Action Research in Teacher Education

Action Research: Educating for Diversity

Abstract
Increasing attention to inclusive education and the growing diversity of students in classrooms has intensified the pressure on initial teacher education courses to improve pre-service teacher preparedness to manage that same increasing diversity. This paper explains how at one university preservice teachers embarked on a single semester action research study assessment task in order to give them the tools to engage with inclusion and empower them to become change agents in their schools. The development of the assessment task over 5 years of my own practice as a teacher educator is explored, as part of my own action research journey, drawing on feedback sought from colleagues and the pre-service teachers. Pre-service teacher outcomes from the task demonstrates their learning, their growth as teachers, their understanding of the issues, and their willingness to consider engaging in action research as part of their ongoing practice as teachers.

Keywords: action research; initial teacher education; inclusion and diversity; curriculum development

Introduction

The ongoing focus on inclusive education has meant that there is a pressure on teachers to deal with a greater range of student diversity in their classrooms than ever before (Stephenson 2006) and on teacher education to prepare pre-service teachers to manage that same increasing diversity.  Teacher education standards in Australia require graduates to be able to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of specific strategies for teaching students from a range of backgrounds. These include students with special educational needs, those from non-English speaking backgrounds and students with challenging behaviours (New South Wales Institute of Teaching n. d.). Teacher graduates are also required to work towards a theoretical and practical understanding of what it means to build inclusive classroom environments (Teachers Registration Board Tasmania 2007).

The question for teacher educators is how to engage pre-service teachers with an understanding of inclusive practices, how to teach and provide appropriate resources and support for students from diverse backgrounds, and yet not overwhelm them with the enormity of such an undertaking. This paper explores how pre-service teachers at one Australian university engaged in an action research assessment task that gave them a ‘tool’ (Darling-Hammond 2005) and helped them to construct their own understandings of the needs of students from diverse backgrounds. I developed the action research assessment task over a number of years using my own deliberate reflection (Van Manen 1991) as part of the action research process (El-Dib 2007), in order to help pre-service teachers become those “who effectively teach all students” an “essential outcome of teacher preparation” (Cochran-Smith 2005, 11).

The development of the action research task

Pre-service teachers at the university were enrolled in a course focused on inclusion and diversity whose purpose is to introduce them to educational sociology theories and theorists, and to give them broad strategies and direct them to resources for developing inclusive classroom practices. It is hoped that by introducing pre-service teachers more overtly to the sociological perspective (Korgen and White 2009) a different discourse can be engaged with in exploring issues of diversity and inclusion. In the course of lectures and tutorials pre-service teachers work towards developing theoretical and practical understandings to engage more actively with the concept of being deliberate agents in building inclusive classroom environments (O’Hanlon 2003). It is the intent of the course to help the pre-service teacher look beyond the categorisation of their students, an inevitable consequence of focusing on individual needs, and replaces this instead with the construct of identifying and removing “barriers to learner participation” so that all students will learn (Ainscow 2002, 29; Booth, Nes, and Strømstad 2003). Of course, as Stephenson (2006) has stated “A single unit cannot give student teachers the skills acquired by a special educator with a year or more of specialized training” (p. 120). The aim for developing the course was to focus on improving pre-service teachers’ effective teaching practices and understanding through a combination of critical reflection (Brookfield 1995) and strategic innovation (Kemmis and McTaggart 1982, cited in Ainscow 2002) using action research grounded in the theory of educational sociology. This is to assist pre-service teachers to develop a sense of purpose “allied with a feeling for the larger human affairs of our time” (Hansen 2008, 12), and resist the temptation to be purely functionalist or to view themselves as technicians, there to serve the “interests of those with economic and political power” (Hansen 2008, 10).

The course was developed over a number of years at two different university sites, within initial teacher education programs. I began at the first site with the Groundwater-Smith, Ewing and Le Cornu (2001) model of deconstructing ‘schools as text’. Deconstruction forms a powerful learning tool, beginning with pre-service teachers own beliefs and assumptions before moving onto exploring the surface and deeper surfaces of education spaces. Deconstruction permits the learner and teacher (the lecturer and tutors in this instance) to work together to “identify hidden contradictions, the fissures and the silences; embedded vested interests are made explicit and problematic” (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, and Le Cornu 2001, 8). I myself have come from a special education background working in a large senior secondary school, and so I was aware of the struggles teachers face each day understanding the complexities of dealing with students with diverse needs in their classrooms.

As a classroom teacher during the eighties and early nineties, experiencing first hand mainstreaming, integration, and then inclusion policies, I fully understand that inclusive education is not a ‘quick fix’, real changes take time and present many challenges for teachers and schools (Simpson 2004). Appropriately accommodating the increasing variety of student diversities “means fundamentally rethinking the very core of what we teach and how we teach it. For teachers everywhere it is a daunting and inescapable challenge” (Hargreaves and Fullan 1998, 8). The question is, how do schools create a “culture that encourages a preoccupation with the development of ways of working that attempt to reduce barriers to learner participation” for the inclusion of all students (Ainscow 2001)? Some of the strategies for moving forward, according to Ainscow (2001), include seeing differences as opportunities for learning in a supportive environment, developing a language for practice to share ideas and reflect on styles of teaching, and creating conditions that encourage risk taking through collaboration in the school community.

The initial course, at the first university, was structured around a case study approach, which required students to interrogate schools and school practices, through observation, data gathering and reflection. However, this approach did little to encourage pre-service teachers to engage with the issues for themselves, or to take risks in the supported surroundings of their pre-service practice environments. There was little evidence that the practice of the pre-service teacher was affected through this model, or that students made the “step from knowing to being able, or from knowing to doing” (Ax, Ponte, and Brouwer 2008). Encouraging and making explicit the learnings sought from the students over the three years the task was used, made some impact, but not for all the pre-service teachers. Using the feedback gained through the study of the completed pre-service teacher assessments, it became obvious that a different approach was needed, one that would encourage them to take risks and move beyond observation to collaborative participation.

Two years ago the opportunity arose for the me, when moving to a new workplace, to redevelop the course to include an action research task. The idea was for pre-service teachers to engage in an assessment that would be seen as authentic, empowering them to take control of their own teaching and learning (Stringer 2008). Yet also introduce them to a research methodology that does not have to be seen as ‘extra’ that they would somehow have to “cram into an already challenging work schedule” usually experienced during their pre-service classroom practice (Stringer 2008, 1). It would also give the pre-service teachers the ‘taste’ of doing research (Ax, Ponte, and Brouwer 2008) and encourage them to construct their own knowledge (Kemmis 2006) of inclusive practice. Challenging their existing ways of thinking about difference, pre-service teachers are encouraged to change current practices, which isolate students with special needs and difference, hiding them behind closed doors, isolating them, and aim for the education of all children in the least restrictive environment.

The remainder of the paper explains how the task was developed for the new site, within a course on inclusion and diversity that all pre-service teachers must complete, which is taught across two campuses, using the feedback sought from other lecturers and tutors in the course to help redevelop it for a second iteration, and what the outcomes were for the pre-service teachers.

The Action Research Task

The major assessment for the course is the Action Research Study. In keeping with the desire for building reflective and resilient teachers, who act as active agents in their classroom, it is important in developing in the pre-service teachers an understanding of themselves as researchers and lifelong learners. To move away from a reductionist and functionalist framework of teaching, the aim of the course is to ensure that students develop as empowered teachers able to live and work in a complex and diverse world. Our world has many complexities and our educational systems are intricately connected to the social, cultural, historical, political and economic dynamics, which refuse to stay outside of the classroom door (Kincheloe 2003). In this complex world it is important that teachers become the producers of knowledge, knowledge workers, constructed in their communities through systematic enquiry for the purpose of transforming the classroom and the school, who reflect on their professional needs and current understandings (Holly, Arhar, and Kasten 2005). Teachers must be encouraged to engage in research, to see themselves as researchers, if a new culture is to be established that improves academic rigour and quality learning for all students (Kincheloe 2003). This assessment brought together these two themes, the complexity of diversity through the study of educational sociology and the introduction of the pre-service teachers to action research.

The action research journey offers teachers many ways in which to make their daily practice more powerful and supports them in their professional growth and development as lifelong learners (Holly et al. 2005). The action research journey starts with “a feeling – a sense of frustration, or better yet, a sense of creative possibilities for action, and the pronounced commitment to ‘do it differently’” (Holly et al. 2005, 5). It is teacher centred, formative and involves self-evaluation and a means of developing professional self knowledge (O’Hanlon 2003). Most importantly it is a systematic routine process of enquiry that moves beyond simple problem solving and planning processes. Stringers’ (2008) book was used as the base for the assessment and pre-service teachers were introduced to the ‘Look, Think, Act’ research cycle that encapsulates the basic action research process (Stringer 2008, 4). Introducing pre-service teachers to action research it was hoped that they would see the task as authentic, both an integral component of the entire teaching and learning process (James, McInnis, and Devlin 2002) and a task that was as closely related as possible to the teaching profession (Stringer 2008; Australian Universities Teaching Committee n.d.).

The pre-service teachers in the course were asked to write an Action Research paper based on an issue of diversity or inclusion they encountered in their school experience classroom. The study would include an analysis of data to be collected about one of the following: cultural and linguistic background, ability and disability, gender, socio-economic disadvantage, and geographical isolation. Pre-service teachers had to either attempt an action, or indicate the action they would take based on further investigation of the relevant literature. The initial iteration of the action research included both formative and summative feedback. It sought to establish the assessment task as one that would form an integral part of the teaching and learning cycle of the course and to guide the pre-service teachers’ development of meaningful learning and engagement with their understanding of diversity and encourage deep learning approaches (Biggs 2003). The task was developed using Carless’ (2007) learning-oriented assessment concept, to strengthen the learning outcomes for the pre-service teachers, promoting their ability to analyse, synthesise and apply their knowledge to a particular situation (Australian Universities Teaching Committee n. d.), based on their school experience classroom. The assessment was scaffolded throughout the semester in the tutorials to ensure pre-service teachers had a good understanding of the requirements of the assessment and to encourage them to interact more positively with the task (Biggs 2003). Using the Stringer (2008) text, students spent time in each week’s tutorial in tutor directed and led discussion of the various sections of their study. Discussions were centred on a further explanation of action research and its purposes, how to write a literature review, participate in data gathering, data analysis, participate in action, and finally how to report the findings. Additional resources were also supplied to students to assist them with the writing process (James et al. 2002).

An understanding of their busy lives and the complexity within which they participate in higher education (James et al. 2002), it was decided to break up the research into three distinctive parts to encourage their ongoing involvement in the assessment process(Carless 2008). First, preservice teachers were required to complete a preliminary literature review, secondly, engage in data collection during their time on practice, writing up the context, methods and findings sections on return to the university and share this with peers (Brady and Kennedy 2009), and finally submit the full research study including a revised literature review and their conclusions and reflections for further action. A clear progression of the assessment requirements were evidenced within the course as pre-service teachers moved through the different sections of the assessment before submitting the final research report.

In the first year, the preliminary literature review was collected and reviewed by their tutors and formative feedback was given, using both a rubric that would be used for the final assessment and written comments, no summative grade was given for this part of the task. This was to give pre-service teachers a low-stakes assessment which would guide their development of the concept of diversity, yet also provide them with formative and forward feedback (Carless 2007; James et al. 2002). Forward-looking feedback is feedback that students are encouraged to act on or engage with and supports and promotes students’ learning (Carless 2007).

For the second section preservice teachers were to engage in data collection, but limited to that which would normally be available to a teacher in a classroom, including reading class and school documents relating to their chosen issue, classroom observations, and conducting what Stringer (2008, 55) calls ‘guided conversations’ with stakeholders. Pre-service teachers were expected to discuss their task with their colleague teacher, to seek their guidance and collaborate where possible on exploring further actions. On return to the university pre-service teachers shared their data with peers covering similar issues, before writing the methods and findings section. The second section was then peer reviewed, a formal process of sharing and collaboration of their work with another pre-service teachers over the period of a week, again using the rubric. Peer review is consistent with the action research model, in that it encourages further collaboration and the sharing of ideas to gain new insights (Stringer 2008), and with good assessment practice (Brady and Kennedy 2009; Carless 2008). The peer feedback also gave students an opportunity in “decoding assessment criteria and apply them to exemplars, their own work and that of their peers” (Carless 2008, 80).

The final report was submitted as a summative assessment after the end of the semester. Pre-service teachers’ feedback on the process was sought after the second stage, after the peer review had been completed, at the end of the semester, yet prior to the completion of the task. Their feedback and that of the tutors was used to revise the process for the following year. The next section explains the findings of the first year and how their comments were used to make changes to the assessment task and what the outcomes were for the pre-service teachers in the second iteration.

Findings and discussion

First iteration

There were 143 pre-service teachers in the first year and 7 teaching staff, which included the myself, working across two campuses. The journey through the course in the first year was at times bumpy, as the pre-service teachers struggled with the action research. Feedback in the first year was sought through an open and exploratory forum with a volunteer group of 23 pre-service teachers, and interviews with two of the tutors from both campuses. As reflected in pre-service teachers comments during the forum, the questions raised throughout the semester, and written feedback given, they went through periods of anxiety concerning the assessment as they sought in the first place to achieve a minimal pass and fought against the need to develop a reflective and professional attitude to teaching, seeking instead to be instructed in the technical aspects of “their trade” (pre-service teacher comment), an approach to learning to be a teacher, that can be seen as being consistent with Biggs’ (2003) concept of surface learning. Groundwater-Smith, Ewing and Le Cornu (2001) warn of this and encourage pre-service teachers to recognise the need for their professional learning as part of a continuum, from pre-service teacher and continuing throughout their career. Reflecting on this, I made the decision to make this feeling more explicit to the pre-service teachers in the second iteration, understanding that “action research requires that the researcher live with anxiety, transforming a need for closure to a need for journey” (Feldman 2001, 11).

A number of other issues were identified, including a lack of understanding of the multiple layers of the assessment task, they found the rubric developed difficult to interpret, the language inaccessible, and perceived the requirements as ambiguous. They were also uncomfortable with the use of peer feedback. Finally, in their feedback some of them asked for “an essay on diversity to replace the preliminary literature review” (pre-service teacher written comment) focussing on factual recall. Discussion that followed the request highlighted the different learning perspectives, a number of them disagreeing and stating that they had “benefited from the process and liked getting feedback rather than marks” (pre-service teacher written comment). Yet, it was obvious from both their feedback and the final assessments, that a number of them had engaged very deeply with the core course concepts and had constructed their own meanings of them (Krause, Bochner, and Duchesne 2003).

Second iteration