Action Research in Language Teaching

7/23/2019 Action Research in Language Teaching

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/action-research-in-language-teaching 1/18

Developing a practice-theory

model in pre-service teacher

education in Greece

The implications of action-research: A case

study

Vassilis Tsafos

University of Athens, Greece

ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the use of action research in a post-

graduate teacher education programme. The first part of the

article presents the initial education of secondary teachers in

Greece, as well as a postgraduate university programme that

could be viewed as an alternative pre-service teacher education

(PTE) programme, as implemented in a partnership between

a tertiary education institution and certain secondary schools.

The second part of the article describes the research I conducted

during the programme, as an educator and researcher. It is acase study, aiming at investigating how the school-based PTE

programme was experienced by its participants, including the

student-teachers and myself, as their supervisor and an educa-

tor from a tertiary education institution. Data were collected

from questionnaire surveys and interviews administered to the

student-teachers, as well as from my personal journal.

Action Research

1–18

Copyright© 2009 SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC

www.sagepublications.com

DOI: 10.1177/1476750309335041

A R T I C L E

K E Y W O R D S

• action research

• higher education

• school-based

pre-service teacher

education• student-teachers’

attitudes

• universities–schools

partnership

1

Action Research OnlineFirst, published on September 16, 2009 as doi:10.1177/1476750309335041



Action Research2 •

Pre-service education of Greek secondary teachers: Existingconditions

Teacher education is a complicated multidimensional issue, relating to the educa-

tional enterprise and the desired kind of teacher for the educational system. InGreece, numerous factors prevent the creation of a reflexive environment, in which

appropriate and effective teacher pre- or in-service education could take place.

This is evident in literature regarding pre-service teacher education (PTE) of

secondary education student-teachers in Greece (Salteris, 2006). Dissatisfaction

with teacher education and training is considerable (Cassotakis, 1987).

Particularly stressed problems include the lack of systematic psycho-pedagogic

training and a general gap between pedagogical theory and educational practice

(Hopf & Xwhellis, 2003). Commentators and experts point out the correspond-

ing university curriculum structure as the fundamental cause of PTE insufficiency

(Spanos, 2005).

Teacher professionalism in Greece is somewhere between the pro-professional

age, when ‘teachers were virtually amateurs: they only needed to carry out the

directives of their more knowledgeable superiors’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 156) and

the age of the autonomous professional, when ‘the spread of teacher pre-service

education in the universities and the growth of in-service education provided by

experts added weight to the claims to expertise on which the rights to autonomy

would rest’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 161).

The problem

What then should be the goal of Greek PTE? Pre-service teacher education

should be organized in a way that connects theory to practice, utilizing partner-

ships between higher education institutions and secondary education schools – a

worldwide accepted goal of teacher education. As Darling-Hammond mentions,

‘the enterprise of teacher education must venture out further and further from the

university and engage ever more closely with schools in a mutual transformation

agenda’ (2006, p. 302). And this ‘mutual transformation agenda’ is indeed inno-

vative for Greece, where pre-service teacher education has traditionally separated

theory and practice, with practice meaning attending ‘model’ lessons in experi-

mental schools and taking notes afterwards. Consequently student-teachers can

neither connect theory to practice nor see how each enriches and complements

the other.



Tsafos A practice-theory model in teacher education • 3

’Theory and Practice of Teaching and Evaluation’: Apostgraduate programme or an alternative approach topre-service teacher education

In this context, I viewed the postgraduate programme ‘Theory and Practice ofTeaching and Evaluation’ as an alternative approach to PTE. Students go through

three stages:

First stage: They attend academic seminars on various psycho-pedagogic sub-

jects (theory of curriculum, evaluation, methods of educational

research, didactics . . .).

Second stage: They are called to relate pedagogical theory to educational prac-

tice by: (i) observing a classroom for a minimum of two months,

in collaboration with mentor school teachers, who model and dis-cuss expert practice; and (ii) preparing and implementing teaching

sessions in collaboration with teacher supervisors (university edu-

cators who supervise their coursework).

Third stage: They conduct research for their dissertation, supervised by one of

the programme’s educators.

We could consider this programme as an alternative PTE programme because:

• It provides student-teachers with basic instruction on teaching and essentialreflection tools.

• It bridges the theory–practice gap through collaboration between schools

and higher education institutions. At the same time, student teachers are

moved into the field, to interpret and experience the ideas encountered during

their academic study. Mentored by experienced teachers, they can examine

and apply, even reform, concepts learned in theoretical seminars and model

teaching sessions.

• It introduces student-teachers to practical educational research, demonstrat-

ing how educational research develops the theory–practice link and ensures

life-long professional development.

I have participated in this programme for the past five years, teaching ‘Didactics

of Ancient Greek’. My contribution consisted of:

(a) Lectures on the teaching of Ancient Greek language and literature, which

progressively evolved into open discussion seminars focused on the course’s

main issues: its role in the modern world, the goals of this approach, tradi-

tional and alternative methods of teaching Ancient Greek (Tsafos, 2004).

(b) Follow-up observations of model teaching sessions in schools, collaborating

with the University. The observations included critical assessment of teaching




sessions, discussion with teachers on their choices and assumptions, evalua-

tion and reflection on methods of teaching.

(c) Supervision of the postgraduate students who planned and conducted two

teaching sessions in schools.

(d) Supervision of postgraduate dissertations.

A critical approach to the postgraduate/pre-service teachereducation programme

After five years in the programme, I decided to collect data for a case study. The

aim was to investigate how the school-based PTE programme was being expe-

rienced by its participants, including the student-teachers and myself, as theirsupervisor and an educator from a tertiary education institution. It was virtually

impossible to collect data from mentor school teachers, as they had been random-

ly chosen and participated unsystematically, simply accepting student-teachers in

their classroom and allowing them to conduct their educational research.

I therefore collected data by:

(a) observing student-teachers during the preparation and actual implementa-

tion of teaching sessions, and during the reflective critical evaluation after-

wards;(b) recording my experiences in a journal throughout the programme’s duration;

and

(c) administering questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews to the

student-teachers who had selected me as their dissertation supervisor.

During this fifth year, three out of fifteen student-teachers selected me to super-

vise their educational research. This limited number does not allow for a plurality

of voices, yet it does offer the possibility to investigate the aptitudes, values and

interests of a team of student-teachers who agreed on the priority of practice in

the educational process.

The educator’s point of view

Theoretical framework

As an educator, two issues concerned me: (1) the partnership between universities

and schools, and (2) school-based teacher education.

(1) The term ‘partnership’ refers to various models of collaboration and

co-operation implemented between higher education institutions and schools, to

provide student-teachers with quality pre-service teacher training experiences.




This is no authentic partnership, as school and university agents do not act as

equal partners. The university determined and prescribed the programme’s aims

and structure, demanding the experienced teachers’ collaboration. On the con-

trary, in an authentic partnership ‘their ultimate goals are to institutionalise the

partnership in their respective settings, create an inter-institutional structure thatwill permit change and improvement to occur at both levels’ (Catelli, Padovano,

& Costello, 2000, p. 227).

(2) In school-based teacher education, student-teachers gain actual school

experience by participating in the educational process. Teachers are not tech-

nicians called to assimilate a body of theoretical knowledge, but professionals

called to reflect on their work and take conscious decisions. Therefore, school-

based teacher education refers to an actual on-going development, throughout

the teachers’ professional life (Day, 1999). This kind of professional development

opens teachers to new ideas and strategies. Because ‘if “participation” is to con-

tribute to teachers’ professional development, it must be rendered as richly as

possible as “experience” . . . as something which engages our interest and curi-

osity . . . as something to which we are sufficiently receptive that we allow to

modify our assumptions’ (Bridges, 1993, p. 61).

In this context, pre-service teacher education is based on:

• The relationship between theory and practice; practice does not derive

from the theoretical understanding of educational values or principles, nor

do student-teachers develop skills simply to apply them in practice. This

is embedded in the rational approach to teacher education, which aims at

the development of autonomous professionals (Elliott, 1993). Theory does

not guide, confirm and legalize practice; instead theory and practice com-

plement each other. Following Elliott’s situational understanding, ‘prac-

tice is grounded in interpretations of particular situations as a whole and

cannot be improved without improving these interpretations’ (1993, p. 18).

Consequently, teacher education must develop student-teachers’ ability to

reach situational understanding, helping them judge and take decisions inany educational situation. It is the ‘practical science’ model of teacher educa-

tion and professional performance (Elliott, 1993).

• The relationship between student-teachers and experienced teachers; inex-

perienced student teachers necessarily depend on ideas from sources outside

their experience (McIntyre, 1993). Their representations of the educational

process are in fact students’ representations. Their student’s point of view

should progressively turn into a teacher’s point of view, as ‘learning to

teach requires that new teachers come to understand teaching in ways quite

different from their own experience as students’ (Darling-Hammond, 2006,

p. 305). This perspective opens through the collaboration with experienced

teachers, who participate by providing a body of educational knowledge and




offering student-teachers the evidence and the opportunity to reflect on edu-

cational practice.

There is so much to be read, to be discussed, to be found in the practice of experi-

enced teachers, which merits examination and mental trial but which it will not be

possible for the individual student teacher to test in his or her own practice, because

of constraints of time, opportunity or expertise. (McIntyre, 1993, p. 47)

They contribute by helping students articulate their thinking in practice,

teaching them how to reflect on their practice (Parsons & Stephenson,

2005). In this way, field experience serves as a laboratory for exploration

and examination, not as a model of best practice (O’Donelle & Callegos,

2006). Consequently, school teachers should play a greater role in PTE, with

student-teachers spending more time in schools during their studies.

• Reflecting on the educational process, defined as the ‘systematic inquiry intoone’s own practice, to improve that practice and to deepen one’s understand-

ing of it’ (Lucas in McIntyre, 1993, pp. 42–43). In PTE, reflection means

much more; it entails reflecting on certain educational issues and at the

same time gaining new understandings of the skills and attitudes necessary

to engage in the reflective process. Student-teachers’ supervisors commit to

helping them develop the attitude and skills necessary to reflect on and study

their teaching (Zeichner, 1994). Moreover, student-teachers must conquer

three similar levels of reflection, posed by Zeichner and Liston (cited in

Elliott, 1993, p. 139):

(i) The unproblematic technical proficiency at achieving pre-determined

ends; ‘the efficient and effective application of attaining ends which are

accepted as given’, where neither the ends nor the institutional context

of classroom, school, community and society are treated as problem-

atic.

(ii) The situational, theoretical and institutional assumptions and the effects

of teaching actions, goals and structures. Here the problem is explaining

and clarifying the assumptions and predispositions underlying practice,

and assessing an action’s educational consequences.

(iii) The moral and ethical implications of pedagogy and of social structures

and concepts. Here both teaching (ends and means) and its surrounding

context are considered problematic.

As a researcher, my main preoccupation was to include practical educational

research, especially educational action research, in PTE.

Classroom research must be central to PTE programmes based on practical

educational research. PTE introduces student-teachers to reflecting on their prac-

tice, helping them become professionals by improving both their practice and their

understanding of it. The ability to gain knowledge from experience is crucial for




the student-teachers’ professional development, which can be further enhanced

by their engagement in practice-centered inquiry, which helps them assess and

respond to the needs of the children in their classrooms, an important aspect

of professional practice that does not come easily to novices (Carroll & Yarger-

Kane, 2000). All concepts of the ‘teacher as a researcher’ movement (Stenhouse,1975), the reflective practitioner (Schön, 1983), the action researcher (Carr &

Kemmis, 1986) and the creation of a living educational theory (Whitehead, 1989)

are based on this practical and reflective perception of professionalism (Aspald

& Brown, 1993).

As Christopher Day points out:

Learners must be active participants in their own learning. Successful professional

development is that which assumes that experiences and intuitions of practitioners,

their personal knowings gleaned from personal experiences are of prime value. Itconsciously employs reflection, analysis and experimentation by providing active

opportunities for participants to move from intuition to the disciplined collection of

experienced knowledge. (1990, p. 236)

Educational action research, as a powerful tool for developing better new

teachers (Kosnik & Beck, 2000), helps student-teachers acquire the understand-

ing and skills necessary for a teacher’s complex and demanding role. Furthermore,

the inclusion of action research in a PTE programme ‘is an effective way of linking

theory and practice, both within the programme and in the minds of the student

teachers’ (Kosnik & Beck, 2000, p. 118). Finally, student-teachers view teaching

as a process integrally related to research, involving inquiry and experimentation

(Ross, 1987). Since action research views knowledge and action as tightly inter-

woven, understanding and action are kept in constant interaction (Price & Valli,

2006), encouraging lifelong education and professional development. Student-

teachers’ active role changes their attitude both of the educational process and of

training itself.

My contribution to the programme

Following this theoretical framework, I tried to give a more reflective tone to the

PTE programme under study. Specifically:

• In the first stage, the seminars, I focused equally on what the students should

know and on how they might think, aiming to present student-teachers

with (a) the theoretical knowledge and (b) the reflective process they should

learn to engage in. Student-teachers were to cultivate their judgment skills

so as to accurately diagnose the teaching of Ancient Greek. We identifiedthe main problem: school students dislike Ancient Greek. The seminar thus

revolved around ways of dealing with this problem as teachers. Student-

teachers entertained a variety of suggestions, and expressed some of their




assumptions on how Ancient Greek should be taught. By bringing forward

and discussing these assumptions, student-teachers addressed their mis-

conceptions, which could otherwise distort or block any new information

presented to them in the PTE programme (Kubler LaBoskey, 1993). Tacit

knowledge was made explicit. Looking for new suggestions we would readcritically through the national curriculum, the provided guidelines and any

alternative curriculum proposed, and discuss reflectively on the objectives

of teaching Ancient Greek today, on practitioners’ alternative proposals, on

methodological problems, on empirical research findings, on teachers’ craft

knowledge . . . Thus viewed, theory offers no concrete and precise guidelines

on how to teach. Student-teachers were provided with theoretical knowledge

that appeared as hypothetical and, armed with reflective skills, they would

approach the teaching process in the classroom critically.

• Student-teachers were thus prepared for the second stage. Initially, they

would reflectively observe the teaching process in a real school setting.

Thanks to the preceding reflection sessions, they could focus on the concrete

consequences of teaching and discuss these with their mentor teachers or

peers. In touch with a classroom for a minimum of two months, they also

had the opportunity to identify the students’ needs and to suggest new ways

of teaching. Through field interaction theory is challenged, while practice is

constantly refined and reflected upon. Later on, they became teachers them-

selves. As a teacher supervisor I tried to add depth to this process by askingthem to merge theory and practice in their first attempts to teach in the same

classroom they had observed. I urged them to try out new ideas, testing theo-

retical suggestions in practice. During the subsequent group evaluation dis-

cussions, I would address issues encountered in the seminars and new issues

emerging from their teaching. Student-teachers could reflect on the teaching

sessions they had observed and on their approaches to practice, before and

after their own teaching experience. They gained experience by observing,

discussing, reflecting, and teaching through conscious decisions.

• In the third stage, I worked with the three student-teachers who selected

me as their dissertation supervisor, due to my experience in action research

projects and our common interest in issues regarding practice. I had previ-

ously insisted on merging theory and practice, stressing the latter’s potential

to reform or even generate theory and on the contribution of action research

to theory. I invited them to see theory as a proposal, not a prescription; they

were to reflect on it, adjust it to their classroom and evaluate or even expand

it in the light of practice (Grundy, 1987, pp. 68–73). Drawing from the prac-

tice–theory model of teacher education, I urged them to carry out a smallscale action research project so as to explore alternative teaching methods

and/or produce and evaluate appropriate educational material. I was both

their dissertation supervisor and the facilitator of the action research they




conducted. As a research facilitator, I attempted to help student-teachers

work towards a norm that redefines teaching by including reflection, inquiry

and attitudes of continual change (Richardson, 1994). I encouraged them

to articulate, discuss and defend their views on the goals and roles of the

Ancient Greek classroom, so they would realize the powerful influence ofpre-existing knowledge, beliefs and prior experiences. My intention was to

help them move towards a deeper understanding of teaching and learning.

Our discussions focused not only on research-related problems, but also on

various teaching-related issues emerging from their research, including con-

tent and principles, curriculum design, the process of teaching and learning.

I tried to provide them with an overall research framework, by asking ques-

tions to help them deepen their thinking on their practice, by assisting them

in forming and refining questions, by collecting and analysing data, and by

supporting them in the writing of their research report. In this context I

guided them towards a more practical kind of action research (Tichen &

Fellow, 1996), so they would understand both their practice and the educa-

tional values embodied in it. They ‘have striven to become more effective’

(McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996, p. 128) by contributing their living

educational theories (Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) so as

to interpret their educational influences, based on their enquiries on learning

enhancement (Whitehead, 1993).

Problems and difficulties

Various important problems appeared. Initially, the prescribed partnership con-

text allowed me no opportunity to intervene and create an authentic collaboration

with school teachers. Yet for PTE to be substantial, schools should participate

on equal terms. When experienced teachers are equal partners, they engage

in the whole process actively, eager to play their role as mentors, collaborat-

ing with both students and supervisors. ‘These clinical experiences need to becarefully planned as any other [. . .] university course’ (Zeichner, 2006, p. 334).

The circumstances called for a different, more reflective cooperative framework,

allowing inexperienced student-teachers to reflect on educational practice. Yet

my collaboration with the school teachers in question remained officious, while

the student-teachers’ cooperation with their mentors was less organized and fruit-

ful than intended.

Since I was an educator of the postgraduate programme and an evaluator

of their teaching attempts, student-teachers found it hard to see me as a coordina-

tor-supervisor or a research facilitator. When planning and carrying out teaching

sessions, most students would opt for trying methods they thought I approved,

based on the theoretical seminars. In this way they may have failed to engage

in fruitful reflection on and experimentation with their own ideas. During the




research, they turned to me for guidance, not advice. This attitude often forced

me to intervene, so they would not be discouraged, even though facilitators should

avoid such interventions (Brown, Henry, Henry, & McTaggart, 1988). This would

sometimes make their research temporarily more technical; eventually, I always

guided them back to the reflective process on the issues under study.For example, they initially decided to research the effectiveness of the teach-

ing strategies I presented as more appropriate to an alternative approach of ancient

Greek literature. To help them make informed choices, I invited all three tp a team

meeting. As a critical friend I asked them (a) to present their criteria for choosing

the strategies under research, (b) to compare these strategies with the routines and

to point out the elements that make the difference, and (c) to indicate points to

be revised in later planning. They had to reflect on specific educational circum-

stances, thus becoming more flexible. Furthermore, as they had to present, justify

and collectively consider their choices in a team meeting, but also to explain why

these strategies are opposite to the unexamined existing repertoires of practice,

they became less dogmatic and more reflexive. They should question their taken

for granted values as well as those of the mentor, school teachers, a process that

introduces them to a critical reflection, what Francis calls ‘labour’, a ‘strenu-

ous activity that involves difficulty and persistent effort which usually affords no

pleasure in the early stages’ (Frrancis & Ingram-Starrs, 2005, p. 543).

The students’ views on my role were noteworthy. On the one hand, they

were aware of my consultative and supportive role (‘He offered support andadvice from the beginning of the research down to the writing of the final report’

AP; ‘What’s important is that the facilitator encouraged frequent communication

and supported me throughout the research’ GP). They realized I was trying to

provide them with feedback (‘With his scientific interventions and timely obser-

vations, he enlarged my reflective scope, mainly by offering feedback’ PP). They

pointed out that I did not try to restrain them (‘He did not discourage me from

any innovation I wished to try out’ AP), nor to intervene (‘He did not attempt to

impose his views on me’ AP).

On the other hand, all three attributed importance to the guidance I was

forced to offer:

The research facilitator adopted a role of guidance. In my opinion, it was not simply

a consultative role, because my inexperience regarding both the text-centred method

and the way action research is conducted could have led me away from my research

goals. (GP)

He helped me substantially in the production of educational material, not only

because of his significant proposals or observations, but also in terms of seeking

new educational material. (AP)

His objections and alternatives led me to new scientific explorations. [. . .] He

adopted the role of a coordinator, a teacher, and a friend. (PP)




These circumstances (the lack of substantial cooperation with experienced

teachers, the inequality of roles when conducting and evaluating teaching

sessions, and the supervisor’s interventions) restricted the breadth and depth of

the student-teacher’s reflection significantly. Fortunately, I was able to overcome

the goal of achieving pre-determined ends, and help student-teachers to view theinstitutional context of classroom and school as problematic, to delve into the

assumptions and predispositions underlying practice, and to learn how to assess

the educational consequences of their actions. However, I was unable to engage

them in reflection on moral, ethical, social and more general speculations on the

teaching of Ancient Greek.

The student-teachers’ points of view

Of note are the student-teachers’ views on the programme, as emerged from their

questionnaire answers and the subsequent semi-structured interview. Of course,

my formal position as their dissertation supervisor – with a certain amount of

power – may have influenced the data. Being aware of this, I administered the

questionnaires and discussed with them only after the programme had been

completed and their work had already been evaluated, aiming to minimize the

conflict between my role as a researcher and that as a programme educator

(Owen, 2006).

All three student-teachers viewed the programme as of significant assist-ance, since it provided them with pedagogical knowledge and introduced them

to teaching practice, empowering them as educators and preparing them for their

future professional career. They confirmed their practice-oriented interest by

pointing out that their empowerment was brought on by their planning and con-

ducting teaching sessions, and their involvement in practical educational research,

exploring issues that concerned them in practice. More specifically:

(a) In terms of their theoretical education: Student-teachers valued highly the

information on alternative teaching methods, which helped them realize that theformalistic misconceptions they entertained on the teaching of Ancient Greek

originated from the view of teaching they had formed as school students, and

that their academic studies offered them no opportunity to modify their beliefs.

AP mentioned:

We came in contact with alternative methods of teaching Ancient Greek language

and literature, which will hopefully help us breathe new life into the specific sub-

ject matter, since they are more experiential, and therefore more motivating for the

students.

Moreover, they were able to identify the theoretical framework of various

approaches to the teaching of Ancient Greek language and literature, and classify

‘the dispersed teaching techniques for this subject into organized bodies of theory




within specific philosophical and didactic contexts’ (GP). They did not refer to

our broader reflection on the subject’s role in today’s world. They focused mainly

on methods, viewing them as independent of the subject’s philosophy and goal-

setting; AP mentioned: ‘Since I think the teaching of Ancient Greek language

and literature in high school is important, I perceive many problems, which aremainly due to the adopted teaching approach’. All three chose methodological

issues for their dissertation.

Despite initial reflection and research explorations on the subject’s philoso-

phy, student-teachers failed to delve into the broader teaching context that would

meet today’s needs, expanding their speculations only to explore the experiential

approach. Was this due to their need for direct and specific ways of dealing with

the present situation in the teaching of Ancient Greek, or were they simply unable

to realize that any change relates to the developing culture of each subject’s teach-

ing and role in education?

(b) In terms of their contact with practice: Student-teachers agreed it formed the

programme’s most important stage, making them more realistic and mature as

educators. It afforded them more time to acclimatize themselves to the school’s

ethos, and gave them the opportunity to see how it functions. Reports from all

three students confirmed the above:

I feel more ready to stand in a classroom. As a new teacher I feel insecure, but this

has been somewhat reduced. (AP)

Through my involvement in school life and teaching, I had the opportunity to

experience a school unit’s everyday reality, to see how real educators approached

specific teaching units, and to grasp the distance between the national curriculum’s

prescriptions and actual feasible results. (GP)

By observing and conducting teaching sessions I managed, to some extent, to merge

theory and practice. In this way I could study and evaluate the impact of teaching

practices, mine or other teachers’, on the students. (PP)

They came to appreciate the impact of merging theory and practice on their pro-fessional development. Yet all three noted that the programme’s second stage

could have been better organized, detecting the malfunctions in the partnership

between schools and university. For example, supervisor presence should be

stronger, fostering a climate of dialogue, in order to ‘illuminate any issues on the

teaching of Ancient Greek that resulted from practice, issues which the seminars

may have left untouched’ (G). Furthermore, they believed they spent too much

time observing, which impeded the educational process without significant bene-

fits, since the observation process was unplanned and insufficiently fruitful. Theirremarks confirm that experience-based learning is more effective under specific

conditions, and only after appropriate planning (Bridges, 1993; Zeichner, 2006).

The teaching experience was ranked as the most important programme




component, and viewed as the programme’s major strength. By planning, con-

ducting, and evaluating teaching sessions, student-teachers were given the chance

to venture ‘different teaching experiments and to become more familiar with the

teaching act, focusing on teaching problems and on the impact of teaching choices

on the school students’ (PP). They came to realize that theoretical knowledge doesnot suffice, that practice has its own dynamics, that ‘only by getting personally

involved in a process, can one actually understand it’ (AP). Thus, through their

involvement in the programme, they recognized the benefits of merging theory

and practice. They also learned how to observe a teaching session, focusing on

specific issues, and understood the importance of evaluation and reflection for the

improvement of the teaching act. As GP mentioned:

I will always remember the importance of the discussions after the teaching sessions.

I will not often have the chance to hear such comments and remarks on my teachingin the future. That’s why I consider these discussions extremely valuable.

Moreover, student-teachers modified their attitude towards teaching in general,

ceasing to view it as a series of pre-designed repetitive phases. It was regarded

‘as a particularly complicated process’ (AP); ‘as a composite work, influenced

by many factors, which may lead to results as unexpected as people’s different

reactions to common stimuli’ (GP). Only one student-teacher related teaching

choices to schools of theory, but even he did not proceed to their epistemological

implications, which define the teachers’ perspective and attitude towards educa-tion in general.

As one might expect, the student-teachers’ attitudes towards the subject

of Ancient Greek were significantly modified. As PP mentioned: ‘I was given the

chance to disentangle myself from grammar and syntax formalism, by simultane-

ously examining form and content, and by exploring the subject’s experiential

and interdisciplinary dimensions’. GP added: ‘Through the theoretical seminars I

was informed on the subject’s contemporary teaching principles, and through my

contact with practice I was able to put limits on the expectations and demands I

can have of my students’. Importantly, all three agreed on the main problem inthe teaching of Ancient Greek: its formalistic, knowledge-centred approach, and

the lack of relating Ancient Greek language and literature to today’s world.

(c) In terms of their involvement in practical educational research: the student-

teachers recognized the importance of research for understanding and enhancing

the educational process. Through action research, they seem to have realized that

practitioners should play a leading role in this process.

I discovered the role of teachers as researchers who view teaching as a process of

continuous feedback [. . .] My involvement in the research was very creative, as I

formed and implemented strategic actions, which were then the object of observa-

tion, critical comments, and change [. . .] By engaging in such a reflective process I

was able to interpret what takes place in the classroom and the school. (PP)




It is very important that, despite certain regressions and their persistent need for

guidance, they did not treat educational research technocratically. They recog-

nized the value of reflection, which opens different perspectives on teaching,

throughout a teacher’s professional career. GP was quite clear on that:

I learned to evaluate my teaching behaviour and the students’ reactions to it, through

a process of assessment, self-assessment, and reflection.

Moreover, the student-teachers recognized the importance of relating teaching to

research, and underlined ‘how much the former is aided by the latter’ (AP). In this

way, they adopted a different attitude towards their involvement in both research

and teaching, now regarded as directly interrelated. PP’s views on successful

teachers were indicative of this attitude:

Successful teachers are reflective teachers, who form and modify their teaching andresearch practice, according to the impact of their practice on their students. Their

involvement in research expands their reflective scope, and improves both their

scientific knowledge and their teaching practice.

This positive opinion on action research, the various forms of which are consid-

ered more appropriate for researching the teaching act, is explained:

Action research is considered successful, because it aims at supporting educators in

dealing with the educational act’s challenges and problems, and in implementing

innovation through reflection and discussion. Educators contribute to the improve-ment of school reality and practice, while they also expand their knowledge and

professional skills. Therefore, educators are able to develop and implement action

strategies for improvement, to evaluate the results of their efforts, and perhaps to

urge other educators to modify their own school practice. (PP)

Through their involvement, the three students recognized the importance and

dynamics of action research, and the benefits gained by becoming action research-

ers. Yet at least two of them were unable to disentangle themselves from the

social studies dominant positivistic paradigm (Greenwood, 2007, p. 257), which

attributes reliability only to representational research with generalizable find-

ings. Both GP and AP regarded the lack of representation as a key weakness. GP

mentions that ‘educational research is successful when it can produce reliable find-

ings, from a representative sample, with the right methodology’. Both articulate

this explicitly, when asked about their future choices of research methodology:

I would choose a method that permits the generalization of findings, as I believe that

a case study, for instance, may produce reliable findings; it is however hard for these

findings to lead to sound conclusions. (AP)

It would perhaps be more fruitful to adopt a large scale research method, capable of

producing useful general conclusions on the impact of the teaching theories under

study on learning. (GP)




Discussion and implications

The data collected and analysed above demonstrate that this alternative approach

to pre-service teacher education could, under specific conditions, prepare student-

teachers for the complex role they have to play in today’s schools. We must createopportunities for universities and schools to establish new kinds of partnership,

where university and school agents act as equal partners. This is the only way to

develop both academic theory and educational practice in a mutually interactive

way. Of course, upgrading the role of the educational act and regarding practi-

tioners as equal partners is a challenge, particularly in Greece, where theory exclu-

sivity guarantees university status for academics and many educators. Moreover,

it is difficult to recreate the relationship between university experts and extra-

university public, because of the complex scientific, technical, social and ethical

dilemmas that arise (Greenwood, 2007, p. 261).

In this context, the selection and involvement of mentor teachers should

be more systematic. As mentor teachers have to turn into clinical teachers, they

should be selected not simply because they are good teachers, but mainly because

they have the ability to help others become good teachers. The clinical teacher

‘is guide, model, counselor, adviser and supervisor as well as teacher of teachers’

(Edelfelt & Coble, 2004, p. 450).

Equally important is that the student-teachers take an active role in their

own education, by participating in the teaching act and engaging in actionresearch. They engage in critical reflection on specific aspects of educational the-

ory, seeing that participatory action research offers a form of knowledge different

from the experts’ ‘dominant knowledge’ (Taylor & Petit, 2007, p. 237). Within

the framework of educational classroom action research they assume responsibil-

ity for their own professional development as they become researchers and self-

evaluators. Both stages lead to reflective practice; they reflect on specific issues,

become familiar with reflective skills, and realize the need for reflection through-

out their educational action. Such a PTE programme nurtures their disposition to

continually seek answers to difficult problems of teaching and learning, develop-

ing the skills to learn from practice (and their colleagues) as well as to learn for

practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

However, for this process to be effective, certain conditions must be met.

Firstly, student-teachers need to expand their de facto limited experience, so as

to bring forward their preconceptions, and expand their reflection on teaching,

their role as teachers, and the philosophy of the curriculum and specific subjects.

This can be achieved through cooperation with experienced educators. However,

the latter should be systematically involved in the process, being properly pre-pared for their participation in the programme, and having realized both their

obligation towards student-teachers and the benefits they stand to gain them-

selves. Cooperation does not mean transfer of good practices from experienced to




inexperienced teachers, but exchange of views and reflective evaluation of teach-

ing practices, their theoretical framework, and the subject’s philosophy, in order

to comprehend and enhance the educational process. Practitioners realize that

student-teachers bring new ideas, which may form the basis for their in-service

education and help them to re-evaluate their practice; student-teachers are intro-duced to various practices, seeing how different theoretical proposals are tested

and modified in practice. Under these circumstances, the school functions as a

laboratory, rendering the student-teachers researchers, exploring and reflecting

on practices, attitudes and beliefs.

Secondly, the involvement of student-teachers in educational research

through action research is equally challenging, and must be properly managed

(Taylor & Petit, 2007, p. 241). To maximize their benefits from the research

process, student-teachers must gradually familiarize themselves with both the

teaching act and the research methodology. Classroom observation and gradual

transfer of teaching duties can be of assistance. In this way, both student-teachers

and school students become increasingly familiar with experimental teaching, as

the educator’s teaching choices are first planned and then evaluated. In such an

exploratory context, systematic action research does not seem alien. Moreover,

to enhance student-teachers’ involvement in such practical educational research,

universities must have a similar attitude towards qualitative research in general

and action research in particular, emphasizing that action research is real research

capable of making an important contribution to knowledge.

References

Aspald, R., & Brown, G. (1993). Keeping teaching professional. In D. Bridges & T.Kerry (Eds.), Developing teachers professionally (pp. 6–22). London & NewYork: Routledge.

Bridges, D. (1993). School-based teacher education. In D. Bridges & T. Kerry

(Eds.), Developing teachers professionally (pp. 51–66). London & New York:Routledge.Brown, L., Henry, C., Henry, J., & McTaggart, R. (1988). Action research: Notes on

the national seminar. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action researchreader (pp. 343–345). Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and actionresearch. London: The Falmer Press.

Carroll, S., & Yarger-Kane, G. (2000). Designing projects to promote student teacherinquiry: An evolutionary approach. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2), 90–99.

Cassotakis, M. (1987). Le mouvement de réforme de la formation des enseignants

en Grèce. In A. Kazamias & M. Kassotakis (Eds.), Teacher education in theEuropean Community (pp. 381–406). Crete: University of Crete Press.Catelli, L., Padovano, K., & Costello, J. (2000). Action research in the context of

a school-university partnership: Its value, problems, issues and benefits.Educational Action Research, 8(2), 225–242.




Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journalof Teacher Education, 57 (3), 300–314.

Day, C. (1990). The development of teachers’ personal practical knowledge throughschool-based curriculum development projects. In C. Day, M. Pope & P.Denicolo (Eds.), Insight into teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 213–239).

London, New York, Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning . London: The

Falmer Press.Edelfelt, R., & Coble, C. (2004). University-school teacher education partnerships in

North Carolina. Journal of In-service Education, 30(3), 443–462.Elliott, J. (Ed.). (1993). Reconstructing teacher education: Teacher development .

London: The Falmer Press.Francis, D., & Ingram-Starrs, L. (2005). The labour of learning to reflect. Teachers

and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(6), 541–553.Greenwood, D. (2007). Teaching/learning action research requires fundamental

reforms in public higher education. Action Research, 5(3), 249–264.Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis? London: Falmer.Hargreaves, A. (2000). Professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and

Teaching, Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151–182.Hopf, D., & Xwhellis, P. (2003). Gymnasium and Lyceum in Greece [text in Greek].

Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2000). The action research process as a means of helping stu-

dent-teachers understand and fulfill the complex role of the teacher. EducationalAction Research, 8(1), 115–136.

Kubler LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice

teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflec-tion in teacher development (pp. 23–38). London: The Falmer Press.

McIntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher develop-ment (pp. 39–52). London: The Falmer Press.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project .London: Routledge.

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research.London: Sage.

O’Donelle, J., & Callegos, R. (2006). Project Movemos: A university–public school

collaboration. Action in Teacher Education, 27 (4), 12–22.Owen, M. (2006). Conflict and convergence: The ethics review of action research.

Journal of Academic Ethics, 4(1–4), 61–75.Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student

teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching,Theory and Practice, 11(1), 96–116.

Price, J., & Valli, L. (2006). Preservice teachers becoming agents of change: Pedagogicalimplications for action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 57–72.

Richardson, V. (1994). Teacher inquiry as staff development. In S. Hollingsworth& H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: 93rd NSSE

Yearbook, Part I (pp. 186–203). Chicago: National Society for the Study ofEducation, University of Chicago Press.

Ross, D. (1987). Action research for preservice teachers: A description of why andhow. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 131–150.




Salteris, N. (2006). Lifelong teacher education: Investigating the reflective practitioner[text in Greek]. Athens: Taxideutis.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Spanos, G. (2005). Curricula of universitiy departments, and pedagogical-psychological

training and instructive sufficiency of candidate teachers in classical studies. In

G. Spanos (Ed.), The philologist in the modern society: Studies – possibilities – prospects [text in Greek] (pp. 15–29). Athens: Metaixmio.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development .London: Heineman.

Tsafos, V. (2004). The teaching of Ancient Greek literature and language: To an alter-native approach of ancient world . Athens: Metaixmio.

Taylor, P., & Petit, J. (2007). Learning and teaching participation through actionresearch: Experiences from an innovative masters programme. Action Research, 5(3), 231–247.

Tichen, A., & Fellow, R.D. (1996). Technical, practical and emancipatory research:

are the distinctions becoming blurred? Paper presented at the CARN Conferenceon Interprofessional Learning through Action Research. Newcastle, 18–20October.

Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of thekind, ‘How do I improve my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19,41–52.

Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge: Creating your own liv-ing educational theories. Dorset: Hyde Publications.

Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflectivepractice in teaching and teacher education. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal & S. Vaage

(Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions (pp. 9–27). London: The Falmer Press.Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of

college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (3), 326–340.

Vassilis Tsafos is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Early Childhood Education, University

of Athens, Greece. He has worked as a Deputy Councillor of the Pedagogical Institute

of Greece and as a teacher in schools of Secondary Education. His research and

writing is particularly informed by teaching theory, cultural and curriculum studies.His current areas of research interest include topics about curriculum, methods of

teaching, educational research methods as well as pre-service and in-service teacher

education. He has written books and articles that try to define the main dimen-

sions in the teaching process and methods of educational research, especially action

research. Address : University of Athens, Navarinou 13A, Athens 10680, Greece.

[Email : [email protected]]

Documents

Action Research in Language Teaching