3.5 Data gathering
3.5.2 Teacher workshops
Workshops were designed as a site for collaborative inquiry and a community of practice for teachers to collectively reflect on their inclusive practices (Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2019; Khoja- Moolji, 2017). Collective reflection and discussion on teacher practices are crucial to critically examine teacher knowledge articulated by individual teachers (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012;
Leinhardt, 1990). A criticism leveled against teacher knowledge and teacher narratives is that this may glorify teacher practices and may not be sufficiently critical (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2007).
The workshops served as a site wherein the teachers and I undertook a critical inquiry to highlight, analyze, and interpret tensions between policy and pedagogy (Khoja-Moolji, 2017;
Naraian, 2017) through a participatory research process (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Nind, 2014). Further, the emancipatory and critical potential of policy enactment research and critical analysis of discourse is unfulfilled without “a brush with solidarity” (Berlant, 2011 as cited in Heimans et al., 2017) wherein researchers and participants co-construct knowledge (Heimans et al., 2017).
57
The workshop process emphasized dialogue (Freire, 2005; Shor & Freire, 1987), situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988), and critical reflexivity (Paris & Alim, 2017). Further, the
facilitation process focused on critical questioning and probing of themes around inclusion, disability, and differences that teachers bring into the space (Freire, 2005; Souto-Manning, 2014b). Activities during the workshop included sessions on participatory norms (Applebaum, 2007; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2014) and constructing shared values, educational journey mapping (Annamma, 2016; Siuty & Beneke, 2020), and readings (Lalvani, 2015). I presented my findings from interviews, observations, and field notes to teachers as a way to enhance the rigor of
qualitative analysis through member-checking (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Overall, the
workshops served as a site for teachers to analyze, interpret, and reflect on their own and their colleagues’ inclusive practices.
Teachers who participated in interviews were invited to participate in the workshops. In Ahmedabad, six workshop sessions were conducted between October 2021 and November 2021.
A Google Form was circulated amongst the teachers to ascertain teacher interests and determine workshop timings. I followed up with teachers during interview sessions about their particular interests in the workshops. The curriculum for the workshops was decided based on early themes identified from teacher interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. Two sessions were carried out in person. In the first session, teachers established participation norms for the space and discussed their notions of ‘ideal’ students, teachers, and classrooms through drawings, presentations, and group discussions. In the second session, teachers drew their educational journey maps (Annamma, 2016; Siuty & Beneke, 2020). Teachers were then offered the
opportunity to share these maps with the group. All but one teacher shared their maps. In the rest of the sessions, conducted over Zoom, the teachers explored lesson plans. We (teachers, leaders,
58
and I) chose lesson plans as the site of inquiry given the pivotal role these played in organizing the everyday life of the teachers. Lesson plan formats had undergone several changes and iterations – borrowed from different NGOs operating at the school site. The leaders were interested in developing a Google Drive repository of lesson plans. Encouraged by the NGO, they believed that such a repository of scripted plans would help them cushion the challenges of high teacher turnover. Yet, teachers believed they did not have adequate time to develop these plans – often having to create 20 plans in a week. Nor did they find the format helpful in addressing student needs in the classroom. The workshop sessions were then designed to interrogate the utility of lesson plans in creating inclusive classroom spaces. The materials for workshops were uploaded on Google Classroom, a platform made familiar to teachers during the pandemic by the NGO. Readings and videos were shared on the platform – to be discussed during the sessions. The last workshop session was designed as a celebration – a virtual daawat (feast) and mushaira (poetry recitation).
The Ahmedabad school had an existing structure – a dedicated time in the day and a physical space for teacher development that I was able to work within. Further, teachers in Ahmedabad engaged in professional development conducted by organizations outside the school – and preferred sessions conducted outside of school hours. The circumstances in the Mumbai school did not afford the time or space to conduct a series of workshops. For one, teachers were required to attend teacher development programs organized by the NGO staff; two to three such sessions were conducted each month. These required teachers to be in school before school hours or had to be carried out in batches to accommodate primary and pre-primary teachers. There was no scheduled time in the school week for teacher development – and school leaders were often reluctant to give permission. In order to not overburden unpaid and underpaid teachers, I limited
59
the number of sessions I conducted. Instead, I conducted more teacher interviews and had informal conversations with teachers in the staffroom. Overall, three sessions were conducted in Mumbai. The education journey mapping was conducted as part of the sessions conducted by the NGO staff. In addition, two sessions were held – one to engage with teachers’ understanding of inclusion and exclusion and another explicit member-checking session. All sessions were held in person.
Across Mumbai and Ahmedabad, chai nashta (tea and snacks), baatcheet (chit- chatting/gossiping), and drawing using colorful pens and charts were integral aspects of in- person sessions. I included these elements to include a sense of friendship, collegiality, and adda into the space (Mahbub, 2017). Outside of the staffroom, teachers had few opportunities to interact as professionals commenting on, discussing, and critiquing policies and practices. I considered an atmosphere of adda, or informal conversation, crucial to challenge and dissipate the distance and power between the researcher and the researched. These physical elements helped reinforce how the space would serve as a site of mutual dialogue and questioning (Souto- Manning, 2014b, 2014a) and not a conventional didactic professional development space (Setty, 2014).