$ ? .
ieachel as

$ ?

EDUCATION 391-4

Special Topics: Developments in School Improvement

Summer Session, 1988

Instructor: Marvin F. Wideen

July 4 to August 12

Office: MPX 9502

Monday and Wednesday

Phone: 291-4156

5:30 - 9:20 P. M.

MPX 8651

PREREQUISITE:

Education 401/402 or permission of the instructor.

Description

This course provides an overview of recent developments in school

improvement and staff development and examines various programs that have

been designed to improve the schools. It takes the perspective that teachers

must play a key role in such programs. One focus that will be developed in the

course is the notion of teacher as researcher.

Areas to be Examined:

• the concept of school improvement

• the role of staff development in improving schools

• teacher as researcher

Course Requirements:

• contribute to class discussion

• prepare a background paper and develop an action plan for improving some

aspect of practice

Required Texts:

Hopkins and Wideen. Alternate perspectives on school improvement. Falmer.

Wideen and Andrews. Staff development for school improvement: A focus on

the teacher. Falmer.

ieachel as

Throughout North America,

Australia, and Europe teachers are

engaging in classroom research.

Far from the ivory-tower variety,

this research is a sell-determined

inquiry into real-life problems

related to curriculum, teaching,

and learning.

MARVIN F. WIDEEN

Staffdeve/opnienr

frequentl y

con-

jures up the image of teachers' needing

repair. because the lack something.

The

sit. the listen. the

learn what

others aoparentiv know about how the

should improve. The teacher-as-

researcher concept produces another im-

age: a practising professional identifying

his/her own problems and seeking ways

to solve them. I would argue that the

latter is the much more effective staff-

development model.

The concept

teacher as researcher

has

been around for a long time: undertaking

research in one's own classroom and

school is a powerful wa y one can im-

prove one's work and grow profession-

all'. This research is not an esoteric proj-

ect one takes on in addition to one's

work: nor is it research in the traditional

sense. It is closel y tied to the work the

teacher does. Hopkins. in

A Teachers'

Guide

Action Research,

refers to re-

search as "an act undertaken by teachers

either to improve their own or a col-

league's teaching or to test the assump-

tions of educational theory or practice."

I have worked with teachers attempt-

ing to appl

y what they had learned from

universit y

coursework. and I have also

observed teachers who have simply un-

dertaken, on their own, to change their

practice to achieve improvement they

have seen necessary.

Let me illustrate the

notion of teacher as researcher b

de-

scribing what I saw in one school where

I spent several days observing and talk-

ing to teachers.

Acase

The students are

told

point

that this is their

language-arts period and that the

y have

three choices. They may write, read, or

illustrate their stories. Following some

housekeeping chores. the Grade

begin

different activities. Some remain in their

seats and begin printing on what appears

to be a rough notebook: others are draw-

ing. Another group proceeds to different

parts of the roorn to read. The cushions

at the back of the room and the several

corners created by colorfully decorated

book cases are soon occupied by other

pupils who are paired off and sharing in

reading books.

Two queues have now formed. One

leads to a student teacher who is typing

student stories: the other. to a volunteer

who is helping the pupils edit their ma-

terials. The teacher. Cheryl, moves

about the room helping different individ-

uals. Pupils talk to one another. some-

times in a friendly, joking manner. but

on task. As a visitor, I am presented with

a 10-page story book. I feel surprised

that a Grade 3 has produced it.

How different and how changed was

that classroom from the language-arts

12 ?

THE B.C. TEACHER OCTOBER. NOVEMBER 1987 

t achingtyP t1l

in most classroom

saw no prescribed textbooks nor bas

readers. I learned from Cheryl that she

had developed the approach herself with

the help of another teacher in the school.

All teachers in the primary section

he school teach language arts simi-

What led to the innovation?

Woodtort. the school in which Cheryl

teaches, is an older school in a rapidly

erowing suburban community. Residents

are in the upper middle class. relatively

ambitious people.

Within that community. Cheryl took

her first teaching position, seven years

o, after graduating from a local

:eacher-trainin

institution. She found

that her teacher training had not prepared

her particularly well for her first job. nor

had it offered perspectives on how té

improve the classroom instruction for

children over what she had experienced

as a student and observer during her

teacher training. She reports having dis-

liked her first year of teaching. simply

because she knew it was not the best

learning experience for children. In Ian-

uage arts the subject I concentrated on

during m

observation), she found her-

self teaching from a basal reader and

using workbooks and worksheets.

During a year's leave of absence from

teaching. she substituted in a Grade

classroom in Woodfort. There she en-

countered a different approach to lan-

ua g

e-arts teaching. The classroom

:.ichcr was Pat, who had initiated the

ap p roach four

ears earlier amid storms

oi'protest. Cheryl requested a transfer to

Wood fort primaril y

to learn from Pat and

others in the school. Cheryl attributes

much of her success to the earlier efforts

of Pat, who had introduced an alternative

lan

g ua g

e arts in her classroom. I-Icr

first realization, in coming to the school.

was that she could not merel

adopt what

was doing in her classroom: she had

develop her own approach. Having

rcple who had had similar experiences.

with whom to discuss difficulties, was

crucial, however. Cher y

l talked about

the lon

process of trial and error that

she found necessary to clarif

both what

she wanted to do in langua g

e arts and

how she was going to implement it.

Can this he called research? Normally.

v hen we think of research. we think of

solvin g problems. testin

ideas, and ac-

cumulating knowledge b y huikling on

our work and the work of others. Where

do such factors operate in this example'

wa y of viewin g aproblem is to

dccribe it as a discrepanc y

between an

ideal condition and the current condi-

tion. Sometimes discrepancies arise out

of something we do not know, such as

an event we cannot explain according to

our expectations of reality: at other

times, they arise out of something we

wish to do but cannot. Our struggle to

understand our universe and to make it

better is essentially one of solving such

problems.

In the case of Cheryl and Pat, their

teaching of language arts concerned

them. Each had a vision of how their

teachin g

could become better, however

fuzzy that vision may have been in the

early stages. The discrepancy between

vision and practice became the problem.

Clarifying the vision and putting it into

practice became the way to solve the

problem. In many ways, the problems

Cheryl and Pat faced are no different

from those scientists and social scientists

tackle. There

are

differences in scale and

perhaps generalizability, but the essen-

tials are the same.

Once a problem is identified, its solu-

tion comes about through a process of

testing and refining hypotheses or ideas

that will solve that problem. The garage

mechanic will successively test such

things as the spark plugs and the battery,

using the hypothesis that the electrical

system is what's at fault. Scientists in the

'30s systematically tested different

strains of wheat to find the one that best

resisted wheat rust. Cheryl. in her at-

tempt to find a better wa

of teaching

language arts. tested different ap-

proaches until she found one that worked

for her.

In terms of building on experience.

we are well aware of the tremendous

background of skill and knowledge a sci-

entist brings to a problem. What is often

overlooked is the background of experi-

ence and knowled

e a teacher draws

upon in solving problems. Cheryl. in

developing the program that was even-

tuall y

to solve her problem. drew on the

work of Pat and others in the school.

Both she and Pat drew on a background

of information gained through in-service

education, university coursework. and

various other sources.

Cher y

l and Pat's case is similar to re-

search in two other wa

s: reflection and

support. The mindless application of

some laboratory technique by a person

in a white coat does not constitute sci-

ence. Research is often distinguished

from non-research b

what someone

once termed the

co,:.ctant applicatw'i

uiteIIi'ence.

People who do research

think. ponder. and struggle with ideas

and alternatives. The

take time to re-

rect rigorously and deliberately. lt the

case of teachers, the mindless applica-

tion of programs passed on from high

places does not constitute research.

What is impressive in Cheryl and Pat's

case is how they both struggled with

their problems. Cheryl took a year away

from teaching simply to explore alterna-

tives and think about teaching. Pat cn

fronted a school board. Both actions re-

quired thought and reflection.

People who are engaged in problem

solving rarely work alone. They nor-

mally benefit from a support group of

peers. Scientists consult other scientists,

read journals, and attend conferences.

Cheryl joined a school that had a certain

type of language-arts program in order

to benefit from it. The entire primary

section of the school became her support

group.

While we do not normally think of

teachers as potential researchers. this

brief anal y

sis illustrates that when teach-

ers attempt to solve problems they face,

they are doing a form of research. This

recognition has prompted numerous

projects. throughout Europe. Australia,

and North America. aimed at promoting

the concept

teacher as researcher.

The value of

classroom research

Those who have studied and written

about the approach point to a number of

advantages. First, it is a powerful means

for staff development. Second. it offers

an effective method of school improve-

ment. Third. it avoids teacher burnout.

And fourth, it gives teachers the means

to control their professional activities.

The concept of the teacher as re-

searcher is imbedded within certain so-

cial and political perspectives. Let me

start there. As Elliot Eisner points out in

one of the chapters of his book

The Ed-

UCUtWIU1I /inaç'inatwn,

people take dif-

ferent perspectives on curriculum. One

commonly held view

SCCS

curriculum as

a top-down process. Once deeloped

experts. curriculum becomes a blueprint

to be implemented and followed by

teachers who are agents responsible for

carr

ing out policies set b

the ministry

and the district. This perspective views

research designed to determine princi-

ples of learning and practice on which

such curriculum is to be based as an

tIM. U C. TI \(i{II

tOIiIR \()\1\II1:R 1987

ac.ivP also done b\' In short!

theor y developed b

y experts drives prac-

tice. Supervision then becomes a process

of judeine the

extent

to which such a

curriculum or leaching practice is imple-

mented or in place. This perspective also

favors the use of final examinations.

Those who areuc for teacher as re-

searcher take a very different perspec-

tive. Curriculum, for them. becomes that

which the teacher organizes and plans

for his/her own classroom. The' talk of

the teacher as an autonomous profes-

sional designing that curriculum. Within

that context. the teacher is a potential

researcher. testine ideas. Research find-

ins and the curriculum

g uide are not

facts and directives to be applied. but

h y

potheses to he tested b

the teacher.

Thus. the theor

/practise relationship is

of a dialectic. Supervision is helping and

development aimed at improving the

teacher's performance against his/her

own standards rather than assessing

whether curriculum has been imple-

mented. Consistency of practice across

teachers is relativel

unimportant in this

perspective, giving wa y

to progress on a

broken front.

In practice, these two perspectives are

not incompatible. It is quite possible to

he the teacher as tesearcher within most

school jurisdictions even though their

policies may he "top-down."

Let me then return to the question of

wh y

a teacher might perform research.

One of the most important reasons for

classroom research is professional devel-

opment. Learning does not occur with-

out participation. involvement, and

doing. Throu

h classroom research. a

teacher is doing something about his/her

own practice. is participating and in-

volved in one's own improvement. In all

the project reports I have read. partici-

pants most frequentl y

emphasize the op-

portunit y

for learning as the most impor-

tant aspect of such projects.

As educators, we are committed to

improving the educational institutions in

which we work. Teachers' classroom re-

search offers the most hope in terms of

achieving this goal. Wherever exeni-

plarv schools are singled out because

the y are "effective schools," the mes-

sage is alwa

s the same. They have he-

conic effective because teachers and

principals have worked to make them

that wa

y . How that process actually be-

gins and works is not currentl

well

known. But it usually starts with teach-

ers' beginning to work on improving

some part of their practice and going

from there. The larger the critical mass

of people orking together in any one

:chool . the better.

\Vhv propose to bus y teachers that

they add to their work by performing

research in their classrooms? I expect

that stress and ennui are contributing

causes of burnout. One begins to feel

that teaching is no longer fun, and the

actions of man of our politicians have

devalued teaching. En

ing in teacher

research can change such feelings.

Teaching can become a type of social

inquiry: one learns from one's practice,

rather than merel

y carries out an activity

at the behest of others. Also, acting as a

classroom researcher soon brings one to

the limit of one's knowledge. One seeks

outside information and help. The proc-

ess is stimulating. Also, one sees prog-

ress. which is reinforcing in itself. The

question of burnout burns out.

Clissrooni research allows the teacher

to take control. Cher

y l and Pat are in

control of what they are doing. They are

not engaged in social revolution. trying

to subvert the s

y stem wherever possible.

Rather. they are exercising the freedom

they

have as teachers.

Aplace to start

Much has been written about how to

do research in the classroom. The refer-

ences available on request provide some

starting points. But as the vignette illus-

trated, one does not need to spend an

enormous amount of time learning how

to do classroom research. Just start doing

it. I offer three suggestions.

Find a problem. A problem doesn't

come nicely wrapped in a box with the

word

problem

written on the outside.

Usually one begins with a sense that

some aspect of one's teaching can be

improved. You might want to implement

a particular method in your

classroom.

You might feel that the organization of

your classroom is problematic. Perhaps

too man y interruptions occur during your

teaching da y . All you really need is an

idea that something might he improved.

Ask yourself: What is happening now?

Wh y

is that a problem? What might I do

about it?

Take on a relativel

y small-scale man-

ageable project. Tr

to ensure that the

project will he worth while for your stu-

dents and that it is educationall

sound.

This is one place where outsiders can

offer help. Then get on with it.

experience of people in numerous

cts underscores the importance of

keeping a reflective journal in which to

write about the experience. This helps

y ou to clarif y and reflect on what you

do.

Set out an action plan. Action plans

var great lv from person to person and

from project to project. Describe what

y ou plan to do differentl y . identif y some

y potheses to test. and plan data collec-

tion. It' it's too earl

to write down what

you plan to do differentl y

because you

simply do not yet know. your action plan

might he a set of steps to learn what the

alternative is: Collect some data from

your students, talk to others. visit other

classrooms, or attend workshops or

courses.

Once

y ou have a vision of where you

want to go. be

as specific as you can

about it. Go back to y our problem and

try to determine if by achieving this goal

you will address your original problem.

This link between the plan as a way of

solving your problem is a hypothesis.

Your activities over the next while are a

test of that h

y pothesis. Think about the

data you will need to collect along the

wa y

to assess your success,

Assess the results. Collect data at ever\'

step of the way to keep an eve on how

much progress you have made. Three

points are critical. First, gather some

base line information before

ou start the

process: tape record

our class, record

how man\ children do a particular activ-

ity. or review the notes made b

the col-

league who observed your teaching.

Once you have begun. make periodic

checks on how much progress

you have

made in implementing your action plan.

Remember. 'our action plan is a hypoth-

esis about improving your teaching.

At some point.

you

may want to bring

the project to closure and move on to

something else. Make a final assess-

ment. Invite that colleague hack into

our classroom, but make certain you

know exactly what

ou want the person

to observe. This is y our problem. your

investigation, and your staff develop-

ment - our chance to star in 'out' own

movie. Enjoy it!

A bibliograph y

on teacher as class-

room researcher is available on request.

Marvin Wideen is a professor in the Faculty of

Education. Simon Fraser University.

14 ?

THE B.C. TEACHER OCTOBER NOVEMBER 1987