texto en 
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por email
Permalink
INTRODUCTION
Although the practice of assessing teaching performance based on self-assessment by peers was once considered irrelevant and seen as the source of more problems than solutions for reflective professionals, research conducted in the last decade shows a favorable difference and a promising prospect for its use (SPICER-ESCALANTE; DEJONGE-KANNAN, 2016).
When self-assessment is widely and regularly used, it can become a powerful tool for contributing to teaching quality. This possibility, however, must be associated with a change in attitude that is based on an open philosophy regarding teaching, focused on results and carried out in collaboration with assessments by peers who are responsible and sensitive to the issues pervading the teaching practice.
Thus, the SATS (Self-Assessment of Teaching Statement) model is perceived not as a single concept, but as a complete, complex and comprehensive approach. The model involves several elements designed to assess, in a profitable, responsible and effective way, a teacher’s own performance for purposes of self-improvement in a specific teaching area; such elements will be presented in this study’s theoretical framework section (BARBER, 1990; ROBERTS, 1998; SPICER-ESCALANTE; DEJONGE-KANNAN, 2016; ZEICHNER; LISTON, 2014).
This article presents the results of the reflection carried out in two classes taught in 2017: one in a course entitled Teaching Research and Action, in a Pedagogy undergraduate program, and another class in the Anatomy course, in a Physiotherapy undergraduate program. This reflection was conducted using the form of the SATS model, which has been developed by Spicer-Escalante and deJonge-Kannan (2016). The model is based on the evolution and conception of steps and strategies, supported by literature in various areas of education.
This study is organized as follows: an introduction where the SATS model is described, as well as the framework of this research; Self-assessment, which presents the theoretical framework used and the evolution of peer assessment in teaching practice; the methodology, which shows how the data were produced and analyzed; the discussion of data, which discusses the emerging analysis categories (warm-up, class development, teacher-student interaction, use of didactic strategies, timing between content and practice); the final considerations, which present the study’s potentials and limitations; and the references used.
SELF-ASSESSMENT
Many aspects motivate teachers to look for alternatives to make their teaching practices more effective, and they adopt possible “models” or examples for their teaching. Over the course of our experience as teacher trainers, we have noted three recurring challenges in the profession:
The low impact of observations and recommendations. As teaching supervisors, when observing beginning teachers, we have identified aspects for improvement, and some suggestions are made about their practice, which are most often welcomed. However, if their teaching is not observed again after the suggestions are provided, the observed teachers are unlikely to be able to put them into practice or, if they do, it will be a long time after the observations. One can see that teachers are often trapped in traditional forms of teaching that are familiar to them. So they will do, in the classroom, what they know and have experienced in their previous schooling and, for this reason, they end up teaching exactly the way they were taught. They reproduce the same class dynamics they were exposed to as students (FARREL, 2008; SHRUM; GLISAN, 2016; VANPATTEN, 2017).
The lack of models or guidelines available for teacher feedback, which provides observed teachers with a more constructive, personal and sensitive approach to their teaching skills, prevents a potential improvement associated with the course’s context. In this direction, a need emerges for guidelines capable of providing observed teachers with the possibility of reflecting on their teaching practices, in addition to an opportunity to respond to changes or specific measures taken during the act of teaching, based on the context and according to teaching needs. As Zeichner and Liston (2014, p. 6) say:
A model where teachers internalize the disposition and skills to study their teaching and become better at teaching over time, a commitment to take responsibility for their own professional development.
In other words, a model where observer teachers have the opportunity to inform, respond to and help the teachers they observe so as to improve the teaching practices they develop.
3. The analysis reports (evaluation letters), written by superiors or peers when they observe teaching practice, present weak and vague analyses. Most times, these letters lack specific suggestions on how to improve teaching. In addition, one can see that the observers did not understand the courses’ complexity or the pedagogical reasons that motivated specific activities or changes for the observed class period. Since the document is written, there is no protocol allowing the observed teacher to respond to some of the comments or criticism contained in the letters, which makes them unidirectional documents, with no possibility of dialogue between the participants.
Faced with these challenges, Spicer-Escalante and deJonge-Kannan (2016) developed the SATS model, which primarily implies a dialogue between the observed and the observer teacher, in which both are committed to playing their part in a conscious, responsible manner. The SATS model does not ignore peer assessments, but requires sensitive, responsible observations that are subsequently merged with the self-reflection written by the observed teacher. In other words, in the SATS model, as shown in Figure 1 below, there is a dialectical movement in which the observers make comments on teaching aspects, which are related to the teacher’s reflection and feedbacks, which provide further inputs and form a dialogue around teaching improvements.
Source: Spicer-Escalante and deJonge-Kannan (2016, p. 639).
FIGURE 1 The four components of the dialectical relationship
In the SATS model, both observers and observees share equal responsibilities and are expected to engage in dialogue from beginning to end. Observers can no longer just write pertinent, vague or weak comments. On the contrary, there is a space for including advice and recommendations for improvements. Likewise, the observed teacher is responsible for providing, in advance, a detailed class plan with clear goals in order to facilitate feedback by the observers. The SATS protocol, developed by Spicer-Escalante and deJonge Kannan (2016), can be summarized as follows:
The observed teacher submits, in advance, a detailed class plan to the observers, along with the course syllabus and the observation form, which has three non-negotiable components: things I like, three things I would have done differently if I were the teacher, and general comments/recommendations.
The observed teacher records the class, and the observer takes notes in the observation form as he watches the recording. The observer will not share his notes with the observed teacher until he sends to the observer an initial self-reflection about the class he taught and watched in the recording.
The observed teacher watches himself on video and writes a self-reflection where he highlights specific aspects that occurred and incorporates aspects for improvement.
The observed teacher sends this self-reflection to the observer, who responds with the notes made in the observation form.
Once the observer’s comments and suggestions have been reviewed, the observed teacher merges his own reflection with the observer’s insights and suggestions and writes the Self-Assessment Teaching Statement, which is sent to the observer for approval.
Based on the steps above, the SATS model requires the combination of self-observation and peer observation. With regard to peers, the observed teacher becomes responsible for the process, instead of the observer. This is due to the fact that the observed teacher is the one who writes the self-report, taking into account the feedback and insights provided by his peers, thus establishing a dialogue with the observers, as shown in Figure 1.
The SATS model emphasizes the quality of feedback that observed teachers receive from their fellow teachers. Under this model, the observers are committed to providing it in order to modify and enrich the teaching practices in the observed teacher’s specific course. (DINKELMAN, 2003; DOCHY; SEGERS; SLUIJSMANS, 1999; HILL; CHARALAMBOUS; KRAFT, 2012; KEARNEY, 2013). In other words, the peer evaluators are no longer mere spectators, but active and valued participants in professional development. They are expected to make recommendations for improvement and there is expected to be a specific space for it. Their comments and suggestions are appreciated and respected by the observed teacher, who anticipates and welcomes them as an important component of his self-reflection and, ultimately, for his own development as a teacher. As Spicer-Escalante and deJonge-Kannan (2016, p. 637) say, “the observed instructor, who expects these suggestions, has the opportunity not only to reflect upon the offered suggestions but he/she is also able respond to them”.
Under this dialectical model, the participants involved in self-assessment are interrelated and constantly nurturing and transforming each other. According to Reagan and Osborn (2002, p. 22), “reflective practice can best be understood as a cyclical process, moving from reflection-for-practice through reflection-in-practice and on to reflection-on-practice, which then leads on to new reflection-for-practice”. Similarly, Schön (1983, 1987) described Self-assessment based on a continuous and constant reflection on and in action.
Given the above, we should highlight that the SATS model is not only a tool for learning more about ways of teaching; it is, most all, an opportunity for observers to learn about the courses taught and the complexities involved in training future teachers. It is also noteworthy that this study presents the first application of the SATS model in the Brazilian context, with the participation in loco of one of the model’s authors. In the next item, the methodological path for conducting the application of SATS will be presented.
METHODOLOGY
The present study, with a qualitative approach (GIL, 2010), aims to analyze the use of the Self-assessment tool, based on the observation form proposed by Spicer-Escalante and deJonge-Kannan (2016) in order to better understand how it can contribute to teaching practice. Based on recordings of two different classes taught in two different undergraduate programs at two Higher Education Institutions (HEI), the form presented in Chart 1 was used which lists the class’ components, what the observer liked about the recorded class, what he would have done differently, and what he learned from that observation.
Chart 1 presents: the teacher’s data, observation date, level (which, in this study, is directed to Higher Education), the HEI where the class was taught, and three questions that helped each observer list three aspects noted in the recorded classes. For each aspect, the way the observer would do it differently and the explanation of why it would work better, supported by arguments and bibliography.
Two videos were watched, one referring to the class taught in the course entitled Teaching Research and Action, in a Pedagogy undergraduate program, and another class in the Anatomy course in a Physiotherapy undergraduate program. Both programs are available at different Higher Education Institutions in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. These classes will be referred to herein as Class 1 and Class 2, respectively.
Class 1 was recorded by a member of the HEI's technical staff in a videoconference room, which is occasionally used by the students. There was no need for the students to sign an informed consent form, since they do not appear in the recording. The camera was aimed at the teacher only.
In the Teaching Research and Action class, the teacher discusses research ethics. To that end, he introduces concepts of ethics and focuses on scientific research. He uses real situations that are close to the students, such as academic plagiarism and self-plagiarism. The recording time was 1 hour, 14 minutes and 40 seconds. The observed teacher signed a term of consent for image use, and his identity will be preserved.
Because Class 1 took place in another environment than a classroom, the layout of its space made the teacher-student interaction difficult. This interaction was also hampered by the camcorder’s position, since it was fixed in a corner of the teaching environment. Class 2, on the other hand, took place in a normal classroom environment, which was conducive to the teacher’s dynamics and the observation itself, with the help of a filming technician from the HEI. The students signed a term of consent for image use, though it is not possible to identify them in the recordings. In this class, the teacher presents a review on thoracic musculature using images and practical examples. The class’ recording time is 58 minutes and 53 seconds. The names of the HEIs, teachers and students will be kept confidential.
The full contents of both videos were watched by six observers, as well as by both observed teachers. The observers used the form presented in Chart 1 to take notes. After completing the forms, the observers gathered to discuss their results. Based on that discussion, the forms were transformed into texts to make up analysis documents, i.e., the corpus to be analyzed in the research. This set, in text form, represents the observers’ interpretations based on their knowledge and theories, as well as on the discourses they use. Based on the research corpus, we were able to establish new relationships in the form of emerging categories (MORAES; GALIAZZI, 2007) denominated Warm-up and Development, which will be presented in the next topic.
These categories will allow emphasizing the interpretation and the subjectivity and intersubjectivity processes within the historical contexts of constitution of meanings. Even though one might intend to obtain more objective and deductive analyses, it is in subjectivity and inductivity that the most creative and original results are achieved, according to Moraes and Galiazzi (2007).
Thus, the data that were obtained from the corpus and then categorized will be studied via discursive textual analysis, which aims to produce metatexts. In these metatexts, a process of categorizations and meanings is conducted, and authorship is taken up based on the analyzed discourses, which allows the emergence of new meanings corresponding to the analysis’ goals, in a creative and original way (MORAES; GALIAZZI, 2007).
It should be noted that the presented observations are solely based on a single pre-recorded class of each course, which is not an indication that the practices described here are used in all classes or courses of these teachers.
In the next item, we will present the categories emerging from the corpus analysis: the Warm-up and Class Development.
THE WARM-UP
The first category begins with the voices of the main actors in this study, i.e., the teachers of Classes 1 and 2, who describe the feeling of having their classes recorded:
It was very interesting to teach that class knowing that it was being recorded and would be watched by other people and then analyzed. I believe that if that awareness didn’t exist, the class would flow differently. Nevertheless, the fact of having the class filmed made me, as a teacher, pay attention to a number of things I don’t usually pay attention to, such as the words used, the gestures, the movement around the room... I feel that, that day, the class was artificial, it didn’t flow, it was a cold class, focused only on technical details. I recognize that the experience was not easy. The fact that the class was in another environment, too, contributed to making the dynamics different and the class itself colder, since it was a videoconference room and not a classroom. However, that happened because it was a new element in the class. I believe that if there was a habit of always filming the class or doing systematic observation, then everything would become natural. (Teacher of Class 1)
The experience of having a class filmed was somewhat difficult. The feeling of having someone watching, just by watching (in this case, the man who was filming), associated with the awareness that that class would be “evaluated” by peers, it made me a little embarrassed. My students were also apprehensive about the new situation, even though we had talked about it previously. After the filming, they told me they were worried about not “disturbing” and harming my evaluation (I took that as thoughtfulness for me, which is really nice to feel). But it was a good experience, I learned a lot by watching my own class, and I will certainly change some attitudes. (Teacher of Class 2)
From the teachers’ accounts, one can see that they were concerned about the recording and the difficulty keeping their classes’ naturalness. This is justified, since both teachers were experiencing the recording of their classes for the first time. It was something new also to the students, which made them rather shy. The analyses carried out identify both the usual and unusual aspects about the teachers’ practice. According to the observers, both teachers started their activities by resuming what had been worked on in the previous classes, then proceeded to present the content planned for that particular class, as well as its stages, thus inviting students to participate. In this regard, one can find in Lemov (2011, 2018) the basis for the pertinence of inviting students to participate. According to him, “teachers who can engage students so that they feel like part of the lesson will have more students focused on their academic work” (LEMOV, 2011, p. 129, our translation); we emphasize, however, that this invitation and students’ participation can only take place if there is planning by the teacher, as well as a class opening stage with a retrospect and a preview to show where the teacher wants to get.
The class introduction is important for students’ learning, since it is the means through which the working structure of that learning time is organized. It is efficient to start the class with a short recapitulation of previous knowledge needed for new learning, and then explain the steps to be developed in a clear, detailed way (ROSENSHINE; STEVENS, 1986).
Gauthier et al. (2013) present factors that contribute to the introduction of a class, which they call the “class opening” - in their view, an important step as it presents the activity while also providing paths and motivations for students to arrive at the proposed result for that activity. Among these factors are: planning ways to get students’ attention; planning the explanation of the class goal and making sure students understand it; planning a justification for the class that shows the relevance of what they will learn, as well as its relationship with other contents; planning how to activate previous knowledge, since knowledge comes through a sequence of elements that are interdependent; planning how to present the path that will be followed during the class so that students can prepare for what comes next; planning a simulation related to the learning goal as a strategy to arouse students’ curiosity, and only then discuss it.
Content recapitulation at the beginning of the class is also advocated by Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009), who note that it is not always necessary to do it directly, since the strategy depends on the new class’ goal. They say the teacher can use a personal experience or activate a specific skill that subtly requires the memory of what has already been learned. In this type of strategy, precautions must be taken avoid including new concepts during the simulation or skill activation, since the purpose is not to confuse or hinder the recapitulation.
Likewise, Butler (1987), Griswold et al. (1985), Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) say that recapitulating previous contents provides the teacher with the opportunity to correct and teach again contents in which students face difficulties; he can thus continue with the class, being sure that the knowledge and skills needed to move forward have been acquired and that he can then adjust the pace of what comes next.
Lemov (2011, 2018), in the same direction, describes a technique he called “No Opt Out” for such situations, i.e., when the teacher asks questions and the students try to escape without answering them, an opportunity can be created to encourage them to answer, even if the answers are wrong. For him, “a sequence beginning with a student unable to answer a question should end with that student giving the right answer as often as possible, even if it is only to repeat the correct answer” (LEMOV, 2011, p. 46, our translation).
Based on the authors above, one can see a consensus in resuming previous contents and previous knowledge, which expresses an adequate teaching and learning strategy, as it allows a parallel between the representations that students build for themselves, as well as the acquisition process, starting from the assumption that the student’s mind is not an empty box, since he is a individual with ideas, previous knowledge and interpretations (GAUTHIER et al., 2013; FELICETTI; GIRAFFA, 2012).
In considering that the initial part of a class includes the presentation of its organization, as well as recapitulation of the contents covered in the previous class, the importance of planning stands out. According to Lemov (2011), planning the class is essential for good teacher performance. In this respect, the class plan is a powerful tool in teachers’ hands as it allows them to focus on what the students are doing, i.e., the teacher who plans his classes anticipates the answers that students may give to his questions, so he can propose additional activities, if necessary.
However, as we realize the difference between both observed classes with regard to content recapitulation, we turn once more to Gauthier et al. (2013, p. 231, our translation), who say that “the more the student recapitulates and reuses the knowledge taught, the more bonds will develop between the pieces of information stored in his memory, and the more solid such information will become”. Thus, in addition to periodic content resumption, one can see that is essential to dedicate enough time in each class to consolidate the studied contents. According to Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009), checking comprehension is the central point of a class, because if it does not occur, the teacher is highly likely to have negative surprises in the assessment. Butler (1987) also says that every class should start with recapitulation of the contents previously worked on, since redundancy is always positive when it comes to taking advantage of classes.
With the “warm-up” practice, i.e., having students resume contents, they feel motivated and invited to participate in the class, and it is thus possible to start important discussions and debates that collaborate to significant learning, as will be seen in the category presented below.
CLASS DEVELOPMENT
In the previous item, aspects about the introductory part of the observed classes were pointed out whose dynamics can help in conducting the class, as well as in resuming and solidifying knowledge developed in previous classes. Now we move on to the new category, “Class Development”, which focuses on instrumental aspects analyzed in the recordings. This item is divided into: general observations; teacher-student interaction; the use of didactic strategies; timing; and, finally, real contexts.
General observations
Regarding the classes’ development, all observers considered that they took place without any incident deserving further attention. In their view, both teachers conducted a good class, worked confidently and demonstrated knowledge of the content they developed. The classes were based on exposition and dialogue, i.e., the contents were orally exposed as a pretext to drive students’ participation (HAIDT, 2000), slides were used as supplementary material, and the teachers sought interaction with the students through questions, with some oscillation on the part of students in terms of participation. Overall, the students had a good participation, but the observers considered that a more directed approach could have facilitated or expanded that participation, for example with more direct, interactive questions.
According to Gauthier et al. (2013), the work with questions should take 10-16% of class interaction time, which highlights its importance. The questions, in this regard, are intended to keep students’ attention, and it is advisable to ask several questions not only to volunteers, but to several students in the class, indicated by name. This practice, however, must be carried out considering different socioeconomic profiles of classes: students from lower socioeconomic levels tend to show good results with this practice, while for higher levels, the use of direct questions may prove counterproductive, according to the aforementioned authors. In addition, the student should be given time, i.e., when the teacher asks a question, the student needs some time to think, process and respond. In both observed classes, that did not occur, since the teachers themselves gave the answers soon after asking the questions.
Another important aspect about questions is clarity. The statement cannot be vague or ambiguous. The type of stimulus is also important - questions should integrate students’ creative skills and personal ideas (GAUTHIER et al., 2013).
Teacher-student interaction
The observers noticed that the teachers moved in the classroom to some extent. In Class 1, the teacher’s movements were found to be very limited, restricted to a few steps in front of the class. This was due, among other factors, to the environment, which was not the same as a classroom. The observers noticed that this made interaction difficult and made students shier. Class 2, on the other hand, had more interaction, but students’ participation was still found to be modest.
Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) corroborate the idea about teachers’ moving around the classroom. For these authors, a teacher circulating around the classroom can increase students’ results in individual work by 10%. Haidt (2000, p. 57, our translation) highlights that the teacher’s intervention in the classroom through his interaction with the class can help students transform curiosity into cognitive effort, thus leaving “confused, syncretic, fragmented knowledge to acquire organized and precise knowledge”
Both teachers predominantly used exposition and dialogue, which suggests the use of questions and answers, in a direct interaction with students. In Class 1, the teacher had difficulty interacting as he gave little time for students’ answers and did not encourage discussion among them. With regard to teacher-student interaction, Gauthier et al. (2013, p. 221, our translation) say that the use of questions by teachers “plays a key role within the concept of explicit teaching”. Something similar was also noticed in Class 2 where, according to one observer, the teacher gave “little time for students’ answers to the questions asked”. In this regard, the aforementioned author highlights that teachers should allow 3-5 seconds for students’ reflection, and insisting on the questions is recommended in cases of no answer, as this generates learning gains.
Gauthier et al. (2013) recognize that the quality of students’ understanding is directly linked to the teacher’s ability to ask questions and get answers. They say that success in this practice is correlated with direct designation of particular students to provide the answers. For these authors, asking questions generically does not usually bring satisfactory results.
A key element with regard to questions, according to these authors, is that they must be clear, direct, stimulating and according to students’ cognitive level. However, they stress that “efficient teachers make suitable pauses when asking questions to students” (GAUTHIER et al., 2013, p. 227, our translation) and insist on the questions by giving clues or rephrasing so they can be better assimilated.
In this respect, one of the observers pertinently criticizes Class 1 by saying that the teacher gave little time for students to answer what they were asked. One can see that, in that class, the silence for each unanswered question did not exceed ten seconds, not enough time for students to develop their answers, and that the teacher did not insist on getting an answer from the students. This was noticed by the teacher of Class 1 in his self-assessment as he recognized the effect that recording a class may cause:
In my case, the scarce interaction in that specific class was due especially to the fact that the class was being recorded. I felt more nervous and anxious, and I noticed the students were shier. In part, also, the concern about class time and the recording of it - I wanted the whole class to fit into a one-hour recording - also made the process difficult, and hence also the short times for answers. However, by watching the recording, I realized that, in the pedagogical process, indeed, my anxiety about having questions answered in the shortest possible time often hinders the class progress. It’s better to have more questions answered by students than more questions answered by the teacher. (Teacher of Class 1)
The same reflection about time for answers was expressed by the teacher of Class 2:
It would certainly change the time for the students’ answers, that is, after a question I ask, I will be more patient and wait for them to process the answer they will give. By watching the video, I realized they knew the answer, but I rushed and answered for them, as if they didn’t know. I also realized that because of what I had programmed for the class and my concern about the filming made me speed up the content at some points, and continuing the classes the following week, it was precisely that content that I had to repeat on students’ request. (Teacher of Class 2)
Based on the self-assessments of the teachers who had their classes observed and discussed in the larger group, one can see the effect of recording on the class, which interfered both in the teacher-student relationship, as well as in the students’ shyness and the teachers’ anxiety, as well as in their class planning, which focused on the activity’s recording time. This suggests greater attention for future studies involving recorded classes.
The use of didactic strategies
The use of slides to present content was observed in both analyzed classes. In Class 1 illustrations, sentences and images were presented which helped in understanding the text, while in Class 2, detailed muscle drawings were displayed. The observers unanimously agreed that this, associated with the fact that the slides were well designed, helped students understand the content.
The use of didactic strategies can help promote learning, according to Haidt (2000). This author presents a few procedures that can enhance the process:
Articulating what is being taught, from students’ reality and experiences to abstractions and theorizations;
Presenting new contents based on a problematizing question or a problem-situation;
Using active teaching and learning procedures that allow observing, comparing, classifying, ordering and handling concrete data;
Encouraging students to gradually overcome themselves;
Planning day-to-day activities together with the class;
Explaining the goals to be achieved through a given activity and its relationship with their daily practice;
Keeping a pleasant atmosphere in class by encouraging cooperation between members;
And, finally, regularly informing students about their progresses and results.
In light of Haidt’s (2000) strategies, one can see that both analyzed teachers of Classes 1 and 2 used these procedures. The teacher of Class 1 used examples from politics to present concepts of ethics; the teacher of Class 2, by having students find in their own bodies the parts they were seeing in the images, was also making use of an active procedure, thus keeping a pleasant atmosphere in the classroom.
Encouragement and class interaction are also transversally addressed by Meirieu (1998). For him, the use of didactics and interactions motivates student’s desire to learn. In this respect, it is incumbent on the teacher to “make knowledge an enigma” (MEIRIEU, 1998, p. 92, emphasis in original, our translation), i.e., to show the content and comment on it to glimpse its interest and richness, and thus arouse the desire to unravel it. An important aspect brought up by the author is that in exposition-based classes, the teacher tends to present explanations in advance, thus killing on the outset the mobilization around learning. This premise pointed out by the author can be related to the type of class analyzed by the teachers of Classes 1 and 2, i.e., the exposition-based type, where the teacher centralizes the questions and most of the answers.
Still regarding Class 2, the observers considered that other resources could have been explored, such as three-dimensional images or the use of anatomy dolls, which would provide a better view of the presented musculature. One of the observers adds that the students’ bodies were scarcely explored. This could have been an interesting teaching resource to demonstrate the functioning of muscles, which happened only once during the class. In this regard, the teacher of this class recognizes that
[...] I could have brought forward the more practical part of the class, because the students really grew tired in the first part of the class, it obviously depends on prior organization of the laboratory, but it’s not impossible. I didn’t anticipate that that large amount of information needed a break, or a more dynamic activity to make it lighter. (Teacher of Class 2)
Gauthier et al. (2014, p. 178, our translation) note that “in addition to theoretical explanations, the student needs to see a concrete phenomenon before his eyes”, which implies “manipulation of objects by students”. From the analysis of the observers, one can see that the manipulation that could have occurred in Class 2 ended up not happening.
In the so-called explicit teaching, the use of didactic strategies is very important. Among the strategies are several types of group work (GAUTHIER et al., 2014), which, in addition to promoting interaction, are intended to facilitate the performance of weaker students, but this type of activity was not found in the observed classes.
Timing between content and practice
According to the observers, in Class 2, three stages were identified: the first, denominated an initial warm-up; the second, development; and the third, closure. The fact that time was well distributed was highlighted. It is worth mentioning the recapitulation of activities carried out by the teacher to reinforce the contents already worked on. In Class 1, time was not so well distributed, although there were also an opening, a development and a closure, but in a less systematized way.
Gauthier et al. (2014, p. 155, our translation) refer to time management as fundamental: “the more students are actively involved in learning activities at a suitable level, the more the possibilities for them to learn will be maximized”. In this regard, Archer and Hughes (2011) disagree as they consider that the relationship between time and learning is not a necessary one; in their view, there are other variables involved, among them the quality of the material provided. They also say that, on average, 70% of class time is used for activities related to content learning. An increase in that time, associated with the quality of its use, would bring learning improvements.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Both classes had a beginning, a middle and an end, according to the observers. This helped the development of each of them. With regard to Class 1, the observers considered its approach correct in using slides with images and cartoons, as well as daily life examples, as this motivates students to participate. However, they considered that the examples could have been better designed: those related to ethics in politics referred to only one political position, which manifested an ideological tendency and did not provide the plurality and multiple views on the political problems used as examples.
The practice of using examples is linked to the idea that contents should be exposed in the clearest possible manner. Classes illustrated with more factual presentations associated with students’ lives are more successful. In addition to the examples of everyday life provided by the teacher, students may be invited to participate by providing examples that help illustrate what they are learning. Gauthier et al. (2013) say that students’ participation in this regard is a fundamental part of learning. According to these authors, teachers considered more efficient dedicate about 50% of the class to practicing activities. In this respect, the use of good examples and analogies is directly related to a high rate of success in class.
Although this study produced valuable findings, there is an evident need for further research in this area, in order to broaden the view of both positive aspects and disadvantages of the SATS model. Studies with the SATS approach were not found in our literature review in the Brazilian context.
The limitations of the present study include the number of participants, which allowed gathering data from only two classes. Thus, in order to improve and refine this model and make it more accessible to other teachers, it would be necessary to expand the sample and conduct the same study with more classrooms, including experienced and beginning teachers. Likewise, it is also desirable to collect data on teaching practices with SATS in different courses. Further research should focus on these aspects to allow a better understanding of the potentials that the SATS approach can provide so that teachers, trainers of future teachers, can improve their teaching and develop professionally. In this regard, Spicer-Escalante and Checketts (2019) integrated aspects of both SATS and shared teaching to explore other strategies in their pursuit of teaching excellence.
Finally, the authors of this article conclude that these examples of SATS show the importance of learning to be a reflective teacher. However, more important than that is the evidence that the practice developed here, in the context of teacher training, needs to be expanded in order to make teaching and learning more effective. This is justified, since the better the development of teacher training, the better the teaching of future teachers will be. In this direction, as one continues to observe and reflect on one’s teaching practice, there is the possibility to improve it, so that it fulfills its purpose: to contribute to the training of teachers, regardless of the area in which they will work.
