Você está na página 1de 4

Study Title: Teaching by proxy: Understanding how mentors are positioned in relationships Study Author: Edwards, A.

& Protheroe, L. Publication Details: Oxford Review of Education, vol. 30, no. 2, 2004, pp. 183-198. Summary: What did the research aim to do? This study investigated interactions between experienced teacher mentors and student teachers within the context of initial (primary school) teacher training (ITT) conducted within a partnership model involving schools and higher education institutions in England. It aimed to analyse what mentors discuss with student teachers in relation to an ideal of learning to teach as a process of 'learning to be, see and respond in increasingly informed ways while working in classrooms'. This ideal is informed by a view of expert teaching as involving the capacity to connect learner and curriculum (Tochon 2000). From this perspective a pedagogic act calls for 'an informed interpretation of a classroom event' followed by selecting a response that will in turn 'assist pupils to participate meaningfully in the opportunities for learning available to them'. Hence, the issue was the extent to which teacher mentors interacted with student teachers in ways that helped promote the interpretative capacities and dispositions required. To address this issue the researchers framed three research questions: 1. What do mentors believe they offer student teachers as they learn to teach in primary school classrooms? 2. What do they in fact offer [the student teachers]? 3. What does the way they support student teachers tell us about how mentors are positioned in the activity systems of their own schools and ITT programs? How was the study designed? The paper reports the case study component of a larger study of two cohorts (N=125) of students doing 1-year postgraduate primary teaching programs at two institutions. Twelve case study participants, six from each program, were selected (one subsequently dropped out) and studied as they learned to teach English (literacy) and mathematics (numeracy); 24 teacher mentors (one per student for each of English and mathematics) participated. Three data subsets were collected: The researchers conducted post-observation interviews with the student teachers to discuss their interpretation of classroom events that occurred during their teaching session (as noted by the researchers whilst observing the student teachers). There were four interviews per participant: one each for English and mathematics in each of their first and second teaching practices (45 interviews). 47 interviews were conducted with the teacher mentors (1 each per mentor per teaching practice) about what they intended to focus on in their post-observation feedback conversations with the student teachers. 47 post-observation feedback conversations (teacher mentors with student teachers). Data were audiorecorded and transcribed, and subsequently subjected to content analysis informed by two main theory sources: research questions 1 and 2 were informed by sociocultural theories of learning underpinning the ideal of teaching adopted in the research; the third research question was informed by Activity Theory developed by Yrjo Engstrom (1996, 2001) in order to understand the feedback provided by teacher mentors in relation to how they are positioned within schools and training partnerships. Data analysis also involved use of an important distinction between observations that noted pupils' actions and observations where the focus was on student teachers.

What were the limitations? Case studies have strictly limited generalisability; however, this study provided an exemplary model that could be adapted for further research within settings that employ or are considering employing the kinds of partnerships involved in the two programs investigated. What were the findings? With respect to Questions 1 and 2: Post observation interviews with student teachers indicated that the student teachers saw more clearly what specific pupils could do (37 of 45 interviews); they felt more confident about classroom management (28 interviews); and that they saw more clearly how to move pupils through the curriculum (18 interviews). Interviews with teacher mentors conducted prior to the feedback conversations about what they would talk to student teachers about emphasised how to take pupils through the curriculum (41 of 47 interviews); providing knowledge of the pupils (26 interviews); and providing advice on discipline and control. There was a high degree of consistency between what the mentors said they would cover in the feedback conversations, what they did in fact cover, and what the student teachers derived from the feedback conversations. The overall findings for Questions 1 and 2 are summarised in the following tables: Table 1: Ranks and percentages of meaning units of talk taken from conversations between mentors and students following a classroom observation session in the first and second teaching practice (TP1 and TP2)

Table 2: Ranks and percentages of meaning units of talk taken from conversations between mentors and students following classroom observations in literacy and numeracy (p. 190)

As can be seen, the three most highly ranked forms of mentor talk -- analysed according to coded categories of meaning -- in the recorded post-observation conversations with the students during the first teaching practice round were also the top three in the second teaching practice round. The emphases merely exchanged places within the top three ranks. The figures show that mentors were mainly concerned with the pace at which student teachers covered the curriculum content and with how effectively the student teachers managed the children in class whilst covering the curriculum. This conformed closely to what the mentors said they intended to cover in the post observation conversations. Not surprisingly, the same patterns were repeated in those components of the study that focused more specifically on the literacy and numeracy aspects of learning to teach (Table 2). In relation to these tables the researchers draw attention to the relatively low ranking assigned to mentors' advice on the use of activities and resources through which the children might learn: that is, on helping the students to see the pedagogic potential in conventional classroom resources and how these could be mobilised to help promote learning. In short, this data suggests that mentors' concerns were focused on how student teachers could get pupils to attend to the tasks they were set and to work through the curriculum. With respect to Question 3: The Activity Theory-based analysis of the interactions suggested that the communities of practice being investigated valued 'operating as classrooms in schools more than as part of training partnerships'. In other words, the interactions affirmed a community concerned with the goals of curriculum coverage and pupil performance rather than one concerned with 'developing' the student teacher as a pedagogic expert. The school-higher education institution partnership operated from a model that reinforced the expectation that student teachers would operate as proxy teachers.

The mentoring given to the student teachers 'did not encourage them to engage in responsive pedagogic acts' of the kind assumed in the teaching ideal underlying the research.

What conclusions were drawn from the research? The major conclusion was that, relative to the ideal of teaching expertise underpinning the study, the kinds of mentoring interactions occurring in the programs investigated were not conducive to developing student teachers as future expert teachers. Furthermore, this should not be understood as shortcomings of the teacher mentors but, rather, as a more or less inevitable consequence of the activity systems in which they (and the student teachers) participate, and how teacher mentors are positioned within these systems. What are the implications of the study? The study implies that if student teachers are to be trained to undertake 'responsive deliberative action' within classrooms, there is a strong case for partnerships focusing on how they can support schools as sites where teachers and trainee teachers 'do more than [just] ensure that the curriculum is delivered'. The kinds of studies and analyses that can be made using Engstm's approach to Activity Theory may be useful bases from which to begin a concrete transformation of current teaching and teacher training practices. Generalisability and significance for Queensland The potential significance of this study for Queensland, with its 'Smart State' and 'Productive Pedagogies' orientations is considerable. If Queensland decides to move further toward the kinds of partnerships in place in England, it will be important to consider the case for supporting schools as sites concerned with more than curriculum delivery alone. Where can interested readers find out more? Engstrm, Y. 1996, Overcoming the encapsulation of school learning, in Introduction to Vygotsky, ed. H. Daniels, Routledge, London. Engstrm, Y. (ed.) 2001, Activity Theory and Social Capital: Research Reports 5, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Available at http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/ Tochon, P. 2000, When authentic experiences are 'enminded' into disciplinary genres: Crossing biographic and situated knowledge, Learning and Instruction, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 331-359. Keywords: teacher education, mentoring, pedagogy

Você também pode gostar