Teacher-research and the art of the professional experiment: Reflective practice in the...

International Journal of Language Studies Volume 9, Number 1, January 2015, pp. 1-22

ISSN: 2157-4898; EISSN: 2157-4901 © 2015 IJLS; Printed in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.

Teacher-research and the art of the professional experiment: Reflective practice in the practical-knowledge tradition

Peter FARRELL, independent researcher, Australia

Donald Schön’s (1987) seminal work, “Educating the Reflective Practitioner”, began a movement where reflective practice came to be understood as a hallmark of what it is to be a professional. Thinking-in-action is where the professional calls upon, experience, knowledge, skill and intuition to solve a problem of practice. Reflecting after the fact is called thinking-on-action and provides for a systematic review of the outcome and process arising from solving the problem. Schön then suggested a third iteration of reflection, and it is during this process that the author suggests that the professional may challenge, legitimise and augment practical-knowledge by accessing other sources of information. Less well known are Schön’s approaches to professional experimentation which include move-testing, exploratory experiments, and hypothesis testing where the variables are manipulated in order to bring about the desired result. The present paper uses reflective practice to mediate teacher research into solving a problem of practice around the teaching and learning of language conventions in the author’s own school. Comparisons with action research are made.

Keywords: Reflection; Teacher-Research; Practical Knowledge; Small School; Problem of Practice; Donald Schön

1. Introduction

The requirement for teachers in Australia to undertake situated research is beginning to be discussed as a part of a suite of measures designed to improve the quality of teachers and the teaching that takes place in government schools (Farrell, 2013). Teacher research and reflection results in better professional practice. As Madden (2014, chapter 3) states:

In using a teacher as researcher framework I am advocating a means to emphasise the professional nature of teachers and to provide an evidence-based process to inform ‘big picture’ decision making around student learning. Teachers as

2 P. Farrell

researchers fosters the teachers ability to think critically and systematically about their teaching and to work collaboratively with others to achieve improvement. Central to this is teacher reflection with the focus on improving teacher practice being the central component.

Teacher-research, particularly that following the action-research model, has long been regarded by some as a means to access quality professional development because it links theory and practice (Johnson, 2010), but I wonder if this link to theory is really important? Some authors suggest that it is because action-research is not yet capable of generating theory on its own (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006).

One’s theoretical paradigm when engaging in research seems incredibly important to the academic because so much importance is attributed to working out what it is during their PhD candidature. However, for working teachers, such concern for the research conventions is viewed with suspicion or even outright contempt, leading to a disconnect between teachers and researchers (Burns, 1999). Ekiz (2006) noted that Turkish teachers prefer research that results in practical knowledge rather than theoretical understanding, and thus look for answers to their problems of practice, in the practical and not the academic literature. So, are academics missing the mark? The premise underlying Whitehead and McNiff ’s book, Action Research: Living Theory, is that action-research has to justify itself to an academic audience. I think this is correct for academics, but I am less certain it is true for practitioners. Taking myself as an example, I am a working teacher looking to improve my own practice in my own context, and the only actions I am interested in are those that lead to improved learning outcomes for my students. This paper argues the case for an alternative model of inquiry, the professional experiment, an idea attributed to Donald Schön (1987), the ‘father’ of reflective practice, but an idea not elaborated by him.

2. Background

There is general agreement that teachers need to be researchers too (Burns, 1999; Ekiz 2006; Madden, 2014; Salmani Nodoushan, 2009; Whitehood & McNiff, 2006), and the action-research model, with its situated and cyclic approach, has much to commend it to teachers in these times of high-stakes testing around the world (Salmani Nodoushan, 2009). Salmani Nodoushan (2009) makes the point that action-research is less formal than other experimentation, its scope can be either small or large, can run over short or long timescales, and can involve just the individual or entire teams of teachers working on a problem. What is more, the reporting of the results is much less formal than what is required for academic research. However, I think action-

3 International Journal of Language Studies, 9(1), 1-22

research, with its attempts to prove and legitimise itself to an academic audience, is taking itself too seriously, and quite possibly, out of contention as a model for in-house research, conducted by teachers, into matters of professional practice. The cyclic, never-ending, nature of action research might also be a barrier to undertaking research when teachers are already time-challenged.

Unlike more established professions like medicine, law and engineering, teaching is relatively new having only relatively recently come under the remit of universities who, for the established professions, control both the generation and disbursement of authenticated science-based professional knowledge. However, for the teaching profession these structures are still relatively weak, and consequently practical-knowledge generated from “real world” practice is very highly regarded (Green, 2009), and, in a direct challenge to universities, some proponents of the practical-knowledge tradition accept that practice-as-knowledge is actually more valuable than knowledge per se. In contrast, “Some academics refuse teacher accounts as atheoretical or anecdotal” (Reid & Green, 2009, p. 172) which arises, in my opinion, from the differences in mind-set between academic researchers and professional teachers about the purposes of research. Like Reid and Green (2009, p. 176), ‘I think the teacher-researcher’s aim is not to produce research but to teach better’. This is a worthwhile aim because, as Madden (2014, chapter 3), an Australian researcher, concluded:

Much of what occurs in education is the result of taken-for-granted routines, ideologies, top down mandates and untested assumptions and beliefs. However, schools are now in the age of evidence and the emergence of teacher as researcher will offer a vehicle to foster school improvement.

A difference between the academic-researcher and the teacher-researcher is the premise under which the research is undertaken. The academic is expected to get across the relevant literature in order to identify the leading thinkers in the field, to identify the significant theories and ideas, to find the gaps and conundrums in the literature, and more importantly, to generate a research question and justify their research paradigm. For the academic the literature is of profound importance. Contrast this with the teacher-researcher who is simply trying to solve a problem of practice; and schools are full of problems (Salmani Nodoushan, 2009). For the teacher-researcher, the literature is of relatively little importance and it is possible just as much weight will be given to the opinion and practice of colleagues, information in websites, blogs and forums, as well as professional reading, and academic papers, as long as these are relatively easy to access, cheap to purchase, and

4 P. Farrell

written with a professional audience in mind (Madden, 2014). Very academic papers are likely to be ignored by teachers (Johnson, 2010), and thus, without this linking of practice with theory, the experiment becomes mere problem solving (Eikeland, 2012).

Schön’s (1987) seminal work, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, describes three types of experiments for the professional audience. The first, called a move-testing experiment, is set up with a desired outcome in mind, and one either gets the desired result, or one does not. The second approach, in which no pre-defined outcome is identified, is called an exploratory experiment. The third method, which Schön (1987) called, hypothesis testing, sounds very similar to any science-based experiment, but is not. Schön (1987) makes the point that unlike scientific research, where there is an attempt to control all the variables and to ensure that the experiment will either confirm or deny a neat hypothesis, practical experiments are messy and subject to change, and, what is more important, there is an expectation that the variables will probably be manipulated in order to force any hypothesis to come true.

Schön’s (1987) professional experiments are under elaborated and, as such, do not enjoy the same degree of acceptance as a research methodology as say, action-research. And yet, Schön’s (1987) ideas around being a reflective practitioner have gained currency around the world. According to Schön (1987), this is a three-step process, beginning with reflection-in-action, moving then to reflection-on-action, and finally a step he called, reflection-on-reflection-in-action. The first step might be likened to thinking-on-your-feet. That is, as the situation unfolds the practitioner is calling upon knowledge, experience, expertise and intuition to develop an answer to the situation that may be driven by pragmatic, political, participatory, and/or democratic factors. A pragmatic solution is the first workable response that comes to hand. A political solution caters to those in power while a participatory response is one that consults stakeholders before it is enacted. A democratic solution attempts to achieve an optimal outcome for everyone. The second step, reflection-on-action takes place after the initial event and might be likened to an intensive review of what took place, how well our practitioner dealt with it, and what might be learnt for next time. The final reflective step occurs much later on, and it is at this point, that the practitioner’s own response can be challenged, legitimised and augmented into practical knowledge.

3. A move-testing experiment

The present study shows how professional experimentation and reflective practice can be combined to produce authentic learning in the practical-knowledge tradition. In simple terms, what follows is a ‘move-testing’


professional experiment whereby the author’s school, on becoming aware of a problem of practice with the teaching of language conventions, did, using the resources available to it, audit and benchmark the performance and knowledge of its students around using grammar and punctuation. Then, without being prescriptive, it put in place an expectation that grammar and punctuation would become privileged teaching components of the literacy teaching to happen in the school in the months to come. There was an expectation that student performance would be improved as a consequence.

3.1. Subjects

For the present study the subjects were all the students enrolled in the author’s own school, Zeerust Primary School in Zeerust, Australia. This government primary school had an enrolment of just 16 students, encompassing grade F-6 (foundation to grade 6). All the students were Australian born, of Australian parents, who were either working or middle-class. The home-life of these students could be described as stable and secure. For these students, English was their first language, and the school did offer Japanese as a LOTE—languages other than English—subject once a week for 60 minutes. The other significant person in the school concerned with the experiment was a part-time teacher of the junior students (F-2). The teacher was also part of the school’s curriculum committee, which met weekly to discuss teaching and learning issues, including the progress of the present study.

3.2. Procedure

The procedure adopted for the present study was a move-testing experiment, and it was conducted as follows:

1) Identify the problem of practice; 2) Reflection-in-action; 3) Make a plan; 4) Implement, observe and/or manipulate the plan; 5) Reflection-on-action; and 6) Reflection-on-reflection-in-action.

Step 1: Identify the problem of practice

The National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is taken by all students in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9 across Australia. At Zeerust Primary School, all senior students (grades 3-6) take the test irrespective of whether they are in grade 3 or 5. As well as being sent away for assessment by an outside organisation, the tests are also marked in-house and comparisons are made between the students’ performances on the current and previous

6 P. Farrell

test. A review of the past three years of data, generated by the tests of language conventions, showed our students were not performing as well as they might with respect to punctuation and grammar. While we had been generally effective overall since 2013 (see Table 1), the results for individual students over the years had been mixed.

Table 1 Calculated Effect Size for NAPLAN Punctuation and Grammar at Zeerust Primary School 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 -0.19 0.62 0.60 2 up (GW, TL), 5 up (JR, HW, SS, ES, TS, EC) 3 up (LM, LD, ES) 3 similar (JR, SS, TS) 3 similar (LM, LD, TS) 1 similar (GW) 4 down (HW, LM, LD, ES) 2 down (TL, GW) no downs

*Also shown are whether individual students improved, plateaued or scored less well than previously.

Apart from this annual review of NAPLAN data, the school soon realised that it had never systematically collected detailed information about the children’s learning of language conventions, nor, apart from regular dictated sentences, first introduced to all classrooms after 2012 (Table 1), had we specifically taught language conventions during the daily literacy blocks. We had an obvious problem of practice around how the children learned language conventions, and we needed to understand this problem better than we currently did.

Step 2: Reflection-in-action

Our first step was to carry out an audit of the state curriculum documents concerned with language conventions (VCAA, 2013). This served two purposes: (a) to educate the teaching staff about the breadth and depth of what was to be taught, and (b) to ascertain how the students were performing before any plan was implemented. According to the state curriculum documents, there were three areas to be addressed with respect to teaching and learning language conventions: (1) sentences and clause level grammar, (2) word-level grammar, and (3) punctuation. Each area was subsequently sub-divided into grade-based expectations. These criteria were entered into a spread-sheet, and, following a 30 minute writing session using a simple picture of a grandfather figure talking to a boy and a girl as a visual cue, every student was assessed as to whether they were following these language conventions as a matter of course.

In addition to identifying language convention weaknesses in our writing


practice, the spread-sheet analysis also allowed us to identify individual students for whom we should be concerned; these were IL, JL, GW and LD (three of these students were in the senior class).

Figure 1. Extract from the audit of state curriculum at benchmark #1.

The extract from the audit of state curriculum documents shown in figure 1 relates to the application of language conventions and how Zeerust Primary School was performing at benchmark #1; not all students are shown and names are hidden. Light-grey indicates senior class weakness and dark grey shows whole school weakness. Numbers in bold indicate a good result.

Further development of the spread-sheet (Figure 1) meant that weaknesses across the school could be identified such as the consistent use of capital letters, full stops, ?, !, upper and lowercase letters (highlighted in dark grey in Figure 1). The reason that target percent changed with each grade is that the number of students expected to be demonstrating the attribute changes as the number of students in each grade and above changes. We only have five students in grade 5 and up which is 31.3% of the school.

Issues to be dealt with in the senior class are shown in light grey in Figure 1 and include, at the sentence and clause level, quoted text (direct/indirect) and

8 P. Farrell

expanded nouns, complex sentences with main and subordinate clauses, and the elaborate use of clauses. At the word level problems were identified for expanded nouns and adjectives, and verb choice, elaborate tense, and adverbials.

Examining Figure 1 in more detail showed advanced punctuation by the senior students appeared well in hand (shown in bold font) but there were obvious problems with applying more basic punctuation throughout the school. For example, capital letters and fullstops, use of . ? ! relating to emotions, questions and commands, and capital letters signal proper nouns and commas separate items in a list, these also adversely affected sentence and clause-level grammar (Figure 1). Nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbials, articles, adjectives, abstract, common, concrete, and proper nouns were problematical.

What became apparent was that dictated sentences only covered punctuation and not grammar. Our punctuation results were quite good; it was grammar that was the problem. As the curriculum committee discussed the possibilities presented by the spread-sheet, it began to dawn on us that our work could have a wider impact than just punctuation and grammar. Understanding grammar could improve reading outcomes and add to the general capacity of students to write. It was also apparent to us that our expectations around language conventions were much higher than what was indicated by the state’s curriculum documentation.

Step 3: Make a plan

The curriculum committee met to discuss how to proceed from this point. We saw little reason to look at the research literature as our issue was not about finessing our teaching, it was about delivering something we had ignored, in a more systematic way. The first strategy was to insist all our students used proper proportions for writing in upper and lower case, and that they should start sentences with capital letters, and use appropriate punctuation symbols at the end of sentences. This was about expectation. The second strategy was to model for our better senior writers the ways they could write more complex material, thus engaging in more advanced language conventions. This was about teaching. Our third approach was to identify each of our students at risk of not achieving learning outcomes for language conventions and ensuring that a relevant learning goal was written into their learning plan. We needed more information about them, and since we were already getting it, why not get more information about everyone (the grade 1-6s anyway).

We challenged our grade 1 to 6 students to undertake a grade 4 test of grammatical knowledge we happened to have in the school. Grade 2 to 6


student were further challenged to undertake a grade 6 level test created by the same publisher. These two tests showed that the grade 1-6 students in the school had a very poor understanding of adverbs, prepositions and determiners. Weaknesses identified specific to the grade 2-6 students were concerned with relating verbs, tense and apostrophes. All students ended up with a language convention-related learning goal in their individual learning plans. These were aggregated and thus future teaching topics were identified and would leverage the teaching and learning.

Thus we had determined what we needed to teach. Next was to establish how we were to deliver. Would the solution be pragmatic, political, participatory or democratic? As it happened we looked for a pragmatic solution. That is, we did not want to overturn everything we were doing, and we did not want to spend money finding a solution; we just wanted to see an overall improvement in the children’s use and knowledge of grammar. It was important that time be given to teaching and learning the language conventions but not a burdensome amount. In the junior class, my teacher continued to use dictated sentences to check punctuation, but then went further and deconstructed the sentences into verbs and nouns and adjectives. Quoted text and the use of possessive apostrophes became a feature of the writing component of the junior room’s literacy program. For the senior students, dictated sentences were continued but the standard required was raised in accordance with the expectation of the grade the student was working at. Considerable time was spent on modelling how to write complex text (Farrell, in press). And, making use of teaching on-line literacy resources, already available to the school, the writing component of the literacy block included specific teaching about grammatical ideas at the middle primary level.

Step 4: Implement, observe and/or manipulate the plan

This step does allow for the manipulation of variables but as this was a ‘move-testing’ experiment contrasting with a ‘hypothesis-testing’ experiment, little manipulation was expected. However, the curriculum committee did keep a close watch on what was occurring in each classroom and across the school. Five meetings of the curriculum committee took place over the course of the experiment. The gaps were due to a term break, a report writing day, and a curriculum day (no students). At each meeting the progress of the experiment was discussed. It was left to teachers to determine how they would cover language conventions in their classrooms. The junior class teacher started work on language conventions before the meeting on August 12th. This was the same day that the aggregated learning goals from all of the individual learning plans were presented. From this point teaching could be leveraged so that those topics bringing about the greatest impact could be delivered. The

10 P. Farrell

senior class, the author’s own class, began working on language conventions on July 22nd. Curriculum Committee Sessions What was done 22/07/2014 All students at risk were provided with a grammar-related

learning goal in their individual learning plans. • Seniors - Mini grammar lessons implemented in the senior

class during the writing week (reading was provided on the other week). The lessons cover the expectations of grade 3-4s.

• Seniors – Introduced the students to how to tackle a really big writing project. It will become a learning artefact.

12/08/2014 All students in the school were provided with a grammar-related learning goal in their individual learning plans. These were aggregated into group tasks. • Juniors – adjectives, adverbs and apostrophes. • Seniors – Nouns and the class-writing project.

19/08/2014 All students are working on adverbs. • Juniors – these students are receiving direct instruction. • Seniors - The seniors are viewing proprietary Powerpoint

presentations and continuing with WDB (writing day book; these are personal long-term writing projects.)

28/08/2014 • Juniors – identifying adjectives, nouns adverbs. • Seniors – We carried out a literacy circle analysis of the

learning artefact, and I wrote a second draft to share with the students. Work on the science report continues. For integrated studies, the students have been conducting an experiment on the effect of coloured filters on germinating plants. This is being written up as a shared project.

09/09/2014 It’s time to retest the students and see where we are at: • What have we achieved? • Where do we need to lead the school next?

Step 5: Reflection-on-action

All students were retested for their use of the language conventions using the same 30-minute writing task using the same picture stimulus. All grade 1-6 students were retested for their knowledge of language conventions using the same proprietary tests used in Step 4. From these data sets, effect sizes were


measured, students at risk were identified, and the next teaching topics were identified.

Statistical analysis is possible but not necessary, although Hattie’s (2009) effect size has been calculated here in order to indicate whether or not the teaching has been effective. The teacher-researcher should not be wedded to either qualitative or quantitative approaches. It is more probable that the analysis will be descriptive, where the trends are of greater interest. A very useful way to look at what has happened in our experiment is think like the sub-editor of a newspaper; and direct the reader to the headlines arising from our experiment. Of course this may be a subjective rather than an objective view, and is likely to be another point of difference between researchers working in the practical-knowledge tradition and those driven to generate science-based knowledge. So, what are the headings arising from the present research?

1) Students at Zeerust Primary School get into grammar 2) Big turn-around in sentence and clause-level grammar 3) Competent writers show the way 4) GW big improver in understanding grammar but school still has concerns 5) Noun knowledge still weak

Headline 1: Students at Zeerust Primary School get into grammar

The teachers, including myself, assumed they understood what the students in the different grades needed to be demonstrating. The audit of state curriculum documents showed this to be untrue. As the curriculum committee reflected upon the data collected it came to realise that there were two components to determining language competency: (1) student knowledge, and (2) student practice. The result of this professional ‘move-testing’ experiment is that our students showed a greater knowledge of grammatical forms after the introduction of a language conventions component into the literacy block. We know this because we collected before and after benchmark data and thus, were able to calculate effect sizes, and we measured an effect size of 0.46 in the junior class and 0.59 in the senior class. Hattie say’s that an effect size of 0.4 is the hinge point and what might be expected from a competent teacher delivering a competent unit of work. Our students responded well to the focus on grammar and we achieved better effect sizes than 0.4.

Headline 2: Big turn-around in sentence and clause-level grammar

Figure 2 shows changes in what the students can demonstrate in a 30-minute writing test. There were changes in sentence and clause-level grammar where it was observed there had been a shift from poor performances shown in

12 P. Farrell

dark-grey (whole-school) and light-grey (senior students only) in Figure 1 to better performances shown in bold font in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Extract from the audit of state curriculum at benchmark #2.

Figure 2 displays an extract from the audit of state curriculum documents relating to the application of language conventions and how Zeerust Primary School was performing at benchmark #2. Not all students are shown, and names are hidden. Light-grey indicates senior class weakness, and dark grey shows whole school weakness. Numbers in bold indicate a good result. As it happens, constructing sensible sentences was a feature of the teaching that occurred in both the junior and senior classes.

Headline 3: Competent writers show the way

For the improved overall knowledge of grammatical forms the effect size was 0.69. While the improvement in the senior room was more limited, the major improvements came from the already competent writers in the junior room, who demonstrated their understanding of higher-level criteria. In Figure 2, two grade 1 students are shown as scoring 0.43, well above their 0.14 target.


Headline 4: GW big improver in understanding grammar but school still has concerns

There were, however, student practices that had not improved enough, namely F-2 punctuation, and the very basic requirement for proportional letter sizing, capital letters and full stops (shown in dark-grey in Figure 2). However, what was more important, was that one student, GW, had improved so much over the course of the experiment that she was no longer considered to be at risk, and JL while still a worry, had made considerable improvement himself (N.B.: these students are not shown in the figures).

Headline 5: Noun knowledge still weak

What was quite surprising was that somehow noun knowledge, arguably a simpler grammatical form, was very weak across the school. It is certainly an area that needs to be addressed in the future. Other matters to be dealt with include clauses in the junior room and verb groups in the senior room.

Step 6: Reflection-on-Reflection-in-action

This is the critical step when professional reading and reflection about the experiment can come together to make more of this simple experiment than might otherwise be the case. But what do we reflect on? There are issues of curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and school leadership wrapped up in our experiment which leaves the field wide open, and it may be possible, if we choose the wrong topics, that our practical-knowledge is neither challenged, legitimised or augmented. A simple but effective technique is to re-visit the original headlines and explore, through the literature and other sources, both academic and professional, some of the ideas relating to each headline.

Headline 1: Students at Zeerust Primary School get into grammar

Prior to this experiment the school assumed that its students learnt grammar in passing, while punctuation did require some weekly practice. This is not an unusual attitude in Australia (French, 2013). In fact, my normal practice, on receiving a draft of written work from one of my students, would be to ask if the student had taken the ‘text for a walk’ and read it aloud, exactly as it is written. The premise being that if the written text sounded OK when read aloud, it probably was OK grammatically, because in spite of not knowing the specifics of grammar and punctuation, the students had been hearing and seeing it all their lives. This learning grammar ‘in passing’ is not an unknown idea, but many teachers believe that grammar must be taught by transmission, that is with discrete units taught, tested and the errors corrected (Uysal & Bardakci, 2014). Uysal and Bardakci (2014) discuss a middle way, where there is a deliberate effort to raise the consciousness of

14 P. Farrell

students learning about language conventions, but in an incidental way, as opportunities arise, rather than as a series of drill and test units. This idea resonates with me, but I admit it will be a challenging to do well without sufficient content knowledge of my own. This is why the audit of the state curriculum documents was critical to the experiments performed here. Even as the author was presenting the Powerpoint material to his students, his own knowledge of language conventions was being improved. Whether such knowledge translates into better analytical skills, and the internalisation of a grammar-related metalanguage, that link and form and meaning (Harper & Rennie, 2008) remains to be seen but tackling this issue, probably through the mechanism of the school’s professional learning team (PLT) ‘should’ increase the practical-knowledge of the two teachers working in the school.

Headline 2: Big turn-around in sentence and clause-level grammar

In the author’s school there was an absence of consistent learning around part of the curriculum, and the school put in place an expectation that teaching grammar and punctuation was required but left the implementation to the professional judgement of the teacher concerned. As it happens the author began work on the issue about half a term earlier than his colleague and there may be a correlation between that, and an improved effect size of 0.59 compared to 0.46. Effect-size, as used in the present experiment, is a relatively straight-forward calculation for any teacher with a knowledge of spread-sheet functions, or how to use a scientific calculator. First, work out the averages of both the before and after data-sets. Then find the standard deviation of both sets of data together. Finally, take away the average of benchmark #1 from the average of benchmark #2, then divide that answer by the standard deviation of both sets of data.

By placing the experiment onto the weekly agenda of the curriculum committee, the school ensured the issue remained current and important. “As a leader you demonstrate that something is important by paying attention to it, measuring its performance and controlling its operation on a regular basis” (Schein, 1992 p. 230). However, both teachers addressed the issue in their own ways. This was not neglect by the author, who lead the school, but a deliberate ploy. “When you are prepared to take risks, to justify your action and be accountable for it, you are in control of your professional life” (Ridden & De Nobile 2012, p. 109).

The strategy in the junior room was direct instruction and parsing of dictated sentences. In contrast, the senior class was taken through a series of Powerpoint presentations on grammar made available to the school by a pre-existing supplier of reading materials. In addition, a substantial time was spent modelling how to write a long complex text (Farrell, in press).


In many ways this was a very simple experiment that came about in response to high-stakes national testing. Standardised tests are becoming problematic for teachers, and it is possible that they are leading to a narrowing of curriculum (Johnson, 2010, p. 5) states:

Currently there is move toward more standardized testing and teacher accountability. That is, standardized tests are used as a form of quality control in the factory model educational paradigm which has been embraced by some elements in our society. However, trying to make teachers more accountable for the performance of their students is futile unless they are also empowered to make the decisions that are best for them and their students. Using the factory model we can say that teachers need to be given the responsibility for the input if they are to be held responsible for the output.

Headline 3: Competent writers show the way

Lambert (2010) describes a range of definitions that might be applied to the gifted and talented student, but none of these seem particularly useful for our reflection here. The author does have a working-theory about how the more competent student learns. These excellent students are able to learn both indirectly and directly. For example, when I am talking one-on-one to another student about noun-groups, that conversation is not just overheard, it is taken on-board and internalised by the excellent student. That same excellent student also appears to get more out of whole-class teaching and practice than the average child, who may need greater practice time and access to one-on-one or small-group tuition. The excellent student seems much more capable of ‘joining the dots’ than the average students. They see the links between understanding grammatical forms and punctuation, and how this can improve their ability to write more complex material.

Headline 4: GW big improver in understanding grammar but school still has concerns

Harper and Rennie (2008) describe the experiences of pre-service teachers attending an Australian university, learning about grammar at school, and what comes through is a sense of frustration: “When participants recalled their own experiences of learning about language, most described fragmented, prescriptive and decontextualized experiences” (p. 31).

Thinking back, GW’s improvement may not just be the result of the teaching program but a consequence of the personal actions she undertook for herself and others as a learner. As was indicated in the meeting of the curriculum committee on 19/08/2014, the senior students were already engaged in large-scale writing projects (up-to 2000 words). It was observed at that time

16 P. Farrell

that GW was more confident about her ability to edit her own and other student’s work (particularly JL – another improver). Prior to the experiment, GW had been reluctant to do this and JL had been even more reluctant to submit his work to this level of scrutiny. In their own way, GW and JL, by engaging in an intense writing and editing process at the same time as learning about grammar and punctuation, had added value to the experiment by contextualising and internalising what was being taught. Going forward, it will be important for the children at my school that grammar and writing are taught in parallel with plenty of cross-over between the two.

This headline also referenced the school’s concerns and these were because some of the children failed to take up, following our ‘in passing’ model of teaching, the consistent use of capital letters and full-stops and their equivalents (? !) at the beginning and the end of sentences. Clearly, this aspect of teaching language conventions needs more than the simple hope that the children will just, ‘pick it up as they go along’. Hattie (2009) argues that facilitative approaches to learning are inferior to those involving more direct instruction. It seems that Hattie was true in this case.

Headline 5: Noun knowledge still weak!

In her thesis, French (2013) shares the results of some UK research where senior primary and junior secondary students identify adjectives and nouns. The proportion of students who could correctly identify nouns was approximately 40%. Our own students seem able to use nouns appropriately in their writing; where they are failing is in their knowledge of what nouns are. French (2013) went on to say that it wasn’t until students had progressed beyond junior secondary that successful noun identification reached about 60%, which suggests to me that some students never grasp the idea of what a noun is. French (2013, p. 116) stated:

‘Nouns’ are actually less straightforward than the . . . common nouns . . . [suggest], and can perform different functions in clauses (such as Participants in Processes, but also Things in prepositional phrases making up Circumstances) which actually make them more difficult and less ‘basic’ than is sometimes assumed.

At this point the school needs to develop more specific and deeper knowledge of nouns and this will begin with the PLT reviewing part of Ruth French’s PhD thesis. This may help teachers help students to address a number of matters identified in the post-test including nouns and clauses.

4. Results and Discussion

Action-research is the prevailing model of research recommended to teachers


undertaking an investigation of their own practice. Within the approach is a range of authors supporting their own version of the model (Burns, 1999; Johnson, 2010; Madden, 2014). For the sake of convenience I will use one variant of action-research described by Salmani Nodoushan (2009, p. 213) who prescribed the following steps:

1) Identify and define the problem, 2) Frame the research question(s), 3) Review the related literature, 4) Collect the data 5) Analyse the data 6) Answer the research question(s), 7) Draw the conclusion(s), 8) Draft a plan of action for the future and reflect on the experience; and 9) Share and disseminate what has been learned with colleagues.

Some of these steps are found within our professional experiment too, while some are not. For example, both methods identify a problem but there are subtle differences. In the professional experiment, it is a problem of practice, while the action-research model allows that the problem may be a gap or conundrum in the literature. In the example experiment described in the present paper, the problem of practice was identified through the regular review of national test data and an imperative that the school needed to respond to this high-stakes testing.

Precise question definition is not a factor in the professional experiment and neither is a review of the related literature. Salmani Nodoushan (2009) appears to be suggesting an approach that might prove useful to an individual engaged in writing a thesis, but it is not a good use of time for the teacher-researcher working in the practical-knowledge tradition. I accept that some ‘quick and dirty’ research might take place in the process of ‘thinking-in-action’. For example, terms may be Googled, old textbooks and/or teaching resources might be consulted, or colleagues might be asked for their thoughts, but this will be for the purpose of affirming a course of action most likely already decided upon. Thinking-in-action is, after all, about using the person’s existing knowledge, skill, experience and intuition.

A problem with the suggested approach is that the person undertaking the experiment may not have a great deal of knowledge or experience to call upon, or may doubt their skill and/or intuition. But what if the problem of practice to be solved was shared? Thinking-in-action as a group activity has the dual advantages of getting members of the team on-board with accepting the need for change, and it opens up the range of solutions that can be considered before deciding on the plan.

18 P. Farrell

In the present experiment, the first step, after identifying the problem of practice, was to audit the students' knowledge and practice of punctuation, word and sentence-level grammar against the scope and sequence documents available from the state education department (VCAA, 2013). These actions are almost similar to Steps 4 and 5 described by Salmani Nodoushan (2009), except that, rather than being at the point of answering a research question, or set of questions, the teacher-researcher is only just formulating a plan. It is important to recall that these data were presented to the curriculum committee in order for a plan to be formulated. The plan was exquisitely contextual; because of the experience and expertise of the two teachers involved, no formulaic response to the problem of practice was prescribed; rather, it was left to the two teachers to manage the issue in their own way. The teachers were expected to act upon the information provided which amounted to ‘what’ and ‘who’ needed to be taught, and putting in place an expectation this would happen, while deliberately leaving the ‘how’ of what would be taught up to the professional judgement of each teacher. Collaborative accountability was mediated through meetings of the curriculum committee; teachers were expected to change their approach if necessary in order to get the desired outcome, in this instance improved use and knowledge of grammar. As such, answering a research question was not at all important compared to solving the problem of practice.

The reflection-on-action step in the move-testing experiment described in the present study appears to incorporate Steps 4, 5 and 7 of Salmani Nodoushan’s (2009) action-research model, albeit much later in the process. In the present example, benchmark data were collected and compared with the first set of data. Analysis was carried out, although this was descriptive not statistical. Of particular interest to the author were the trends and the identification of work that need to be done going forward. Salmani Nodoushan (2009, p. 219) noted, “The action researchers is advised to search for trends—patterns of evidence—over the duration of the study. This is very important since the underlying premise of action research is to improve teaching and learning.” In this regard, both professional experiments and action-research appear to be in accord with each other (Reid & Green, 2009). The kind of analysis undertaken in the school will probably depend upon the skill and knowledge available in the staff.

Reflection-on-reflection-in-action occurred well after the experimental phase had concluded and can be liked to Salmani Nodoushan’s (2009) Step 8. This step marries together Schon’s dual ideas about professional experimentation and reflection-on-reflection-in-action. The failure to reflect, and engage with the literature, turns our move-testing experiment into mere problem-solving (Eikeland, 2012), and by carrying out this final step in a rigorous way well after the event, the teacher-researcher can challenge, legitimise and augment


their practical knowledge. A point to make here is that the sources used for this step can be quite eclectic ranging from blogs, professional texts, and any academic writing that is freely available to the teacher-researcher. This means that many potentially useful papers, locked up by publishers behind expensive subscriptions, are never, ever accessed by teachers, unless those teachers happen to be undertaking postgraduate studies (Madden, 2014). Here though, is an opportunity, during this final reflective process, for collaboration between the academic and the teacher. The collaboration may take the form of simply providing relevant materials or working with the teacher-researcher to make the work palatable to an academic audience.

Unlike, Salmani Nodoushan (2009), our professional experiment did not include a step to disseminate the findings. Salmani Nodoushan (2009) makes many suggestions as to how this might be done—including presenting at school meetings, workshops, and conferences. He also suggested publishing on the school website, and producing narrated Powerpoints for distribution by email. Other possible ideas are to publish in the professional literature, in a blog, or into a website that promotes the availability of free research (Academia.edu, for example). Social media may be a possibility for some teachers. It was noted by Lyle (2003) that if teacher-research is not shared, and even better, discussed, then an opportunity for even deeper learning has been lost. Getting teacher-research published in peer-reviewed journals may prove problematical (Farrell, 2013).

In addition to the sources of information being eclectic, the topics of interest to the teacher-researcher reflecting in the practical-knowledge tradition are likely to be varied and wide-ranging too. The reason for this is that practical knowledge is both multi-dimensional and contextual. In the present experiment, the author related his experiment to ideas around what teachers do and believe with respect to teaching grammar (Heading 1), issues of school leadership (Heading 2), how competent kids learn (Heading 3), an effective approach to teaching grammar (Heading 4), and the problems associated with teaching students about nouns (Heading 5). It was stated elsewhere that the process of reflection-on-reflection-in-action challenges, legitimises and augments practical knowledge. For example:

1) practical knowledge was shown to be challenged when reflecting about Heading 5—where it was assumed nouns were ‘easy’ to learn;

2) practical knowledge was shown to be augmented by reflecting on Heading 4 and the best way to approach the teaching and learning of language conventions in the future; and

3) practical knowledge was legitimised by Headings 1, 2 and 3.

Research into Heading 1 showed that our previous practice was not a matter of ‘laziness’ or incompetence, but generally accepted practice; we did not

20 P. Farrell

know any better. Heading 2 confirmed the author’s approach to leading the school on this issue. Heading 3 was about how a working theory was once again proved by observation.

At Step 8, Salmani Nodoushan (2009) requires an action plan be drafted and the experience be reflected upon. The reflection step has been adequately dealt with already but the action-plan step is an interesting one. Action-research is cyclic and it could be anticipated that schools following Salmani Nodoushan’s model of action-research, or indeed many other variants of action research would then implement the action plan, thus beginning the cycle all over again. Might I suggest that this is a problematic step for busy schools, and one that is likely to be ‘observed in the breach’. As happened with the professional experiment described here, the process ended before this point. Any future action around this issue will be incorporated into the on-going professional practice of the teacher researcher, and that includes the work of the PLT, which will consider the suggestions of French (2013). However, as an experiment, this episode is over, and it is time to deal with the next problem of practice.

5. Conclusion

The ‘how’ of teacher-research is often associated with the action-research model, and the present paper argues for the professional experiment combined with reflective practice as described by Schön (1987) as an alternative. All too often academic researchers seem pre-occupied with what the literature has to say and justifying their research paradigm, and this is fair and reasonable for those teachers intending to follow an academic path, but it is a waste of time and energy for those teachers who intend to remain in schools. Practical-knowledge needs a voice and it needs champions if it is to be a valued and validated way of knowing about one’s professional world. We tend to see solutions to problems from our own perspective. For example, on seeing a sick patient the surgeon recommends an operation, the pharmacist recommends medication, while the psychologist recommends counselling. I think teachers have allowed education-researchers to determine how teachers should conduct research and what that research should look like. This needs to change, because education-researchers generate science-based research ‘about’ teachers and teaching, and this is different to teacher-researchers who generate practical-knowledge ‘for’ teachers and teaching. It is ironic therefore that I must make the case for practical-knowledge research in, to use some Australian vernacular, a ‘fair-dinkum’ academic journal.

Acknowledgements

I would also like to acknowledge the utility of Academia.edu for independent


researchers like myself. Not only was I able to read a number of relevant papers, I was also able to communicate with the authors. I would especially like to acknowledge Associate Professor Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan of the Iranian Institute for Encyclopedia Research, and an on-line colleague at Academia.edu, who encouraged me to write the present paper, and assisted me, in a very real way, by providing me with access to a number of interesting articles, some of which appear below.

The Author

Peter Farrell (Email: [email protected]) is both an independent researcher and full-time school principal of a very small primary school in Victoria, Australia, where he has substantial teaching responsibilities. Peter received his doctor of education from La Trobe University in Victoria where looked at how school leaders fostered culture in their schools. Peter’s other interests include enacting pedagogy and curriculum in very small schools, the development of aspirant leaders, and professional reflection and research.

References

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eikeland, O. (2012). Action research: Applied research, intervention research, collaborative research, practitioner research, or praxis research? International Journal of Action Research, 8(1) 9-44.

Ekiz, D. (2006). Primary school teachers’ attitudes towards educational research. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 6(2), 395-402.

Farrell, P. (2013). Teacher-researchers and the discovery and dissemination of professional practice. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 18(4), 34-37.

Farrell, P. (in press). Introducing the five-section essay (5SE) into senior primary school: They’ve learnt to write, now they have to write to learn. Primarily English.

French R. (2013). Teaching and learning functional grammar in junior primary classrooms. PhD Thesis, University of New England. Armidale, Australia.

Green, B. (2009). Introduction: Understanding and researching professional practice. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice, (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Harper, H., & Rennie, J. (2008). I had to go out and get myself a book on

22 P. Farrell

grammar: A study of pre-service teachers’ knowledge about language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(1), 22–37.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge: London.

Johnson, A. (2010). A short guide to action research (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Lambert, M. (2010). ‘Gifted and Talented’: A label too far? Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/ on Tuesday, 7 October 14.

Lyle, S. (2003). An investigation into the impact of a continuous professional development program designed to support teachers as researchers in South Wales. Journal of In-service Education, 29(2), 295-314.

Madden, J. (2014). The teacher as researcher: One school’s journey thus far. In K. Sell & D. Lynch (Eds.), The teacher as researcher: Case studies in educational research, (pp. 42-63). Tarragindi: Oxford Global.

Reid, J., & Green, B. (2009). Researching (from) the standpoint of the practitioner. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice, (pp. 165–183). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Ridden, P., & De Nobile, J. (2012). Keys to school leadership. Camberwell: ACER Press.

Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2009). Improving learning and teaching through action research. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(4), 211-222.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass higher education series.

Uysal, H. H., & Bardakci, M. (2014). Teacher beliefs and practices of grammar teaching: Focusing on meaning, form, or forms? South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1-16.

VCAA (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority). (2013). English scope and sequence: Foundation to year 6. Retrieved from http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/auscurric/English_scope_and_sequence_AusVELS.pdf on Saturday, 10 May 14.

Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research living theory. London: Sage Publications Limited.

Teacher-research and the art of the professional experiment: Reflective practice in the...

Documents

Transcript of Teacher-research and the art of the professional experiment: Reflective practice in the...