The Language Teacher
December 1999

Pre-Service Teacher Development Through Action Research

Maria Alfredo Moreira, Flavia Vieira, Isabel Marques

University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Reflective Teacher Education, Action Research and Educational Change

Over the last six years, our studies on the use of action research as a teacher development strategy have shown that it constitutes a powerful tool in promoting and extending a reflective approach to teaching with a focus on the development of learner autonomy.

Our choice of a reflective approach to teacher education follows from Schon's concept of professional situations as problematic--uncertain, unique and value-loaded--and his emphasis on epistemology of practice (Schon, 1987). The main implication of this view is that teacher education should be emancipatory, empowering teachers to become critical practitioners who are able to intervene within learning contexts in order to change them.

Action research meets this goal, through systematic and collaborative inquiry about practice whose aims are to achieve a better understanding of particular educational situations and larger educational contexts and to act upon those situations in order to bring about change and innovation (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). When "teaching constitutes a form of research and research constitutes a form of teaching" (Elliot, 1991, p. 64), teachers develop a view of teaching as an exploratory, developmental, self-regulating task. But what kind of learning should reflective practice through action research aim to promote? The assumptions and principles of both reflective teaching and action research are based upon "a metaphor of liberation" (Zeichner, 1983, p.6) whereby the school is conceived as a setting for personal and social transformation. They gain their meaning from a focus on the learner as a critical consumer and a creative producer of knowledge, who gradually takes control over learning content and process (Holec, 1981). In other words, we believe that the goal of teacher autonomy only makes sense if it includes the goal of learner autonomy, here defined after Holec as the ability to take charge of one's own learning. Educational change, from this perspective, means the enhancement of teacher and learner empowerment within the framework of an interpretative view of school education.

Student Teachers as Inquirers

In September 1995, as university supervisors of student language teachers in training, we set up an ongoing supervision project which integrates reflective teacher development with autonomous learner development through the use of action research2. Figure 1 gives an overview of the founding principles, aims, strategy, supervisory tasks, and main stages.

In the first three academic years of this project (1995 to 1998), 119 student teachers (mostly of English, but also of Portuguese and of German) developed 57 action research projects in their teacher training year involving 2359 secondary school pupils.

On the whole, the student teachers' projects usually aim at understanding and solving pedagogical problems involving pupils' language needs, attitudes and beliefs, and behavior in class. The projects are organized as follows. Firstly, student teachers select a research area, read on related topics, and construct or adapt materials for teaching or research purposes. They then collect and analyse data from pupils for process evaluation, and reflect systematically on their practice. Finally, they organize the project materials into a file, and carry out a global evaluation of their work, taking into account the pupils' opinions of their leaming processes. These tasks engage student teachers in inquiry about different areas of their professional development--practical theories, language learning, teaching and leaming contexts, and supervision.

As supervisors we try to promote inquiry at all levels, in a style situated somewhere between the directive-informative and the collaborative, depending mainly on the student teachers' readiness to assume responsibility for their own action (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 1998). This means, basically, that our supervisory strategies are context-sensitive and contingent on what the teachers see as relevant for their development and for the improvement of their students' learning. The interactive dimension of the supervisory process is explored in ways that promote mutual understanding through negotiation. We strive towards a democratization of roles which fosters the development of self-determination attitudes and skills. Like the students, we inquire into their practice by taking their professional development as a research object within the supervision project. In the following two sections, we discuss some of our conclusions, focusing on the changes we observed in the student teachers. We focus as well on the development potential and constraints of the use of action research in the teacher training year. We base this discussion on the results of our 1997-1998 evaluation.3

Professional Change

Evidence from the analysis of student teachers' research diaries, especially from their individual Critical Appreciation Reports on the value and impact of their action research projects, shows that professional change takes place in three areas: belief and attitudinal, conceptual, and procedural.

Belief and attitudinal change-- Student teachers' writing shows that they develop a critical view of teaching through the conscious articulation of beliefs about and attitudes towards language learning and educational purposes, teacher and learner roles, and the problematic nature of teaching. Beliefs and attitudes gradually become more explicit and elaborate, moving from an outsider-controlled to an insider-controlled view of learning. Student teachers and learners seem to develop a sense of direction as co-constructors of knowledge.

Conceptual change--This area, in combination with the previous one, highlights the ideological nature of change, for it has to do with how the teacher perceives the means and ends of educational phenomena. Our student teachers recognize that an explicit focus on the learner helps them clarify teaching effectiveness, deepen their understanding of teaching and learning priorities, expand their professional language and (re)construct their practical theories. They develop an interpretative view of teaching and learning as exploratory, developmental, and self-regulating tasks.

Procedural change--Although change in this area is always expected during the training year, it may result from an adaptative, chameleon-like strategy which, in itself, does not constitute real change unless it is accompanied by changes in concepts and beliefs. Within our project, student teachers experience several procedural changes, emphasising more systematic and organised action, better decision-making skills, greater creativity in programming, and a growing focus on the learner. These changes seem to be closely related to changes in the first two areas. We now present some quotations from the student teachers' Critical Appreciation Reports that show how the above changes are interconnected in their written discourse:

[This project] called my attention to the need to become a reflective teacher, that is, to think about what was done, about the results and the possible reasons that explain why certain strategies did not work as expected; it also made me reflect on the possible solutions to solve the problem, and therefore try to guide pupils towards more autonomous and responsible learning. (A. C. O.)

I think that my greatest difficulty was being asked to be reflective.... As time went by, I began to understand that this way of thinking. . . can only be changed with teaching maturity, with systematic questioning and constant experimentation. Although I can already notice some significant changes in myself, I mean, an evolution in my role as a reflective teacher, I think there's still a long way to go in my professional growth. (N. M.)

Besides reading and investigating quite a lot, [this project] made me reflect on my professional practice, for, In my opinion, only by means of reflection can a teacher make improvements. . . can one become capable of reflecting on the errors one makes and correct them, as well as reacting more quickly to pupils' needs and adapt our materials to their needs and interests. (S. P.)

Development Potential and Constraints

Development potential and constraints were evaluated through a final anonymous questionnaire with three sections. In the first section, student teachers indicate their degree of agreement with 20 statements about the potential of action research in the teaching profession. These are based on quality criteria for conducting action research, taken from Carr & Kemmis (1986), Allwright (1992), and Moreira (1996), and on principles for autonomous learner development from Vieira (1998) (see Figure 1). The second section presents 37 constraints related to the organisation and functioning of the training year and the development of action research projects. Student teachers are asked to identify the constraints felt and the degree of difficulty added by them, and state whether they were overcome. The final section of the questionnaire asks student teachers to justify previous responses and give suggestions for improvement in the supervision project.

Development potential-Student teachers generally agree that the quality criteria of action research are fulfilled within their personal experience. They confirm its potential as a strategy for both teacher and learner development in this context, and acknowledge the articulation of research, teaching and learning within their projects. Some of them are uncertain about the impact of the projects on pupils' learning, probably because they are unable to establish clear cause-effect relations between teaching and learning or separate learning processes from learning outcomes. Others are also uncertain about the integration of theory and practice within their projects, possibly because they lack the time or the ability to distance themselves from their action enough to understand how practice generates theory and how theory informs practice. A few of the student teachers feel collaboration with peers and school supervisors is unsatisfactory, probably because some projects are undertaken individually, and because some school supervisors may see this project as something external to them and do not get involved.

Constraints--Student teachers identify several constraints which produce a high or moderate degree of difficulty in the development of their projects. However, most of those constraints are overcome, and this helps to explain why student teachers perceive the overall project as extremely relevant. Of all the constraints, the most persistent one is lack of time, a well documented problem in the literature. The other most persistent constraints are difficulties in combining the projects with other teacher training activities, with the syllabus and with the pupils' needs. Some student teachers, throughout the year, fear they may not meet the university supervisor's expectations, possibly because of the complexity of the supervisory strategy and their unfamiliarity with it. The diversity of the supervisory practices of the university supervisors, the majority of whom do not participate in this project, is also felt as a persistent constraint. This following quote is representative of the student teachers' perceptions in general:

I can point out some problems related to the adoption of this training strategy which, though not interfering with my motivation, set limits on my practice. They relate mainly to overwork and time management. The diversity of supervisory practices also constrains the development of these projects. Although lack of experience limited my practice, it led me to constant reflection towards an approximation between theory and classroom methodology, thus causing changes and reconceptualizations which are in tune with the principles underlying this training strategy: to improve the ability to regulate one's action towards the development of autonomous teachers who then develop autonomous learners. (P. F.)

Many respondents express the need for a better coordination of institutional priorities, strategies and practices. They also stress the need to increase collaboration between university and school supervisors, namely through a greater involvement of the latter.

We recognise that the difficulties usually associated with the first teaching year are heightened by one's involvement in something as risky as research. There is the threat to self-esteem, the fear of not being able to cope, work piling up, and time dwindling. All these problems may occur as the student teacher battles with feelings of insecurity, anxiety, unpreparedness, and inability. Although evidence suggests that the project is valid, we are quite aware of latent problems whose resolution is not always easy to accomplish.

Final Remarks

There is a potential tension between the emancipatory aims and democratic nature of action research and its use within an institutional framework, where it is imposed as a supervisory strategy. There may be some initial resistance on the part of student teachers, which usually fades away as they gradually take control of their own and their pupils' development. The fact that they endorse the strategy and are able to understand the relationship between research, teaching, and learning is a positive sign that this tension can be greatly overcome.

This project makes great demands on everyone involved: the supervisors, the student teachers, and their pupils. We must furnish appropriate support and guidance, constantly adapt our supervisory styles to suit teachers' readiness, and be alert to situational constraints that may hinder their action. For student teachers to perceive teaching situations as problematic and learning as a self-controlled activity, they must develop cognitive flexibility and tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity. As far as pupils are concerned, suffice it to say that a learner-centered approach is obviously more demanding than a teacher-centered one, since it requires their taking responsibility for learning.

We must mention the fact that this project is often in conflict with prevailing views of supervision, research, teaching and learning, and institutional requirements, both the school's and the university's. This raises questions which lead us to adopt a critical stance towards our approach, even when this project has been, on the whole, endorsed by all parties.

Several measures to deal with constraints and dilemmas have been undertaken since we set up the project in 1995: (a) a growing emphasis on participatory evaluation with a specific focus on constraints; (b) the design of instruments to regulate the discourse of supervision, mainly concerning issues of control and power relationships; (c) the compilation of teaching and research materials into a file for student teachers, including examples from their fellows; (d) the invitation of former student teachers to share their action research experience with their colleagues; (e) the limitation of action research projects to one class per student and the encouragement of collaborative project design; and (fl the development of a program for school supervisors, where action research is the main training strategy.

As teacher educators, we have learned a lot from this project. Above all, we have learned that our own professional empowerment makes greater sense when it builds on the empowerment of student teachers, just as theirs gains meaning from a focus on pupils' empowerment.

References

Allwright, D. (1992). Exploratory teachlng: sringlng research and pedagogy together in the language dassroom. Revue de Phonetique Appliquee, 103/104, 101-117.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Elliot, 1. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (1998). Supervislon of instruchon: A developmental approach (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoffng reflective teaching: Supervlsion in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Moreira, M.A. (1996). A investlgacao-accao na formacao reflexiva do professor-estagiario de Ingles. Unpubllshed master's thesis, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflecfive practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Vieira, F. (1998). Autonomla e aprendizagem da Iingua estrangeira--uma intervencao pedagogica em contexto escolar. (PhD Dissertatlon, 1996). Braga: CEEP, University of Minho.

Zeichner, R (1983). Altemative paradigms of teacher education. ournal of Teacher Education, 34 (3), 3-9.

Note

1. An expanded version of this text was presented In Changing teacher behavior, IATEFL Conference, Saffron Walden, 28th-30th November 1998. It results from the project Reflective pre-service teacher training through action researching (In progress since September 1995), funded by the Center of Studies in Education and Psychology, Institute of Education and Psychology of our University.

2. The project Involves students from Language Teaching Degrees In their teacher training year, the last year of a five year course that Includes training in Language and Education. The student teachers are placed in small groups in local secondary schools where they teach two classes. They are supervised by both an experienced school teacher and a university teacher (from either the Language or Education Departments). The project involves only the student language teachers who are assigned to our team every year. To our knowledge, no other project of this kind has been developed within the institution.

3. Although the project was set up in 1995-1996, it was only in 1997-1998 that we designed a self-report questionnaire for the student teachers to identify the development potential and constraints of action research. This is the reason why we limit the discussion of results to that academic year, in which 39 student teachers developed action research projects.

Author Profiles

Maria Alfredo Moreira is a Lecturer at the Institute of Education and Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. She teaches ELT Methodology and supervises student teachers in training. Her main areas of research are language didactics, learner autonomy in the FL classroom, and reflective teacher development tin-service and pre-service). She has co-authored, with Flavia Vieira, a book in Portuguese on process evaluation.

Flavia Vieira is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Education and Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. She teaches ELT methodology and pedagogical supervision, and supervises student teachers in training. Her main areas of research are language didactics, learner autonomy in the FL classroom, and reflective teacher development (in-service and preservice). She has authored several books and articles on learner autonomy in language teaching.

Isabel Marques is an invited Lecturer at the Institute of Education and Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. She teaches ELT Methodology and supervises students teachers in training. Her main areas of research are language didactics, learner autonomy in the FL classroom, and reflective teacher development (in-service and pre-service).


All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website