Enacting a distinct pedagogic approach to Partnership Learning to Learn

1. Enacting a distinct pedagogic approach to PartnershipLearning to Learn Dr Linda Rush

2. Presentation Structure • Introduction of self; my beliefs and values • Rationale & leadership style adopted • Pedagogies associated with teacher learning at LHU • Conceptual Framework: Partnership Learning to Learn – a signature pedagogy • Pedagogic design features: the learners, the ‘atmosphere’, the ‘architecture’, the methodologies, the values • Exemplification of Partnership Learning to Learn

3. Strategic leadership on Partnership Learning as a form of collaboration • Acknowledgement that collaboration is challenging and disturbing (dynamic, multifaceted, multiple starting points, time constraints) – requiring strategic leadership • Seeing changes to partnership as a moment of opportunity • Identifying & encapsulating beliefs & values within an explicit vision: • Distinct relationships • Professional development • Distinct pedagogy

4. Pedagogies associated with teacher learning at LHU (Hathaway & Rush, 2010)

5. Conceptual FrameworkPartnership Learning to Learn: A signature pedagogy • Reflective – self-conscious learning process • Intentional – agency and choice • Collaborative – intra-professional • Temporal connectivity • Lateral connectivity

6. Pedagogic implications

7. Affordance and Constraints of Partnership Learning to Learn

8. Key Characteristics of Partnership Learning to Learn

9. The role of ITE in expanding our capacity to learn as intra-professional learners A radical constructivist model of education promoted: • Learners are viewed as active autonomous makers of knowledge • Knowledge is not simply transferred • Tutors are not seen as the guardians of truth and certainty • Emphasis is placed on the role of dialogue

10. The role of ITE in expanding our capacity to learn as intra-professional learners Four key role models: • Socratic teaching • Moderator • Cooperative researcher • Perturbance agent

11. Aspects of an epistemic culture • Language – we all speak ‘learnish’ • Activities – a potentiating milieu • Split-screen thinking – the warp and weft • Wild topics – rich, real, responsible • Transparency and involvement – students as epistemic co-workers • Application – to other contexts • Progression – stronger, broader, deeper . . . • Modelling – walking the learning talk

12. The Pedagogic Design Features of the signature pedagogy Partnership Learning to Learn • The learners • The ‘atmosphere’ of the learning space • The ‘architecture’ of the partnership • Methodologies and activities • Underpinning beliefs and values of all agents

13. Exemplification of Partnership Learning to Learn at Hope • The Hope Teacher (4Rs) - identification & development of informed philosophy of teaching • Values driven, research informed • Radical Constructivist model of learning promoted • Enabling pedagogic interventions: • Citizenship in Practice – service learning, both locally & globally – “Leadership qualities promoted akin to deputy headteacher level” • MFL - “Saphire in the National crown” • Saturated Learning, Multiple Placements, International Placements • 100k Research & Development Fund • Alliances with Liverpool World Centre, The Reader Organisation, Angers (UCO), Korea (Chonnam University)

14. Key Themes of Collaboration • Leadership • Drivers • Operational/Conceptual • Perceptions of partnership • Fear/Compliance/Conformity • Understanding ofProgramme Team • Level & Depth of Dialogue • Brownfield /Greenfield Curriculum Development • Institutional narrative/myths • Integrity • Systems/procedures • Knowledge and understanding of institutional rules • (Diamond & Rush, 2010)

15. Key Characteristics of Individuals Collaborating (Diamond & Rush, 2010)

16. Co-operation Degrees of Collaboration (Diamond & Rush, 2010) Co-ordination Collaboration/ Co-ownership Co-existence

17. Leadership– Primary dimension in meaning & variation in degrees of collaboration

18. Leadership – Primary dimension in meaning & variation in degrees of collaboration • Less sophisticated collaboration • Presence of an individual or small group of individuals dominating in an autocratic way, linked to their hierarchical role within the institution • More sophisticated collaboration • No individual leader. Rather, the notion of reciprocal leadership prevails in which everybody had authority and genuine regard for this is tangible

19. Hierarchically structured, closed and rule-driven culture Non-interactive: task related; monitored; resource driven; compliant CO-EXISTENCE Dialogic: shared decision making; joint problem solving; open to innovation; defined parameters CO-ORDINATION Reciprocal Leadership Autocratic Leadership Freewheeling: shared responsibility; non-dualist thinking; listening attentively COLLABORATION/ CO-OWNERSHIP Focused: assigned roles; positional; dualist thinking; pre-determined script CO-OPERATION Holistically structured, open, flexible culture

20. Key factors that are pivotal to more sophisticated collaborative practice • Clear leadership at all levels – ownership • Explicit understanding by all those involved of its rationale, role and purpose – contextualization • Debate and opposition are encouraged – contestation • Structured time and space and processes for sustained ‘conversations’ need to be created – conversation as enquiry • Roles and capacity or disposition(s) in collaborative inquiry need to be systematically developed – professional development (Diamond & Rush, 2010)