How can I, as a Reception class teacher, collaborate with my teaching
assistant to improve the learning of numerals to 20 with my pupils during
mental mathematics sessions?
An assignment successully submitted as part of the Master in Education
Programme "Methods of Educational Enquiry" at the University
of Bath (2004)
Tutor; Sarah Fletcher
Researcher: Heidi Hughes
Introduction
This essay aims to illustrate the issues that occur when planning and
carrying out a small-scale educational enquiry. To thoroughly explain
these it is far easier if the context of this assignment is based around
a real problem.
My essay will start by explaining my personal context and ethical issues,
then look at how to chose an appropriate methodology and ways to collect
data and finally, how to analyse this data and evaluate the research process.
Throughout, I will highlight any difficulties that may potentially occur
and how these can best be resolved.
Context
Hopkins (1993) discusses how, in more recent times, there has been a
need to combine classroom research and whole school development, in order
to improve teaching and learning in schools. Therefore it seemed appropriate
to begin my MA in Education at Bath University as the teacher researcher
in an enquiry based unit, looking at improving a specific area of classroom
practice. I am hoping that this unit will enable me to understand various
methods of educational enquiry, to consider their importance and when
appropriate, to incorporate them into my research work. This assignment
should enrich my understanding of educational research methodologies in
preparation for my final dissertation.
I am currently employed as an Infant teacher by Tanglin Trust School,
Singapore (TTS). The school teaches the British National Curriculum to
over 1700 expatriate students aged from 3-18. Within each Infant year
group there are eight parallel classes with 24 children in each. A qualified
teacher conducts teaching, with a full time locally employed teaching
assistant (TA) working alongside. For these Infant classes the emphasis
is on the acquisition of skills and understanding in Literacy and Numeracy.
Both the Literacy and the Numeracy Strategies have been incorporated within
the school and these lessons are taught daily. When academic achievement
is measured against UK averages TTS performs above UK averages .
For the past academic year I have been teaching a Reception class with
the support of a Singaporean TA. Many of these TA’s have been employed
by TTS for over 5 years and have adapted easily to working with a transient
teacher population and a constantly changing British National Curriculum.
For the majority, their only training is on-site and given by teaching
staff or by a Teaching Advisor. Last year it was highlighted to Senior
Management that morale was lower than perceived amongst TA’s . A
working party investigated the situation further and found that TA’s
felt they were not fully utilised during teaching sessions. Teachers were
then encouraged to include TA’s far more effectively during taught
lessons.
Within my own classroom the lack of TA involvement was more often prevalent
during whole class teaching sessions. Rather than look at all such occasions,
I decided that oral work and mental calculation sessions in Numeracy were
a specific area of weakness. Positioning, interacting and collaboration
between the teacher and the students are well established but the links
between the TA, students and teacher are lacking and in need of improvement.
Thus the focus of my enquiry will be on the following: How can I, as the
teacher, improve collaboration between myself, my TA and my students,
to further their learning of numerals to 20 in my classroom during oral/mental
mathematics sessions? Although I will only be researching this issue in
my classroom, nearly thirty other teachers work alongside a TA in the
Infant School and therefore, there is always the possibility that my findings/recommendations
may provide assistance beyond the scope of this small-scale enquiry.
A question of ethics
Before starting any research, it is important to consider research ethics.
Cohen and Manion (1994) remind us that at any stage during research issues
relating to ethics could materialise. Kimmel (1998) sees ethical problems
as both personal and professional. In my specific context, personal factors
relating to cultural differences between my TA and myself will be at the
forefront of my concern. It will be essential to clearly explain my research
and also stress I am attempting to address my failures regarding appropriate
TA involvement during whole class teaching. By doing this I aim to avoid
my TA experiencing any ‘loss of face’, a common Asian-based
phenomena. ‘Informed consent’ from my TA at the beginning of
the project is vital, as is providing assurance of anonymity and confidentiality
during all stages of the research (Cohen and Manion, 1994). In my given
situation there would be no question of not sharing information and results
as TA’s input would essential if change is to occur. In the Singaporean
culture, there is often the feeling that there is only one ‘right
way’ and that this must be found first time. It will therefore also
be important to develop an understanding that we may not find the right
solution immediately and this is acceptable. In terms of the interactions
taking place between the Students, TA and myself, I draw upon the ideas
of Frankfort-Nachmais and Nachmais (1992) quoted in Cohen and Manion (1994):
‘The principle of informed consent should not…..be made an absolute
requirement of all social science research. Although usually desirable,
it is not absolutely necessary to studies where no danger or risk is involved’
(p 351)
My research primarily revolves around collaboration between the teacher
and the TA and although the children are involved, I perceive there to
be no real danger or risk to them. However, as part of my regular classroom
practice, I would explain to the children what was taking place, especially
if the methods involved them directly (e.g. a questionnaire or a video
recording). This is supported by the work of Fine and Sandstrom (1998),
who stress that, regardless of the age of children, they have the right
to an explanation at their own level of understanding. Projects that involved
children for longer and more involved periods of time would require informed
consent from the children’s parents and the school management. In
line with good professional practice, I would ensure I gained official
permission from senior management and inform my line manager of any project
developments that would involve the students further. On completion of
my research, naturally all involved will be thanked and the results shared
openly between us.
Choosing a methodology
When looking at which methodology to adopt it is important that you clearly
define what your enquiry is about and why you are doing it. In very broad
terms, there are two principle methodologies used in educational research
today. The first being the scientific methodology, where the researcher
takes an objective or hypothesis and, through the creation of laws or
by finding the right answer, aims to find the truth in a given situation.
This should provide a model/theory that can be used repeatedly to predict
and control events. The second methodology is the naturalistic approach.
Here the views, behaviour and opinions of people, on and within the environment,
are of far more importance. The aim here is to look more closely at attitudes
and to finding a solution to a given problem. There may be more than one
solution depending on the context in which the problem is set. My research
question could have a number of solutions given that I am dealing with
two different teachers interacting with a class of 24 children. The various
possible solutions will undoubtedly be linked to the behaviours of all
involved, making it unlikely that a universally applicable model/theory
is appropriate. This led me to adopt a naturalistic methodology.
Within the naturalistic approach, both action research and case studies
are commonly adopted. Case studies, as defined in Bell (1987), are useful
when attempting to clarify what is going on in a given situation, Cohen
and Manion (1994) go onto explain how the case study researcher focuses
simply on observing the characteristics of an individual (such as a child,
teacher, school or LEA) and by doing so aims to make generalisations about
other similar individuals. Adelman et al (1980) comments on how case studies
are ‘a step to action’ and provide individuals with a wealth
of data to interpret, however collecting a substantial number of observations
in this manner can be a time consuming and costly process. Action Research
as described below by Cohen and Manion (1994), is
‘essentially an on the spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete
problem located in an immediate situation: This means that ideally, the
step by step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time
and by using a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews,
case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback maybe translated
onto modifications, adjustments, directional change, re-definitions, as
necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the on-going process
itself’ (p 192)
Whilst this definition interrelates case studies with action research,
McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead (1996) explain that:
‘action is at the centre of your action research…action to which
you, the researcher are committed by your personal and professional values,
action that is informed by your careful considerations about it’s
appropriateness, and action that is intentional and undertaken by you
to achieve the objectives you have set’(p 71).
From my teaching experience, many of us complete action research without
even realising it (McNiff, 2002). My research question centres around
me as the teacher changing the way in which I teach, thus an action research
approach seems more appropriate than a case study approach. However having
made this choice I would also like to state that action research is carried
out systematically which highlights the fact that although naturalistic
in some ways there are many characteristics of scientific research within
this approach. McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead (1996) add to this argument
by discussing the problem-solving dimension as similar to scientific methods
and McKernan (1991) suggests that action research ‘contributes to
the science of education (p 33)’.
Action research in practice
Action research has been a popular model used in educational research
since the 1960’s. Various action research models looking at the improvement
of an individual through the practice of self-reflection are found in
the work of Kemmis and McTaggart (1982), Cohen and Manion (1980), Ebbutt
(1985), Elliot (1995), McKernan (1991), Bassey (1998) and McNiff (2002).
Although similar, they do have differences. Elliott (1993) argues that
Kemmis (1982) saw action research as a linear model with the initial problem
remaining static, whereas he felt that the initial problem could be shifted
during the process of the enquiry in a somewhat more flexible approach.
This debate is then expanded upon by McNiff (2002) who discusses how it
is important to both keep action research open ended but also to remember
to frequently check and ensure we are still striving to solve the initial
problem. Elliott (1993) very much focuses on the benefits that can be
derived from the process of action research. His opinion, based on curriculum
research, being that action research can be used as a strategy to maximise
pupils’ achievements and thus assist in reaching National Curriculum
targets. However it should be noted, that in his opinion, this strategy
doesn’t take into account the ethical dimension of teaching and learning
(p 52). Kemiss and McTaggart, Hill and Kerber and Lewin, amongst others,
all see action research as purely a collaborative activity. Winter (1996)
goes on to explain that collaboration
‘is intended to mean that everyone’s view is taken as a contribution
to understanding the situation (p 13)’ Cohen and Manion (1994) further
add to this stating:
‘Advocates of action research believe that little can be achieved
if only one person is involved in changing her ideas and practices. For
this reason co-operative (action) research tends to be emphasised and
encourages’ (p 190)
In contrast, Stenhouse and Whitehead see this as limiting and argue that
action research can also be individualistic and still be beneficial (Hopkins,
2002). Whitehead (1989) discusses the importance of the word ‘I’
being significant in the action research title and emphasises the importance
of the researcher seeing them self as a ‘living contradiction’
in the question they are asking. That is to say, each of us has our own
set of educational values and by reflecting and looking to improve our
own practice, we are not adhering fully to these values. We are contradicting
ourselves, which makes it fundamental to put the ‘living I’
right in the centre of the enquiry. From here we are act as the both the
practitioner and the reporter in the given enquiry. Whitehead then explains
how this, combined with the ideas of others including Collingwood (1978),
Lomax (1987) and Polanyi (1958), can be drawn upon to produce what he
calls a ‘living educational theory’.
From here several authors have attempted to combine these two schools
of thought, collaborative and individualistic. Kemiss and McTaggart (1988)
discuss how action research becomes collaborative as individual actions
are examined. McNiff (2002) sees the focus of action research as you and
your learning but also as a process of understanding this influences the
learning of others (p 87). She goes onto clarify that:
‘Action enquiries begin with an individual’s question, ‘How
do ‘I’ improve my work?’ When the enquiry is shared with
others, and they wish to be involved – possibly by critiquing or
by deciding to do something similar, or by offering new ideas for new
enquiries - then the question changes to ‘How do we improve our work?’
(p 10)
In my opinion, when deciding on the most applicable model, you need to
look for the model you find easiest to work with. Having considered both
my research question and the available methodologies I have decided to
conduct my research using a collaborative action research approach. Although
theoretical models are a useful reference tool and assist with the construction
of an initial framework they will never be able to be followed precisely
(Elliott, 1993). I feel the model put forward by McNiff (2002) shows the
action research cycle most clearly and also comes with the useful warning
that although appearing clear cut it will be subject to the unpredictable
nature of the real world. It attempts to both address a particular professional
problem and implement a solution but also continues on as further problems
arise or a new area of practice is identified for investigation.
* Identify an area of practice to be investigated;
* Imagine a solution;
* Implement the solution;
* Evaluate the solution;
* Change practice in light of the evaluation………
Adapted from McNiff (2002, p 11)
Before starting any action research it is essential to systematically
plan the process you intend to go through in order to complete your research.
The first part of the planning process is to decide upon the duration
of the research cycle. Given my research question I envisage my action
research can be completed in one term and my plan can be found in Appendix
4. Highlighted in this plan are the processes that need to be taken into
account when completing this type of research including, reviewing appropriate
literature & seeking constructive criticism and advise from colleagues.
Reviewing literature when conducting ‘action’ research in which
the focus of enquiry is your own practice may at first not appear appropriate.
However it can be very beneficial and important to compare and contrast
your experiences with previous research results. Constructive criticism
and advise from an appropriate colleague can also be beneficial in assisting
your research when discussion with those collaborating in your action
research may be leading you to a narrower focus or complete rethink. This
person, known as a critical friend, can be anyone who you feel has the
time, the interest and the ability to be critical if and when necessary.
They should acts as a:
* Witness - in terms of knowing how the research process took place
* Helper – ensuring the researcher gives a good account of what has
happened
* Evaluator – providing support and criticism as appropriate
* Supporter – providing praise, sympathy and encouragement
(Adapted from McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead (1996) p 85)
It is important that as stated by McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead (1996),
action research originates from ideas the practitioner has taken from
their own strong values. In this way, often the fact you have highlighted
an issue as a problem illustrates you are in fact not abiding by your
own professional values and standards. Bart McGettrich (2000) provides
a framework for Scottish teachers undergoing initial teacher training
that combines our values with our knowledge, skills and learning. It is
this model that I would like to use to initially to highlight and address
this important area.
Professional values and commitment
Professional skills Professional knowledge
and aptitudes and understanding
Methods of data collection
When collecting data and finding evidence your aim should be to show
an improvement in your practice and that you are having an influence on
others (McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead, 1996). Regardless of whether the
data is collected using quantitative or qualitative methods it is important
to be systematic. Cohen (1994) quotes Merton and Kendall (1946) stating
that
‘Social scientists have come to abandon the spurious choice between
qualitative and quantitative data: they are concerned rather with the
combination of both, using the most valuable features of each (p 40)’
All good data should be dated, labelled and stored in terms of context
and authenticated with a signature. Various data gathering techniques
are appropriate, including diaries, questionnaires, video and audio recording,
observations, interviews, sociometry and documentary evidence. The methods
to adopt depend on the research question being asked. All involved should
decide upon the methods, help set the performance indicators and then
aim to see if the parameters set have been fulfilled. To avoid personal
bias at this stage triangulation (comparing two or more views of the same
event/idea) of data sources and individual perceptions is vital.
Action research must involve keeping a diary to monitor both progress
and behaviour (Kemiss and McTaggart, 1992). Collaborative diary keeping,
although highly sensitive in ethical terms, allows for vital triangulation
of this data source. Although subjective and not rigorous in nature diaries
can provide evidence of change over time. Entries should be made following
meetings, lessons, discussions or any other relevant times. Meetings should
be carefully documented and due to their subjective nature analysed alongside
other data such as lesson plans, which are a documented form of data showing
what has happened over time. Critical conversations should also be recorded
as they can assist in highlighting changes in practice, the motivation
for doing so and also provide evidence that the validation process has
been continuous (McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead, 1996).
Given that my research is classroom based, observations will be important
but the techniques utilised to record the observations must also be appropriate.
Whichever recording technique is adopted it is important that the person
doing the recording familiarises themselves with the classroom, arrives
before the lesson begins and if possible studies a series of lessons to
allow children to behave as normally as possible (Wragg, 1994). Various
approaches to the process of recording observations can be found in literature
on action research including systematic, descriptive/narrative or technological
(Simpson and Tuson, 1997). Descriptive/narrative recording involves making
notes on the whole lesson allowing behaviour contexts and the sequence
of events to be recognised. However such a method is usually best completed
over an extended period of time, which would not suit my purpose. Technological
recording (e.g. video or audio taping of lessons) provides the researcher
with permanent data and a true, unbiased version of events. Initially
as a recording tool this method appears most valuable but children can
get in the way of the video, not speak clearly enough to be heard, perform
for the camera or become intimidated. Transcribing the video or audio
can also be time consuming. Systematic observations, based on procedures
and categories carefully worked out in advance, can provide an objective
account of the lesson (Croll, 1986). They are also less likely to be biased
and provide quantitative data. Various published methods, such as the
Flanders Interact Category System (FIAC), can be adopted if they suit
the research question or as Croll (1986) states:
‘researchers should not be reluctant to devise their own systems
if their research problem demands it (p 47)’ but ‘will almost
certainly be of value to incorporate some aspects of a well established
schedule (p 50)’.
When completing a systematic observation either time sampling, continuous
or event recording occurs. Time sampling sees an observer record at set
time intervals providing data on the specified events but this method
cannot provide an indication of true frequency. For event recording, the
recorder looks for the predetermined events and records their frequency
not their duration. This approach would seem more appropriate for my research,
with the critical friend acting as observer and recording the number of
interactions between my TA and myself. Such an observation would be similar
in nature to sociometric methods where marks are made on interaction lines,
however McNiff (2002) argues you cannot draw rigid conclusions from such
a diagram, as they do not account for the behaviour of others within the
classroom. To account for this, the observation sheets would show agreed
categories for interactions (e.g. nod, talk, and smile) but would also
allow observers to add additional comments on behaviour after the observation.
A diagrammatic classroom plan would also be included showing the position
of people being observed.
Questionnaires are a quick and easy method of obtaining information. However,
the composition of them can be challenging and extensive preparation is
required in order to gain an unbiased opinion. Question structure needs
to be carefully addressed, with the avoidance of leading or hypothetical
questions and assumptions being particularly important. For my research
I need to ascertain the personal values of all individuals and as my action
research is collaborative to find this via interview would require an
external interviewer asking all parties involved the same questions. Although
interviews can provide in-depth responses a questionnaire would, if worded
well, prove less threatening. If needed another similar questionnaire
could be conducted at the end of the research and comparisons made. Pupil’s
opinions are often interesting and I would propose to give children a
simple multiple-choice questionnaire to analyse their perception of our
interactions. At all stages in the writing of questionnaires, critical
friends should be involved to avoid bias. If the research was at a larger
scale a sample and pilot should be undertaken.
By using questionnaires and an initial systematic classroom observation,
analysis of data can be triangulated and a baseline formed at the start
of the research. Diary entries, lesson plans and minutes from meetings
will provide data during the research and at the final stage a second
observation, and repeating of the children’s questionnaire will aim
to show how action has led to change. Although for my research question
these are the most appropriate methods, for other questions they may not
be.
Data analysis and evidence
The various strategies that are going to be employed to analyse the data
collected need to be established prior to data collection (Croll, 1986).
For quantitative data, well-defined statistical methods of analysis can
be adopted. However as discussed by Miles and Huberman (1984), lacking
are clearly defined methods of analysis that assist with interpretation
and validation of any qualitative data that may be present. Both Hopkins
(2002) and Miles and Huberman (1984) have looked in more detail at how
such qualitative research can be interpreted. Whether looking at quantitative
or qualitative data to find evidence all relevant people must be involved
to avoid bias and clarify interpretations (Lomax, 1991). In action research
you are looking for changed thinking over time as a direct result of the
action. If you can support your claim with data, then it becomes evidence
(McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead, 1996). Once a researcher has found some
evidence it is important to validate it by finding consistency within
the results. This can be achieved through setting up a validation group
drawing upon a wide circle of interested parties including your critical
friend. Through sharing meaningful personal experiences the ability to
validate any evidence is increased. Such meetings make the work public,
allow fair and accurate judgements to be made and may also provide further
insights into the research question. Such gatherings can occur throughout
the research and should be transcribed.
The reliability of the data collected is often somewhat reflected by the
generalisation of findings. That is to say, if this research were to be
carried out at another time or by another researcher would their findings
be the same? Given the relatively unique classroom situation in which
this action research will be conducted I would somewhat question the reliability
of my data. Which is not to say the research will not be useful, far from
it. I would be more than willing to put forward recommendations to colleagues
based on the data and my findings.
Research evaluation
Upon the completion of any action research the authors must insure both
themselves and their critical friend carry out a thorough examination
of their work. Bell (1999, p 221) lists a series of questions to help
first time researchers evaluate their research. If the research was successful,
practices will have changed, thinking will have been modified and professional
development furthered. As a final mention McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead
(1996) state that ‘if their lives (research participants) are better,
the research may be evaluated as effective (p 43)’. However this
being action research, undoubtedly a new research question will have materialised
and the whole process could begin again.
Conclusion
Throughout this essay I have aimed to show that when conducting educational
research, it is essential to do so by following a clearly defined and
structured approach. Researchers must consider the most appropriate methodology,
the most effective ways to collect the data and finally the best way to
interpret it in any given situation. Consideration should also be paid
to the words of Dadds and Hart (2001).
‘Perhaps the most important new insight for both of us has been awareness
that, for some practitioner researchers, creating their own unique way
through their research may be as important as their self-chosen research
focus. We had understood for many years that substantive choice was fundamental
to the motivation and effectiveness of practitioner research (Dadds 1995);
that what practitioners chose to research was important to their sense
of engagement and purpose. But we had understood far less well that how
practitioners chose to research, and their sense of control over this,
could be equally important to their motivation, their sense of identity
within the research and their research outcomes.’ (p 166)
Here they explain how methodological inventiveness is not only appropriate
but is important in leading to unique enquiry and boosting motivation
and effectiveness at the individual level. However, justification for
any given research choice must be explained, as should any limitations
that may arise. For an educational researcher to successfully complete
a given enquiry all these factors are important along with the ability
to review their work throughout the process.
References:
Adelman, C., Jenkins, D. and Kemmis, S., (1980) Rethinking case study:
Notes from the Second Cambridge Conference’,in Simons, H. (ed.),
Towards a Science of the Singular. University of East Anglia, Centre of
Applied research in Education
Bassey, M. (1995) Creating Education through Research. Newark, Kirklington
Press
Bell, J. (1999) (First pub. 1987) Doing your Research Project. Buckingham,
Open University Press
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education. London,
Routeledge and Kegan Paul
Croll, P. (1986) Systematic Classroom Observation. Lewes, Falmer Press
Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001) Doing Practitioner Research Differently.
London, RoutledgeFalmer.
Ebbutt, D. (1995) Educational action research: Some general concerns and
specific quibbles, in Burgess, R (eds.) Issues In Educational Research.
Lewes, Falmer Press
Elliott, J. (1993) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham,
Open University Press
Fine, G. A. and Sandstorm, K.L. (1998) Knowing children: Participant Observation
with Minors, Qualitative research Methods 15 California, Sage
Frankfort-Nachmais, C and Nachmais, D. (1992). Research Methods in the
Social Sciences. London, Edward Arnold
Hopkins, D. (2002) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Buckingham,
Open University Press
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (eds) (1988) The Action Research Planner.
Victoria, Deakin University Press
Kimmel, A.J. (1988) Ethics and Values in Applied Social Research. Newbury
Park, Sage
Lomax, P. (1991) Managing Better Schools and Colleges: An Action Research
Way. Clevedon, Multi-Lingual Matters
McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research. London, Kogan Page
McGettrich, B. (2000) The Standard for Initial Teacher Education in Scotland.
Internet copy.
McNiff, J. (2003) Action Research for Professional Development: Concise
advice for action researchers. Internet copy
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2002) Action Research: Principles and Practice.
London, Routeledge Falmer
McNiff, J. Lomax , P. and Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research
Project Principles and Practice. London, Routeledge
Merton, R.K. and Kendall, P.L. (1946) ‘The focused interview’
in American Journal of Sociology 51 541-57
Miles, M and Huberman, M. (1984) Drawing valid meaning from qualitative
data: Towards a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5): 20-30.
Miles, M and Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. California,
Sage
Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Knowledge. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think
in Action. London, Temple Smith
Simpson, M. and Tuson, J. (1997) Using Observations in Small-Scale Research.
Glasgow, Scottish Council for Research Education
Winter, R. (1996) Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action
research, in Zuber-Skerritt, Z (ed.) New Directions in Action Research.
London, Falmer
Whitehead, J (1989) Creating a living educational theory from questions
of the kind, ‘How do I improve my practice?’ Cambridge Journal
of Education, Vol.19. No.1, 41-52
Wragg, E.C. (1994) An Introduction to Classroom Observation. London, Routledge
|
