To answer for myself, I don't think it's a matter of not taking
responsibility for 'successful' innovations on the grounds that every
case is unique - even though, to some degree, I think that is the case.
It's rather an unwillingness to be party to an innovation being
prescribed for all situations.
I _do_ believe that some practices are 'better' than others, in the sense
that they are not only worthwhile in themselves but that they "live
fruitfully and creatively in future experiences" (Dewey, 1938). But the
practices that work well in one situation may not be successful in the
hands of another teacher or with a different class. As I have argued in
previous messages, I believe the concept of a community organized to
promote dialogic inquiry provides a good framework within which to
experiment to find the practices that are appropriate in each situation.
However, I think the teacher's experimentation is also critical for success.
So to prescribe specific practices would almost certainly torpedo the
approach - particularly if it were imposed on unwilling or unprepared
teachers. As others have suggested, a grass-roots movement, building up
communities of inquiring teachers seems the best strategy to adopt. In
the long run, this probably also has a better chance of influencing the
institutional structure.
I agree with Eugene that values are more important than particular
practices, not only in persuading funding agencies, but also in appealing
to teachers to start observing more systematically what is happenning in
their classrooms. Over many years I have found Judith Newman's
injunction "to be open to being surprised by what is actually happening" is
an intriguing and pretty non-threatening way to invite teachers to start on
teacher inquiry. (J. Newman, (1987) Learning to teach by uncovering our
assumptions. Language Arts, 64(7) 727-737.) Then what is important is to
have one or more colleagues with whom to discuss what one discovers and
what one might do about it. It's at this point that reading about
others' innovatory practices can be most helpful. Having taken the
crucial first step towards becoming an agent of change, others' ideas are
now seen as suggestions (not prescriptions) to be tried out, modified or
rejected, as means to enacting the values that are gradually becoming
more conscious and explicit.
I am currently reading the assignments from last semester's M.Ed.course
for practising teachers. Here is one comment that is pretty typical:
"I have definitely been turned on to the wonderful world of teacher
research. The inquiry I carried out has created further questions for me.
Thank you for making inquiry part of the course. I especially enjoyed
talking to my peers in class about their daily observatios and experiences."
Teacher inquiry now forms an important part of nearly all inservice
courses leading to further professional qualifications at both York
University and OISE/UToronto. It is also likely to be included as one of
the routes by which teachers can secure re-accreditation under the
regulations of the new Ontario College of Teachers. As long as it
remains something that teachers are free to choose to do, this seems
likely to be a move in the right direction. How do others think about this?
Gordon Wells