JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2012, VOL. 8, NO.

Editors Comments

A rich variety of subject matter is submitted to the Journal of Teaching and

Learning, in papers that increasingly cut across disciplinary boundaries. This is a
testament to the reach of the journal and its readership. It does, however, present
an ongoing challenge to find reviewers who are willing and able to review, and
who have the expertise to provide a knowledgeable critique. I would encourage
you, as a reader of this journal, to consider registering as a reviewer. By bringing
your expertise to the table, everyone benefits. We all depend on the time and
effort of our peers who review our papers for publication. On behalf of the
Journal of Teaching and Learning I would like to extend a deep expression of
gratitude to the reviewers for this issue, and indeed for each of our issues. We
cannot do it without you.
We do not aim to create themed issues but sometimes an issue, by chance or
by zeitgeist, seems to constellate around a topic. It is as if a variety of individuals
got on a bus at different stops, with different destinations in mind, but struck up a
conversation and, for a short while, travelled in the same direction. The articles in
this issue are, on face value, about widely divergent subjects: Community
involvement requirements in Ontario (Harrison); the role of the principal in
leading inquiry-based learning (Towers & Panayotidis); exemplary teaching
practices (Ableser); teaching paraphrasing skills to ESL students (Choy & Lee);
conflict management in the classrooms of novice teachers (Parker & Bickmore);
and the ethics of dissection and politics of choice in the science classroom
(Oakley). But as I read and re-read these papers, I found two threads that run
through each of them.
One, the model of inquiry-based learning, whether explicit or implicit, has
become the touchstone of the teaching/learning paradigm. Towers and
Panayotidis lead the reader through a primer on two different models of teaching
and learning: inquiry-based learning which is formed on the Aristotelian model
of phronesis receptivity, particularity, and appropriate actions; and the technical
rationalist approach, which assumes essential, generalizable, and transferable
knowledge and skills. Towers and Panayotidis then explore the role of the school
principal in supporting teachers as they inquire into their own practices. Judith
Ableser, in her attempt to construct ten unifying principals of exemplary teaching
practices, through a meta analysis of literature that spans all disciplines and all
levels, returns repeatedly to a mantra of reflexive teaching practice that focuses
on the learner. The great weakness that Harrison identifies in Ontarios
community involvement requirement for graduation is that it does not typically
involve any critical inquiry; that it is a program that has been implemented and
maintained without administrators, teachers, students, nor parents bringing
critical and reflexive thoughtfulness to either its purported goals or actual effects.
To which inquiry-based learning would ask, Where are we going? Is it
desirable? What should be done? (Towers & Panayotidis). Oakley, in her
discussion of the ethics of dissection in the science classroom, and the
importance of offering students real choice along with alternative ways to
achieve learning outcomes, uncovers a gap in perception between teachers and
students. The majority of teachers surveyed claimed that they discussed the ethics
i
of dissection with their students; while less than a third of the students surveyed
reported that they had discussed the ethics of dissection in class. The majority of
students want to be given a choice; whereas, a minority of teachers thinks that
would be a good idea. What seemed to be missing in this classic case of
miscommunication was the model of inquiry-based learningreceptivity,
particularity, and appropriate action. How different would the discussion about
the ethics of dissection be if it began by teachers listening to the students
(receptivity), and recognizing the differences of beliefs and prior experience
(particularity), and then moved on to planning activities and learning strategies
based on what they heard (appropriate action). This might seem to suggest that
students are off the hook, so to speak. However, the responsibility for receptivity,
particularity, and appropriate action falls to the learner as well as to the teacher.
So what would that look like? Choy & Lee explicitly worked with inquiry-based
learning strategies in their research on teaching paraphrasing skills to students
learning English as a Second Language. They engaged their students in the
learning and in the research process at every step. While using mixed methods of
quantitative and qualitative data collection, they discovered limits to the
effectiveness of inquiry-based learning. While the students increased their higher
order thinking, i.e., their awareness of what and how they learn, it still left them
struggling to apply that higher order thinking when they lacked some of the
essential tools of vocabulary and effective writing skills. There may be a place
for essentialized and transferable knowledge and skills, after all, for lower order
learning under the guidance of the expert teacher. This discovery, however, is
also part of a process of inquiry-based learning.
The second thread that runs through each of the papers is the role and
responsibility of the teacher. As I suggested above, it is not only the
responsibility of the teacher to teach (Ableser); it is the responsibility of the
teacher to learn; of the student to learn; and of the student to teach (to share
knowledge and support the learning of others in a multitude of ways, including
participating in research). The cycle of teaching and learning, the challenge of
entering into discussion even when that may lead to conflict and dissent (Parker
& Bickmore), the responsibility of reflecting on what and how we learn (Choy &
Lee), and for thoughtfully implementing curriculum (Harrison) cannot be placed
on teachers alone. These tasks and responsibilities should be borne and shared by
the entire communityby administrators, boards of education, politicians,
parents, teachers, and community partners. Unfortunately, the political pressure
to be accountable in thin ways (Towers & Panayotidis) through standardized
tests and prescriptive curriculum, with little support from administrators, but an
abundance of surveillance and regulation by the system, works against thoughtful
ways of teaching and learning. And as Towers & Panayotidis point out, too few
of those teachers who engage in graduate work focus their studies on curriculum
and pedagogy. Instead, many pursue administration (although why administration
and curriculum are separate streams in so many faculties of education is a
puzzle). Clarkes book review of Women and Educational Leadership by Grogan
and Shakeshaft may provide a gentle wave in the right direction. To bring this
issue full circle, the model of leadership that Grogan and Shakeshaft describe
of listening, critiquing options, and integrating opinions to encourage change

ii
JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2012, VOL. 8, NO. 2

sounds a lot like the Aristotelian model of phronesisreceptivity, particularity,

and appropriate action. We could all do with more of that.

Terry Sefton
Editor

iii