2.2 FUNDAMENTACIÓN TEÓRICA
3.1.6 Recolección de la Información
Jones’ (2004) article reports on aspects of explicitly intended research education for inexperienced, pre-service STs of English. Jones (2004) wrote as the tutor of a research
methods module in the curriculum of a one-year-long, Graduate Diploma-level initial
and university-based ELTE (TESOL) programme in the UK. Acknowledging the
positive influence of the teacher research movement on the proliferation of practical
53
examples, that not all research projects completed in these compulsory modules may
necessarily resemble teacher research (i.e. collaborative and based on the STs’ own
teaching practice). Rather, Jones (2004) states, the small-scale research projects
devised (e.g. with surveys, interviews and ephemeral classroom observations of
others’ teaching) may create a misinformed impression among the first-timer student- researchers of education research as a conventional and ‘dull’ academic pursuit. He
thus argues that the potential benefits of formal-looking research education and
engagement may not be too apparent to the STs with few future academic pretentions
(e.g. higher degree studies or employment in the tertiary sector). Reflecting on his
personal observations, Jones (2004) describes and justifies his decision of including
an end-of-term, public display event of the STs’ individual and written-up research
work (e.g. posters, PowerPoint presentations and panels) to address their previously
voiced doubts about the ‘usefulness’ of the RE module and the supervised research project. Jones (2004) explains that the RE module had been running for three years
and was spread over 15 weeks (an academic term). By week four, the STs were
expected to have settled on a self-selected, interesting yet feasible research topic/focus
to be investigated in ‘real-life’ educational settings either at the host university or elsewhere (e.g. local school or learning centre). By week seven, Jones (2004) recalls,
the pedagogical priority in the module was shifted from tutor-led instruction of
research methods into less formal and more interactive sharing and discussion of the STs’ projects and experiences in class. To exemplify, Jones (2004) explains that the STs ‘show[ed] each other drafts, compare[d] results, ask[ed] for advice on the aesthetics of their display, and talk[ed] about their frustrations’ (Jones, 2004: 30). As for the outcomes of introducing a research dissemination event, Jones (2004) referred
54
the majority of students commented very positively on the perceived rewards of the
research exhibition in increasing the perceived utility of the RE unit and the research
experience (e.g. interacting/networking with a wider audience including EFL teachers
from nearby schools where some STs conducted their research,
clarification/crystallisation of thought processes, increased visibility of others’
research and comparison, collegial solidarity among researchers, valued feedback and
praise from academics and the research participants – EFL teachers), few others
mentioned that they had found preparing for the public event too time-consuming
considering the small grade proportion allocated to it (ten percent).
Alternative insights from outside ELT (i.e. initial TE) into academically organised and
delivered RE units (modules/courses), by contrast, exist in relatively higher volumes.
Valli’s (2000) research in USA with pre-service teachers with some previous school- based experience (assistantship and support roles) included a semester-long, revised
pedagogical construction (module) of school-based action research as part of a
Master’s degree. The author, as the module tutor, describes that the module syllabus covered multiple subjects ranging from defining action/teacher research to ways of
critiquing personal and pedagogical assumptions, engaging with literature and
previous theory, negotiating research interest, fieldwork and data collection, and
research report writing skills. The STs prepared four written assignments for the
module assisted by tutor-prepared guidelines and a textbook, namely, a justification
of the research question and project, a justification of the methodology adopted in this
light, a description of data analysis and the final research report. The author (rather
surprisingly) utilised qualitative data collection procedures (audio-recorded module
sessions, tutor’s reflective journal, module documents, students’ written work and student interviews). Valli (2000: 728) interpreted her research as ‘a case of pedagogy
55
gone awry’ owing to the irony she observed in findings – namely, the incongruences that emerged between her pedagogical intentions as the module tutor and her students’
reported conceptions and experiences. Valli (2000) found that the main module reading (textbook) she had selected influenced and somewhat confused the STs’ conceptions of the role and value of collaboration in action research – two points the
tutor distinctly and consistently highlighted in her sessions. The research findings
indicated that the STs found it difficult to comprehend why collaboration was highly
desirable when their research projects were individual and when the selected textbook
too conveyed an individualistic view of teacher research. Moreover, Valli (2000)
found that despite her pedagogical efforts to explicitly link personal professional
development and school improvement through the STs’ action research projects, the
STs did not commit to this goal, adopting either a purely insider perspective (inquiring
into their own or their peers’ teaching) or a purely outsider perspective (inquiring into
aspects of school organisation and functioning irrespective of their own practice in the
school) whilst conducting their research.
Lombard and Kloppers (2015) delivered two consecutive research methods modules
(one per semester) for pre-service STs in South Africa which were compulsory in the
curriculum and were assessed through a series of structured exercises and a final
research proposal. Having previously observed student attitudes of research as too
complex and strenuous when executed individually, the authors decided to experiment
with pair-work (informed by principles of active learning, communities of practice
and constructivism) as an overall pedagogical approach and evaluate the STs’
reactions through a post-module questionnaire – which nonetheless inquired
separately into the two semesters to analyse the similarities and differences between
56
domains, namely, the STs’ (1) experiences of the two modules (i.e. semantic scales
for each of confident/insecure, relaxed/nervous, victorious/defeated, energised/bored,
inspired/discouraged, positive/negative, convinced/doubtful); (2) perceptions
regarding the value of the modules (i.e. Likert scale items of planning and organisation
(one item), engagement with literature (two items), pair-work (one item), higher-order
thinking skills (three items), writing skills (one item) and realising the importance of
education research (one item); (3) opinions of pair-work and any desired (pre-listed)
modifications (i.e. Likert scale items, semantic scales and rank-order lists covering
overall attitude, reactions (i.e. fun/boring, stimulating/dull, easy/difficult,
satisfying/frustrating, sensible/impractical, productive/destructive,
reassuring/terrifying), learning about self and the partner and desired modifications).
The authors found that a striking majority of the STs who returned the questionnaire
reported a positive attitude toward the pair-work element. As regards the overall
module experience, the authors inferred that the STs entered the first module with a
prevalent feeling of insecurity which was soon alleviated by the end of the first module
and continued until the end (based on the statistically significant means for
‘confidence’ and ‘relaxation’ followed by ‘convinced’, ‘inspired’, ‘victorious’ and ‘positive’). However, feeling ‘energised’ yielded the lowest mean difference from the beginning to the end of the whole process which the authors attributed to student
fatigue. More interesting findings emerged from the STs’ ratings of the listed ‘values’ of the research unit (nine items in total). While a generic thinking skill, namely,
‘organising and expressing thoughts clearly’ was the top of the most-valued list, ‘realising the importance of educational research’ – an underscored RE in TE aim (2.3.4, 2.3.5) – came the last. Other highly rated ‘value’ items were
57
‘problem solving’. Less popular items were ‘presenting information in written form’, ‘acknowledging literature in a scientific and correct way’ and ‘creative and critical skills’. The authors thus inferred that the STs benefitted more from ‘the improvement of general skills required for successful studying and academic performance’ than ‘the specific and perhaps advanced skills required for the execution of research’ (Lombard
and Kloppers, 2015: 8). However, it is important to note that the practical
representation of research was in the form of proposal writing (based on a review of
literature) in the authors’ organisation of the research units; and so excluded any data
collection, analysis, discussion and reporting.
Likewise, in yet another post-module questionnaire study with pre-service teachers,
van der Linden (2012) (one of the two module tutors) in Netherlands looked into the
STs’ attitudes toward research, how their attitudes were influenced by the introductory RE unit they attended, and what aspects of the module they valued the most regarding
the enhancement of their research attitudes, knowledge and skills. The author
describes the unit to have ‘a socio-constructivist perspective on learning [whereby]
[STs] are encouraged to construct their own knowledge in realistic situations together
with others’ (van der Linden, 2012: 20). However, similar to the previous RE context above, the STs did not actively conduct research. Rather, they worked with ‘authentic
examples of teacher research’ (i.e. research reports written and disseminated by
teachers) to practice the ‘realistic research tasks’ of devising research questions and
engaging with methodological decision-making in pairs and groups. The results of the
questionnaire yielded the following ranking of the STs’ perceived value of different
aspects of the RE unit with regards to the enhancement of positive attitudes and
58
RE Module Aspect ‘Value’ Ranking (high to low) Pair and group work #1 (most valued)
Realistic tasks #2
Examples from practice #3
Alternating teaching methods #4 Connections to prior knowledge #5
Peer feedback #6
Opportunities to choose #7 Connection to overall curriculum #8 (least valued)
(van der Linden, 2012: 28)
As can be seen, the outcomes are thought-provoking. For example, even though the
students highly appreciated interacting and collaborating with their fellows, they did
not value each other’s feedback as much. Also, what seemed to be at the top of the module tutors’ value list (inter-modular connections) was pulled down to the bottom by the STs. However, this remains a presumption because the author did not illuminate
why the list was ordered in the way it was ordered. Furthermore, perhaps because the
participant STs were (seemingly) inexperienced in research as the module was
introductory, utility of prior knowledge (in harmony with the vision of exploring ST-
preconceptions and experiences) was somewhat left ‘hanging’ in the middle of the list as an undecided value attributable to the particular mode of RE experienced by the
group. Nevertheless, van der Linden (2012) further explains that the questionnaire
results overall conveyed a generally positive attitude towards research and the
contribution value of the RE unit to the STs’ grasp of research as an important activity
for teachers – which, as a research finding, contradicts that by the previous researchers,
Lombard and Kloppers (2015) – and to their self-confidence in being able to undertake a ‘real’ research pursuit in future.
59
To conclude the section, drawing on the foregoing tutor-devised and mostly
quantitative methods to evaluate student ‘values’ regarding the taught RE units, an
intriguing question arises: If the STs were enabled, in research methodology terms, to
qualitatively construct their own RE values from their personal ‘pools’ of
preconceptions and previous experiences, to what extent would these resemble the
tutor-constructed lists of RE values?
I turn to the above and other questions that arise from the literature reviewed so far in
section 2.6 in the context of the limitations of the available research studies in the RE
in the UBITE field. Before that, I explore and discuss in the next two sections (2.4 and
2.5) a construction of a tentative conceptual framework of ‘desirable’ RE in UBITE
as a way of thinking about the notion in the light of the current state of related
knowledge.