning to teach in ways that move beyond replication of the status quo. Rather than mimicking “existing practices” or giving up when attempts at transformative practices fail candidates can develop a means of transforming the “vague feeling of discontent” they will regularly encounter and that often leads them to seek answers externally (Britzman, 2003, p. 213) and use this feeling to explore creative teaching possibilities and become clearer about what they want as teachers, -‐ an important step towards self-‐regulated learning. Without an ability to transform discomfort into a clearer sense of what they want as teachers, novices are likely to seek external authoritative measures to figure out what to do and to ease the feelings of inadequacy and discomfort they experience. The well-‐established pattern of new teachers rapidly becoming enculturated within the school where they initially teach (Britzman, 2003; Crawford, 2007; McGinnis, Parker, & Graeber, 2004) suggests that we should take seriously the learning required of candidates as they transition from externally regulated to self-‐regulated learning. This includes learning to perceive discomfort as an opportunity to learn and clarify our aims as teachers. Within the highly standardized environment of teacher preparation, research-‐based practices, expectations, and outcomes-‐based measures can easily impede novices’ transition into self-‐regulated learning through experimentation and failure by encouraging them to ‘teach the right way’ or use the ‘right strategy.’ These data suggest that significant attention should be spent on creating a safe space for failure and learning through experience, with a secondary focus on strategies, standards, and other external expectations as resources and tools for helping teachers accomplish & clarify their aims. This question emerges as important, then: How do we encourage candidates to relate to outcomes-‐based assessments and research-‐based practices in ways that empower their transition towards adaptive teachers rather than fueling their identities as ‘good students’? This question is especially important if we want teachers to be able to transform the systems in which they work rather than comply with extant school culture or burn out by holding tightly to reform-‐measures learned within teacher education (Author, 2007). Secondly, this study provides insight into novices’ tendency to become more custodial and teacher-‐centric in their induction years (Eick, 2002; Kagan, 1992) suggesting that candidates who enter the profession having engaged in field experiences disconnected from methods coursework and focused on learning strategies for later application will be less able to work with the discomfort and unpredictability they experience within the nonlinear space of adaptive, self-‐regulated teaching and more likely to perceive students as the source of the unpredictability they initially encounter. There are serious consequences for the students of teachers who enter their induction years too strongly associated with the ‘good student’ identity. Specifically, these teachers are more likely to control students in an attempt to try and eliminate the discomfort they are encountering, -‐ especially detrimental in working with students from diverse backgrounds whose distinct cultural values and ways of being in the world will likely challenge the teacher’s own beliefs, values, and practices (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2011). It is essential, then, that teacher education programs intentionally design field experiences that support candidates in using student response to inform instructional planning. Although candidates were less comfortable using student response to inform their planning in Methods I, they also explained that methods courses that did not require them to use student-‐based evidence to shape their
planning or take action in working with students did not help them become the sort of teacher they wanted. As candidates relinquished the belief that they could know how students would respond to their instructional plans, they became willing to work with the discomfort of transitioning from ‘good student’ to adaptive teacher, with their students, and with themselves as learners. Finally, this study highlights the danger of working with those learning to teach in ways that are predominantly intellectual. As candidates described, methods courses that were loosely connected to field experiences did not include the emotional aspects of learning to teach they faced in Methods I/guided teaching. In these learning experiences, candidates described learning as purely intellectual experiences that allowed them to maintain the illusion of being in control and the comfort of ‘being in the box’. Learning as a purely intellectual endeavor runs the risk of becoming pathological knowledge (Roth, 2005) or unresponsive and inappropriate if applied in community (Orr, 2004) without a deep knowledge of that context (Meadows, 2005). Intellectual knowing can also inhibit adaptivity when there is too great a sense of certainty (Verschaffel et al., 2009). Yet candidates were almost completely unfamiliar with learning experiences in which they had to work with the emotional domain. Thus, intentionally designing field experiences where candidates feel safe taking risks and letting go of control in their work with students seems critical. The context of guided teaching where candidates worked with a partner and a group of 4-‐8 students felt safe, as did the content they were teaching. They perceived growth mindset as something they couldn’t really mess up. These and other factors contributed to candidates’ capacity to stay engaged with the emotional aspects of learning they encountered in transitioning from ‘good student’ to adaptive teacher. These data encourage me to consider the following: Are teacher candidates experiencing learning that requires them to navigate both emotional and intellectual domains in their learning to teach? If so, I should expect that I, as a teacher educator, might necessarily take some heat as candidates become willing to engage in the adaptive challenge of accepting responsibility for their own teaching practice rather than relying on me to help them know what practices will help them maintain their sense of control (Heifetz, 1994). Furthermore, these data encourage me to construct assessments that make explicit to candidates how they can practice relating to the emotional facets of learning encountered in early stages of the transition from ‘good student’ to adaptive teacher (see for example, Appendix 1). Finally, these data challenge me to design field experiences in ways that help candidates manage the complexity of teaching as a holistic endeavor rather than reducing the complexity of teaching within field experiences. With field experiences designed to maintain the complexity of teaching candidates will necessarily be working with both the emotional and intellectual dimensions as they work through adaptive challenges rather than approaching learning to teach as a technical challenge reliant only on the intellectual dimension.
References Alhadeff-‐Jones, M. (2009). Revisiting educational research through Morin's paradigm of
complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 6(1), 61-‐70.
Author. (2007). Details removed for peer review. Ayers, William. (2001). To teach: The journey of a teacher (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press. Bransford, J., Derry, Sharon, Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning
and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-‐Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40-‐87). San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass.
Britzman, Deborah P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Brown, Brene. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable tranforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. New York: Gotham Books.
Butler-‐Kisber, L. (2010). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative, and arts-‐informed perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, Kathy. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, Anthony, Erickson, Gaalen, Collins, Steve, & Phelan, Anne. (2005). Complexity science and cohorts in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 159-‐177.
Cochran-‐Smith, M., & Feiman-‐Nemser, S. . (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in teacher education. New York: Routledge.
Crawford, B. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-‐642.
Davis, B. (2003). Toward a pragmatics of complex transformation. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 39-‐45.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137-‐167.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. New York: Routledge.
DML Research Hub (Producer). (August 13, 2013). The global one-‐room schoolhouse: John Seely Brown (highlights from his "Entrepreneurial Learner" keynote at DML2012. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/49645115
Dweck, Carol. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Eick, C. J. (2002). Job sharing their first year: A narrative of two partnered teachers'
induction into middle school science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(887-‐904).
Gell-‐Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and complex. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Glesne, C. (1997). That rare feeling: Re-‐presenting research through poetic transcription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 202-‐221.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-‐215). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hammerness, K., Darling-‐Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-‐Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-‐Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. (pp. 358-‐389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-‐Bass.
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Johnston, Peter. (2012). Opening minds: Using language to change lives. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Jones, R., & Corner, J. (2012). Seeing the forest and the trees: A complex adaptive systems lens for mentoring. Human Relations, 65(3), 391-‐411.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-‐169.
Kamberelis, George, & Dimitriadis, Greg. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 887-‐907). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Lahman, M. K. E., Rodriguez, K. L., Richard, V. M., Geist, M. R., Schendel, R. K., & Graglia, P. E. (2011). (Re)forming research poetry. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(9), 887-‐896.
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Etienne. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McGinnis, R., Parker, P., & Graeber, A. (2004). A cultural perspective of the induction of five reform-‐minded beginning mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 720-‐747.
Meadows, D. (2005). Dancing with systems. In M. K. Stone & Z. Barlow (Eds.), Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world (pp. 193-‐205). San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Mindset Works Inc. (2002-‐2011). Brainology: Building students' confidence, fulfillment, and achievement through the understanding of expandable intelligence http://www.brainology.us (pp. 1-‐28).
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Orr, David W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Palmberg, K. (2009). Complex adaptive systems as metaphors for organizational management. The Learning Organization, 16(6), 483-‐498.
Palmer, Parker. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. New York: Harper Collins.
Palmer, Parker, & Zajonc, Arthur. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass.
Rendon, Laura I. (2009). Sentipensante (sending/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness, social justice and liberation Sterling Virginia: Stylus.
Ricca, Bernard. (2012). Beyond teaching methods: A complexity approach. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(2), 31-‐51.
Richardson, Laurel. (1997). Skirting a pleated text: De-‐disciplining an academic life. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 295-‐304.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (2003). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 331-‐346). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roth, W-‐M. (2005). Body and emotion in knowing and learning. In J. L. Kincheloe (Ed.), Classroom teaching: An introduction (pp. 371-‐396). New York: Peter Lang.
Segall, Avner. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New York: Peter Lang.
Senge, Peter. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Century Business.
Sensoy, Ozlem, & DiAngelo, Robin. (2011). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Soslau, E. (2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 769-‐779.
Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIV(3), 335-‐359.
Wheatley, M.J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berret-‐Koehler.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.