Education-line Home Page

"Effective Teaching" and the Ineffective Study

Bridget A. Egan

King Alfred’s College, Winchester

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5 1999.

The Context:

Increasingly, teaching is seen as an area of work in which professional engagement must be grounded in clear understanding of how to develop and improve what is done through the use of evidence. Rationales for the use of particular techniques of teaching, or for the introduction of planned change and systems for implementing it, need to be based on understandings reached by careful and systematic investigation. As Hargreaves said in his TTA lecture,

...if it were (a research-based profession) teaching would be more effective and more satisfying (Hargreaves, 1996; p1)

He suggests that in education (...) researchers are rarely users and that it is the researchers and not the practitioners who determine the agenda of educational research (Hargreaves, 1996; p3). While his model of teacher-as-researcher is far from new, and has indeed been embedded in award-bearing in-service courses for a number of years, it has been influential in restimulating the debate about the nature and influence of educational research.

In the debate about whose ‘business’ it is to carry out and to evaluate educational research, I share the view that research should be

seen as an essential and important aspect of the teacher’s responsibilities (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1989: p3).

I disagree with McIntyre when he says:

It seems to me simply unreasonable to demand of teachers that they be researchers as well as teachers, (McIntyre, 1996; p132),

because I do not agree that

the expertise demanded of the two activities is so very different; (McIntyre, 1996; p132),

Both good research and good teaching demand rigorous thinking, perceptiveness, imagination, self-awareness, social skills and self-discipline in [] demanding combinations. (McIntyre, 1996; p129),

I would add to this belief, that in my experience what has been important in changing and (I hope) improving my own practice both in classroom teaching and in working with students in college has been the practitioner research that I have carried out myself and in collaboration with others, bringing with it the opportunity to reflect in depth on aspects of practice and of children’s responses. This stands in contrast to the large-scale and to some extent remoter studies carried out by others, except insofar as these impact my own interests or challenge previously held values, thus leading me into continued reflection on practice.

Although it is, as McIntyre says, difficult to do educational research well (McIntyre, 1996; p129), that is not in my view a reason for reserving involvement in research to those who make a profession of educational research. Involvement in research enriches teaching and the understanding of the educational setting.

If teaching is to become an evidence-based profession, then an important aspect of teacher training must continue to be the development of understanding of the collection, analysis and use of research evidence.

In common with most BA Honours courses in Primary Education, Students at King Alfred’s College are expected to undertake a piece of extended independent study in their final year, dealing with an aspect of personal and professional interest. They produce a report of approximately 8000 words, which is supposed to include first-hand research. In the version of the course that was in force when the period covered by this paper began, students were debarred from locating their projects in the application of their specialist subject, because the subject also demanded a final year project, and in a number of subjects (such as Drama, Art, and PE) this project had a strong slant into subject application.

This paper is an account of two years of my work with students in the final year of their four year undergraduate course. I present it as a stage in a piece of ongoing action research, the main purpose of which is to shift the focus, increase the relevance and, for many, improve the quality of students’ Final Year Projects (dissertation studies). Although I hold overall responsibility for this double module, many of the concerns which I describe here, and most of the changes in strategy, were the outcome of prolonged debate and discussion with colleagues. During the development of this paper, I have been interested to find, in discussion with colleagues in other institutions, that they share some of my concerns and intentions. I am grateful to all of my colleagues for their willingness to discuss their insights and purposes.

In 1996 I took up a new post in the School of Education at King Alfred’s. One of my new responsibilities was the oversight of students’ Final Year Projects (entitled in the BA degree of the time, the Applied School Project). These responsibilities included the production of a module handbook (at that time produced in two stages) to support the project by outlining for students the expectations and procedures of the work, briefing students and tutors, assigning students to supervising tutors on the basis of research interests.

The procedures connected with the Final Year Project at the time were as follows. Students were given a whole-cohort briefing about the requirements of the work. Tutors who were likely to be involved in the supervision of students offered seminars to assist students to choose project titles. Some, but not all, students took advantage of these, some attending more than one such seminar. Students then submitted project titles and were assigned to tutors, broadly on the basis of common research interests. There were, however, many students whose research interests could not be matched by supervisor interests, and who were allocated more or less at random to tutors. Typically, students did not make contact with their supervisors until after the completion of their final School Experience in the autumn term. The conduct of the project was expected to involve the students in first-hand classroom based research; however, many students chose to undertake research in other settings, or to concentrate on analysis of literature (such as LEA and/or NGO guidelines, school policy documents, and so on). The Final Year Project was seen very much as being in the student’s control, with freedom to choose whether or not to consult the supervising tutor, or indeed whether to act upon advice given.

Issues:

While a good proportion of students carried out reasonably well-crafted studies, a number of issues were raised by supervisors, and others came out of my scrutiny of the full set of titles which students had submitted.

These concerns were:

The number of students who were choosing topics which had no basis in their own practice. This raised a number of issues. Firstly, it involved students in making judgements rather than in reflection. The degree to which they engaged in exposing and reflecting on the judgements they thus made was extremely variable. There was a strong tendency to assume a universality of the values which they were bringing to bear on such judgements. Secondly, many students who located their studies outside their own practice chose to interrogate/observe the practice of others. This seems to me to pose both ethical and methodological problems. The ethical problems arise because students place themselves, as yet professionally unqualified and relatively inexperienced, in the position of critiquing the practice of qualified professionals. The professional colleagues on whose practice they make judgements, or whose opinions they are seeking, are in the position of being mentors to the students. This clouds the research relationship, and makes it extremely difficult for the student researcher to come to a clear understanding of the situation they are observing. This, at the very least, raises questions about the appropriateness of such a methodology.

The number of students who were asking what I would classify as political questions. My anxiety here stems, not from a wish to pretend that education and educational policy stand in some sense outside the political sphere, nor from a belief that students should not raise political questions. On the contrary, I think that they should - as often and as loudly as possible. My concern is far more that in the space of time and with the sort of evidence base available (typically a very small number of classes in a small number of schools, with data gathered in a period of less than half a year) it is extremely difficult for a student to make a real contribution to any political debate about the "Big" issues, through (for example) considerations of policy. By contrast, a carefully constructed study based on clear and detailed observation, with an awareness of the political and social context in which the study is done can make such a contribution. In terms of utility, it is also my belief that a study of this nature should be of immediate practical benefit to the emergent teacher, particularly if s/he is to continue to believe in the benefit of research for her/his future development. Often, the students would be observing perhaps one or two situations ( for example, of the provision made for a particular child with mobility problems in a particular school), and trying to extrapolate their judgements made in this situation into a question such as "Is it possible ( or Is it appropriate) to meet the needs of children with mobility problems in mainstream education". Students asking questions of this sort found it difficult to understand the significance of resource provision in such questions, or the crucial status of value judgements in answering them. What is more, political questions of this sort require very large scale longitudinal studies to provide enough evidence on which to bring those value judgements to bear.

Related to the above, Students using very sparse evidence and trying to relate this to very large questions

Many students lacking a clear sense of appropriate methodologies for practitioner enquiry. Students who were attempting to employ large-scale methodologies with small samples. Relatively few students adopted case study, action research or self-reflective approaches. Interviews were more commonly used, but students using them did not appear to be aware of the limitations of interviews (particularly used by those seen as teachers in school) for eliciting the views of children. Many students chose the use of questionnaires as their preferred method of data collection. My suspicion here is that they saw this as an "easy" way of collecting data; they lacked awareness of either the skills needed for sound questionnaire design, or the limitations of using questionnaires with very small samples.

The use of terms such as "effective teaching". Some students tended to use generalised shorthand terms like this, without any clarification. In tutorial sessions, I found that students often used these terms in different contexts to mean different things. Questioning on my part as to what criteria they would use/were using to judge "effectiveness" often revealed that they had given no clear consideration to identifying criteria. If it is possible to identify specific criteria, I would suggest that project titles should be articulated in those specific terms rather than in the more generalised terms, which are open to a wide range of different interpretations.

Students who wished, for all sorts of very laudable reasons, to investigate highly sensitive issues such as child abuse. Often students who had encountered sensitive issues in school and found them difficult to cope with, wish to find out more in order to feel more capable in the future. A number of difficulties attach to carrying out first-hand enquiry into sensitive issues. One, and of great importance in this particular context, is the possibility that the researcher may open topics which raise difficult feelings in their research partners, whether children or adults. In this context, the researcher has neither the time nor the expertise to support the research partner in resolving their feelings.

In addition, many students initiated their studies by writing to schools to ask for information, or for the co-operation of teachers in completing some (often quite poorly constructed) questionnaires. Quite aside from the methodological inappropriateness of much of this material, our partner schools were understandably irritated to receive large numbers of such requests from students that they did not know. Head teachers assumed that these importunings were sanctioned by the College. Good relations with our school partners therefore required that this type of approach should be discouraged.

Intentions:

I wanted students to continue to work in two of Bassey’s three realms of research in education: empirical research, (and) reflective research, (Bassey, 1992; p4) but with a shift of emphasis from the heavily empirical to a greater emphasis on critical reflection. (Creative research, Bassey’s third ‘realm’, I would suggest is the province of the experienced rather than the novice researcher.) Overall, I wanted students to engage in a more critical analysis of their data, and of their studies generally.

I wanted students further to recognise that

educational researchers work for one of two grand purposes. One is to interpret or explain what is happening without inducing any change. They are trying to portray the topic of their enquiry as it is and without disturbing it. Their aim is to give a theoretical account which links with existing theoretical ideas [.....] the second category of research workers have the purpose of trying to induce some change which they see as beneficial. Of course in order to do this it is first necessary for them to understand what is happening, but beyond that they are using systematic and critical enquiry in attempts to improve the practical situation. This is commonly known as action research and is a relatively recent development. It is usually carried out by insiders, i.e. people who are directly teaching or administering the practice under study (Bassey, 1992; p5)

In recognising these two positions, I wanted students to be able to locate their intentions in relation to these positions, and to recognise that the two are not mutually exclusive; one may undertake research in the first category in order to identify what may need to be done in the practical arena.

In common with many colleagues in teacher education, I continue to see Schon’s (1983) model of the reflective practitioner as central to the understanding of professionalism. The pressures of change in the last fifteen years have led to a greater emphasis on the technicist model of teaching, perhaps for some at the expense of reflection. My personal belief is that that both skilled technical practice and clear critical reflection are necessary, indeed that the latter underpins the former. I therefore wanted students to engage further in deeper reflection, using

an enabling model of reflection-on-practice (which) has four characteristics: it is cyclical, flexible, focused and holistic. (Ghaye, A. & Ghaye, K. (1998 p6)

For this, I would hope that they were able to identify the sort of reflection they engaged in according to some system such as is offered by Ghaye and Ghaye’s typology:

  • descriptive reflection-on-practice which is personal and retrospective
  • perceptive reflection-on-practice which links teaching to feelings
  • receptive reflection-on-practice which relates your view of things to others’ views
  • interactive reflection-on-practice which links learning with future action
  • critical reflection-on-action which places individual teaching within a broader system (Ghaye, A. & Ghaye, K. 1998 p34)

I hoped to be able to encourage students to recognise that, rather than research becoming an additional pressure on their time, the reflective and evaluative aspects of teaching could be sharpened to clarify and expose practical issues and dilemmas, and that material gained by systematically focusing on an aspect of their practice could be used to inform their understanding of these issues. I thus wanted to raise students’ awareness of methodologies which could be used in the classroom, such as action research, which as McNiff says,

...not only enhances the lives of the pupils. It empassions and enriches beyond all imaginings the personal lives of thinking practitioners. (McNiff, 1988, p52)

I also hoped to be able to persuade students to engage in more creative approaches to data collection, particularly focusing on strategies they were already using in their teaching.

My aims in planning interventions were:

To enable students to

To deter students from

Actions, 1998-9:

At this point, I should explain that this Final Year Project is initiated at the end of the third year of the course, and is completed just after Easter in the final year. In the paper, I shall refer to actions taken in ‘1998-9’ and ‘1999-2000’. These actions were in fact implemented very largely in the second semester of the students’ third year, as preparations for the conduct of their projects in the fourth year.

Although, for some purposes of research it might be desirable to make interventions singly and serially, the action research approach falls into Bassey’s second category of work (see above; Bassey, 1992; p 5). Action needed to be taken in a number of areas. In 1998-9, we

1] replaced the briefing sessions with a pilot run of six lectures on research methods.

2] revised the module handbook, to clarify some of the points which students in the previous year had found confusing, and to include a number of new features:

3] required students to produce a research proposal, to include not only the proposed title, but also stating the main aims of the research, and giving an indication of the methodological approach, and some source they intended to use. This proposal was due to be submitted by the end of the second semester of year 3, to allow allocation to supervising tutors by the start of the following semester.

Outcomes 1998-9:

The majority of students submitted their proposals as required, at or before the end of the third year. Many received feedback on the proposals in the early part of the summer vacation, and we were able to meet a large number to discuss improvements they could make to their initial ideas. Others did not send in their proposals until after the end of the College term, and it was less easy to meet them early enough for them to begin background reading for their projects. Of the proposals received, about one third were referred back for reconsideration. Reasons for this varied, but included proposals in which students cast themselves in an ‘inspectoral’ role in relation to the practice of others; other major categories for rejection were proposals dealing with large ‘political’ questions and those which were not sufficiently focused to enable the student to carry out any useful enquiry.

A number of students, however, did not submit proposals until the beginning of the final year, or even later, and some whose proposals had been considered to give them an insufficient base for the project, did not return for tutorial help in developing new proposals until after their final School experience was completed. This gave them a very short time indeed to engage with a project which is intended to involve them in a year’s work. Moreover, allocation to a supervisor had been made dependent on the submission of an acceptable proposal; thus many students did not have the advantage of tutorial support until what should have been a late stage in their thinking and enquiry. One conclusion to be drawn from this was that there needed to be a stronger expectation of submission for the proposal, and clearer advice as to how it should be presented.

It also transpired that quite a significant minority of students had not collected the second component of the module handbook, and therefore were unaware of much of the guidance on how to write up their projects, and the criteria whereby they would be assessed.

A number of students were encouraged to try different approaches to data collection from the perennial standards of observation and interview. Students who attempted to access novel sources of data were, by and large, very successful in their studies as well as successful in obtaining data.

...the reflective professional works with the client in trying to make sense of the client’s needs and shares knowledge as needed to try to tackle the client’s problems (Bassey, 1992 p15)

In my capacity as reflective practitioner and action researcher, in the course of 1997-8 and 1998-9, (and also in the current year) I have met a great many students to discuss their research intentions and proposals. These students were not only those whose first proposals were rejected, but others who came to discuss the comments and queries which I appended to their proposal forms. I became aware that many of them had very limited previous access to small-scale research material. Most of them were aware of large-scale projects such as the ORACLE work, but few had read any of this material at first hand. They tended not to use the journal material in their reading lists, but relied on small numbers of book resources. Where they were aware of a research tradition, it tended to be positivist social science, and they had little understanding of the changed perspectives on research developed in the last fifteen to twenty years. It gradually dawned on me that, whereas many - perhaps the majority - of non-vocational undergraduate degrees could be described as apprenticeships in the research traditions and methods considered appropriate to the discipline, this is certainly not the case for professional degrees, which are typically apprenticeships in practice (in this case, practice of teaching). It is therefore quite unreasonable to ask students to undertake research without giving a more substantial training in suitable methodologies.

During these conversations, students expressed a number of anxieties. The first of the main ones was whether they would be able to collect data while engaged on the all-important and extremely demanding final School Experience. A number of students quite openly deferred these meetings until after the teaching practice was over, in order to avoid being pressured to do so.

A second major concern was the question of whether a small-scale, closely focused study would provide them with enough material and insight to furnish an 8000-word report.

Many students also felt themselves floundering over the sort of questions they could raise as a basis for research. They had a sense of the general area that interested them, but not of how to ‘home in’ on a question that they could investigate in the research setting of their classrooms.

In response to these concerns, I wanted to reassure students that small scale investigations, in depth, and with a clearly critical approach to reflection and analysis, perhaps set in the contextual background of some larger question, would provide them with a worthwhile study, need not involve them in a greatly expanded workload at a time that is both busy and anxious for them, and would, if well carried out, enhance their practice. Much of the discussion between us, therefore, was concerned with enabling them to identify clearer questions, and to see a way into the investigation, in terms of specific ways to frame the study and to collect data.

Working with my own tutees, I found myself working very much as an ‘apprentice-master’. I was not merely supporting the students with critical questions and monitoring their progress, I was helping them to rework their intentions, and making specific suggestions about the methodologies for data collection and analysis. This led me to reflect further on the apprentice relationship identified above, and to develop some plans for action with the current cohort of students.

Actions: 1999 - 2000

In the current year, the following interventions have been implemented:

1] The lecture programme has been revised to offer more advice on developing project proposals, more exemplification of interesting ways of collecting data or eliciting responses ( such as use of film, photo-elicitation, use and analysis of children’s writing and drawing, the use of writing frames with children).

2] The module handbook has been completely rewritten, to include more detailed advice on finding a project focus, revised and (I hope) clarified criteria for assessment, advice on presenting a proposal. It has also been refocused on methodologies for short-term and small-scale study, such as case study, and action research.

3] An improved proposal form has been developed. The submission date for the proposal has been brought forward, so that feedback on proposals could be given to students before they left for the summer vacation. The proposals have been marked, rather than simply commented upon, to ensure that students have a clear sense of the degree of success of their submissions, and that those whose proposals were rejected have a clear expectation of a date for resubmission. The intention here has been both to allow students time to meet tutors for consultation about unsatisfactory, and to ensure that all students have the opportunity to engage on preliminary reading for their studies. Students have been assured that the submission of an early proposal is not binding, in the sense that if they find that conditions in their teaching practice school do not support the original study idea, they will be allowed to make modifications they will not be penalised. A degree of flexibility thus still operates.

4] Students have been invited, if they so wish, to join ‘research groups’. In this version of the Final Year Project, a number of supervisors have delineated their own research interests, and have invited students to participate, by taking a related or subsidiary research question, and working in more of an apprentice relationship with a supervisor. Part of the ‘deal’ here is the intention, where possible, of joint publications for tutors and students, after the completion of the assessment of the study. Tutors will be ‘co-owners’ of data collected, and of reflective material produced by the students, for example, through the use of critical incident files (Tripp, 1993), research diaries, and observations of and material collected from children.

5] Additionally, and as a separate issue, in the newer version of the course, we have removed the anomaly of expecting students to conduct two separate major independent projects, one in the specialist subject and one in the professional. Students are now, therefore, free to choose to conduct projects in application of their specialist subject study.

6] Further, students in both the third and the fourth years will be expected to attend a minimum of two of the School of Education’s seminar programme, which is open to both staff and students. The intention is to help students to see themselves as part of an existing research community, as well as to continue to hear at first hand something of the range of research approaches and foci in educational research.

Outcomes so far:

In comparison with the large number of students last year who presented unsatisfactory proposals for study (about 30%), only 13 of the current cohort (fewer than 10%) offered proposals that failed to meet the criteria set.

Of those who failed, all but one have sought further advice, and several have submitted their revised proposals well in advance of the due date. In addition, a number of students whose proposals were passed, but identified as weak, have come for further tutorial help, and at least two have declared their intention of reworking their proposals. This would seem to indicate that students have found the development of the proposal a useful exercise in itself.

I undertook a comparison of keywords in the students proposed titles, from September 1998 and July 1999. There has been a considerable change in the focus chosen by students for their studies. Comparisons of the areas of greatest change are presented below. For the purposes of this paper, I have omitted the long ‘tail’ of proposals which are presented by one or two students only, dealing with specific areas of personal concern (such as those interested in left-handedness, twinship, and the influence of the Teletubbies on children’s concept formation). I have also omitted the proposals which were rejected as unsatisfactory. Table 1 shows the numbers and proportions of students in the two cohorts who have located their studies in particular curriculum areas. Some of this is inevitably due to the fact that students are now permitted to focus on their specialist subject. However, it is by no means the case that all students setting their projects within a curriculum focus are specialists, particularly in relation to the Core subjects and ICT.

KEYWORD

1998-1999

%

1999-2000

%

         
English

35

17.2

30

22.1

Maths

21

10.3

14

10.3

Science

5

2.5

9

6.6

ICT

23

11.3

12

8.8

Art

3

1.5

10

7.4

D&T

2

1.0

1

0.7

Drama

1

0.5

6

4.4

Geography

0

0.0

4

2.9

History

0

0.0

4

2.9

Music

3

1.5

7

5.1

PE

10

4.9

7

5.1

RE

0

0.0

3

2.2

Table 1: Keywords associated with Curriculum subjects

 

Table 2 compares students’ stated interest in educational issues. There has been considerable shift here, particularly away from projects which are unlikely to produce useful data in a short space of time. Students are also looking to children as primary informants more than to school policies and teachers.

KEYWORDS

1998-1999

%

1999-2000

%

         
SEN

27

13.3

10

7.4

dyslexia

7

3.4

3

2.2

dyspraxia

2

1.0

1

0.7

inclusion

8

3.9

0

0.0

behaviour

20

9.9

9

6.6

gender

33

16.3

4

2.9

Early Years

3

1.5

8

5.9

play

13

6.4

2.51

27.4

Table 2: Keywords associated with educational issues

 

Tables 3 and 4 show shifts in students’ focus on teachers and on children.

KEYWORDS

1998-1999

%

1999-2000

%

         
teacher:

17

8.4

21

15.4

role

2

1.0

0

0.0

assessment

5

2.5

1

0.7

teaching strategies

6

3.0

16

11.8

differentiation

3

1.5

1

0.7

management

1

0.5

3

2.2

Table 3: Keywords associated with actions of the teacher

 

Not clear from the table above, but also evident, is a greater concentration by students on their own performance in developing and managing teaching strategies. In addition, several students included reference to self-reflective study in their proposed titles.

KEYWORDS

1998-1999

%

1999-2000

%

         
children:

25

12.3

63

46.3

children's attitudes

14

6.9

6

4.4

children's responses

2

1.0

15

11.0

children's perceptions

0

0.0

15

11.0

self-esteem

5

2.5

 

0.0

outcomes/achievement

1

0.5

15

11.0

skills

0

0.0

6

4.4

able child

3

1.5

6

4.4

Table 4: Keywords associated with observations of children

Overall, it seems there has been some movement in the foci chosen by students from one year group to the next. To some extent this may of course reflect the students’ awareness of ‘hot’ issues of the moment (such as the introduction of the Numeracy strategy). It will also inevitably reflect the introduction of the ‘research groups’ strategy. However, there is some evidence that, although students may have found the possibility of joining a research group supportive in developing their thinking, groups have only formed where the interests of the tutor closely reflect interests held by students. It does seem clear, however, that we have been successful in refocusing the study more clearly on students’ practice in the classroom and on children’s responses.

Questions still remain, however. In particular:

What is the experience of carrying out the study like for the students? What aspects of the support given do they find most helpful and most relevant? What do they feel they learn from doing this work? I hope to pursue this with groups of students through the next year. Hitchcock and Hughes suggest that:

Perhaps the most difficult area for the teacher researcher to handle in conducting fieldwork and doing ethnography is her own feelings, emotions, and attitudes. (Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. 1989; p64)

and that

Undoubtedly, the teacher will be confronted with perspectives and opinions that are diametrically opposed to her own and if certain people are not going to be alienated from the research a way of handling these interactions will have to be developed. (ibid.)

This may also be fruitful ground for research. How does the triple role of learner, teacher and researcher affect students, either to their benefit or their detriment? Have we given enough consideration to the position of students in schools as learners while carrying out their research?

On the other hand,

teaching and ethnography have much in common for teachers themselves have continually to make sense of, interpret and describe the settings in which they find themselves. (Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. 1989; p65)

If students themselves are enabled to make this connection, I think they will be well on the way to becoming the critically reflective professionals, as well as the better technicians, that the 21st century will demand.

References:

Bassey, M. (1992) ‘Creating education through research’, British Educational Research Journal, 18, 1, pp.3 - 16

Ghaye, A. & Ghaye, K. (1998) Teaching and Learning through Critical Reflective Practice, London, David Fulton

Hargreaves, D. (1996) Teaching as a Research-based Profession: Possibilities and Prospects, Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture

Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D.(1989) Research and the Teacher, London, Routledge

McIntyre, D. (1996) ‘The profession of educational research’, British Educational Research Journal, 23, 2 pp.127 - 140

McNiff, J. (1988) Action Research Principles and Practice London, Macmillan

Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action New York, Basic Books

Schon, D. (1987) Educating The Reflective Practitioner London, Jossey Bass

Tripp, D. (1993) Critical Incidents in Teaching London, Routledge

This document was added to the Education-line database on 19 January 2000