Roundtable reflections: (Re) defining the role of the teacher educator and the preservice teacher as 'co-learners'.

Brandenburg, Robyn

This paper is an account of one aspect of a self-study--the 'roundtable reflections'--conducted over two semesters with two cohorts of Bachelor of Education preservice teachers at the University of Ballarat. An innovative approach to learning and teaching mathematics based on negotiation, 'commuting' teaching experience, and systematic reflection was introduced with each cohort and roundtable sessions provided the reflective space for the systematic 'unpacking' of the learning. Analysis of these roundtable sessions has developed understandings of the impact and effectiveness of this approach in redefining the role of both the preservice teacher and the teacher educator as 'co-learners'. The implications for those involved in teacher education are explored as a means of further understanding the nature of teaching and learning about teaching.

**********

We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are. (Cicero, Philosopher)

Teacher education is often criticised for appearing to reinforce approaches to practice that (inadvertently) support a 'transmission' or 'banking' model (Friere, 1970)--a model that has further reinforced traditional notions of learning to teach by apprenticeship, replication and staged socialisation into the profession. Teaching is seen as telling, and listening is seen as learning (Berry & Loughran, 2002; Russell, 1999).

This paper presents an approach to learning about teaching that values and encourages the deeper understanding of 'self' and, in so doing, creates opportunities for transformation--transformation made possible by experience, shared ownership, systematic reflection and the development of collegial relationships. In coming to understand 'self', it is anticipated that assumptions about teaching and learning might be identified, challenged and/or supported and that new possibilities for understanding will emerge. An integral component of this approach has been the creation and introduction of 'roundtable' sessions. This paper explores how these sessions have impacted on both teacher educator and preservice teacher knowledge and learning. It also examines the nature of spaces created for reflective discourse and how these spaces can create 'zones of discomfort'.

Why change?

The stimuli for the innovation described in this paper was multifaceted and was the result of what I considered to be both my disconnection with preservice teachers and a diminishing professional satisfaction, evident by what I considered to be a 'plateauing of practice'. I had increasingly struggled with issues about ownership of the learning, effectiveness of teaching and the ever-increasing preservice teacher reliance on the teacher educator for direction and guidance. I began to question whether I was assisting and/or restricting the development of personal agency. This questioning of myself led to an eventual reconceptualisation of practice.

What follows is a reflection on my experience as a teacher educator of my attempts to introduce and sustain innovative practices in teaching and learning mathematics with preservice teachers: practices which assist individuals in the discovery of the self in relation to understanding more deeply who they are as teachers and learners; and practices that create learning connections, new knowledge and an ongoing desire for professional growth.

Writing this paper has been challenging. In one sense, it has become a report of my own self-study as a teacher educator but it is also closely linked to (and catalysed by) similar learning through deliberate reflection by different groups of preservice teachers with whom I have worked over the past semesters. We have shared the celebratory moments, typified by moments of surprise and humour which were more often than not hoped for (and sometimes unexpected) and which resulted in new learning for us all. Yet we have also jointly experienced the frustrations that have emerged as a result of misunderstandings, breaks in communication and clashes of ideals and expectations.

The context and the changes

In 2001, the Faculty of Education at the University of Ballarat introduced the initial phase of a reconceptualised and restructured Bachelor of Education course (Prep-6; Prep-10).The new course structure encouraged preservice teacher choice in determining learning pathways and offered a selection of specialisations. It aimed at assisting individuals to become 'critically reflective practitioners', prepared for the 'new knowledge economy' and the challenges of lifelong learning (Australian Council of Deans of Education, 2001). All units were designed specifically for the new course and themes were linked to experiences both within and across the four years (Communities of Learners; Connections in Learning: Diversity and Developing a Professional Identity). These themes were designed and introduced as a connecting mechanism, where experiences within units were interpreted as part of a learning continuum as opposed to being experienced as isolated units that stood alone.

It was anticipated that 'connecting' would also encourage increased dialogue among colleagues in terms of preparation, teaching, assessment and reflection on practice (see Brandenburg & Ryan, 2001). Professional experience was introduced within the initial weeks of first year and a new mentoring program was implemented, connecting the university with schools in a redefined partnership model of practice. Previous to this, preservice teachers had had minimal contact with schools in the initial two years of the degree and this approach was implemented so that they could experience, early in the course, relationships with schools and experiences of teaching and learning.

Concurrent with this was the re-creation of some already existing partnerships with schools based on the mentoring model of professional practice, as opposed to the supervisory model. As a result of this restructure, preservice teachers, throughout the four years of the course, experienced strategic 'commuting' (teaching in schools/reflection at university), and it was anticipated that this approach would assist participants in becoming not only technically and practically competent practitioners, but practitioners capable of critical appraisal and assessment of ethical, social and moral issues linked to the pedagogy of teaching and learning.

Further to this, there was an emphasis on 'new knowledge' based on experience and reflection on that experience. Prior experience must also be recognised and, as Hayes (2002) suggests, preservice teachers 'are not empty vessels to be filled either, waiting to be filled by Grandgrindean helpings of our wiser experience. They too have an experiential sense of what it might mean--embryonic and theoretical as that might be to be teaching' (p. 4).

The changes

The reconstruction and subsequent implementation of the 'Learning and Teaching Mathematics' units' as part of this four-year undergraduate course required more than a programmatic reframing. It required personal and professional attributes that were underpinned by commitment, perseverance and a willingness to live with a degree of messiness as outcomes and directions could not be predetermined. However it was within the deliberate distancing and the systematic scrutiny of practice that this self-study enabled new insights for me about change in teaching and learning. Some of my key assumptions about teaching and learning about teaching became explicit and were revealed by the manner in which the units were constructed, implemented and evaluated. The specific characteristics of this new approach to learning and teaching mathematics included:

* negotiation of the 'Learning and Teaching Mathematics' unit with each cohort, including the processes, content, learning and teaching experiences, and assessment and learning tasks;

* the introduction of 'buddy teaching' where pairs (in the main) of preservice teachers planned and taught mathematics lessons in schools for one session per week for up to four sessions;

* the introduction of systematic reflective practice as a means of 'unpacking' the learning by using the ALACT cycle (Korthagen, with Kessels, Lagerwerf, & Wubbels, 2001);

* the expectation that preservice teachers would identify and explore critical incidents in teaching and learning; and

* the creation of roundtable sessions as a formal, structured space for reflection.

These modifications emerged from a belief that preservice teachers and teacher educators required shared ownership of the learning process, and that quality experiences could provide springboards/stimulus for reflecting on these experiences (by way of the roundtable discussions). This approach was in sharp contrast to that which had previously been experienced--predetermined unit outlines, content, assessment tasks and experiences; traditional lectures and tutorial sessions; case studies or scenarios relating to practice, or emphasis on the simulated experience; minimal shared experience and limited preservice teacher-teacher educator dialogue.

Teacher educator change: 'Coming to know'

How do we make meaning of our experience? How do we construct knowledge? Underpinning this restructured approach to teaching and learning was the assumption that practices, frameworks, modes of operation and understandings would be challenged. The constructivist approach to learning values experience, active engagement and reflection on experience (Dewey, 1933) and the roundtable approach placed an emphasis on the 'social' in the construction of knowledge (Ernest, 1994e; von Glasersfeld, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978).There was also a determined effort to move away from the teacher educator as the 'specialist in knowledge transference' (Kinchloe, 2003, p. 43) to one of meaning making through a deeper understanding of self through interaction with others.

As Russell (1999) suggested, 'It is certainly not enough for teacher educators to advocate changes that they have not achieved in their own practice' (p. 1).Teacher educators must challenge their own practices and assumptions and commit to best practice. As Burn, Hagger, and Mutton (2003) make clear, teacher educators need to view learners as individuals with 'enormous variations ... in terms of their starting points' in learning about teaching and respond to the challenge where courses are structured to 'stimulate and sustain the individual learners' (p. 329). It has been through implementing this new approach that I have come to see learning and teaching as revolving more and more around the concepts of disruption, questioning, intervention and challenge. Gore (1993) suggested that 'it is important to continuously and vigilantly carry out the work of re-assembling, recommencement, [and] critical renewal' (p. 155).

The self-study

Self-study offers a means of both monitoring innovation and determining, through systematic and deliberate inquiry, the effects of the innovation and pedagogical development. Zeichner (1999) suggested that the self-study genre was one area of research in teacher education that has had an 'important influence on practice in teacher education' (p. 12) and 'has been probably the most significant development ever in the field of teacher education research' (p. 8).

Self-study, like reflective practice, demands: commitment; a willingness to be challenged on assumptions and practices; a determination to maintain a 'reflective lens' on the teaching and learning process; an 'openness' to the elements of surprise and the unexpected, or unanticipated; and an ongoing desire and passion to know more. Self-study is a response to dilemmas in practice in a rigorous and systematic manner as it attempts to explore the theoretical underpinnings of practice--it becomes a response to the 'why' of teaching and learning (Loughran, 2003). As Hamilton and Pinnegar (2000) suggest, By engaging in self-study, every teacher educator would become a scholar of teacher education, of whatever phase or aspect of teacher education might be intriguing or revealing of a living contradiction in his or her beliefs about teacher education ... Through self-study, private theory would be transformed to public theory that could then support the study of teacher education by others as well. (p. 239)

Self-studies create discoveries and, as I trust this paper illustrates, for me, it has led to identifying emergent themes and the possible implications as a teacher educator in developing further understandings about the nature of learning and teaching--a repositioning of my role, leading to an ongoing questioning of means of challenging the status quo in teacher education.

What is a roundtable?

Roundtables are conducted within the two-hour weekly time traditionally allocated to tutorial sessions. Roundtables emerged as a professional and personal response to what was perceived by me as contradictions in practice the chasm that sometimes exists between the intended learning and the actual outcomes. I found that preservice teachers had become recipients of knowledge; tutorial sessions were input based and minimal dialogue between students existed. Preservice teachers were becoming increasingly reliant on my input, guidance and knowledge. Although I espoused a belief in the constructivist approach to teaching and learning, the reality indicated more of the 'transmission' or 'banking' (Friere, 1970) model of learning.

The collaborative learning approach of the roundtable, however, became an enabling framework to encourage and facilitate reflection based on experience. Participants were continually challenged to move beyond what might be regarded as egocentric, and/or an unchallenged view of teaching and learning. Eleven roundtable sessions were conducted across the three semesters and the numbers of participants varied from 12 to 24. However an essential element was the actual physical restructuring of the learning environment so that the rows became a roundtable. The underlying assumptions linked to this roundtable approach to learning were based on the following beliefs:

* roundtable reflection would provide opportunities for preservice teachers/ teacher educator to make sense of experience/s in a supportive environment;

* preservice teachers would generate the discussion by raising issues related to experience;

* the role of the teacher educator would be to introduce the session, clarify the framework and consciously refrain from leading and/or dominating discussion;

* all preservice teachers would be provided with an opportunity to raise an issue, and thereby be granted 'voice';

* the learning outcomes could not he predetermined;

* learning/s would be made explicit;

* opinions would be respected; and

* references would be made to the ALACT model of reflective practice (inner/outer cycle).

The learning environments established themselves with surprising ease and although each learning community developed a distinctive dialogic discourse and was unique in terms of the developing relationships, commonalities that were linked to learning expectations, evaluations and outcomes emerged as somewhat typical across groups and years.

Method

Although this self-study was conducted over three semesters, the data analysed for this paper were collected during Semester 2 (third year Bachelor of Education), 2002 and Semester 2 (first year Bachelor of Education), 2003. For this paper, three of eleven roundtable sessions have been selected for analysis. Roundtable one was the initial session conducted with a group of 22 third year Bachelor of Education students as part of the unit 'Learning and Teaching Mathematics II'. The second session was the final roundtable conducted with 17 first year Bachelor of Education students as part of the unit 'Learning and Teaching Mathematics I'. The third session was the final roundtable conducted with 12 first year Bachelor of Education students as part of the unit 'Learning and Teaching Mathematics I'. Each roundtable is identified as R1, R2 and R3 respectively. All sessions were audio taped and transcribed and field notes were written during each session. As a means of validating the data, the transcribed texts were presented to the groups and verified for accuracy and intent. My journal entries, containing ongoing reflections, and preservice teachers' written reflective comments provided further data. The SET (Student Evaluation of the Unit) surveys conducted at the conclusion of each unit were also included to further inform the overall analysis of this approach to learning and teaching. Pseudonyms are used with reference to preservice teachers.

Roundtable analysis and discussion

Following multiple readings of the transcripts of the roundtable sessions, preservice teachers' written reflections, field notes and journal entries, a number of themes emerged. The themes have been identified and the following discussion exposes the connection between experience, roundtable reflection (as a framework) and participants as co-learners. The themes are:

* Roundtables as spaces for 'co-learning';

* Roundtables as challenging the traditional role of the teacher educator;

* Roundtables as 'voice': silence and dominant voices.

Roundtables as spaces for 'co-learning' I felt a lot of collegial learning was happening. I felt we were teachers together supporting and encouraging one another. People seemed happy to share their highs as well as their lows and there were many helpful suggestions. I felt most people used the ALACT model and were really thinking well about improvements and different ways of doing things for future lessons. (Gen, R1, written reflection)

Preservice teachers enter undergraduate courses with clearly defined notions and expectations about the teaching and learning (Lortie, 1975; Russell, 1999). My past experiences in teaching these mathematics units has revealed the widely held belief among preservice teachers that there exists an available kit of how and what to teach. (In a questionnaire completed by the third year cohort during semester one, 2001, the most common response to the question, 'What do you want and need to find out about mathematics?' was 'How to teach certain topics', 'Lesson plan examples' and 'Ideas for resources'). My experience highlighted the need for some reflective structure to assist students in the systematic practice of reflection.

In response to this (and as a means of introducing a roundtable framework for reflection on experience), the ALACT cycle (Korthagen et al., 2001) of reflective practice was implemented both as a framework for reflection and as an analytical tool for creating deeper understandings of experiences. The ALACT model consists of both an inner and an outer cycle, the outer cycle relating to the role of the teacher educator. The appeal of this approach for me was that it was not hierarchical and therefore allowed for individual beginning points and, as such, was generally easily incorporated into practice.

The Inner Cycle is divided into five phases: A--Action; L--Looking back on the action; A--Awareness of essential aspects; C--Creating alternatives; and T--Trial. Preservice teachers were encouraged to consider this cycle while teaching and as an approach to reflect on the teaching experience with their 'buddies' and as a member of the roundtable. The Outer Cycle became the guide for helping to redefine my role as teacher educator within this debriefing process. Each phase (Figure 1) has corresponding expectations. The additional skills stated as desirable for effective learning are keeping silent, emphasising and taking advantage of strong points, and assisting with learning to learn.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The following episode (Jen-R1) identifies a critical learning experience for me as a teacher educator. The impetus for the selection and analysis of this roundtable arose from both a sense of personal curiosity and comments by the participants following the roundtable session ('This was the best session I have attended at uni'; 'There's a real buzz out there about the roundtable session'). And my comments to colleagues supported these sentiments. But why? Why did this session leave such an impression on the participants? In analysing this session, I applied the ALACT cycle of reflective practice as the tool and I identified and explored issues that were of particular interest to me as a teacher educator and co-learner as a means of understanding the development of our pedagogical knowledge.

I framed the analysis from a series of questions related to learning and teaching including: 'What content issues would arise from preservice teachers' experience?' and 'What learning might evolve and how would I know?'. I was "also aware that a number of students had developed an aversion to the reflective process, and viewed it as 'just another Fad'. So I questioned whether the roundtable approach would connect with participants and lead to further exploration of reflection on experience. The following is an example of the ALACT cycle as it has been applied, in the form of an overlay, to one episode of the transcript.

Roundtable One The action (Phase 1) here was that Jen attempted to teach about the subtraction concept with a group of six prep children in a local primary school; and looking back (Phase 2) on the action, she had identified that the planned strategy was ineffective for the majority of the group. In identifying the essential aspects (Phase 3), it was noted that the children seemed to have no idea of the words 'subtraction' or 'take away' and the concrete materials she had provided (a felt tree with fruit attached only confused the students) became a distraction. Alternatives (Phase 4) suggested were expressed as part of the roundtable group discussion and included approaches and 'alternatives suggested for trial (Phase 5) or had previously been tried by others in similar situations. (For example, Sophie suggested the use of a counting book and an alteration of the terminology to 'take away'; Julie identified that learning was like 'rungs of a ladder' and that learning can be a process of climbing until the 'wow' moment is reached.) It was within creating alternatives (Phase 4) that this reflection proved so meaningful for those involved. Possibilities for future trials were explored within a supportive environment and most preservice teachers willingly participated in the discussion. Another key learning within this episode was the challenge presented to the group of the value of concrete teaching materials in assisting in the development of conceptual understanding. Together we explored the common misunderstanding that concrete materials can often be seen as an end unto themselves rather than being used as 'links to the mathematical concepts and processes they are intended to represent' (Booker, Bond, Sparrow, & Swan, 2004, p. 14).

Episodes such as that outlined above of sustained preservice teacher dialogue represented a sharing of experience that had prompted in some cases quite passionate responses. Preservice teachers became frustrated, defensive and, at times, agitated; hence they were personally engaged in the learning about teaching. Much has been written about levels of reflective practice (van Manen, 1977) whereby the technical and practical elements of teaching are highlighted during both written and verbal reflective discussions. However the analysis of this roundtable session indicates that, although these issues were exposed and challenged, the reflection also raised concerns with social/moral/ethical issues associated with the teaching and learning of mathematics. The social, ethical and moral practices as evident in educational institutions were considered and challenged. An example of this can be seen in Julie's exploration of the multi-age issue where she openly challenges the multi-age groupings in schools. The multi-age classrooms, I have a real problem with, particularly the prep-two area because my personal belief is that preps are a ... special breed and they need that year, that whole prep year to really establish ... you know, being at home and kinder into the school system ... I would have to separate the preps. (Julie, Roundtable session one, July 2002)

Reflecting on this session created a renewed understanding for me about what it means to learn and co-learn in a tertiary environment. If the ownership was to be with the learners, then the issues raised are worthy of sustained and rigorous discussion. They cannot be predetermined or scheduled but rather emerge from experience and concern. In attempting to evaluate the impact of this roundtable session, in particular, it is important to consider the nature of the knowledge developed by the participants. The session highlighted for me that participants' new learning arose through challenging firmly held assumptions and causing reflection at levels beyond the technical that inevitably impact on their views of practice.

Roundtables as challenging the traditional role of the teacher educator [The teacher educator is] a facilitator and a guide ... we want reassurance. Someone might bring something up and you like, even if someone feels bad about it, you understand it and you reassure them, 'Yeah, that happens' but we need reassurance that it happens ... and we all do that for each other as a professional. (Aaron, R3, 2003)

Redefining the role of the teacher educator is paramount in challenging the status quo in teacher education (Day, 1999; Korthagen et al., 2001; Loughran, 2002; Russell, 1999). Through this self-study, I have come to see the need for me to scrutinise my practice systematically and rigorously and challenge my assumptions about teaching and learning to teach. Reforming programs and introducing innovative practice is not sufficient. My intention in undertaking this new approach was to provide opportunities for all learners to become more aware of the self and, through reflecting systematically on experience, engage in practices that would encourage 'assumption interrogation', and lead to new ways of seeing and acting.

What is required within this approach is a commitment to change--a willingness to perceive events, learning and experiences from multiple perspectives and to continue researching, documenting and reflecting on practice. In systematically aligning my perceived, or intended, role against the outer ALACT reflective cycle (see Figure 1), particular insights have emerged. Two of my key assumptions underpinning roundtable reflection revolved around the provision of opportunities for all to make sense of their experience/s in a supportive environment and for learning to be made explicit. An analysis of the roundtable sessions has both supported and challenged these assumptions.

During roundtable sessions two (R2) and three (R3), the first year students were asked to discuss my role as teacher educator specifically within this roundtable approach. The responses varied from 'guide', 'prompter', 'facilitator' to someone who 'generate[s] the topic of the conversation' and in doing so, 'gives us something to pinpoint'. It was also indicated that although I was to offer support, I was 'not judgemental' and therefore preservice teachers felt at ease to discuss issues.

These suggestions correlate closely with the 'outer cycle' that emphasises the additional teacher educator qualities such as keeping silent, emphasising and taking advantage of strong points, and assisting with learning to learn. This was evident when one mentioned, 'There's people like yourself of authority in the room, but not using that authority to be above anybody in the room, you're trying to give everybody the same opportunity to speak as you give yourself' and another, 'One thing with the roundtables--I feel like more of an equal to you'.

This emphasises the range of personal and professional qualities identified by the preservice teachers for successful implementation and conduct of the roundtable sessions. They also correlate closely with the redefined expectations I had identified as part of my role as teacher educator.

An important consideration for me was to make the learning and the process explicit and, in doing so, clarify the purpose of the restructure and the intended learning. Past experience in teaching this unit had revealed that assumptions about teaching, learning, preservice teacher knowledge, experience and expectations had often remained unchallenged and it was through identifying this that my approaches to teaching altered. When exploring my role as teacher educator, it became obvious that I was being more explicit about my role, my beliefs, purpose and expectations about teaching and learning: So we get back to that point about having a voice--this is one of the assumptions of the roundtable ... you are actually saying that and it's not my voice that matters. I'm not sure if you are aware but I intentionally withhold from speaking ... to allow you ... to have a voice and in the past I would come into a group like this and I would have readings, some activities, maybe a video and I'd share ... my experiences and I would be thinking that that was a non-transmissive way of teaching ... I can't do that ... So what this reflective process has done for me is to refine the way I think about my role here ... your experience is most important to you and debriefing and voicing opinions about that experience is imperative for you as learners. (R3, discussion teacher educator discussing the role of teacher educator, transcribed from tape) There's a structure here that underpins this particular (roundtable) discussion ... there are intangibles that we don't see ... we have to trust one another ... that is one of the most important things. So it's about an environment that's created ... This doesn't just happen. There's a structure that sits around this that we might not be aware of that goes before all of this ... I need that feedback to keep refining it and you might even see that happening ... my practice is altering ... so it should be. I'm asking you people to modify yours so I should be modelling the same thing (nods from the group) ... that's me being very very explicit about what I see my role as here ... I don't believe in transmission of knowledge. (R2, teacher educator discussing role at roundtable, transcribed from tape)

I was also assisting the preservice teachers in their articulation. Many teacher educator competencies are linked to specific phases of the ALACT cycle and it was within Phase 3 (awareness of essential aspects) that the role of the teacher educator is instrumental in terms of scaffolding the interaction (Palinscar, 1986); empathising, confronting, generalising and helping to make learning explicit. In responding to Jen and her dilemma (R1), I stated: Robyn: So nay question would be, is exposure enough? Jen: Obviously not because they had no idea, really no idea of what they were meant to be doing

And to help in making things explicit: Robyn: There's some interesting issues aren't there? There's some assumptions that you made about where the kids were at; there's, 'you've been there' so you've seen them and you've listened to the teacher expectations so you had some idea of where you thought they might be. They weren't at the point of where you thought they might have been. You thought about that at the time so you modified, you changed what you were going to do. You put your felt board away. Then you thought, 'What am I going to do now. I'm going to expose to them what I think they need to know'. So you actually stood there and you did show them. Is that right? Jen: Yeh, well I just ... the teacher said they'd been doing ... you know, they'll still be doing it (subtraction) then and I thought they'd be at the end ... of it for the last week whereas I don't think, if they have been, if they did start subtraction, I don't know what they've been doing. (R1, discussion with Jen during roundtable, transcribed from tape)

The importance of clarification and making the learning explicit, not only for the respondent, but the group, prompted further dialogue. The realisation here, for me, belonged to the value of the preservice teachers identifying issues emerging from experience and that the subsequent exploration of the issues held meaning and a desire to know more about the teaching and learning process. The environment encouraged some to take risks with their disclosures. And it is within this approach of reflecting on experience that the practice becomes pivotal to learning about learning, as a model is provided, a climate is established and, in the ensuing discussion, deliberation and challenging of assumptions is undertaken. In Vygotskyian terms, this approach accommodates both the teacher educator and the preservice teachers to be jointly acknowledged as 'competent others'. This new mode of practice has required a heightened sensitivity towards the learning needs of all and in refraining my role.

Roundtables as 'voice': Silence and dominant voices I like this idea of a roundtable. I think it gives us a chance to debrief on our lessons which we have never had before. I do not like how some people dominate the conversation and it is hard to get a word in ... in this one room alone you can see that there are various values and teaching ideas. I loved hearing about peoples' teaching experiences; it was good to know that other people had the same trials and tribulations. (Maree, written reflection, R1 July 2002)

One of the key assumptions about the roundtable sessions was that all participants would be granted 'voice' and that it would be through this discourse that experiences would be 'teased apart' in a supportive environment (Brookfield, 1995). It was assumed that social interaction would create spaces for sharing the learning about the learning and assist in the creation of new knowledge. This assumption was challenged within each session as I questioned myself: 'What about the voiceless and how was I to respond to the dominant voices?' and, 'How would dominance be perceived by other participants?'.

Silence during these roundtable sessions was perplexing. What impact did this approach have on those who elected, for various reasons, not to participate in the discussion? (During Roundtable 1, 12 of the total of 22 participants verbally engaged in the conversations.) Would this approach provide a barrier to learning? Would it be possible to be silent, yet engaged? Analysis of the data suggests there are multiple reasons for individuals to refrain from contributing to roundtable discussions. Some indicated that they did not feel comfortable and found the arrangement confronting; for others the discussion moved too quickly: Adam: I think although I might not say a lot I think I've got a lot of ideas bubbling around in my head and still like when Sophie talks and when other people talk I still think 'Oh yeh that was like something I had an experience with'. Robyn: So do you choose not to talk? Adam: No it's just that every time ... I go to put something in, the conversation sort of changes and you move away so it ... becomes irrelevant pretty quick and I think that's ... good though because we get a lot of ideas across. (R3, discussion of the role of preservice teacher during roundtable, transcribed from tape)

Yet for some, remaining silent was a choice: Tony: I think it plays to people's strengths (the roundtables) and you know some people aren't very verbal, they're not very talkative, that's fine and other people are and that still helps the learning. Lou: You don't always have something to talk about ... you might just sit there, you can still see like understand what's going on and stuff but you just don't have anything to contribute to that class like you know you haven't had that happen to you at school. Sally: It's good if you've got someone like Sophie who will talk, but who will also say, 'You know I don't have to talk' because sometimes you get those people who just talk, talk, talk and other people can't get a word in. (R3, discussion of role of preservice teacher during roundtable, transcribed from tape)

It was also mentioned by one preservice teacher (R3) that 'some people learn through observation, not necessarily participating and they might not want to express, they want to go away and think about it'.

The dominant voices prompted me constantly to question my role as teacher--making judgements about facilitation, interruption, and remaining silent. And yet the preservice teachers, even in identifying the dominant voices, encouraged those voices and stated that they were essential as 'conversation starters'. My assumption that learning equals voice through verbal participation had been challenged. Emma, another dominant voice (R3), defined her verbal contributions in the following way: 'I verbalise it ... like I have a verbal concept map and ... that's how I put out all my concepts and as I'm saying them and I catch them back sort of thing'. Questions then arise for me about the provision for, and acceptance of, a multitude of individual styles and approaches.

Evaluation of roundtable sessions We were put in charge of directing our own learning through the roundtable discussions. (Anita, written reflection, following R3) It gave me a different perspective ... it encouraged and inspired me when I was in the classroom. (Toby, written reflection, following R3)

The roundtable sessions have created new learnings for some: 'I have seen how a roundtable approach to teaching and learning maths has assisted in my own learning and I look forward to adapting this style of teaching in my own classroom as a P-6 teacher' (Lee, R2) and 'I thrive on roundtable reflections'. Others suggested that they had nothing to contribute, or felt uncomfortable and stated that 'some people like to take a lot of time with their opinions'.

With reference to the structure of the unit, one preservice teacher wrote, 'This unit really encouraged me to consider my thoughts and my ideas about the teaching and learning of mathematics. I think that I really benefited from the way we were required to critically analyse our beliefs'. Yet perhaps one of the most critical comments for me as a teacher educator was Sam's comment in response to my question about my role as teacher educator: 'Annoying. Only because you are too sensitive to it on the flip side--well I reckon (gasp, laughter from group--addresses the group) ... I think she's sensitive to our situation and to the way that we learn ... I'm now getting out of my own natural field of development to keep thinking, "Am I fine with this--yeah, I'm fine with this" like I think sometimes you just relax and let it happen (R2).' This became a reality check for me--and my journal entry reflects my reaction: Perspective is important. Maybe I am too passionate, zealous and this can be interpreted as both imposition and over-sensitivity. The flip to under-sensitivity. Keep the balance. Researching practice in this systematic way and scrutinising practice and implications of practice on learners requires intense self-investment. It means initially identifying and then confronting (especially the unexpected) with a willingness to reflect on alternatives--to view from other perspectives. So in asking about my role as teacher educator, for example, I was opening the conversation to psts in anticipation that they would respond truthfully ... Sam: 'Annoying' ... In explaining his reasoning, it became clear that his impression had developed from a sense of frustration--of him having to constantly ask 'Am I fine with this? Yeh, I am'. I saw this from multiple perspectives. Firstly, that Sam felt comfortable in expressing an opinion. This may indicate the characteristics of the environment created as underpinning the roundtable format. Secondly that Sam was involved in what could he understood as meta-reflection: an explicit aim of this approach. By constantly asking himself 'Am I fine with this? Yeh, I am' then the engagement in this process is (could be) interpreted as reflection, hence connection. The fact that this was frustrating him is an issue for me. Stating the fact that there is an over-sensitivity to reflection on my behalf was an insight--hadn't interpreted enthusiasm as over-sensitivity. And this oversensitivity could then become a learning barrier. There is professional expertise in identifying the balance. (Journal entry, Wednesday August 27, 2003)

The learnings

So what learnings have emerged for me as teacher educator, for the preservice teachers and for teacher education? Moving away from a traditional approach to teaching, and learning about teaching has presented ongoing challenges. For innovation and change to be sustainable, the vision and intention of all learners (preservice teachers and teacher educators) must be made explicit. Formal restructuring of a program is insufficient. So much of the success within this new approach was dependent on the development of trusting relationships with an expectation that we were co-creaters of knowledge by being co-learners. (The SEU--Student Evaluation of the Unit--responses collated at the conclusion of the unit completed in Semester 2, 2003 rated the unit 4.7/5.0 in response to the question, 'Overall, how would you rate this unit?'.) An environment must be established that allows for, and encourages learner risk-taking and, within these spaces, systematic reflective practice based on experience might enable the complexities of learning about teaching to be teased apart.

The purpose and the processes must be made explicit and it cannot be assumed that all preservice teachers will respond in positive ways to this approach to learning. At times this approach asks more than we wish to give. But it is clear that the learning environment matters and structured, systematic reflective practice based on experience creates opportunities for co-learning.

The insights gained from this study have provided not only new discoveries about the 'self as learner' and 'selves as co-learners', but a determination to maintain the challenge and to continue questioning the status quo; so it is important to be reminded, as Keating (2003) did for the graduates of the Faculties of Commerce and Economics at the University of New South Wales: All the biggest bets in life are on the status quo. Plenty of people think they would like to change things but lack the energy or imagination to clamber over, or beat a path through the status quo. Their determination falters ... only the few determined and inspired ones will make a real difference. If you decide you want to challenge the paradigm you need confidence, determination and imagination. Inner confidence and creativity are the core bits ... You also need to be sure that what you are doing will not only lead to good results but is being done for good reasons. In a sense, one's motive and method become central to one's ability to progress. By progress we mean: make a difference.

For me, this means an ongoing commitment to challenging the status quo. It is about establishing an ownership of learning. As one preservice teacher commented, 'I was finally in control of my own learning' (Dee, 2003). It is about creating trusting relationships where each individual is valued and respected. Finally my commitment to ongoing research, action, reaction and adjustment, has resulted in a re-visioning for me as to what it means to learn and teach in a tertiary environment. I hope this paper might also encourage others to challenge the status quo in their practice.

Keywords

discussion (teaching technique) self evaluation (individuals) teacher education reflective teaching student teachers teaching styles

References

Australian Council of Deans of Education. (2001). New learning: A charter for Australian education. Canberra: Author.

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

Booker, G., Bond, D., Sparrow, L., & Swan, P. (2004). Teaching primary mathematics (3rd ed.). French's Forest, NSW: Pearson Longman.

Brandenburg, R. & Ryan, J. (2001, December). From 'Too little too late' to 'This is the best part': Students' perceptions of changes to the practicum placement in teaching. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle, WA.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burn, K., Hagger, H., & Mutton, T. (2003). The complex development of student-teachers' thinking. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 309-331.

Day, C. (1999). Researching teaching through reflective practice. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 215-232). London: Falmer Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin.

Ernest, P. (1994). Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematical education. London: Falmer Press.

Feldman, A. (2003). Validity and quality in self-study. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 26-28.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, Mx: Penguin.

Gore, J. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York: Routledge.

Hamilton, M. L. & Pinnegar, S. (2000) On the threshold of a new century: Trustworthiness, integrity, and self-study in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 234-240.

Hayes, T. (2002). Teacher professionalism and the new 'gradgrindery': What's happening with standards? Preparing educators for the twenty-first century. Professional Educator, 1(1), 2-5.

Keating, P. (2003). [Address to the graduates of the Faculties of Commerce and Economics, University of New South Wales].

Kinchloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Korthagen, F. A. J., with Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

La Boskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loughran, J. (2003, May). [Self study seminar, University of Ballarat].

Loughran, J. (Ed.). (1999). Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy. London: Falmer Press.

Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-43.

Loughran, J. & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2002). Improving teacher education practices through self-study. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Palinscar, A. (1986).The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73-98.

Russell, T. (1999). Retrieved from http://educ.queensu.ca/~russellt/howteach/change.htm

van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zeichner K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4-15.

Robyn Brandenburg is a Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Ballarat, University Drive, Mt Helen, Victoria 3353 E-mail: r.brandenburg@ballarat.edu.au