This post is largely in response to a comment by Kenny.
One of the most significant influences on my practice over the last decade has been the online sharing of ideas/resources, with other members of my subject community and the wider teaching profession. Ironically, the dialogue that I maintain with this wider sphere has more depth than my internal conversations with colleagues- I’ve always thought this shouldn’t be the case…
I remember starting teaching and having few connections to the wider subject community or profession, those connections that did exist were mostly P.G.C.E. colleagues and a termly copy of Teaching Geography from the Geographical Association. I didn’t have access to the Internet at home, nor was there much online; with the exception of Alan Parkinson’s Geography Pages: the rise of the Staffordshire Learning Net for Geography forum, once discovered, opened a new world of connections- the opportunity to discuss and share practice with a wide range of individuals. Of course, these opportunities have exploded over the last few years, to include Twitter, Nings, Blogs…
So why share? I remember Richard Dawkin’s discussion of altruism in the God Delusion, he suggests that this is not a unique human trait and has a clear evolutionary purpose. Part of sharing is having a common interest in the development of the group, as educators we share approaches to help further the practice within classrooms that are not our own, as Kenny suggests, the main beneficiaries are the students. The engaging practitioner also benefits from the dialogue, the opportunity to learn how an approach has been devised, or how a resource has been developed.
The practitioner also benefits from the collective altruism of the group in times of need, whether with resources, suggestions or support, this response in part is based upon the notion that by aiding an individual in their time of need, the same support will be received in the future, if not the system begins to unwind- highlighted by the annual frustration in some learning communities with lurkers and takers.
One of the concepts that I struggled with when considering Dawkin’s viewpoints on altruism, was the concept of power: that by being altruistic you project your power, in this case knowledge and experience. I’ve never thought of the consequence of sharing in these terms, but perhaps it’s disingenuous not to consider this point of view. Part of my work is my play; I sometimes prepare materials for the group, which I don’t utilise myself, because I enjoy it. As such I feel very cautious when sharing materials or ideas with my wider connections, I don’t want to be held up as an example of practice, nor do I believe I am a good teacher, and ultimately I don’t want to be regarded as self-promoting. Sharing does raise your profile within a group, but I would hate to think that this inhibited others from sharing their own practice.
I’ve also separated my wider contributions from my internal work, though the connections to my wider community have developed my practice and brought a number of opportunities, it is something that I rarely speak about to my colleagues, even my supportive line manager doesn’t really know the full picture. I do this mostly because I’m a private person, and don’t feel the need to justify my work to others, nor do I wish to be used as an example, but mostly because my main concern is not with my status, but the individuals that are sat in front of me.
7 Responses to “A reflection on sharing…”
Tony – both this and your previous post are excellent and I empathise 100% of the way , in what you say and how you feel.
An interesting, and thought provoking, post Tony. As someone who has used your resources to benefit the pupils within the department I thought I’d reply. I hope that this doesn’t come across as personal criticism as I hold your work in very high regard.
I find your comments slightly ironic coming from the instigator of GeographyFM. I know that you didn’t create that for personal gain, or to raise your profile. However, it does raise the question why?
It seems that there is a huge gap between what happens with a wider community and what happens in schools. I have to be honest and say that what you speak of is mirrored in the institutions that I have worked within: lots of wider sharing, and less sharing within school. I’m more than a little worried about this.
I agree with Kenny – if what is shared is seen as self promotion, then we can chose to ignore their comments, just as they can choose to ignore what is put out there.
However, I disagree that sharing and raising a profile within a school should be avoided. I can empathise with your concern of the individuals in front of you, but I would argue that our main concern is all of the young people in the school. If this means sharing ideas and practice then it should be encouraged. Ideas can be used and adapted in other areas. Again, I have to admit that this is far from the situations that I have experienced.
That is one motivation for climbing out of the department. I find it unacceptable that there are pockets of engaging, innovative teaching within a school when it is absent in others. For me, you can’t change a schools’ culture from being confined to a classroom – you have to move out of it. Over the past few years, this has meant that I have to admit that Geography is not the be-all-and-end-all of education.
If we choose to share, then it opens us up to criticism and does raise out profile within the communities. This can lead to hostility, but ultimately we can choose to ignore those voices. If some people think that we are self promotion then we can ignore them also.
It’s our motivation, and outcomes, that set us apart from the self-promoters and greasy pole climbers.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by tonycassidy, David Rogers. David Rogers said: RT @tonycassidy: New blog post: http://tinyurl.com/ycr2fop – A reflection on sharing… a response to @Kenny73 x >> very interesting Tony! [...]
David – your comment rings true on so many levels, thank you. Tony – good post as always and thanks for starting another discussion
Until the SLT/SMT Education IT staff at Council HQ etc get their heads around the coming changes we are stuck with as David says, small pockets of innovation and revolution. Perhaps we should start hanging people from the lamp-posts to ensure the rest start sharing, combining the best bits to ensure the STUDENTS get the benefit of ALL our subjects and teaching knowledge.8-) I learn so much from my PT Geography to give but one example and we are co-operating all the time on cross curricular ‘stuff’. It makes English more relevant in many topics such as climate change discussions etc which leads to better discursive writing from my SG and Int 2/Higher kids. Thanks again to both of you
Tony,
Teaching needs many more like you!
Well done and Happy New Year to you
Ian
David, why start Geography FM? I suppose it was a different way to engage with people, and one that was out of my comfort zone- , a challenge, I struggle with face to face meetings, mostly because I feel I don’t have a great deal to offer, nor do I generally feel I have a great deal to say. One of the discussions and continuing themes has been how to induct new people into the meetings- I really want to hear the views of different people, their practice and ideas. It has been said that some people feel somewhat intimidated by the presence of the ‘names’ involved, which is sad and troubling for myself, it is somewhat alien to how I perceive myself as a practitioner. I can empathise with this though, I look at opportunities such as the TeachMeets and would truly love to be involved, but for personal reasons feel it is one step too far, I listen and look at what people do and think what could I offer?
I tend to disagree with the comments about institutional change, top-down edicts rarely I believe encourage curriculum innovation, people need ownership of their own practice, I’m trying to think of one curriculum innovation that has come from above that has had any impact upon my own practice- I can’t. Structures can provide uniformity and monitor quality of provision, but ultimately they can’t change the approach and mindset of the practitioner.
I think true change comes from within the classroom, experimentation leading to long-term practice change, which through an open door policy, small groups of teachers working with each other, begins to evolve the practice of the institution. We shouldn’t also underestimate the importance of students in encouraging and spreading news of practice… The problem is that this is easier to write than to put into practice. It takes an individual to have the confidence to do this.
I can only lead within my own classroom, so it is the role of leaders to provide the structures to ensure the space, time and support to encourage innovation.
Tony – I’m not arguing against bottom-up or grass roots. I agree that top-down often leads to little impact. However, in order to encourage an open policy across a school, someone needs to encourage, develop and allow that culture.
Leadership within classrooms is vital, however I think that it’s our responsibility if we critisise leadership to suggest ways forward. By the way, I have no idea what that it
it’s a shame that people chose not to engage because of the ‘names.’