Читать книгу Empowering Professional Teaching in Engineering - John Heywood - Страница 13

JOURNEY 3

Toward a Scholarship of Teaching. Teaching as Research

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In the middle 1950’s the only mechanism for training teachers in technical colleges in England was day release to a Technical Teacher Training College of which there were four scattered across the Country. Since technical teachers were not required to be trained those who obtained day release for training were fortunate. There were, however, the little known qualifications of the College of Preceptors that could be taken by self-study and examination. The College was the first organization created for teacher training in the UK. It was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1849. By the mid-twentieth century it offered an associate diploma, a degree level licentiateship, and higher degree level fellowship that were intended for practising teachers in the school sector. The examination for the licentiateship was in two parts, subsequently extended to three: the first part might be described as the principles of education, the study of philosophy, psychology, history of education and administration. The second part related specifically to teaching and the subject that was being taught by the candidate; in addition to a written examination it required a 10,000 word dissertation related to the candidate’s experience of teaching during the preceding year; the third part consisting of three papers related to knowledge of the subject taught by the teacher. Strangely enough, given the focus on secondary education, part 2 could also be taken in “technical education” for which there was a specific subject examination to which the dissertation had to be related. In this part of the examination the College was encouraging teachers to become researchers into their own instruction, and in so doing to extend their “tacit” knowledge. This is how I qualified as a technical college teacher, and became interested in research in technical education. I extended that interest by taking the fellowship.

The College recognized, as we are now beginning to recognize, that lectures were unnecessary if all that they do is to repeat what is already in textbooks. Any person sufficiently motivated could read the textbooks and learn to answer the examination questions. Correspondence colleges were quick to offer programmes to support candidates who valued tutorial support. The college also recognized the need to value practice, hence the dissertation in part two of the Licentiate. It was this experience as a technical college teacher, some 25 years earlier, together with my failure in Ireland to get the graduate trainee post-primary teachers in my course in the Applied Psychology of Instruction to relate theory to practice, and vice-versa that caused me to change the course into a series of action based inquiries. They were now required to evaluate certain instructional strategies and theories in their classrooms [1].

As it stood, the programme required the graduate-student teachers to prepare a huge number of lesson plans. These generally contained a script for a lesson, often a modification from a textbook and little else. I had no means of knowing whether the students used them in this way or not, and came to the conclusion that they were rather a waste of time.

I also wanted to improve the approach to lesson planning because children show they recognize when the organization of teaching and learning impedes the attainment of goals; that is, if they are asked, which more often than not, they are not. One has only to look at children at play to see that many of them bring structure and organization to what they are doing. It helps their learning. One of the judgements they make about teachers is the degree to which they organize what is to be taught, and how it is to be learned. They do not want their teachers to be chaotic.

3.2 THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING

Students in higher education are no different. Lessons and lectures have to have a degree of planning if they are to be perceived as successful. Evaluation, if done properly, should yield insights that develop the teachers tacit or working knowledge. Evaluation and reflection turn teaching into a continuing activity of inquiry and, sometimes research. That is the “scholarship of teaching.”

There were two premises behind this approach. First, the teachers were forced to take the strategies and theories of instruction that would normally have been given in lectures, try them out in the teaching situation, and determine their value for them. Second, for the trainee teachers to develop critical skill in observing the “happenings” in their classrooms, in order to prepare them to systematically investigate those they viewed as critical for the development of their teaching. In this way the trainees were forced to challenge their own pre-conceived theories which might be strengthened or changed as a result of these experiences. In so doing they would acquire a system of tacit knowledge.

The process of each activity is outlined in Exhibit 3.1. It does not include the tutor’s activity in grading, or giving feedback on the assignment which is integral to the process. When the course began the five activities to be investigated during the year were (1) The teaching of concepts using examples. (2) The use of imagery in instruction. (3) The value of knowledge of student learning styles to the tutor. (4) The relative merits of expository teaching when compared with one or another form of discovery (inquiry) learning. (5) The merits of teaching a problem solving/decision making heuristic in problem solving and learning [2].

The process might be described as pseudo-scientific experiment. The overall activity is no different to any other design activity as Exhibit 3.2 shows. The teacher had to design a lesson to test the hypothesis that they had taken or deduced from the literature. Then they had to design a test that is related to the content of the course as normally taught, and at the same time, they had also to evaluate the method (theory) of instruction used: A considerable task. The test had to be subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, and a substantial written evaluation had to be made.

1. Academic Course: Introduction to activity (2 – 4 hours)

2. Student Preparation

a. Read the literature on the designated topic (provided)

b. Select a small topic from the literature for investigation (this may be to replicate one of the studies reported in the literature).

c. Design a lesson to test the hypothesis shown in (b); (this to include the entering characteristics of the pupils, a statement of aims and objectives, the instructional procedures showing how they will test the hypothesis, etc.)

d. Design a pupil test of knowledge and skill which is directly related to the objectives of the lesson.

3. Academic Course: (only if students require a seminar) to iron out difficulties (2 hours).

4. Student Implementation

a. Implement Class as designed.

b. Immediate Evaluation. (Evaluation 1)

i. What happened in the class?

ii. What happened to me?

iii. What have I learned about myself?

iv. What have I learned about my pupils?

5. One Week (or so) Later.

a. Test Students- comment (Evaluation 2).

b. Substantive evaluation (evaluation 3)

i. How does what I have done relate to the theory which I set out to evaluate?

ii. How, if at all will this influence my teaching in the future?

6. Submit report at the required time.

Exhibit 3.1: The process of the “lesson plan” activity (Heywood, J. (2007). Instructional and Curriculum Leadership. Toward Inquiry Oriented Schools. Dublin, Original Writing for the National Association of Principals and Deputies—Chapter 5).

I would argue, that these studies meet Elliott’s requirement for action research because they “study the social situation (classroom) with a view to improving the quality of action within it” [3]. Because it was action research it was not expected that the student teachers should stick strictly to the plan irrespective of difficulties experienced in the classroom. What mattered was that satisfactory reasons were given for the change in plan. The progress of teaching is often nonlinear. It will be seen that Section 2 requires the student to do the reading that would normally have been given in support of a lecture on a particular theory, or strategy of instruction. Sections 2(a) and (b) required an extensive essay response.

Simplified Model of the Engineering Design Process	Lesson Planning Process
Vague statement of what is wanted	Knowledge
Problem formulation	Problem formulation	Cognitive skills
Broad view of problem		Affective skills
Problem analysis		Assumptions
Details of problem Search	Alternative solutions
Many partial solutions mainly in concept form	Statement of Aims and Objectives
Decision	Construction of Lesson Plan
Preferred solution Specification	Implementation of Lesson	Feedback
Details of proposed solution	First evaluation
Model	Test
Evaluation	Analysis of Data
Manufacture	Final Evaluation

Exhibit 3.2: The lesson planning process contrasted with a simplified model of the engineering design process due to E. V. Krick (1969). An Introduction to Engineering and Engineering Design, 2nd ed., New York, Wiley. Page 156.

Nevertheless, it took me several years before I abandoned giving an introductory lecture and replaced it by a dialogue session among the 100 or so students taking the course. It also took me several years before I abandoned the traditional 2/3 hour terminal examination that had been set at the end of the year in favor of a written examination in which one prior notice question given out at the beginning of the course had to be answered. It had the intention of obtaining the second goal of the course (see Exhibit 3.3).

But, Section 2 also requires the student to take an entirely different approach to lesson planning. They are asked not only to prepare a lesson to meet the requirements of that part of the school curriculum with which they are dealing, but design it in such a way that it would test the theory or practice they were required to evaluate. It was a major task for a beginning educator. It was one that I later found was equally difficult for experienced teachers in continuing professional development programmes. Add to that the demand that they should design a test that would not only test the routine matters of the curriculum, but the theory or practice that they wished to evaluate. It was expected that this test would be administered a week or so after the lesson had been delivered.

Write an essay on the following:

In your lesson plans you undertook investigations which replicated previously published research on learning in the classrooms. However, one of the goals of the course is that you should be able to design investigations which help you better to understand the significant events which you experience in the classroom. Describe any significant event which you have experienced that still requires explanation and suggest procedures for its investigation. Give a detailed example of such research. (You may not use material from your assessed lesson plans in this answer).

Exhibit 3.3: The seventh exercise which had to be completed either as an essay at the end of the term, or as a one hour terminal paper. Previously it had been set as an examination only. The question was given to the students at the beginning of the academic year (October) and examined in June. (Examples will be found in Heywood, J. (1992). Student teachers as Researchers of Instruction in the Classroom in J. H. C. Vonk and H. J. van Helden (Eds.). New Prospects for Teacher Education in Europe. Amsterdam, Free University. Association for Teacher Education in Europe).

Immediately after the lesson had been given the students were asked to evaluate what had happened (see also Journey 2). As Exhibit 3.1 shows they were asked to say “what happened in the class?” “What happened to me?” “What have I learned about myself?” And, “What have I learned about my pupils?” I certainly hoped that they would see this as an opportunity to practice educational connoisseurship, and some students tried to do just that.

You may take the view that the example shown in Exhibit 3.4 demonstrates such connoisseurship. It shows that sometimes teachers misjudge the effects of a class. In this class the teacher had decided to design a lesson in English (poetry) that catered for the needs of the four different learning styles described by David Kolb [4, see Journey 12]. She chose it so that it could be linked to the problem of bullying which had been raised with her by this class of 12 year old boys. A second point is that students sense what is happening to teachers; perhaps more readily than we would care to believe.

This activity had two purposes, one that I understood at the time, and one which I learned, The purpose that I understood at the time was the objective of getting these student graduate educators to stop worrying about themselves, and begin to try and understand what was happening to their students, and why. It is only recently that I have begun to realize that this activity contributed to the development of their tacit knowledge, and that it is this tacit knowledge that forms the basis of their technical knowledge and theories of learning.

Evaluation 1

The one thing that struck me even while I was teaching the lesson was the mute reaction of the class to all parts of this lesson. They seemed to exhibit little enthusiasm for anything. They are a lively bunch, and I had thought that this poem and topic would be perfect for them. They have just come out of the primary (elementary) school scene so the experience would be relatively recent for them and they had previously brought up the topic of bullying voluntarily. The presence of a supervisor from TCD could have been a contributing factor but this had coincided before with a lesson plan session (lesson plan 1), and a glance at their performances in that class proves that this would not dampen their spirits. My supervisor, who was only present for the first class, even commented on their very quietness, or had they had a class before mine which repressed their behavior, which incidentally, did not dramatically change after she left. Perhaps it was just an off day for them. . My own performance on the day could also have been a contributing factor. On that particular day I was quite sick so perhaps the students sensed that I wasn’t fully with them.

But however disappointed I was with the response of the class to the lesson, their results indicate that it was their best performance so far (continues….)

Exhibit 3.4: Example of a first evaluation by a student teacher.

Although the groups were small, anything from a 12 to 30 pupils, it is nevertheless useful for trainees to do some basic statistics such as the mean and standard deviation of the test results, if only to make them think about what is happening in the class. It is a second evaluation, but of a very different kind. Since, it is undertaken a week or so after the lesson it gives the student an opportunity to re-consider what happened, and what they have learned that will inform their future teaching. This activity was always called the third evaluation, but some students used the term “reflection,” and for many it went beyond evaluation to reflection.

Sometimes the second evaluation (Exhibit 3.5) ran into the third (Exhibit 3.6). In this case, the teacher had designed two classes to evaluate the relative merits of expository and discovery teaching. It was a science class on materials. He had found that the guided discovery class were highly motivated, but that it did not seem to be, “enough to promote understanding as demonstrated by the results.” He also found that brighter and middle range students responded better to the inquiry approach whereas the weaker students seemed to benefit more from the expository approach; “to a large extent I feel that the teacher has the ability to motivate and create interest in a class with even the most tedious topics.” This extract from his report is intended to illustrate that in doing this kind of action research the teacher who is both observer and participant should be aware of the assumptions that have to be made, and to understand the limitations on the illumination that the exercise might provide.

As indicated in Journey 2 in order to help students develop skills for the final evaluation, with some exercises I gave the students a reference, and asked them to take it into account when considering what they would do differently if they had the opportunity to repeat the exercise again. The first exercise always asked the students to replicate one of the experiments on the role of examples and non-examples in the teaching of concepts. Exhibit 3.7 is part of an evaluation of the teaching of two classes the same concept of animal cells, but using different approaches to the sequencing of the examples. As indicated in Journey 2 the students were asked to read a text by R. W. Howard on concept learning [5]. Exhibit 3.7 shows how a teacher’s position changed after reading Howard. Of some interest is the recognition that the classroom was a laboratory for research. In my classification this evaluation belongs to the class of technical evaluation and not reflection.

3.3 TEACHING AND DESIGN

These activities are little different to design and make projects. Describing the key skill of technical coordination in project management Trevelyan wrote, “First the engineer describes what needs to be done and when, and negotiates a mutually agreeable arrangement with other people who will be contributing their skills and expertise. Next, while the work is being performed, the engineer keeps in contact with the people doing the work to review progress and spot misunderstandings or differences of interpretation. The engineer will also join in discussion of unexpected issues that arise, and may need to compromise on original requirements. Third, when the work has been completed, the engineer will carefully review the results and check that no further work or rectification is needed.”

While this may be seen as project management work, “technical coordination is an undocumented informal process that relies on personal influence, rather than lines of formal authority. This corresponds closely with pedagogy: first setting the task for students, secondly monitoring the students as they perform the task, offering help and guidance when needed, elaborating on the requirements of the exercise when the students misunderstand, and finally checking the student’s work and assessing it against criteria that define relative levels of performance” [6]. It is within the process that the teacher negotiates his/her way through the lesson, making key decisions on whom and what to give time to, and the important decision as to whether to achieve the goals that were set in the lesson plan. Trevelyan’s point is that much engineering requires social interaction, explanation and negotiation. Teaching, he argues involves all three, therefore engineering students should be given the opportunity to teach during their experience of college. “Teaching relies on accurate listening to understand the learner’s needs, gaining the willing cooperation of the learner, planning expectations and assessment, presenting carefully planned explanations, and observations of human behavior and responses. These are the same social interaction skills that form the foundations of most professional skills we have observed engineers using” [7]. For this reason I believe that faculty have much to learn from beginning teachers but for all that, they should not expect students to undertake what they themselves are not prepared to undertake.

[…]

In reaching this rather tentative conclusion I have had to make several assumptions which have to be seriously considered before these results could be considered valid.

1. That the questions in the exam tested the two methods. I do feel that this was a good exam and that it encouraged the students to explain what they understood by the topic. However, one is assuming firstly that a child can accurately put into words something that has been understood, and all pupils’ language skills are equal. Also it is still hard to tell whether answers had been remembered but not understood. The students are very eager in general and have had several surprise tests to date. The combination of these two facts means that work is constantly covered at home by more eager students in the event of an exam. Hence, even in the questions designed to test understanding, pure recall may be being used. It is very difficult to tell.

2. It is also assumed that the students in class IY did not know about the test. Their science class is always one day after the IX class and hence it would not have taken much for the class to guess that they might have a test. Again, it is possible that some of the more eager students revised for this exam. Also some of the results actually increased from test one to test two in both IX and IY indicating, I feel more revision on the part of the class in the interim period which again means that long-term recall was not tested.

3. That there was no overlap in the two methods. This, for me at least, is a very grey area. How much guidance does one use in guided discovery? When does it stop being guidance and start being exposition? Until more exact definitions exist for these methods it will be very difficult to know exactly what one is testing for.

4. That the novelty factor, as previously discussed, is not what is driving the motivation rather than a heart-felt desire for knowledge and truth.

5. Finally, one is assuming that the statistics are valid. This itself is quite large assumption. In order to make any valid conclusion, setting aside the inherent problems in the method discussed already, one would have to repeat the exercise many times in order to get a significant sample. It would be wise to repeat it, using different topics with the same classes and then with different classes. It would have to be investigated to see whether this is age specific, gender-specific, race-specific and so on. To hazard a guess at this I would feel that perhaps boys would benefit more from guided discovery in science, based on experience of teaching boys I found them prone to throwing themselves into laboratory work and to wanting to do things themselves. It was nearly a sign of weakness to ask a teacher for help. I am not entirely sure that age would have an effect once the subject matter was suitable for that age group. (continues in exhibit 3.6)

Exhibit 3.5: Example of a second evaluation that ran into the third evaluation shown in Exhibit 3.6.

(continued from exhibit 3.5.)

As I result of this exercise I have, firstly, gotten to know my first year classes better which cannot have been a bad result. Secondly, it has made me look at the way in which I approach teaching classes and how perhaps one approach all the time is not ideal, even if just to tap into the novelty factor occasionally I feel that I would now tend to use discovery more than before and have found ever since that I am reluctant to tell classes what the outcome of an experiment should be. I prefer if they at least try to discover that for themselves.

Finally, it has made me realize how difficult a lot of Junior Certificate scientific concepts are in general and how frustrating this subject must be for those who would certainly appear, as a result of this exercise, to spend much time in the dark where science is concerned. Perhaps this is the most important piece of insight that I gained and it has certainly given me food for thought.

Exhibit 3.6: Example of a third evaluation which is a continuation of the second evaluation shown in Exhibit 3.5.

3.4 TEACHING AS RESEARCH–AN APPROACH TO SCHOLARSHIP

When the studies reported in this text were began in 1984 there were no texts that could be given to the students, moreover the approach was greatly influenced by my experience of engineering projects. This is no longer the case. Several texts have been written about teaching as research and classroom research on both sides of the Atlantic [3, 8, 9]. Two of the texts that have interested engineering educators have come from Patricia Cross and her colleagues Tom Angelo [10] and Mimi Steadman [11]. The first describes some fifty simple techniques for assessing what is going on the classroom. These are listed in the appendix. Many engineering educators use the “One minute Test.” The second is an advocacy of qualitative research in classrooms with practical examples. There is no one perfect way in achieving what is probably better called “the scholarship of teaching.”

In practice changing or developing the curriculum, irrespective of the level in the education system, is a design activity which is very similar to planning a lesson.

If I were to teach this concept again I would emphasize the non-examples more with weaker students. In order to do this I would use the idea of concept mapping as illustrated in the Howard reading. This is a process frequently used in science and would have proved extremely useful of the concept of the animal cell. A map of its place in the human system and a map of its place in the environment, including non-examples, such as rocks, within the environment, would possibly have given the class a much clearer picture to focus on.