Tipping the Balance from Expert to Facilitator: Examining Myths about Being a Teacher Educator

Abstract

This self-study addresses two questions: (1) how did self-study aid the teacher educator in interrogating her beliefs about and mediate her projection of teacher-as-facilitator versus teacher-as-expert? and (2) in what ways did prospective elementary teachers in an undergraduate, interdisciplinary science course exert control over their learning as a result of the teacher educator's self-interrogation of practices? In her teaching role with prospective teachers, Nicole explored a major myth about teaching concerning the image of the professor as the primary expert in the classroom. Critical events analysis revealed instances where she exerted power as an expert or assumed the role of facilitator. Instead of clearly marked instances where she took actions to exert her various roles in the classroom, she found that classroom events could not be categorized neatly. There were cases where she acted as an expert and students felt free to make their own decisions about their learning. When she was uncertain or attempted to relinquish control, students often responded by not taking control of their learning.

Keywords::

• science teacher education
• facilitator versus expert
• power balance
• scientific literacy

In a collaborative self-study, Louie, Stackman, Drevdahl, and Purdy (2002) identified three unexamined myths about the professoriate and teaching in higher education. They used the idea of myth to acknowledge unexamined beliefs and assumptions of what constitutes a quality professor. These three myths focus on (1) who has control over learning, (2) the preparation needed for teaching, and (3) suitable approaches to teaching. Through rich, reflective narratives, they identified as a major myth the image of the professor as “primary, if not sole, expert in the classroom” (Louie et al., 2002, p. 200). Their work made us wonder, what happens when the professor makes deliberate attempts to not be the sole expert in the classroom? We sought to interrogate Nicole's teaching practice in a science course for prospective elementary education students, with Gayle and Amy acting as reflective partners for Nicole. The questions guiding this self-study were (1) how did reflection aid Nicole in interrogating her beliefs about, and mediate her projection of, teacher-as-facilitator versus teacher-as-expert? and (2) in what ways did prospective elementary teachers in an undergraduate, interdisciplinary science course exert control over their engagement as a result of Nicole's self-study of her teacher education practices?

Review of Relevant Literature

Relevant to this study are three bodies of literature that examine (1) the role and purpose of reflective practice and self-study, (2) beliefs and myths about teaching and teacher education, and (3) efforts to achieve a view of scientific literacy that empowers students to make decisions about science-related issues that affect their lives. Works that illuminate myths about what constitutes a quality teacher and teacher educator aid in understanding assumptions and beliefs about who should have control over students' learning.

The Role and Purpose of Reflective Practice and Self-Study

Smyth (1992) cautioned against the blind acceptance and championing of reflective practice in teaching and encouraged viewing reflective practice in its larger sociopolitical context. Smyth argued that teachers should be encouraged to use reflective practice for true emancipation and reformation, asking themselves questions such as “What do my practices say about my assumptions, values, and beliefs?” (p. 299). Self-study researchers in the early 1990s sought to reframe notions of reflective practice in teacher education, which some regarded as being co-opted as a vacuous catchphrase or a subversive tool for control over teachers (Loughran, 2002). Those involved viewed self-study differently than conventional reflective practice in that it seemed, “to center on the power of personal theorizing in the development of knowledge about teaching and learning” (Hamilton & Pinnegar, 1998, p. 236). Commitment to self-study posed concerns for scholars using it as it has challenged the status quo of teacher education research and academia more generally. Nonetheless, scholars illustrated the influence self-study had in catalyzing enhancements to practice (Cole & Knowles, 1998; Guilfoyle, 1995). Cole and Knowles (1998) argued that self-study of teacher education practices has the same kind of potential for substantive, systemic reform of teacher education as other forms of empirical research. This self-study aligned with the sentiment and goals of these researchers by using reflective methodology as a tool for reform in teacher education. In summary, self-study provided a mode for challenging our assumptions, values, and beliefs, and their intersection in teacher education as a way to enhance practice.

Challenging Beliefs and Myths about Teaching and Teacher Education

A wide body of literature has illuminated the resilience and influence of beliefs and myths about teaching and teacher education. Both prospective teachers and teacher educators express these beliefs and myths, which are outlined in the literature review below. Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981) questioned the impact of teacher education beyond the university/college by showing that students become increasingly progressive or liberal in their attitudes toward education, yet shift to opposing/traditional views during their in-service teaching. They argued that this occurs in part because teacher education often focuses, “on how things were to be done without asking students to consider what was to be done and why, ... [resulting in] discussions which tended to encourage acquiescence and conformity to existing school routines” (p. 9, emphasis in original). Pajares' (1992) review of teacher beliefs provided illustration of Zeichner and Tabachnick's findings.

Even when efforts are made in placing frequent and early attention on assumptions about teacher education, Munby and Russell (1994) found that prospective teachers' beliefs and expectations were persistent. Bencze and Bowen (2007) asked preservice secondary science teachers to describe teaching strategies they intended to use in their future teaching. Repeatedly the preservice teachers, who had been successful science students themselves, intimated their intentions to teach in ways similar to their favorite science teachers, which in most cases was teacher-directed instruction. Related to this, Britzman (1986) identified several cultural myths about teaching: (1) everything depends on the teacher, (2) the teacher is the expert, and (3) teachers are self-made. Because she found most prospective teachers held the cultural myth of “teacher as expert,” Britzman actively took actions in the classroom to avoid perpetuating this myth. Formation of mythical images of teachers may be partly attributed to what Labaree (2000, p. 231) called the “irreducible complexity” of teaching and teacher education. Prospective teachers rarely see the thinking and planning that precedes teaching, or the ongoing, organic decision-making necessary to alter or enhance instruction in light of students' needs. As a result, when teacher educators attempt to teach these skills, they face enormous resistance from teacher candidates who do not immediately understand the value of this type of professional education (Labaree, 2000).

Other scholars examined their own thoughts and beliefs and used reflection as the basis for action (Louie et al., 2002; Reynolds, 1994). Louie et al.'s (2002) self-study drew on Britzman's (1986) cultural myths in teacher education. The researchers identified myths that each held and then engaged in analysis and critical discourse as a way to confront their assumptions. Louie et al.'s study indicated that postsecondary instructors often attempt to control learning environments as a way to ensure that all students achieve learning goals within the time frame of a single course. Yet their findings also indicated that sometimes students' mastery of learning goals happens after a course of study is complete. Self-study research has also shown the value of student input as a means to interrogate and confront the myth of teacher-as-expert. Through reflective analysis, Reynolds (1994) realized his physics course was not appropriately reaching students. Using information he gathered from student interviews, he proposed a participatory curriculum revision project that necessarily included students. He continued his analysis through the revision project and simultaneously encouraged students to reflect on learning.

Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) outlined an alternative approach to confronting preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching, suggesting a systematic, collaborative approach that includes a self-critical stance on the part of researchers and an ecological approach to teacher education research that systematically challenges myths underpinning many teacher education programs. Modeling by teacher educators and making explicit the challenges and ambiguities inherent to teaching is one strategy employed to become more self-critical and ecological in approach (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006). Loughran and Berry (2005) challenged the traditional expert status of the teacher by making explicit their pedagogical choices and discussing them openly with prospective teachers. Tidwell's self-study clarified her tendency to privilege students who outwardly and explicitly appeared to need help. She saw this as supporting the traditional western scientific notion of teacher as expert rather than one who fosters students' empowerment over their learning (Tidwell & Fitzgerald, 2007).

Garbett's work (2011a, 2011b, 2012) questioned the utility of modeling as an approach to engaging prospective teachers. Garbett (2011b) reported that modeling unwittingly portrayed science teaching as facts and activities, rather than as a conduit for engagement in learning. Removing herself from the direct teaching role, in response to feedback from students, and allowing her student teachers to experience teaching science for themselves, became an important aspect of her course. To the role of self-study in the formation of her identity as a teacher educator, Garbett suggested:

I can blame self-study for destabilizing my sense that the role of a science teacher educator should be grounded on teaching science concepts, or I can thank self-study for providing liberating opportunities to develop a new vision of myself as a teacher educator. (2012, p. 42)

Garbett's work destabilized the traditional role of teacher educator as content expert and reflected Berry's (2007a) articulated tension of “working with and against” during self-study, that is, working toward a particular ideal for teacher education while simultaneously undermining that ideal through practice. MacGillivray's (1997) study of her practice examined a similar tension, reporting how she unintentionally reinforced her privileged role as instructor even when seeking to disrupt it. Another tension that regularly surfaces in self-studies is that of “telling and growth” (Berry, 2007b) – the tension between informing prospective teachers about what they “should” know and encouraging them to analyze practice and be self-directed.

At the beginning of this self-study, Nicole recognized that she held many of these myths and had experienced many of the same tensions articulated by previous researchers. For example, like Louie et al. (2002), she acknowledged her previous attempts to control the time frame in which students learn in her course instruction. She shared with Reynolds (1994) the value that good teachers include students in shaping the content and form of instruction within a course. Like Britzman (1986), Nicole monitored and analyzed her attempts to delegate control of learning to students and to shed the label of teacher-as-expert. As we illustrate through the self-study described below, Nicole attempted to confront these myths and tensions by actively attempting to release her grip of control over learning (MacGillivray, 1997) so as to place prospective teachers more centrally in their own learning. Yet, unpacking and confronting these myths and tensions was not straightforward. While Nicole was able to support students' agency for learning, still there was a tension that resided in completely relinquishing her role as teacher-as-expert. Instead of capitalizing on Nicole's attempts to facilitate their learning, students responded most favorably when she first modeled acting as an expert and then slowly shifted control to her students.

Achieving Scientific Literacy in Science Teacher Education

Enhancing science education to promote scientific literacy for all has not been easy or without its critics. Shamos (1995) argued that attempting to educate, “all Americans in science to the point where they can reach independent judgments on [socioscientific] issues” is an “impossible task” (p. 216, emphasis in original, as quoted by Roberts, 2007, p. 740). Eisenhart, Finkel, and Marion (1996) suggested that narrow instructional models used by schools to support students in achieving scientific literacy often undermine a broad vision of scientific literacy. Despite this pessimistic view, others have shown that supporting scientific literacy is not an impossible task. Cross and Price (2002) followed secondary science students through a unit on food production and found that while it is a complex challenge to teach students to reason through controversial issues in science, guiding them to do so does promote decision-making and social action on their part. Other studies took science education for scientific literacy a step further, outside the classroom. The studies of Roth and Lee (2002) and Roth and Désautels (2004) examined the practices of students involved in a community water-monitoring project. By encouraging the use of science to take action on community-based issues through their projects, Roth and Barton (2004) found that students attained greater levels of scientific literacy. In this view of scientific literacy, where students are empowered to make decisions and take action on socio-scientific issues, the teacher acts as a facilitating leader as opposed to an expert. The teachers' role becomes framed, “within the larger goal of promoting student empowerment and social change within the community” (Jones & Carter, 2007, p. 1091).

While no precise definition of scientific literacy is shared by the science education community, two views predominate. One view contends that a scientifically literate individual possesses a body of knowledge and facts outlined by modern western science, while the second view suggests that a scientifically literate individual can recognize, describe, and utilize science in their socially relevant situations and contexts (Roberts, 2007). The latter is consonant with the goals of the course in which this self-study took place, and Nicole's attempts to relinquish control over learning were made in efforts to promote this view of scientific literacy. Furthermore, Nicole sought to frame the course in a way that promoted student empowerment and their capacity for taking up issues that lead to social change. She did this by scaffolding experiences for students in ways that would ask them to engage first with how science-related issues affect themselves, then their communities, and then the world at large.

Methodology of the Self-Study

This self-study addressed the call from scholars for teacher educators to interrogate, academically and explicitly, their beliefs and practices (Richardson, 1996; Sandretto, Lang, Schon, & Whyte, 2003; Wideen et al., 1998). This self-study developed from the authors' shared desire to improve our teaching practice by studying the relationship between our teaching beliefs and our teaching practices. Specifically, Nicole was interested in how her role in the classroom influenced students' learning. As she wanted to examine and improve her practice, self-study was the most appropriate methodological framework to employ. There are many approaches to self-study, including those that are autobiographical, often drawing on life history research. Others focus on the intersection of one's race, class, and gender and teaching practice, often drawing on critical methodologies (Zeichner, 1999). Our inquiry incorporated many characteristics of pragmatic action research (Levin & Greenwood, 2002). Pragmatic philosophy guides pragmatic action research, which means that the methods of research suit its context and/or situation, and knowledge generation occurs through action and experimentation. Such research addresses real problems and necessitates collaboration with participants and colleagues. As a self-study, this collaborative project sought to afford Nicole the opportunity to address a real issue in her classroom, with the support of her colleagues and with the ultimate goal of influencing her practice.

Context of the Study

The context of this self-study was a non-majors interdisciplinary science course for prospective elementary education undergraduate students in a large, public university in the USA. Course goals centered on the development of inquiry process skills, an integrated understanding of science concepts, and an examination of the nature of science. The study took place over the span of three months during one spring semester in 2010. Nicole was the instructor/lead researcher in this self-study and had taught the course for six semesters. In the course that is the focus of this study, there were 22 undergraduates.

Nicole employed Gayle and Amy (colleagues) as reflective partners at various stages throughout this study. Gayle helped Nicole conceptualize her self-study, guiding her through the process of turning her passions and concerns about her own teaching into researchable questions. Nicole and Gayle engaged in biweekly reflective sessions before and during the self-study as a way for Nicole to debrief about her evolving ideas of shifting teacher roles. Gayle mirrored Nicole's reflections while probing her further regarding her evolving ideas. Gayle also provided substantive feedback on the scholarship in which to situate her study. Specifically seeking to use approaches to increase student engagement, Amy and Nicole worked together to codesign several units for this course, including the nutrition unit that is the focus of this study. Amy also served as a reflective partner after the course had ended. She reviewed and commented on Nicole's initial critical events analysis, made suggestions for alternative interpretations of the analysis, and supported Nicole as she developed her final interpretations of her own and her students' efforts in the course. Also, Amy provided extensive feedback throughout all stages of the iterative analysis.

The nutrition unit is a representative example of how Nicole structured the course to achieve scaffolding that would encourage students to connect science-related issues to themselves, their communities, and the world. In this unit, Nicole presented data through scientific journal articles illustrating nutrition issues among college-age adults. Students were then charged with examining their own diets through documenting and analyzing their own dietary data. They used processes of systematic data collection, analysis, and interpretation, all part of scientific inquiry, to garner understanding about their own diets. After looking at their own diets using scientific inquiry, they designed scientific inquiries to examine the nutritional profile of food choices on their college campus. Students observed dining spaces and the food choices their peers made on campus, then constructed testable questions and accompanying experiments. Again, here was the intersection of science content (nutrition science), scientific inquiry (designing experiments and conducting them), and scientific literacy (building understanding of science-related issues embedded in their social and cultural contexts). They broadened their understanding of nutrition issues beyond their personal spheres to examine scientific claims made about nutrition issues in school lunches and international contexts. These activities addressed several course goals, but those related to Nicole's view of scientific literacy most explicitly. This view correlates with the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), which state that scientifically literate individuals are able to use science for personal and civic action, and that they are able to understand science as presented to them to the same vein (p. 22). Nicole approached these goals through a critical, social justice frame of thinking, which is why reflection was employed as a process of emancipation and reformation (Smyth, 1992).

Data Collection

Over the course of three months, Nicole collected four sources of data. First, she kept a journal in which she recorded after each class session her beliefs about the role she and students took in class, as well as the struggles she encountered attempting to shift from expert to facilitator. Second, during class activities where students worked with each other or independently, she recorded written field notes of what she saw that reflected the control they took over their learning. Third, at the end of each class session, students wrote reflections about what they thought the goals for the day were, as well as their own thoughts about their learning and the style of instruction (see Table 1). Fourth, student written work, in the form of regular class assignments and daily reflections, was collected as a source of insight as to in what ways students took control over their learning. The latter two sources served as supporting data to help understand the match/mismatch between what Nicole believed about her teaching and what her students reflected back to her about her teaching.

Table 1 Daily reflection questions provided to students at the end of each class.

· What did you believe today's objective/learning goal was?

· Do you feel you achieved the objective/learning goal for today? Why or why not?

· What is one teaching strategy which I used that you found effective for your learning?

· Are there questions you still have, or concepts with which you would like help?

· Other professional, positive, and/or productive comments?

Data Analysis

Assessing critical events in educational settings can be useful for several reasons, namely to clarify and confront ideals and commitments of teachers (Woods, 1993). To identify the specific ways that the myth of teacher-as-expert was embedded in her teaching, Nicole performed a critical events analysis by reading through all data and categorizing instances of exerting or relinquishing power using Webster and Mertova's (2007) categories of critical, like, and other events. Critical events are defined as those that reveal a change of understanding or worldview by the participant, especially those that influence the participant in a professional or work-related role. Like events include those that further illustrate, confirm, or repeat the participant's experiences with the critical event. Other events include those that take place at the same time as critical events and may or may not be directly related to critical events, but are essential for understanding the participant's experiences. In the context of this self-study, Nicole identified critical events as instances in which she perceived that her teaching actions promoted or discouraged student control over learning. Like events were those actions taken by her or her students that confirmed or repeated her experiences of acting as expert or facilitator. Other events were those classroom actions that provided additional context for understanding her attempt to balance expert and facilitator roles.

Once critical, like, and other events were identified and categorized, Nicole shared these with Gayle and Amy, as co-researchers, to examine the different ways in which Nicole exerted power as an expert or relinquished power to students by assuming the role of facilitator. First, Nicole and Amy read through the initial analysis, and then came together to discuss individual insights about similarities and differences in critical events, and the extent to which these events corresponded to particular actions in the classroom. Gayle reflected iteratively with Nicole about her categorization of events as “critical,” helping to assure that they fit her working definition. Table 2 provides an example of critical events analysis for this study to illustrate how we categorized critical, like, and other events.

Table 2 Sample analysis illustrating events from 28 January 2010.

Type of event	Articulation (Nicole)	Supporting data
Critical	It is frustrating trying to create situations where they can take control over their learning and they don't do it	Nicole: One of the students suggested that I call on other students – that would be the good middle school teacher thing to do, and I probably have done that in the past but partly I don't want to do it because then I'm just reinforcing that type of stance, that I am the one who has control over their learning, rather than them
		Student: [I liked that you were] giving examples and data graphs but I was kind of lost as to what it was I was supposed to do because we did not have directions
Like	I keep telling them, “There is no one right way to do things”	Nicole: I had to literally say, “When you turn in the graphs, I'm not going to be looking to see that you chose the graph type that I would have, but I am going to be looking to see that you provided an adequate justification for the graph type you did choose”
		Student: I'm not sure if we graphed everything correctly ... haven't graphed in a while
Other	I feel compelled to manage them, even though I tell them there is no one right way	Nicole: Some groups divided up the graphs, while others worked on them together. This should be fine. But it still made me very uncomfortable. And that means that I withheld some of the information that they would need to continue even if they did finish faster than I would have expected. So with those groups who finished graphing before class was over, I felt compelled to manage them and tell them what the next logical steps were

Findings

We present details of four separate class sessions to illustrate insights about the relationship between Nicole's actions and her students' learning. Before analyzing journal entries, student reflections, and student work, we had expectations about the appearance of the data. We envisioned clear demarcations between Nicole's actions as an expert and her actions as a facilitator. However, what we found was that classroom events could not be neatly categorized. Each case was complex, with interwoven elements of both expert and facilitator. To add further complexity, there were cases where Nicole believed she was acting too much like an expert, yet her students took control and made decisions about their own learning.

Each class session, described below by date, was chosen because it demonstrated well the complexity of Nicole's multifaceted classroom roles by using her actions as an exemplar of how she sought to facilitate rather than control student learning. Examples of such actions include how she structured and directed their activity, whether she initiated student participation or not, and what students reported about their learning. These four class sessions were also chosen because they illustrated patterns of critical events that also occurred at other times. For each class session, a brief context is presented, followed by data that illustrate critical events in Nicole's teaching. Although the second and third authors played an integral role in Nicole's examination of her beliefs and assumptions about teaching, the events are presented from Nicole's perspective to more vividly illustrate the tensions she experienced.

28 January 2010

In this day's activity, students were presented with a realistic, ill-structured problem with corresponding data on an oil spill in the ocean. Students were expected to assume the role of scientists by analyzing and interpreting the physical and geochemical data in order to identify the source of the oil spill. The learning objectives were to allow students an opportunity to grapple with a large, complex data set and to select the most relevant pieces and represent them graphically. Once their graphical representations were complete, students were expected to use data trends evident in the graphs to identify the mostly likely source of the oil spill. Only a small amount of background content information was provided at the beginning for students to unpack and make sense of the data set.

In this case, Nicole attempted to create situations that would promote students taking control over their own learning. In the previous class session, we had a class discussion in which Nicole had to heavily prompt students to participate. The lack of self-initiated participation by students frustrated her, and they noticed her frustration. She wrote about this before class began on the day of the oil spill activity:

One of the students suggested that I call on other students – that would be the good middle school teacher thing to do, and I probably have done that in the past but partly I don't want to do it because then I'm just reinforcing that type of stance, that I am the one who has control over their learning, rather than them. (Journal, January 28, 2010)

Nicole walked into class frustrated and this influenced how class began. She made a point of letting them know that she was more interested in the procedure they used to solve the problem rather than whether or not they chose the same procedure she would choose. Nicole also wrote about this in her journal:

I had to literally say, “When you turn in the graphs, I'm not going to be looking to see that you chose the graph type that I would have, but I am going to be looking to see that you provided an adequate justification for the graph type you did choose”. (Journal, January 28, 2010)

In the beginning of this activity, Nicole attempted to relinquish control over student learning in two ways. First, she provided them with an open-ended problem that allowed a lot of flexibility in the strategy they employed to devise a solution. Second, she emphasized verbally that there was not one set way to approach their task, but simply that they should make clear to her why they chose the approach they did. Students indicated in the day's written reflection that these approaches made them uncomfortable:

Student 1: I'm not sure if we graphed everything correctly... haven't graphed in a while. (Written Reflection, January 28, 2010)

Student 2: [I liked that you were] giving examples and data graphs but I was kind of lost as to what it was I was supposed to do because we did not have directions. (Written Reflection, January 28, 2010)

Interestingly, as class continued, Nicole felt a compulsion to manage them, even though she told them repeatedly that there was no one right way to do the assignment. The activity had several stages, and in the beginning she provided only the first stage so as to not overwhelm them. Instead of making the subsequent stages available to them as needed, she became concerned about differences in the rate at which groups of students completed the activity. In her journal, Nicole wrote about her concerns:

Some groups divided up the graphs, while others worked on them together. This should be fine. But it still made me very uncomfortable. And that means that I withheld some of the information that they would need to continue even if they did finish faster than I would have expected. So with those groups who finished graphing before class was over, I felt compelled to manage them and tell them what the next logical steps were. (Journal, January 28, 2010)

11 February 2010

Nicole's reactions to this day's activities were interesting because it was a day where she was not the lead instructor. She had scheduled a session in the library for students to learn about searching for reliable sources of scientific information. Students were beginning their independent inquiry projects and were expected to gain understanding of a controversial issue in science using empirical research from peer-reviewed journals. A graduate student in library science provided them with an informative overview of the print and digital resources offered by the library. Perhaps because Nicole was not the lead instructor, she noticed where students chose, at least as she perceived it, to not take control over their own learning. For example, when the library science student used a discussion format to ask questions, her students still raised their hands to answer. She had worked actively to disrupt this classroom norm in the course, and wrote about her frustration with this action:

I noticed that they are still raising their hands to participate. Is this my fault for allowing it to continue? But how would I avoid it without calling them out in another potentially condescending way, “Now ... don't raise your hands to participate ...” That almost seems to defeat the purpose … I don't feel uncomfortable with silence, but I do feel frustrated about the lack of participation. Also, I do know that being an active participant in class doesn't necessarily mean that you are talking. Why do we privilege talking? I even know for myself I am sometimes more engaged when I am allowed to quietly reflect. (Journal, February 11, 2010)

Also, at the end of the library instruction session Nicole offered time for them to begin working on their research by putting into use the skills they had just learned. The day prior to library instruction, she asked them to indicate topics they would like to explore for their projects. From this, she attempted to pair students based on matches of their research interests. Nicole thought this might be a good way to push them to work with peers outside of their normal class group – a strategy she used as a direct response to requests intimated in their daily written reflections. Their reaction to her pairings puzzled her, as she wrote in her journal after class:

I provided different options for partners based on their interests, but they selected the same people they always do. I did tell them that they didn't have to partner up with these people, but that they were best matches based on the interests that they had indicated. Yet, though my students do not agree with my assessment, they expressed that they appreciated that they would have different options. (Journal, February 11, 2010)

Nicole sensed an attitude of indifference or passiveness as being the rationale behind their choice to form their regular groups. To further her puzzlement, one student responded to this action in his daily reflection that day. He was disappointed that she had not “enforced” the new pairings. The student wrote:

Student: I'm torn because it's good you didn't enforce choosing groups yourself, but if you do it would increase chances of people working with those they don't usually work with. (Written reflection, February 11, 2010)

Despite her frustration and internal tension, around this time in the semester Nicole noticed a turning point in students' daily, written reflections. Students shifted from relating substantial discomfort in being afforded control over their assignments to stating appreciation for having some control over the direction of assignments. One question on the daily reflection asked: “What is one teaching strategy which I used that you found effective for your learning?” (see Table 1). In response, two students expressed their appreciation:

Student 1: We decided what question to use.

Student 2: I like that a general resource was given but we still had to look for what we needed. (Written reflections, February 11, 2010)

25 February 2010

After the library session and controversial issues activity, there were several weeks with a large number of student absences and a general lack of student participation. Nicole felt that their lack of involvement demonstrably reflected her inability to shift control over learning to them. On this day, students used a spreadsheet program to analyze dietary data, which was part of a larger unit on nutrition. In the weeks prior to class, they had collected data on their personal food intake. There was a discussion scheduled on a nutrition article before the data analysis assignment, but Nicole chose to cancel discussion right before class, as documented in her journal:

Today I decided to cut the discussion out. I had mixed feelings about this because I didn't put it to a vote, I didn't let them have a say about whether or not they wanted to keep the discussion … I feel like I have to do so much pulling in discussion. Pulling to get them to talk in the first place, pulling to get them to talk about something they want to talk about, something other than what I had originally brought up, pulling to get them to listen and talk to each other. And, frankly, I just didn't want to do it today. (Journal, February 25, 2010)

Around this time Nicole experienced other frustrations and disappointments with student progress. One prompt in the daily written reflection was, “What did you believe today's objective/learning goal was?” By asking this question, she sought to encourage her students to think about what they were doing in class and how it connected to course learning goals. Normally, by mid-semester students responded to this prompt that showed awareness of the connection between class activities and learning goals. In her journal, Nicole wrote about this:

They do not ask questions. Or rarely, anyway. In the past by this time I feel as though I have had plenty of students asking questions. What does this mean? I don't think it means that I am so clear that they do not have any questions to ask. What I feel like is that they aren't engaged enough with learning or thinking critically to have any questions. They also aren't really trying to identify objectives. Okay, well, they are identifying what we did, and the procedural goal for the day, but not necessarily what they were supposed to learn. I don't know if they just don't know what to write or if they just don't care. (Journal, February 25, 2010)

As indicated by her journal entry above, students were not yet doing this, despite the fact that it was mid-semester. Following are two student responses to the question:

Student 1: [Today's learning objective was] to graph and analyze the amount of food we intake as individuals every day and compare it to the recommended intake. (Written reflection, February 25, 2010)

Student 2: Forming our own data of ourselves helped me realize science in a personal view. (Written reflection, February 25, 2010)

From Nicole's perspective that day, Student 1 only focused on the mechanics of the activity and not the deeper goals of the unit to become proficient in collecting and analyzing data, and compare it to existing recommendations. Student 2 did offer her ideas about what “forming” her own data helped her understand. Furthermore, she attempted to connect it to concepts from very early in the course where we examined different views of science commonly held by individuals.

30 March 2010

On this day, students engaged in the last activity in the nutrition unit. In this four-step activity, students first identified and selected a country in which citizens experienced food insecurity. Then they performed research to identify the most likely causes of food insecurity in that country. Based on identified causes, students determined the most likely effects on the nutritional health of people in the country. Finally, students identified an action they could take on an individual level to begin the process of ameliorating world hunger. Nicole left class feeling that it was one of her most successful teaching days:

It was one of the most gratifying days of teaching. It very well may have had something to do with the fact that teaching this topic is something I have always wanted to teach … I was a little worried that I may have been shoving my ideological, moral, and political agendas down their throats. The action column seemed like it may have been a bit much. But, then again, it really is a problem and millions of people die of hunger around the world each year. (Journal, March 30, 2010)

She was concerned about the firm position she took on the issues and whether or not she was projecting too many of her own values. Despite her usual aversion to lecture-based lessons, Nicole began this activity with a mini-lecture. As her journal indicates, the message she sent to students in the mini-lecture also concerned her:

To start out the activity, I did a preface, which is as close to a lecture as I get. I asked them to think about whether or not they knew where their food comes from, and they admitted that they have no idea. I asked a student what the last fruit was that she ate, and if she knew where it was from. We then discussed some of the reasons why buying fruit from Chile when you live in the Midwestern U.S. might be a bad idea. Again, was I shoving my ideals on them? (Journal, March 30, 2010)

Nicole thought that beginning the activity with a teacher-directed lecture would discourage the degree of control they perceived they had over the assignment. What she found is that they took control over their own learning. Students who previously seemed unengaged in class engaged in this activity in ways that exceeded her expectations. She made a conscious effort to encourage them without over-directing their thinking:

Students I had all but written off as not being interested in anything expressed their frustrations about HIV/AIDS rates in South Africa. But then, they were trying to connect the dots in their heads, “Why would high HIV/AIDS rates lead to food insecurity?” I had a really difficult time at this point because they wanted me to give them an answer, and it would have been so easy, but I wanted them to figure it out, to come up with their own reasoning for it. (Journal, March 30, 2010)

Based on student responses, they were taking control not only of their own learning, but also of their personal choices. A couple of students also refuted Nicole's concerns that she was projecting too much of her own views onto them:

Student 1: I always thought there isn't anything that I can do about world hunger and I never really knew much about it. But now I am aware of the issue and that there is stuff I can do about it.

Student 2: Finding our own resources helped me get a more balanced view on the issues. I believe I learned more. (Written reflection, March 30, 2010)

During this class, Nicole's students took the most control over their own learning; it was also the class that started with a mini-lecture and where Nicole felt that she succeeded in making her ideas clear. During the activity stage of this class, Nicole witnessed students who had not previously taken control being deeply engaged in the activities. A few slipped into the role of asking her to take control, but she resisted. Students also reported that they had more control, stating that finding their own resources allowed them to have a more balanced view of the topic, international nutrition.

In summary, Nicole's actions and instructional strategies generated different end results, both in terms of the extent to which she relinquished control and the extent to which students took control over their learning. On days that began as an internal struggle over how much control she should take, she ended up acting more as the expert. On days when it was clear that she was trying to facilitate, she ended up feeling frustrated with what she perceived as students' lack of agency over their own learning. Interestingly, on days that students took the most control over their own learning, Nicole started out as the expert.

When Nicole made a conscious effort to avoid being the teacher-as-expert, it often came through a personal “internal struggle” (MacGillivray, 1997). To do this, she offered open-ended problems with little background information. Nicole emphasized that these problems had multiple solutions. When she was frustrated with students' low participation in class discussion, she cancelled discussion without putting it to a vote that would have afforded student decision-making. In both cases, her struggle with how much control to take in these learning situations did not result in students taking more control over their learning. Also, during class sessions when Nicole was not in the lead instructor role, as in the library session, students acted passively toward their learning. Furthermore, students did not follow her recommendations for work groups, but instead formed their typical groups with the same people. While Nicole resisted the temptation to require students to form groups that she had recommended, at least one student expressed his desire for her to act as expert in enforcing particular student groups.

Discussion and Implications

Paradoxically, it was during class sessions in which students took greatest control over their learning that Nicole had started out as teacher-as-expert. In contrast, when she struggled to determine if teacher-as-expert or teacher-as-facilitator was more appropriate, students responded by not taking control over their learning. Likewise, when Nicole began class sessions purposefully attempting to act as teacher-as-facilitator, students did not actively accept control over their learning. Instances in which Nicole took a hands-off or flexible approach also did not facilitate student agency. In fact, it seemed that beginning class sessions with a confident, definitive role of teacher-as-expert and then gradually shifting away from that role during the same class session actually encouraged student agency. We offer two interpretations to explain this finding. First, by beginning class in the role of teacher-as-expert, Nicole put students at ease by teaching in a way they recognized, in essence, reinforcing the cultural myth. Second, by beginning class in this way, Nicole provided structure for students' learning during subsequent class activity, thereby capitalizing on students' beliefs about the appropriate role of a teacher while tacitly moving them beyond this myth such that they readily took more control over learning. Perhaps, as some scholars suggest, modeling control over instruction provides an example to students about how to take control over their learning and even encourages them to do so (Korthagen et al., 2006; Loughran & Berry, 2005).

At the beginning of this study, our conceptualization of teacher-as-expert was conflated with stifling student agency, independence, and ability. We assumed that by selectively acting as teacher-as-expert, Nicole would inhibit students' capacity to take control over their own learning. However, the findings of this study and others (Louie et al., 2002; Tidwell & Fitzgerald, 2007) suggest that students do not necessarily equate teacher-as-expert with their own disempowerment.

This insight fit with tensions articulated by Berry (2004) that influence teaching and learning about practice. As Nicole struggled to find the balance between “telling and growth,” she wavered in how she presented both herself and course assignments to students. This wavering simultaneously illustrates the tension of “working with and against” (Berry, 2004, p. 1320). For example, crafting an assignment where students could analyze their own dietary data was an effort at providing students with opportunities to use science in their everyday lives – one goal of scientific literacy. Yet Nicole's ambivalence about her role during the assignment was counterproductive to the broad goals of scientific literacy. As Berry (2007b) noted in her description of tensions experienced by teacher educators, such “tensions do not exist in isolation from each other. They interact in practice in ways that produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts” (p. 120). In this study, the tension of “telling and growth” interacted with “working with and against.” Wavering between teacher-as-expert and teacher-as-facilitator (telling and growth) led Nicole to act in ways that were counterproductive for students achieving scientific literacy (working with and against). Nicole's efforts to promote agency among students in pursuit of scientific literacy (working with and against) led to ambivalence in both thought and action about her teacher role (telling and growth). In her examination of her teaching, Nicole came to recognize the, “ebb and flow between the tensions such that they may all well exist at once, but rise to the surface in different ways at different times depending on the situation and the way it may be played out” (Berry, 2007a, p. 140), thus highlighting the ambivalent and contradictory nature of teacher educators' work.

Our findings revealed nuances about Nicole's attempts to cultivate scientific literacy, where students can reach independent, well-reasoned judgments. In the class session where Nicole started class as expert but then relinquished control, students reported greater feelings of empowerment for making science-related decisions. In modeling independent judgment and reasoned decision-making, Nicole had encouraged students to do the same. Beyond her role in the classroom, the structure and content of assignments may also have contributed to students' movement toward scientific literacy. When Nicole acted purely as teacher-as-facilitator for an assignment that required students to place themselves in the role of scientists, they reacted passively. When class assignments moved toward more tangible, relevant issues that required students to analyze the intersection of scientific and social issues, Nicole was able to act as teacher-as-facilitator while still scaffolding students' learning. In these cases, students acted in more empowered ways to make decisions and take action. In our future efforts to cultivate scientific literacy within this course, to foster student control over learning, and to shed the “teacher-as-expert” role, we intend to enhance classroom activity by combining structured facilitation with assignments that require students to employ decision-making directly related to socio-scientific issues.

Another avenue to explore involves attending explicitly to the interrelated nature of Berry's tensions. Guiding questions for future self-studies may include (1) what is the nature of the tension between “telling and growth” and “working with and against?” and (2) how does making explicit to students the interrogation of teacher tensions and myths affect the control students have over their learning and scientific decision-making? If the science teacher educator community wants future teachers to gain control over their learning, our experiences with students reported in this study may provide clues. As we have detailed, the responses of Nicole's students to her varying degrees of control were in large part counterintuitive. Through her interrogation of beliefs and myths, relationships between tensions surfaced. Interrogating nuances and complexities of tensions in self-study may provide further avenues for reconciliation between what we want our teaching to produce and what it actually does produce.