RUNNER 2 AR

ACTION RESEARCH AND SUPERVISING STUDENT-TEACHERS

By T.F. Hopper

University of Victoria

Published in RUNNER , 35(1), 22-25

photocopying without the permission of the copyright holder

PART 2: DESCRIPTION OF AN ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

SEEKING EFFECTIVE TEACHING OF GAMES

This article is part 2 of a 4 part series describing an action research project concerned with the effective teaching of games in schools. This article will describe how action research supported the teaching development of student-teachers supervised by qualified teachers who were graduate students at the university. This section will explain the organization of the action research project and the initial focus for games teaching after the first three weeks of teaching in schools. Part 3 will describe how the action research project evolved with student-teachers developing an approach to teaching games related to the teaching games for understanding (TGFU) approach. This approach was originally developed by Thorpe, Bunker and Almond (1986) and is gathering increasing interest as a way to improve the teaching of games to children (Turner and Martinek, 1995).

Outline of the action research process

Each week student-teachers and supervisors attended an action research meeting. Each participant received a summary of the minutes taken at the previous meeting before starting the current meeting. The action research process followed the stages of PLAN, ACT & OBSERVE, REFLECT then RE-PLAN as advocated by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988). This process did not always offer clear evidence upon which to make judgments. In reality, common problems between classes did not afford simple solutions. Group discussions developed many possible solutions but it became apparent to the action research group that problems and solutions were slippery and difficult things to pin down. With the courses involving different student-teachers, supervisors and children of varying ages and backgrounds it was not surprising that collecting clear empirical evidence was difficult. The most useful data came from anecdotal stories arising from the teaching experiences of the participants. The stories not only captured contextual information but indicated possible cause-effect relationships taking place in the teaching situations.

Subjects and Procedure

The supervisors and student-teachers entered into situations that were new to both. Before the first lesson the supervisors and the student-teachers agreed to operate a team-teaching process where the supervisor was the initial teacher. The student-teacher would take more responsibility in subsequent lessons. Though the intent of the exercise was for the student-teachers to improve their ability to teach physical education, the most important focus was the quality of the lessons for the pupils.

To understand what constituted a quality lesson the supervisors and student-teachers engaged in close dialogue before and after each lesson and attended weekly meetings involving all the participants of the action research project. The group construed a quality lesson as for children as having high physical activity levels requiring problem solving skills in relation to physical challenges, and resulting in enjoyment from personal achievement.

Each course involved ten classes made up of children aged 7-9 or 10-12. Class sizes ranged from 10 to 26 pupils. These children paid a nominal fee to attend the sessions. The children were not particularly accomplished at physical activity and varied considerably in physical ability. Weekly classes ran for one hour after school for a ten week period.

Data Sources

Minutes from the weekly meetings fed into a journal kept by one of the supervisors. This supervisor kept minutes of the group’s meetings by recording significant ideas developed by the group and relevant quotes from individuals. The minutes maintained the focus of the conversation from previous meetings and helped to clarify philosophical beliefs that provided the foundation for the group's practices. The journals followed a format suggested by Altrichter et al. (1993) where recorded observations (written text or diagrams) were organized into theory or hypothesis notes, methodology notes and planning notes. As they remark the journal is,

a companion to the whole research process...keeping a journal can facilitate observation, documentation, and reflection on current and past experiences, including one's life history and social, historical, and educational conditions that usher in the present. (p. 10-11)

The supervisor's journal enabled ideas from the meetings and teaching episodes to be recorded and brought to the group's attention at the weekly meetings. In writing the journal the supervisor provided a narrative of the group's evolving ideology on effective teaching of games.

Another data source included notes made during lessons by each of the supervisors acting as a participant observer, team teacher or observer. As the student-teachers became more confident and showed better general teaching abilities, these observations became more focused. Student-teachers often requested that these observations be focused on certain elements of a lesson or a particular pupil's behaviour. The supervisors used data collection techniques such as 1) pattern analysis[1], 2) coding of motor engaged time[2], 3) qualitative comparison of skill performance among children, 4) description of the impact of questioning on pupil behaviour and the effect of pupil demonstrations on class activity, and 5) observational notes of teacher and pupil actions during a lesson. This information enabled participants to better perceive and understand the world to which they were relating when engaged in the act of teaching. This variety of data collection techniques gave different perspectives on a lesson that developed a sense of praxis for the participants. For example, in one class a student-teacher’s exchanges with a particularly disruptive child were recorded and quantified into negative and positive comments. In the first lesson using this procedure he made twenty-four comments to the child — twenty negative and four positive. Considering that the most comments any other child in the class received were ten, the student-teacher and supervisor speculated that the child was behaving in a negative way to get attention. In the next lesson the student-teacher consciously focused on using positive comments whenever possible with this child. A repeat of a negative comment led to a short removal from the lesson for the child. In the next lesson the child received eight positive and six negative comments. The teacher removed the child from the lesson for a few minutes only once, when she returned to the lesson he immediately praised her for a good shot. It was noticeable at the end of the lesson that the child was one of the more skillful players.

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed based on Spradley’s (1980) “Developmental Research Sequence.” Initially, domains were constructed that reflected observations from classes, and theory or hypothesis notes, methodology notes and planning notes from meetings. The domains became more focused as more of the lessons were taught by student-teachers and the student-teachers had a larger input into group discussion at meetings. As domains became more focused a clearer sense of the meaning for actions, words and objects used in lessons became evident. These domains grew into taxonomic maps that linked like terms creating cultural domains common to all the supervisors and student-teachers. These cultural domains were contrasted creating the themes of the study. The themes described the phases of development for the action research group.

INITIAL RESULTS FROM THE ACTION RESEARCH PROCESS

The action research cycles evolved in three phases. Each phase consisted of a number of cycles of the action research process (plan, act/observe & reflect)[3]. Although these phases resulted in the growth of knowledge and understanding of teaching for the action research group, individuals within the group did not uniformly appear to be at the same level of teaching ability. To assist the reader in recognizing the relationship between plan, act/observe, reflect and re-plan, these aspects in each cycle have been highlighted in brackets. To give the reader a sense of my position as a supervisory teacher in the account I have included my thoughts in italics.

Phase 1: Defining role expectations and recognizing “teachable moments”

Cycles 1 and 2: Acquiring knowledge of pupils and defining teaching role.

For the student-teachers. Through initial conversations between the supervisors and the student-teachers it was decided that the first two lessons would be team-planned and team-taught (plan). Gradually student-teachers took more responsibility for the teaching of lessons. Lesson appraisals negotiated by the supervisory and student-teachers from the first two lessons focused upon: (1) student-teachers’ concerns about the control of groupings, (2) transitions between activities, (3) establishment of fair and manageable discipline, and (4) degree of explanation needed in their lessons (act/observe). The group felt these were predictable observations which needed the benefit of being experienced to be realized (reflect). Student-teachers planned to be clearer in their preparation for organizing pupils, to ensure that activities flowed in a meaningful way, to keep explanations simple, and to get activities going and then respond to what the children did (plan). Lessons flowed better as a result of these plans. However, supervisors noted that the student-teachers tended to “tell” the children too much in an attempt to define exactly what should happen so that the children would not make mistakes (act/observe). This problem was seen as a natural development relating to the student-teachers' desire to maintain control because of their nervousness in teaching situations. With practice and guidance from the supervisors it was felt that “telling teaching” would evolve into more “enabling teaching” (reflect).

For the supervisory-teachers. The team teaching situation resulted in supervisors teaching a majority of the lessons despite their intent to give student-teachers a dominant role (act/observe). The action research group decided that this occurred because the supervisors had a strong influence on lesson planning, a clear idea of what was expected, and a genuine enjoyment of teaching (reflect). The response to this situation was the establishment of a process for supervisors to follow before taking over the teaching of a lesson (plan). This process involved three stages. (1) Supervisors prompted the student-teacher with alternative ideas, (2) requested input into the lesson, and (3) if a short teaching stint was necessary, supervisors returned the teaching role to the student-teacher when possible. These stages gave ownership of the teaching process to the student-teacher but responsibility for the effectiveness of the lesson to the supervisor.

From these first cycles the roles of the supervisors were clarified and the student-teachers saw ways in which to improve their teaching. I felt it important that the group defined these roles after the experience of teaching. This meant that the roles were agreed upon based on the reality of teaching with two people, not imposed by me as the co-ordinator of the action research project.

Cycle 3: Recognizing supervisor's use of 'teachable moments'

When supervisors prompted student-teachers it was usually to encourage them to use pupils names with general and specific feedback when pupils were on task, or suggestions such as changing partners because pupils were messing about. Prompts such as these helped the student-teachers to get lessons flowing. However, student-teachers noticed that when supervisors took over the teaching it was in response to something happening in the class and not what was in the lesson plan (act/observe). This form of improvised teaching became known as responding to 'teachable moments.' When the supervisors taught, the children responded enthusiastically to the teaching. The student-teachers wanted to do the same form of teaching but felt unable to improvise (reflect). The anecdote that follows is constructed from an account by a supervisor and student-teacher of an ethical takeover following the recognition of a 'teachable moment.'

Throughout the whole game Emily never smiled. She did as asked, but showed no emotion. She never made an effort to get a partner; Emily always needed a partner assigned.

In the tennis-type lesson the student-teacher had started the children in pairs asking them to try to keep a ball bouncing by hitting it up into the air. There was a tendency to whack the ball, not control it as the student-teacher had instructed. Circulating throughout the class the supervisor, team-teaching with the student-teacher, sensed the need for a class focus. The children were exploring the equipment playfully, but now it was becoming “whack” a ball, especially with the boys. Just then a ball hit the roof ricocheting off two pupils. The student-teacher was absorbed with helping one particular child so the supervisory teacher coached the whole class.

“Try not to swing aimlessly — get beneath the ball and hit up and to your partner.” The supervisor spoke as the class played. “Good Jason.”

“Bend your knees Emily...good. Well done, you kept that going. That's it, Dawn.”

In an improvised moment the supervisor stopped the class.

“Now most of you are having a tendency to hit the ball too hard.” He started. “The idea is to see how many hits you can keep the ball going for with your partner,” as if a natural progression he continued; “now watch Emily and me...”

There was a surprised shock. Giggles and muted whispers prophesied imminent disaster.

“Now hit the ball up Emily.” The supervisor encouragingly looked at Emily. His eyes communicated confidence. As if hypnotized she obediently responded. The ball bounced and the supervisor responded, cueing Emily to hit the next. An impressive rally of 12 hits was demonstrated; the supervisor caught the twelfth hit. More were possible.

“Now see if you can match Emily.” The supervisor challenged the class. “Try to bend your knees like Emily,” he emphasized.

The class rushed to try.

“Thank you Emily.” The supervisor patted her back sensing a hint of a smile.

The ability to respond to the 'teachable moment' as exhibited by the supervisor in this previous anecdote became an indicator of a successful teaching episode. Responding to what children are doing with the material of the lesson implies that teachers give the children credit for having abilities. In this sense, learning came from an appreciative relationship quality existing between teacher and pupil. Schön (1987) noted this form of responding as a “reflective conversation with the situation” (p.31). Within the story Emily could have failed to hit the ball up, but the supervisory teacher sensed an opportunity to inspire Emily and to teach the class of children.

Both student-teacher and supervisory teacher told stories similar to this one to the rest of the group. It is my opinion that the sharing of such stories enabled the group members to partake in each others reality of teaching. This sharing strengthened the group's belief that they were learning how to teach games more effectively.

Conclusion so far

The supervisors found it difficult to tell the student-teachers how to recognize and respond to a 'teachable moment'. Their feeling was that this would come with experience (reflect). The group sought to realize 'teachable moments' by getting the children to engage enthusiastically in tasks, then to respond to what the children did (plan).

By the third group meeting the student-teachers were focused on the question “how do you get children to 'buy-in' to what you are teaching?” The student-teachers planned progressions in their lesson but also tried to respond to what the children did within their lesson. This question seemed to represent the desire of the action research group.

This first phase of the action research process laid the foundation for TGFU approach. The ‘teachable moments’ changed the conversation. Initially, at the group meetings, the conversation focused on concerns with controlling children. As the action research process moved into the second phase the conversation focused on concerns with how to teach so that children played games allowing the teacher to respond to the children playing. The teacher would respond by trying, based on how the children performed in games, to help the children improve their ability to play by modifying games and changing the nature of a task.

REFERENCES

Altrichter, H., Psch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London and New York: Routledge.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of educational research, 62, 129-169.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Victoria.: Deakin University.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observer. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (Ed.). (1986). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough.

Turner, A., & Martinek, J. (1995). Teaching for understanding: A model for improving decision making during game play. QUEST, 47, 44-63.

[1] Theses are forms of interaction that occur repeatedly (Altrichter et al. 1993, p. 134). In this study it refers to the input of the teacher and response of the pupils in relation to explanations, feedback, use of demonstrations and questions.

[2] Motor engaged time refers to an analysis of the time spent by the pupil performing and the time spent by the teacher explaining and organizing.

[3]These phases were connected to those highlighted by Kagan's (1992) comprehensive study of 40 learning-to-teach studies where generally novice teachers went from learning their role as they familiarized themselves with the nature of children, to then acquiring procedural skills related to the context and finally developing problem solving skills to adapt to the needs of the situation.