reflexivity in graduate teacher and researcher education ... … · the journey of our living...

Reflexivity in Graduate Teacher andResearcher Education: Our Journey toArts-Based Self-Study

Jill B. Farrell and Carter A. Winkle

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Our Art-Making Materials: Personal and Contextual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Jill: The Artist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Carter: The Actor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Our Canvas: Theoretical/Methodological Underpinnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Vygotskian/Sociocultural Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Arts-Based Self-Study: Narrative Inquiry, Portraiture, and Visual Narrative Inquiry . . . . . . . 6Visual Thinking Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Our Journey from Pedagogy to Arts-Based Self-Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Developing Methodology Within Grisaille: Three-Dimensional Self-Study of ProfessionalDevelopment Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10From Pedagogy to Methodology: Developing an Arts-Based Dialogic Narrative Analysis 16

Recursive Journeying from Methodology to Reflexive Pedagogical Device: Evolution of theDoctoral Colloquium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Historical Orientation to “the Colloquium” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Transference of Course “Ownership” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Returning to a Co-facilitated Colloquium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Journey of Our Living Theory Continues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

This chapter includes several sections based partially on a paper written by Jill Farrell, Carter A.Winkle, and Mark Rosenkrantz for presentation at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association (AERA), San Francisco, 2013.

J. B. Farrell (*) · C. A. WinkleBarry University, Miami Shores, FL, USAe-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this chapter (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_51-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019J. Kitchen (ed.), 2nd International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and TeacherEducation, Springer International Handbooks of Education,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_51-1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_51-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_51-1

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_51-1

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_51-1

AbstractIn this chapter we trace our development as collaborative arts-based self-studyresearchers and the rhizome-like influences we have had on ourselves, colleagues,and graduate students. Our journey has taken us recursively from an arts-basedpedagogy to self-study methodology and from methodology to reflexive peda-gogy as we strive to develop our unique living theory. Each section discusses bothmethodological and pedagogical approaches used within the context of graduateteacher education, research courses, dissertation thesis advising, and professionaldevelopment contexts in the broader communities. The chapter mirrors researchand practice representative of our growing research interests over the last severalyears focusing on the integration of the arts, the use of arts-based researchmethods, and the use of self-study methods coupled with a variety of narrativetools for data collection, analysis of data, and representation of findings. Theevolution of our collaborative self-study journey led us to discover how arts-based methods could be useful as both processes and products for our research.Our results led us to the development of a new research methodology that werefer to as arts-based dialogic narrative analysis (ABDNA).

KeywordsArts-based dialogic narrative analysis · Arts-based research · Methodology ·Reflexivity · Collaborative self-study research · Visual thinking strategies

Introduction

The development of self-study in our academic culture parallels the trajectory ofeach of our journeys as scholars and researchers in the school of education at amidsize private, faith-based institution of higher education in the southeastern regionof the USA. As self-study researchers, we have taken a creative, arts-based approachin both the doing and teaching of self-study and reflexive practice while simulta-neously using art as a mediating artifact to reflect on and develop our own work, aswell as engaging others in exploring their research and scholarly pursuits through anarts-based, self-study lens. Additionally, we have developed and explored reflexivearts-based self-study activities as pedagogic devices to mediate students’ developingunderstandings of positionality and reflexivity in qualitative research processes ingeneral and in self-study methods and practice more specifically. Our journey hastaken us recursively from an arts-based pedagogy to self-study methodology andfrom methodology to reflexive pedagogy as we strive to develop our unique livingtheory.

In this chapter we trace our development as collaborative arts-based self-studyresearchers and the rhizome-like influences we have had on ourselves, colleagues,and graduate students. Each section discusses both methodological and pedagogicalapproaches used within the context of graduate teacher education, research courses,dissertation thesis advising, and professional development contexts in the broader

2 J. B. Farrell and C. A. Winkle

communities. The chapter mirrors research and practice representative of our grow-ing research interests over the last several years focusing on the integration of thearts, the use of arts-based research methods, and the use of self-study methodscoupled with a variety of narrative tools for data collection, analysis of data, andrepresentation of findings.

The evolution of our collaborative self-study journey led us to discover how arts-based methods could be useful as both processes and products for our research. Ourresults led us to the development of a new research methodology that we refer to asarts-based dialogic narrative analysis (ABDNA). Using a visual and narrativeformat, we hope to demonstrate our successes in integrating self-study into ouracademic culture, as well as a variety of local and international contexts, whilecritically reflecting on the significance of these experiences on our own practices asteacher educators and doctoral research advisors. To begin this narrative journey, wehave chosen to introduce ourselves through narrative profiles to provide the readerwith personal biographical details that will serve to elucidate how our early yearswere pivotal in forming both our philosophical and epistemological inclinations.

Our Art-Making Materials: Personal and Contextual Resources

Jill: The Artist

My training as a visual artist began in childhood under the tutelage of my father, whointroduced me to “the arts” at a very young age and nurtured both my fascinationwith the making and the viewing of anything arts related. Whenever I was ill, myfather would bring me a paint by number kit; containers of clay, glue, and smallobjects for collage making; as well as books on “how-to” draw, paint, mold, etc.My “formal training” began with painting classes at a small gallery owned by myfather’s friends and then continued at the Lowe Gallery on the University of Miamicampus, while my brother was in classes for advanced science and math. I thinkthat I was pegged as the future artist, while my brother was being groomed foraeronautical engineering!

My dad made a living as a painting/interior contractor, but his true passion wassinging, performing, and helping his children with projects. Every weekend wasspent at fairs, movies and live performances, craft and art shows, or outside inSouth Florida’s beautiful, visual landscape. As a child I learned to appreciate thebeauty of the world around me, both man-made and natural, through my father’sdiscerning eye. I will be forever grateful for his guidance in helping me to view theworld with wonder and awe: a habit of mind that has been instrumental in guidingme throughout my professional journey. But it was my mother, herself a teacher andschool administrator, whose advice I took while earning my Bachelor of Fine Arts,majoring in drawing/printmaking and art history – “get your teaching certificatewhile you’re there. When you can’t make a living as an artist, you can teach. You’vealways been wonderful with children.” It is Mom I can thank for having the foresight

Reflexivity in Graduate Teacher and Researcher Education: Our Journey to. . . 3

to guide me to my vocation and true calling: teaching. Throughout my professionallife, my mother has always been there as my champion – to listen to me, to adviseme, to support me, and to reassure me that I had chosen the most noble of professionsof teaching.

As a visual artist, art educator, and teacher educator – coupled with my rolesas principal, faculty member, chair, associate dean, and dean over the last 30 years –I have deepened and expanded my knowledge in a number of areas within the fieldof education, and I have deliberately worked to synthesize this knowledge whileengaging in scholarly endeavors. Both my formal educational background, coupledwith my years serving as teacher, curriculum director, principal, professor, and deanhave compelled me to constantly seek ways to integrate and synthesize the founda-tion and knowledge I have gained from various disciplines in order to enhance thesubjects that I have taught. Experiences gleaned from these professional roles,juxtaposed against the fields of curriculum and instructional leadership, have allo-wed me to traverse the literature and make connections between seemingly disparatefields. My research agenda has evolved in parallel to my practice, finally bringing mefull circle in the pursuit of my own essential knowledge and truths, as evidenced byexplanations of practice that demonstrate my emerging living theories.

I can trace my journey back to when I first started teaching as an adjunct instructorfor my university. I was asked to teach action research for the first time and wasable to offer this to teachers working in the school where I was principal. As I guidedthe students in my graduate course, as well as the teachers who chose to participate ina yearlong study of their practice in the classroom, I felt the power of studying andreflecting on my own practice as a teacher educator, observing that what I wasexperiencing was the beginning of my own “living theory” of how educationalinfluence was being evidenced in the stories and actions of the social formations inwhich I was living and working.

My journey as a teacher educator and self-study researcher took a turn when Ifirst turned my lens backwards, to my roots and grounding as an art teacher andvisual artist. It began when I took a 2-week training in Visual Thinking Strategies(VTS) – my paradigm shifted. It was serendipitous that I wound up at the LoweGallery of Art on the UM campus to take my students on a field trip (EDU 555-Integrating the ARTs) and wound up in the VTS training. The epiphany I had duringthose 2 weeks hit me like a bolt of lightning: My practice was my canvas, and Irealized that I could begin using “the arts” as both the foci for my unfolding researchagenda, as well as to examine my practice through my self-study scholarship.

Carter: The Actor

My career trajectory within academia began not from the classroom, but rather fromthe stage. I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in theater performance in 1985 fromIndiana State University with a number of professional summer stock credits alreadyunder my belt. I even had to forgo commencement exercises in order not to miss thefirst week of rehearsals for a reoccurring summer acting job as – what I have now


come to refer to as – a “professional Cornelius Hackle” in the Jerry Herman musical,Hello, Dolly! This set into motion a decade of both paid and unpaid performancework around the country, much of it in New York City. However, once I became amember of the professional actors’ union – Actors’ Equity Association – the payingjobs in New York became fewer and fewer. What had been my office “temp job”became permanent, and within 10 years I was an assistant vice president of a leadingstructured finance insurance company. This career transition was as much of asurprise to me as it was to my parents: an academician father and a librarian-cum-stage mother. My husband – then partner – had a significant job opportunity whichhad us relocating to South Florida, and, soon after our arrival in Miami, the USAwasstruck by the horrific tragedies of September 11, 2001. Through the sadness andturmoil which followed, I made the decision to transition to English languageteaching as a vocation and enrolled in an Applied Linguistics MA program inorder to obtain the requisite knowledge, skills, and credentials to teach Englishat the college level. There was certainly something performative about teaching,and I have little doubt that my “he’s-a-natural” classroom successes have beensupported by the formal preparation I received for the stage, as well as my ownprofessional experiences in theater performance. Still, as life’s journey continued,I was feeling less and less like an actor and more like an educator and that felt – andstill feels – right to me.

While teaching English language at an area college, I returned to university onceagain: this time to earn my PhD in curriculum and instruction with a specialization inteaching English as a second language at Barry University, where I currently serve asan Associate Professor and Program Director for our master’s degree programs incurriculum and instruction. You see, I am a product of institutional incest. I am oneof the rare, eschewed-by-the-academy-at-large examples of university programs’hiring their own academic children. Jill and I share a close academic kinship: she haslong been and continues to be my teacher, mentor, friend, and research partner. It wasthrough both coursework and collaborative research inquiries with Jill that I was firstintroduced to self-study as research practice. Nearing the end of my coursework wasthe Doctoral Colloquium in Curriculum course and then facilitated by Jill – a coursewhich we will be describing more fully elsewhere within this chapter – and it was inthe Colloquium where I began to understand the opportunities for the resurrectingand leveraging of my artistic abilities, sensibilities, and identities.

Bill Ayers’ (2006) Trudge toward Freedom: Educational Research in the PublicInterest was pivotal in activating my view that I and other “educational researcherscan gain sustenance and perspective by drawing on the humanities—poetry, film,theatre, and imaginative literature—in their search for knowledge and understand-ing” (p. 81), especially when one’s aim is to serve a public good through empiricalinquiry. In particular, Ayers’ description of the work of performing artist, AnnaDevere Smith (1993), and her performances in On the Road: A Search for AmericanCharacter triggered within me a reawakening of myself as a theater artist withtools and sensibilities valuable to educational research, specifically throughethnodrama (Winkle 2016).


Our Canvas: Theoretical/Methodological Underpinnings

Vygotskian/Sociocultural Theory

Our work has been grounded in past experiences with each other and with othercommunities of practice, where we have explored the integration of arts-basedresearch methods to portray perceptions of our collaboration as both construct andprocess. The theoretical underpinnings guiding our work are based on the primaryconcept that learning is a social activity (Vygotsky 1978; Wenger 1998). Fundamen-tally, Vygotsky’s theory of social learning resides in the concept of the mediatedmind, “human beings do not have a direct relationship with the world; their rela-tionship is mediated by objects, others, and the self, as well as through tools andcultural artifacts” (Vygotsky 1978). His theory describes development as starting onan external-interpersonal-social plane before being internalized and intrapersonallyappropriated through language, the most important mediational tool.

Vygotsky also considered the art image as a form of communication, as it exposesand connects the “unconscious and the conscious” conflicts and emotions within andbetween the artist and the viewer (Lima 1995, p. 417). According to Vygotsky(1978), when the viewer is surprised by something unique in an image or process,the shock caused within the viewer’s visual experience mediates psychologicalchange, resulting in the generation of new mental dispositions. These forms ofcritical thinking allow opportunities for art problem-solving in the zone of proximaldevelopment (ZPD), which operates when individuals are jointly engaged withothers during art activities (Hedegaard 1990). As a shared, collective experience,the art activity nurtures interpersonal procedures that become social, historical, andcultural traditions among participants (Hedegaard 1990). Learning in the ZPD“transforms” the individual’s self-image, their art skills and knowledge, and theirworking relationships as they engage in the art activity (Wells 1999, p. 333).Changes that may occur during art activities may include “a capacity to participatemore effectively in future actions,” “the invention of new tools or practices,” and“the modification of existing tools or practices, and changes in the nature of socialrelationships” (Wells 1999, p. 328).

Arts-Based Self-Study: Narrative Inquiry, Portraiture, and VisualNarrative Inquiry

The use of an arts-based educational research (ABER) approach within each of ourshared inquiries was intentionally chosen to disrupt conventional approaches toresearch and the representation of our findings and is grounded in Dewey’schallenge “to break through the conventionalized and routine consciousness”(1958, p. 184) so that we might view things in new and perhaps truer ways. Theevolution of our development as collaborative arts-based self-study researchersmirrors Weber’s (2014) explanation of the use of images rather than words as


a better representation of the complexity of the whole while offering multipleviewpoints and multiple interpretations of theoretical positions.

We believe that a distinctive aspect of our approach is the pairing of the visualand the narrative. Thus, we integrate the methodology of portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot and Hoffmann Davis 1997) which itself is grounded within a pheno-menological frame utilizing various ethnographic inquiry approaches. Story iscentral to portraiture, and we therefore draw upon narrative inquiry (Clandinin andConnelly 2000) traditions of understandings of experience as dialogically three-dimensional: interaction, continuity, and temporality. A distinction betweentraditional ethnographic inquiry and portraiture is that ethnographers listen to astory, while portraitists listen for story (Lawrence-Lightfoot 2005). Voice of partic-ipants is a key construct within portraiture: as witness, interpreter, preoccupation,autobiography, discernment of others’ voices, and voice in dialogue. But the voice ofthe researcher or portraitist is not silent. “With portraiture, the person of theresearcher – even when vigorously controlled – is more evident and more visiblethan in any other research form” (Lawrence-Lightfoot 2005, p. 11). Intentionallyresisting research traditions of documenting pathology and suggesting remedies,portraiture calls for an initial search for goodness within the phenomena under study(Lawrence-Lightfoot and Hoffmann Davis 1997). It assumes that areas of strength,flaws, weaknesses, and inconsistencies will be revealed through explicationof emergent themes, participant and researcher relationships, context, voice, andthe resultant portrait or aesthetic whole (Dixson et al. 2005).

Portraiture aims to bridge the realms of science and art. It aspires to capture theessence of human lived experience and examine, interpret, and present findingsthrough aesthetically rich stories or portraits which we believe results in makingempirical educational research more accessible to a broader audience of stake-holders. The primary tools and artifacts used throughout our longitudinal self-study inquiries have been language and art/image-making. Together, these toolsand artifacts have been pivotal in helping us to reach new levels of understandingof self, of each other, and of our collaboration. Data and findings generated through-out our ongoing research have caused a ripple effect (Weber 2014) that has hada significant influence on each of us within our practice. Correspondingly, as weintroduce our graduate students to a variety of unique lenses for analyzing theirexperiences in new ways, they are expanding their epistemological knowledge basesand introduced to unique approaches to ethical and just practices with their ownstudents.

As artists and inquirers, we are inspired by Bach’s (2007) conception of visualnarrative inquiry, which – in her use – primarily involves photography and photo-graphic images as a means to explicating, expanding, or evoking participants’ orone’s own narrative story or experience. Building upon the work of Clandinin andConnelly (2000) and others, she suggests photographic images provide a visualrealm to explore the dimensions of interaction, continuity, and temporality central tothe conceptions of narrative inquiry. While in our own work we have not yetincorporated the use of photographic images, we believe Bach’s working definitionfor a visional narrative inquiry remains apropos: Visual narrative inquiry is an


“intentional, reflective, active human process in which researchers and participantsexplore and make meaning of experience both visually and narratively” (p. 281).

Visual Thinking Strategies

In one of our first papers Looking In, Looking Out: Reflection, Refraction, andTransformation Through Three-Dimensional Self-Study, we reported on whatoccurred in our self-study community (Farrell et al. 2013) when we brought aspecific pedagogy that democratizes the arts, Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS), toa culturally and linguistically diverse low socioeconomic status (SES) urban highschool. VTS, the brainchild of Abigail Housen and Phillip Yenawine, has been usedfor over 20 years through their nonprofit organization Visual Understanding inEducation (VUE) to study how looking and talking about art, facilitated by teachers,impacts cognition (Yenawine 2014). Housen (1999) investigated visual thinking inher doctoral research while examining the experience of museum attendees whenviewing works of art. From the patterns of thought that emerged in her longitudinal,qualitative study, Housen posited and developed her five-stage aesthetic develop-mental theory. The theory describes the characteristics of the novice art viewer asthey progress through a series of experiences in art interpretation. Each of the fivestages represents a more sophisticated level of knowledge, thinking, and communi-cation. Housen’s theory, coupled with Yenawine’s background and experientialknowledge in museum education, led to the development and implementation ofthe VTS curriculum for grades K–2, 3–5, and 6–8. The teacher-facilitator using VTSpresents a series of 10 lessons over a period of 20 or more weeks to the student/viewers. There are three principal stages which are designed to stimulate thethinking, communication, and visual-literacy skills of students: (a) looking at artimages of increasing complexity, (b) responding to questions which are develop-mentally based, and (c) participating in carefully facilitated teacher-led group dis-cussions (Goldberg 2005). The student/viewer is asked to orally respond to a grade-level appropriate narrative art image, prompted by the teacher-facilitator withthe three sequential questions that guide all VTS inquiry: (a) “What is going on inthis picture/image?”, (b) “What do you see (in the picture) that makes you say that?”,and (c) “What more can you find?” (Visual Understanding in Education 2012, pp.5–5). During the art interpretation session, the students draw upon their observationsand prior knowledge in order to communicate their thinking through interpretive-artdialogue by openly discussing their observations and reasoning in a mediatedenvironment. This is then facilitated through clarifying statements and paraphrasingwith neither explicit endorsement nor contradiction by the teacher; this democraticand dialogic environment nurtures divergent thinking and unpredictable, complexdescriptions of viewers’ interpretation of the image (Hubard 2010; Zander 2007)supported by evidentiary reasoning (Guilfoyle et al. 2004).

Our research for this chapter was grounded in our hope that these students wouldbenefit from the rich discussion and interaction that emanates from participation inVTS to enhance their skills in communication, critical thinking, visual thinking, and


writing (Housen and Yenawine 2000). At the time we were advocating for the role ofthe arts in a milieu that placed great value on verbal thinking while many studentswere visual thinkers. We wished to develop the multiplicity of lenses and the“plasticity of body and mind” that would allow for multiple modes of thought,knowing that visual thinking skills atrophy when not developed or with lack ofpractice due to over emphasis on verbal and numerical activities (Brumberger 2007).Our belief at the time was that through the introduction of the VTS pedagogy to agroup of teachers, we could help them to reframe some of their classroom contentthrough visual thinking methods while guiding them to be more reflective in theprocess (Schon 1983).

Our Journey from Pedagogy to Arts-Based Self-StudyMethodology

In 2013, we – along with doctoral student Mark Rosenkrantz – embarked ona collaborative self-study inquiry examining and aesthetically representing ourexperiences and learnings surrounding the conception, planning, and implementa-tion of a Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) (Yenawine 2003, 2014) professionaldevelopment training series for teachers in a low-socioeconomic, culturally andlinguistically diverse urban high school in Southeast Florida (Farrell et al. 2013).The quasi-longitudinal self-study was informed through a Portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis 1997) methodological approach which we disaggregatedthrough three metaphorical phases of “Old Masters” painting techniques and pro-cesses: Grisaille, Color Washing, and Opaque Color Application. For us, these threemetaphorical phases would guide us through an (1) initial and preliminary study orsketch of the phenomena – rather than a fully formed portrait or series of portraitureartifacts – (2) a laying in of reflexive analysis in terms of our own sensemaking vis-à-vis the phenomena, and finally (3) the “completed” portrait.

It was during this “grisaille phase” when we organically developed the arts-basedresearch methodology – serendipitously born of the VTS instructional pedagogy –that would become central to our ongoing work as collaborative self-studyresearchers, teacher- and researcher-educators, and dissertation research advisors:arts-based dialogic narrative analysis (ABDNA) (Winkle and Farrell 2014).

As teacher educators and researchers in a liberal arts and professional studiesuniversity located in an urban environment, we are faced daily with acting on andliving out the social justice commitment of our university’s mission, which isgrounded in the core commitments of knowledge and truth, inclusive community,social justice, and collaborative service. Through a formalized Community LearningPartnership involving neighboring public and private schools, the mission is enactedthrough the cross-institutional sharing of personnel and resources in order toprovide educational and leadership opportunities for secondary school students,teachers, and administrators who encourage collaboration and support the nurturingof these values among all community stakeholders. As a result of our ongoingcollaborative efforts to assist one of the “neediest” high schools in in this partnership,


we were asked to bring strategies and best practices to the teaching faculty to helpboost student performance in multiple content areas. Our ultimate charge was tointroduce VTS to educators and to foster an understanding of and value for bothvisual and verbal ways of thinking as we attempted to create a culture of inquirywhile offering teachers the opportunity to learn VTS and introduce it into theirrespective classrooms. We had entered this new inquiry as instructional practitionersand researchers constantly searching for ways of enhancing our practice – andourselves – while striving to add legitimacy to our “scholarship of teaching”(Shulman 1986) and “living theory” (Whitehead 2007) through self-study.

In this section, we include an abridged sharing of the inquiry, its processes, andfindings which led us to the development and refinement of the ABDNAmethodology.

Developing Methodology Within Grisaille: Three-DimensionalSelf-Study of Professional Development Practitioners

Grisaille – an artist’s term derived from the French word gris or gray – refers to amonochromatic painting technique used extensively by European Old Masters artistspredating 1800. This technique of painting historically served the purposes ofproviding (a) an opportunity for the preliminary study of the person or subject; (b)a form of underpainting for a forthcoming, more richly detailed aesthetic artifact; (c)a teaching device used by mentor artists to focus students’ attention to depiction ofsubjects’ form; and (d) an opportunity for the laying in of contextual backgroundelements (Krieger 2001) which we suggest contributes to a viewer’s understandingof time and place. In the Grisaille phase of our inquiry, we preliminarily sketched and“work[ed]-out all compositional considerations and tonal value relations beforeproceeding to the final color version of the painting” (Krieger 2001, p. 25). And asa newly formed collaborative triad of PD facilitators, we first worked through thedeveloping understandings of our relationships to one another, sharing and valuingeach other’s particular areas of expertise.

Through a series of meetings that involved the administrators of the high schoolwith faculty and administrators from our institution, the decision was made to beginusing this school as a field experience site for placement of pre-service studentteachers enrolled in our required TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of OtherLanguages) methods’ classes. While revealing the specific academic and linguisticneeds of the student population in the school – largely English language learners(ELLs) with Hattian Creole as a first language – a series of conversations led us toconsider how the use of a VTS curriculum and pedagogy might assist the high schoolteachers in helping their students acquire the vocabulary and critical thinking skillsneeded to assist them in successfully matriculating through high school.

We were asked by the principal to bring VTS to the school as a professionaldevelopment opportunity for the teachers as a means of raising student achievementand helping the school to meet its desired goals for adequate yearly progress, asdetermined by the state.


MethodologyRecognizing the legitimacy of using multiple qualitative methods in self-studyresearch (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001) – and sensitive to the forms we used todesign and sketch our inquiry – careful consideration was given to our methodolog-ical choices and stance. Initially, we entered the research responsively, through aseries of collegial conversations and informal meetings, when the seeds were plantedfor the current inquiry to begin. Our initial dialogue began inside and outside of theinstitution over the course of several weeks in both informal and formal contexts thatresulted in our formalization of the current inquiry. Through individual and collec-tive reflections of these early meetings, we were able to “reframe” (Schon 1983) ourindividual goals for how our study should unfold, as well as our perceptions of howthe teachers might feel about the imposition of the VTS PD. In true self-studyfashion, the nature of our collaborative dialogue was replete with stages of commu-nal reflecting and reframing (Loughran 2002), helping us to unpack our individualperspectives and work them out through our shared dialogue.

This dialogue was the impetus that helped us to explore new ideas, theories, andconcepts that we were applying, enhancing our understanding, and spurring us tofurther action (Guilfoyle et al. 2004). As we continued to meet, reflect, and record,individually and collaboratively, we were reminded of and encouraged by the workof other self-study researchers as they reported on their experiences with promotingreflective practice (Dinkelman 2003) and developing a shared research agenda tobetter understand one’s practice and to improve teacher education programs (Berryand Crowe 2007). Throughout our work we were mindful of Zeichner’s (2000) callto build on the self-study work of others as we engaged in and reported on our owncollaborative self-study efforts.

As our inquiry progressed over time and as we engaged in cycles of datagathering and analysis in a storied way, Bullough and Pinnegar’s (2001) wordsreminded us that “[T]he aim of self-study research is to provoke, challenge, andilluminate rather than confirm and settle” (p. 20) helping us to work through ourquestions and concerns – separately and together – and resulting in changes to ourperspectives (Griffiths and Windle 2002). At times we had difficulty finding inter-subjectivity regarding our research design, as we were constantly sketching, shaping,and thinking about how we would represent our research and validate our “claims toknowledge” (Whitehead and McNiff 2006). A pivotal moment occurred when wesaw that our forms of inquiry and representation were becoming one and the same,developing simultaneously and interactively rather than linearly (Berry andLoughran 2002).

As researchers we tried to understand experience through multiple lenses whileremaining cognizant of our own perspectives and the influence of those perspectives(Eyring 1998). The ability to fluidly shift one’s focus from the experience, to whatshapes the experience, allows for more detail to emerge and a deeper understandingof the phenomena. As “native phenomenologists” (Keen 1975), we alternatelyexplored our areas of inquiry, experiencing, reflecting, and interpreting, individuallyand collectively.


We began, then, to view ourselves within the inquiry as the lateral faces of a three-sided prism, with the phenomena (the VTS professional development series) viewedthrough the prism base. This relocated self-study to a deeper location within theprism core, where the central triangle became the methodology that grounded ourinquiry as we viewed the phenomena through the lens of existing self-study litera-ture. The interior triangles are the three dimensions of narrative inquiry: interaction,continuity, and temporality (Clandinin and Connelly 2000). Figure 1 below is avisual representation of our prism as research lens.

By using the prism as our representational lens, we established our guidingquestion:

In what ways does the experience of designing and implementing a Visual ThinkingStrategies professional learning community in an urban high school influence our practiceas HE administrator, teacher educator, and art education practitioner?

As we began the implementation of the VTS PD series, there were variouscontextual constraints that were impediments to our desired progress. Schedulingof PD sessions, district policy regarding teacher professional development respon-sibilities, personal life circumstances, professional responsibilities, and participants’attitudes and beliefs about professional development and art interpretation wereacknowledged by us as challenges inherent in the development of the VTS cohort.We continued to examine and reflect upon our ongoing relationships to and withthe teachers and leadership of “Henry Ford Senior High School” and – as well – ourcontinuing co-construction and development of the evolving VTS curriculum fordiverse high school learners.

Fig. 1 Prism as research lens


Data and AnalysisMultiple data sources for the initial phases of the study included our ongoingdialogue, through email and face-to-face (F2F) meetings; telephone and Skypecommunication; preliminary meetings with administrators and teachers; journals;individual, collective, and community reflections; visual artifacts; and audio andvideo recordings of self-study meetings. As the study progressed, the researcherswere each responsible for collecting data in the field related to individual andcollaborative actions, observations, and reflections on the VTS training sessionsand ongoing negotiations with school partners. Visual artifacts were used throughoutthe study to represent both data sources and findings and as a primary means ofengaging in data analysis.

Data were also constructed and interpreted through a process of reflective art-making sessions, the products of which were analyzed, guided by the three VTSquestions. Coming together for extended blocks of (mostly) uninterrupted time, weindependently drew, painted, and sculpted what each of us perceived as “going on inthe picture” of our work together as researcher-practitioners and, as well, theevolving grisaille of the professional development learning community which wasemerging through our work at “Henry Ford Senior High School.” Next, each of us –as artist – used our own work as the object of an audio-recorded VTS sessionfacilitated for the other two researchers. For example, Jill used one of her ownimages – a gesture drawing of a VTS lesson being delivered at the school site – forher facilitation with Carter and Mark using the VTS pedagogy, questions, andnonjudgmental orientation: “What is going on in this picture?”, “What is it yousee that makes you say that?”, and “What else can we find?”. In other words, we usedthe pedagogy of the VTS teaching strategy central to our PD as a means tounderstanding our own experience of the phenomena of both planning andimplementing the VTS training series. Figures 2, 3, and 4 below are the productsof this initial foray into ABDNA.

Fig. 2 Jill – The emergingVTS community


Three-Dimensional Collaborative Self-Study Portraits: FindingsIn this section we describe our findings (Farrell et al. 2013), which emerged as aresult of engaging in multiple cycles of DNA, before, during, and after the creationand examination of our visual artifacts. It was during the third phase of our analysiswhen we began to ask ourselves, “what happens in a prism, and what has occurred inour prism?” During these cycles of ongoing dialogic inquiry as we explored thesocial, cultural, and historical contexts of our learning and practice, we simulta-neously experienced Bakhtin’s ideas of heteroglossia, extracting meaning fromeach other’s words and using them to explain our own meanings and intentions(Guilfoyle et al. 2004). The following themes emerged during the final stages of ourABDNA, and we have chosen to use these themes – with vignettes from ourindividual narratives – as evidence to validate our newly found “claims to knowl-edge” derived from this study (Whitehead and McNiff 2006). Our themes extendedour understanding of our collaborative self-study as prism as the following:

Fig. 3 Carter – Frameworkfor a community of influence

Fig. 4 Mark – Three handsreaching


refraction, transparency, illumination, mirroring, and dispersion. The hyperlinkswhich follow each theme’s description take readers to artistic artifacts which havenarrative evidences of our learnings superimposed.

Refraction: Moments of TensionsThese were “critical incidents” (Loughran and Berry 2005) where tensions that surfacedduring our dialogue in meetings caused us to push beyond our comfort zones andbeyond our current thinking and current ways of knowing. These transitional momentsof tension – drawn from misperceptions and, at times, opaque communications – ofteninhibited us with each other and during certain interactions. Yet, due to the nature of ourdynamic, they also served as catalysts for each of us, pushing us in new directions andleading to new insights, both individually and collectively.

Transparency: Moments of HonestyThe refraction, or refracted moments, led to increasing honesty in our relationships,with one another and with others in our respective communities. This was when wetruly engaged in the professional dialogue characteristic of many self-study groups(Guilfoyle et al. 2004) and essential to true collaboration. The safety we all felt witheach other, and the value that we all put on the work, allowed for these moments ofhonesty, necessary in working through the critical moments in our collaborativeresearch process, as well as the critical tensions inherent in our practice, which wererevealed through our research. Eisner (2002) stated, “Representation can be thoughtof, first, as aimed at transforming the contents of consciousness with the constraintsand affordances of a material” (p. 6). Together, as a team, we designed and acknowl-edged the constraints and choices of materials that mediated our access and ability toengage in the representation of our research and vision of the VTS PD curriculum.

Illumination: Moments of Clarity and TransformationThese were moments of insight when it all came together for one, or all of us, as aresult of the scaffolding of our professional dialogue. Often, working on the debriefingof a VTS session and the planning for the next stage, something said by one of uswould ignite another and help us to come to new insights and to shape our under-standing of the phenomena. These “critical moments”were the experiences that helpedto transform our existing notions of self, other, learning, and ways of knowing.Throughout our research there were times in our sharing of concepts and negotiatingshared meaning that required us to go beyond words and included visual image-making as a way of processing our thinking individually and together. Culturalpluralism is the acceptance of multiple modes of representation in the mediation ofthinking (John-Steiner and Mahn 1996). The internalization of our sociallyconstructed meaning was supported by both discussion and image-making activities.

Mirroring: Visions of Self in our Collaborative PartnersArt is communication, the mediation of thinking through form (Eisner 2002). As weattempted to understand each other’s experiences and actions, specifically whenengaged in our “art/image-making” ideas surfaced among all of us concerning our


professional learning, forming our emerging living theories. “Living theory” isdefined within the context of real-life theorizing, evident from the way teachersreflect on their practice, gather data, and generate evidence to support claims basedon beliefs. The testing of these beliefs for validation occurs through ongoingdialogue and critical feedback (Whitehead and McNiff 2006).

Dispersions: Educational Influence on OthersWe began our work together as collaborative research partners with several goals inmind. In this particular inquiry, the improvement of our own practice, in each of ourrespective roles, was pivotal for each of us as practitioners and self-studyresearchers. We each acknowledge “traces” of our individual selves that have beenshaped and influenced by our interaction with one another within the prism of ourcollaboration. While we cannot emphatically make claims that the present study hada significant impact on the students and teachers with whom we interacted through-out the duration of this study, we do feel that there were incidents that occurredwhere the “rays of light” shining through our relationship break into constituentspectral colors, resulting in moments of influence external to the prism of ourself-study collaborative. The relationships and ideas communicated through ourdialogue extended our influence to other relationships, actions, and ideas thatemerged in other places.

From Pedagogy to Methodology: Developing an Arts-Based DialogicNarrative Analysis

Following this work with Mark – who was, by now, deeply invested in his disser-tation thesis work – Jill and Carter continued to reflect upon our experiences withinthe triad collaborative, but our conversations seemed always to return to the dataanalysis processes that had so naturally emerged. Beyond the valuable learnings andnew understandings of ourselves and our practices as developers and deliverers ofprofessional development training, we had a shared conviction that perhaps the mostsignificant outcome of the work had been the germinating seeds of a data analysismethod grounded in the orientation and procedures of the VTS pedagogy. As acontinuation of this dialogue around our experiences, we codified the procedures andshared them through academic presentation at the Fifth International QualitativeResearch Conference in Guanajuato, Mexico (Winkle and Farrell 2014), formallyconceiving it as arts-based dialogic narrative analysis (ABDNA). To follow is adescription of the three-stage recursive process:

Studio StageABDNA has three recursive stages. In the first stage (the studio stage), we cometogether to negotiate a reflexive foci or prompt. We then independently create visualrepresentations of our self-study collaboration. Using a variety of art-making mate-rials, we draw, paint, and sculpt what each of us individually perceives as “whatis going on in this picture,” i.e., the picture of our self-study relationship. Theart-making typically occurred in relative silence, though in close personal proximitywith occasional verbal interactions.


Gallery Walk StageIn the second stage – generally a week later and while audio or video recordingourselves – we meet to display our visual artifacts. We take part in a gallery walkwhereby we each reflect on what we believe is represented in each other’s images.It is at this stage where each artistic artifact creator takes on the traditional role ofVTS facilitator and engages the co-researchers using the three VTS questions whichare at the heart of the pedagogical strategy. At this point, the artist-facilitator does notconfirm or contradict viewers’ interpretations of their experiential art objects;through their paraphrasing and questioning, they maintain a neutral orientationwhile facilitating viewers’ opportunities to express interpretation of meaning vis-à-vis the artifact:

1. What is going on in this image?2. What do you see that makes you say that?3. What more can we find?

We use these questions to begin our dialogue, unpacking the images as artifacts inorder to mediate our understanding of the phenomenon of our experiences as viewedby each one of us as a member of the collaborative. The art that we each created wasthe tool – the cultural artifact – that was used to ask each other what we saw in eachother’s work or what we perceived was going on in that image. At times we modifiedthe questions slightly, to fit our purposes, asking each other “what do we see that weperceive made the artist visualize it that way?”We used this process with each of themultiple images that we had created, taking turns to look, to reflect, and to ask eachother “OK, what more can we find?” Ultimately, the artist-facilitator does share theirpersonal interpretation of their own artifact and the meanings she or he had intendedto instill within the image, resulting in a new cycle of dialogic analysis which is –again – recorded. This opportunity for the artist to share their “intended” meaning isa significant departure from the traditional VTS pedagogy which would never revealan artist’s original intent or meaning.

Recursive Content-Analysis StageIn the third stage (recursive content analysis), we transcribe and then collectivelyview, review, and code the video recordings of our gallery walk sessions using acontent analysis approach: examining our data for keywords, phrases, and othernotations and denoting categories of concepts which were refined and reduced, firstindividually, then collaboratively through our combined perspectives.

This assemblage of stages in the ABDNA data collection and analysis reflects ournotion of heteroglossic dialogue (Bakhtin 1984) used to represent the multiplicity ofvoices and meanings shared through our research. Through this sharing, “living andtelling, reliving and retelling” (Clandinin and Connelly 2000), we reveal to eachother differing perspectives and interpretations of events. As we attempt to under-stand each other’s experiences and actions, ideas surface concerning professionallearning, forming an emerging living theory. “Living theory” is defined within thecontext of real-life theorizing, evident from the way teachers reflect on their practice,


gather data, and generate evidence to support claims based on beliefs. The testing ofthese beliefs for validation occurs through ongoing dialogue and critical feedback(Whitehead and McNiff 2006).

Through the interplay of our language and iconography, we see the influencingactions of our dialogue and the resulting changes in our interaction. The boundariesthat inhibit the sharing of insights and meanings of our experiences with one anotherbegin to disappear, allowing our intellectual and emotional skins to become perme-able and allow for the flow of the rhizoaction to move us to newer levels of sharedunderstanding of a particular phenomenon.

Recursive Journeying from Methodology to ReflexivePedagogical Device: Evolution of the Doctoral Colloquium

Our journey has taken us recursively from an arts-based pedagogy to self-studymethodology and from methodology to reflexive pedagogy as we strive to developour unique living theory. While retrospectively examining the trajectory of ourcollaborative self-study research, what emerges for us is the distinction betweenour uses of a specific arts-based pedagogic approach (VTS) when delivering PD in acommunity of classroom teachers, to our later use of the VTS questioning as thebasis for a methodological tool for data analysis, resulting in our development ofABDNA. The findings that emerged from that study and implications for ourpractice led us to the next stage of our journey wherein we began to integrate arts-based pedagogic devices within the context of our graduate teacher education andresearch courses as tools to engage students in reflexive processes and practice. Thereciprocal manner in which we have engaged in team-teaching and the examinationof our practice as collaborative self-study researchers has resulted in the integrationof self-study, arts-based research methods, and emancipatory practices within sev-eral of our graduate courses, but more specifically it has led to the evolution andregeneration of “the Colloquium,” a unique course that reflects the recursive journeyof our collaborative research which has evolved to its current form as a direct resultof our longitudinal inquiry: we have come full circle.

Historical Orientation to “the Colloquium”

Since the inception of the PhD. in curriculum and instruction program at ourinstitution, the “Colloquium” has been a distinct course that offers advanced studyof special topics and current issues related to the broad field of curriculum whileproviding continuous support and direction to doctoral students in developing theirexpertise in areas of inquiry and research, identifying professional developmentactivities, writing professional publications, and designing presentations. Intendedas a unique complement to the prescribed curriculum core, but required by curric-ulum and instruction majors, the Colloquium is open to intermediate and advanceddoctoral students who wish to “broaden their horizons” by considering perspectives,


issues, and principles central to other disciplines, professional fields, or areas ofcriticism, as juxtaposed against the broad field of curriculum thought and inquiry.

The course activates participants in critical reflection around research-basedknowledge and truth claims through readings and collegial discourses vis-a-vispurposes and motivations for engaging in educational research. Through explicitexaminations of whose voices and truths are privileged and whose are marginalized,course participants consider their own and others’ motivations for choosing aparticular research foci: potentially identifying opportunities for entering into empir-ical inquiry through a social justice or advocacy lens, congruent with ouruniversity’s mission and core commitments. By engaging participants in readings,community and service activities, as well as collaborative arts-based experiences, wetake action to foster an inclusive community. This is specifically embodied through acommunity service or community action project or research proposal which pro-motes a public interest.

Historically, this was a course that Jill had conceptualized and written, taught, andlabored over every other year, and one in which she implicitly embedded pedagogiesand methodologies that she was utilizing as part of her own professional develop-ment and evolving research agenda (i.e., self-study, VTS, arts-based researchmethods, and portraiture). While the stated overall goal is to engage students inissues relevant to their programs using academic as well as “popular literature” assources, she had always used this course as an opportunity for students to considercontemporary issues and topics situated within the current milieu while examiningtheir own and others’ motivations for choosing particular research foci and offeringthem opportunities for entering into inquiry through a social justice or advocacy lens.In truth, the Colloquium was also an opportunity for Jill to open students’ eyes to herown passions: the arts and the environment and the sustainability and significance ofboth.

In the first few iterations of delivering the Colloquium, students’ commentsattested to their “ah-ha” moments when forced to consider how they might usetheir researchers’ lens to both advocate for the interests and perspectives of margin-alized groups while trying out different methodological tools. It was also evident thatresearch foci selected by students in the Colloquium oftentimes became the seeds oftheir dissertation research. We have often referred to one of Carter’s comments,reflecting on his doctoral coursework, when he shared the impact of the Colloquiumon his epistemological orientation and the motivation he felt to do “research in thepublic interest.” It was also during that same offering of the Colloquium–when on a“field trip” to hear Philip Yenawine–that Carter was first introduced to VisualThinking Strategies. The seeds had been planted.

Transference of Course “Ownership”

In the summer of 2013, Carter shadowed Jill when she decided to useMaxine Greene’s Releasing the Imagination (1995) for the first time, along withLynn Butler-Kisber’s Qualitative Inquiry (2010). Jill had already been dabbling


with arts-informed inquiry and the integration of arts-based methods in her researchand had recently used collage, visual mapping, and painting in a collaborative self-study done with two doctoral students (Farrell et al. 2012). Having served asvideographer in this study, Carter was familiar with the arts-based approaches, andwe readily agreed to using collage as a pedagogical device. Through the art-makingcollage activities, we hoped to scaffold students’ examination of their own – andothers’ –motivations for choosing research foci. The aim was for students to identifyopportunities for entering into inquiry through a social justice or advocacy lensthrough the development and articulation of a personal advocacy position whichgives voice to a marginalized population or entity. We further had students articulateits application through a community-based research project or project proposal thatserves the public interest.

That summer was a pivotal moment in the history of the Colloquium, as thegroundwork laid led to the generation of the next few years’ iterations where wewere motivated to expand our knowledge and that of our participants withnew theories, curricula, and pedagogical strategies emerging from our own collab-orative self-study research and our engagement in critical praxis with each other,as well as our colleagues in the larger communities in which we were each engaged.Our shared delivery that summer also resulted in the recognition that some ofthe pedagogic and methodological tools that we were using in the course, and inour self-study inquiry, were “keepers” and that these things needed to be moreexplicit in the syllabus.

This experience, along with insights gleaned and lessons learned, led us intothe next phase of our collaborative research: From Mission Alignment to LivedCurriculum: Walking the Walk in a Doctoral-Level “Special Topics” Course (Farrelland Winkle 2014). This collaborative self-study examined the nature of our co-facilitation of the next iteration of the Colloquium which was presented at the 13thBiennial Colloquium of Dominican Colleges and Universities.

Having grappled with the intentional and amorphous nature of the Colloquium,but challenged with the parameters of an upcoming program review, we used ourself-study lens to explicate processes in which we were engaged as we attempted totransform a “flexible” curriculum in order to codify key readings and experiences inour effort to maintain meaningful and explicit alignment to our University Missionand Core Commitments, regardless of the faculty charged with its facilitation. Thisrequired us to shift from the written curriculum, the syllabus as it had existed, to thelived curriculum: what was actually happening in terms of including an ABER andsocial justice focus – engaging our students in “doing research in the public interest.”

Once again we tried on a different arts-based lens, choosing to represent ourfindings vis-à-vis this self-study inquiry through the performative metaphor of adance. Why dance, one may ask? It was during this time that both of our roles wereshifting and the nature of our relationship as collaborative research partners andcritical friends was taking us both into new directions. Jill’s responsibilities as anassociate dean were mounting, and her availability to teach multiple courses in thedoctoral curriculum core was limited. At the same time, Carter was establishinghimself in his full-time faculty role and beginning to explore ethnodrama as a


research practice (Winkle 2016) while also wanting to take on additional coursepreps in the doctoral program. The Colloquium was a course that Carter had longcoveted, and, while Jill was reluctant to let go, she knew the time had come to releaseownership and that Carter was the one faculty member who “got it.” We saw this asan opportunity to come back as research partners, once again exploring our dyadthrough a collaborative self-study lens with dance as the chosen art form.

It was during one of our research meetings when we were working on thepresentation for the Dominican Colloquium that the idea of stepping into someoneelse’s shoes was explored. Our shared dialogue took us from “if the shoe fits, wear it”to “following others’ footsteps” to “can I live without my favorite shoes?” This was acritical juncture in the dynamic of the collaboration as Carter found himself walkingon eggshells as he cautiously provided and responded to critical feedback about theexisting syllabus and his own experience of the course, while Jill had to carefullynavigate and steer the conversation, mindful of Carter’s developing role as a facultymember. We vividly remember the meeting when we were both moved to jump upand do the waltz, ever mindful of not wanting to step on the others’ toes!

In 2015 – during the next iteration of the Colloquium – Carter “flew solo” withJill joining the final session as we used “arts-based dialogic narrative analysis”(ABDNA) to unpack the students’ collage presentations. At this point we had agreedto adopting a persistent theme for the Colloquium “non satis scire: to know is notenough,” but we were still grappling with a yet-to-be-codified learning outcomewhich included an exploration of educational research practices absent from the coredoctoral research curriculum, such as arts-based inquiry, self-study, participatoryaction research, and emancipatory inquiry.

Returning to a Co-facilitated Colloquium

Our relationship as self-study research partners over the last 2 years had taken on anew dimension in tandem with the direction of our professional identities. As wewere evolving in our respective practice – Carter as a more seasoned faculty memberand Jill as Dean – opportunities for collaborative research had become more limited.But given the nature of our relationship and the commitment we each held togrowing our “living theory,” we continued to meet regularly for critical friends’sessions. It was during one such session in the Fall of 2016 when the seeds for ourlatest inquiry were sown. During the previous summer when Carter was given theopportunity to teach Qualitative Inquiry in the doctoral research core for the firsttime, he decided to be more explicit in helping students to be more aware of theirpositionality as researchers, mindfully and explicitly including reflexivity (Berger2015). At the same time, Jill had been exploring the use of mindfulness in her dailyyoga practice, as a tool for helping her to deal with the challenges of her adminis-trative role, as well as personal challenges presented after the sudden death of herhusband. The shared dialogue and arts-based research that was undertaken duringthat time led to our latest study,Mindfully Journeying Toward Researcher Reflexivityin Dissertation Advising and Graduate Education: A Visual-Narrative Inquiry, a


paper presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of The Qualitative Report. Thiscollaboration and the renewed synergy created during our working sessions servedas a catalyst for the decision to have Jill return with Carter as co-instructor of recordfor the delivery of the Colloquium.

The Journey of Our Living Theory Continues

In reflecting on our journey, we are reminded of Barone and Eisner’s eloquent words,“the place of the artistic and the aesthetic in the process and product of socialresearch has indeed been illuminated and expanded” and “artistry in the socialresearch process is nothing new” (Barone and Eisner 2012, p. x). As collaborativeself-study researchers utilizing a combined methodological approach to our researchand practice, we have engaged in the implementation of art-making and reflexivepedagogies to unpack the transformation of our practice and, in turn, brought thesedevices into the classroom for the purposes of engaging our graduate students inunderstanding and reflecting upon their respective practices. We believe our useof arts-based devices lets a broader audience “read” our research and participate inour experiences as researchers and practitioners and helps to make these methodsmore available/accessible for consumption and adaptation by our students andcolleagues. The rhizome-like influences evidenced by our learning and the explana-tions of our educational influence on others in our academic community have beenstrengthened by our deliberate choice of an arts-based self-study approach as bothour methodological and pedagogical approach. Our engagement in the researchprocess of self-study while utilizing arts-based methods at all stages has allowedus to explore and unpack our practices with a depth and richness not availablethrough more traditional research paradigms. We believe that our journey into the“how” and “who” and “why” of self-study (De Lange and Grossi 2009) – specifi-cally through the integration of an aesthetic approach to both the construction andanalysis of data – may prove fruitful to a wider community of educationalresearchers who similarly envision an artistic approach to research that extendsbeyond artistic or visual modes of representation (Weber and Mitchell 2004) withinself-study.

Cross-References

▶ Forms and Representations of Self-study: Where to End▶ Participatory Visual Methodologies in Self-Study for Social Justice Teaching: AReflexive Eye

▶Rhizomatic Self-Study Research to Confront Childhood Sexual Abuse and ItsConsequences for Self, Others, and Communities

▶Role of Self-study in Teaching and Teacher Education for Social Justice


http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Forms and Representations of Self-study: Where to End

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Participatory Visual Methodologies in Self-Study for Social Justice Teaching: A Reflexive Eye

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Participatory Visual Methodologies in Self-Study for Social Justice Teaching: A Reflexive Eye

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Rhizomatic Self-Study Research to Confront Childhood Sexual Abuse and Its Consequences for Self, Others, and Communities

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Rhizomatic Self-Study Research to Confront Childhood Sexual Abuse and Its Consequences for Self, Others, and Communities

http://link.springer.com/search?facet-eisbn=978-981-13-1710-1&facet-content-type=ReferenceWorkEntry&query=Role of Self-study in Teaching and Teacher Education for Social Justice

References

Ayers, W. (2006). Trudge toward freedom: Educational research in the public interest. In G. Ladson-Billings & W. F. Tate (Eds.), Educational research in the public interest: Social justice, action,and policy (pp. 81–97). New York: Teachers College Press.

Bach, H. (2007). Composing a visual narrative inquiry. In J. Clandinin (Ed.),Handbook of narrativeinquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 280–307). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. (trans: Emerson, C.). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Barone, T., & Eisner, E. (2012). Arts based research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative

research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.Berry, A., & Crowe, A. (2007). Extending our boundaries through self-study: Framing a research

agenda through beginning a critical friendship. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston, & D. Tidwell (Eds.),Collaboration and community: Pushing boundaries through self-study. Proceedings of the sixthinternational conference on the self-study of teacher education practices, (pp. 31–35). CedarFalls: University of Northern Iowa.

Berry, A., & Loughran, J. (2002). Developing an understanding of learning to teach in teachereducation. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices throughself-study (pp. 13–29). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Brumberger, E. R. (2007). Making the strange familiar. A pedagogical exploration of visualthinking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(4), 376–401.

Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitativeresearch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

De Lange, N., & Grossi, E. (2009). An arts-based thesis: Reflections on the how and the who andthe why of the ‘I’. Counterpoints 357, 187–206.

Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promotingreflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18.

Dixson, A. D., Chapman, T. K., & Hill, D. A. (2005). Research as an aesthetic process: Extendingthe portraiture methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(1), 16–26.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. (1st ed.). New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Eyring, M. (1998). How close is close enough? Reflections on the experience of doing phenome-nology. In K. B. deMarrais (Ed.), Inside stories: Qualitative research reflections. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Farrell, J., & Winkle, C. A. (2014). From mission alignment to lived curriculum: Faculty walkingthe walk in a doctoral-level “special topics” course. Paper presented at the 13th BiannualColloquium of Dominican Colleges and Universities, June 14, 2014, Rockville Centre,New York.

Farrell, J. B., Rosencrantz, M., & Schaffzin, L. J. (2012) Professional learning throughrhizoactivity: Creating collaborative spaces with self-study and arts informed research. InMeeting of the American Educational Research Association annual conference, (AERA),Vancouver.

Farrell, J., Winkle, C. A., & Rosenkrantz, M. (2013). Looking in, looking out: Reflection, refraction,and transformation through three-dimensional self-study. Paper presentation in the papersession titled, “Self-Study as a conduit to creative programing” at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association (AERA)/Self-study SIG, April 30, 2013,San Francisco.

Griffiths, M., & Windle, J. (2002). Helping teacher educators learn to research: Bread and rosesanda phoenix. In C. Kosnik, A. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), Making a difference in teachereducation through self-study. Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the self-


study of teacher education practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England (Vol. 1, pp.87–91). Toronto: OISE, University of Toronto.

Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., Pinnegar, S., & Placier, P. (2004). The epistemological dimensionsand dynamics of professional dialogue in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V.K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching andteacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp. 1109–1168). Dordrecht: Springer.

Hedegaard, M. (1990). The zone of proximal development as basis for instruction. In L. C. Moll(Ed.), Vygotsky and education. Instructional implications and applications of sociohistoricalpsychology (pp. 349–371). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Housen, A. (1999). Eye of the beholder: Research, theory and practice. Paper presented at themeeting of the aesthetic and art education: A transdisciplinary approach, Calouste GulbenkianFoundation, Service of Education, Lisbon.

Housen, A., & Yenawine, P. (2000). Visual thinking strategies: Learning to think and communicatethrough art. New York: Visual Understanding in Education.

Hubard, O. M. (2010). Three modes of dialogue about works of art. Art Education, 63(3), 40–45.John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A

Vygotskyian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_4

Keen, E. (1975). A primer in phenomenological psychology. Washington, DC: University Press ofAmerica.

Krieger, B. (2001). Shades of grey. Artist’s Magazine, 18(7), 25.Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2005). Reflections on portraiture: A dialogue between art and science.

Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 3), 3–3),15.Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Lima, M. G. (1995). From aesthetics to psychology: Notes on Vygotsky’s Psychology of art.

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(4), 410–424.Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching.

Journal of Teacher Education, 53(33), 33–43.Loughran, J. J., & Berry, A. K. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 21(2), 193–203.Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic

Books.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary

perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching. New York:Macmillan.

Smith, A. D. (1993). Fires in the mirror. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.Visual Understanding in Education. (2012). Visual Thinking Strategies. Retrieved April 21, 2012.

In From. http://www.vtshome.org/about-us.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Weber, S. (2014). Arts-based self-study: Documenting the ripple effect. Perspectives in Education,

32(2), 8–20.Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (2004). Visual artistic modes of representation for self-study. In J.

J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International handbookof self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp. 979–1037). Dordrecht:Springer.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. London:Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, J. (2007). Generating educational theories that can explain educational influences inlearning: living logics, units of appraisal, standards of judgment. Paper presented to BERAannual conference, London.


https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_4

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_4

http://www.vtshome.org/about-us

Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research living theory. London: Sage.Winkle, C. A. (2016). Walking in the words of “the other” through ethnodramatic readers theatre.

In C. Hastings & L. Jacob (Eds.), Social justice in English language teaching (pp. 201–220).Alexandria: TESOL Press.

Winkle, C. A., & Farrell, J. (2014). Developing a collaborative arts-based research methodology:From pedagogy to methodology. Paper presented at the fifth international qualitative researchconference, June 25–27, 2014, Guanajuato, Mexico.

Yenawine, P. (2003). Jump starting visual literacy: Thoughts on image selection.Yenawine, P. (2014). Visual thinking strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school

disciplines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Zander, M. J. (2007). Tell me a story: The power of narrative in the practice of teaching art. Studies

in Art Education, 48, 189–203.Zeichner, K. (2000). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9),

4–15.


reflexivity in graduate teacher and researcher education ... … · the journey of our living...

Documents