Theoretical Framework of study

This action research (AR) project is a case study of management of teaching practice embedded within the larger case of the teacher education program of Faculty of Education, Burapha University (BUU), Thailand. The theoretical framework is in Figure 8.1.

As indicated in Chapter 1, the project emanated from the researcher‟s professional experience of management of teaching practice supervision at her workplace, BUU. Teaching practice is an interface between Faculties of Education, the senior partner vested with the authority to confer teaching qualifications on trainees, and the public and private school systems whose teachers it trains and who are the junior partner, servicing the needs of universities. Teaching practice is a public domain of otherwise largely private institutions. It is also the domain where universities seek the co-operation, with no financial reward of school directors and members of the teaching profession in fulfilling arguably its most important function – developing classroom teaching skills to a level where a trainee can be

159

certificated as „fit to teach‟ in a public school. It is difficult to conceive of any more important aspect of the work of a Faculty of Education than ensuring that its trainees and staff in co-operating schools have a well-managed experience with staff of the university that fulfils this function in a demonstrable way.

Figure 8.1: Theoretical Framework of study

The starting point for my research, as shown in Figure 8.1 was my reflections on my experiences as a BUU supervisor over many years. Line 1 shows my

perception of the existing quality of management of teaching practice at BUU Faculty of Education. I saw it as individualistic, uncoordinated and even anarchic, since staff, especially BUUS seemed to be able to do more or less as they pleased. Anecdotal evidence confirmed complaints about management of teaching

practice, including lesson plan format, lack of feedback to ST on their teaching and poor liaison between school and university supervisors. In addition,

160

management of Faculty of Education appeared unwilling to take these complaints seriously either by acknowledgement, discussing what might be done to address them or, most importantly introducing training for those involved. This at a time when Thai Ministry of Education was actively promoting a concept of „amicable‟ supervision that seemed to reflect Thai cultural values that seemed conspicuously lacking at BUU. My vision was to move management of teaching practice at BUU towards that model as shown under „Future‟ in line 1, by creating collaborative partnerships that integrated university with school learning through teaching experience, and that helped trainees construct a view of themselves as teachers for the modern world. How I was to do that was initially unclear to me, though I was able to formulate tentative research questions that indicated my thrust and that were accepted in my research proposal.

My literature review, reported in Chapter 2 opened my eyes to issues relating to teaching practice. These included: the complexity of the topic, in particular the range of models of supervision advanced over the past century; conflicting views on underlying assumptions and purposes of teaching practice; assessment for planning developmental experiences for trainees; the meaning of teaching grades; quality supervision, and relationships between school and university supervisors. Teaching practice seemed to me to be a central topic for professional teacher education and development in an Ed. D.

I selected AR as my approach because I believed that not only was it important to learn more about the specific situation at BUU – I could find no studies in the literature that were site-specific in the way that I proposed to develop my study, but also because I wanted my research to „make a difference‟ by changing some aspects of practice for the better, a key objective of AR. In addition, my focus was on a specific case, as in most AR and a specific situation that I wished to change for the better viz. management of some aspect of teaching practice at BUU. In fact, as discussed below and as shown in Figure 8.1, line 2 my research may be

161

conceptualized as a series of case studies of different types and with different functions in the evolving phases of Cycle 1.

From this „reflective practitioner‟ starting point, but with no fixed plan of procedure my research developed logically over three phases. Phase 1 was the search for confirmation, or disconfirmation of my impressions of the quality of teaching practice supervision at BUU. Research manuals indicate that the way to collect such information is through surveys that may produce „descriptive‟ findings of what those surveyed think about the issue under consideration. As quantitative researcher I collected information from three populations with experience of the phenomenon – the management of supervision of teaching practice by BUU between November 2003 and February 2004. Each population studied – ST, SCHS and BUUS returned sufficient completed questionnaires (N = 271/358) for my purpose, with response rates of 60, 71 and 57 percent respectively, which manuals indicate are reasonable for one-shot postal surveys. These rates-of-return, without extensive prompting on my part may indicate the strength of feeling on this issue, though of course those who did not respond may have had a satisfactory experience. Each set of responses informed development of „descriptive‟ case study reports for each population that showed current practice as, on the one hand „acceptable‟ to all parties, but at the same time „in need of improvement‟. Respondents concurred on the need for improved documentation to guide all parties on management of supervision, confirming some of my concerns.

This finding encouraged me to proceed into Phase 2 of the AR project on the basis of participatory AR – PAR. Phase 2 was „exploratory‟. It can also be

conceptualized as a case study within the larger AR project. It was exploratory because, at its outset I had again no clear idea of what outcome to expect. My principal aim was to involve key stakeholders in thinking about issues identified by survey respondents, to tap their experience and to invite them to suggest ways forward. I succeeded in recruiting a small number of volunteer SCHS and BUUS

162

with majors in English to deliberate with me on the evidence from Phase 1. Reluctantly I decided not to involve ST; those with the most recent experience of teaching practice had now left university. However, on reflection this was

probably a mistake. Their perspective as „consumers‟ of teaching practice is very important. My role was facilitator. I arranged for „expert‟ input to provide

volunteers with a broader perspective on key issues viz. lesson plan format, strategies for use while observing teaching, triad relationships, and coaching and mentoring. I invited volunteers to suggest a strategy for improvement. The guideline that emerged in August 2004 addressed many of these issues. The guideline was an „intermediate‟ or „enabling‟ objective towards the higher order objective of improving the management of supervision of teaching practice. The guideline was also a physical resource, a 33-page document that provided all parties with advice that clarified roles and procedures, set out expectations and responsibilities and that, if acted on had potential to create an atmosphere of trust, collegiality and co-operation intrinsic to „amicable‟ supervision that would

improve the quality of management of supervision of teaching practice.

Having created the resource it was desirable to trial it. This involved considerable planning and negotiation on my part, and continuation of my role as facilitator to set up a viable trial situation. There were time pressures, both from dissertation requirements and from the imminent BUU teaching practice that offered a context for trialing, and which commenced in November 2004. Consequently, I was unable to seek views from those not involved in guideline development, such as BUU‟s Dean of the Faculty of Education and school directors, though I did share it with my supervisor. Nor was there time to introduce it to school or university supervisors involved in that teaching practice. That would have been too

ambitious a leap, and contrary to normal AR practice. The immediate priority was to establish its utility. Securing agreement to trial from three SCHS and three BUUS volunteers seemed adequate for establishing this, both in its own right and for the purpose of this dissertation. As contributors to the development process these supervisors were presumably committed to improvement, including acting

163

on their own advice, so that their participation and their cooperative attitude to working together as supervisor seemed an optimum situation for trialing – though obviously in that respect not a typical one. Fortunately there were sufficient English major trainees to match them to supervisors. One of my most important roles was to secure their co-operation, reassuring them that their confidentiality would be respected and their teaching grade unaffected.

Figure 8.1 shows that Phase 3 of this AR project comprised three „replicative‟ case studies. At each site the triad was involved in a supervisory process over the period of the teaching practice, with supervisors informed by recommendations expressed in the guideline. Each site was thus „replicating‟ the trial. At the same time each site was inevitably different in a number of respects, notably personnel, their workload and circumstances and site characteristics, such as size and

distance from BUU main campus. Each site therefore had a different experience in trialing the guideline. My role was to evaluate that experience from the „outside‟, which I did by observations (to some extent), but mainly by focused interviews with each member of each triad. My observations were of course merely „snapshots‟ of what occurred on days that I attended each site. However, at the meeting of 19 March supervisors provided a longitudinal perspective on

implementation over the teaching practice as a whole. Subsequently I was able to compile a report on the experience of trialing at each school through „single case analyses‟. Such trialing is „formative‟ in the sense that it is concerned to find out what „works‟ and what does not, and needs further consideration. It also has limited validity: a case is simply a case. However trialing simultaneously across three sites increases validity since evidence is added cumulatively. „Cumulative case analysis‟ provides a fuller and more valid picture of the utility of the guideline. What that picture is follows in my summary of the results of Phase 3.