RUNNER AR4

ACTION RESEARCH AND SUPERVISING STUDENT-TEACHERS

By T.F. Hopper

University of Victoria

Published in RUNNER , 35(3) 29-35

photocopying without the permission of the copyright holder

PART 4: FINAL RESULTS FROM THE ACTION RESEARCH PROCESS

Summary update

This article is the final part in a four part series of articles describing an action research project concerned with the effective teaching of games. Three supervisors (qualified teachers) supervised 10 student-teachers teaching games to children in after school programmes. 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. 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). 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.

Part 1 outlined the ideas behind action research. In part 2 the student-teachers established their own management procedures through a team-teaching process with the supervisors. In part 3 the student-teachers, guided by the supervisors, develop a practical theory for games teaching based on the teaching games for understanding (TGFU) approach (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986). This theory allowed the student-teachers to move towards a more responsive teaching approach where the teacher sets tasks, supplies a variety of modified equipment and objects, then gets children to play games with the equipment and objects. As the children play the teacher assists, then poses questions that focus each child’s attention on how to play better by improving motor-skill or tactical decision making. With this understanding established practices leading to games are used that work on what needs to be improved. In this final part of the series the student-teachers supervised peers from the university who had not previously taught games to children. The series will be concluded with a look at the type of knowledge learnt in each phase of the action research process and the benefits this action research process has for the supervision of student-teachers.

Phase 3: Teaching from “telling” to “creating need to know”

Cycles 8 and 9: Realizing theory of teaching by observing others teach.

In the seventh and eighth lessons the community courses were used as the practical experience for one of the university courses engaged in the study of teaching of games to children. This use involved 15 different university students teaching the community courses with the action research student-teachers. The university students taught in groups of three — two team-teaching and one observing. Using the same process that had operated with the student-teachers at the beginning of the term, the university students taught with guidance from the now more experienced action research student-teachers (plan). The supervisors observed and appraised the teaching process for analysis after the lesson.

The idea of using the student-teachers as supervisors was not one that I originally supported or planned for. I felt the student-teachers were just realizing how to teach effectively and needed practice to consolidate what they had learnt. However the role of supervisor to their less experienced peers from the university proved a valuable learning process for the student-teachers. It is a credit to the responsive and supportive nature of an action research process that such an experience was possible and successful.

It was noticeable to the student-teachers that the university students wanted everything clearly defined in their lesson and wanted to be in complete control of the lesson (act/observe). This control ignored the possibility that some of the children might be able to do the skill being taught and tended to limit the potential for the unpredictable to happen. This resulted in children being herded around from task to task. The children seemed to have little sense of reason for their actions. The following extracts from the minutes highlight the student-teachers' observations:

“Some teachers could be teaching frogs, no sense of difference in learners in their approach to teaching. In your lesson you need a sense of spontaneity in relation t what the children are doing. Children need to know what and why they are doing something so that it makes sense to them. Then again, too much calling in, not enough practices and play, is bad. You need to find the right balance. Don't get over-keen with lesson planning to control the lesson, let children have a sense of control; then children can ask questions for a reason.”

However, the group agreed it was not easy to get responses from children, especially verbally. As one of the student-teachers said,

“Getting some children to answer questions was like pulling teeth. Some children would answer without a focus. Melissa [age 9], a pupil in my class would answer a question with a long preamble saying, 'Not important but...' But when the lesson focus makes sense, practically as well as theoretically [verbal teaching] then the pupils’ answers to the teacher questions’ make sense.”

The group agreed, Tara [another student-teacher] indicated;

“You have to go through chaos to get somewhere.”

Susan [programme administrator] said,

“It is a paradigm shift. You develop new attitudes and beliefs about the learner. As Tim [supervisor] has indicated, in teaching 'you want to wean the learner from reliance upon you.'“

These extracts from the minutes of one meeting highlights the theoretical development of the group. The university students, who quite naturally felt unsure of themselves, found it difficult to allow children to learn from mistakes. Similar to what the student-teachers had done initially, the action research group noted that the university students seemed to dictate what the pupils learned, teaching from the basis of “telling” the pupils. The student-teachers wanted teaching based on the pupils' “need to know”. It was felt that student-teachers' change from “telling” to “creating need to know” teaching came from a process of instructing based on a desire to respond to pupils' actions and ideas (reflect). The student-teachers purposely tried to create environments that encouraged pupils to make intelligent choices. When possible, student-teachers’ teaching made links to previously played games. By creating environments and responding to pupils the student-teachers were constructing an approach to teaching that became increasingly close to the “teaching games for understanding” (TGFU) method. This method greatly influenced the teaching of games in Great Britain during the 1980's and had been taught to many of the student-teachers in the university culture. This approach advocates the teaching of modified games that allow learners to appreciate the game before being taught skills to improve their performance in the game. As Bunker and Thorpe (1986) say;

The tendency is for teachers to teach 'how?' before they teach 'why?'....if the emphasis is shifted to tactical considerations in a game children will recognize that games can be interesting and enjoyable as they are helped and encouraged to make correct decisions based upon tactical awareness. At this point children should begin to see the need for, and relevance of, particular techniques as they are required in a game situation. (p. 7)

This link to some of the theoretical ideas taught at the university made sense to the student-teachers and related to what the university students were being taught. The student-teachers decided to focus their feedback to the university students based on a TGFU approach and their experiences coming to terms managing children and using this approach (re-plan). As a result of student-teachers expressing this connection after the university students had taught their first lesson, the university students seemed to develop a stronger conviction for the TGFU approach allowing themselves to teach with a less autocratic style (act/observe). It was noted by the student-teachers that they felt able to control the class for the university students by simply mentioning a child's name or staring at a child if he or she was mis-behaving, this gave student-teachers credibility with the university students and allowed the university students to focus on teaching rather than disciplining children (reflect).

I feel that this supportive environment allowed the university students, early in their teaching career, to try to teach using a more responsive and questioning approach.

In this cycle there seemed to be three levels of responsibility, (1) The supervisor teacher who had ultimate responsibility for the lessons, (2) The student-teacher who had earned responsibility for the lessons through their efforts to teach in a way to which the children would respond, (3) The university students who were keen to have the responsibility to teach but who lacked experience and knowledge of the particular children being taught in the class. It is my opinion that these levels of responsibility allowed the student-teachers to recognize their theoretical and practical development from where they had come (university students) to where they were heading (supervisors).

The student-teachers knew what they were doing differently from the university students, and why it was more effective. The university students all taught better in subsequent lessons. The university students commented that the feedback enabled them to re-plan their second lesson with a clear sense of what could be done to improve. The student-teachers with the supervisory teacher learnt to express how they were teaching and explain why it worked (reflect).

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The type of knowledge learnt in each phase

The purpose of this study was to describe how action research can offer a model for supervising student-teachers that allows them to develop more ‘student-centred’ practices when learning to teach in schools.

Between the supervisors and student-teachers a difficulty arose as to who should lead a lesson to ensure the pupis had a quality experience. This difficulty was overcome through group agreement on a process of intervention that gave ownership of the lesson to the student-teacher but responsibility for the lesson quality to the supervisor. Authority over the lesson was shared based on the needs of the children being taught. Student-teachers gained complete ownership of the lesson when they showed the capacity to respond to pupils and reflectively plan lessons appropriately to the needs of pupils. The practical action research process allowed the student-teachers to free themselves from the didactic teaching they had experienced in physical education as pupils, and learn from the progressive but prescriptive teacher education they had experienced as students at the university. As one student-teacher commented, “I learnt more from this experience than all four years at university.” This student-teacher learnt how to make sense of what she had been learning at university from her developing practical knowledge of teaching games.

The action research process seemed to go through three distinct phases. These phases are characterized by three types of knowledge summarized in Figures 1, 2 and 3. The idea of effective teaching of games was the focus of conversation. Initially this conversation grew from difficulties relating to and handling children, this resulted in the student teachers relying on the supervisors to teach lessons and to give them a technical, prescriptive type of knowledge that focused on managing children. At this time student-teachers observed supervisors teaching by setting tasks then responding to the pupils. This form of teaching was seen as the TGFU approach. Within the action research group meetings the conversation focused on a desire to respond to what children were able to do. This form of teaching could not be prescribed. By responding to children the teachers ability to anticipate through planning is possible but limited. This form of teaching encourages the development of a practical form of knowledge, knowledge that develops from a particular context. Finally, when inexperienced colleagues from the university taught in the classes the student-teachers had a new perspective in the action research conversation; they not only had to supervise but maintain responsibility for the quality of the lesson. The conversation then revolved around how to help others teach in a way that was not so didactic and was more responsive to what children did. Here student-teachers were developing an emancipatory form of knowledge trying to help their peers go beyond the constraints of what they knew to realize a less restrictive, more responsive type of teaching. The conversation went through three phases characterized by the three forms of action research described by Tripp (1990). Using Tripp’s description and referring to Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1982) criteria for action research, each phase of the action research project will be analyzed.

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------

In Figure 1 we have the first three cycles of the action research process. These cycles embody a more technical approach to action research. The supervisors as the ‘experts’ directed planning and teaching. This was not the desire of the supervisors but in response to the request of the student-teachers. Similarly, Almond (1987) indicated when trying to implement an action research project in schools, “all the time I come in contact with teachers who want to be told what to do, how to do it, and they ask for recipe-based guidelines” (p. 4). Student-teachers were interested in knowing what and how to teach effectively. Based on Kemmis and McTaggart (1982) criteria for research to be considered as action research, the student-teachers were making an improvement in their practice, but they did not fully understand how they were improving. The situation was still one where the supervisors were in charge, however the team-teaching approach allowed the student-teachers to gradually take responsibility for the lesson as their confidence grew. At this point the research could not be considered as action research.

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here

-------------------------------

The initial phase of the action research process lay the foundation for the second phase summarized in Figure 2. The four cycles of this phase are more characteristic of practical action research. As student-teachers took more responsibility for teaching, their lesson planning became more detailed; they were able to plan how to handle equipment, space, pupils and important information. As student-teachers took responsibility, tried things out, modified and scrapped plans as situations arose, they started to direct the action research conversation to more personal needs. A common focus was getting all the children to buy into what was being taught. The action research group members had learnt that they could not force children to do what they had planned, but they could guide what children did towards better ways of playing. In a Socratic style this need to know how to respond to the play of children resulted in the development of the BESTAT sheets. These sheets enabled student-teachers to plan and teach lessons in a more responsive way. Student-teachers did not require supervisors to teach, but more to observe and give guidance to aspects of the lesson to which they had personal concern. The student-teachers did not have complete autonomy, but they were taking ownership for the project of teaching and were focusing the observers’ attention on aspects of the lesson they wished to be assessed. Student-teachers were reflecting on themselves as teachers, taking an increasing responsibility for planning, teaching and observation of lessons. Based on Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1982) criteria the research had become action research with student-teachers improving their practice, they were understanding how and why improvements were possible and they were operating in a situation where the supervisor was a colleague offering observations as requested.

-------------------------------

Insert Figure 3 about here

-------------------------------

In this phase the conversation focused on how to assist inexperienced university students to teach the classes the student-teachers had taught. Student-teachers made a connection to where they had come from to where they were. In communicating to the university students the student-teachers had a sense of their reality as teachers and the reality of the apprehensive university students. The student-teachers were able to connect to the theory that the university students were learning. Student-teachers were able to offer practical remedies to concerns the university students had discovered in the reality of teaching. For example one student-teacher said, “if pupils seem to be fidgety, not concentrating when you speak, try to keep your explanation to a minimum then respond to what the pupils do.” Another student-teacher commented, “if a child seems to be continuously deviant he or she is probably seeking attention, after a warning try removing the pupil from the activity, then praise the pupil when he or she returns to the lesson.” These were comments similar to those brought up by the supervisors in phase 1 of the action research project. Critical reflection grew from mutual concerns between supervisors, student-teachers and later the university students for discovering effective ways to teach games to particular children. This mutual concern, with an appreciation of the difficulties in specific contexts for each teacher, allowed the group to share ideas and support attempts at innovative practice. By the final phase the group was self-directing, nobody had the answers but everybody had ideas. Student-teachers did not copy their supervisor’s teaching, student teachers taught based on a belief in responsive teaching. University students did not teach like the student-teachers, but they did follow advice given and felt free to try things out. The university students were not worried about passing or failing in any way, if things went wrong in their lesson the student-teachers were always ready and willing to assist.

A possible action research model for supervising student-teachers

In Nettle’s (1988) article on a teacher supervision innovation in teacher preparation he explains the benefits of third year students supervising first year students engaged in micro-teaching. He states that “third year students believed that their involvement as a 'supervisor/teacher' helped them to a better understanding of teaching in general and of their own teaching in particular...opportunity to consolidate skills learned in previous courses” (p. 131). This same realization was articulated by the student-teachers in the action research project.

The supervisors were involved in the process of team-teaching and then becoming observers of the lessons. This allowed them to discover how to help and support student-teachers in a way that enabled them to assist rather than evaluate. The supervisors modeled an emancipatory form of supervision. As Nettle (1998) concludes and others have supported (Byra, 1994; Wedman, 1985), there is a need for supervision where the supervisor focuses on teaching the teacher, not simply evaluating the teacher’s teaching. So how should we supervise student-teachers?

Supervisory teachers (or co-operating teachers) in schools are generally used to train student-teachers. As Locke and Dodds (1984) have said about teacher preparation in physical education “the heavy costs of operating clinical training are largely avoided...allowing cooperating teachers to operate student teaching on a day-to-day basis as virtually cost-free volunteers” (p. 93). This school based teacher training is often very distant from what is taught at the university. In this action research project the student-teachers made connections to what they had learnt at the university and were able to make the connection for their peers. The supervisors as qualified teachers returning to university to continue their studies, were able to help the student-teachers realize student-centred ideas taught at the university. If more co-operating teachers in schools had professional development courses at the university, had sabbatical terms at the university, or had courses from the university taught with their pupils in their school, co-operating teachers would be in a far better position to make the connections to current progressive practices. These progressive practices, such as TGFU, would be shaped by practical concerns in the school (size of class, lack of equipment) but none the less they would be realized in some form.

Team-teaching, with both parties in broad philosophical agreement, allows the student-teacher to enter into the profession of teaching without the fear of privately having to control a class of children (Denscombe, 1981; Denscombe, 1982). Through team-teaching student-teachers can learn the names of the children and techniques for managing children so they feel comfortable. As a student-teacher takes over teaching more of the lesson the co-operating teacher can observe. A student-teacher and a co-operating teacher, through negotiating the focus of this observation, allow the evaluative role of observation to be replaced by diagnostic supportive insights into the lesson. Information can be gathered from the observer making personal notes or systematic observation (Darst, Mancini & Zakrajsek, 1983; Randall, 1992). This information then informs the conversation on the lesson. The conversation influences the re-planning of the next lesson and leads to further observation on practice. I suspect some co-operating teachers follow this form of supervision from an intuitive sense of wanting an idealistic, enthusiastic student-teacher to become an effective teacher, but I am aware that many co-operating teachers tend to do as was done to them in a sink or swim mentality to teacher training. As was once said to me. “Here’s your class, here’s the keys. Be tough, don’t let them get away with anything, then you can loosen up after a few weeks. I will be in the office if you need me.”

There are many changes being imposed from above on teacher education, most on the basis of accountability and cost efficiency. However, an action research approach is not implement from above in comes from the reality of teaching. The knowledge of teaching that comes from an action research form of supervision is the type of knowledge that makes sense because it is learnt from practical experience. In an action research form of supervision knowledge of teaching and learning evolves from those you teach - pupils, student-teachers, colleagues and ultimately yourself.

References

Almond, L. (1987). Action research in England since 1970 (paper presented at the AIESEP World Convention No. Universite du Quebec a Trois-Riveres, Canada.

Bunker, D.,& .Thorpe, R, (1986). The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching, (pp. 7-10). Loughborough: University of Technology.

Byra, M. (1994). Supervisory Conferences: Promoting Inquiry and Reflection in Preservice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA).

Darst, P., Mancini, V., & Zakrajsek, D. (1983). Systematic obervation instrumentation for physical education. West Point, New York: Leisure Press.

Denscombe, M. (1981). Organization and innovation in schools: a case study of team teaching. School organization, 1(3), 195-210.

Denscombe, M. (1982). The 'Hidden Pedagogy' and its implications for teacher training. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 3(3), 249-265.

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

Locke, L., & Dodds, P. (1984). Is physical education teacher education in American Colleges worth saving? Evidence, alternatives, judgment. In National Association for Physical Education in Higher education, 5 (pp. 91-107). College Park, Md: Champaign.

Nettle, T. (1988). A teaching and learning approach to supervision within teacher education program. Journal of Education for Teaching, 14(2), 125-133.

Randall, L. (1992). The students teacher's handbook for physical education. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Tinning, R. I. (1992). Action research as epistemology and practice: Towards transformative educational practice in physical education. In A. C. Sparkes (Ed.), Research in physical education and sport (pp. 188-209). London: The Falmer Press.

Tripp, D. (1990). Socially critical action research. Theory Into Practice, XXIX(3), 158-166.

Wedman, J., M. et al. (1985). Reconceptualizing Student Teaching Programs: A Synthesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (Las Vegas, NV).

Figures 1, 2 and 3 are summarized in the figure above.