Advertisement

Returning to First Principles: Self-Study and La Didactique as Ethical Approaches to Teaching

  • Shawn Michael BullockEmail author
  • Cécile Bullock
Chapter
First Online:
  • 219 Downloads
Part of the Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices book series (STEP, volume 20)

Abstract

Discussions on the ethical considerations of self-study often seem entangled with its status as a methodological approach. Institutional Ethical Review Boards, IRBs, may adopt strangely inconsistent stances – either claiming that doing self-study research will automatically cause an unmanageable power imbalance within a teacher education program or claiming that self-study work does not require ethical review because it is not actually research. Perhaps part of the confusion of IRBs lies in the fact that self-study research presumes an existing ethical commitment to teaching and learning. In his seminal chapter exploring the intersections between ethical considerations for self-study research, Mitchell (2004) noted that society has already yielded considerable ethical autonomy to those who teach by virtue of requiring teachers, and by extension teacher educators, to take the well-being of children as their primary concern. In many ways, theon, those who aim to study their practice do so because they take their ethical commitment to children seriously – it is, as Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) have argued, an ontological commitment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Altet, M., Desjardins, J., Étienne, R., Paquay, L., & Perrenoud, P. (Eds.). (2013). Former des enseignants réflexifs: Obstacles et résistances. Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  2. Arizona Group, Guilfoyle, K., Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1997). Obligations to unseen children. In J. J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 183–209). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beacco, J. -C. (2008). Les cultures éducatives et le Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues. Revue japonaise de didactique du français, 3(1), 6–18. http://sjdf.org/pdf/01Beacco.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  4. Beacco, J.-C. (Ed.). (2013). Ethique et politique en didactique des langues. Autour de la notion de responsabilité. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
  5. Beacco, J.-C., Chiss, J.-L., Cicurel, F., & Véronique, D. (Eds.). (2005). Les cultures linguistiques et éducatives dans l’enseignement des langues. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  6. Bullock, S. M. (2014). Exploring the impact of prior experiences in non-formal education on my pedagogy of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 10(2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadet, L. (2006). Des notions opératoires en didactique des langues et des cultures: modèles ? Représentations? Culture éducative? Clarification terminologique. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 2, 36–51. https://acedle.org/old/IMG/pdf/Cadet-L_cah2.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  8. Castellotti, V. (2011). Centrer, innover, diversifier? Quelques paradoxes pour une éducation à/par la dé-centration. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures, 8(1). https://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/2278. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  9. Castellotti, V. & Moore, D. (2002). Représentations sociales des langues et enseignements. Guide pour l’élaboration des politiques linguistiques éducatives en Europe – De la diversité linguistique à l’éducation plurilingue. Etude de référence. Strasbourg, France: Conseil de l’Europe. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/CastellottiMooreFR.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  10. Cicurel, F. (2003). Figures de maître. Le français dans le Monde, 326, 32–34.Google Scholar
  11. Cicurel, F. (2011). Les interactions dans l’enseignement des langues. Agir professoral et pratiques de classe. Paris, France: Didier.Google Scholar
  12. Cicurel, F. (2013). Culture professorale et singularité: une lecture de Bergson pour aborder la fabrique de l’action d’enseignement. In J.-C. Beacco (Ed.), Ethique et politique en didactique des langues. Autour de la notion de responsabilité (pp. 165–185). Didier: Paris, France.Google Scholar
  13. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Develay, M. (1997). Origines, malentendus et spécificités de la didactique. Revue française de pédagogie, 120, 59–66.  https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1997.1156. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubar, C. (1992). Formes identitaires et socialisation professionnelle. Revue française de sociologie, 33(4), 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forestal, C. (2007). Pour une compétence éthique et déontologique en Didactique des langues- cultures. Conférence. Association des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes, 9 Dec. 2006, Marseille, France. https://www.aplv-languesmodernes.org/spip.php?article757. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  17. Jodelet, D. (Ed.) (1989). Les représentations sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (New edition: April 2003).Google Scholar
  18. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. L. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–870). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Loughran, J. J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. L. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7–39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loughran, J. J. (2005). Researching teaching about teaching: Self-study of teacher education practices. Studying Teacher Education: A journal of self-study of teacher education practices, 1(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (2007). Beginning to Understand Teaching as a Discipline. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 3(2), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell, I. (2004). Identifying ethical issues in self-study proposals. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. L. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1393–1442). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moliner, P., & Guimelli, C. (2015). Les représentations sociales. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2013). De la responsabilité épistémologique à un contrat social. In J. C. Beacco (Ed.), Ethique et politique en didactique des langues. Autour de la notion de responsabilité (pp. 113–130). Didier: Paris.Google Scholar
  27. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Poe, E. A. (1909). “The Poetic Principle” (reprint), Home Journal, series for 1850, no. 36 (whole number 238), August 31, 1850, p. 1, cols. 1–6 https://www.eapoe.org/works/essays/poetprnb.htm
  29. Ricoeur, P. (1990). Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  30. Ricoeur, P. (1996). The hermeneutics of action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, T. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion, and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32–47). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sabatier, C. (2011). La formation des enseignants de Français de base en Colombie Britannique: Représentations, identités et empowerment. In C. Helot & A.-M. de Mejia (Eds.), Linguistic diversity, bilingual teacher education and empowerment: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 179–206). Peter Lang: Berne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  34. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change”. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Schuck, S., & Russell, T. (2005). Self-Study, Critical Friendship, and the Complexities of Teacher Education. Studying Teacher Education: A Journal of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, 1(2), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Sensevy, G. (2011). Le sens du savoir. Éléments pour une théorie de l’action conjointe. Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  39. Snoeck, M. (2000). Construction des identités professionnelles en formation initiale: approche expérientielle et direction de mémoires. In C. Gohier & C. Alin (Eds.), Enseignant Formateur: la construction de l’identité professionnelle (pp. 213–237). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  40. Whitehead, J. (2000). How do I improve my practice? Creating and legitimating an epistemology of practice. Reflective Practice, 1, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zarate, G. (Ed.). (1997). Les représentations en didactique des langues et cultures. Notions en questions (Vol. 2). Didier: Paris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options