Multi-layered Interactivity in S-STEP: Enhancing Teacher Education Practice

1. MULTIPLE LAYERS OF INTERACTIVITY IN S-STEP: AN EMPIRICALLY-BASED EXPLORATION OF METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES TIM FLETCHER Brock University, Canada DÉIRDRE NÍ CHRÓINÍN Mary Immaculate College, Ireland MARY O’SULLIVAN University of Limerick, Ireland

2. BACKGROUND • Learning About Meaningful Physical Education (LAMPE): • 4 Yr study • Preliminary results from Yrs 1-2 • Pre-service teachers (PSTs) in Ireland and Canada This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

3. CONTEXTS • Using S-STEP to develop an approach to physical education teacher education (PETE) where the facilitation of meaningful experiences is the prioritized filterfor pedagogical decision-making (Kretchmar, 2006; Blankenship & Ayers, 2010)

4. QUALITY IN S-STEP • Self-initiated/-focused • Improvement-oriented • INTERACTIVE at some stage of the process • Multiple methods and data sources • Validation couched in trustworthiness LaBoskey (2004)

5. HOW DO YOU TYPICALLY ENACT INTERACTIVITY IN S-STEP DESIGN?

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • How can embedding multiple layers of interactivity provide alternative insights into teacher education practice, and thus enhance the understandings gained?

8. ANALYSIS • Teacher educator/Critical friend data • Teacher educator/‘meta-critical friend’ data • Student data

9. OUTCOMES OUR ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: The role of peer teaching

10. YEAR 1: LAYER 1 = AMBIVALENCE • “So they were learning about peer learning as they were doing this activity, as well as learning to teach using peer learning” (Tim’s CF response to Déirdre).

11. YEAR 1: LAYER 1 = AMBIVALENCE • “So they were learning about peer learning as they were doing this activity, as well as learning to teach using peer learning” (Tim’s CF response to Déirdre). • + LAYER 2…

12. YEAR 2: LAYER 1 = CRITIQUE/CHALLENGE • “I am wondering about the value of peer teaching” (Tim CF comment) • “While [Tim] argues that it is an inauthentic context for them as first time teachers of PE it is a perfectly authentic learning context… Have I convinced you?” (Déirdre comment)

13. YEAR 2: LAYER 1 = CRITIQUE/CHALLENGE • + LAYER 3 (Students’ voices)…

14. (An implicit) RESEARCH QUESTION • What tensions were evident when embedding multiple layers of interactivity from different data sources? How were the different interactive “voices” reconciled and privileged?

15. It took the students’ voices to convince Tim of the value of peer teaching. In self-study research where there are multiple layers of interactivity: • Whose voices should we listen to most closely? • At what volume should each voice be set? • How do we maintain a focus on the self while including the voices of others?

16. SIGNIFICANCE • Multiple layers of interactivity added deeper and more nuanced understandings of teacher education practice • Tensions arose around whose voices we listened to and when • This has implications for how we conduct analysis in these types of self-studies

17. THANK YOU! Tim Fletcher tfletcher@brocku.ca DéirdreNíChróinínDeirdre.NiChroinin@mic.ul.ie Mary O’Sullivan Mary.OSullivan@ul.ie @meaningfulpe meaningfulpe.wordpress.com