This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 11:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Years: An InternationalResearch JournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20

RESEARCHING AND LEARNINGTOGETHER: A case‐study ofa collaborative school‐basedassignmentWendy Dewhirst aa Senior Lecturer in Curriculum Studies ,wolverhampton PolytechnicPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Wendy Dewhirst (1985) RESEARCHING AND LEARNINGTOGETHER: A case‐study of a collaborative school‐based assignment, Early Years:An International Research Journal, 6:1, 7-17, DOI: 10.1080/0957514850060103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0957514850060103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and

Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

RESEARCHING AND LEARNING TOGETHER: A case-study of acollaborative school-based assignment

Introduction

A group of six teachers on the B.Ed. In-service 2nd yearOption in Early Childhood (3-8) chose to initiate andorganise their own school-based collaborative assignment.The B.Ed. Option as part of its content was concerned withtwo major areas;

1) A close study of the dynamics of the nursery and firstschool classrooms, and the complexity of relationshipsand interaction patterns within them.2) A review of the developmental research into earlylanguage and literacy.

As a direct result of studying the important issuesof the teacher's role and management style and therecognition of the potential that children have forinfluencing and shaping their own learning, the OptionGroup initiated and organised their own collaborativeschool-based study.

The ensuing results and conclusions that the groupreached both at an individual and collaborative level werethat the assignment had been an effective and stimulatingsituation for them where jointly they had shared andgained insights into their own professional practice.

Background Context

The main part of the course had been designed toexplore current research and practice in early languageand literacy developments. A wide range of literature andstudies were read to support the seminar sessions whichlinked in part the theory/practice threads of the course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

8

The papers studied ranged from Cazden (1972) wherethe importance of the topic, the task, and the listenerare seen to influence child/adult and child/childinteraction to Bassey and Hatch (1979) whose paper givesinfant teachers a useful monitoring guide into their owninteraction styles and Boydell (1978) whose matrix helpsclarify organisational patterns, teaching, learning andassessment.

The research and project materials of Joan Toughwere reviewed leading to a close analysis of the currentwork of Marian Blank (1978), Margaret Clark (1979,1982), Jerome Bruner (1980), Margaret Donaldson (1978,1982). From an exploration of these studies it was hopedto highlight the importance of viewing the child not justas a responder but as an initiator too.

Studies relating to how young children respond to thesetting of school and home were discussed (Tizard, 1982),how they learned their roles as pupils (Willes, 1983) andinteracted with peers and teachers (Clark,Robson andBrowning, 1982; Iwamural, 1980). Seminar papers were setaround case-studies of young children developing awarenessof literacy (Butler, 1980; Bissex, 1980; Payton, 1984).

Discussion ranged wide and often furiously as thegroup were challenged both by the new notions for theirown practice but also the challenge from their own peersas they defended their long-held beliefs. The insightsthat Smith (1981) and particularly Donald Graves (1983)made for the organisation and contexts for the writingprocess, especially the cooperative aspect of the writingconference,particularly fired the imagination of thegroup. The next development in their course seemedinevitable.

Developments

In the light of their discussions and the wide varietyof studies read, certain principles for practice seemed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to be underlined repeatedly:

1) Most learners although developing along broadly similarpathways, retain individual yet effective strategies formaking relevance of the communication context provided agenuine purpose for learning exists.

2) Learning does not have to be a lonely track,there isbenefit on all sorts of levels in cooperation andcollaboration between learners and their teachers.

The group proposed that a cooperative assignmentwould be a worthwhile venture incorporating the new insightsthat they had been discussing. There seemed no cogentreason why a collaborative assignment should not beattempted within the remit and rationale of the courseassessment scheme. In fact it seemed eminently sensibleand a natural outcome of the course they had justexperienced. Permission was sought from the courseleader who was supportive and enthusiastic about theinitiation of the student appraoch to a collaborativeassignment.

The Option tutor then began to formulate a programmeof events and dates to commence and complete the assignment.It had been decided that the school-based study althoughcooperative and collaborative would require to be assessedon an individual basis.

Based on other cooperative experiences the tutor feltthat her role as a coordinator was crucial. She felt theneed for clear control regarding the nature of the assign-ment and coordinated communication about meetings, deadlinesand general last minute chivvying. So to circumvent anypossible or potential difficulties, the tutor cast herselfas the overall coordinator.

On the first 'formal' assignment meeting one teacherwho had particularly enjoyed presenting the Michael Basseyand Nina Hatch (1979) paper suggested it might be useful

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

10

for them all to analyse their own style of interaction andmanagement with the 7 category coding for the interactionsfollowed by the four main evaluative questions. (Seeappendix) The group after discussion decided to investigateif this kind of analysis was a suitable tool for them allto use. A plan of campaign was then agreed.

1) Pilot study to see if the analysis worked. Five minutesample tape recordings would be taken in each of theirclassrooms with the emphasis on their own use of language.2) A review of the recordings with a possible analysis andcoding of the responses.3) Future plans, the design of the study and a clearidentification of the group and individual contributions.

The pilot recording and coding revealed the usefulnessof the interaction categories even though the group wereteaching in very different schools and across the age rangefrom 4-9. With guidance and much animated discussion thefinal programme of work deadlines was formulated. Theindividual and collaborative parts of the assignment weredelineated as follows

The Introduction;Why and how the study was chosen (Individual interpretation),Aims; (Group consensus).Theoretical Background. This would include a cooperativesharing of seminar notes, bibliographical searches, noteswith individual additions and collation of the materialrelevant to their particular context (for example a multi-cultural setting).Plan of the context in which the recordings took place.Individual write-up with an indication of the children,their school, the environment and the teaching sessions.(2 x 30 minutes recordings of different settings.)Results. Individual.Conclusions. Individual and joint.It is worth discussing briefly the context in which theteachers were teaching and the contexts they chose toanalyse.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

11

Teacher A taught 4-5 year olds in an urban multi-culturalprimary school. She chose a discussion of a farm visit/integrated activities.Teacher B taught 4-5 year olds in an urban multi-culturalinfants school. She chose a discussion about largepictorial materials/integrated activities.

Teacher C taught 6-7 year olds in an urban primary school.She chose the entry to the classroom in the morning/classlesson on environmental studies.Teacher D taught 6-8 year olds in a rural primary school.She chose group mathematics/class lesson on letter writing.Teacher E taught 8-9 year olds in an urban multi-culturalprimary school. She chose a group cloze procedureactivity/class discussion on a story.

Teacher F taught 8-9 year olds in a multi-cultural primaryschool. She chose a class mathematics lesson/discussionabout early childhood.

Results

The teachers made a deliberate decision to analysetwo different curriculum contexts to reveal a more diverserange of language demands and management issues todiscuss.

Interactions

The context made substantial differences as to whetherthe teacher had longer or shorter interactions with thechildren. The class lessons had larger amounts of teacherlanguage than the small group sessions.

The group analyses showed up the fact that the youngerchildren had less of the teachers time in terms of thelength of interaction than the older children. Themajority of interactions with the younger children wereshort and mainly concerned with organisational and points

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

12

of control. The majority of teachers found they allowedvery little time for responses to their questions and littleopportunity for the children to initiate especially in thewhole class lesson context.

Teachers A, D and F all found that they tended tointeract with the confident children in their classes.Teacher D realised that a large part of her ClozeActivity with a group was in fact a dialogue between herselfand Marian, a confident and persistent responder. TeacherC was horrified to find most of her unconscious interactionsover her one taped session were with Eddy, a constantinterrupter and demander and getter of her attention.

Conclusions

The group and the tutor, together discussed the resultsand the conclusions. They decided to write both individualand overall group conclusions.

Jjidj v_i d_ua l_Concj u_s_io ns

Teacher A

The noise level was of concern to her, she recognised thatit was partly due to the open plan context but also to herover expectation of the concentration level of the children.She felt that large group discussion was necessary attimes but realised that her integrated organisation wasindeed effective. It allowed the children to make apositive transition into reception from the pre-schoolcontext and it had allowed her time to interact at boththe individual and group level.

Teacher B

This teacher felt that she needed to use her N.N.E.B. morein apportioning the conversational opportunities in herclasroom for her reception children to play, work andinteract together but also for her and the N.N.E.B. to planfor controlled and specific dialogue with adults to takeplace.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

13

Teacher CThe school routine on morning entry was set by the head-teacher, allowing time for parents and children to meetthe staff before registration and assembly. This teacherdecided that in future she would arrange for children toenter the classroom and join a small group where books andactivities would be available prior to registration,money collection and all the other domestic items whichdivert a teacher. Eddy, in particular, she decided,would be nearer her desk, thus muting the loud inter-ruptions and possibly, through definite jobs for him todo, containing his demanding behaviour.

Teacher D ,

This teacher became aware of two aspects of her classroomlanguage.1) She used long strings of complicated questions withembedded questions in apparently just the one question.2) She allowed little thinking and responding time, andtended to restrict the slower children by over-helpingthem.Teacher E

She recognised her need for organising smaller groupswithin her classroom so that she could become less of acontroller and initiator and more of a dialogue motivator.This would then perhaps allow more time for the childrento be meaningfully engaged in conversation and enablingthe teacher to be more relaxed and patient.

Teacher FThis teacher saw a need for encouraging more interactionwith children through a wide range of question demands,plus the importance of encouraging children both on a socialas well as a cognitive level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

14

Discussion

This article has been idiosyncratic in its reportbecause of the nature of the assignment. However all theparticipants felt that they gained from the joint venture.The elimination of anxiety and the block of the lonewriter was an unexpected bonus equal only to the enjoymentof the collaboration and cooperation as a whole. Thegeneral conclusions reached by the group were that theyhad looked at and been able to assess, discuss andformulate realistic goals and changes for their ownteaching contexts.

In reviewing some of the main implications for theirown learning and teaching these final points arose.1) However familiar and confident one is within the class-room setting it is useful to stand back and assess one'spractice. A reflective view helps reveal the importanceof the children's potential as learners, and the majorrole that the teacher has in opening up opportunities forlanguage and learning.2) The management and organisation of the learning situationis an important variable both for enabling the teacher andchild to initiate and respond to each other in thelearning context and to facilitate the process of learningas well as the product.

3) The age of the children highlights needs which are notnecessarily met by better organisation or a more knowledge-able teacher but also by resources both at human andmaterial level.

4) The collaborative assignment raised the level of groupinteraction, initiation,confidence and especially enjoyment.

Final Words

To quote the words of two members of the group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

15

"This study has proved most useful. Changeshave been made and as a group we've sounded outeach other's experiences and learnt from them.The collaboration has been rewarding andreassuring that what you have found to be afault in yourself someone else has discoveredtoo."

"This assignment has been particularly useful inmaking me look at my own practice. It washelpful to do a collaborative study as thisenabled comparisons to be made. Group discussionwas valuable giving us the opportunity to discussany problems and how improvements might be madein our classrooms."

From a tutor point of view, as a piece of educationalinnovation it was successful for the group of teachers.It is fully recognised that the idiosyncratic pattern ofthis action research could never be replicated; it has onthe other hand important pointers for future school-basedassignments.1) A recognition that group negotiated and collaborativeassignments are feasible within an in-service assessmentpolicy.2) Coordination by the tutor or indeed some nominatedperson from the group is essential for effectiveimplementation at the assignment level.3) From first-hand experiences both tutor and studentshave been encouraged to develop other methods forparticipation and collaboration in the learning/teachinginterface.This case study it is hoped will encourage students torecognise the potential they have to initiate andinfluence their own learning assignments and understandhow rewarding, enriching and enjoyable the peer groupactivity can be.Wendy Dewhirst Senior Lecturer in Curriculum Studies

wolverhampton Polytechnic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

16

References

Bassey, M. and Hatch, N. (1979) A Seven-category InteractionAnalysis for Infant Teachers to Use Themselves.Educational Research Vol.21.No.1.

Bissex, G.(1980) GYNS AT WRK. Harvard University Press.

Blank, M., Rosen, S. A. and Berlin, L. J. (1978) TheLanguage of Learning: the pre-school years. New York:Grune and Stratton.

Bruner, J. (1980) Under Fives in Britain. Oxford Pre-School Research. London: Grant McIntyre.

Butler, D. (1980) Cushla and her books. London: Hodderand Stoughton.

Boydell, D. (1979) Classroom groups in theory and practice.Educational Review 3-13, 7, No.21.

Cazden, C. (1971) 'The neglected situation' in ChildLanguage:Research and Education in Williams, F.Chicago: Markham publishing co.

Clark, M. M., Robson, B. and Browning, M. (1982) Pre-school education and children with special needs.Birmingham University Dept. of Educational Psychology.

Clark, M. M. and Cheyne, W. (1979) Studies in pre-schooleducation. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children's Minds. London: Fontana/Croom Helm.

Donaldson, M., Grieve, R. and Pratt, C. (1982) Early Child-hood Development and Education. London: Blackwell.

Graves, D. (1983) Writing: Teachers and Children at Work.London: Heinemann.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14

17Iwamura, S. 6. (1980) The verbal games of pre-school

children. London: Croom Helm.

Payton, S. (1984) Awareness of Literacy. EducationalReview. Offset No.2.

Smith, F. (1978) Understanding Reading. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Smith, F. (1981) Writing and the Writer. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Tizard, B. et al (1982) Four year olds talking to mothersand teachers in Hersove, L. A., Berger, M.,Nichol, R. Language Disorders in Childhood. Oxford:Pergamon Press.

Willes, M. (1983) Children into Pupils. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Appendix1) Direction2) Question3) Information4) Encouragement5) Checking6) Permission7) OtherCoding and evaluation using the four questions.1) Taking the frequency of each occurrence of each kind ofutterance in turn do you feel that it occurs more or lessmore often than you would like. .2) Consider the difference between long and shortinteractions.3) Consider the children to whom you spoke during the halfhour. Was there an appropriate balance between thechildren who you wanted to see and those who demanded yourattention.4) If changes in your classroom practice are desirable howcan these be achieved.[The full coding and evaluative questions can be found inthe article cited in the bibliography.]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:31

19

Nov

embe

r 20

14