1. Self-study as professional learning
Dr. Déirdre Ní Chróinín, Mary Immaculate College
Dr. Tim Fletcher, Brock University, Canada
Prof. Mary O’Sullivan, University of Limerick

2. Brock University, Canada

5. Why meaning?

6. Joy/ meaning - intrinsic
habit – persistence
Duty - utilitarian

7. Why meaning?

10. LaBoskey’s (2004) criteria for quality in self-study
(a) self-initiated and -focused,
(b) improvement aimed,
(c) interactive,
(d) multiple forms of qualitative data, and
(e) validity based in trustworthiness.

11. Theoretical underpinnings
Pedagogy of Teacher Education (Loughran, 2006)
Meaning-making (Metheny, 1968; Polanyi, 1961)

12. Pedagogy of Teacher Education (Loughran, 2006)
learning about teaching by pre-service teachers and
teaching about teaching by teacher educators through their pedagogies

13. Meaning-making A psycho-philosophical approach (Polanyi, 1961).
as an embodied act of making sense of experience, a reconciliation of past, present and future experiences.
experiential; ‘event like’
personal and idiosyncratic

14. Development and Implementation of the innovation M2-PETE
We:
positioned meaning-making as the prioritised filter for all our pedagogical decisions
(Kretchmar, 2006; Tjeerdsma Blankenship & Ayers, 2010).
We drew on
theoretical guidance (e.g. Kretchmar, 2000; 2001; 2006; 2008)
evidence from empirical research (Brown, 2008; McCaughtry and Rovegno, 2001; Nilges, 2004)

15. What were the experiences of teacher educators implementing the M2-PETE approach?

16. Data Collection Process
Planning template  Non-participant observer Work samples Reflection template Critical friend response Final response
SKYPE
Conference

17. YEAR 1

18. How were my assumptions challenged?
How/when was I made to feel vulnerable during the lesson? How did I handle this?
What moments were particularly “joyful” for me teaching this lesson? Why were they joyful?
What insights and understandings about teaching and learning did I gain?

19. YEAR 2

20. CRITICAL FRIEND: RESPONSE
Reading the account above:
 What resonated with my thinking was…
 The questions that it raised for me are…..
 If I was going to be contentious I might suggest…. 
LECTURER FINAL RESPONSE: IMPLICATIONS FOR MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Reflecting on the response above:
My position now is….
 I still have questions about….   

21. DATA SOURCE APPROX. YIELD (1 yr)
Reflective journal entries
wds
Critical friend responses
wds
Recorded audio conversations
8hrs
Naturalistic observations
20hrs
Individual interviews with students*
n = 12
Focus group interviews with 4-5 students* 2
Turning points
5 000 wds

22. Analysis Turning points (Bullock & Ritter, 2011, p. 175):
There is an affective (e.g., emotional or motivational) element to the data.
The data frame a problem of practice.
The author of the data is implicitly or explicitly asking for help from the critical friend.
The data are bounded by the action-present; there is still time to take action on the problem.

23. Trustworthiness External Critical friend (turning points)
‘Expert’ member check (Braun & Clarke, 2013)
Validity as trustworthiness(LaBoskey, 2004)

24. Findings
Self-study processes supported development of the pedagogical innovation
Self-study processes developed teacher educator practices
Self-study processes encouraged alignment of beliefs and practices
Loughran (2006)

25. Discussion Self-study: Innovation in pedagogies of teacher education
Capacity building as teacher educators
Alignment of our beliefs and practices
A coherent pedagogical approach that included both
Learning about teaching for meaning
Teaching about teaching for meaning

26. Conclusion
“more closely connecting the self-studies of teacher educators to the mainstream of teacher education research so that the voices of practicing teacher educators are incorporated into syntheses of research on particular aspects of teacher education”
(Zeichner, 2007, p. 36)
a starting point to reshape the practices of school-based PE through innovation in PETE