Deep learning in teacher professional development using Goethean phenomenology: a self-study

ABSTRACT

While teacher professional development (PD) has the potential to improve pedagogy and student learning, multiple factors contribute to its effectiveness. Research has identified supports and barriers which can influence the success or failure of PD initiatives at each stage of the process. Despite progress, many PD programmes are ineffective and do not always result in meaningful and enduring changes. In the trajectory from PD planning to implementation, the relationship between content presented and content accepted by teachers is critical. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of what teachers report actually happens around their PD learning. Studies focus largely on intended PD and less on teacher perceptions of PD experiences. This self-study explored the potential of using Goethean phenomenology as a novel approach for understanding and capturing the teacher/researcher’s perceptions of their own learning. The study focussed on a series of PD sessions in drama education using the author’s personal experiences as data. Findings highlight key supports and barriers to teacher learning of PD material. Goethe’s method is shown to be a useful model for teacher reflective practice, an effective framework for deep learning, and a powerful tool for elucidating teachers’ lived experiences of their PD learning.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher professional development
• teacher learning
• self-study
• deep learning
• Goethean phenomenology
• Speech and drama

Introduction

Teacher professional development (PD) continues to be an important aspect of pedagogical practice worldwide for educational leaders and policymakers. While a great deal of research has been done, there is still more to be learnt about the complex nature of PD programmes. Studies have tended to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of PD in terms of what the programme was intended to deliver or ‘what we think should happen’ (McChesney and Aldridge 2021, p. 846). Fewer studies have been done from teacher perspectives on, and perceptions of ‘what actually happens’ in terms of their PD experiences. In the journey from programme to impact there is often a gap between the content that is delivered and the content that is accepted by teachers and consequently in the degree to which new learning is implemented in the classroom (McChesney and Aldridge 2021). This article reports on a self-study conducted by the author as teacher/researcher. It was designed to investigate a problem of practice identified around my own learning in a series of PD drama workshops based on Rudolf Steiner’s Speech and Drama pedagogy, and a subsequent failure to integrate the new learning into my teaching practice. The aim was to reflect on my PD sessions in order to understand the following: what skills and knowledge I had learned; what learning had been assimilated; what were the gaps in my learning; what helped or hindered learning and subsequent classroom implementation of the new PD content.

Research focusing on teacher perceptions of PD has commonly used surveys, interviews or reflective practice as a capture and reporting method (see for example Lind 2007, Yang 2020, McChesney and Aldridge 2021). This study explored a novel approach by investigating the potential of using self-study combined with Goethean phenomenology to reflect deeply on learning and bring a depth of understanding to the lived experience of the teacher/researcher. The following research questions were addressed in the study: 1) What were the teacher/researcher’s perceptions of their own experiences of learning around PD content? 2) What can we learn about the supports and barriers to effective PD in general by focussing on this teacher/researcher’s perceptions of their own learning around PD content? 3) How effective is Goethe’s four-phase method in helping to understand a teacher’s perceptions of their experiences in relation to PD content?

The paper is organised in the following way. It begins with an overview of the relevant literature, looking at the phases of the professional development trajectory, the teacher as learner in the PD process, and the concept of deep learning. It then surveys studies on Goethean phenomenology in education, highlighting its position as a scheme for deep learning. The methodology section outlines Goethe’s four-phase method, how it relates to self-study methods, and data collection. The next section provides a detailed account of how I applied the four phases of Goethe’s method to my own PD experiences and the insights I gained from engaging in this process. It includes example quotations from my field notes and research journal to illustrate these findings. The next section discusses the findings through a reflection on, and assessment of my experiences using Goethe’s method in practice and how my personal understandings connect to the relevant literature. The conclusion outlines the contribution of this study to the field, offering some recommendations in terms of implications and potential application for PD design.

Literature review

Professional development refers to various types of training, education, and learning programmes designed to develop a teacher’s expertise, knowledge, and skills, with the goal of improving student outcomes (Borko 2004, Yang 2020). As well as changing pedagogical practice, PD also aims to influence the teacher’s beliefs and attitudes that inform and underpin such practice. At the centre of any PD initiative is the idea of ‘teachers learning, learning how to learn, and transforming their knowledge into practice for the benefit of their students’ growth’ (Avalos 2011, p. 10).

Studies into teacher PD have identified the kinds of supports and barriers to effective programmes to ascertain how PD can be designed to give optimal impact in terms of improving teaching approaches and educational outcomes. Research indicates that certain supports need to be present if PD initiatives are to be effective and successful (Timperley 2008, Bautista and Ortega-Ruiz 2015, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, Yang 2020). Common features of effective PD have been identified as involving: content focused material; active learning; collaboration; expert coaching and modelling; reflection and feedback; sustained duration; self-regulation and self-responsibility (Timperley 2008, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, Balta and Erylmaz 2019, Yang 2020, McChesney and Aldridge 2021). As well as factors which support PD initiatives, research has identified different types of impediments to effective PD outcomes that need to be mitigated or avoided to achieve positive results (Timperley 2008, Yang 2020, McChesney and Aldridge 2021). These include external factors such as the general school context, and internal factors relating to the teacher’s inner capacities.

The professional development process

Various conceptual models have been designed to better understand and articulate the PD journey as a whole and the particular phases within the PD trajectory (McChesney and Aldridge 2021). A recent review of PD models identified the PD process as typically having the following phases: PD design; teacher learning (internal change); teacher practice (external change); student impacts; teacher beliefs (internal change) (McChesney and Aldridge 2021). This model builds on and extends previous frameworks by outlining five specific stages in the PD trajectory: intended, received, accepted, applied, and student impacts (McChesney and Aldridge 2021). It brings a new emphasis to the point in the PD programme related to teacher learning, that is, where the PD content is received and accepted by the participating teacher. The research highlighted factors around teacher’s acceptance of the received content which can impact on how the PD progresses to the next stage of the process. These factors were identified as relating to: 1) cognitive access, 2) contextual fit, and 3) teacher agency. Cognitive access refers to a teacher’s ability to understand, comprehend and construct meaning from the content they encounter in PD situations. Contextual fit involves the teacher’s perceptions of how well the PD content aligns with their particular working context. Teacher agency is the teacher’s ability to exercise choice in terms of the content being offered for PD and their professional judgement in connection with the ideas being presented during the PD activities (McChesney and Aldridge 2021). Teachers can exercise their personal agency by critiquing the PD content and delivery against their own knowledge, beliefs and practices (McChesney and Aldridge 2021). While this model is a helpful addition to understanding the discrete phases of the PD process, other studies have also demonstrated the importance of considering embodied and affective aspects of teacher learning in tandem with cognitive aspects (Lind 2007, Winje and Londal 2020). Taken together, these models can help to understand and articulate the kinds of supports and barriers to effective PD at the point of received and accepted PD content.

Teacher learning in professional development

Research indicates that PD programmes need to consider how teachers learn as well as what they learn (Timperley 2008, Yang 2020, McChesney and Aldridge 2021). Active learning that utilises adult learning theory is considered a positive strategy in designing effective PD programmes (Lind 2007, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017). This learning theory proceeds from the premise that experience provides the basis for learning and involves practical, hands-on activities with teachers participating in their own learning (Kolb 2015, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017). With subjects like the Creative Arts, active learning usually takes the form of workshops where teacher-participants are involved in physical learning situations that aim to give practical skills and experiential knowledge. As such, the teachers’ role is principally as learner, where they experience the same kind of activities they would be expected to plan for their students (Oreck 2004). Such approaches have been seen as problematic since time constraints often mean there is an imperative to dedicate the whole workshop to practical skills which participants can use in the classroom (2004). Because of this, teachers are not always able to properly assimilate the new learning they have gained before taking it into their teaching practice. As Oreck comments, ‘the excitement, creativity, and supportive environment generated in an arts workshop is difficult to maintain amid the pressures of the school day’ (2004, p.66).

Teachers as learners need adequate time and opportunity to absorb and assimilate what they have actually learned during PD sessions and, as Timperley notes, a ‘skills-only focus does not develop the deep understandings teachers need’ (2008, p.11). Workshop-style PD programmes in general have been viewed as the least effective in terms of teacher self-efficacy because they may not include adequate time for teachers to ‘actively engage in reflection’ (Yang 2020, p. 808). Teacher reflection is seen as a vital component of the PD process (Lind 2007, Timperley 2008, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, Yang 2020). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) consider it to be so important that they recommend it be placed at the centre of active learning in PD. Reflective practice is frequently used during PD coaching or mentoring situations and is considered essential once teachers are back in the classroom (Timperley 2008, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, Yang 2020). Thus, it is most often associated with the teacher as teacher during the PD cycle, but rarely associated with the teacher as learner. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) suggest there are opportunities to use reflective practice elsewhere in the PD cycle. For instance, there is scope for reflective practice to take place during and immediately after the PD sessions, before classroom implementation of what has been learned. The potential value of reflective practice for the teacher as learner has not been sufficiently emphasised in the literature.

Teacher as learner and deep learning

There is a general consensus that teachers need in-depth learning in order to develop substantive understanding and mastery in any type of PD situation (Oreck 2004, Lind 2007, Timperley 2008, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, Yang 2020). While some studies advocate for ‘just in time’ teaching (Balta and Erylmaz 2019) others suggest that teachers as learners need to engage in deep learning during the PD process if their existing knowledge is to be developed and extended (Riordan et al. 2019, Song et al. 2022). The term deep learning is increasingly being used in contemporary educational discourses (Winje and Londal 2020). It is commonly associated with primary and secondary school contexts but has also been applied and developed in relation to adult learning. Deep learning emphasises a holistic perspective by considering the whole person in the learning schema. It draws on findings in neuroscience which point to ‘learning as a process that fundamentally involves embodied, affective, social and cognitive aspects’ (Winje and Londal 2020, p. 36). It considers both internal and external aspects of the learning situation and the learner themselves (Matsushita 2018).

The term has been conceptualised as encompassing ideas around meaningful learning and transfer of learning (Winje and Londal 2020, p. 38). Factors associated with these ideas include: intrinsic motivation to learn; the intention to understand the meaning of what is being learned; coherently relating the different parts of the new material to each other as well as to previous understanding; and the transfer of skills and knowledge to a new situation or context (Winje and Londal 2020). Deep learning has been described as moving ‘beyond temporary gains … to create lasting, meaningful improvements in learning’ (Tochon 2010, cited in, Winje and Londal 2020). It has been seen as implying a ‘deep transformational learning’ that relates to the learner’s everyday experiences outside the formal learning situation. It can encompass the learner’s identity, their sense of purpose, and how they see their role in the world (Winje and Londal 2020; Tochon 2010). Planning for deep learning in a PD context therefore requires consideration of the relationships and interactions between all these factors in a cohesive, integrated, and holistic way (Tochon 2010, Winje and Londal 2020).

Goethean phenomenology as a deep learning strategy

Phenomenology can be described as the study of life-world phenomena as understood through an individual’s conscious experience of that phenomena (Husserl 1990, O’Toole and Beckett 2013, Van Manen 2014). Van Manen describes the basic method of phenomenology as ‘the taking up of a certain attitude and practicing a certain attentive awareness to the things of the world as we live them rather than as we conceptualize or theorize them’ (Van Manen 2014, p. 41). While Goethe’s phenomenology differs from others in certain respects (see Weik 2017), Robbins (2006), indicates that it has profound similarities with contemporary phenomenology.

Goethe’s approach is increasingly being applied across disciplines in the human sciences and a number of studies have been conducted within the field of education. The majority of this research has focused on the practical application of Goethe’s method as a teaching approach within school and university settings. Most studies have considered it in relation to science, environmental, and place-based education (Brook 1998, Cameron 2005, Reynolds 2007, Franses et al. 2015). Other research has explored it in connection with: teacher pre-service training and early professional development (Oberski and McNally 2007); giving voice to student school experiences (Lambert 2012); and inclusive education (Oberski 2003). Overall, the studies pointed to Goethe’s method as a useful approach for in-depth or deep learning. It was described as a method that can lead to ‘profound learning’ (Franses et al. 2015) and was perceived as a way to help learners encounter the phenomenon ‘deeply’ (Cameron 2005, p. 176), to bring ‘depth and scope to student learning’ (2005, p. 174) and ‘depth of experience and understanding’ (2005, p. 179). A common feature of the literature is the provision of detailed explanations of Goethe’s method, giving practical examples of how it can be applied in each context and the implications for learning and teaching.

Methodology

Goethean phenomenology has been employed as the methodology for this self-study for several reasons. Firstly, it offers an approach to inquiry that is apposite for the object of study, given that the Steiner curriculum is founded on a practical application of Goethe’s worldview and phenomenological enterprise (Rawson 2018). Secondly, phenomenology in general is particularly apt in studies of theatre and drama because of the embodied nature of the artform (Johnston 2017). Thirdly, while some criticism has been levelled at phenomenology for its ‘lack of structure’ (Johnston 2017, p. 48), Goethe’s approach offers a systematic and coherent process that can be used by teachers and educators, as indicated by the studies reviewed in the literature (Cameron 2005, Oberski and McNally 2007, Reynolds 2007, Lambert 2012, Franses et al. 2015). In addition, the method addresses criticisms often directed at phenomenology for its supposed subjective nature. Goethean phenomenology is empirically based and dissolves the perceived boundaries between the subject/object binary because it is neither subjective nor objective but relational (Steiner 2007, Weik 2017).

Goethean phenomenology is described as an holistic and dynamic ‘way of seeing’ phenomena which is different to traditional science’s analytical model (Oberski 2003, p. 333). ‘Seeing’ in this case is an active, participatory process that requires the observer to engage with the phenomena physically, emotionally and cognitively, involving the sense perceptions, bodily sensations, feelings and thoughts (Oberski 2003, Cmeron 2005, Oberski and McNally 2007). It requires sustained, rigorous and systematic engagement with the phenomena requiring prolonged and careful observation, reflection and record-keeping (Reynolds 2007). The observer needs to approach the phenomena without any preconceived ideas or theories, to be open to the new and unexpected, in order to let the phenomenon ‘speak for itself’ (Ostergaard et al. 2008). Exponents of the method have commonly identified four phases which can also be understood as modes of perception (Brook 1998, Cameron 2005). The approach can incorporate the use of various art forms, such as painting, poetry, clay modelling or sculpture. These can play a significant role during any stage of the process as a way of deepening observations, representing the phenomenon, and expressing insights about the object of study (Brook 1998, Cameron 2005).

In conjunction with Goethe’s four-phase approach I used self-study methods in this research project. Self-study is a well-established genre in educational research that offers teachers and educators a way to investigate, understand, and improve their own professional practice in real life situations (Hamilton et al. 1998, Mena and Russell 2017). While the combination of self-study and phenomenology is relatively common in various disciplines (see Fortune 2009 for example), there is a dearth in educational research, where it appears to be an emerging approach with only a few studies to date (Brown and Duke 2005, Hauk 2010, Levinson et al. 2020). LaBoskey (2004) notes that the knowledge gleaned through self-study is not only relevant for the teacher/researcher themselves, but also for the broader educational community. Self-study aims to generate new knowledge that is both personal and public, potentially contributing to advancements in teaching practices more generally (2004). Self-study involves an investigation that is self-initiated and focusses on the teacher themselves. It is by nature self-reflective, embodied, and context-specific to the researcher’s own teaching practice and local setting. It encompasses a variety of approaches (Hamilton et al. 1998, Loughran 2007) and, as Tidwell et al. note, ‘clearly there is no single best way to engage in self-study’ (2009, xix). The methods used for gathering, generating, and representing data are various and can include: the use of text (either self-generated by the educator through reflective journaling, for example, or published sources); narrative and storytelling; art forms like poetry, painting, and collage. Data can also include artefacts of practice such as lessons, reflections, observations, feedback from students, and so on (2009). This aligns with Goethe’s approach which can also incorporate art forms as a way of engaging with phenomena.

The primary data for this study consists of my own experiences of undertaking a series of workshops and short courses in Steiner Speech and Drama. These PD sessions occurred over several years and comprised the following:

• A weekend teacher PD workshop in Steiner Speech and Drama at a school where I direct class plays

• Practical training in Steiner Speech and Drama as part of a comprehensive Steiner Education course consisting of workshops conducted during four residential intensive schools, each being four days duration

• A weekend workshop on Steiner Speech and Drama.

The first and third of these PD sessions were largely practical, face-to-face, ‘on-your-feet’ discreet learning experiences that involved supplementary readings in the form of handouts. The second was within a broader context of extensive reading material and assessment tasks for the overall course. It was a combination of face-to-face learning during intensive school workshops and then independent learning activities completed at home away from the residential setting. During and after these PD experiences I took detailed field notes in a learning journal to record descriptions of the activities in each workshop. I wrote comprehensive descriptions of what the facilitators and participants said and did. In line with a phenomenological perspective, the other key data are the physically embodied activities I experienced as a participant in the drama workshops.

The workshops focused on Steiner’s exercises and indications for Speech and Drama. Some similar material was covered in each of the three field sessions, but in different ways and varying depths of exploration. The following topics were addressed using sound, movement and gesture and working with specific examples from poetry, storytelling, and dramatic texts:

1. The four elements and the four qualities of movement (fire, earth, air water)

2. Vowels and consonants – gestures of the vowels – Four elements in relation to the consonants and breath – plosives, fricatives, labials …

3. Rhythms in language and speech – identifying rising and falling rhythms – gravity and levity in speech – classic Greek rhythms comprising short and long rhythms – iambic, trochaic, anapaestic, dactylic

4. Styles in poetry, storytelling, and theatre – epic, lyric, and dramatic

5. Gesture – archetypal gestures as expressed through Greek gymnastics – running, leaping, wrestling, discuss, and javelin

6. Six gestures of speech – pointing, holding onto oneself, pondering/trembling, antipathy, sympathy, withdrawing.

Below is an example of the kinds of field notes I recorded from these workshops:

The Four Elements - Walking around the room. Sense the space around you. Imagine you are fire. Move around the space as though you are a glowing ember radiating warmth and light, now a gentle flickering flame, and now the fire gets bigger and faster, moving through the space in all directions – up and down, forwards and backwards, left and right – let your whole body be fire - your hands, your arms, your hips, your feet … now we’re going to take that experience of fire into our words with a short ‘firey’ verse – so everyone still moving through the space as fire, say the verse moving like fire – ‘Look! Look up at the stars! Look at all the fire folk flying through the air!’ – then each person say the verse one by one – tutor’s comments - ‘live into the fire sounds more!’. Vowels and consonants – tutor demonstrated a physical posture/gesture to express each vowel and participants imitated (drawing in journal to record this frozen gesture). Types of consonants related to each of the four elements – eg earth – plosives; fire- fricatives; water - labials, air - R

Using my learning journals and the physical experience of the workshops as data, I applied Goethe’s four-phase method. As with other types of phenomenological analysis, Goethe’s approach is based on the researcher’s lived experiences, reflections, interpretations, insights, and embodied sense perceptions of the phenomenon (Brook 1998, Van Manen 2014). The four stages of the method are understood as different modes of perception or ways of seeing the phenomenon, with the aim of ultimately experiencing its essence and wholeness. Each stage is outlined below:

1. Exact sense perception – the researcher gathers empirical data, making detailed observations of the phenomenon and recording all the facts available to their everyday senses.

2. Exact sensorial imagination – the researcher visualises the phenomenon in the mind’s eye as it existed over the time-period it was experienced, then imagines the time sequence differently to the way it actually happened, and then imagining the phenomenon as it might be/become in the future.

3. Seeing is beholding/Seeing the whole – the researcher ‘beholds’ the phenomenon by allowing it to impress itself deeply into their mind so they are able to experience a sense of its wholeness

4. Being one with the phenomenon – the researcher experiences an insight into the essence or archetypal structure of the phenomenon.

The following section provides an explanation of how these four phases were applied to the data as a form of analysis and what insights were generated from this application of Goethe’s method.

Applying Goethe’s phenomenological method to My PD experiences

The call to adventure

Some years ago, I was asked to direct a class play at a Steiner school. While I had many years teaching mainstream drama in primary, secondary, and higher education contexts, I had minimal experience of Steiner’s approach to drama. As this was a new area for me, I wanted to develop my skills and knowledge and so, over the course of the next few years, I participated in a series of workshops and short courses in Steiner Speech and Drama. Following these PD experiences, I found it difficult to integrate this new learning into my drama work at the Steiner school. I began to wonder if perhaps I had not sufficiently assimilated what I had learnt in the PD sessions. I realised that I did not feel totally confident in my own knowledge and skills to fully implement what I had learned in a classroom situation. I began to ask myself questions such as: What did I actually learn during these sessions? What learning has stayed with me? What learning did I embrace and what was I resistant to? Were there aspects of the learning that I did not fully understand? How could I reflect on my experiences to deepen my understanding and refine my skills? For these reasons, I decided to embark on a research project to reflect on my own PD learning and I wondered if Goethe’s phenomenology might offer a useful approach.

Goethe’s method involves a preparatory stage. This is when the investigator positions, acknowledges and records themselves within the research project and, in relation to the phenomenon under study, considers their own personal history and preferences or biases (Naydler 1996, Brook 1998). This is also when the investigator records their first impressions of the phenomenon which might prove to be important later in the study and this also relates to the impetus for embarking on the study in the first place. This phase aligns with the idea of being ‘called’ by the phenomenon that is used in mainstream phenomenological research (1998). While I was initially drawn to undertake this study because of my own drama PD, it was Steiner’s book Speech and Drama (2007) that led me to embark on the PD programmes in the first place. The drama pedagogy described in this book was totally unlike anything I had encountered. I remember trying to connect what I was reading to my own prior knowledge and I had a great deal of trouble grappling with the ideas presented in the book. Something that particularly struck me was Steiner’s discussion of Greek gymnastics as a key technique and the place where a training for the stage should begin (Steiner 2007). This did not make any sense to me and I could not imagine how it would work or what value it would be. And yet I was intrigued. I wanted to find out more and to understand what it was all about, but I realised this was not something I could learn from a book. I would have to experience it for myself.

Phase 1: exact sense perception

This first phase proper of Goethe’s method is based in empirical investigation and involves detailed observation of all the concrete facts of the phenomenon that are available to our ordinary, everyday senses (Brook 1998, Bortoft 2013). The aim is to attempt to observe the phenomenon without any assumptions, presuppositions, interpretations, or theories. Importantly, the investigator must become a highly active participant in their observations and ‘see with intention’ (Seamon 2005, p. 91). They must stand back from their initial personal encounter with the phenomenon and attempt to approach the phenomenon from an objective vantage point (Miller 1995, Naydler 1996, Brook 1998).

For the first stage of analysis, I embarked on the task of seeing and observing my PD experiences ‘with intention’. To do this, I re-read my learning journals and re-experienced the physical activities from the workshops on my own as a form of deep observation of the phenomenon. While I did this, I wrote detailed notes in a research journal to record my thoughts, feelings, and experiences of this reviewing and ‘reliving’ the PD content I had encountered. I looked at empirical data such as measurement and number. I began by writing down the details related to each PD: duration; distances travelled to attend; physical settings; teachers and participants; teaching spaces. Next, without looking at my notes, I wrote down what I could remember about each PD. I realised that my recollections were in fact quite sketchy. I then decided to go through my field notes from each workshop systematically and with intention, taking certain questions with me: What things were new to me? How did I feel about them? What was my response to what I encountered?

Warm-up – where do the words land? – walk and run in the space and stop and feel something still moving in the space … I felt the air more alive, I felt more connected to the space around me.

Taking the words from the space … imagine the words flying around in the space around you

We are embarking on a journey that will lead us into a completely new relationship to the sounds of language

At the end of this stage of my recollections I wrote a summary of the facts. It was surprisingly useful to have a completely objective exercise as a starting point because it gave me a distance from the drama workshop experience which is often loaded with affective rather than cognitive aspects. As I went along, new research questions arose that I could take into my reflections: Where am I still uncertain or confused? What is a mystery to me? What is not living in me, in my body? What didn’t I experience fully? When am I resistant? At this point I felt that I needed to physically re-do the practical drama exercises and I decided that this would be an important part of my ‘observations’. I needed to have fully embodied observations involving all the senses and the whole body. As I re-read the notes from the workshops, I re-did these exercises. A number of the exercises were group activities. At first, I questioned whether I would be able to do this group work on my own but I found that it was indeed possible to re-experience these by myself simply by doing the physical tasks and imagining the rest of the group being part of this. I continued to record my responses in my research journal.

Walk in the space … Where do the words land? … I’m getting a feeling for the physicality of words, of language – they have a life of their own … words are a force, they have energy … they are alive. Words are alive.

Be the student of the sounds … the sounds are the teachers – this is a new idea for me – that it’s a two-way street – the words work back into us. … We need to be a partner to the words

Greek Gymnastics! … we didn’t actually do this … it was raining so we couldn’t go outside and do the planned exercises. I remember feeling really disappointed because this was something I wanted so much to experience and understand.

As well as re-experiencing the practical exercises I also re-read the handouts and assigned readings and made notes of my responses in my research journal. As part of the second PD, the participants were required to complete an assessment task on their own at home. This involved using sound, movement and gesture to explore speech and record our experiences in a journal. I found some helpful questions that I could use in my own research:

What did I learn that was really new to me in this task?

What did I find most important and closest to my heart in this lesson?

What can I do, what will I do with this finding (even if only a seemingly small deed)?

At this stage, I also used drawing to help with my observations of sounds and movement. When I eventually came to the point of re-experiencing the PD session where I had done the Greek gymnastics, I recalled and re-experienced the wonderful feeling of this ‘Ah hah!’ moment when I felt I had reached my goal and satisfied my longing to really understand in an embodied way what Steiner had written:

Gymnastics! – a revelation – ah! This is what it meant! And so, a treasure found! I feel like this is the gem in all these PD sessions

Phase 2: exact sensorial imagination

In the second phase, the investigator employs their imaginative faculty in order to experience the phenomenon’s dynamic form and perceive its time-line or time-life (Robbins 2005, Cameron 2005). The purpose is to see the phenomenon as something that exists and changes in time, with a history and future potential. To do this, the researcher uses their imagination to visualise the whole phenomenon in the sequence that it actually occurred in time, and then to imagine the sequence differently from the way it actually happened, and to also imagine how the phenomenon might be in the future (Seamon 2005). The imagination is used as a tool to see things dynamically in movement and bring an awareness to things in transition. It can also be used to vary and explore the phenomenon by attempting to see it as otherwise than it actually is. The purpose is to test impressions and discover the flow/harmony or the disharmony/disruption of flow of the sequence. To do this, the investigator can, for example, imagine the opposite, or imagine parts missing, or add new parts within the sequence, or rearrange the order of the sequence, such as seeing the sequence in the reverse order (Miller 1995, Naydler 1996, Brook 1998, Bortoft 2013).

For this phase I re-read all my phase-one notes in my research journal and my summaries of the reflections for each PD session. I labelled each of the PD sessions as 1, 2, 3 according to the order they were undertaken. Then I imagined and visualised each PD in the sequence that it had actually happened, and also what had occurred during each PD. I then tried to imagine the sessions in a different sequence, but all these sequences seemed incoherent and did not have a sense of flow or harmony. Next, in my imagination I tried to add something new that was not part of the sequence. What I added to the sequence was another series of workshops in Steiner Speech and Drama that I had done some time after the initial PD programmes. These later sessions were not actually teacher professional development at all, but workshops given to students at a Steiner school. I joined in with the students to experience these workshops first-hand. During the imaginative process where I visualised adding something new to the actual sequence of events, I envisaged these workshops as being number four in the sequence and I had the insight that, in fact, they actually belonged as part of the sequence of PD sessions. By including these workshops, the sequence seemed much more holistic and coherent. It was during these workshops that I had a fully immersive, embodied experience in which the learning became deeply embedded in my body over a long period of time. During this imaginative visualisation, I also had the insight that all the PD I had done up until this time seemed to build towards something deeper and the final workshops came out of all the previous learning.

Phase 3 – seeing is beholding or seeing the whole

In the third phase the investigator allows the phenomenon to impress itself on their imaginative consciousness (Robbins 2006). The aim is to experience the phenomenon as a whole but without losing the parts. Using the imagination enables the investigator to see in two different ways simultaneously so that while the senses see the parts, the imagination sees the connections and the wholeness of the phenomenon (Miller 1995, Naydler 1996, Bortoft 2013). Reading about Greek gymnastics had sent me on a quest and I felt that I had found the treasure in the third PD. If I had found this treasure in the first PD I would not have needed to undertake any further PD sessions. Doing the first PD sent me to the second, and the second to the third. This reminded me of Goethe’s comment that each subsequent organ of the plant receives nourishment prepared by the previous organ and rises out of the preceding one, with each more refined and filtered (Steiner 2005, Brook 1998). The insight I gained was that the first PD was like an image of the whole sequence of PD sessions but a kind of condensed version in miniature. It was as though this PD encapsulated everything that would come after it. It seemed as though it was the seed of everything.

Phase 4 – being one with the object

In the fourth stage ‘the investigator comes to a well-earned insight into the archetypal or essential structure of the phenomenon’ (Robbins 2006, p. 6). Holdrege warns, however, that this experience of ‘being one with the object’, of it revealing itself to the researcher ‘may or may not happen during any investigation’ (2005, p. 50). Notably, when this experience does occur, it is often accompanied by an emotional response in the form of an epiphany or inspirational ‘Aha!’ moment (Brook 1998, p. 56). An important aspect of this phase is the ethical impact of the process in terms of what the researcher will do with the understanding and insights gained (Brook 1998). The suggestion is that one is charged with the responsibility of bringing about some future development related to the overall process: ‘The Goethean practise might end up with an action that we feel compelled to take or a call to a modification of future behaviour’ (Franses et al. 2015, p. 9). During my journaling, the word ‘quest’ had come up in one of my entries but I had not given this much thought. Then, during this fourth stage of the process, the notion of a quest became strong and I had an insight that perhaps my humble PD quest was an archetypal hero’s journey. The traditional stages of the hero’s journey fitted with my own, and I felt strongly that this was what my PD journey had been. There was the call to adventure, meeting the mentor, undertaking many ordeals and trials, winning the boon as the fulfilment of the quest, then returning transformed in some way by what has been learned. The boon is a beneficial gift that is of great value to the hero and one they can then use to help or benefit others (Campbell 1968). But what does the notion of a quest and the hero’s journey have to do with the everyday reality of teacher professional development, I wondered, … and what use is this insight for PD initiatives in general?

Discussion

In the course of this self-study I gained a theoretical and experiential understanding of Goethean phenomenology by applying the four-phase method to teacher PD in the context of drama education. Goethe’s approach was shown to be a useful tool for capturing and recording teacher perceptions of their own learning around PD content. It also proved to be a deep learning strategy that teachers can use for the purposes of assimilating their PD experiences. Goethe’s method highlighted some of the supports and barriers to teacher learning and acceptance or rejection of PD content with respect to cognitive, affective and embodied aspects, including contextual fit and teacher agency.

Firstly, the method was a strong support to my own teacher learning and helped to provide deep learning around PD content. The first stage of Goethe’s process uncovered aspects of my learning that needed to be incorporated if full integration and understanding of the PD content was to be achieved. It helped me to easily identify gaps in my learning and to deepen my understanding of the content, with the result that I had a much more comprehensive and overarching learning experience. I easily noticed what aspects I was unsure of or confused about and activities that I only partially understood. It became clear to me where my understanding and/or body-knowledge was superficial and what information had not been assimilated during the workshops. Re-reading and then re-experiencing these aspects of the material enabled me to go more deeply into areas where my knowledge or skills were lacking. By working on my own I was able to grapple whole-heartedly with the material and gain a more comprehensive, full-bodied experience of aspects I had not been fully immersed in during the PD sessions. Re-doing physical activities not only allowed time to explore the given exercises but also to experiment with variations and possible extensions in order to gain a thorough understanding. Doing this work on my own gave me a more substantial experience and I acquired a real appreciation for the value and purpose of the exercises and I felt ready to teach these activities to students.

Applying Goethe’s method also uncovered some of the barriers and hindrances to my own deep learning. Research indicates that barriers to learning and teacher change can include pedagogical beliefs, assumptions, or judgements (Yang 2020) and that ‘Meaningful professional development involves opportunities for teachers to reflect critically on their practice, question their beliefs about teaching and learning, and bring new ideas and practices into the classroom’ (Lind 2007, p. 2). This relates to findings by McChesney and Aldridge (2021) around teacher agency and acceptance of PD content, whereby teachers accept or reject the content being offered in PD situations based on their own beliefs or opinions, and also the perceived contextual fit of the content. Goethe’s method helped me to identify these kinds of barriers by uncovering my beliefs and assumptions. I discovered that sometimes I was putting up a certain level of resistance to the content being delivered, although I was not aware of this resistance at the time.

By undertaking Goethe’s process, I could clearly see when I was open and when I was resistant, that is, when I accepted and when I rejected the PD content. Asking myself ‘How do I feel about this?’ brought up any resistance that I had been feeling during the workshops. I found that sometimes I was questioning the content and material being presented - Is this valuable to me? How valuable and useful is this to me as a teacher? What is the purpose of this activity? How does this fit with what I believe is important? Is this information important to me? Is this body-knowledge important? As I reflected on the activities and experiences, I realised that if I could not imagine myself teaching what I was being taught and it did not fit into the general schema of my regular repertoire, then I was not as fully engaged in the exercise and there was a tendency to disregard or reject it. I found that I was sometimes thinking about what this exercise or activity would be like when I was teaching it. If I did not feel that I could or would teach the exercise myself then, to some extent, I did not engage with it on a deep level. I was often thinking as a teacher and projecting into the future about when I might be teaching this particular activity and, consequently, I was not always able to be fully present with the material in the workshops. Notably, however, when I re-did the exercises on my own, my response to the material changed and I was able to really absorb the learning and see the value of the activities. Therefore, I was able to integrate aspects that I had disregarded and rejected in the workshop by working through these myself. This meant that I was able to overcome some of the barriers to learning that I had experienced during the workshops. I also discovered that I was sometimes focused on the facilitator and the way they were presenting the material, so there was a considerable amount of meta-teaching occurring. While it is often considered desirable to notice teacher modelling, upon reflection I found that this was actually taking me away from the learning experience itself. As Darling-Hammond et al. suggest (2017, pp.23–24), even skilfully planned PD can be ineffective if it is not well executed in terms of establishing a shared understanding about what constitutes best practice and expert tutelage. Reflecting on these PD sessions helped me to connect with the presenters, to empathise with them, to appreciate the conditions they were working under and what they were trying to achieve. I was reminded on a profound level that the presenter is an integral part of the PD phenomenon and that I needed to be open to them and their teaching strategies. Using Goethe’s method enabled me to step into their shoes and see things from their perspective and by doing so, to challenge my preconceived ideas and pedagogical beliefs. In relation to McChesney and Aldridge’s findings (2021), these insights contribute to an understanding around some of the barriers to teacher acceptance of PD content.

The third phase of applying Goethe’s process highlighted other supports to deep learning in relation to PD content. During this stage, which involves looking at the phenomenon over time, I discovered that sustained and in-depth PD was the most beneficial. The fourth PD workshop sessions that I added to the sequence involved deep body learning over an extended period where the same material was worked on repeatedly so it became physically embedded. These results align with the literature which indicates that sustained learning over a period of time rather than one-off workshops has the most positive impact both in terms of student outcomes and teacher self-efficacy (Yang 2020, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017). While all the PD programmes I undertook were rigorous, the fourth followed indications for best PD practice because it was cumulative learning over time with an iterative focus on a few concepts or practices (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, p.15). In addition, these workshop sessions were different from those I did previously in the sense that I was totally involved as though I was a student and not a teacher.

This raises the issue of teachers attempting to straddle two different roles when they embark on PD where they are often expected to be in the role of learner and teacher at the same time. These findings suggest that roles need to be discrete and separate, particularly in Arts related PD programmes, so that teachers can focus on each role more strongly and engage in meta-teaching in a purposeful and directed way when they are not in a learner role. Darling-Hammond et al. indicate that teachers need to participate as learners and be given the ‘opportunity to engage in the same style of learning they are designing for their students’ (2017, v) as well as using models that ‘engage teachers directly in practices they are learning’ (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, p.7) Facilitators can incorporate this distinction clearly in their planning and design of PD sessions. This means that at certain times teachers need to ‘bracket off’ their teaching role in order to be open to the learning and consciously step into the meta-teaching role when that is appropriate.

Goethe’s approach also provided supports to teacher learning in connection with the integration of theory and practice in active learning situations. Often in workshop-style PD, especially Arts based programmes, the majority of time is spent on experiential activities. Note-taking and reflection is left to the discretion of individual participants, since it is rarely factored into the workshop time by the facilitator. Reflection needs to be integrated with and integral to PD content delivery, since effective PD models ‘frequently provide built-in time’ for reflection ‘by providing intentional time for feedback and/or reflection’ (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, p.14). This corresponds to what Marshall describes as ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ arcs or modes of attention, and consequently ‘circles of action and reflection’ where one is both active and contemplative (2001, p. 4). Marshall’s approach is in accord with Goethe’s in that there is ‘a rhythm or discipline in moving back and forth between action (agency) and reflection (communion)’ (cited in Franses et al. 2015, p. 9). Marshall also suggests that with any form of study or inquiry, the researcher/learner needs to decide when ‘to be focused and directed and when to be open and receptive’ (cited in Franses et al. 2015, p. 9). This also suggests that having separate roles for teacher and learner is a positive approach. As well as ‘breathing’ between action and reflection, teacher and learner, there can also be a breathing between individual and group work.

During my research journaling I found there were times when I wanted to discuss my reflections and insights with others to discover their thoughts and feelings about the material and the exercises. These insights also agree with findings from previous studies (Mena and Russell 2017). Darling-Hammond et al. found that ‘High quality PD creates space for teachers to share ideas and collaborate in their learning’ (2017, v). Yang indicates that it is important for teachers to share their reflections because this ‘encourages more in-depth discussions and conversations’ and ‘such collective experience helps sustain teacher change’ (Yang 2020, p. 799). Lind’s findings also support the idea of individual and collective endeavour: ‘Meaningful learning occurs when new ideas are examined individually and collaboratively’ (2007, p.4).

And what of the quest? The archetype of the hero’s journey? What meaning do my personal insights have for my study or for teacher PD in general? Does Goethe’s comment hold true that ‘the most particular can always appear as representation and simile for the most universal’? (Goethe, cited in Weik 2017, p. 338). I embarked on this PD adventure of my own volition because I was struck by something I read in a book; something new and strange that I did not understand and wanted to explore, discover and experience so that I could be a better teacher to my students. I set myself a quest and I undertook to fulfil that quest. As previous research reveals, teachers need to be personally interested in a PD topic, and individual or collective research projects that teachers initiate themselves are especially fruitful: ‘Adults should choose their learning opportunities based on interest and their own classroom experience/needs’ (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, p.7). Notably, PD that is mandatory, imposed by supervisors, or where there is pressure from an employer are the least impactful (Hammond and Feinstein 2005, cited in Yang 2020, p. 808). Studies show that the most effective and relevant types of PD are where ‘teachers choose to be involved in research activities instead of doing it out of an obligation for their job requirements’ (Yang, p.808). The research points to PD as a quest for the teacher and something they are personally drawn to undertake. The hero’s journey is a useful metaphor for educators because it can help teachers to work together with a unity of purpose and meet the many challenges they confront (Brown and Moffett 1999).

Conclusion

The purpose of this self-study was to 1) explore the teacher/researcher’s perceptions of their own learning experiences around PD content, 2) learn more about the supports and barriers to effective PD design in relation to the teacher/researcher’s learning around PD content, and 3) investigate the potential of Goethean phenomenology for understanding a teacher’s perceptions of their experiences in relation to PD content. Through a self-study of my own PD workshops in Steiner Speech and Drama, I applied Goethe’s method to my experiences and gained an understanding of how it can be used in relation to teacher professional development. The study found that Goethean phenomenology is an effective methodology in PD contexts. The four-phase method is a useful tool for capturing and recording a teacher’s perceptions of their own learning around PD content. Applying Goethe’s process involves a number of the key features of effective PD identified in the research literature. These include teacher self-regulation and self-responsibility; teacher reflection as central to the PD process; integration of theory and practice; the need to engage with in-depth learning in order to develop substantive skills and knowledge (Timperley 2008, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017, Yang 2020). Notably, the findings indicate that Goethe’s approach goes beyond active learning models for PD to offer an effective deep learning strategy that teachers can use to reflect on and assimilate their PD experiences. It encompasses cognitive, affective, and embodied aspects in an integrated and cohesive way. It offers a tool for meaningful learning that is relational, and which activates the learner’s identity through their role in the world. The research contributes to our understanding of teacher learning in PD and to the development of pedagogy in professional development programmes generally. Through a practical application of Goethe’s method, the study articulates a new perspective for PD programmes that is at once a deep learning strategy, a tool for teacher self-study and reflective practice, and method for gathering and disseminating teacher voice in relation to PD learning and associated experiences. The research provides a proof of concept by demonstrating its feasibility and verifying its practical potential.

The findings reflect and confirm previous research in this area indicating that successful PD programmes need to be rigorous, cumulative, active learning strategies, and focus on a specific set of learning goals over an extended period of time. The learning approach needs to involve a rhythm that moves between action/reflection, individual/collective, and teacher/learner roles. The study suggests that PD designs should incorporate a clear distinction between when participants are in the role of teacher and when they are in the role of learner. This is especially the case for Arts based programmes where the traditional model focuses almost exclusively on experiential and practical activities. Given that workshops have been shown to be the least effective form of PD design, it would be a positive move forward to incorporate individual and collective reflection that is built into the PD both during and after the workshops. There was also clear evidence that confirms previous research emphasising the importance of teacher volition in relation to PD. This study found that teachers need to embark on their own research quest that is self-initiated and motivated. There is evidence to suggest that Goethean phenomenology is a valuable addition to models of teacher learning and reflective practice in general, and future studies might explore its application in other areas of teaching practice. As a method for teacher deep learning, Goethe’s method offers a clearly structured, comprehensive, and accessible process that can help teachers to explore a phenomenon at a deep level. Because it incorporates four stages or ‘ways of seeing’, it exceeds standard teacher learning models which generally work at the mundane level. As such, it can help teachers to uncover insights beyond the empirical and quotidian. In addition, it can provide teachers with an overarching learning strategy that considers the phenomenon in time as well as space, the whole as well as the parts, and the archetypal essence or quality of the phenomenon. Goethe’s method would benefit teachers and PD facilitators by providing an holistic, phenomenological approach to PD design. The method may have broader applications as a model of deep learning practice for teaching and learning generally, and one that can be used by both students and teachers. It can be seen as a tool for gaining new insights into education in the broadest sense from the individual learner or teacher to the big picture of educational policy and practical school operations. It can also be seen as a powerful tool to elucidate the lived experience of learners or teachers and to give voice to their individual perspectives.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).