TEACHER EDUCATORS AND CLASSROOM RESEARCH: PRACTISING WHAT WE PREACH Anne Rossiter

TEACHER EDUCATORS AND CLASSROOM RESEARCH: PRACTISING WHAT WE PREACH
Anne Rossiter

Abstract
This paper, while acknowledging the difficulties, stresses the value of teacher educators investigating what goes on in their ‘classrooms’. It presents the results of an investigation into innovations in the professional component of an initial teacher training course. It examines in particular the use trainees can make of peer discussion of classroom events in the construction of pedagogical knowledge.

Why should teacher educators be involved in classroom research?
I’d like to answer this question by explaining how my own interest in classroom research came about. In the course of my work on an in-service training programme a few years ago, I was asked to supervise the marking of the trainees’ research projects. This proved an immensely distressing experience, wading through dozens of much-laboured-over yet ill-digested summaries of the ideas of well-known writers on ‘group work’ and ‘communication games’, in which the rare comments relating to classroom practice showed how far the writers were from seeing a relevance of these ideas to their own situation, let alone implementing them.
A colleague and I began, therefore, to consider how we could replace this theory-based and ultimately meaningless research with the trainees’ own investigations into problems which actually concerned them in their own schools, and the steps they could take to cope with the very real difficulties they faced. Through circumstances beyond our control, our involvement in this programme came to an abrupt end, but what remained was a very real interest in, firstly, teachers’ use of their own classrooms as a means of developing their understanding of teaching. Secondly, it seemed clear that there is a continuing need for teacher educators to examine their own practices in order to provide teachers, in training or on courses of professional development, with appropriate opportunities to learn what they need to become increasingly able teachers.
The more I learn from recent research in the language classroom, the more I become aware how little I know about the way learning takes place in my own. I cannot be alone among my colleagues in feeling I now know far more about the classrooms where I no longer operate on a daily basis than about those in which I do work. I am also aware of how large my ‘classroom’ is: the seminar room, the lecture room (occasionally), the one-to-one office tutorial, the TP supervision corner, the self-access area, the conference room, the journal …
The need of all teachers to satisfy themselves that learning is taking place is especially felt now by teacher educators in Britain, where the training of teachers is the subject of very public scrutiny.
The need to find out more about our teaching is obvious, but …
Where is the time to do so? New teaching contracts in higher education necessitate high contact hours. If time is allocated for research there is an equally strong pressure for academic publication to uphold academic standards.
Where is the support group? Even more than teachers, teacher educators often work alone, developing an expertise or interest which may not be shared by other colleagues, for whom other commitments assume a higher priority.
Presumably we must follow the example of all teachers who have involved themselves in classroom research: make the time for it, show others what we are doing and gain their interest and support.

Investigating the use of peer discussion in the construction of pedagogical knowledge
I didn’t set out to find a research topic. As my reading of classroom research case-studies showed me, the need makes itself known (if you want to listen).
Problem identification
Second year BEd (ESOL) trainees didn’t seem to be getting much out of their ‘professional’ course. This is a thirty week course of two and a half hour peer microteaching sessions weekly. Dissatisfaction with the results of this course was especially worrying because the trainees have no teaching practice in English (their main subject) in this year of the course. The professional strand provides the major link between the one month teaching practice at the end of the first year and the three month teaching practice at the end of the third year.
Preliminary investigation
The course followed the traditional microteaching format. The students were required to teach 10-15 minute segments of a lesson. The teaching was filmed by a video camera placed on a tripod at the back of the class. Each student’s lesson was recorded onto video-tape which was then available for private study after the class. There was a brief class discussion of the points arising from the teaching. The tutor wrote notes on the trainee’s lesson on a carbon pad. The top copy was given to the student, the bottom copy retained as a record. The focus of the practice was on technique, each trainee being required to teach the presentation and practice stage of a new structure. They were expected to produce a detailed plan of their teaching and their own set of teaching materials and visual aids. The course was assessed by the production of a course file.
Discussion with colleagues revealed a shared concern and the expressed belief that the trainees ‘don’t take the course seriously enough’. Further comments were: the trainees were very, very self conscious of performing in front of each other, they didn’t like being videoed, their teaching was in many cases quite weak and unimaginative.
Examining the trainees’ course files revealed a considerable range of achievement. Some files were well presented with careful notes on the teaching. These focused, however, almost exclusively on descriptions of the techniques presented and judgements on their effectiveness.
Other files were poorly presented, consisting of untitled, undated pencil jottings that formed no coherent record of the teaching presented, let alone an attempt to develop a personal theory of teaching.
Conversations with the trainees confirmed that they regarded the microteaching sessions as ‘boring’, something that they supposed ‘had to be done’, and above all, as having little to do with ‘real teaching’.
Implementing a change
Further reading on the development of the ‘reflective practitioner’ brought me to Wallace’s analysis of the underlying concept of microteaching. He suggests that:
‘it is more valid to see microteaching as a technique for professional reflection rather than simply as a technique for shaping behaviour.’
(Wallace, 1991:95)
I became interested, therefore, in considering ways in which the trainees could come to view peer teaching as an opportunity to develop their understanding of the nature of teaching: ‘what being a teacher is all about’.
My hypothesis was that the professional sessions could become a more valid vehicle for professional learning if the group was encouraged to take a more active role as co-investigators of the teaching/learning process.
What did this mean in practice? – Implications for action
The first implication was that the peer teaching should be made as ‘real’ as possible. It should offer the trainees experiences which they could relate to their real life teaching situation. Secondly, they should be encouraged to make use of the multiple perspectives inherent in the situation and investigate teaching and learning as teachers, as students, as trainee teachers and through the eye of the camera.
Thirdly, greater use should be made of the potential of video: its power to document the experience as an (apparently) objective event, enabling those involved to observe and reflect on situations in which they had been the protagonists; the possibility of re-examining segments of experience in detail; the accurate recall of precise language used, gestures made, the sequence of actions performed.
Above all, I was interested by the possibility of getting the trainees to use the videos of their own teaching to develop their knowledge about teaching which will form the basis of future actions. Here I am adopting what Tickle (1987) defines as ‘the interpretive view’ of knowledge which:
‘assumes that knowledge is constructed actively and subjectively by the individual, and used in accordance with interpretations of problems and situations by the individual.’
(Tickle, 1987:46)
This implies that as much time as possible should be set aside for peer discussion of the teaching videos.
The final implication is, therefore, that the role of the tutor in the peer teaching sessions should be that of co-investigator rather than expert.
Action taken
Time was set aside for discussing with the trainees a different focus for the professional course for the second term. Proposed changes were outlined and the trainees’ (slightly hesitant) agreement obtained.
The content of the peer teaching for the term was ‘communicative activities’ (this fitted in with the scheme of work). For each session, however, the peer teacher was required to plan and execute a complete 40 minute lesson integrating this activity into a relevant sequence of work. The ‘peer factor’ could be faced either by devising tasks of appropriate complexity for the real life abilities of their fellow trainees or by asking their colleagues to role-play the kind of class they would expect to meet in their home situation.
As teachers, the trainees were expected to exercise a high level of professionalism. They selected materials and made an outline plan of the lesson. They discussed their plans with the tutor. They produced and photocopied sets of teaching materials for their ‘students’, and sets of lesson plans for their peers at the discussion stage. They arranged the classroom in the way they wanted it, and discussed the filming of the lesson with the camera crew. During their teaching they had complete responsibility for the conduct of the classroom. After the session and the discussion of the video they wrote their own reflections on the lesson as the teacher. As ‘students’ the trainees also had responsibilities. They were expected to remain in character throughout the session. After the discussion they were expected to reflect on the lesson, from two viewpoints, firstly as a student, and secondly as a trainee teacher.
Four of the students had expressed their interest in filming the sessions. This team filmed all the teaching, becoming highly professional in their use of the camera and also developing a clear understanding of ‘where the learning was’ at a given moment. They used this perspective in their evaluations.
As trainees, they were encouraged to see the peer teaching as a forum for trialling and evaluating teaching materials and procedures. They had the opportunity to build up banks of lesson plans and materials which they could adapt for use in their own classrooms. They had the opportunity to experiment with procedures which they had come across in their reading or seen used by others. Most importantly, however, in discussions of the videoed teaching, they were offered the opportunity to investigate the reasons which underlay decisions made in teaching.
To show that I really believed in what I was asking them to do, in the first session I was the teacher, and the resulting video was used as material for the first investigation. This was not presented in any way as a model, but as evidence that I was interested in investigating my own teaching and had a lot to learn from the trainees’ questions, comments and suggestions. This session established some of the ground rules for subsequent discussions. It was agreed that, during the viewing of the video, the teacher-investigators should be in charge and control the video so that they could focus the discussion on the areas they were most interested in. How did the ‘students’ feel about being asked to do X? What do their peers feel about the decision to use material Y? Was that an appropriate way to handle situation Z?
The other trainees had the right to pursue their own enquiries into issues they saw being raised by the teaching, and could ask for the tape to be paused at any point for comments or questions. Words like ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it was agreed had little meaning in themselves, although it was thought important for teachers to know which elements in their teaching their peers particularly liked and why. Questions as to why a particular decision had been made were considered most useful as they made the teachers think about what they had done and made the other trainees think too. Direct challenges were also seen as unhelpful and a more reflective form of comment was preferred: ‘I wonder if … ’, ‘Do you think … ?’, seeking the teacher’s and peers’ opinions on the idea proposed.
As the trainees became more and more confident in their roles, my role as tutor became important only outside the classroom: in the lesson planning conference, and as a resource in emergencies. When I was absent for ten days the class carried on as normal, and videos were made of the lesson discussions as well as the peer teaching.
Observation
As a course requirement, students were asked to submit course files. This time they were required to include their reflections on each lesson and their own assessment of what they had learnt from the course as a whole. I was, therefore, able to use these written assessments, supported by the students’ spontaneous comments, and the formal evaluations made at their Programme Review Board, as well as an analysis of the recorded discussions and my own field notes to establish where the innovations succeeded and failed.
Outcomes
The most encouraging outcome was that the trainees’ perceptions of the professional course were more positive. Although the trainees were still conscious of the limitations of peer teaching as a replication of the real classroom, the predominant feeling was that the course was a useful one.
Although the trainees clung firmly to the word ‘microteaching’ throughout, one of the most appreciated features was the lengthening of the teaching:
‘I think that it is very, very good that the microteaching is done as a whole lesson instead of just a chunk or 5-10 minutes of a whole lesson, in that way we feel that it is a real lesson, full and complete, not "hanging" from nowhere.’
Encouragement to see the classroom from a variety of perspectives was also appreciated, although several found the switching of roles quite difficult:
‘Being both a student and an observer in a microteaching lesson made me more aware of things that are happening because I was a part of the lesson and not just sitting at the sides – looking into a fish bowl.’
Those who filmed the teaching found that they had learnt more than techniques:
‘ … most of my time would be focusing my attention to where the "eye" of the camera is. Other students might be involved in the activities while I scrutinise how the "teacher" is feeling, their reactions to what is going on in the class, and not to mention the anxiety to get the lesson over and done with.’
Most significantly, great importance was attached to the follow-up discussion. This was highlighted with reference to the course as a whole:
‘All in all I thought that the professional course is a very useful and helpful course. It helped to have the microteaching and the discussions that followed were rich in ideas and comments from us. I suppose it highlighted all our fears which had to do with teaching as well as solving it in one go. I especially liked to see and experience all the other people’s ideas and contributions because the range is wide and varied. It would have been torture if we had to come up with all the ideas individually.’
and to their own teaching:
‘The class discussion of my lesson was very useful. Although the word "disaster" could sum up my lesson neatly, I’m glad because at least this was not a "real" lesson and I have gained a lot through the classroom discussion.’
This recognition of how much they could learn from each other was repeated time and again in the trainee assessments. The stance of the tutor in discussions was also appreciated:
‘I felt that she didn’t impose herself or her views on us. It seemed that though she is our tutor, she made it apparent to us that like us she is still learning.’
A major outcome, evidenced in the post-lesson discussions and in the assessments, was the trainees’ willingness to theorise about their own teaching and to incorporate their own experience. For example:
‘On the whole my feeling as a teacher is that I haven’t taught them enough of English. I feel like we’re just having fun. But taking a closer look, I think they’re getting a lot of input and practise from just doing the activity. This is what CLT does, making the students learn indirectly through interesting activities.’
Analysing the recorded discussions showed an increase in confidence on the part of the teacher, from the first firmly controlled discussions where the tape was paused at regular intervals to ask: ‘anything to say?’, or ‘anything else?’, to a more open questioning in later sessions.
S(i): /I feel that your warming up session was very good/that it was a good activity for that kind of … /
ST: /it’s not/it’s not silly you know?/because it was/on that low level?/
S(ii): /no it’s not silly/
S(i): /very challenging in fact/it picks up a lot of/because you need a lot of/um/specific ness/and um detail/to get the picture right/in the instructions/
Maturity and commitment to the aims of the course was shown by the serious approach to discussions videoed in my absence. These illustrate the effect, commented on by participants in other recorded discussions, of video related work being more topic-centred than non-recorded discussion.
They show the trainees’ ability to articulate their ideas in sustained discussion of professional topics. There is frequent laughter but no off-task talking.
I would like to analyse the transcript of one discussion in greater depth.
Analysis of peer discussion
The discussion can be analysed into thirteen ‘episodes’ or discussions of a single topic. The length and complexity of each episode can be measured by the number of ‘turns’ taken, and the number of different contributors. The episodes range from a three turn dialogue between the teacher and one trainee to a discussion of twenty turns with nine contributors. Although teacher-initiated episodes occur in the first section of the discussion, the final eight episodes are initiated by spontaneous comments from the trainees. One initiation is an opinion, giving a positive evaluation, the rest are in the form of questions. Six are put directly to the teacher, to explore and often, as in this example, to endorse his decision making:
S(i): /(name)/did you say/er/‘I made a mistake’ then?/
ST: /yes/
S(i): /yes I think that that’s good because it tells people …
Two questions were asked of the group as a whole. In the following example, the repeated use of the modal ‘should’ appears to mark a search for principled behaviour on a topic interpreted both as a very real issue for the speaker, and one of collective concern:
S(m): /I just want to ask/um er/should we pick up all the words like that/I mean/I would sometimes/er/I was sometimes faced with things like that/do you think we should just say … /
Here, I believe, we can see the dual focus of pedagogical theory: providing both principles of action for the individual and the development of a commonly-held body of knowledge. Although their language contains the informal fillers: ‘you know’, ‘sort of’, ‘stuff like that’, of the trainees’ usual speech, the turns are formally structured, with frequent use of logical markers, especially ‘because’ and ‘so’, ‘if’ and ‘then’. The standard lexis of the world of education is used with some confidence as in: ‘they tend to concentrate on’, or ‘it would modify the purpose of that exercise’.
The most notable feature of the trainees’ language, however, is the determined attempt to establish and maintain an appropriate style for the presentation of their own, and acceptance of each other’s, ideas. One very noticeable indicator is the prefacing ‘I think’ used by the trainees on twenty-five occasions to stress the non-dogmatic nature of their utterances. That this is a highly conscious decision is clearly seen in this reformulation:
/but it’s not good to/I don’t think it’s good to put the students on the defensive/
In analysing the content of the discussion, the following topics were found to be covered:
Teacher’s language: clarity of expression
pronunciation
Presentation skill: use of visuals
use of mime
linguistic choices
Methodological procedures: writing activities
Classroom management: handling student questions
giving instructions
dealing with latecomers
coping with teacher errors
involving students in decision-making
The discussion contained many instances of trainees picking out examples of the teacher’s performance and relating this to their own theoretical constructs of ‘good practice’. In commenting on interpersonal skills trainees evinced most confidence in their own judgement; the need for fairness, clarity and a consideration of the students’ own feelings can be seen to underlie many of the comments. In evaluating procedural skills, those which could be related most obviously to these criteria, were also clearly perceived:
/and you asking the students what can we do with it/it’s like making the students/making the students feel that they are part of the lesson/and they can decide what to do/
There were fewer instances of trainees’ questioning practice that seemed to go counter to what was seen as good theory, and most of these tended to focus on what McGarvey and Swallow (1986, quoted in Wallace, p.97) would recognise as performance skills, ‘ … the technical, observable behaviours which constitute the teaching act’.
/when you ask/‘what are these?’/instead of just holding it there/it’s a good idea if you stick it on the board so everyone can see/
McGarvey and Swallow identify two more complex human capacities involved in teaching. The first of these capacities relates to cognitive processes which underlie the ability to perform particular actions and to recognise when their performance is appropriate. The second relates to affective learning, and the teacher’s desire to perform these valued actions well. In their attempt to construct theory as the basis for action it is clear that the trainees are involved with all three dimensions of teaching ability, as they blend principled belief and experience with their interpretation of the lesson data.
In the following extract the trainees are talking about giving examples in answer to students who ask what a noun is. The discussion contains a dramatic representation of her performance skill by S6, discussion by S2, S3, S4 and S5 of where and how examples can be appropriately used, and the demonstration by all the speakers of their commitment to providing students with the understanding they need:
S1: /you can’t just leave it like that/
S2: /you can just explain it to them/and give clear examples/
S3: /it’s better to give examples/it’s going to be clearer to study them if you’re going to say/this is the meaning/if you’re going to give an explanation/then get students/to write/two or three examples/
S4: /wouldn’t that sort of/weaken the lesson/once you start giving two or three you’re sort of … /
S5: /tangenting?/
S4: /going off at a tangent/then OK/then you clarify/and then you come up with something else/
S6: /I’ve done that before/but I didn’t sort of only/‘Give me an example /OK nouns’/‘Table’/‘That’s right’/you go rapide/‘Adjectives/give me an example’/
In only one area did a discussion fail, both trainee and teacher finally echoing: ‘I don’t know’. This was when a determined, yet quite sensitive, attempt was made to probe the language rather than the pedagogic knowledge underlying the teacher’s performance. The tone is set from the beginning of the exchange.
S(i): /what about the use of/you know/where you say/‘I’m walking’/and then you say/‘I am walking’/and then/um/what else/some more structures where you say/‘I am’ instead of ‘I’m’/ … /why did you say ‘I am’?/
ST: /I can’t think/
S(i): (laughing)/I don’t know/which do you think is better/‘I’m’/or ‘I am’?/
ST: /I don’t know/
Reflection
I was impressed by the trainees’ reactions and the interest and ability they showed in discussing teaching issues. I was especially pleased by the number of trainees who reported how much they felt they learnt from each other and at the serious and constructive way they talked through, at times quite personal, issues. I became very aware of the ways in which the tutor-as-expert can become a stumbling block to trainees trying to establish their own perspectives. I feel their discussions were much more successful the less I contributed. In comparing my notes on the peer teaching sessions with the points which the teacher investigators raised I found that they diverged considerably. This again made me aware of how unhelpful and off-beam our comments often must seem. In considering the teaching of subjects where students’ errors can be clearly identified, Ramsden writes:
‘Helping understanding does not mean correcting every mistake, often it is better to say nothing at all: time and reflection or discussion with peers may serve the purpose of correction of errors much better, as well as fostering the independence of thought that every teacher in higher education desires.’
(Ramsden, 1992:170)
If we consider trainee teachers to be involved in the process of constructing their own knowledge of teaching there seems a clear need to ensure they have the ‘raw materials’ and then allow them the time and space to work.
One of the great weaknesses of the course was not giving more class time to the discussion of the videos. The time the trainees spent in watching and learning from their own teaching could have been several times as long.
It was perhaps an easy option to begin this investigation with a form of teaching which demands less ‘teacher fronting’ and stresses motivating the students’ language use through interesting and enjoyable activities. Several trainees have expressed their anxieties about being able to cope when more direct teaching of the language is called for. This anxiety, together with evidence from the analysed discussion, suggests that the next focus of learning should be the construction of what could be termed the ‘linguistico-pedagogic’ knowledge base. Trainees do not need to be confident only in the techniques of presentation of grammatical structures, they also need to know in what form and when to present elements of the language system, and to be confident in incorporating teaching on language form as well as encourage language use.
It seems an urgent area to focus on. At the same time, however, the problem of the lack of authenticity of the peer teaching session will inevitably become more acute. As competent English users, peers can not replicate the language knowledge and language learning skills and strategies of ‘pre-intermediate’ secondary school students.

Planning for further action
The following guidelines for further action represent my current positions. I should welcome the exchange of suggestions and experiences from colleagues who have reached, or gone beyond, this point!
Alternative ways of allowing trainees to investigate the language study element of their teaching need to be contrived.
Ample time needs to be set aside for peer discussion.
Consideration should be given to the use of peer discussion in assessment of the professional course.
The recording and analysing of peer discussion should continue on a regular basis to discover how trainees consolidate their base of pedagogical (and linguistico-pedagogical) knowledge in preparation for their final teaching practice and their own research projects.