This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Giessen]On: 21 October 2014, At: 04:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Vocational Education & TrainingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20

Enhancing the link between university and schoolsthrough action research on teaching practicumDi Bloomfield a , Neil Taylor a & Tom W. Maxwell aa Centre for Research on Education in Context University of New England , AustraliaPublished online: 14 Aug 2008.

To cite this article: Di Bloomfield , Neil Taylor & Tom W. Maxwell (2004) Enhancing the link between university andschools through action research on teaching practicum, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 56:3, 355-372, DOI:10.1080/13636820400200259

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820400200259

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 56, Number 3, 2004

355

Enhancing the Link between University

and Schools through Action Research on

Teaching Practicum

DI BLOOMFIELD, NEIL TAYLOR & TOM W. MAXWELL

Centre for Research on Education in Context,

University of New England, Australia

ABSTRACT The question of student teachers connecting what is learned at

university and within school sites has always been considered problematic.

At the University of New England (UNE), in New South Wales, Australia, this

issue is addressed through an action research project undertaken by fourth

year Bachelor of Education (BEd) primary students during their final

professional experience component, i.e. an internship. This article sets out

the theoretical framework for the project, which is grounded on previous

work on the problems of knowledge production. Additionally, the

articulation between the action research project and professional

experience within the internship is discussed. Although this article reports

on a project designed within the context of the Australian teacher education

system, the concept may well be of interest to a much wider audience.

Introduction and Context

This article is written within the context of teacher education in Australia. It provides a description of a project designed to strengthen the cooperative links between a particular university (University of New England [UNE] in New South Wales) and the schools involved in the final professional experience component of the primary Bachelor of Education

(BEd) programme at that university. The model of teaching practicum or professional experience within

BEd degrees in Australia is structurally very similar to that of the United Kingdom (Grainger & Taylor, 2004). However, in Australia the situation with practicum requirements in terms of duration is complicated because each state within the federation has its own education system with

different training and registration requirements for teachers. Thus, for Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Di Bloomfield et al

356

example, in New South Wales, whilst at present no specific regulations for the amount of professional experience exist, for most awards the minimum practicum requirement is 40 days for a postgraduate diploma (PGDip) and 12 weeks for a bachelor’s degree. States that have

registration bodies have developed more explicit requirements: Victoria requiring 9 weeks practicum for the PGDip and Queensland 12 weeks for the same qualification. A further complication is that Queensland requires a 2-year PGDip compared with 1 year in New South Wales. Without a centralised system of registration of awards and teachers the transfer of teachers between states within Australia (and overseas) is a

complicated issue. However, regardless of the duration of the practicum for these

models for teacher education, initial periods of practicum are usually spent simply observing experienced teachers, and getting to know school routines and procedures. This is followed by gradually increasing periods of small group and whole-class teaching until student teachers assume

full-class responsibility for a sustained period of time, under qualified teacher supervision. For many awards, including the UNE Bachelor of Education (Primary), the final professional experience component is an internship. Within this 10-week placement, the student teacher establishes beginning teacher competency and then, for up to 8 weeks, works in a co-teaching role with their mentor teacher, teaching up to a 0.6

load with full ‘duty of care’ for the class during this time. In Australia, some institutions, particularly in rural areas do not visit

their students at all during the professional experience placement unless there are specific problems. This is a consequence of the large distances such visits would involve at a time when budgets are considerably constrained and academic workloads have significantly increased. Hence,

it is up to supervising or mentor teachers to both report on and grade the student teacher or intern. In cases of students ‘at risk’ of failure, the final decision is made with the support of the university. Supervising teachers receive some payment for guiding the professional learning of the student teacher within the university guidelines, and for the reporting and grading process.

Assessment of professional experience in Australia appears to be rather similar to the situation in the United Kingdom prior to the advent of the system of very precise standards, with student teachers having to demonstrate certain broad-based competencies on the practicum, rather than having to meet a set of highly focused standards. The areas of competency include:

• using and developing professional knowledge and values;

• communicating, interacting and working with students and others; • planning and managing the teaching and learning process; • monitoring and assessing student progress and learning outcomes; D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

Gie

ssen

] at

04:

41 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

357

• reflecting, evaluating and planning for continuous improvement (Department of Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs, 1996).

However, each of these broad competencies is further subdivided into a

series of outcomes and associated indicators. Thus, for example, under the competency area ‘planning and managing the teaching and learning process’ one outcome is ‘maintains a classroom atmosphere conducive to learning’ of which one of the indicators is ‘encourages positive student behaviour’. Hence, the Australian system of broad-based competencies, when examined in detail, is in fact similar to the United Kingdom system

of highly-focused standards, in the generic areas of teaching at least. Teacher preservice education has come under considerable

scrutiny in Australia in recent years. Two documents published in 2000 raised a number of concerns about the quality of initial teacher education in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. These were Brock’s (2000) review of recommendations and conclusions of 21 Australian (national) and NSW

reports into teacher education from 1980 onwards and the Ramsey Report (2000), at that time the latest report on NSW teacher education. Ramsey, in particular, was critical of the existing practicum model that he believed was failing to prepare future teachers effectively for the challenges that they faced in the profession:

Student teachers’ education programs need to have more

professional experience in the workplace if New South Wales is to have an effective system of teacher education ... Experienced teachers and teacher educators must work more closely together ... The present practicum model in teacher education courses is failing to prepare effectively future

teachers for the challenges that they face. (p. 10)

This Report called for a shift in school-based teacher education from that aligned to a ‘training’ model to one of ‘professional experience’. Thus, the challenge for universities in responding to these concerns was not just in considering increased length of professional experience placements, but for the development of new forms and relationships aiming to support

students’ professional learning in ways cognisant both with the realities of schools and the ideals of the profession of teaching. Thus, Ramsey called for new policy directions to ‘reconnect’ schools and universities. This article outlines the response of the School of Education of the University of New England (UNE) to these criticisms by outlining an innovative new unit based upon an action research project that is helping

to build better links between the university and the school system. These links aim to operate at both the level of professional relationships, as well as at an epistemological level in terms of linking school- and university-based bodies of knowledge. The unit, known as the Teaching Project, is D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

Gie

ssen

] at

04:

41 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Di Bloomfield et al

358

also designed to enhance the reflective skills of student teachers during their final professional experience component before commencing employment.

An enduring concept in teacher education programmes is that of

reflective practice, (Schön, 1983, 1993). Student teachers at UNE, at least through the first 3 years of the internal BEd programme, are taught how to reflect on the situations that they meet in practice (especially in the various professional experience components undertaken), exploring and accounting for them in different ways so that a range of approaches to addressing problems of practice may be tried and evaluated. In fact this

reflection is also incorporated into many activities in university-based learning about teaching as well. For example, this requirement is often assessed through reflective journals, or self-evaluations of teaching or teaching/learning plans and/or essays or other assignments. In these ways, the technical competencies of teaching are linked to the individual agency of the teacher in interpreting and responding to situations in the

classroom coupled with their learning experiences at university. The ability of students to reflect on practice and identify their own

professional development needs is a common requirement in teacher education programmes and is an ongoing theme in the internal BEd programme at UNE. A particular challenge is to assist students to develop a capacity for critical reflection that moves beyond a tendency for a

rather superficial, non-evaluative ‘thinking about’ experience. Students need to be actively supported to critique beyond their own and others’ observed practices, to question assumptions, values and responses against some understanding of the social, historical and political discourses that inform such practices, and their reflections.

Because of the extremely complex nature of the teaching and

learning environment, helping neophyte teachers to develop a full range of skills during their professional experiences including the internship is by its very nature problematic. Assessment practices within professional experience often fail to take into account the complexity and diversity of placement contexts, and the situated nature of the learning environment. They tend to focus too much attention on readily identifiable skill-based

competencies that are seen as easy to measure (Coll et al, 2003). However, as Stones (1994) points out this approach may impede the development of an individual’s capability to engage in reflective practice, and the diagnosis of their own strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, it is these non-technical competencies or so-called soft skills that are commonly valued by employers (see Coll et al, 2002).

The following case study demonstrates how action research is used to extend student teachers’ development as reflective practitioners from reflection-on-practice to critical reflection-on and-in-practice (Schön, 1983, 1993). This is achieved via a scaffolded process of action research based upon the well-known spiral model of Kemmis & McTaggart (1988).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

359

With the assistance of a comprehensive model for reconnaissance, the spiral scaffolds the beginning teachers’ learning, which takes place as they research a question of interest to them. This engagement in an action research process aims for improvement in the teaching situation

and professional competence of the intern, as well as beginning to develop an understanding of what is required for teachers to research their own practice (Grundy, 1995).

By incorporating an action research project that focuses on the student teacher’s practice within the professional experience placement, a key approach we have adopted is to refrain from privileging academic

knowledge. This position arises from consideration of the ground-breaking ‘new knowledge production’ work of Gibbons et al (1994) and the further critique and extension of this work undertaken by Scott et al (2002). These authors distinguish Mode 1 knowledge—traditional university-based knowledge production from Mode 2 knowledge, which they regard as:

produced in (the) context of application; transdisciplinary;

heterogeneous; heterarchical and transient; socially accountable and reflexive, including a wider and more temporary and heterogeneous set of practitioners, collaborating on problems defined in specific and localised context. (Lee et al, 2000, p. 124)

Through their analysis, Gibbons et al (1994) argue that knowledge production has moved out of the disciplinary university to the places where people work, that is, knowledge produced in the ‘context of application’. This view of knowledge production emphasises the need for a situated pedagogy and is especially appropriate for the teaching

practicum, where beginning teachers attempt to develop an understanding of their new working environment. Alternatively put, teachers have a body of professional knowledge from which they draw for everyday decision-making and they have situation-specific knowledge that they also draw upon. It is precisely this Mode 2 knowledge that beginning teachers do not have, and which they need to draw on to

complete successful practica and internships. At UNE, specific attention is given to this mode of knowledge

production in an attempt to build a stronger link between the learning at university and the realities of working within the school context, through the incorporation of a form of action research implied by the Kemmis & McTaggart model. Such an approach aims to more specifically integrate

the theory/practice binaries common within preservice awards. Furthermore, such an approach is supported by Tomlinson (1999) who rejects the view put forward by other authors, such as Reason (1990), that it is only the good education students who are reflective. We hold to Schön’s view that all students are able to engage in professional learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Di Bloomfield et al

360

given the appropriate context. Certainly the Teaching Project unit is designed in a way that all students are required to reflect on an issue in the context of their internship and not only display reflection-in-action, but to move a step further and demonstrate reflection-on-action as

espoused by Schön (1983, 1993) as they attempt to initiate change for improvement in their classroom context. The students are also encouraged to consider the views of Posner (1993) that we do not actually learn from experience as much as we learn from reflecting on experience and many claim to find Posner’s model, ‘Experience + Reflection = Growth’, a significant influence on their thinking during their

internship. By developing a more rigorously reflective approach to ‘experience’, the authority of any knowledge claimed to arise from such experience is put under question and the constructed nature of all experience is foregrounded (Scott, 1992). Introducing a more rigorous approach to what counts as data and its analysis encourages students to recognise the ways in which their ‘vision’ is structured through the

various disciplinary discourses, both academic and school-based. The section that follows briefly outlines the development and

introduction of the action research project unit by the School of Education (SoE) of the UNE using these ideas.

Background

In response to the Ramsey Report, the SoE developed and piloted a new final year teacher education unit that used action research as a learning process for interns and addressed many of the issues raised. This unit, entitled the ‘Teaching Project’, had close links to the 10-week final semester internship and had an overarching aim of integrating university-

based learning with school-based learning.

The ‘Teaching Project’ Unit

With respect to student teachers’ learning, in completing the unit they would have:

• identified those attributes that might be improved using a professional attribute profile and their practicum reports, and reflected upon their own experiences in schools;

• described and justified a suitable methodology (action research) by which the attribute development could be addressed;

• reported on the implementation of a reconnaissance, from which an

action research question was developed, and an action research cycle, and made judgements about what the next action should be in the on-going development of their professional competence.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

361

The unit was piloted twice before full implementation in 2001, resulted in various early modifications (see Maxwell et al, 2001), and has been implemented with at least 100 students each year since 2001.

First Semester Unit Work

The initial phase of the unit (usually undertaken in semester one of the fourth year) involves the students in 9 or 10 weekly workshops mainly addressing the purpose and process of action research. These aim to prepare students to undertake action research in the second semester

during their 10-week practicum. Each week in their first semester of this unit, prior to the weekly

workshop, the students are required to undertake a series of readings. They are also required to contribute to weekly online sessions (using an Internet-based bulletin board called WebCT) by a series of scaffolding questions relating to the readings. Key works are Grundy (1995) and

Kemmis & McTaggart (1988), and case studies of action research in classrooms. The workshops and readings involve students in a range of issues to prepare them to undertake action research in the second semester: distinguishing between action research and ‘traditional’ education research, and between various models of action research, developing a research question, analysing teaching competencies,

understanding research ethics and engaging in the analysis of previous action research projects, as well as one workshop each on data gathering and analysis. Assignments focusing on the action research process and analysis of the WebCT texts form the basis for half of the assessment in the unit.

With respect to students undertaking their own action research

project, we have found that it is advisable to ask students to wait until they are some weeks into their placement before formulating a research question. However, students prioritise aspects of their own professional development from an analysis of their professional competencies in the decontextualised context of the University. These competencies need to be tested against the demands of the actual workplace and the advice of

their mentors. In order to facilitate this an extended version of reconnaissance was developed by Maxwell represented by the model presented in Figure 1.

Maxwell argues that reconnaissance has three parts, each having different emphases depending on each student’s needs in the situation. These parts are interactive because each influences the other, as the

beginning teacher searches for a specific, strategic and ‘do-able’ question. The ‘situation analysis’ has strong allegiance to the original Skilbeck

notion (Skilbeck, 1975). The workplace is carefully analysed as interns become familiar with it to identify possible area(s) for research, some problem(s) to address or some area(s) of interest. ‘‘Literature’’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Di Bloomfield et al

362

incorporates the notion of the Mode 2 knowledge production. It includes knowledge from those in the teaching context, preferably a mentor or admired colleague, as well as relevant school-based professional literature. This is given similar weighting (by the students and lecturers

and in the final report) as knowledge from academe, e.g. journal articles. The symbolism of the inverted commas (‘literature’) is to recognise that academic knowledge is not privileged.

Figure 1. Reconnaissance related to the Action Research Question (adapted from

Maxwell, 2004).

Consideration of both Mode 1 and 2 knowledge sources assists interns in clarifying both the areas for research and a likely research question. Alternatively, the ‘literature’ provides a way into the research by, for example, suggesting possible methodological approaches and/or

conceptual frameworks. Finally, the ‘competencies’ remind interns/student teachers that teaching is problematic, and that they are likely to have some areas that are not as strong as others and this might assist them in making decisions about the action research question. Often the reconnaissance comes first, but some interns come quickly to a thematic concern or area of inquiry. We make a case that the

reconnaissance still needs to be done despite this because it assists in taking the work to deeper level causes, rather than symptoms. Furthermore, in all our work we insist upon a research question being explicitly articulated. The question needs to be one based upon the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

363

notion of improvement, i.e. couched in such a way as to imply that improvement is being sought. Having formed the action research question, the interns are required to undertake one cycle of action research and are introduced to a number of models (e.g. Lewin, 1946;

Elliott, 1991; Johnson, 2002). However, the Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) model (Figure 2) is emphasised.

Figure 2. The Kemmis & McTaggart Action Research Spiral

(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p. 14).

Second Semester Unit Work

As indicated, during the second semester the students undertake an action research project during their 10-week practicum. Research questions may relate directly to students’ competence in a particular area of teaching, or to an aspect of the teaching and learning environment that they feel needs to be modified. Throughout the project students have online support from their university tutors and their peers if required.

Students are asked to complete at least one cycle of the action research model and produce a 3500-4000 word report based on their research project. This report forms 50% of their assessment in the unit and is separate from their internship assessment. This unit is the final one in their BEd, requiring students to engage in critically reflective work and thus placing quite a lot of pressure upon students and on academic staff. D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

Gie

ssen

] at

04:

41 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Di Bloomfield et al

364

The Internship and Its Relationship to the Teaching Project

The relationship between the internship and the Teaching Project units in the last year of the Bachelor of Education award provides interesting points of articulation, synergies and, at times, tension. Arising from the

interaction between these units are contestations concerning such issues as the legitimation of different sites and forms of knowledge, the establishment and characteristics of professional identities, and the operation of networks of power.

Table I provides a summary of some of these issues as they arise within the two units. First, the characteristics of the two units

concurrently undertaken by interns in terms of the unit objectives are listed. This provides a foundation for particular comparison of what is expected or assumed within each unit with respect to the developing professional identity(ies) of the intern, as well as aspects of power and knowledge operational within each unit.

The internship involves students in a 10-week placement, in which

the final 8 weeks are structured in a co-teaching model, the intern being given ‘independent duty of care’ with a class for a 0.6 teaching load. The mentor/intern relationship aims to be more collaborative and ‘horizontal’ than the hierarchical supervisor/student relationships of previous professional experience components within the award. The internship primarily involves the student teacher in developing further the

competencies of a beginning teacher and demonstrating these to ‘expert’ mentor teachers from the profession. There is an inevitable element of ‘boundary maintenance’ exerted by the profession and thus students as interns often experience strong pressure to conform to the expectations of their mentor/assessor (Furlong & Maynard, 1995). The Teaching Project, however, is underpinned by a proposition that teachers, albeit

beginning ones, can themselves introduce change into their teaching practice and establish the legitimacy of that change through an action research process. It can thus be seen as involving both knowledge generation and knowledge legitimation, rather than application of knowledge generated by others, whether through the academy or the profession.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

365

Internship Teaching Project Unit

Objectives of the units

The internship involves:

An induction/bridge into the

profession

Demonstration of beginning teacher

competences

Partial teaching-load with an

emphasis on quality and reflective

practice.

Collaborative mentor/intern

relationship

The Teaching Project requires:

Undertaking a small piece of

‘rigorous’ research into an aspect of

intern’s own teaching practice within

the context of the internship

placement

Evaluation of the change/innovation

in the intern’s practice

Potential development of new

knowledge

Identity of beginning teacher/intern

What does the Internship require:

Intern to successfully model/perform

the attributes of the beginning

teacher as defined by the profession

To be assessed by the profession

Intern as novice, mentor as expert

Reflective practice

Theory applied to practice

What does the Teaching Project

require:

Intern as researcher and evaluator of

their own practice

Integration of the discursive

practices of the university with those

of the profession/ workplace

Assessed by the university in action

research expertise

Intern as researcher, mentor as

possible critical friend

Theory–practice dialectic

Issues of knowledge and power

Within the internship:

Hierarchy: knowledge of mentor

prioritised

Legitimation of knowledge and

practice controlled by the profession

and practising teachers

Knowledge and practice arising from

applied theory

Within the Teaching Project:

Hierarchy: intern’s knowledge

validated and afforded status

through research project

Knowledge arising from practice

legitimated by the intern and the

university

Knowledge and practice arises from

intern’s research-practice dialectic

Novice producing new knowledge for

their own professional practice

Table I. A summary of some of these issues as they arise within the internship and

Teaching Project units.

Research has been commonly constructed as ‘other’ to the messiness of ‘practice’ (Brennan, 1998; Fox, 2003). It is this binary that such advocates

of practice-based research as Schön (1983, 1993) and Carr & Kemmis (1986) sought to transcend. Such work is commonly aligned with an emancipatory agenda (Kemmis & McTaggart 2000), one that not only aims at attending to issues of social justice, but also seeks to shift the identities of practitioners such as teachers, from those who apply D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

Gie

ssen

] at

04:

41 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Di Bloomfield et al

366

knowledge to those who generate, articulate and critique their professional knowledge base. It is not surprising that approaches that aim at ‘working against the grain’, in this case novice teachers engaged in researching their practice within established networks of institutional

power, at times encounters resistance from the profession. Interns engaging in action research concurrent with their internship have in some cases encountered critique from their mentor teachers. This is usually framed as ‘research’, and as being ‘unnecessary’ work when engaged with at the expense of more ‘practice’ in classroom teaching. Such resistance can be seen as countering beginning teachers

constructing for themselves professional identities as researching or reflective practitioners. Despite such instances of resistance, the linking of the Teaching Project with the internship has generally been positively embraced by both interns and the profession. We would claim that, by engaging with these two units concurrently, an opportunity is presented for beginning teachers, academics and the teaching profession to

consider some fruitful tensions pertinent to the teaching profession, included within which are views such as:

• the teacher as a craftsperson/practitioner and/or the teacher as a

researcher; • teaching and research as practices of conformity and/or practices of

emancipation/transgression;

• the teacher as an applier of knowledge and/or the teacher as a knowledge generator/evaluator;

• the internship and the Teaching Project units as bridging the theory/practice/ university/school transitional spaces or in opposition.

Reflections

The university-based learning unit described above is closely connected to the profession and the workplace. It is aimed at developing students’ reflective and practitioner research skills. To date, feedback from students who have completed this unit has generally been very positive. Many students initially express a degree of trepidation before they

embark on the project, as most have never completed a research task of this depth before. This trepidation is usually linked to concerns about identifying a suitable research question or not receiving the full cooperation of their teacher mentor. However, by the end of the project most students comment in their final reports that they had experienced considerable professional development in the area that they have

researched. Furthermore, because the students not only research an area of concern, but use this information to develop, implement and evaluate an action plan, most report that the Teaching Project impacts effectively on their confidence in the classroom, particularly to try out new ideas, and it often gives them greater insight into children’s learning. For

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

367

example, one student who recently completed her a project in which she introduced and evaluated a new mathematics programme with a Year 6 class, commented at the end of her write up:

Through my experience (on the Teaching Project) I have

changed my thinking on teaching mathematics. In recent weeks I have had more confidence in myself and I have been trying out different ways to reach students ... in the future I will develop upon what I started by finding other effective strategies for developing students knowledge and motivation in Mathematics. (Gezer, 2004)

Another student reported:

The action research project has been an interesting and

rewarding way to complete the (BEd) degree. The process allows for real growth and development in understanding of the area chosen for research and change, and your own

capabilities, while at the same time supporting and guiding you as one of the participants. (Lowe, 2004)

In an interview with a student who had recently completed her action research project in which she implemented a new spelling programme with a year 1 class, the following issues were discussed (I = interviewer; S

= student Sarah – a pseudonym):

I: How did you feel about doing an action research project

during your internship? S: I wasn’t looking forward to it because I think it is very stressful for interns to have to worry about that as well as doing their internship.

I: Apart from the extra stress did anything else bother you? S: I was worried about getting part way through the assignment and then not being able to get enough data or the data not being good enough…but when I actually got to doing it was fine. I: Did you come across any particular difficulties during the project?

S: Getting a question ... I couldn’t really think about it to begin with and then a couple of weeks went by and I was thinking ... em ... what am I going to do ... and then I thought behaviour management, that will be easy ... but then I was asked to do this programme (First Spelling Programme) with the children ... so I went with this.

I: Where there any positives about doing the project? S: Well really reflecting on your own practice and seeing if it improves because if you don’t do action research you don’t have any hard data and you don’t have any real evidence of improvement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Di Bloomfield et al

368

I: Were you satisfied with the evidence that you got? S: Yes there was an improvement in spelling, but it wasn’t always easy to see if it was my input or their normal English classes which produced the improvement ... I’m pretty sure

that this did make a difference ... but there were other variables I couldn’t control. I: Was there any impact on your professional development? S: Well I found researching the literature on early spelling useful and I now know this programme well ... I hadn’t heard about it before ... and I know how to implement it and I

evaluated it.

Like most of the students who complete the teaching project, Sarah had some concerns before starting. However, having completed the project she could see the value of actually collecting and evaluating data in the classroom, and she believed this had impacted positively on her professional development. She was also reflective enough to observe that

the improvement she had achieved may have been influenced by other factors beyond her control.

Clearly, not all students have such positive experiences and an interview with a beginning teacher 8 weeks after she had been graded highly on both her Teaching Project and internship revealed what for her, were some of the tensions associated with concurrently addressing the

expectations of both units. Placed at a school in which challenging behaviour is common, ‘Lou’ struggled across the 10-week placement to establish a productive professional relationship with both her mentor teacher and with her class. Seen as competent by her mentor she was left largely unsupported by this busy Assistant Principal, and feeling ‘under the gaze’ in terms of her grading, chose to be silent: ‘She [the mentor],

thought I was confident, underneath I was feeling very stressed ... I did not want to make it hard for her I kept it to my self’. However, Lou expected her mentor teacher to be aware of her need, ‘When I start to struggle I look for a mentor’s hand’. This uncertainty in terms of the mentor/intern relationship had repercussions within the Teaching Project, in particular in terms of Lou’s confidence in involving the mentor

in her action research: ‘I felt so stressed and unsupported I did not want someone data collecting in my class, I already had the kids watching me ... I did not want to open myself up again and not get support’. She summed up her feelings regarding the linking of these two units thus: ‘The action research project should be later, you need to be in equal relations [with the mentor teacher], and that is what is missing from the

internship’. Lou’s story is only one of many in this program. However, it does reveal some of the challenges for interns in negotiating professional identities as competent teachers as well as reflective researchers of their practice. D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

Gie

ssen

] at

04:

41 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

369

Unfortunately, to date feedback on the project has been gathered in a rather ad hoc manner. However, it is the intention of the authors to conduct a number of in-depth case studies of students’ experiences when completing the Teaching Project and report these in a future article.

We have found that not all students take the opportunity to use WebCT while out on their internship to seek clarification, and ask specific questions about action research and related activities. Since the WebCT work in the second semester is not assessed, we assume that those who do use it as a communication tool see a need for it. Of course, electronic communication does not suit every one of our students. For those who do

use the WebCT bulletin board in this way, a recurring theme in their messages relates to the formulation of the action research question. The approach to reconnaissance advocated to students is clearly a useful tool, but it appears to become somewhat lost in the hurly-burly of the practicum. Part of the problem is that for beginning teachers many areas for research may present themselves and the choice is difficult. For

others survival is paramount or the specific wording of the action research question is difficult to develop and assistance is needed.

We are very mindful of the lack of research skills that our students possess. Despite this we marvel at the way that most students are able to collect credible data over time. We have come to require these data to be presented in appendices (at least) and as assessors we find this

component of the research process the least well handled. This is not surprising considering the students’ lack of research experience. However, the quality of the research projects in general is of a high standard and one report has been published and several have been posted on the Unit website.

The unit appears to be addressing some of the issues raised by

Stones (1994) by encouraging the development of more reflective practitioners, individuals capable of diagnosing their own strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, we believe it is helping to strengthen the connections between schools and the university through seeking to transcend the common binary between research and practice. Additionally, we have also been able to use action research to modify our

own work. We find that there is more to do, as hinted at above but we are convinced that the complementary use of Mode 2 knowledge production is a significant theoretical addition to our work within this unit in particular.

Conclusion and Implications

The Teaching Project unit was first trialled with small groups of students in 1999 and 2000 and when this proved successful it became the only compulsory unit undertaken in the fourth year of the primary BEd at UNE. Very few students are aware of what action research is before they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Di Bloomfield et al

370

begin this unit, and only a small number have undertaken any educational research involving substantive data collection and analysis. The unit allows students to link theory to practice and research to practice and, as such, strengthens the connection between what is learned at university,

and within the context of the school and classroom. The quality of the reports suggests that many students become ‘experts’ in the area they research and this contributes significantly to their professional development. The process of implementing and evaluating change in their classroom, although initially intimidating for many, generally results in enhanced confidence and a strong sense of achievement. Although it

would be unrealistic to assume that most of these students will become ardent action researchers during their teaching careers, we believe that the experience provided through the Teaching Project will make them more reflective and more open to the notion of change for improvement.

Correspondence

Neil Taylor, Centre for Research on Education in Context, School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia (ttaylor6@pobox.une.edu.au).

References

Brennan, M. (1998) Struggles over the Definition and the Practice of the

Professional Doctorate in Australia, Australian Educational Researcher, 25,

pp. 71-89.

Brock, P. (2000) Two Decades of ‘Sound and Fury’ but What’s Changed? Sydney:

Government Printer.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action

research. London: Falmer Press.

Coll, R.K., Zegwaard, K. & Hodges, D. (2002) Science and Technology

Stakeholders’ Ranking of Graduate Competencies Part 1: employers

perspective, Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 3, pp. 19-28.

Coll, R.K., Zegwaard, K. & Hodges, D. (2003) Assessment of Workplace Learning: a

framework, Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 4, pp. 9-18.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996) National

Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching. Canberra: Commonwealth of

Australia, DEETYA.

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Fox, N.J. (2003) Practice-based Evidence: towards collaborative and transgressive

research. Sociology, 37, pp. 81-102.

Furlong, J. & Maynard, T. (1995) Mentoring Student Teachers: the growth of professional knowledge. London: Routledge. D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsita

etsb

iblio

thek

Gie

ssen

] at

04:

41 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOLS

371

Gezer, C. (2004) Action Research Report, assignment for EDCX 390 Teaching

Project.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M.

(1994) The New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

Grainger, S. & Taylor, N. (2004) Cooperative Education in Teacher Education, in

R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds) International Handbook for Cooperative Education.

Boston: World Association for Cooperative Education.

Grundy, S. (1995) Action Research as Professional Development, Occasional Paper

#1, Innovative Links Project. Canberra: AGPS.

Johnson, A.P. (2002) A Short Guide to Action Research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds) (1988) The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn.

Waurn Ponds: Deakin University Press.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000) Participatory Action Research, in N. Denzin &

Y. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Lee, A., Green, B. & Brennan, M. (2000) Organisational Knowledge, Professional

Practice and the at Work, in J. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds) Research and

Knowledge at Work: perspectives, case studies and innovative strategies.

London: Routledge.

Lewin, K. (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2, pp. 34-46.

Lowe, J. (2004) Action Research Report, assignment for EDCX 390 Teaching

Project.

Maxwell, T.W. (2001) EDCX 390 Unit Outline. Armidale: University of New England.

Maxwell, T.W. (2004) Action Research for Bhutan? Rabsel, 3, pp. 1-10.

Maxwell, T.W., Reid, J, McLoughlin, C, Clarke, C. & Nicholls, R. (2001) Online

Support for Action Research in a Teacher Education Practicum in Rural

Australia, refereed paper presented at the Society for the Provision of

Education in Rural Australia Annual Conference, Wagga Wagga, 8-11 July,

2001.

Posner, G. J. (1993) Field Experience: a guide to reflective practice. Longman: New

York.

Ramsey, G. (2000) Quality Matters – Revitalising Teaching: critical times, critical choices, Executive Summary, Report of the Review of Teacher Education, New

South Wales.

Reason, J. (1990) Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schön, D.A. (1993) Knowing-In-action: the new scholarship requires a new

epistemology’, Change, 27, pp. 27-34.

Skilbeck, M. (1975). School-based Curriculum Development and Teacher Education

Policy, Belfast: University of Ulster.

Scott, J. (1992) Experience, in J. Butler & J. Scott (Eds) Feminists Theorise the Political. New York: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Di Bloomfield et al

372

Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I. & Thorn, L. (2002) Integrating Academic and

Professional Knowledge: constructing the practitioner-researcher, in

E. McWilliam (Ed.) Research Training for a Knowledge Economy, 4th

International Biennial Conference of Professional Doctorates: Conference

Proceedings, Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.

Stones, E. (1994) Assessment of a Complex Skill: improving teacher education,

Assessment in Education, 1, pp. 235-251.

Tomlinson, P.D. (1999) Conscious Reflection and Implicit Learning in Teacher

Preparation. Part I: Recent Light on Old Issues, Oxford Review of Education, 25, pp. 405-424.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek G

iess

en]

at 0

4:41

21

Oct

ober

201

4