Using metaphor to clarify pedagogical understanding and to anchor teacher beliefs and knowledge to meaningful contextualized mental maps can have powerful consequences in schools. Frequent changes in school staff and clientele present schools with the challenge of how to share culturally specific messages quickly and effectively to those new to the school, whether staff, students or parents. Conscious collective use of metaphor within a school’s meaning-making system has been found to be one of the possible answers. This article explores the use of metaphorical visions within schools that have undertaken the Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) Project and how the linking of metaphor to understandings of schoolwide practices creates cognitive connections capable of facilitating collective understandings. The duality of meaning through metaphor facilitates a cognitive ‘Place’ where new and old understandings can be shared, explored and enriched. A skilfully chosen and well investigated rich metaphor can capture the essence of what a school community believes to be important for student success. This essence can be shared, refined, reflected upon and used to guide and align understandings of practice. The findings show that the strong reinforcement of cognitive links through the use of metaphor may also sustain cultural understandings of pedagogical practice over the long term.
AbawiL. (2012a). Ah-ha! A CCLUE: Identifying the essence and significance of a contextually specific meaning system in three Australian schools engaged in on-going school improvement. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southern Queensland.
2.
AbawiL. (2012b). Introducing refractive phenomenology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(2), 153–161.
CarrA. (2006). Space and time and organization change. Bradford: Emerald Group.
5.
AndrewsD.ConwayJ.DawsonM.LewisM.McMasterJ.MorganA.StarrH. (2004). School revitalisation: The IDEAS way. ACEL Monograph Series, 34. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
6.
AngenM. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378–395.
7.
BakhtinM. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (EmersonC., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8.
BanduraA. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: Activities and Strategies for Professional Development, 51(2), 269–290.
BourdieuP. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
CameronL. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. New York: Continuum.
12.
CarrA. (2006). Space and time and organization change. Bradford: Emerald Group.
13.
ChiaR. (1996). Metaphors and metaphorization in organizational analysis: Thinking beyond the thinkable. In GrantD.OswickC. (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 127–145). London: SAGE.
14.
CrowtherF.AndrewsD. (2003). From conceptual frameworks to improved school practice: Exploring DETYA’s innovation and best practice project outcomes in Queensland Schools. ARC SPIRT Grant Report to Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training, Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/respub.htm.
15.
CrowtherF.AndrewsD.MorganA.O’NeillS. (2012). Hitting the bullseye of school improvement: The IDEAS Project at work in a successful school system. Leading & Managing, 18(2), 1–33.
16.
DiltheyW. (1976). Dilthey – Selected readings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GadamerH. G. (1975). Truth and method. London: Sheed & Ward.
18.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. London: Hutchinson.
19.
GiddensA. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies. London: Hutchinson & Co.
20.
GillisC.JohnsonC. L. (2002). Metaphor as renewal: Reimagining our professional selves. English Journal, 91, 37–43.
21.
HargreavesA.FullanM. (1998). What’s worth fighting for in education?Buckingham: Open University Press.
22.
HargreavesA.ShirleyD. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
23.
HeideggerM. (1962). Being and time (ManheimR., Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
24.
HusserlE. (1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to phenomenological philosophy. First book in General introduction to a pure phenomenology series (KluwerK. F., Trans.). Boston, MA: Academic.
KalantzisM.CopeB. (2004). Learning by design (5th ed.). Melbourne: RMIT University.
27.
KovecsesZ. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
28.
LakoffG.JohnstonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LankshearC. (1996). Language and cultural process. In BullG.AnsteyM. (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (pp. 17–30). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
30.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
31.
LewisM. (2008). Using metaphor and image: Engaging the collective imagination to shape school change. ACEL conference, The Sofitel, Melbourne, October.
32.
MeadM. (1951). The school in American culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (SmithC., Trans.). New York: Humanities Press.
34.
MillerN.DollardJ. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
MorganG. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605–622.
36.
MorganG. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
MorseJ. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
39.
PalmerP. J. (2007). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
40.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In ValleR. S.HallingS. (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 41–60). New York: Plenum Press.
41.
PondyL. R. (1983). The role of metaphors and myths in organization and in the facilitation of change. In PondyL. R.FrostP. J.MorganG.DandridgeT. D. (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 157–166). London: JAI Press.
Reed-DanahayD. (2004). Locating Bourdieu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
44.
RicouerP. (1974). The conflict of interpretations. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
45.
RicouerP. (2003). The rule of metaphor: The creation of meaning in language (CzernyR.McLaughlinK.CostelloJ., Trans.). London: Routledge.
46.
SamplesB. (1976). The metaphoric mind. Philippines: Addison-Wesley.
47.
SartreJ. P. (1956). Being and nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library.
48.
SmircichL. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339–358.
49.
SteenG. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Teaching Education, 17(4), 299–315.
50.
StrenskiE. (1989). Disciplines and communities, ‘armies’ and ‘monasteries’ and the teaching of composition. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 137–145.
51.
TietzeS. (2003). Understanding organization through language. London: SAGE.
52.
van ManenM. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario: The Althouse Press.
53.
VygotskyL. S. (1987). Collected works. New York: Plenum.
54.
WyattS. (2008). Feminism, technology and the information society: Learning from the past, imagining the future, information. Communication & Society, 11(1), 111–130.
