INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while ofriers may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMT
USING THE COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP MODEL TO TEACH ACTION RESEARCH TO PRESERVICE TEACHERS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School
of The Ohio State University
By
Georgene Rawding Risko, M.Ed.
*****
The Ohio State University 2001
Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Marilyn Johnston, Adviser
Professor Rebecca Kantor College of Education Professor Barbara Seidl UMI Number 3031256
UMI'
UMI Microform 3031256 Copyright 2002 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT
This study explored two questions. First, how an apprenticeship model for action research shaped eight preservice teachers’ beginning identities and skills as researchers. Using an apprenticeship model, the goal was to demonstrate the kind of inquiry the instructor/ researcher was advocating in a course on action research. The researcher shared action research methods and analyses with the preservice teachers to model the purposes and methodologies of action research. The study looked at how their perceptions about themselves as teacher changed from the beginning to the end of the course. The study also analyzed aspects of the course that supported or impeded changes in their understanding. Themes that emerged from the data sources and analyses indicated that the preservice teachers were beginning to adopt the attitudes and processes of action researchers.
Second, the study explored how the researcher’s action research in the course influenced her understanding of how to teach the course, and the changes that occurred as a result of those understandings. She used the preservice teachers’ feedback to make changes in her instruction. The apprenticeship model allowed her to model the action research processes. The course seemed to be a natural fît for a cognitive apprenticeship approach, because teaching action research and doing action research at the same time provided an authentic context.
it The goal of this study was to add to the thin body of research that examines preservice teachers’ perspectives of action research.
ui Dedicated with. love to my mother, Catherine Periakowski Rawding. “And He will raise you up on eagles’ wings. Bear you on the breath, of dawn. Make you to shine like the sun. And hold you in the palm of His hand.” Isaiah 40:31
IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study would not have been, possible without the generous support and participation of many people. I would like to offer sincere thanks to my adviser,
Marilyn Johnston, for her support of my work. She encouraged me and responded with great care to my questions and dilemmas. Her help has proved to be instrumental in successfully completing this dissertation.
Thank you to Rebecca Kantor and Barbara Seidl for their kindness and willingness to assist me as my committee members.
I would especially like to thank my eight students for allowing me to observe their development of beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research. Their kindness in sharing their time, views, and camaraderie was tremendous.
My life is richer because it has been touch by you.
To my friends who cheered me on—Susan Wanken, Connie Thomson, Lynn
Ogle, Patti Alubaugh, and Debbie Shepperd-Gregg—many thanks.
Finally, thank you to my family:
To my mother and father, Catherine and George Rawding, for their unconditional love, pride, and prayers. To my children. Heather, Marcy, and Michael, who, with their own passion for the world of knowledge and ideas, lovingly encouraged me to Gnish this degree. They continue to amaze me with their incredible energy for involving themselves in a multitude of exciting experiences.
To my husband, Jim, I give my deepest thanks. His inexhaustible practical and emotional support allowed me to pursue this project in a manner that would not have been possible otherwise. He has truly been the wind beneath my wings.
Most important, 1 thank our Lord. He has shown me that through Him, all things are possible.
VI VITA
March 10, 1948...... Bom - Darlington, Pennsylvania
I97L...... 3.S. Elementary Education, Geneva College
1990...... MÆd. Elementary Education, Pennsylvania State
199 2...... MÆd. Educational Administration and Elementary Principal Certification, Temple University
1993 -1995...... Doctoral Student in Education Administration and Curriculum Design, Immaculata College
199 6 ...... Assistant Superintendent Certification and High School Principal Certification, Ashland University
1997 - Present ...... The Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
L S. Bendau, L Covert, J. Dyer, M. Christenson, M. Johnston, G. Risko, and R. Slutsky, Conducting action research while teaching about it. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada (1999).
2. S. Bendau, J. Covert, J. Dyer, M. Christenson, M. Johnston, G. Risko, and R. Slutsky, The rocky road o f teachers becoming action researchers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. (2000).
3. Christenson, M., Slutslqr, R., Bendau, S., Covert, J, Dyer, J., Risko, G., & Johnston, M. (April, 2002). The Rocky Road of Teachers BecomingAction Researchers. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), in press.
vii FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education Others: Action Research Socioculture Early & Middle Childhood Education
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2001 - Present The Ohio State University Assistant Visiting Professor 1997 - 2001 Mount Vernon Nazarene College, Mount Vernon, Ohio Assistant Professor 1995 -1997 Knox County. Educational Service Center, Mount Vernon, Ohio Secondary Consultant/Supervisor 1993 -1995 E. H. Markle Intermediate School, Hanover, Pennsylvania Co-Principal, Grades 5-8 1971 -1993 Public School Teaching Experience, Pennsylvania
vui TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract...... il
Dedication ...... iv
Acknowledgments ...... v
Vita...... vii
List of Tables...... xv
Chapters:
L Introduction to the study ...... I
LI Introduction ...... I 12 Action research ...... 5 I J Cognitive apprenticeship...... 8 L4 Research questions ...... 9 1.5 Definition of terms ...... 11 1.6 Confines ...... 13 1.7 Significance of this study ...... 14 1.8 Overview...... IS
2. Related literature ...... 17
2.1 hitroduction ...... 17 2.2 Definitions and distinctions ...... 18 2.2.1 Qualitative research ...... 18 2.2.1.1 Characteristics...... 20 2.1.1.1.1 The researcher as an instrument ...... 20 2.I.I.I2 Negotiating outcomes...... 21 2.1.1.1.3 Naturalistic setting ...... 22 2.1.1.1.4 Presentation of data ...... 22 2.LI.1.5 Attention to particulars ...... 23 2.LI.I.6 Coherence ...... 24
ix 2.2.2 Action research ...... 25 2.2.2.1 Purposes ...... 25 2.2.2.2 Characteristics...... 27 2.2.2.2.1 Cyclic nature ...... 27 2.2.2.2.2 Empowerment of participants ...... 19 2 2 2 2 1 Collaboration (through participating in shared experience.29 2.2.2.2.4 Local context ...... 31 2 2 2 2 .5 Acquiring knowledge ...... 32 2.2.22.6 Social change...... 1 2 2.2.22.7 Freedom ftom restraints ...... 33 2.2.22.8 Praxis...... 33 22.3 Teacher research...... 35 22.4 Teacher reflection ...... 38 2.3 Developing a teacher’s identity ...... 40 2.3.1 General beliefs about professional identity ..... 43 2.3.1.1 Beliefs and experiences ...... 46 2.3.1.2 Society...... 55 2.3.1.3 Culture ...... 57 2.3.2 Structure and experiences in teacher education ...... 60 2.3.2.1 Field experience ...... 60 2.3.2.2 Pedagogy...... 66 2.4 Cognitive apprenticeship model ...... 70 2.4.1 Early theoretical development ...... 70 2.4.2 Current educational research ...... 74 2.4.3 Cognitive apprenticeship design ...... 76 2.5 Conclusion ...... 81
3. Methodology...... 83
3.1 Introduction ...... 83 3.2 Rationale for action research design ...... 84 3.3 Participants and setting ...... 87 3.4 Questions ...... 88 3.5 Data collection and analysis ...... 89 3.5.1 Data collection ...... 90 3.5.1.1 Pre- and post-surveys ...... 93 3.5.12 Daily feedback ...... 93 3.5.12 Reflective journals ...... 24 3.5.1.4 Researcher’s journal ...... 96 3.5.1.5 Field notes ...... 96 3.5.1.6 Interviews ...... 99 3.5.1.6.1 Guided interviews ...... 101 3.5.1.6.2 Focus group interviews ...... 103 3.52 Trustworthiness issues ...... 108 3.5.2.1 Credibility ...... 110 3.5^.L1 Prolonged engagement...... 110 3.52.1.2 Triangulation ...... 112 3.5.2.1.3 Peer debriefing ...... 112 3.52.1.4 Negative case analysis...... 113 3.5.2.1.5 Referential adequacy ...... 113 3.5.2.1.6 Member check ...... 114 3.5.22 Transferability ...... 114 3.5.2.3 Dependability ...... 116 3.5.2.4 Confirmability ...... 117 3.5.3 Data analysis ...... 118 3.6 Ethical considerations ...... 119 3.6.1 Situating the researcher...... 120 3.6.1.1 Classroom teacher ...... 120 3.6.1.2 Administration ...... 123 3.6.1.3 Higher education ...... 123 3.6.1.4 Pedagogical creed...... 124 3.7 Conclusion ...... 127
4. Presentation and interpretation of data ...... 128
4.1 Introduction ...... 128 4.2 Introductory narrative ...... 132 4.3 Apprenticeship model ...... 137 4.3.1 Rationale for using the apprenticeship model ...... 137 4.3 2 Apprenticeship as it relates to the first research question ...... 140 4.3.2.1 Three-step approach...... 140 4.3.2.1.1 Modeling ...... 141 4.3.2.1.2 Guided practice ...... 143 4.3.2.1.3 Application ...... 145 4.4 Pre Survey ...... 145 4.5 Daily feedback...... 149 4.5.1 Sharing my journal ...... 150 4.5.2 Class field notes ...... 150 4.53 Proposal...... 151 4.5.4 Field notes ...... 151 4.5.5 Whole class discussions ...... 151 4.5.6 Book discussion groups ...... 152 4.6 My journal ...... 154 4.6.1 Interactive learning ...... 155 4.6.2 Components of the apprenticeship model ...... 156 4.62.1 Modeling ...... 158 4.6.2.2 Guided practice ...... 160 4.62.3 Scaffolding ...... 162 4.623.1 Introducing new concepts ...... 162 4.623.2 Grouping the steps in learning a task ...... 164
xi 4.6.3 The advantage of the apprenticeship model ...... 165 4.6.4 Changes in practice ...... 165 4.6.4.1 Changes that occurred during the course ...... 166 4.6.4.Z Change in my future teaching of action research ...... 167 4.7 Students’joumals ...... 169 4.7.1 Puzzling about research and the proposal ...... 170 4.7.1.1 The nature of the class and action research ...... 171 4.7.1 Jl Preconceived concepts of research ...... 172 4.7.2 Attitudes and challenges ...... 173 4.72.1 Time...... 173 4.62.2 Student cooperation ...... 175 4.72.3 Connections ...... 176 4.7.2.3.1 Case studies ...... 177 4.7.2.3 2 Discussion groups ...... 177 4.7.2.3 3 The influence of my research ...... 178 4.73 Understanding action research ...... 178 4.73.1 The cyclic nature of action research ...... 179 4.7.3.2 Data collection and analysis ...... 181 4.7.3.2.1 Field notes ...... 181 4.7.3.22 Interviews and surveys ...... 185 4.7.3.2.3 Understanding the benefits of data ...... 186 4.7.4 The importance of collaboration ...... 187 4.7.4.1 Collaboration with peers in the course ...... 188 4.7.4.2 Collaboration among teachers in the school setting ...... 189 4.7.5 Ethical issues ...... 190 4.7.5.1 Standard ethical procedures ...... 191 4.7.5.2 Perspective ...... 192 4.7.5.3 Classroom dilemmas ...... 195 4.8 Focus group interviews ...... 196 4.8.1 Important aspects of the course ...... 197 4.8.1.1 The signfficance of action research in the school setting ...... 198 4.8.1.2 The significance of collaboration ...... 200 4.8.1.3 The significance of the cyclic nature of action research ...... 201 4.8.1.4 The significance of the students’journals ...... 202 4.82 Changes in thinking ...... 203 4.8.2.1 Changes in thinking about research ...... 203 4.8.22 Changes in thinking about teachers as researchers ...... 204 4.8.3 Benefits of the apprenticeship model ...... 204 4.8.4 Connections ...... 206 4.8.5 The proposal...... 207 4.8.7 Implementation ...... 208 4.9 Individual interviews ...... 209 4.9.1 Linda ...... 212 4.9.1.1 Prior field experiences ...... 212 4.9.12 Understanding action research ...... 215
xii 4.9.1.3 The benefits of action research ...... 215 4.9.1.4 Future implementation ...... 216 4.9T.5 The proposal...... 217 4^.2 HiUary...... 218 4.9.2.1 Prior field experiences ...... 218 4.9.2.2 Understanding action research ...... 220 4.9.2.3 The benefits of action research ...... 221 4.9.2.4 Future implementation ...... 222 4.92.5 The proposal...... 222 4.92 George...... 223 4.9.3.1 Prior field experiences ...... 223 4.9.3.2 Understanding action research ...... 225 4.9.3.3 The benefits of action research ...... 226 4.92.4 Future implementation ...... 226 4.92.5 The proposal...... 228 4.9.4 Karen ...... 228 4.9.4.1 Prior field experiences ...... 228 4.9.42 Understanding action research ...... 231 4.9.42 The benefits of action research ...... 232 4.9.4.4 Future implementation ...... 232 4.9.4.5 The proposal...... 233 4.9.5 Ellen ...... 233 4.9.5.1 Prior field experiences ...... 233 4.9.5.2 Understanding action research ...... 236 4.9.5.3 The benefits of action research ...... 237 4.9.5.4 Future implementation ...... 238 4.9.55 The proposal...... 238 4.9 Post-survey ...... 239 4.9.1 Final e-mail ...... 241 4.9.2 Summary of data collected from the students ...... 243 4.10 Conclusion ...... 251
5. Implications and conclusions ...... 252
5.1 Introduction ...... 252 5.2 Research questions ...... 253 52.1 Question one ...... 253 5 2 2 Question two ...... 254 5.3 Methodology...... 255 5.4 Findings ...... 257 5.4.1 Findings-questioaone ...... 257 5.42 Findings-questioa two ...... 258 5.5 Implications of the study ...... 259 5.5.1 hnplications-questioa one ...... 259 5.5.1.1 The complexities of teacher education ...... 260
xiii 5.5.1.2 The apprenticeship model ...... 266 5.5.12.1 BeHefs...... 266 5.5.2 hnplications-question two ...... 272 5.5.2.1 Awareness of the issues of application ...... 273 5 .5 2 2 The benefits of doing this study ...... 275 5.5.2.2.1 LTser-fiiendliness ...... 276 5.5.2.2.2 Practicality...... 277 5.52.2.3 Reflection ...... 277 5.5.2.2.4 Interactive learning...... 278 5.5.2.3 The difficulties in doing this study ...... 279 5.52.3.1 Achieving a dual purpose ...... 279 5.5.2.3 2 Leaving the comfort zone ...... 280 5.52.3.3 Living with ambiguity...... 281 5.7 Long-term effects ...... 281 5.7.1 Future implementation ...... 282 5.7.2 Plausibility ...... 284 5.7 Conclusion ...... 285
Appendices:
Appendix A—Pre- and post-test survey questions ...... 287
Appendix B—Guided interview questions ...... 288
Appendix C—Focus group interview questions ...... 290
Appendix D—Student research questions ...... 292
List of references ...... 294
XIV LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Data coUectioii time ftames and quantity ...... 92
3.2 Establishing trustworthiness ...... 109
4.1 Recommendations of Turning Points and This We Believe...... 135
4 2 Modeling action research ...... 142
4.3 Guided practice ...... 144
4.4 Daily feedback ...... 153
4.5 Participant demographic data ...... 211
4.6 Tasks as prioritfeed in students’ final e-mails ...... 242
4.7 Cross-data themes related to beginning identities and skills ...... 245
4.8 Cross-data concerns ...... 247
4.9 Changes in preservice teachers’ understanding of action research ...... 249
XV CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Teachers and teacher educators have been assailed by an onslaught of general and specific educational reforms in the last few decades. These reforms are the result of national commissions and task-force committees that have been investigating education since the last part of the 20* century, especially the issuance of A Nation at Risk in 1983.
This document is often cited as the origin of current reform efforts. The report stated its conclusions in brief but dramatic terms:
if an unfidendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems, which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral disarmament, (p. 5) A. barrage of commissioa and task-fbrce reports followed^ Nation at Risk.
The first reports focused on recommended changes in public education, including moving to more site-based governance, new roles for teachers, different scheduling and grouping arrangements, and so forth. The next reports included critiques of teacher education. The Carnegie Task Force (1986) viewed teachers as the key to reform and recommended a bachelor’s degree in the arts and sciences as a prerequisite to certification at the master’s level. In the master’s program, this report called for a better- developed professional curriculum with systematic knowledge of teaching, including internships and residencies in schools.
The 1986 Holmes Group report. Tomorrow's Teachers, and two subsequent reports. Tomorrow's Schools (1991) and Tomorrow's Schools o fEducation (1995), recommended the dual goals of reform of teacher education and reform of the teaching profession. Similar to the Carnegie study, the Holmes reports called for an extended teacher education program in which a master’s degree would follow a four-year baccalaureate. Both the Carnegie and Holmes Group reports emphasized producing professional educators who were able to make sound decisions based on substantial theoretical understandings. The recruitment, training, and licensure of a competent teaching force are now widely recognized as among the central policy and goals of educational reform efforts (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996).
In September 1996, still another report came to the forefiront of the education reform effort. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) proposed an. audacious goal: That by the year 2006, America will provide all students in the country with access to “competent, carmg, and qualified teachers.” hi pursuit of this goal, the Commissioa has launched a comprehensive effort to transform teacher development in ways that will dramatically enhance student academic achievement. To implement this comprehensive effort, the Commission has created a reform agenda for how teachers are prepared, recruited, selected, inducted, and supported, as well as how schools support, assess, and reward teachers’ work.
The NCTAF’s recommendations closely entwine licensure and teacher education.
The multistate consortium is, as the Carnegie Report and the Holmes Group also recommended, working on new ways to license teachers, with a focus on subject matter and professional knowledge, as well as on demonstrated skill in the classroom.
Combining the recommendations of the national reports with the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards to certify outstanding teachers, the profession has constructed a “three-legged stool” of quality assurance—licensing, accreditation, and advanced certification (Farkas & Johnson, 1997).
Although most of these reform agendas are necessary and worthwhile, they have inevitably produced a continual state of change in education. Teachers and teacher educators find themselves pressured to implement these reforms in addition to providing the course work required to meet state and federal standards. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the reforms that will produce effective results and those that are more politically based than educationally sound.
Learning to construct beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research is a process that may help preservice teachers begin to deal with the never-ending changes that are thrust upon teachers in the name of school reform.
Teaching action research to preservice teachers may better prepare teachers to face the
3 State of flux generated not only by school reforms, but also by the day-to-day instructional decisions found in the classroom setting. The hope is that by familiarizing preservice teachers with the process of action research, they will leam to analyze and evaluate new initiatives and decisions on their own, and not simply to accept mandates because an administrator deems them necessary.
Action research can provide fixture teachers with tools to help them make pedagogically sound choices concerning their instruction. My study looked at the perspectives of preservice teachers while they learned how to do action research as a way to observe teaching and learning. My study also looked how my own action research in the course influenced my own understanding of how to teach the course.
My interest in and commitment to action research began in 1997, when I was
involved in a project at The Ohio State University. In this project, I worked with my advisor, Marilyn Johnston, and six doctoral students. We co-taught a summer course on action research to a group of M.A. students, and our goal was to demonstrate the kind of
inquiry we were advocating. This project focused on our personal experiences and
learning firom the study (Bendau, Covert, Dyer, Christenson, Johnston, Rjsko, & Slutsky,
1999). We designed an action research project to study this course as a way to
demonstrate for our students the value of action research. We studied their perceptions
and understandings while we taught the course. We analyzed our data and used the
results to think critically about our teaching. We shared our research methods and
analyses with our students as a model of the purposes and methods used in action
research. During this experience, I became aware of the power of using action research as a way to look at one’s own instruction. It was &om this perspective that my own study began to unfold. My study, however, had a different focus and theoretical perspective, in that the students were preservice teachers and I used a cognitive apprenticeship model to teach actionresearch.
Action Research
The emergent design of action research was useful to me in this study. I wanted to facilitate change in my teaching, and analyzing my data throughout the study continually helped me to do this. Aspects of action research are tweaked “on the run” to account for the increasing understandings of the researcher. Thus, action research takes shape gradually and is inherently flexible, and its emergent nature allowed me to leam from my research and to change instruction in light of my new understandings.
Action research represents a type of research undertaken by workers in a wide variety of community, organizational, or institutional settings. Therefore, action research and its purpose have different meanings for different people. Nonetheless, certain widely accepted definitions of action research exist. These indicate that its purpose is to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by Joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical fiamework (Rapoport, cited in Hopkins, 1985). Kemmis and Ebbutt (cited in
Hopkins, 1985) point out that action research is a form of self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social (including educational) situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices. Action research advances participants’ understanding of these practices and of the situations in which the practices are carried out.
Action research is intended to have both action and research outcomes. Action research is intentional, solution-oriented inquiry that is group- or personally owned and conducted. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the terms “action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis & McTaggart,
1982).
Action research usually requires collaboration from the participants in a shared experience. The apprenticeship model of learning incorporates this requirement. Barbara
Rogoff, in her hook. Apprenticeship in Thinking {1990), has pointed out that a lot of work on social learning and socialization appears to rest on the assumption that the external lesson is brought across a barrier into the mind of the student. She argues that knowledge and skills are generated in an interpersonal context ofjoint activity in which the more experienced participants lend guidance and support to novice participants. Within this view there is no process of knowledge somehow crossing a barrier from the outside to the inside. Rather, the perceived process is that the know-how generated by social interaction is incorporated, in the course of the participants’ growth and development, into the participants’ patterns of awareness and response (Rogoff, 1990). People who work together and communicate in the process of investigating the characteristics and context of issues that concern them have the opportunity to develop immediate and deeply relevant understandings of their situation, as well as to be involved actively in the process of dealing with situational problems. The climate in these circumstances must give people the sense that they are in charge of their own lives, and it must support them as they take methodical action to rectify their conditions (Stringer,
1996). This collaboration can generate greater commitment and, hence, action will follow. When change is a desired outcome, it is more easily achieved if people are committed to the change.
Still another goal of action research is to expand the teacher’s role as inquirer into teaching and learning through systematic classroom research (Copper, 1990).
Practitioners work together to help one another design and carry out investigations in their classrooms. This collaboration provides support and a forum for sharing questions, concerns, and results. Teachers advise each other and comment on the progress of individual efforts. Engaging in collaborative action research helps to eliminate the isolation that has long characterized teaching, as it promotes professional dialogue, and thus, creates a more professional culture in schools.
An important aspect of collaboration is communication. Elliott (in Kemmis &
McTaggart, 1990) considers the characteristic of communication between all participants to be of paramount importance:
Since action research looks at a problem firom the point of view of those involved it can only be validated in unconstrained dialogue with them. Action research involves unconstramed dialogue between “researcher” (whether he be an outsider or teacher/researcher) and the participants, there must be firee information flow between them. (p. 122) Cognitive Apprenticeship
Cognitive apprenticeship is a model of learning based on the situated cognition theory. It provides practical steps for applying situated cognition theory. Situated learning theory and the cognitive apprenticeship model are both rooted in the concept of proficiency being gained in the course of real context and by communicating with peers and experts about those contexts. Apprentice-like situations exist in a natural context.
The idea is that apprentices learn to reason, act, and interact in increasingly educated ways with people who do something correctly, by doing it with them as justifiable, peripheral participants.
Rogoff (1990) proposes a formal, instruction-oriented apprenticeship model in which novices are systematically coached, guided, and supported by expert practitioners.
“Guided participation,” as she calls it, depends on communication and negotiation between teacher and learner about what new knowledge or skill is needed and how it can be made compatible with existing understanding and capability.
Rogoff s approach to apprenticeship is fixed in Vygotskian theory. It necessitates that teachers (or other knowledgeable or skilled adults) provide guidance and coaching through the careful arrangement of appropriate curriculum materials and learning tasks, through modeling and demonstrating good practice, and through both tacit and explicit instruction as they participate m joint learning activities and problem-solving with students. Teachers’ greater knowledge and skills enable them to assist students in applying familiar knowledge in unfamiliar contexts and in employing unfamiliar knowledge in familiar contexts. I used the apprenticeship model because it is a theory of instruction that suggests learning should be naturally tied to authentic activity, context, and culture (Brown,
Collins, & Dugufd, 1989). Complex concepts are more difficult to learn from manufactured activities. For example, learning a foreign language by immersion is easier than learning a language from textbooks and vocabulary lists. I wanted to investigate whether learning about action research would be easier for preservice teachers if they were engaged in. an actual action research project. I did this by using the apprenticeship model to demonstrate how to do action research.
Research Questions
Two questions guided this research:
Question 1. How does a cognitive apprenticeship model for action research serve as a vehicle for shaping how preservice teachers construct beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research?
Question 2. How does my own action research in this course influence my own understanding of how to teach the course?
My goal in this research was to demonstrate the kind of inquiry I was advocating in the course 1 taught on action research. I designed an action research project to study the course as a way to demonstrate for preservice teachers the value of action research. 1 studied their perceptions and understandings while 1 taught the course. 1 analyzed the data and used the results to think critically about my teaching. I shared my research methods and analyses with the preservice teachers as a model of the purposes and methodologies used in action research.
The participants in my study were eight preservice teachers in the course EDU
308 at Mount Vernon Nazarene College in Mount Vernon, Ohio. I had had all of these students in another class, a freshman-level, 3 credit-hour course called Foundations of
Education, and had had another student in a 2 credit-hour Diversity course the previous semester. I was also the academic advisor for four of the eight students.
The course was a required curriculum course for all middle level students who were seeking teacher certification in grades 4-8. During the first part of the course, we used case studies to explore the theories, research, and exemplary practice of middle level schools that support student-centered curriculum.
During the second half of the course, the focus changed—1 began teaching and modeling action research skills, and studying the students’ development of research skills and identities as researchers. The class met twice a week for one and one-half hours.
During these class sessions data collection was ongoing. I used handwritten field notes to record observations in the classroom. 1 collected 13 hours of audiotapes of formal, individual interviews. I audiotaped 15 hours of class discussion and book discussion groups. Additional data was collected, including pre- and post-surveys, daily feedback, the preservice teachers’ reflective journals, and the researcher’s journal. Data collection and interpretation of the data were repeatedly discussed with the preservice teachers.
10 The audiotapes were analyzed and reanalyzed throughout the period of data collection, and again after all data had been collected and transcribed. Analysis continued during the process of writing this dissertation as data were revisited and reviewed.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are adopted as appropriate to this dissertation:
Preservice teachers: Students that are enrolled in programs at institutions of higher education (typically through schools or colleges of education) that prepare new teachers for grades K-12.
Teacher educator: Faculty in schools and colleges of education who prepare new teachers, provide professional development for practicing teachers, and conduct research on the improvement of education and teaching.
Teacher research: Teacher research can be described and/or identified as research that is a “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers” (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1990, p. 3). It can be a qualitative or a quantitative study.
Action research: Action research is intended to have both action and research outcomes. It is intentional, solution-oriented inquiry that is group- or personally owned and conducted. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the terms “action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis Sc
II McTaggart, 1982). The goal is to be critically self-reflective of one’s teaching by analyzing the teaching process and its results. Teacher research is a broader term referring to any research conducted by teachers. Action research is clearly a form of teacher research, but teacher research may include studies that are not action research.
Action research can. utilize both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Teacher reflection: The teacher thinks about why he/she does something in a certain manner and talks and thinks about how to improve.
Acculturation: “Acculturation occurs as we develop an understanding of the systems that guide behavior in a cultural other than our own” (Ellis, 1985, p. 292).
Cultural setting: An arena (social setting) in which knowledge of appropriate norms (cultural knowledge) dictates behavior. A cultural setting may encompass a broad range of subcultures which are in themselves are also cultural settings.
Cultural knowledge: “The knowledge participants use to guide their behavior in various social settings they participate in” (Spindler, 1982, p. 5).
Cognitive apprenticeship model: Teachers must consider the expert-like processes that are involved in a difficult, professional task. Authentic tasks are designed to lead students into those processes and to engage in effective strategies. The teacher initially models the requisite strategies, allows students to try them independently, and coaches students as needed (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989).
The cognitive apprenticeship model consists of three stages:
1. Modeling, where the teacher exhibits the desired skills he/she wants the student to learn.
12 2. Guided practice, where students perform the skills with help from the teacher.
The teacher oversees the students’ learning by coaching students through a wide range of guidance activities: choosing tasks, providmg hints and scaffolding, evaluating the activities of apprentices, and diagnosing the kinds of problems students are having.
3. Application, where students perform independently of the teacher.
Confines
The sample population for this study included a total of eight preservice teachers who were enrolled in a middle level curriculum course. Due to the small size and nonrepresentativeness of the sample group, findings are not generalizable across other
preservice teacher groups or other teacher educators (Morgan, 1988; Morgan & Krueger,
1998). However, according to Kvale (1996), use of qualitative methods permits the researcher to collect rich, in-depth data on a theme of interest, which can result in a new
construction of understanding between persons. Rather than producing findings that are
generalizable, these data and analyses may be used to provide substantial insights and
views related to similar problems in comprehending preservice teachers’ understandings
of action research and teacher educators’ understandings of how to teach a course on
action research (Miles & Huberman, 1994a).
13 Significance of This Study
A few studies exist that examine teachers’ perceptions about action research, including their experiences doing research (McCutcheon, 1987), the outcomes from teaching a course (Bennett, 1994), or how to teach a course on action research (Bendau,
Covert, Dyer, Christenson, Johnston, Risko, & Slutsky, 1999). There is less literature about preservice teachers’ perceptions about action research; however, at least two studies exist that examine preservice teachers’ experiences doing research (Keating,
Diaz-Greenberg, Baldwin, & Thousand, 1998; Kwo, 1996). I could find no studies on how to teach action research skills to undergraduate, preservice teachers. This study augments the literature in these areas.
This study also may provide a framework for teacher educators who are trying to provide their students with a multitude of skills in a time frame that is often filled by the increased demands of teacher education and the changes mandated by education reform initiatives. A study done within the limited time span that characterized this study is crucial to understanding its relevance for teacher educators in the current political and educational context. The time span for this study represents a realistic time period, thus increasing the chances that the results will be applicable for other teacher educators who also find it difftcult to include everything they want to teach within the already-bursting seams of a teacher education program.
14 CONCLUSION
The balance of this study is organized as follows: Chapter 2 presents a literature review. In it, I first look at how action research fits into the qualitative research paradigm by defining and making distinctions among qualitative research, teacher research, teacher reflection, and action research. I then discuss the sociocultural issues related to preservice teachers’ identities, paying particular attention to the preservice teachers’ background experiences, which inevitably influence their professional identities. This discussion reviews how the structure of field experience and the study of pedagogy provided within the teacher education program influenced the preservice teachers’ professional identities. It was important to understand these issues of background experience, field experience, and pedagogy in order to begin to influence preservice teachers’ sense of professional identity through the use of action research. Finally, I discuss the cognitive apprenticeship model for teaching.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology utilized in the research study. I leave an audit trail for other to follow in conducting a similar study. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
suggest that an audit trail be used to establish dependability. Schwandt (1997)
defines/describes an audit trail as:
An organized collection of materials that includes the data generated in a study; a statement of the theoretical finmework that shaped the study at the outset; explanation of concepts, models, and the like that were developed as part of the eflbrtto make sense of the data (often the product of memoing); a description of the procedures used to generate data and analyze them; statement of the findings or conclusions of the investigation; notes about the process of conducting the study; personal notes; and copies of instruments used to guide the generation and analyses of data. An audit trail is a systematically maintained documentation system, (p. 6)
15 Chapter 4 present research findings fi;om. the data collected. This includes the following: pre and post survey, preservice teachers Journals, my Journal, focus group interviews and individual interviews. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the findings and implications of the study as applied to both, educational research and practice.
16 CHAPTER 2
EŒLATED UTERATURE
INTRODUCTION
The concept of action research can be traced back to the early works of John
Dewey in the 1920s and Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. However, only more recently has it moved to the forefront of education. This shift has, to a large extent, to do with some changes that are beginning to take place in teacher education.
In this literature review, I will first look at how action research fits into the qualitative research paradigm by defining and making distinctions among qualitative research, action research, teacher research, and teacher reflection. 1 will then discuss the sociocultural issue related to preservice teachers’ identities. 1 will pay particular attention to the background experiences that preservice teachers bring with them to their teacher education program, because these experiences strongly influence preservice teachers’ professional identities. This discussion will review how the
17 structure of the field experience and the study of pedagogy provided within the teacher education program also influence preservice teachers’ professional identities. It is important to understand these issues of background experience, field experience, and pedagogy, as well as how they interrelate, in order to begin to influence preservice teachers’ sense of professional identity through the use of action research.
Finally, I will discuss the cognitive apprenticeship model for teaching.
Enormous societal changes over the past 20 years have altered society’s educational needs, and, in turn, are driving schools of education to redesign themselves (Drucker,
1994; Reigeluth, 1994). Within the educational reform movement, schools of education are being challenged to shift from the traditional paradigm of teacher- directed learning and the dissemination of knowledge, to learner-centered curricula that promote the development of lifelong learners who can think critically, solve problems, and work collaboratively. The skills associated with this new paradigm are ones that preservice teachers must have if they are to survive in the future (Banathy,
1991; Drucker, 1994; Reigeluth, 1994). The apprenticeship model helps them to respond to this challenge.
Definitions and Distinctions
Qualitative Research
The term “qualitative inquiry” is often an umbrella term for various orientations of such inquiry, including constructivism, ethnography, case study research, naturalistic inquiry, ethnomethodology, life history methodology, narrative
18 mquiry, and action. These various orientations all try to provide researchers with new ways to comprehend the makeup of the social world. Consequently, defining qualitative research is difficult, as Denzin and Lincoln (1994) suggest, because it has diSërent meanings for different people. The definition given by Denzin and Lincoln takes into account not only the sources of data, but also the methods used in qualitative research:
Qualitative research is multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense or to interpret phenomenon in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the study’s use and collection of a variety of empirical methods—case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individual lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand. (p. 2)
Even though qualitative researchers have described three distinct purposes for qualitative research—to explore, explain, or describe (Marshall & Rossman,
1999)—other researchers give wide-ranging understanding by providing their own interpretation of possible additional purposes of qualitative research. For Patton
(1990), the purpose is to help us be better able to solve society’s problems. Moss
(1996) believes that the primary goal of qualitative research is to understand meaning
in context, while Glesne and Peshkin (1992) believe that “qualitative researchers are
interpreters who draw on their own experiences, knowledge, theoretical dispositions,
and collected data to present their understandings of the other’s world” (p. 153). It is
apparent that even the purpose of this research can have many faces and that it is
difficult to articulate in a specific framework. 19 Characteristics
In the following pages I will focus on some key characteristics that help to identify the qualitative mode of research: (a) the researcher as an instrument, (b) negotiating outcomes, (c) naturalistic setting, (d) presentation of data, (e) attention to particulars, and (f) coherence insight and instrument utility.
The researcher as an instrument.
The researcher serves as an instrument in a qualitative study because it is through his/her methods (observations, interviews, etc.), experiences, and insights that he/she leams and understands the phenomenon being studied (Marshall & Rossman,
1999; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To do this, the researcher must be able to identify what is important; to interpret it; and to report it accurately, objectively, and meaningfully to others. The researcher’s role is to gain a “holistic” overview. This overview is one that is systemic within, encompassing of, and integrated into the context under study
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) also provide these key components when explaining why the researcher is the instrument of choice:
1. The researcher as an instrument can respond to and sense all the personal and environmental clues that exist, allowing him/her to interact directly with the situation and get a better sense of it
2. The researcher is able to generate questions and hypotheses as data is being collected, and then immediately test those questions and hypotheses with the participants from whom they were generated.
20 3. The researcher can quickly summarize the data being collected and request feedback or clarification firom the participants.
4. The researcher can pay close attention to the atypical response, which often tends to be discarded in quantitative research. By focusing on these atypical responses, the researcher can perhaps attains a better understand of what is being studied than might be possible if these are ignored.
These key components seem to be necessary to really understand the importance and nature of researcher's role.
Negotiating outcomes.
The researchers negotiate meaning and interpretations with the people from whom data was obtained. It is the subjects’ understanding, or construction, of reality that the researcher is trying to capture, thus it makes sense to ask them for their input and clarification in order to capture the phenomenon as truly as one can (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). The researcher attempts to capture data on the perceptions of local actions through a process of deep attentiveness, of empathetic understanding, and by suspending preconceptions about the topics under discussion. This process is necessary because the researcher can misinterpret the actions of respondents and may think that one thing was being relayed, but in actuality a whole other thing was meant.
Heron (1981, cited from Lincoln 8c Guba, 1985). By discussing the researcher’s interpretations with respondents, the researcher can clarify her/his own potential
21 misinterpretations. Through negotiation the researcher is able to share findings with the subjects and to find out whether or not she/he has captured what they were relaying, their beliefs and feelings.
Naturalistic setting.
Instead of doing studies in constrained or manipulated environments, qualitative researchers are focused on individuals as they exist in their natural setting
(Eisner, 1991). Qualitative research is usually accomplished through intense and/or prolonged contact with a field or life situation. These situations are typically reflective of the everyday life of individuals, groups, societies, and organizations as they act their roles in the classroom and the workplace.
Because qualitative research is grounded in the lived experiences of people
(Rist, 1994), it only makes sense for qualitative researchers to pursue their inquiries in a natural setting rather than in a laboratory. A natural setting allows the researcher to use multiple methods to see how participants interact and engage in real-life contexts that have real-life meanings (Rossman & Rallis, 1998).
Presentation o f data.
The majority of data reporting in qualitative research is done with words, but analysis can take the form of words as well as of charts, tables, graphs, codes, etc.
The researcher writes to analyze and clarify what he/she heard, observed, or did. The words can be organized to permit the researcher to contrast, compare, analyze, and
22 bestow patterns upon them. Describing data in narrative form allows the researcher to have a voice in the writing process, as well as to present the voices of others (Eisner,
1991).
Often, the qualitative researcher will use case study as a way to impart or design his/her data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The case study permits the researcher to generate descriptions of the multiple realities that may have been observed in the field, and allows the researcher the fireedom to write a detailed description of his/her data. A good qualitative researcher must be a good writer, because the writing style must be at once objective and sympathetic, and literary style may be used to convey and color meaning.
Attention to particulars^
In quantitative research, individual units of observation (e.g., people, classrooms, schools, etc.) are aggregated. While the researcher may be quite aware that each of the individuals being observed is different, these differences are not of as much concern as are group averages and other indications of group performance or characteristics. Conversely, the qualitative researcher attends more to the conditions
leading to the observations that were made (Patton, 1990), including difierences
among subjects, than to aggregate characteristics. For instance, a quantitative
researcher would be primarily concerned with the average test score in a classroom. A
qualitative researcher, however, would be concerned not only with the average test
score, but also with the facts that several students had been out with the flu just before
the test was administered, that a substitute teacher was present, and the school building
23 was unusually cold on examination day due to furnace problems. Qualitative research, looks at the whole picture, not Just at bits and pieces of data that might appear, to the quantitative researcher, to be unconnected.
Coherence.
The qualitative approach to research does not seek to establish universal truths or laws. Rather, it is grounded in the view that social settings change and so do social phenomena. This dynamic perspective requires that coherence be woven from multiple sources to enable a temporal and contextual placement of findings. Others can then judge the findings and interpretations for its usefixlness. Patton (1990) asserts, “The idea of a theory-method link means that how you study the world determines what you learn about the world” (p. 67). A main task is to explicate the ways that people in particular settings come to understand, account for, take action in, and otherwise manage their day-to-day situation. Every human’s perspective in unique and often filled with multiple and conflicting meanings. The qualitative researcher seeks to understand the lived experiences and core belief systems of participants, from their own points of view (Schwandt, 1994). Many interpretations of the material are possible, but some are more compelling for theoretical reasons or on grounds of internal consistency. Relatively little standardized instrumentation is used at the outset. The researcher is essentially the main “measurement device” in the study.
24 Action Research
Defining action research, is difficult, because it has different implications for
different people. The following are some of the most widely accepted definitions of
action research. Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of
people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical fiamework (Rapoport, cited in
Hopkins, 1985). Action research is a form of self-reflective inquiry undertaken by
participants in social (including educational) situations in order to improve the
rationality and Justice of (a) their own social or educational practices, (b) their
understanding of these practices, and (c) the situations in which the practices are
carried out. It is most rationally empowering when undertaken by participants
collaboratively, sometimes in cooperation with outsiders (Kemmis, cited in Hopkins,
1985). Action research is the systematic study of attempts to improve educational
practice by groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by
means of their own reflection upon the effects of those actions (Ebbutt, cited in
Hopkins, 1985).
Purposes
Action research has had continuing attention since the 1950s. Advocates pose
various goals and purposes. Bumaford, Fischer, and Hobson (1996 ) report how
action research can be used to change teaching practice. Hopkins (1985) deems that
the action research finmework is most appropriate for participants who recognize the
existence of shortcomings in their educational activities and who would like to adopt
25 some initial stance in regard to the problem, formulate a plan, carry out an intervention, evaluate the outcomes, and develop further strategies in an iterative fashion. Others view teaching itself as a form of inquiry (Elliott, 1985) and believe that a knowledge base can be created from teachers’ research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1993).
Action research has been employed for school-based curriculum development, as a professional development strategy (Oja & Smulyan, 1989), in preservice and graduate courses in education (Clift, Veal, Johnson, & Holland, 1990), and in systems planning and policy development (Maeroff, 1988).
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), and Noffke and Stevenson (1995), recognize action research as a means to create social change and make schools and society more democratic. Some writers (e.g.. Holly and Southworth, 1990; Jacullo-Noto, 1992;
Lieberman, 1988; Oja and Smulyan, 1989; and Sagor, 1992) advocate an action research approach for school restructuring. Action research can be used as an evaluative tool that can assist in self-evaluation, whether the “self’ is an individual or an institution. Good action research is like good community or organizational change, in that it draws on the same skills and procedures, and offers the same satisfactions.
The costs are time, energy, and creativity. And at the end of it you may have to satisfy examiners who are not field practitioners. In fact, some of them may not understand your research and may even be unsympathetic.
Action research offers some interesting contrasts to the kinds of quantitative and qualitative investigations with which clinical researchers are most familiar.
Whereas many researchers focus on phenomena which are stable in nature, action-type
26 investigators study change processes in systems and see how policy innovations shape, form, and restrict organizational transformations (e.g., Argyris and Schon, 1989;
Brown and Tandon, 1983; and Whyte, Greenwood, and Lazes, 1989).
While these approaches have different orientations, they hold a number of assumptions in common, including the emergent and cyclical nature of action research, the value of collaboration, and the potential of action research to change educational practice.
Characteristics
Previously, I defined action research as a form of research intended to have both action and research outcomes. However, to obtain a complete contextual picture of action research it is appropriate to look at the characteristics of action research in addition to its definitions. Action research is characterized by multifaceted complexities. Its characteristics are: (a) cyclic nature, (b) empowerment of participants, (c) collaboration through participating in a shared experience, (d) local context, (e) acquiring knowledge, (f) social change, (g) freedom from restraints, and
(h) praxis.
Cyclic nature.
Action research is intended to have both, action and research outcomes. Action
research is a solution-oriented inquiry that is group- or personally owned and
conducted. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic
data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem
27 redefînîtioii. The linking of the terms “action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis &
McTaggart, 1982).
Almost all writers on the subject appear to regard action research as cyclic (or spiraling), either explicitly or implicitly. The action research cycle consists at least of intention or planning before action, and review or critique after action. This cyclical process has considerable advantages. It provides a mix of responsiveness and rigor, thus meeting both the action and research requirements.
The essentials of action research design are considered by Elliott (cited in
Hopkins, 1985) as per the following characteristic cycle:
Initially an exploratory stance is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is developed and plans are made for some form of interventionary strategy. (The Reconnaissance & General Plan) Then the intervention is carried out (the Action in Action Research). During and around the time of the intervention, pertinent observations are collected in various forms. (Monitoring the implementation by Observation.) The new interventional strategies are carried out, and the cyclic process repeats, continuing until a sufGcient understanding of (or implement able solution for) the problem is achieved. (Reflection and Revision) (www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html)
The protocol is iterative, or cyclical, in nature and is intended to foster deeper
understanding of a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing
the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations.
28 Empowerment o f participants.
Action research seems to give to all participants a degree of empowerment-
Involvement is viewed as a knowing nature, with seemingly no hidden controls or preemption of direction. In action research, participants try to negotiate meaning from the data and contribute to the selection of interventionary strategies.
While the concept of teacher action research can be traced back to the early
works of Dewey in the 1920s and Lewin in the 1940s, it is Corey (1953) and others at
the Teachers College of Columbia University who introduced the term “action
research” to the educational community in 1949. Corey defined action research as the
process through which practitioners study their own practice to solve their personal
practical problems. Many times teachers come from a paradigm where centralized
policies and programs dictate how problems should be solved. Stringer (1996) states
that “there is evidence to suggest that centralized policies and programs generated by
‘experts’ have limited success” (p. 3) in overcoming problems. Teachers who engage
in self-directed inquiry about their own work in classrooms find the process
intellectually satisfying. The power of their own research helps them to better
understand and ultimately to transform their teaching practices (Goswami & Stillman,
1987).
Collaboration (through participating in a shared experience).
Action research tends to be participative, with both the researcher and the
researched (“subjects,” in conventional jargon) directly or indirectly involved. Most
other qualitative research is not usually participative (but it could be). As people work
29 together and communicate in the process of investigating the characteristics and context of the issues that disquiet them, they have the chance to develop immediate and deeply relevant understandings of their situation. They become involved actively in the process of dealing with those problems. Collaboration can generate greater commitment and, hence, action. When change is a desired outcome, some participative form of action is often indicated, and it is more easily achieved if people are committed to the change (Stringer, 1996).
Action research, when used in its purist sense, is a style of inquiry in which there is no purposeful distinction between the researcher and the researched. They are all identified as participants and they all have uniform footing in deciding what question will be posed, what data will be examined, and how assumptions and paths of action will be established. These participants may include some with special training in inquiry, but if so, these specialists have no privilege in determining how the study will go; all participants share in that decision. This cooperative approach is imperative, because the participants are the only existing experts on local culture, beliefs, and practices, and because moral consideration requires that local perspectives be honored. Stringer (1996) calls fora “moral intertwining” of all participants, including, of course, the inquirer.
Congruent with, the collaboration of the researcher and participant is communication. Elliott (in Kemmis & McTaggart, 1990) considers the characteristic of communication among all participants to be of paramount importance:
Since action research looks at a problem firom the point of view of those mvolved it can only be validated in unconstrained dialogue with them. Since action research involves unconstrained dialogue between
30 researcher (whether he be an outsider or teacher/researcher) and the participants, there must be free information flow between them. (p. 122)
I think that this idea of'Unconstrained dialogue” is distinct from the characteristic of negotiating outcomes in qualitative research. To me, in the sphere of negotiated outcomes the researcher has already developed some interpretations and then checks his/her meaning with the people from whom data was obtained. But in unconstrained dialogue the meaning is created together between the researcher and the researched. It seems to me that in some action research if this collaborative communication is not present, than true understanding cannot occur.
Local context.
Action research returns the focus of inquiry to the local context. Schools have witnessed determined efforts to find general solutions to problems. The cost to school budgets has been phenomenal, and sometimes there is precious little to show for it. It should be apparent by now that generalized, one-size-flts-all solutions do not work in educational problems. Action research is based on the postulation that the sheer documentation of actions and the creating of explanations by a detached researcher are lacking in and of themselves. A further assumption is that those who have previously been designated as “subjects” should participate directly in the research process, and that those processes should be applied in ways that benefit all participants directly.
The answers are found in the details. Without intimate knowledge of local context, one cannot hope to devise solutions to local problems. Most problems are, to all intents and purposes, local; inquiry must be decentralized to the local context.
31 Acquiring knowledge.
Action, research's purpose is, according to Elliott, “concerned with the everyday practical problems experienced by teachers, rather than the ‘theoretical
problems’ defined by pure researchers within a discipline of knowledge” (cited in
Nixon, 1989). Research is designed, conducted, and implemented by the teachers
themselves to acquire knowledge about ways to improve teaching in their own
classrooms, sometimes becoming a staff development project in which teachers
establish expertise in curriculum development and reflective teaching.
Social change.
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), and Nofike and Stevenson (1995), recognize
action research as a means to create social change and to make schools and society
more democratic. The approach of change in research offers some interesting
contrasts to the kinds of quantitative and qualitative investigations with which some
clinical researchers are most familiar. Whereas many researchers focus on phenomena
which are stable in nature, action-type investigators study change processes in
systems, such as schools, and examine how policy iimovations shape, form, and
restrict organizational transformations (e.g., Argyris and SchÔn, 1989; Brown and
Tandon, 1983; and Whyte, Greenwood, and Lazes, 1989). Almost all action research
is intended to generate change as an integral part of the program.
This goal of creating constructive change makes action research distinctive
fiom other qualitative research, because in most other qualitative research the research
and the changes are usually kept separate. Hopkins (1993) deems that the action
32 research framework is most appropriate for participants who recognize the existence of shortcomings in their educational activities and who would like to adopt some initial stance in regard to the problem, formulate a plan, carry out an intervention, evaluate the outcomes, and develop further strategies in an iterative fashion. Others view teaching itself as a form of inquiry (Elliott, 1985) and believe that a knowledge base can be created from teachers’ research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993).
Freedom from restraints.
Action research takes a democratic, empowering, and humanizing approach to research; it assists locals in extending their own understanding of their situation and in helping them resolve the problems they see as important. Action research is deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is group- or personally owned and
conducted.
Praxis.
Perhaps a key component involved in action research is the concept of praxis.
“Praxis is a form of ‘doing action’ precisely because its end can only be realized
through action and can only exist in the action itself’ (Stringer, 1996, p. 68). Action
research is intended to be the reflective counterpart of practical diagnosis (Elliott,
1978, cited in Kemmis & McTaggart, 1990). Schon (1983) described the use of
reflection to generate models from a body of previous knowledge. These models are
used to reframe a problem, thea experiments are performed to bring about outcomes
that are subjected to further analysis. This model frames means and ends
33 interdependently and recognizes that there is little or no separation or research from practice, little or no separation of knowing and doing. Schon’s model of reflection-in- action complements the investigative nature of action research.
My experience with action research is that it is “blurry,” i.e., that it is not characterized by distinct delineation. It is a cyclic progression from blurry questions through blurry methods to blurry answers to less blurry questions, methods, and answers. Even through all this “blurriness,” however, action research provides confidence in outcome through the checking and refining of data and interpretations.
The key elements of action research are the cyclic acting and reflecting before acting again in a continuing response to learning outcomes from reflection. Fleischer (1992) ofiers an honest account of this unruly though systematic approach to data collection, analysis, and interpretation: “It is not always neat; it tends not to be linear; it cannot be summarized easily; its conduct and its findings are, at times, confusing, even contradictory” (p. 87).
It is because of these traditionally negative descriptions that I have chosen to practice and study action research. Life has never been neat. Life has never been linear. On the contrary, life is confusing and contradictory. Life can’t be reduced to a light summary. I argue that the action research strategy fits reality more closely than traditional research approaches.
In the next subsection I will discuss teacher research. For my own use, I perceive few differences between the terms “action research” and “teacher research,”
34 although, the differences that do exist are important. For my study, however, I will use these terms interchangeably, because I feel they are more compatible than incompatible.
Teacher Research
To me, the central tenet of teacher research is the empowerment of teachers to generate pedagogical knowledge. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) argue that teacher research can transform, not simply add to, the present knowledge base in the field, linking research with practice and inquiry with reform.
The prevailing focus of teacher research is to expand the teacher’s role as inquirer about teaching and learning through systematic classroom research (Copper,
1990). The approach is naturalistic, using participant-observation techniques of ethnographic research; is generally collaborative; and includes characteristics of case study methodology (Belanger, 1992). Teacher research can be described and/or identified as research that is a “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, p. 3). Teacher research has its roots in action research, and can be found under the umbrella of action research. However, teacher research is not always action research. Teacher research can be either quantitative or qualitative.
Teacher research is characteristically carried out by teachers in their particular surroundings with the intention of addressing a certain question, or questions, in a context that she/he wants to focus on and change. In a teacher research venture, teachers produce the questions and the purpose of the venture is to seek answers that
35 advance constructive local change or generate local contextual information. Teacher research projects can embrace widely varying methods, such as long-term practitioner reflective journals, classroom based-ethnographies, quasi-experiments and case smdies, and teacher-based collaborative action projects, among others (Bumaford,
Fischer, & Hobson, 1996). However, the methods the teacher research project uses are far less important than the purpose and reflective posture with which they are used.
As a movement, teacher research is repossessing knowledge made in education by the practitioners who make use of this knowledge in their daily professional activities. As Ray (1993) so eloquently articulates:
In its broadest sense, then, both methods [quantitative and qualitative] are “...a movement both intellectual and political in its force, aggravated by a national need to professionalize teaching, thereby investing practitioners with more power and control in classrooms, schools, and ultimately, the field of education...at large.” It is a grass roots effort to address the problems of schools and universities from the inside out; starting with individual teachers documenting successes and failures, questions and answers, from their own classrooms, (p. 49)
Teachers are no longer expected merely to act upon research done by others, but, rather, are themselves generating new knowledge.
Teacher research attempts to create knowledge that draws on the distinctive pedagogical experiences and activities known only by practitioners in education and to legitimize the knowledge that comes from those daily professional acts. This type of teacher knowledge has been described in context of a project from a teacher researcher's perspective: “You [the researcher] and your students are the only real experts about what’s been occurring in your classroom” (Bumaford, Fischer, &
36 Hobson, 1996, p. I). Hence, from this perspective, only the teacher and the others who have engaged in the professional and pedagogical acts that occur in the local setting can be considered true experts on the environment.
I agree partially with this concept, but 1 think that it is a bit naive. The simple fact is that everyone has biases, including teachers. It seems that an outside researcher and her/his perspective on the classroom could add valuable insight, ask questions that an insider might not have considered, or see things that an insider might not see. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
For teacher research to gain legitimacy, this knowledge must be considered a distinct research genre. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) state:
[R]egarding teacher research as a mere imitation of university research is not useful and ultimately condescending. It is more useful to consider teacher research as its own genre, not entirely different from other types of systematic inquiry into teaching, yet with some quite distinctive features, (p. 2)
Stenhouse once said, “It is teachers who, in the end, will change the world of
the school by understanding if’ (cited in Rudduck, 1988). As teachers engage in
research they are increasing their understanding of the schooling process. What they
are learning wül have great impact on what happens in classrooms, schools, and
school districts in the future. The future directions of staff development programs,
teacher preparation curricula, and school improvement initiatives will be impacted by
the things teachers leam through the critical inquiry and rigorous examination of their
own practice and school programs that research requires. Teachers’ action research
questions emerge from areas they consider problematic, from discrepancies between
what is intended and what actually occurs. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990)
37 suggest, the unique feature of teachers’ questions is that they emanate neither solely from theory nor from practice, but from “critical reflection on the intersection of the two” (p. 6), Teacher research will force the réévaluation of current theories and will signiflcantly influence what is known about teaching, learning, and schooling. Action research is more formal than teacher research and is characterized by defined methodologies, whereas teacher research is more informal and continuous.
Teacher Reflection
The concept of “reflectivity” is key to the teacher action researcher and teacher researcher. The teacher thinks about why he/she does something in a certain manner and talks and thinks about how to improve that process. A teacher who is engaged in reflective teaching is engaged constantly in thinking about his/her teaching and also in evaluating what he/she is learning. The reflective teacher may begin to identify underlying assumptions and views that motivate how he/she teaches. Teacher reflection is a highly subjective view, and it is better defined as a descriptive of a way of teaching, than as a way of researching. To engage in teacher research or action research (and, thus, to call herself a “teacher researcher”), a teacher must first assume a stance of reflectivity in her practice. She must recognize her everyday professional activities and environment as places of possible reflection and growth. She must then use that reflectivity to formulate a systematic inquiry into a topic or some issue
(Cochran-Smith. & Lytle, 1993). Ray (1993) states, “...the teacher researcher
approaches the classroom as an opportunity for analysis and change, unlike the teacher
38 who is invested in maintaining the status quo and therefore relies on iore’ ” (p. 63).
The tenets of being a teacher researcher exemplify the teacher researcher as a reflective practitioner and researcher can be summed up as follows:
This kind of researcher would be a teacher in the sense of caring about some part of the world and how it works enough to want to make it accessible to others. He/she would be fascinated by the questions of how to engage people in it and how people make sense of it; he/she would have the time and resources to pursue these questions to the depth of his/her interest, to write what he/she learned, and to contribute to the theoretical discussions.... (Duckworth, 1986, p. 385)
This reflectivity can be practiced in many ways; Hillocks (1990), in his discussion of prospective teachers, points to “post-mortem” sessions in which teachers dissect and analyze the previous day’s lessons and activities. Others suggest career- spanning teaching Journals, daily and project-based reflective logs, or regular conversations with peers about pedagogical and professional issues.
For actual teacher research projects to develop from this reflectivity, however,
a goal must be advanced and an issue addressed. As Ray (1993) states, “while
teaching may well include occasional inquiry into one’s practice, teacher research
entails ‘systematic and intentional inquiry,’ which requires planned, sustained activity
centered around a predetermined research problem or question” (p. 63).
Merely reflecting on a teaching experience does not automatically create a
“teacher researcher,” but reflectivity does fulfill an important foundational
characteristic of being a teacher researcher. From this foundation a teacher researcher
must then attempt to address a specific question or issue generated by the teacher or
teachers conducting the research.
39 Developing a Teacher’s Identity
A sociocultural perspective can be understood in terms of multiple layers of context. These contexts, such as culture, ethnicity, gender, race, society, and school experience, interact to influence a preservice teacher’s professional identity. These multiple layers are like building blocks in the construction of a professional identity.
From a sociocultural perspective, preservice teachers negotiate these multiple layers of context and the use of various modes of discourse, to develop understanding of, and to act effectively and responsibly in, a shared but diverse social and physical environment.
A sociocultural perspective challenges the assumptions on which traditional teacher education is based by rejecting the view of education as the transmission of decontextualized skills and the development of knowledge which, once acquired, may subsequently be put to use in “real” activities. Instead, ftom a sociocultural perspective, learning is seen as “an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice,” a concomitant of “engaged, dilemma-driven” activity, in which “agent, activity, and the world mutually constitute each other” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, pp. 31-33). Rather than merely adding to the student’s fund of knowledge, learning involves a “process of transformation of participation itself,” which occurs as a function of all participants
“transforming roles and tmderstanding in the activities in which they currently participate” (Rogoff, 1994, p. 209).
The design and conduct of preservice teacher education programs have been influenced by several recent inquiries into the education system by government/professional organizations and the resulting reports (e.g.,d Nation at
40 Risk, 1983; The Carnegie Task Force, 1986; The Holmes Group, 1986; and The
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). Many of these proposals emphasize preferred structures and organizational features for teacher education rather than provide a basis for discussing the philosophical underpinnings of teacher education or its pedagogy. Among other issues, the focus is often on questions of time, partnerships, extended school-based components, the relationships between on-campus components and the practicum, and the selection and training of school- based supervisors.
Despite this recent inquiry, however, the sociocultural concept of how preservice teachers “become” teachers is usually overlooked. Broader issues of content and process in preservice teacher education have attracted limited attention and consideration. In addition, there is usually little consideration of how preservice teachers actively construct knowledge in multiple, meaningfiil, connected, and contextually relevant networks. There is a tendency within the framework of traditional teacher education to consider a wide range of complicated problems as quite uncomplicated. Although traditional teacher education programs try to provide preservice teachers with functional, structural/organization strategies (a “bag of tricks”) to address classroom problems, these strategies often are simplistic and, thus,
inefiective. Such solutions cannot be effective, because they are based on an
inherently inaccurate definition of the problems, which actually are convoluted and
complex. The underlying issues, such as beliefs and experiences, which preservice teachers bring with, them to teacher educatioa programs and which influence how
teachers learn, to teach, often are ignored.
41 In general, the research on preservice teachers tends to be, as Lanier and
Henderson (1990) so articulately put it, “...desultory in nature, poorly synthesized, and weakly criticized. Although there has been a good deal of data gathering and reasoning, there seems to be a surplus of the former and a scarcity of the latter” (p.
35). As a consequence, misrepresentation and over-generalization of research findings sometimes have occurred in response to growing political interest. A serious need remains for improved study and scholarship in the area of instructing preservice teachers. The research that is most plentiful is concerned with preservice teachers' intellectual competence, factors that influence thinking abilities, and the substance and processing of their thoughts and judgments. Research in the specific area of sociocultural issues and preservice teachers could be distinguished by its sheer meagemess. “For more specific and focused work on the sociocultural in teacher education per se, there’s not a lot in the literature. There’s a big gap. The action research and self-study movement is beginning to fill that gap, but that doesn’t come close to the emphasis that is needed” (Weade-Lamme, 1998).
The sociocultural issues of teachers do not yet occupy a paramount place within the sociology of education. Research that has been done in this area is antiquated and has not kept stride with recent expansions in other areas of sociological and educational research. Ginsburg (1986) and Head (1992) maintain in their inquiries that the sociologists of education have neglected occupational socialization in general and teaching as an arena for research in particular. However, although there
42 might not be substantial literature reflecting the sociocultural perspective of preservice teachers, both teacher education programs and school settings represent discourse communities that can be described in sociocultural terms.
General Beliefs about Professional Identity
In the wider literature on professional identity, studies suggest that becoming a professional, in most careers, occur on two levels (Hall, 1966; Kerr, VonGlinow, &
Schriesheim, 1977). First, it takes place on a structural level, such as meeting formal educational and entrance requirements for the profession. Second, it occurs on an attitudinal level, such as the individual’s sense of “a calling” to the field. Stated another way, people entering a particular field usually experience change externally, which is in the requirements of the specific career role, and. internally, which is in the subjective self-conceptualization associated with the role (McGowen & Hart, 1990).
This self-conceptualization can be viewed as one’s professional identity.
Additionally, in this literature, issues of professional identity stem from
professional socialization and development (McGowen & Hart, 1990). Professional
socialization and development is a social learning process that includes the acquisition
of specific knowledge and skills that are required in a professional role and the
development of new values, attitudes, and self-identity components (Hall, 1987;
McGowen & Hart, 1990; Watts, 1987). For example, as a professional educator,
teachers should acquire specific knowledge and skills in such areas as critical thinking.
43 interpersonal skills, and conflict resolution skills, as well as an ability to use computer technology and alternative assessment techniques (Gettys & Holt, 1993; Roden &
Cardina, 1996).
Professional identity issues also have been a focal point in the vocational behavior literature dealing with person-environment fit The two best known approaches to person-environment fit have been Holland’s (1985) typological theory and the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist 1984). Person- environment fit has been shown to have positive outcome implications for job involvement (Blau, 1987), job satisfaction and tenure (Bretz & Judge, 1994), organizational commitment (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989), individual health and adaptation (Moos, 1987), and work attitudes (Smart, Elton, & McLaughlin, 1986).
Current research on the Theory of Work Adj'ustment has focused on the dynamic interaction between individuals and their occupational environments (Lawson, 1993).
The theoretical foundations and the related research suggest that individuals will seek out, find contentment in, and thrive in environments that support their specific preferences (Bretz & Judge, 1994). In other words, those who fit their environment will thrive.
What is not considered in these general beliefs about professional identity is a sociocultural perspective, which considers learning to teach as a highly complex process that is very personalized and contextualized. Within a sociocultural framework preservice teachers are perceived as developing meaning from outside mfluences. Learning to teach, is actively constructed by the preservice teacher; it is not passively received from the environment. The development of a professional identity
44 is a process of adaptation based on and constantly modified by the preservice teachers’ experience of the world. Even this specific, pre-existing body of knowledge that preservice teachers acquire in education course work (i.e., critical thinking, interpersonal skills, conflict resolution, technology skills) cannot be known except through the preservice teachers’ own experiences and perceptions.
From a sociocultural perspective, most of the literature about general beliefs omits perhaps the most influential element in developing a teaching identity: It does not address the experiences had by preservice teachers or the beliefs that preservice teachers held prior to entering a teacher education program. A sociocultural
perspective would acknowledge preservice teachers’ own schooling experiences as
particularly influential in forming early theories about teachers and teaching. In
addition, these general beliefs do not address how issues such as ethnicity, race, and
society impact on a teaching identity.
Becoming a teacher is a complex and personalized process that involves the
social construction of a teaching identity within multiple contexts. Despite the
existence of a large amoimt of literature on learning to teach, regular reviews have
repeatedly highlighted an inability to draw any firm conclusions about how preservice
teachers construct meaning about teaching and learning and developing a teaching
identity (e.g.. Carter, 1990; Fehnan-Nemser and Remillard, 1996).
While no firm generalizations are applicable across all education contexts for
all preservice teachers, there is a rich and diverse knowledge base that informs
preservice teacher education programs and helps to create a profile of the various ways
that professional teaching identities are shaped. Much of the current literature
45 indicates that the process of learning to teach is strongly influenced by issues of identity and background understandings that preservice teachers bring with them to their teacher education programs. The three sociocultural issues that I surmise as paramount for my study are (a) beliefs and experiences, (b) society, and (c) culture. In reviewing the literature, I find a distinct interrelatedness among these three influences.
They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
Beliefs and Experiences
The term “beliefs,” as used in this study, is derived from Green, and describes a proposition that is accepted as true by the individuals holding the belief (Green,
1971). The research suggest that beliefs about teaching and learning are well established by the time preservice teachers begin their formal teacher preparation
(Calderhead &. Robson, 1991). These beliefs are “tenacious and powerful” (Holt-
Reynolds, 1992, p. 344), relatively inflexible, and resistant to change (Pajares, 1992).
Pajares (1992) suggests that entrants to preservice teacher education courses are
“insiders” who already have a strong belief of what it means to be a teacher. He explains:
The classrooms of colleges of education, and the people and practices in them, difier little from classrooms and people they have known for years. Thus, the reality of their everyday lives may continue largely unafiècted by higher education, as may other beliefs. For insiders, changing conceptions is taxing and potentially threatening. These students have commitments to prior beliefs, and efforts to accommodate new informatioa and adjust existing beliefs can be nearly impossible, (p. 323)
46 The prior beliefs that preservice teachers hold stem from approximately 13 years of apprenticeship as teachers. They have 13 years of observation experience sitting in classrooms, learning and observing teaching before they even enter their professional training. Often these images and beliefs about teaching, as well as having been formed by prior schooling experiences, have been influenced by deeply seated stereotypes of teaching that pervade the wider culture. The tremendous impact of social and cultural influence positions preservice teacher education apart from other courses of professional preparation, and presents a particularly complex challenge for teacher educators. As Britzman (1991) concludes:
Prospective teachers, then, bring to their teacher education more than their desire to teach. They bring their implicit institutional biographies—the cumulative experience of school lives, which in turn inform their knowledge of the student’s world, of school structure, and of curriculum. All this contributes to well-worn and commonsense images of the teachers’ work and serves as the frame of reference for prospective teachers’ self-images, (p. 443)
From a sociocultural perspective these conceptions about teaching are based on the preservice teachers’ own experiences. Preservice teachers begin to develop beliefs about teaching from their experiences as an elementary student. These beliefs are somewhat modified by high school and college experiences, but often the high school and college experiences confirm the notions formed in elementary school.
Additionally, these beliefs are highly correlated with specific, intense memories of the students’ own learning experiences in elementary, high school, and college courses.
These powerfiil experiences often lead preservice teachers to believe that they know how to teach. For them, teaching is an action word, not something to be contemplated, studied, and reflected upon. Quite often, preservice teachers do not see learning to
47 teach as something that can be problematic. They frequently see themselves as “bom” or “natural” teachers who, through trial and error in the practicum classroom, will develop a repertoire of teaching techniques.
Traditional teacher education seems at times to have little impact on the beliefs and experiences that preservice teachers bring to their professional training. The function of teacher education often has been to enculturate or assimilates students into the subculture of schools. Often, enculturation and assimilation are avenues for
“learning” how to teach. Traditional teacher education programs, at times “[pose] the process of becoming a teacher as no more than an adaptation to the expectations and directions of others and the acquisition of predetermined skills—both of which are largely accomplished through imitation, recitation, and assimilation” (Britzman, 1991, p. 29). Knowledge is conceived of as a commodity to be transferred to student teachers, who, in turn, are viewed as empty receptacles. This form of functional socialization serves the interests of cultural transmission and social reproduction
(Britzman, 1991). What are not addressed are the preservice teachers’ initial belief systems about learning to teach and how these beliefs system interact with experience in the teacher education program to create a system of meaning.
Significant development that includes belief changes occurs in those teacher education programs that operate within a more constructivist orientation, where preservice teachers examine their own beliefs and then build upon them (Wideen,
Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The sociocultural view adheres to principles that view
48 the learner as actively constructing knowledge. From this perspective, knowledge is not passively received fiom the environment, but, rather, is a process of adaptation based on, and constantly modified by, a learner's experience of the world.
But these principles may be stumbling blocks for preservice teachers. Many preservice teachers have been indoctrinated with a belief system that tells them there is a “right answer” or “right solution” to all problems. Britzman (1991) identifies this belief as a cultural myth. This myth supports the belief that everything depends on the teacher, thus reinforcing teacher control and traditional concepts about “instilling knowledge” (Britzman, 1991, p. 444). In this model, the teacher is an expert, which reinforces the notion of certainty. Presetvice teachers sometimes seem to believe that knowledge is located only in textbooks.
I believe that the strength of a sociocultural perspective for teacher education is encapsulated in its principles. To relate this to the learning of teaching, I believe that a sociocultural perspective suggests that if there is some independent, preexisting body
of knowledge, we cannot know it except through our own experience, and that we can
know only what we ourselves have constructed, then modified according to further
experience.
A sociocultural orientation invites preservice teachers to understand how their
belief systems impact how they teach. By understanding their own belief systems they
hopefully will begin to develop a contextualized approach to teaching that draws upon
the cultural worlds of their students and makes sense in those worlds. When
49 preservice teacher education programs operate from this perspective, they also emphasize the idea that knowledge is not discovered in an independent, preexisting world outside of the mind of the knower.
Rival (1996) quotes Lave (1988): “Everyday practice is a more powerful source of socialization than intentional pedagogy ” Preservice teachers, even before beginning their teacher education experience, have experiences that socialize and
orient them to certain choices of interpretation from their traditional schooling and
their personal lives. Then, in their college years, it is likely that they experience the
traditional lecture model of teaching with minimal pupil participation in their
particular area of concentration. When this occurs, preservice teachers are denied
opportunities and experiences that might change their preconceived notion about
teaching and learning. Consequently, the occupational hazard of being a student
within the traditional model for so many years appears to breed conservatism and
resistance to change.
Lottie (1975) refers to the “apprenticeships of experience.” These are
experiences that students arrive at based on their own experiences as students.
Britzman’s (1991) case studies of two student teachers indicate that they held
powerful perceptions of the position of teachers, perceptions that were both positive
and negative. Britzman suggests that these perceptions profoundly afiected the
student teachers’ classroom performances. For example, if preservice teachers’ school
experiences were positive ones and they had teachers who nurtured their self-esteem,
they may see this teaching style as one they want to adopt for other children. If
however, their experiences were negative, they may come to identify with teaching by
50 constructing a teaching identity deliberately different firom those of teachers prominent in their own educational biography. Thus, like one of the teacher in Brit 2man’s 1991 study, unfavorable aspects associated with, her owu schooling seemed to form her initial views, but also led her to believe that things could and should be different.
Beginning student teachers bring into the program “some general conceptions of the teacher’s task,” which is a result of their long apprenticeship as students in schools (Calderhead, 1988, p. 52). Calderhead suggests that these conceptions of teaching that accompany student teachers might explain the “unquestioning confidence” some students exhibit and the view of teaching as “an extended form of parenting” (Calderhead, 1988, p. 52). In a survey of more than 400 elementary preservice teachers. Book, Byers, and Freeman (1986) found that many preservice teachers viewed teaching as a form of parenting. These studies suggest that student teachers exhibit an emphasis on the nurturing, rather than on the intellectual development, of children—an emphasis that, in turn, impacts future teachers’ identities. Commonconceptions or images of themselves as teachers that students possess are those of guide, friend, and confidant, which usually are derived from memories of good teachers. Images of teaching represent not only knowledge about teaching, but also “act as models for action” (Calderhead & Robson, 1991, p. 3).
Experience is socially constructed within cultural contexts. Experience reflects the meanings and values implicit and explicit in particular ways of life. Personal experiences are one way that preservice teachers’ teaching identities are shaped.
Personal experiences include aspects of life that impact the formation of a teaching identic and are linked to personal, familial, and cultural understandmgs. Many
51 personal experiences may affect beliefs and shape teaching identities. Clandinin
(1986) proposes that personal experience be fixed in images that affect practice.
Clandinin’s study used metaphors such as “classroom as home” and “language as the key” to conceptualize teachers’ personal practical knowledge and their classroom practices. In another study, metaphors such as “teacher as parent,” “teacher as butterfly,” and “teacher as chameleon” are used to explore preservice teachers’ personal teaching experiences (BuUough, 1991).
Whorf (1956) quotes Sapir: “We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation” (p. 374). For example, it is feasible that preservice teachers who have parents who are teachers seem to have schemas of teacher education, while preservice teachers who do not have parents who are educators do not have these schemas. Not only are these knowledge and experience schemas meaningful, but they also provide a stronger pedagogical firamework to build upon, because of the cultural production that takes place during everyday “dinner talk” or family socialization.
Vygotsky’s (1978) comparison of everyday life and scientific concepts observed that concepts of everyday life are constructed firom the bottom up and vicariously through shared experiences. Preservice teachers who have parent/teachers know the salient points that are discovered in commodities they assimilate informally. These preservice teachers are given opportunities to visit classrooms with their parent/teacher and to infonnally leam “school,” sometimes even before entering grade school themselves. They receive a language symbol system of cultural resources that aids them in responding to the structural condition of the teaching and learning
52 profession. These “advantaged” preservice teachers come to schools of education with, experiences rich in content and concepts heard in their everyday life. On the other hand, preservice teachers who do not come from environments where parents are teachers, do not have access to this knowledge. They obtain their concept formation on purely linguistic levels. Consequently, they must begin their course work (such as the freshman course Foundations in Education) by overcoming ignorance about specific concepts of teacher education.
Bourdieu’s (1977) concepts of “cultural competence” and “cultural capital” refer to “the totality of the private, subjective view of the world and its contents that each human develops out of personal experience” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 251). This personal experience is comparable to the advantages possessed by preservice teachers whose parents are teachers. These advantaged preservice teachers’ everyday, home environment gives them access to more cultural competence in the field of education, and this, is turn, becomes cultural capital, because they have access to the linguistic capital of the educational field.
A sociocultural perspective of teacher education understands that the experiential effects of personal life, previous schooling, and student teaching are more powerfiil in building conceptions of teaching than the formal, pedagogical education received in teacher education programs. Wolcott’s (1994) concept of “propriospect,” a personal version of culture, is an apt description of what develops out of the entirety of preservice teachers’ school experiences. These experiences have tremendous impact on professional identity. Reflection upon and comprehension of propriospect is very informative for preservice teachers. From a sociocultural perspective,
53 preservice teachers become aware that propriospect is the sum of their total cultural knowledge and skills, and they are given opportunities to analyze their experiences and build upon them. Teacher educators assist preservice teachers’ understanding of how propriospect is all of the aspects of their identity, and how the concept affects their teaching. This understanding helps preservice teachers discover that not only does the process of teaching change or add to their propriospect, but that they are constantly reconstructing who they are in relation to the people they teach. This is a scary concept for preservice teachers, who generally have beliefs and experiences that
a£5rm the ideas that the teacher is in charge and that there is a right answer and right
solution for every problem. This personal vision is a private and subjective view of
the classroom. It is not neat, but implicit and personally defined. Sapir (1934)
adhered to this belief that culture it is not something that can be given, but rather it is
gradually and grippingly discovered. There are many social constructs that impact this
view. Every preservice teacher’s course of exploring the culture of the teaching
profession is unique.
Beliefs and experiences make the preparation of teachers so different from the
preparation of professionals in other fields. Physicians, lawyers, architects, and other
professions have very little personal history with reference to these professions to
bring to the formal study. The influence of 12-plus years of observing and
participating in school and university classroom introduces a conflict unique to teacher
education.
These experiences lead to the development by preservice teachers of a body of
values, attitudes, and practices, which include well-developed and often highly
54 entrenched ideas about what constitutes good teaching and learning (Clarke, 1988;
Pajares, 1992). Crow (1987) and Holt-Reynolds (1992) suggest that the attitudes and beliefs formed about teaching from these experiences result in a kind of “filter” through which preservice teachers view the theoretical content in teacher training.
The years spent in school as a student have been theorized to provide influential social contacts for potential teachers (Lawson, 1983), and as they wimess the everyday tasks of teaching they come to develop beliefs about the attitudes, skills, and responsibilities of those who teach. A sociocultural perspective will assist preservice teachers in identifying these values, attitudes, and practices and to understand the complexities of society and culture. This perspective will help preservice teacher make sense of their world. It will also give them a powerful tool to use when disequilibrium occurs in the classroom setting.
Society
Societies differ widely in the degree to which they esteem teachers and to which teaching is viewed as a critical profession for a society’s welfare and progress.
It would appear that teaching, as a profession, is not highly regarded in the culture of
American society. One measure of esteem is the financial support available for teachers’ salaries. Salaries certainly influence individual’s decision to become a teacher and to remain a teacher.
This attitude is also mterconnected with and related to the issue of gender.
Apple (1987) suggests that “we have built whatever excellence we have in schools on the backs of the low-paid labor of a largely women’s work force” (p. 73). Tyack and
55 Hansot (1990) indicate that women were welcomed in teaching because they accepted less pay thaa men did. Walsh (1995) observes: “They were a captive labor force, politically powerless, without opportunities for work m other fields, without suf&age, without even the right to own property” (p. 48).
Walsh (1995) believes many Americans esteem the self-made man, and that media and literature perpetuate a debasing picture of teachers, which leads society as a whole to diminish their work. According to Feiman-Nemser and Floden (1989),
“teaching is typically portrayed as an occupation largely devoid of extrinsic rewards”
(p. 510). Teachers in Biklen^s (1983) study resented teaching’s low social status and wanted recognition for their hard work.
It seems doubtful that preservice teachers are not aware of the low status and salaries afforded the teaching profession. For example, most likely they have been exposed to the ramifications of teacher strikes. Strikes are a degrading experience for teachers. To the preservice teachers, however, they may be viewed as a powerful, socially constructed message about what teachers have to do in order to get adequate compensation for their work.
The teaching profession seems always to be tmder the microscopic lens of the
media, as educators are held personally responsible for low test scores and many of
society’s problems. Preservice teachers are aware of these observations and interpret them in ways that can cause feelings of professional inadequacy, unless they are
presented with opportunities to discuss and analyze them.
56 Culture
A sociocultural perspective would enable preservice teachers to discern that they carry their personal cultural backgrounds into the college setting and the classroom setting, backgrounds that influence their perception of professors, other classmates, and the college itself. Through a sociocultural lens, preservice teachers would begin, to develop awareness that they perceive students with inevitable prejudice and preconceptions. Together, students and teachers “construct, mostly without being conscious of doing it, an environment of meanings enacted in individual and group behaviors, of conflict and accommodation, rejection and acceptance, alienation and withdrawal” (Spindler & Spindler, 1994, p. xii).
A sociocultural perspective also would help preservice teachers become cognizant of how culture influences self-perception. Spindler and Spindler (1994) define this as “cultural therapy” (p. 13). This awareness of the influence of culture on self-perception will help preservice teachers to recognize their own culture as a source of potential bias. Recognition and conception of cultural bias would, in turn, lead to better teaching, because through this recognition preservice teachers would leam to use instruments of instructional competence without doing damage to their students.
Feistritzer (1986), in his demographic profile of preservice teachers, cites issues that are linked with cultural issues of identity and background experience that preservice students bring with them into the teacher education program. Ninety-three percent are Caucasian, 10 percent more than all higher education students. More than half of these students grew up m small rural towns or suburbs, few are fiom large.
57 urbaa areas. Most attend college fiiil time. The average age is 25, and a third of those who intend to teach elementary school are already married (Book & Freeman, 1986;
Brookhart 8c Freeman, 1992).
Despite continuing efforts to recruit and retain a diverse teaching force, the demographic profiles indicate that preservice teachers in the United States are still typically young, Euro-American, female, monolingual, and from lower- and middle- income backgrounds. However, the students they will someday teach tend to be from linguistic minority backgrounds and lower-income families. Cazden and Mehan
(1989) indicate that this disparity is particularly troublesome when teachers work to support language and literacy development. Learning is deeply rooted in cultural experience, and our society presents teachers with a broad and rich diversity of children whose cultural experience may differ considerably from their own. Yet, being members of the so-called “mainstream” and being tramed within a profession that is linguistically and socially homogenous, many teachers find themselves culturally isolated. They lack awareness of the cultural foundations of literacy in their own lives, as well as in the lives of others. It is difficult for them to investigate complex issues of race, culture, social class, and language diversity, because they have no experience base to draw from. Their traditional professional education typically does not foster in them a sense of culture as a dynamic process whereby people make meaning in contact with one another (McDiarmid & Price, 1990). Lottie's (1975) work argued that students’ prédispositions stand at the core of becoming a teacher, exerting a stronger influence than preservice training or later workplace factors. This
58 study is representative of the field of scholarship of teacher socialization that seeks to understand the process whereby an individual becomes a participating member of the society of teachers (Danziger, 1971).
Students experience fiîrmal and informal knowledge in their school subjects upon entering school, and often beforehand, depending on the type of family unit and society firom which they come. This formal knowledge impacts preservice teachers because the matter of learning to teach involves knowledge of subject matter, conceptions or beliefs about the nature of subject matter and how students learn it, and experiences with formal pedagogical knowledge that usually begin in preservice education programs. However, Lottie (1975) reports that traditional, formal, preservice training had less effect than the early experiences gained as a student in schools over an extended period of many years. Schempp (1989) suggests that preservice teachers will interpret early conceptions and use them in conjunction with experience, educational background, and workplace conditions to influence, not determine, their professional practice as a teacher. If an individual has a set of predispositions toward an object in the environment (e.g., mathematics, self, school, teacher, ethnic group, etc.), it is reasonable to expect that such predispositions would aSect the individual’s response to that object. For example, teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics and mathematics instruction represent a critical influence on their mathematics instructional practices and efiectiveness. Such attitudes may have direct bearing on the amount of time instructors devote to mathematics and to the specific methods of instruction they adopt.
59 Preservice teachers are simultaneously affected by multiple cultural influences
(with stronger impact from one or another of the influences at various times) that include their nationality, ethnicity, religion, and gender, to name just a few. Each preservice teacher may thus be considered multicultural. A sociocultural framework in schools of education assists preservice teachers to consider themselves to be comprised of hundreds of difference cultural influences.
Structure and Experiences in Teacher Education
A complex mix of social and cultural experiences and beliefs shape preservice teachers’ identities. A sociocultural framework looks at the social and cultural dynamics that develop from what preservice teachers bring to the teacher education program. Each preservice teacher’s course of exploring and learning about the teaching profession is unique. This development is an integrated and adaptive blend of many aspects. From a sociocultural framework, preservice teachers learn through both socialization and culture to adapt to their environment.
Although there are numerous factors in the teacher education program itself that impact upon professional identity, it seems to me that the two that are most significant are the field experience and pedagogy.
Field Experience
Scholars have discussed the difGculties of learning from field experience since the turn of the century. Dewey (1933), in his writings, often described the danger and promise of field experience as a contrast between (what he called) the apprenticeship
60 and the laboratory approaches to curriculum in. teacher education. In the apprenticeship approach, the short time available is used to give preservice teachers the practical skills required to conduct a smoothly running class. The laboratory approach is to use the available time to give students the theoretical principles necessary to understand the cultural, social, and ethical issues in teaching; how children leam; how curriculum decisions might be guided; and how students’ cognition might influence teaching.
From a traditional perspective, the field experience, or practicum, is seen as an
important test of and further development in professional identity. From this
viewpoint, the main function of field experience is to link theory to practice by direct
engagement with students in the classroom (Cruickshank & Armaline, 1986; Rubin,
1989). Field experience is also seen as the most significant occasion in a preservice
teacher’s training to acquire new knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Richardson-
Koehler, 1988; Turney, 1988; Zeichner, 1986). From a traditional perspective, field
experience has consistently been valued by both preservice and in-service teachers as
the most important aspect of their professional training (Batten, Griffin, & Ainley,
1991). Hoy and Rees (1977) assert that the culture of most traditional preservice
teachers’ classroom experience tends to place management at the center of teaching,
possibly at the expense of student learning. It seems difficult to get away firom this
mindset, because many cooperating teachers, principals, and even college supervisors
evaluate preservice teachers by how much, “control” they exhibit in the classroom.
A sociocultural perspective also values the field experience. But firom the
sociocultural perspective, the student teaching experience is viewed as the ideal time
61 &r potential teachers to reconstruct their beliefs, knowledge, and practices in line with
the reality of the classroom. This perspective gives preservice teachers the
opportunity to feel more in control of and responsible for the classroom in which they
are teaching. By validating preservice teachers’ ideas and allowing them expression, a
message is sent that preservice teachers’ soon-to-be “professional opinion” is
respected and important They begin to know that they can contribute something
valuable to the learning process. This perspective shifts the responsibility for building
understanding onto the preservice teacher, consequently making it the responsibility of
the teacher educator to act as a facilitator, coach, and mediator of a learning process.
Some of the common themes that emerge from reviewing studies of the impact
of field experience center on a lack of communication and the failure of the field
experience to address the primary tasks of preservice teachers when placed in the
school setting. These tasks should partially involve confirming and validating the
image of self as teacher, acquiring knowledge of students and using it to modify the
image of self as teacher, questioning the appropriateness of personal beliefs in the
school setting, and acquiring management and instructional procedures which become
automated with experience. Researchers such as Zeichner and Tabachnick (1985)
argue that the effect of teacher training appears to “come undone” when preservice
teachers enter the school setting. The transition from training to teaching is a reality
shock during whicli the “missionary ideal”—a rather altruistic view of a teacher
making a difference to individual children and ultimately to society that is sometimes
62 formed during teacher training—collapses under the harsh reality of the classroom.
Veenmann (1984) believes this loss of the “missionary ideal" is a strong contributor to some preservice teachers’ ultimate disillusionment.
The traditional perspective would say that a possible reason for this failure is the time frame of the practicum. Many times this experience is only a few weeks in length and does not have a guided, structured set of experiences designed to encourage preservice teachers to acquire the necessary skills and procedures. Consequently, in a substantial amount of traditional field experience, the culture fosters a “group management’ orientation, in contrast to an “intellectual leader” orientation in preservice teachers’ thinking about their work. Too much emphasis on learning from experience appears to reinforce “reflexive conservatism” (Lortie, 1975, p. 232), and makes it more difficult to see the range of possible decisions and actions available in teaching.
A sociocultural perspective, on the other hand, would argue that the time frame is not adequate to allow preservice teachers to reflect on their beliefs and practices.
This reflection would lead to a common knowledge base and academic language that school personnel, university and preservice teachers understand and use to assist professional development and socialization. Through a sociocultural perspective, preservice teachers would develop awareness that neither their individual culture, nor the group culture in the classroom, is static, that, instead, cultural identity is dynamic and always changing.
Preserve teachers thus seem to think that there is one “magic” way of teaching.
They have been trained as technocrats and they have developed blinders to alternative
63 ways of teaching. If they had an understanding of a sociocultural perspective, this view of “inconsistency” would not baffle them. They would leam to develop an understanding of the complexities of culture. But they would not view that as chaotic.
A sociocultural perspective would help them to make sense of their world, to develop confidence in their own professional identity.
Tabachnick, et ai. (1979-1980), found that the culture of the traditional university seminar that accompanies student teaching reinforced the tendency to concentrate on the mastery of technique and management, rather than encouraging careful examination of experience. Traditional seminar experiences all too often focus upon how things are to be done in classrooms. For example, preservice teachers are continually reminded that they need to get along if they want good recommendations for their job placement folder. The agenda for the student tgaching seminars are determined months in advance (and are the same every year). This limited form of planning does not encourage creative thought. In addition, the university-originated discussions tend to accept ongoing patterns and beliefs rather than encouraging responsibility and reflection. Traditional seminars encourage acquiescence and conformity to school routines.
The content of supervisory conferences also legitimizes existmg classroom priorities. The success of the student teaching experience is largely dependent on how well preservice teachers can mold themselves to the cooperating teaching form of the instruction and belief system. Techniques are treated as being an end to themselves.
From a sociocultural perspective, the field experience impact is dependent on prospective teachers being properly prepared to leam from it. This condition would
64 begin, to develop from an understanding of the classroom culture. A sociocultural perspective would encourage preservice teachers to develop a “cultural lens” through which to examine what is occurring in the classroom. This framework would help preservice teachers understand that the curriculum they plan and perceive is not necessarily what is constructed in each class, or what is perceived by the students they are teaching. As Nanda (1987) asserts, cultures are learned, shared, changing, and variable. Understanding the culture within any given class requires an understanding of the class as a separate mini-culture within the context of a larger school culture with norms and expectations, rights and obligations, and roles and relationships for its group members. If preservice teachers are empowered to view these changes from a sociocultural framework, then when changes occur because of social interaction and discourse in the classroom, the preservice teachers will have the ability to renegotiate their classroom dynamics. They would not be plunged into dismay by changes they did not anticipate.
A sociocultural framework would provide preservice teachers with, a framework that emphasizes the way theoretical concepts from psychology, curriculum, and sociology and cultures are played out in classrooms. They would begin to ask the question, “What is happening here?” and to look through a cultural lens to see and examine the event more deeply, beyond the techniques and event themselves.
Osborne (1996) contends that “this failure to impress on preservice teachers the centrality of these issues leaves them ül equipped to understand society and the communities they work in and, hence, ill equipped to serve the needs of all our nations’ children” (pp. 291-292).
65 A sociocultural framework explores the situated nature of the survival of the preservice teacher from an interactive social and cultural perspective. This perspective understands that the survival of a preservice teacher rests on the ability to know, understand, interpret, perform, and produce in order to participate in socially
and culturally appropriate ways.
There can be no worthy reforms of teacher education unless preservice
teachers begin to understand it from a cultural perspective. These cultures are
elusive—they vary across persons, across educational institutions, and over time.
Pedagogy
The traditional study of pedagogy at the university is often viewed as having
limited importance for preservice teachers. The traditional culture of preservice
teaching supports a technical perspective more than a pedagogical inquiry. The
research framework that has been recognized since the 1970s has influenced a great
deal of information on everyday life in educational settings: There is researched-
based “efiective teaching.” Such an approach is based on a technical view of teaching
as an occupation. That research has gone so far as to claim that there is a scientific
basis—a body of experimentally generated and validated results—on which a
particular technique of efiective teaching can, and should, be based. This research
measures knowledge and attitude in search of some selected change, following one or
another instructional treatment The recent trends in the examination of standardized
test scores at the school level have also added to the decline of investigation of the
pedagogical teacher/training aspect of entrants to the occupation. Wolcott (1994) 66 determines that culture transmission has been the core concept of past anthropological and educational research, because it is easier to ignore diversity through this mode of study. It is politically safe to do that because the traditional political powers are calling for standardization of teaching practices and ideologies. Scribner and Cole
(1973) affirm that the emphasis is on “universal criteria, techniques, and standard performance” (p. 135).
Traditional teacher education supports preservice teachers being “taughf ’ the accepted techniques, as well as new tricks. The idea is to master all sorts of subject matter knowledge and skills of the trade. In a traditional settings, preservice teachers leam to be more open-minded about particular subjects, and more accepting of certain students. They leam set induction, active participation, and all manner of task analysis and objectives preparation. And they leam such things in a more or less efficient way through a variety of instructional formats.
In addition, cooperating teachers and college supervisors are often supplied with a checklist of “effective” behaviors to observe. These observers are able to look for and “see” isolated behaviors believed to have positive or negative effects in the classroom. What can be understood about the nature of the preservice teacher is determined to a large extent by the lens that is used to view what is being observed.
Traditional teacher educators examine the preservice teacher through behaviorist lenses.
Traditional teacher education is predisposed to social, cultural, and institutional constmction, while overlooking the totality of the preservice teacher’s context, where the meaning of the behaviors is interacted, negotiated, and constracted over time.
67 These contexts seem to be the counterpart of what Mehan (1995) referred to when he wrote about issues in education which justify the status quo. Lortie (1975) clearly shows that the traditional pedagogy for preservice teachers is heavy with cognitive experience that reinforces conservative, individualistic, and present-oriented intellectual tendencies. Lortie ponders “How to overcome the record of intellectual dependency” when “the ethos of the occupation is tilted against engagement in pedagogical inquiry” (p. 240). Levinson and Holland (1996) suggest that this type of preparation has intensified or sustained social inequalities in the schools, because it encourages preservice teachers to be concerned with requirements of discipline and conformity, rather than with the processes of empowerment.
A sociocultural framework will look at the structure of transforming young adults into teachers, and the way this structure supports or constrains the competency levels of preservice teachers. Within this perspective, teacher educators would spend time closely talking with preservice teachers about their perceptions regarding what they are learning. A sociocultural perspective would encourage an open-minded attitude toward receiving new information and asking new questions about what is happening and what factors influence the preservice teachers^ instructional processes.
Key to the conception of a sociocultural fimnework of pedagogy is the role that preservice teachers play in remaking or transforming the facts and concepts into an instructional representation that reflects both knowledge of the subject matter and of the learners at hand. The teacher educator coming from a sociocultural perspective would encourage preservice teachers to understand this role. Many preservice teachers imagine different ways to teach and ideas in the abstract. But that is only half
68 the issue. Powerful teaching and learning develops when teachers construct instructional representation that fits the particular learner at hand. A sociocultural perspective would emphasis reflection and change. By reflecting on what went well
(and not so well), preservice teachers would be led to new comprehension, a sense of what they might do the same or differently next time. In this way, their instruction practices will change and grow stronger.
The tension between the pragmatic apprenticeship and the more intellectual pedagogy has continued to be determined in favor of the technical, management approach. All too often, what preservice teachers do not leam or research, is the set of intellectual tools that would empower them to evaluate the quality of the education they are providing and the cultural framework of their classroom. A sociocultural perspective, however, understands that the issues of educational beliefs, experiences, gender, culture, and social status, as well as field experience and pedagogy, together play a pivotal role in the acquisition of a professional identity. Preservice teachers need to have opportunities to explore and understand how these issues impact their identity.
If this exploration does not take place, the result could be the perpetuation of antiquated, ineffectual teaching practices (Pajares, 1992). This gives rise to serious concern, given that familiarity supports cultural reproduction. Most students who choose to become teachers share positive identification with teaching, and this leads to the continuity of conventional practice and to reaffirming, rather than challenging, the past. In addition, the assessment of teachers and teaching formed by preservice teachers in childhood remains nearly intact, becoming a fairly unwavering conclusion
69 even as teachers grow into competent professionals, hi other words, preservice teachers’ assessment continues to be that what constituted good teaching then constitutes it now.
Cognitive Apprenticeship Model
To provide a context for the apprenticeship model, I wül discuss the (a) early theoretical development of the apprenticeship model, (b) current educational research supporting it, and (c) cognitive apprenticeship model’s design.
Early Theoretical Development
The apprenticeship model has existed fora long time and its formal development can be mapped out. The theoretical development of apprenticeship seems to show how the apprenticeship model possibly was influenced by early leaders of teaching and learning. For instance, during the mid-l9th century, Pestalozzi’s
(1746-1827) object-based teaching methods gained much acceptance throughout the
United States (Saettler, 1990). In his work, Pestalozzi argued that sensory instruction was critical in helping the individual develop to his or her fullest potential. He advocated the use of various “manipulatives” to help the learner acquire abstract concepts through concrete means, such as the use of blocks for the concept of number.
Beginning in 1809, various educational leaders adopted Pestalozzi’s emphasis on
object-oriented, hands-on learning activities. During his term as the president of
Harvard University (1869-1909), Charles W. Eliot stated that “...the absence of
70 sensory training ‘was the greatest defect in the kind of education which has come down upon us from the middle ages’ ” (Eliot, 1916, cited by Saettler, 1990, p. 40).
Pestalozzian schools achieved success in the mid- to late 19th century with the creation of the Oswego method. Based upon Pestalozzi’s work, this approach was created by a school superintendent of Oswego, New York, after he visited an educational museum in Canada. From this institution he brought home a set of object- based teaching materials with which he redesigned his curriculum. Unfortunately, the objects used were not always appropriate and were of limited variety, and the movement declined by 1875.
At this time, a new approach was employed, one which utilized more varied learning materials. For example, in order to leam about erosion, the students formed hills in a sandbox and poured water on them. The emphasis was on the natural sciences and on placing the learner within the environment by providing experience with authentic objects and phenomena “instead of books and museums” (Saettler,
1990, p. 41). This approach began to decline by the early 20th century.
Another influence for the formal development of the apprenticeship model may have come from Froebel (1782-1852). A disciple of Pestalozzi, Froebel’s philosophy stressed the importance of allowing students to explore and to leam by doing, i.e., through the active manipulation of objects.
Dr. Maria Montessori’s (1870-1952) work reached the United States in the early 1900s (Ward, 1971). She stressed the importance of freedom, social harmony, responsibility, and concrete, authentic experiences. She faulted the established school system as having “..identified immobility with order and goodness, and mobility with
71 disorder and naughtiness, and that they have overvalued sight and hearing, and undervalued the tactile-muscular activities” (Ward, 1971, p. 55). With regard to examining objects, she stated: “ ‘Don’t touch’ is an easy thing to say and is often a protection for bric-a-brac china, but one might as well say to a child, ‘Don’t grow.
Don’t leam, don’t try to understand’ ” (Ward, 1971, p. 59). It was her belief that students realized their innate desire to leam through their self-directed exploration of developmentally appropriate manipulatives (Ward, 1971; Montessori, 1912).
Perhaps the strongest influence on the apprenticeship model came fi:om Dewey
(1916), who argued that students need to approach new concepts through the manipulation of and experimentation with objects. Dewey stated that thinking,
“...divorced fi:om action and from learning about ourselves and our world...is of questionable merit” (1916, p. 159). As the following quote indicates, Dewey advocated the creation of real-world problems and experiences to guide and motivate learning:
...[Tjhe first stage of contact with any new material, at whatever age of maturity, must inevitably be of the trial and error sort. An individual must actually try, in play or work, to do something with material in carrying out his own impulsive activity, and then note the interaction of his energy and that of the material employed. This is what happens when a child at first begins to build with blocks, and it is equally what happens when a scientific man in his laboratory begins to experiment with unfamiliar objects. Hence the first approach to any subject in school, if thought is to be aroused and not words acquired, should be as unscholastic as possible. To realize what an experience, or empirical situation, means, we have to call to mind the sort of situation that presents itself outside of school; the sort of occupations that interest and engage activity in ordinary life. And careful inspection of methods which are permanently successful in formal education, whether in arithmetic or learning to read, or studying geography, or learning physics or a foreign language, will reveal that they depend...upon the fact that they go back
72 to the type of the situation, which causes reflection, out of school ia ordinary life. They give the pupils something to do, not something to leam; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional noting of connections; leaning naturally results. (1916, pp. 160-161)
The first approach to a subject (such as action research) should be realized as an experience. As Dewey so explicitly puts it, “They [the experiences] give the pupils something to do, not something to leam; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking, or the intentional noting of connections; learning naturally results”
(1916, pp. 160-161).
Dewey emphasized active learning that engaged both students and adults in authentic problems or activities. However, the traditional teacher education classroom
is sometimes unreceptive to the creation of such real-world experiences. Many times
teacher educators “talk the talk,” but do not “walk the walk” in this regard. We tell
preservice teachers that their classes should follow Dewey's (and others') model, but
often we do not follow this model in our own classes. Rather, we focus on teacher-
driven assignments, which emanate from the need to evaluate preservice teachers. As
a result, teacher education programs often can become disconnected from the real
world of teaching in schools. Such circumstances prevent schools of education from
maximizing informal experiences through formal inquiry, and cause newly certified
teachers to leave school with “half-understood and ill-digested material [which]
weakens vigor and efficiency of thought” (Dewey, 1916, p. 168). To help to solve this
problem, Dewey suggested that schools provide opportunities where students can
experience real-world phenomena and pursue their own problem-solving activities.
For example, using the apprenticeship model for teaching action research.
73 Piaget’s and Bruner’s teachings were also significant in building a foundation for the apprenticeship model for learning. Piaget’s work, which reached popularity in
1950s, stressed the importance of environmental stimuli for individual learning.
According to Piageatian philosophy, students go through four major stages in cognitive development through their experiences with objects in their environment.
While interacting with phenomena, students build and re-adjust mental schemata through the processes of accommodation and assimilation. Without this process, which is dependent upon environmental stimulation, the student cannot go through the four stages of development properly (Biehler& Snowman, 1990).
Bruner (1966) also stressed the relevance of the environment and of stages of cognitive development; however, he emphasized the importance of the learning process itself. Rather than spoon-feeding students the products of knowledge construction, he advocated approaches that required students to actively guide their own learning, and, thereby, leam how to leam.
Current Educational Research
Just as Bnmer, Piaget, and earlier educational philosophers supported the theoretical soundness of the apprenticeship mode, so are current educational researchers validating it. For example, the constractivist movement has been directly affecting the creation of authentic, hands-on learning environments where students are in control of their own mental processes. Constractivism maintains that students leam by doing, rather than by memorizing what others have done (Bednar, Cunningham,
Duffy, & Perry; 1991; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Cognition and Technology
74 Group at Vanderbilt, 199la). “At the heart of constructivism, is the notion that knowledge is constructed, which in the present instance means that our theoretical views are personal creations, embedded in a social context, within a social community that accepts the assumptions underlying the perspective” (Cunningham, 1991, p. 26).
As a result, constructivists argue that we cannot do away with learning from context
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;Resnick, 1987);that is, the knowledge we create cannot be separated from the context and the culture in which it was created. It seems that some traditional schools of education have de-contextuahzed learning, which has resulted in the creation of knowledge that can be remembered but which cannot be
utilized (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990). To help to
correct this, constructivists are calling for the creation of learning contexts and
cultures where students will be expected to apply the skills that they have learned.
Hodson and Hodson (1998) argue for a social constructivist view anchored in
the Vygotskian (1978) notion of education as enculturation into the beliefs, practices,
values, and style of discourse. For example, learning about action research and
learning to do action research requires an understanding of, and an ability to use
appropriately, a set of culturally defined methods for conducting inquiries and a set of
conventions and mode of discourse for presenting the results. Vygotslqf advocated
apprentice-like coaching. He believed that learning tasks should be situated in “zones
of proximal development” Just beyond what a student can accomplish alone, but not to
a level of impossibility. He advocated utilizing peer and teacher scaffolding to reach
suitable levels of engagement.
75 Jean Lave îs often credited with, staring the situated cognition movement, although, as I have shown in the preceding pages, its ideals are not new. Lave’s
(1988) situated cognition theory states that most learning occurs naturally through activities, context, and cultures. Schools often teach concepts that are unsituated, or removed from natural contexts and applications. Situated cognition is a theory of instruction which suggests that learning is naturally tied to authentic activity, context, and culture (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). It is more problematic to leam from contrived situations. However, for Lave, there is no formal instructive role for the experts or skilled practitioners. The cognitive apprenticeship model provides more stracture to the process.
Cognitive Apprenticeship Design
Cognitive apprenticeship is a model of learning based on the situated cognition theory. It provides practical steps for applying situated cognition theory. Situated
learning theory and the cognitive apprenticeship model are both rooted in proficiency being gained in the course of real context and by communicating with peers and experts about those contexts. Apprentice-like situations are situated in the natural
context. The idea is that apprentices leam to reason, act, and interact in increasingly
educated ways with, people who do something correctly, by doing it with them as justifiable, peripheral participants.
Rogoff (1990) proposes a formal, instraction-oriented apprenticeship model in
which, novices are systematically coached, guided, and supported by expert
practitioners. “Guided participation,” as she calls it, depends on communication and
76 aegotiatioa betweea teacher and learner about what new knowledge or skill is needed and how it can be made compatible with existing understanding and capability.
Rogoffs approach to apprenticeship is fixed in Vygotskian. theory. It necessitates that teachers (or other knowledgeable or skilled adults) provide guidance and coaching through the careful arrangement of appropriate curriculum materials and learning tasks, through modeling and demonstrating good practice, and through both tacit and explicit instruction as they participate in Joint learning activities and problem-solving with students. Teachers’ greater knowledge and skills enable them to assist students in applying familiar knowledge in unfamiliar contexts and employing unfamiliar knowledge in familiar contexts.
Positioning learning in authentic contexts is created in the concept of cognitive apprenticeships. This involves “...the development of concepts out of and through continuous authentic activity...[and] supports learning in the [relevant] domain by enabling students to acquire, develop, and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p. 99). That is, the learner mentors with a skilled expert who guides the learning process. As argued by socio-constructivists, the relationship with the expert is a key component of the learning process (Rogoff, 1990).
Apprenticeship learning is a means through which situated learning can occur, where apprentices are active participants in an activity, usually with an expert.
Apprentices’ process of learning, moves firom side-line observation to full participation in the activities of a community of practice, as the expert “fades” firom
77 engagement of the activity. The apprenticeship model is effective when teaching something like action, research, because the model lends itself well for the teaching of procedural knowledge and operational skills.
Theories of instruction are clearly tied to theories of learning. In general, instruction in a cognitive apprenticeship learning paradigm can be described as four overlapping stages:
1. The teacher models expert-like strategies involved in a task, where the expert performs and the student observes,
2. The teacher designs scaffolds to practice the skills and coaches the student, providing guidance and help, while the student tries to perform,
3. The teacher’s assistance is gradually withdrawn, and
4. The student engages in reflection, monitoring and reflecting on his or her own past performances.
Learning is a process that is surrounded by social contact. This contact may be in the form of rich “instructional conversations” (Lampert, 1986; Resnick, 1991) or it may be in the form of an apprenticeship relation with a person who possesses a skill.
This emphasis is based upon Vygotsky’s research describing a “zone of proximal developmenf ’ (1978) and the cognitive research of those such as Resnick (1991). In these perspectives, the interaction of the student with others is seen as a key component to building toward new knowledge or skills. Learning is student-centered, with the teacher, or other person with, skills, providing coaching, or “scaffolding,” to assist the student in moving toward the next level (e.g.. Resnick, 1989,1991).
78 Students who work cooperatively, both teaching and learning from each other, can exemplify this same learning process. In this way, students share the process of discovery as communities of learners (e.g.. Brown and Campione, 1990). In this particular study, the exchange of abilities, thoughts, and information allowed and required each preservice teacher to at times frmction as teacher and at other times
function as learner.
The apprenticeship model of learning incorporates the concept of collaboration
from the participants in a shared experience. Rogoff (1990), in her book
Apprenticeship in Thinkings has pointed out that a lot of work on social learning and socialization appears to rest on the assumption that the external lesson is brought
across a barrier into the mind of the student. She argues that knowledge and skills are
generated in an interpersonal context of joint activity in which the more experienced
lend guidance and support to novices. With that view there is no question of
knowledge somehow crossing a barrier from the outside to the inside. It is, rather, that
the know-how that is generated in social interaction is incorporated, in the course of
participants’ growth and development, into their own patterns of awareness and
response.
Rogoff believes that we should not think of novices as passive recipients of
knowledge, which somehow descends upon them from an authoritative source, but
rather that we should perceive them as participating actively and creatively in the
learning process by actually shaping the context in which it occurs and in which
knowledge is generated. The environment, including most importantly other people,
furnishes a rich, source of support for learning endeavors. Novices not only are
79 supported by, but also provide support for, one another, depending on their relative level of experience, and it is not just novices who leam, because the teacher also extends his or her skill in the course of guiding others in the activity at hand.
The apprenticeship model has the value of including more people than a single expert and a single novice; the apprenticeship system often involves a group of novices (peers) who serve as resources for one another in exploring the new domain, aiding and challenging one another. Among themselves, the novices are likely to diSer usefully in expertise as well. The “master,” or expert, is relatively more skilled than the novices, with a broader vision of the important features of the culturally valued activity. However, the expert, too, is still developing her breadth and depth of skill and understanding in the process of carrying out the activity and guiding others in it. Hence, the model provided by apprenticeship is one of active learners in a community of people who support, challenge, and guide novices as they increasingly participate in skilled, valued sociocultural activity.
From the apprenticeship perspective, the necessity for novices to talk with each other about their work cannot be overstated. As Rogoff notes, novices vary in their ability, and the development of “sub-apprenticeships” is extremely valuable when teaching a complex competency. Sometimes, peers are better able to understand the problem their peer is facing than the teacher is. They are more able to find explanations or provide models that resonate with the struggling studenL Quite often, students report that their inspiration for pushing through a difficult task came from a peer.
80 The apprenticeship model has been around for a very long time and. is ubiquitous across cultures. It is only in recent times, in industrialized nations, that
formal education has materialized as the foremost way to teach children. Collins,
Brown, and Newman provide a articulate rationale on the necessity for the
apprenticeship model in schools:
Only in the last century, and only in industrialized nations, has formal schooling emerged as a widespread method of educating the young. Before schools appeared, apprenticeship was the most common means of learning and was used to transmit the knowledge required for expert practice m fields fiom painting and sculpting to medicine and law. Even today, many complex and important skills, such as those required for language use and social interaction, are learned informally through apprenticeship-like methods—that is, methods not involving didactic teaching, but observation, coaching, and successive approximation. (1989, p. 453)
CONCLUSION
This chapter has dealt with the aspects of research that emerged in this study as
critical to the process of preservice teachers learning how to do action research and to
my understanding of learning how to teach action research. There were three broad,
overall topics presented in this literature review. The first was a presentation and
overview of the qualitative research paradigm, and of definitions of and distinctions
among action research, teacher research, and teacher reflection in the qualitative
research paradigm. The second was a discussion of the sociocultural issues related to
preservice teachers' identity. Third was a discussion of the cognitive apprenticeship
model for teaching.
Subtopics in this review of literature included general beliefs about
professional identity, impact of beliefs and experiences, and the structure and
81 experience in teacher education m the area of sociocultural issues related to teaching identity. In the area of cognitive apprenticeship the subtopics were early theoretical development of the apprenticeship model, current educational research supporting it, and a description of the model.
Although these areas were discussed separately in this chapter, they were observed as interdependent elements throughout this study.
82 CHAPTERS
METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
I had two purposes in this study. The first was to look at how a group of preservice teachers construct beginning identities as researchers. The second was to look at my own understanding of how to teach action research to preservice teachers.
I believed that teaching action research to preservice teachers would better prepare them for the never-ending changes that are thrust upon teachers, not only in the name of school reform, but also as a result of the day-to-day instructional decisions that arise in the classroom setting. I wanted to help them leam to analyze and evaluate these changes and decisions on their own and not just accept mandates because an administrator deems that a particular change is necessary. These future middle level
83 teachers would make choices concerning their instruction, and I wanted them to be prepared with, tools that would help them to make pedagogically sound choices. I believe that action research is one such tool.
There is little research on the attitudes and perceptions that preservice teachers initially bring to learning about action research, or how they work through their feelings and assumptions about their abilities to do research. This study will shed new light on preservice teachers’ perceptions of action research. In addition, this study provides an example of how to model the action research process while teaching a course on action research.
Rationale for Action Research Design
I used an action research methodology because one aspect of action research that was useful for me in this study was the emergent character of this approach to research. I wanted to facilitate change in my teaching, and what I learned from my research helped me to facilitate that change. Aspects of action research are tweaked
“on the run” to account for the increasing understanding of the researcher. Action
research takes shape gradually, and its cyclic nature allowed me to leam from the
research and to change instruction in light of these new understandings.
Action research is intended to have both action and research outcomes. It is
intentionally a solution-oriented inquiry that is group or personally owned and
conducted. Spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection,
reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition
characterize it. The linking of the terms “action” and “research” highlights the
84 essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis &
McTaggart, 1982). Action research actively involves participants in research: It is action and research. It seeks to achieve these two aims continuously.
The purpose of action research is, according to John Elliott, "concerned with the everyday practical problems experienced by teachers, rather than the ‘theoretical problems’ defined by pure researchers within a discipline of knowledge” (Elliott, cited in Nixon, 1989). Research is designed, conducted, and implemented by the teachers themselves to acquire knowledge about ways to improve teaching in their own classrooms, sometimes becoming a staff development project in which teachers establish expertise in curriculum development and reflective teaching.
Action research has had continuing attention since the 1950s. Advocates of action research argue for various goals and purposes: (a) to reform teacher education
(Clift, Veal, Johnson, & Holland 1990), (b) to promote school reform (Hursh, 1995),
(c) to change teaching practice (Bumaford, Fischer, & Hobson, 1996), (d) to promote
professional development (Oja & Smulyan, 1989), (e) to create social change (Carr,
1986; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988), (f) to make schools and society more democratic
(Stevenson & NofEke, 1997), and (g) to view teaching itself as a form of inquiry
(Elliott, 1985). While these approaches have different orientations, they hold a
number of assumptions in common, including the emergent and cyclical nature of
action research, the value of collaboration, and the potential of action research to
create change. These similarities and differences informed my teaching and research.
85 A few studies have beea conducted on teachers’ perceptions of outcomes of action research, including their experiences doing research (McCutcheon, 1987) and the outcomes from teaching a course (Bennett, 1994). There is little research, however, on the attitudes and perceptions teachers initially bring to action research, or on how they work through these feelings (often insecurities) and assumptions (often misperceptions) about their abilities to do research.
A study that I was involved in at The Ohio State University helped to inform my study. In the OSU study eight doctoral students and a university professor co taught a summer course on action research. This research analyzed our personal
experiences and learning, as well as the growth in the understanding of our students
(Bendau, Covert, Dyer, Christenson, Johnston, Risko, & Slutsky, 1999). There were
30 M.A. students in the class. The goal in this research was to demonstrate the kind of
inquiry we were advocating in a course we taught on action research. We designed an
action research project to study this course as a way to demonstrate for our students
the value of action research. We studied their perceptions and understandings while
we taught the course. We analyzed our data and used the results to think critically
about our teaching. We shared our research methods and analyses with our students as
a model of the purposes and methodologies used in action research.
Most of the students in this class were practicing teachers. My study ofiers a
diffèrent perspective, in that the students are preservice teachers, which sheds new
light on preservice teachers’ perceptions of action research.
In addition, my study allowed me to look at my instruction as an action in
order to become a better teacher. Cycles within cycles allowed for new
86 understandings to be applied to the total picture, both to broad-brush design and to fine-grain detail. Teachers, like myself, who engage in action research believe that individual teachers, in their classrooms, are in the best position to reflect on their practice. We believe a systematic application of a cyclical form of reflection, and adaptation of methods as a result of that reflection, are the most effective ways of improving existing practice.
Participants and Setting
My study was done in a natural setting (McGee-Brown, 1995; Gall, Borg, &
Gall, 1996) because the “phenomena of study, whatever it maybe—physical, chemical biological, social, psychological—take their meaning as much from their contexts as they do from themselves” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 189). Thus, one caimot separate him/herself from the world he/she lives in or has experience in, and all observations made are dependent on the time and context in which they are viewed (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). As Rossman and Rallis (1998) conclude, a natural setting allows the researcher to use multiple methods to see how participants interact and engage in a real-life context that has real-life meaning.
The participants in my study were students in the course EDU 308 at Mount
Vernon Nazarene College in Mount Vernon, Ohio. Founded in 1968, Motmt Vernon
Nazarene College is a coeducational, liberal arts college with a solid evangelical
Christian foundation and mission, and strong emphasis is placed on Judeo-Christian values. The motto of the college is “To seek to leam. is to seek to serve.” The majority of the student body at MVNC are Nazarene and, for the most part, are 87 respectfiü, polite, and well-mannered. Rarely is there any sort of uprising against the establishment. In fact, 1 am not aware of this ever having happened. The students’ unswerving courtesy and respect, and their apparent unwillingness to rebel, seem uncommon in a collegian atmosphere. The college years are usually the time when young people protest many things and are free to speak out about what is troubling them. The religious orientation of the college may account for these differences.
MVNC’s total student population is about 2,000, and approximately 700 of the students are education majors. Course EDU 308 is a required curriculum course for middle level students who are seeking teacher certification in grades 4-8. The study of action research was an assignment in this course. This population for the 3 credit-hour semester course (which met twice a week for one and one-half hours) was stable: The students were juniors and over the age of 18, and the study participants were volunteers from within this group. In addition, I had had all of these students in another class, a freshman-level, 3 credit-hour course called Foundations of Education, and I had had one other student in a 2 credit-hour Diversity course the previous semester. Furthermore, I was the academic advisor for four out of the eight students.
The proposed research met the criteria for exemption from IRB because the research was conducted in an established educational setting and involved normal educational practice.
Questions
Most research, whether qualitative or quantitative, begins with, questions
(Janesick, 1994; Graue & Walsh, 1998). The kmd of perspective/approach a
88 researcher assumes will be decided by his/her questions (Field & Morse, 1991; cited from Morse 1994). The researcher’s perspective affects the kinds of answers to the study one will get, further impacting what he/she will leam about the world and the people in it (Morse, 1994). My research began with questions I had about my practice—the teaching of a course on action research. I had two questions in mind as I began the study:
Question 1. How does an apprenticeship model for action research serve as a vehicle for shaping how a group of preservice teachers construct beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research?
Question 2. How does my action research in this course influence my own understanding of how to teach the course? What changes occurred in the course as a result of my understanding?
Data Collection and Analysis
I was the primary instrument of data collection and analysis. Being the primary instrument allowed me to view the context within which my research occurred. It was through my data collection methods (observations, interviews, etc.), experiences, and insights that I learned about and understood the phenomenon being studied (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Being the primary instrument also gave me the freedom to clarify and summarize while collecting data and to pursue new ideas and lines of thought. A beginning degree of data analysis
89 occurred simultaneously with. coUectioa of the date. This provided the opportunity for member checks. The member check served to enhance the trustworthiness of my interpretations (Merriam, 1988).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) provide some key components as to why the researcher is the instrument of choice in any qualitative study:
1. The researcher as an instrument can respond to and sense all the personal and environmental clues that exist, allowing him/her to interact directly with the situation and to get a better sense of in
2. The researcher is able to generate questions and hypotheses as data are being collected, and then immediately test those questions and hypotheses with the participants from whom they were generated.
3. The researcher can quickly summarize the data being collected and request feedback or clarification from the participants.
4. The researcher can pay close attention to the atypical/outliner response, which often tends to be discarded in quantitative research. By focusing on these atypical responses, the researcher can perhaps attain a better understanding of what is being studied than might be possible if these responses are ignored.
Data Collection
Several types of data were collected in this study. Data are defined as “actual objects ttat are entered into files and record that can be manipulated and coded in various ways” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The data I collected include:
90 L Pre-and post-surveys
2. Daily class feedback
3. Audiotapes recorded during individual guided interviews with, preservice teachers that volunteered
4. Audiotapes recorded during focus group interviews with each book discussion group
5. Field notes taken during book discussion groups.
6. Reflective journals
a. The researcher^s journal
b. The preservice teachers’ journals
Table 3.1 indicates the data collected, the time frame the data were collected
in, and the quantity of data collected.
91 Data Collected Time Frame Quantity of Data Collected Pre-surveys Oct. 31,2000 8 pre-surveys Post-surveys Dec. 14,2000 8 post-surveys
Class feedback Oct. 31-Dec. 7,2000 72 feedback notes
Guided interview Nov. 28,2000 5 audiotapes audiotapes Nov. 29,2000 Nov. 30,2000
Focus group Nov. 16,2000 2 audiotapes interview Nov. 21,2000 audiotapes
Field notes Oct. 31-Dec. 7,2000 II sets/observations
Preservice Oct. 31-Dec. 7,2000 88 journal entries teachers’ journals
Researcher’s Oct. 31-Dec. 7,2000 12 journal entries journal
Table 3.1 : Data coUectioa time frames and quantity.
92 la the following pages I will discuss how each of these data was collected and analyzed.
Pre- and Post-surveys
The survey can include a small number of open-ended questions that examine participants’ emerging belief systems regarding their thoughts of the role of a teacher as a researcher (McCracken, 1988). A survey reports the results of a study where data were collected by way of questionnaires or interviews. Surveys can either be observational, if no involvement or action occurred, or cart be used as pre-test and
post-test measures before and after some involvement or actiou(Alwin, 1978). This
approach simply means that some dimension is taken of the understanding of a group
before the involvement or action, and then re-taken after the involvement or action to
see if there is any difference.
r asked the preservice teachers to respond to the same open-ended questions in
the both the pre- and post-surveys (see Appendix A). 1 collected these surveys at the
beginning of my study and again at the end of my study. Comparing these pre- and
post-surveys provided the opportunity to explore how the students viewed themselves
as researchers at the onset and at the end of the course.
Daily Feedback
Additionally, I asked the students for daily feedback during the course. 1
asked: What is helping yon understand action research? What do you need more
93 clarifîcatioa on? I used these questions at the end of class to discover what the preservice teachers needed from me in order to adjust the course to better meet their needs.
I examined the feedback questions daily, typing them into and saving them on my computer. By looking at the feedback on a daily basis I was able to determine what changes I needed to make m my instruction in order to ensure that the preservice teachers were developing beginning skills as researchers. In addition, I shared with the preservice teachers how I used the daily feedback they gave me. If an area of content was unclear to them, I made changes in my instruction. I believe that asking for the students’ feedback helped to build trust between us, because they could see that
I valued their input and made changes based on that input.
Reflective Journals
The skill of reflective thinking is important in implementing action research.
Action research necessitates that the researchers have reflective skills. However, developing reflective skills is not a new notion. Dewey (1904) observed that it was not teachers’ belief in inference suggested by the context of their teaching that misguided practice. Rather, it was their failure to test the inferences. Schon(l983) identified the need to build this reflective process into the preparation of all professionals, including teachers:
The development of action science [research] cannot be achieved by researchers who keep themselves removed from the context of action, nor by practitioners who have limited time, inclination orcompetence for systemic reflection. Its development will require new ways of integrating reflective research and practice, (p. 320)
94 I asked the preservice teachers to write Journal entries to help develop the reflective skills necessary for action research. I believed that the reflective Journaling process would help the preservice teachers develop skills to take a broad view of what they were reading and learning.
1 also asked the preservice teachers to write a reflective Journal for each class reflecting critically on the readings, their evolving action research proposal, and/or what was going on in class.
The Journals also were also used for free-response writing. 1 thought that these writings would cover a wide range of topics and give me a broader perspective on what the preservice teachers were learning and thinking.
1 would transcribe these Journal entries after every class, looking for common themes. By typing these entries on the same day that they were collected, data were easily contextualized and it was possible to make preliminary interpretations. It also gave me the opportunity to get immediate feedback from the preservice teachers, as I was able to share my interpretations with them in a timely manner. They, in turn, were able to offer clarification and/or interpretations of their writing while it was still fresh in their minds. If I had delayed either of these two processes, my preliminary interpretations or the feedback from the preservice teachers, then it would have been more difficult to place the data in context and to interpret meanings m the preservice teachers’ reflections.
95 Researcher's Journal
My own research. Journal entries focused on my experience teaching the course, including what I was learning about myself, and about action research and. my teaching and thinking during the course.
1 maintained an analytic Journal to record observational, theoretical, and methodological notes following interaction with each participant This Journal helped me study commonalties and distinctions between and among participants. In addition,
I maintained a reflective Journal during the research process to monitor biases that I had toward participants’ beliefs and theories (Carney, 1990). At the end of a class, I reflected on the cumulative experience, which helped me to plan for future classes.
The act of writing reinforced what t was learning about my experience teaching the course and about myself as a teacher. I asked myself three questions: (a) “What did I do?” (b) “What did I leam?” and (c) “How can I use it?”
Overall, my Journal entries were useful in the constant comparative method of analysis that I employed during the study.
Field Notes
The understanding of qualitative researchers is that field notes are data. But views vary widely on how field notes are defined. There are many different forms that a researcher may choose to use. Sanjek, in. his collection of essays titled Fieldnotes, reveals that opinions vary widely on what field notes are. Some define field notes as
“uncooked” data or material. An example of this definition would be notes made in the field based on observations and conversations. Others contrast field notes with.
96 data, defining field notes more along the lines of daily entries made in a field journal to record thought and impressions. For still others, field notes include all those things collected in the course of fieldwork—the fieldwork journal, transcripts of conversations and interviews, photographs, and artifacts (Sanjek, 1990).
My field notes were individualistic and personal. They were initially in the specific form of “uncooked” data. Uncooked data is data that have not yet been analyzed, in contrast to “cooked data,” which have been analyzed and interpreted. My handwritten field notes were taken daily throughout the study and recorded the activities and behaviors of, and conversations with, those preservice teachers, as well as my own reflections.
Many of my field notes were written during class sessions while the preservice
teachers were in book discussion groups. In my notes, I attempted to capture exact
phrases and statements made by the preservice teachers. I was quite conscious of the
feet that my note taking could interfere with group discussion, so I tried to record my
observations firom the shadows of the classroom. Because I alternated my position in
the book groups firom participant to observer, 1 tape recorded those discussions that
occurred during book groups of which I was not a part. Sometimes the preservice
teachers practiced taking field note during these discussions.
As I took field notes on the book group discussions that I was a part of, I was
aware of the dilemmas of “voice” that are inherent in. these methods of data collection.
First, I was acutely aware that much fieldwork is dependent on one person's
perception. So I was extremely cautious in approaching the research study firom an
emic perspective. I knew that this approach, would yield difierent results than an etic
97 perspective (Zahariick, 1992). la this study I was viewing firom an emic perspective when I looked at myself, but I was looking firom an etic perspective when I considered the students’ point of view, because I was not part of their role, context, or student culture.
Like Denzin and Lincoln (1994), Patton (1990) asserts that observations
provide more depth and contextual knowledge that may uncover things that
participants are not aware of because they are situated in the activity. I believed that I
needed to get close to the study participants via detailed interviews and/or
observations, and by sharing my written transcriptions and interpretation of my field
notes with them. This provided the preservice teachers with the opportunity to see and
respond to what I felt was going on as I observed them.
In addition, sharing my observations with the preservice teachers provided a
model for the change of data fi:om “uncooked” data to “cooked” data (Hubbard &
Power, 1993). I would e-mail the transcriptions to the participants and ask them to
read the transcriptions and my interpretation, then respond to me if they felt I had
misread something that had occurred. The preservice teachers usually would do this
by replying to my e-mail or by printing it out and writing their reply on the actual
transcription. By using triangulation, “the data provided by text analysis served to add
to, cross-check, and refine the data generated by observation and interviews”
(McCarthy, 1987, p. 236).
98 Interviews
Described as "conversation, with a purpose” (Kahn & Cannell, 1957, p. 149), the interview process not only provided a record of the preservice teachers’ views and perspectives, but also was an indication to them of how significant I believed their point of view was to the study. Like Lofland (1971) and Spradley (1979), I wanted to uncover the participants’ views and understandings. The task for me, to adapt the words of a well-known anthropologist, was "to grasp the natives’ point of view, to realize their vision of their world” (Malinowski, 1922/1961, p. 25).
Kvale (1996, p. 145) designates the following criteria for interviewers:
1. The extent of spontaneous, rich, specific, and relevant answers from the interviewee.
2. The shorter the interviewer’s questions and the longer the subjects’ answers, the better.
3. The degree to which the interviewer follows up and clarifies the meanings of the relevant aspects of the answers.
4. The ideal interview is to a large extent interpreted throughout the interview.
5. The interviewer attempts to verify his or her interpretations of the subject’s answers in the course of the interview.
6. The interview is "self-communicating”—it is a story contained in itself that hardly requires much extra description and explanations.
99 The interview schedule that I designed fbr participants aligned with Kvale’s criteria. By reviewing these criteria before and after each interview, I was able to sustain an insightful approach toward not only my topic of research but also the approach that I employed to collect my research.
I discovered, however, that there were limitations to this approach. Marshall and Rossman (1999) make it evident that successful interviewing relies heavily on the skfll of the interviewer. I tried to ask questions that evoked long narratives from participants rather than short answers. This process involved personal interactions and some students did this much more easily than others. Consequently it was at times difScult to explore the agenda I had established (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). I also wanted to be sensitive to the preservice teachers’ responses that appeared to go in new directions. But I found that 1 had to guard against “bird-walking,” i.e., following or
initiating discussion regarding topics outside of the scope of my interview guide. I tried to follow a “bird-walking” line of discussion only when the students initiated discussion of another topic in direct response to a question.
Another limitation was my role as not only the researcher in this study, but also
as the study participants’ teacher. As the teacher I had considerably more power in the
room than an outside researcher would have. This power came from my position and
was not easily set aside. After all, I was the one that would “grade” the preservice
teachers for the course. So, at times I sensed that they wanted to give the “right
answers” to the questions I asked, rather than answering as candidly as they might
otherwise have. To ameliorate this dynamic as much as possible, I tried to be aware of
the position/power relationship in my class. Furthermore, I continually reassured my
100 students that I would not give any student less than a “B” for the course if they did the required work. I am not fixated on grades in the first place, and this exchange seemed a small price to pay for my students’ peace of mind. I knew that the power issues could not be resolved—my position vis-à-vis the students would not change, therefore the power structure in the class and in the study would not change—so I worked hard to remain aware of these issues and be concerned about it throughout my research.
Maher and Tetreault (1993) articulate these concerns about power.
I used both guided interviews and focus group interviews in this study. The guided interviews took place outside of class. The focus group interviews took place during class. In both of these interview approaches, I recorded the interview sessions then, as with my field notes, transcribed, analyzed, and interpreted them, seeking patterns and repeated themes. The preservice teachers were asked to read the interpretation of their interview, again, as with my field notes, to see if I had misinterpreted anything. Once this process was completed, I discussed my ongoing analysis and interpretation with the interviewees in which we together, constructed meaning through negotiation (Lather, 1986).
Guided interviews.
In designing my questions fbr the guided interview, I also followed Patton’s
(1990) guidelines for the types of questions I asked. These guidelines helped me to access a broad scope of perspectives. I posed questions that explored what the students did or had done in the past in the area of research. I wanted to get a description of their conduct, accomplishments, and experiences in this area. 101 I also posed questions that were aimed at unveiling the participants’ views and principles. 1 wanted to understand their mental and interpretive processes of how they viewed themselves as researchers. Patton expressively states this as “intentions, desires, and values” (Patton, 1990, p. 291).
1 wanted to discover what the study participants were learning about action research. Was I getting my content across to them? Therefore, L also posed knowledge questions to determine what factual knowledge about action research the preservice teachers understood.
Finally, background/demographic questions identified the characteristics of the student being interviewed. Answers to these questions helped me to locate a particular student in relation to other students in the class through comparisons of age, position in the undergraduate program, cognate area, prior field experiences, and so forth.
Because the guided interviews took place outside of the standard class time and were not a requirement for the course, 1 asked students to volunteer to do them.
Five out of the eight students volunteered to do a guided interview. I met once during the course with each, of these five volunteers to complete a guided interview.
I used audiotapes during these sessions. Each interview lasted approximately
1-1/2 hours. The intention of interviewing was to give the students the opportunity to make known their opinions and thoughts about action research, and what they were learning. Wenden (1982) considers the guided interview approach, useful as it allows thorough questioning while also allowing the interviewer to interview within the
102 borders outlined by the goal of the study. This approach fit nicely with my study because I was still firee to explore, probe, and ask questions that I considered interesting.
I began each interview session by reviewing the purpose of the study, assuring the preservice teachings of confidentiality, and rechecking that the consent form was previously signed. The set of questions I used fbr the guided interview appears in
Appendix B. My wording of these questions was deliberately open-ended. In this type of interview it is not necessary to use the questions in any particular order.
These guided interviews added the preservice teachers’ participation and voice to my study. Wolcott (1994) shows the connection between participant-observation and interviewing: “The extent to which participant-observation and interviewing are a natural complement or get at quite different aspects of thought and action has always vexed experienced fieldworkers” (p. 130). Because the inner viewpoints, thoughts, and intents of preservice teachers could not be easily observed, interviews were used to gain admittance to their unspoken understandings and beliefs about action research and the class itself.
These guided interviews were a most effective and efficient means of obtaining data fi:om the preservice teachers. The questions stimulated usefiil discussion about various aspects of their experience in learning about action research.
Focus groiip interviews,
Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 365) state that Merton, et al., coined the term
“focus group” in 1956 to apply to a situation in which the interviewer asks group
103 members very specific questions about a topic. Krueger defines a focus group as a
“carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment” (1994, p. 18). Focus interviews are an important part of any action research project as they provide the opportunity for the researcher to investigate further, to solve problems, and to gather data which could not have been obtained in other ways (Cunningham, 1993, p. 93). The focus group interview is essentially a qualitative data gathering technique that finds the interviewer/moderator directing the interaction and inquiry in a very structured or unstructured manner, depending on the interview's purpose (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 365). Merton, et al. (1990), suggests that the focused interview with a group of people “...will yield a more diversified array of responses and afford a more extended basis botli for designing systematic research on the situation in hand...” (p. 135).
Morgan (1988) also asserts that, “The hallmark of the focus group is the explicit use of the group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group” (p. 12). hi focus group interviewing, the researcher assembles a series of groups of people that possess similar backgrounds with certain “control characteristics” (Knodel, 1993, p. 39).
Focus groups are propelled by group dynamics. The group members will have considerable effect on one another by sharing various beliefs and perceptions
(Krueger, 1994; Morgan, 1988). The results of the group interview provided many voices (Frey & Fontana, 1994). This consequence can provide robust data because the interactions in focus groups promoted a natural, real-life environment with, participants influencing and being influenced by others (Andreasen, 1983; Bellenger, et al., 1976;
104 Morgan, 1988). Morgan (1988) gives other advantages of focus group interviewing.
These include the promise for rich data collection, flexibility in design, participant reciprocation, and potentially comprehensive yet inexpensive data collection (Morgan,
1988).
The focus group interviews were essential to my study as I tried to evaluate the effectiveness of my instruction and of the students’ learning. This concurs with Patton
(1990), who believes that focus group interviews are essential in the assessment process to gather perceptions on the outcome of a program.
During this study, I met once in focus groups with each of the study’s two book groups. Each book group was made up of four students who met to discuss a book. The size of each group was selected according to two criteria (Krueger, 1994): to provide an intimate and inviting atmosphere, yet be large enough to support the availability of diverse perspectives. By interviewing four participants in each focus group, known as a mini-focus group (Krueger, 1994, p. 17), the above criteria were
met.
I used these two book groups as the basis for the focus group interviews
because the group members were already used to having discussions as a group.
Because I wanted to focus on the dynamics of the group, I thought it best to keep the
group dynamics unchanged. I wanted to tap into the human tendency for attitudes and
perceptions to be developed through interaction with other people. The students’
individual attitudes and beliefs about action research did not form in a vacuum. The
focus group format provided the means for participants to listen to others’ opinions
and understandings in order to form their own. I noted that sometimes during a focus
105 group interview, students’ attitudes changed due to the influence of others’ comments.
The group dialogue helped them to see things differently. On the two days that I did the focus group interviews, the students that were not being interviewed left the classroom to practice doing a field observation. That left me firee to concentrate solely on the focus group I was interviewing. The focus group interviews facilitated group discussions. I would ask a series of questions, the group members would respond to the questions, and a discussion ensued.
I had an interview guide for each meeting. While this guide provided a sequence of core questions for each group, 1 tried to remain responsive to the unique and emergent direction that each discussion followed (Wells, 1974). The types of questions explored during each focus group interview related to five different purposes
(Krueger, 1994): opening, introductory, transitional, key, and ending (see Appendix
C).
Opening questions were asked in a round-robin format because I wanted to use those questions to foster conversation between the students. My purpose was to have the students identify characteristics of, and experiences with, research that they had in common. I did this by asking the students to share research experiences they had had prior to this course. Their opening responses led quite naturally to the introductory questions, which asked students to identify the most important thing they were learning in the course. Both the opening questions and the introductory questions introduced the topic of action research and provided the students with the opportunity to discuss past experiences connected with the overall topic.
106 Transitioa questions were then posed to aid the students in viewing the topic in terms of the bigger picture and in becoming aware of changes that were or were not occurring in their thinking. During this time, the students also began to hear the views of their peers.
Key questions were then raised. These were the questions that addressed the core of my study. It was from these questions that I hoped much of my data analysis would come.
Finally, ending questions allowed the students to reflect on previous comments and to state their final position on the topic. These questions were used to bring closure to the focus group discussion.
My role was to create a permissive environment for group sharing. I did this by nurturing different perceptions and points of view both at the beginning and throughout the interview. I encouraged the students to share their own perceptions, feelings, and ways of thinking. I did not want them to try to find a “right answer” or to build a consensus (Morgan, 1988). I encouraged them to share alternative explanations that included both positive and negative comments.
Additionally, I prevented any person or persons from dominating the discussion of the group. I sought to engage all of the participants in conversation, even those who were reluctant to speak. As the interviewer, I tried to show
“understanding empathy” and “disciplined detachment" as I refrained from putting words into students’ mouths (Bellenger, et al., 1976). I checked continually with the preservice teachers to make sure that I understood what they were saying or meaning to say.
107 As with the individual interviews^ I discovered some disadvantages of focus group interviewing. Sometimes an issue would emerge from the group culture that interfered with individual expression (Jam's, 1994). One thing that helped to offset this occurrence was the fact that these eight students were together for almost all of their course work and were very comfortable handling discourse within the group. The class contained some strong personalities, and at times these individuals would attempt to dominate the group discussion. At these times, I worked to include all of the students. 1 reviewed and rehearsed the guidelines presented for facilitation prior to conducting my focus group interviews. I wanted to make sure that I was competent and comfortable with those guidelines, so that I could ask open-ended questions, utilize pauses and probes, and be sensitive to the timing for asking new questions
(Krueger, 1994).
Despite its limitations, however, the focus group interview provided the means to explore the patterns of dialogue that surfaced regarding preservice teachers’ beliefs about themselves as researchers. It also helped me determine what specific things the participants were learning in the class that supported or impeded those changes. In addition, the results of this interview approach provided a helpful method for data triangulation (Denzin, 1989b) for recognizing the beliefs of an individual student, as well as the beliefs within and across the groups of students (Knodel, 1993).
Trustworthiness Issues
The issue of trustworthiness is similar to the issues of validity and reliability in
a positivist study. However, qualitative researchers do not address the issues of
108 validity and reliability in the same way as positivists. Instead, they talk about the issue of trustworthiness (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985). Lincoln, and Guba give four main criteria for establishing trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Table 3.2 indicates the strategies that I used to meet these four criteria in my study.
Criteria for Establishing Lincoln & Cuba’s Strategies Used Trustworthiness Suggested Strategies in This Study to Accomplish the Criteria Credibility Prolonged engagement Yes Triangulation Yes Peer debriefing No Negative case analysis Yes Referential adequacy No Persistent observation Yes Member check Yes
Transferability Thick description Yes Purposive sampling Yes
Dependability Audit trail Yes
Confirmability Audit trail Yes
Table 3.2: Establishing trustworthiness.
109 In this section I will define each of these criteria and indicate the strategies I used to address each of these in my particular study.
Credibility
The goal of credibility is “to demonstrate that the inquiry was conducted in such a manner as to ensure that the subject was accurately identified and described”
(Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 192). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), there are distinct ways to increase the credibility of a study. I will discuss those ways in the following pages.
Prolonged engagement.
Prolonged engagement is the investment of time required to leam about the culture and people one is studying. It helps to build trust, because there it provides sufficient time to develop relationships with the study’s participants. Prolonged engagement enables the researcher to engage in persistent observation and to identify the elements that are important to the study, then to pursue those elements through observation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This process helps to provide depth to a study, and as Eisner (1975; cited from Lincoln & Guba, 1985) suggests, allows one to sort out “irrelevancies—things that do not counf ’ 304).
I did not have prolonged engagement with these students during the study itself, but I have known all of these students in one capacity or another for three years.
I had all of these students in a 3 credit-hour class in their fireshman year. I also had one student in an additional 3 credit-hour class her sophomore year. And fijur out of
110 the eight students were my advisees for the past three years. I had developed
prolonged engagement with them as students and advisees. Although the time span of
the class was only one semester, and this study took place during half of that semester,
this amount of time provided a realistic period m which to study this topic. This is
how this kind of course would develop within the natural constraints of teacher
education.
Two other important factors affect the issue of prolonged engagement. First,
colleges and universities frequently lack the resources of time and money that are
required to offer separate research courses to undergraduate students. Second, the
prescribed state requirements for a middle level certification leave no time for students
to take course work in addition to the required education courses if they wish to
graduate in four years. Thus, I struggled to provide my students with a multitude of
teaching skills in. a time frame that was being eaten up by state mandates and
regulations. To improve educational opportunities, yet still adhere to the state
requirements, I needed to seek alternative ways of introducing them to action research.
[ am passionate in my belief that action research is an important concept for
preservice teachers to begin to understand. By teaching action research, in this study,
as a portion of the curriculum course, I enabled the students to develop understandings
that they would not otherwise have had the opportunity to develop. By reaching
beyond the required classroom content, I was able to enhance the students’ educational
experience. Also, I felt that if these preservice teachers failed to associate learning to
inquire with learning to teach during their teacher preparation, program, they probably
would not embrace this view after leaving college. It seemed that if the students did
III not begin to gain knowledge of action research as a part of my study, there would be no time or place in their undergraduate experience for it to be presented to them.
Triangulation.
Within the concept of prolonged engagement is the issue of triangulation.
Triangulation, which Denzin and Lincoln (1994) describe as the use of multiple
methods, improves the probability that the findings reported and the interpretations
made by the researcher are trustworthy. Triangulation helps to establish in-depth
understanding of the preservice teachers being studied. I was able to view their
understanding of action research from various data collection sources. By not
depending on just one data collection method I was better able to capture the ideas,
feelings, and perceptions of the preservice teachers I was studying. Using multiple
methods added rigor and depth to my study and made the study more “believable”
(Flick, 1992).
Peer debriefing.
Peer debriefing is when the researcher shares his or her research with a
disinterested peer m the hopes of exploring various aspects of the study that the
researcher might have missed. Debriefing sessions provide the researcher with
opportunities for “catharsis, thereby clearing the mind of emotions and feelings that
may be clouding good judgments or preventing emergence or sensible next steps”
(Lincoln& Guba, 1985, p. 308).
112 I did not have a peer debriefer to work with in this study. I did, however, use my advisor and two doctoral students on a regular basis as sounding boards for what I was discovering.
Negative case analysis.
Negative case analysis is when the researcher uses hindsight to revise and refine his/her hypotheses/questions until they “account for all known cases without exception” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 309). Kidder (1981) offered the following explanation;
Negative case analyses require that the researcher look for disconffnning data in both past and future observations. A. single negative is enough to require the investigator to revise a hypothesis. When there are no more negative cases, the research stops revising the hypotheses and says with confidence, “This caused that.” (p. 241)
I did this continuously throughout the study. I looked at my data on a daily basis searching for the unusual or unconfirming evidence so that I could refine my working hypotheses.
Referential adequacy.
Referential adequacy is established when a researcher turns a portion of her data to the archives, so that it can be examined later and compared to the critiques that were developed from the collected data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The hope is that the archived data will serve as a reference point against which later data analyses and interpretations can be tested for accuracy/adequacy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
It is not possible to fulfill this criterion at this point in the study.
113 Member check.
Member check is when the researcher goes back to the people &om whom the data have been collected and asks them for feedback on the findings (Schwandt, 1997;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and whether or not those findings captured the phenomenon accurately. I went back to the preservice teachers and asked for their feedback on a weekly basis. I used member checks by asking the students for clarification concerning class discussions, focus interviews, and journal entries. I continually returned to the students fiom whom the data had been collected and asked them for feedback on my findings and on whether or not I had captured their perspective accurately (Schwandt, 1997; Lincoln & Guba 1985).
Tranrferability
The second criterion for establishing trustworthiness is transferability. In qualitative research the researcher uses thick descriptions to suggest that perhaps her findings will be useful to others who are in similar situations and have similar questions (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). It is not the researcher doing the study who establishes this transferability, but rather any researcher or reader who wants to apply the original researcher’s findings to a population that she/he presumes to be in some way similar to the original one (Kennedy, 1979; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt,
1997; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that it is “not the naturalist’s task to provide an index of transferability, it is his or her responsibility to provide the data base that makes transferability judgments possible on the part of potential appliers” (p. 316).
114 Like Merriam (1988), I selected my approach because I wanted to “understand the particular in depth” (p. 173). The purpose of my study was to describe the preservice teachers' experiences, practices, and perspectives about action research that resulted from this close study of my own teaching about action research. It was important to me that I understand enough of their experiences in this class that I be able to re-present (Glesne, 1992) them and myself, so that other educators may read and restory their own experiences (Clandinm & Connelly, 1991). Patton says that qualitative research should “provide perspective” (as cited in Merriam, 1988, p. 175) rather than identify truths to the participants—provide a perspective on their experiences, practices, and beliefs. Rather than attempting to generalize findings to all similar groups of students, this sample is limited to informing educators with significant common pattern and variations (Patton, 1990).
I also wanted to leave a path for others to follow. Each researcher’s biases, past experiences, and implicit thoughts impact his or her research interpretation
(Eisner, 1991); however, another researcher can use the path I am marking as an
“operating manual” to recreate my study (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, p. 216).
My primary goal was to articulate one perspective on the teaching of action research and of preservice teachers’ experiences learning about action research. My secondary goal was to disseminate that information for others to consider and in which to find applicable truths. In Chapter 4 ,1 provide a “rich, thick, description” (Merriam,
1988, p. 177), so that those who read the stories of this class will be able to evaluate the degree of transferability to their own settings. I do not expect that all other
115 preservice teachers who leam about actioaresearcli will “share identical...features but rather that these are features one might look for” (Eisner, 1991, p. 103) in other preservice teachers who are learning action research skills.
Dependability
The third criterion for establishing trustworthiness is dependability.
Dependability focuses on the “process of the inquiry and the inquirer’s responsibility for ensuring that the process was logical, traceable, and documented” (Schwandt,
1997, p. 164). The researcher attempts to account for changing conditions in the phenomenon and design, which may result hrom the changing natural setting and social world (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Lincoln & Guba (1985) suggest that an audit trail be used to establish dependability. Schwandt (1997) describes an audit trail as:
An organized collection of materials that includes the data generated in a study; a statement of the theoretical framework that shaped the study at the outset; explanation of concepts, models, and the like that were developed as part of the effort to make sense of the data (often the product of memoing); a description of the procedures used to generate data and analyze them; statement of the findings or conclusions of the investigation; notes about the process of conducting the study; personal notes; and copies of instruments used to guide the generation and analyses of data. An audit trail is a systematically maintained documentation system, (p. 6)
In this study 1 have an organized audit trail, ft includes collecting the data
generated in the study and a description of the procedures used to generate the data
116 and analyze them. An audit trail is also evident in the multiple sources I used for gathering data. Qualitative research, by its very nature, uses a multi-method approach
(Brewer & Hunter, 1989).
My research journal, which provided information about the methods I was using, also contributed to an audit trail. In addition to my reflections, I noted in my journal emerging codes and categories that helped me to make sense of what 1 saw in my teaching. 1 used my journal in several ways: To keep track of what 1 could do better to facilitate students’ learning; to explore what 1 was learning about the student so that I could support their learning; and as a sounding board to help me to clarify my thoughts and perceptions about what was occurring in the course.
Another way in which I attempted to provide dependability was typing and transcribing all interviews and books discussion groups within 48 hours. This helped to ensure that I remembered the context of the interviews and discussions.
By using multiple methods of gathering data, observations, and documents, thus allowing for triangulation of data and methods, I was able to corroborate what 1 saw as emerging understanding by the students about action research and about how they viewed themselves as researchers.
Confirmability
Confirmability tries to capture the traditional concept of objectivity, which determines whether or not another researcher can confirm the findings of a study
(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Schwandt (1997) suggest that confirinability is
“concerned with establishmg the fact that the data and interpretations of an inquiry
117 were not merely figments of the inquirer’s imagination” (p. 164). The researcher needs to have data that address and discuss the phenomenon/s that she has described in her study. Information collected fiom field notes, surveys, focus group discussion, and individual interviews are raw data. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that audit trails again be used to achieve confirmability. I have already addressed this issue in the previous section.
Data Analysis
The constant comparative method, was used throughout the data collection phase. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) describe this version of analytic induction as one in which the “analysis and data collection occur in a pulsating fashion” (p. 66).
According to Glaser (1978) the steps in the constant comparative method are as follows:
1. Begin data collection.
2. Identify key issues and patterns.
3. Collect data that provide a large number of incidents related to the focus, with attention to diverse dimensions related to the theme.
4. Begin writing about categories under exploration by describing each incident. Continue searching for new incidents.
5. Examine the emerging data to discover broad social relationships.
6. Begin to sample, code, and write as analysis focuses on the core emergmg categories.
118 Through the use of the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1978; Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992), I monitored emerging patterns of similarities and differences both within, and across the students.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations in my study include confidentiality of data, anonymity of participants, and informed consent. The preservice teachers who participated in the study were given an abstract of the intended research study and a consent form explaining the research protocol. During my initial interviews with the participants, as well as in class discussion, I alluded to Eisner's (1975) comments about the fallibility of informed consent; that “researches usually do not know what will emerge.. .and therefore are not in a good position to inform those to be observed about what to expect” (p. 215).
Participation in my study was voluntary only in the sense that the students could choose whether or not to do the individual interview. The individual interviews were held outside of regular class time, and the students could elect not to participate in them. However, participation in the course itself was not voluntary—students had to be iu the class because it was a requirement of their major. Thus, they were automatically participating in my study, because all other aspects of it (except, as I have mentioned, for the individual interview) were simply part of the course. All of the students signed the consent form to participate in the study. Lf a student had
119 chosen, to have her/his particular data eliminated ftom the study, however, I would have complied. The tapes of all of the interviews were kept in. my office while I was working with the data. My office is secure and is locked when. I am not there.
Situating the Researcher
As the researcher, I was the primary instrument of data collection throughout the study. The following pages will help the reader understand how my past experiences have situated me in this study. In addition, I will discuss how I see my role as a researcher in this study, and, finally, my personal pedagogical creed for teacher education.
This research study has been a journey for me, one that began three decades ago, before I even understood that I was on a journey. Consequently, my perspectives are informed by my experiences during my 30-year journey. I have taught at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels; I have been a middle school administrator; and I am currently teaching in a teacher education program.
Classroom Teacher
I began my journey as a classroom teacher shortly after graduating firom
college with, a Bachelor of Science degree in elementary education. My first teaching
position was at the D. T. Watson Home for Crippled Children in Leetsdale,
Pennsylvania. I taught third grade students with, a variety of disabilities, such, as
autism, cerebral palsy, and learning disabilities. I had no teaching certification in
special education; I was hired because there was a teacher shortage and I was a warm
120 body. I had only my spanking-new teaching degree to prepare me for this experience.
But in retrospect, I think that this initial experience began to prepare me for the cormection I feel with, action research. I literally “learned on the run.”
I realized that I was ill-prepared to deal with the situations 1 met daily and to meet the needs of these students. So, I began to study about children with disabilities.
I would take a problem that a student was experiencing, research how to help that
student, and then apply what I learned in my teaching. Although I was unaware of it
at the time, I was doing some of the beginning steps of action research: I was solving
a problem in my classroom. I was collecting data, looking at the literature, and
analyzing the impact of my teaching practices. For a first-year teacher, with all of the
other adjustments and feeling of inadequacies that come with that experience, this was
a challenging but heartening experience.
I spent the next 15 years of my journey as a classroom teacher. My
experiences were diverse: I taught kindergarten, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade,
and high school remedial reading. During all of these experiences, I was an informal
educator-researcher, although 1 did not call myself that. Nor, at that time, did I define
what I was attempting as “research.” But, in essence, research was exactly what 1 did,
innumerable times and in a variety of educational experiences. I documented,
scripted, and carefidly described the information I was collecting (I did not know it
could be called “data”) for one purpose or another. When 1 needed to resolve an
educational predicament, I used these strategies to develop more principled classroom
practices. Later, as an admmistrator, I used those same strategies to develop sound
practice when dealing with students, faculty, and parents. I would answer one
121 question, and discover other questions that needed to be resolved. For me, my journey in education was, and continues to be, a constant path of exploration, inquiry, and discovery.
During the course of those years, I received a master’s degree in elementary education. I also attended workshops and courses on new, cutting-edge curriculum agendas and teaching strategies. The curriculum was always changing, and teachers were always jumping through the training hoops that administrators and legislatures felt were meaningful. But never in the course of those years did I have the opportunity to develop the curriculum that I, as a teacher, felt was the best for my students. I listened to “someone else’s drummer” and marched to that beat.
The class work that I did for most of these hours of graduate school was
“teacher directed.” It did not emerge from my interests, nor did it flow from my experiences in the classroom. I remember a colleague of mine who said, “We read volumes of research on a topic written by individuals much smarter than we will ever be. We analyze, probe, investigate, and collate that information. We then rewrite it with our own twist, but not as proficiently as the initial published piece.” That statement disquieted me, because it implied that teachers were not knowledgeable enough or articulate enough to write the initial piece.
The most horrible result of this situation was that never was 1, nor were my peers, called upon to use the research information that I was compiling on my own,
“back at the ranch.” Not once was I asked for my feedback on how those things really were working in my classroom. Not once was I asked to reflect, collect data, analyze the date, and evaluate what was going on. My emergent research was not valued as
122 “real” research. It was viewed, condescendingly, as “problem solving.” Now, however, action research methodology substantiates some of what I did as being not only problem solving, but as legitimate research—an unfolding course of conclusions and in&rences.
Administration
My journey next took me into administration. I obtained a second master’s degree in “educational leadership” from Temple University. I made this shift in academic direction not because I was unhappy as a classroom teacher, but because I saw this change as an opportunity to be in a position to help teachers. I was naïve, however. I soon discovered that I was powerless to make the kinds of changes that needed to be made. I was up against a system that preferred a male, hierarchical, top- down administration. Some small changes were made in the schools where I worked, but they might have happened with or without my presence. The fact was that teachers had been powerless so long that they were comfortable with it. I began to see that if changes were to be made, if teachers were going to understand their potential power, then it had to start in schools of education.
Higher Education
At the time of this writing I am teaching undergraduate preservice teachers at a
small liberal arts college. I am a teacher who teaches teachers. I am a novice at this
position, because this is only my fourth year of teaching at the college level. Despite
my relative inexperience, however, I feel that I can make the most difference at this
123 level. I recognize that preservice teachers’ pedagogy is not something that I can. give to them directly through instruction. It emerges from a confluence of many factors:
Their experiences in course work, the materials they read, the writing they do, and their conversations with peers and with me. It also emerges from their early field experiences in the classrooms, and the socializing effects of the broader school environment, as well as from the society in which they live. It is heavily influenced by their previous school experiences.
Pedagogical Creed
My general philosophy about teacher education has been formed from my past teaching and administrative experiences, as well as from my study of the literature about preservice teachers. 1 believe it is important for the reader to apprehend my general philosophy of teacher education in order to comprehend my connection to an apprenticeship method of instruction of action research.
First, 1 believe that preservice teachers do not inevitably transfer learning from one circumstance to a different circumstance. The eventual aim of teacher education is to prepare preservice teachers for effective functioning in professional settings. Yet research shows that preservice teachers do not, as many teacher educators expect, shift knowledge to new situations where transfer should occur: Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs are so strong that preservice teachers do not always transfer what they have learned in the college classroom to their everyday practice as teachers.
Second, I believe that preservice teachers are not passive receivers of knowledge. They are not empty containers into which teacher educators dispense
124 knowledge and wisdom, or blank pieces of paper on which we are to write the knowledge of “how to teach.” The evidence is that they carry into every situation ideas and constructs that they have acquired elsewhere, thus, they bring their prior beliefs and experiences into the classroom. These beliefs are tenacious and difficult to change, and if teacher educators do not provide a way for preservice teachers to examine their own beliefs, they can revert to their old ideas and behaviors once outside of teacher educators’ classrooms. I deem that my purpose as a teacher educator is not only to pass on school knowledge and school culture, but also to develop preservice teachers who are critical thinkers, metacognitive about their own learning, and reflective about their own practice.
To assume that my purpose is only to pass on learning encourages a lecture mode of teaching, with the teacher as manager, organizer, and controller of the learning process, and a passive mode of learning. This type of power over learning in the hands of the teacher educator weakens the preservice teachers’ development of cognitive management skills. They become less capable in areas critical for effective learning. Passive learning does not help preservice teachers gain confidence in their ability to leam or to comprehend what is occurring in their classrooms, which severely constrains their opportunities to leam fiom experience. Another unfortunate outcome of passive learning is that because preservice teachers are not drawn into the learning process, they invest minimal attention and involvement in it Furthermore, when preservice teachers leam passively, they can give the “right answers,” but often without real learning having taken place. The preservice teachers can “talk the talk,” but they have not substantially changed their belief system or their behavior: They
125 cannot “walk the walk.” Consequently^ this mode of instruction spills over into the teaching and learning that occurs in the schools where these teachers eventually teach.
Third, 1 believe that teaching preservice teachers based on the idea of behavioral theory learning (i.e., that learning is the increase of the connection between stimuli and correct responses) is not effective. Following this model results primarily,
I believe, in learning taking place in isolation. It does not help preservice teachers make the connections needed in curriculum. Instead, they develop disconnected bits and pieces of concepts, rather than developing a contextual comprehension of how subtasks and subskills fit into the larger picture of the teaching process. I believe that human beings are typically sense-making and problem-solving animals, so why not teach them as though they are? Instruction that is finctionated and out of context fails to mobilize this powerful human ability.
Fourth, and following directly from the previous point, I believe that context, in fact, gives meaning to learning. Context is critical for understanding and thus for learning. Too often, preservice teachers leam skills and knowledge independent of their contexts of use.
Who I am or have been as a teacher, an administrator, and a college professor, and the experiences I have had in those roles, coupled with my pedagogical creed, impact the way that I am situated in this research. I acknowledge that these factors affect my perspective of the world and, consequently, my decisions related to data collection and interpretation.
126 CONCLUSION
In this study, I used an action research methodology because one aspect of
action research that was useful for me was the emergent character of this approach to research. I wanted to facilitate change in my own teaching, and what I learned firom
my research helped me achieve this goal. I looked carefully at how my action
research in this course influenced my teaching. I also studied the experiences of the
preservice teachers in my class as they began to construct initial identities as
researchers and skills for conducting action research. I was dedicated to a
contextualized look at those experiences. As a participant-observer, I collected data
that includes field notes, focus group interviews, individual interviews, and journal
entries.
1 conducted the study within my role as the classroom teacher. This role is an
integral part of who I am; in many ways it defines me. It influenced what I did, said,
and perceived, and this is present and acknowledged throughout my study. Although I
have included a contextualized look at the preservice teachers’ experiences, feelings,
and behaviors. I, as the teacher and researcher, have been the determiner of what is
revealed in this study. I determined which experiences, feelings, and behaviors to
record, as well as how and why they are presented.
I present one researcher’s interpretation of elements considered to be
significant in the beginning experiences of these preservice teachers as they learned
about action research, elements considered significant to me as I learned how to teach
a course on action research.
127 CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
INTRODUCTION
Russell (1998) writes that, “Our goal may well be the reinventioa of learning to teach, enabling others to understand learning from experience by showing them how we do it ourselves” (p. 6). In this study I observed, listened to, took part in, and contemplated the learning of eight preservice teachers as they began to develop beginning skills and identities as researchers. I wanted to study my students’ learning and look at how the course influenced their beginning attitudes and understandings of action research. This chapter is an account of eight preservice teachers, my students, learning the beginning skills of action, researcfr and making sense of action, research, in. my classroom.
This chapter also is an account of what it meant to teach action research to these eight preservice teachers. I studied my own teaching by examining the process
128 of my students’ learning about action research. I paid close attention to what the data revealed to me and responded, to what I understood it to be revealing to me.
I gave the preservice teachers a pre-survey to help to measure their attitudes and understanding of action research at the beginning of the course. At the end of the course I gave a post-survey to help ascertain the changes that had occurred m their attitudes and understanding of action research.
I used the daily feedback and the students’ journals to help me understand on a continual basis how the preservice teachers were developing research skills and identities. From the first class until the last class I asked the preservice teachers for feedback. I ask them to answer two questions: I)What is helping you understand action research? 2) What do you need more clarification on? The student feedback had a dual purpose. It not only aided me in gauging the preservice teachers’ understanding of action research and their development as researchers, but it also helped me to build relationships of trust with them. By getting the preservice teachers’ feedback, I made adjustments in my instruction (organizational strategies and materials) to support the preservice teachers’ own understanding and efforts.
Also on a daily basis I looked at the preservice teachers’ journals. The students wrote ajournai entry for each class. In these journals, the students primarily reflected on the readings, on their evolvmg action research proposal, and/or on what was going on in class. The journals gave them an opportunity to write about any topic they chose.
The analyses of the students’ journal data helped me reflect on my teaching and to implement some immediate changes. I also considered changes that I intended
129 to make the next time I teach the course. I used a constant comparative approach to analyze the reflective journal data. This also informed changes in my instruction.
I analyzed my research journal to understand how my action research in the class influenced my understanding of how to teach the course, and to identify the changes that occurred in the course as a result of my understandings. I kept a reflective journal that described the methods I was using and my impressions of my teaching and the students. I used it as a sounding board to help me clarify my thoughts and perceptions about what was occurring in the course. I used my journals to speculate on what I could do to better facilitate students’ learning.
Near the end of the course I conducted focus group interviews with the preservice teachers. By this time, it seemed that they had developed a perspective about the elements of action research and would be able to discuss them in a thoughtful manner.
For the focus group discussions, 1 met once with each of the two book groups in the class. Each book group was made up of four students who met as a small group during the course to discuss a book. I used these two book groups as the basis for the
focus group interviews I wanted to focus on the dynamics of the interactions in the
group, 1 thought it best to use the intact groups.
Finally, I met with, five of the eighth preservice teachers to conduct individual
interviews. These in-depth, individual interviews revealed a number of distinct ways
in which, these preservice teachers were constructing beginning identities as
researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research.
130 This chapter is a descriptioa of what I learned and the changes I made as a result of this action research study. The analyzed the data throughout the study and then again more systematically at the completion of the study.
This chapter is organized into nine sections—one section for each data source that I collected. In addition, 1 describe the apprenticeship model, which formed the theoretical basis for my instruction. Using my research Journal, I also describe the Grst day of the course in order to set a context and some background for the data analyses.
The sections include;
Part I - First Day of Class
Part H—Apprenticeship Model
Part in—Pre- surveys
Part IV—Daily Feedback
PartV—My Journal
Part VI—Students' Journals
Part VU—Focus Group Interviews
Part Vm—Individual Interviews
Part EX—Post Survey
The themes that emerged during the course of data collection and analyses are presented and discussed separately. A narrative description of the first day of the course is presented below to help the reader understand the context and background of this course. The narrative is developed firom my research Journal.
131 Part One The First Day of Class
October 31,2000, First Class My class started at 1:20 this afternoon. Most of the students arrived about five minutes early, and we chatted while we waited for the last straggler to arrive. I usually start the class with an open-ended question. I asked, “How are things going?” I know these students pretty well since I have had them all in at least one other course and several of them were my advisees. They seem to be pretty open about sharing with me. Today they are concerned about the Jobs that will be available to them when they graduate with the Ohio Middle Level Teaching Certification. The certification requires that the students have a major in education with two concentrations in math, science, language arts, or social studies. They expressed their finstration with tins requirement. They felt it would limit their opportunity for a Job once they graduate because diey will only be certified to teach in those two areas. This is a Justifiable finstration since under the old certification they would be certified to teach first through eighth grade and they would be certified in all subject areas. We talked about how this is part of the Carnegie Cotmcil’s recommendations to staff middle schools with teachers who are experts at teaching content to young adolescents. My students are very much aware of the Coimcil’s recommendations since it was part of what we studied in the first part of this course. This impromptu discussion of the Carnegie Council could not have come in a more timely way since I had planned to revisit it in today’s class. I am tense because this is the day I am starting my first class teaching action research skills to these preservice teachers. 1 am teaching these beginning skills of action research not as a separate research course, but as a portion of the Middle Level Curriculum course. Because Mount Vernon Nazarene College is a small liberal arts college, it lacks the resources of time and money to offer a separate research course to undergraduate students. Additionally, the prescribed state requirements for a middle level certification leave no time for students to take additional course work outside of the required education courses if they wish to graduate in four years. I am passionate in my belief that action research is an important concept for preservice teachers to begin to understand. 1 feel that if they fail to associate learning to inquire with learning to teach in their teacher preparation program, they will probably not embrace this view after they leave college. Also, it seemed that if these preservice teachers did not begin to gam. knowledge of action research at this time, there was no time or place in their undergraduate experience that it would be presented to them. So I wanted to find a place where I could fit it in within the courses that I taught. It was logical to me that action research would fit into my Middle Level Curriculum course, hi Latin, “curriculum” means “a running path.” The
132 curriculum, in the school setting is constantly running in new areas and shifting. I wanted these preservice teachers to be ready for these never-ending changes. I feel that by learning about action research they will have a tool to analyze and evaluate these changes on their own and not just because an administrator feels, or state official deems, that it is appropriate. ft was imperative to me that the students see the connection between action research (die second part of the course) and the Middle School Curriculum (the first part of the course). I did not want them to think- that my teaching action research was a contrived situation designed by me in order to collect data for my dissertation. My instructional goal for today, therefore, was to help the preservice teachers see die connection between the study of middle grade curriculum and the study of action research. 1 planned two activities for this first class to help begin to make these connections. First, I began the first class session (in the second part of the course) with a summary of first part of the course and looked at what they had learned. The students had been required to keep a reflective journal durmg the first part of the course. The focus of this journal was to reflect on what they were learning about teaching middle grade students. Today I asked them to revisit the journals and to share their reflections about teaching these students. In our discussion they talked about how the importance of remembering lots of information, like dates and isolated facts, has lost much of it value in recent years. They agreed that the students they would be teaching at the middle level had “factual” information available to them everywhere, distributed widely in books or in various devices like handheld calculators, databases, and electronic references. There was consensus among all eight students that it was not important to memorize isolated facts, but rather it was important to know how to access information. The job of the teacher was to steer kids in the right direction to access that information. They also felt that students would need to know how to organize and how to categorize all the information that they would obtain. Another area that the preservice teachers felt was important in teaching middle grade students was thinking and communication skills. By revisiting their journal entries firom the first half of the class, it was evident that they did not view a teacher as someone who merely managed instructional programs and children. They all saw teachers as curriculum creators, but tiiey also expressed fear at having that much responsibility. They raised two questions: How would they know if they “did it right,” and were there any middle level schools where this type of teaching was really happening? I asked the preservice teachers to share their prior experiences in middle grade classes. Seven preservice teachers said they had come firom very traditional schools where the teachers for the most part taught in a traditional way, standing and delivering information. The teachers gave the information to tile students. Learning was associated with acquiring that information. One student said that she felt that the middle grade school she came firom was quite progressive and hmovative mstraction went on m it. She said there was
133 cooperative learning and that the students did projects. I poised a rhetorical question and asked my students, “How did these teachers know what they did in the classroom was effective?” Although. I was not expecting an answer to this question, I wanted them to start to think about it By revisiting the first part of the course, I hoped to refiresh the students’ memory of what they had discovered about the teaching and learning of middle level students. I also wanted them to begin to consider what teachers could do to begin to understand whether their teaching, and their students’ learning, was effective. The second thing I did to begin to help the students make the connection between the first part of the course and the second part was that I had them revisit the recommendations of both Turning Points (1989) and This We Believe (1995). During the first part of the course, with the focus on Middle Level Curriculum, they read and discussed the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development’s Turning Points and the National Middle School Association’s (NMSA) This We Believe. Both, of these documents focus on middle level reform and address the structures found in exemplary middle schools and emphasize the need for teachers specifically trained for and committed to teaching middle-schoolers. These documents also address characteristics and practices of effective middle school teachers. In a previous class we had listed the recommendations for both documents on chart paper and then designated which ones we felt that individual teachers are firee to unplement, regardless of the structure and programs determined by the administrators in their schools. Table 4.1 illustrates that list. The asterisked items are the ones that we decided could be implemented by individual teachers in their classroom.
134 Turning Points This We Believe Create small communities for learning ♦An adult advocate Flexible organizational structure
*Teach. a core academic program ♦Curriculum that is challenging, integrative, and exploratory
♦Ensure success for all students ♦High expectations for all ♦Varied teaching and learning approaches ♦Assessment and evaluation that promote learning
♦Staff middle grade schools with teachers ♦Educators committed to young adolescents who are experts at teaching young adolescents
Improve academic performance through Programs and policies that foster health, fostering health and fitness wellness, and safety Comprehensive guidance and support services
♦Reengage families in the education Family and community partnership of young adolescents ♦Connect schools (classrooms) with communities
♦Empower teachers to make decisions about the experiences of middle grade students Empower administrators to make decisions about the experiences of middle grade students
A shared vision which includes all school and community stakeholders
♦A positive school (classroom) climate
Table 4.1: Recommendations of Turning Points (1989) and This We Believe (1995).
♦These items can be implemented by individual classroom teachers.
135 Today, as we revisited this chart, we focused on how much really was in the teachers^ control in their individual classroom. I asked the students these questions: If you, as a middle level teacher, were doing all or even one of the recommendations found in Turning Pomts or This We Believe, how would you know what you were doing was working? How would you know if the students were learning? The following is the conversation that took place:
Bob: I would look at test scores. Linda: Some kids don’t do well on tests. Does that mean they are not learning? Bob: Well, I think testing is the most accurate thing to look at. Ellen: We need to look at other things too, maybe talk to parents. Wanda: Maybe it is better to just have some note cards and record what the kid says, kind of talk to them and see where they’re at. Helen: Maybe we need to assess each child individually.
At that point I interrupted them. I decided that 1 had a perfect opportunity to introduce action research in a way that connected the two parts of the course. In retrospect, maybe I silenced their voices with my zeal to begin the action research portion of the class. Perhaps I should have allowed for more discussion, because questioning the connection with action research and the Middle Level Curriculum portion of the course did show up in several future journal entries. All the same, at that time, I believed that the foundation was in place, and I told them of my plan to model action research in this class to help confirm (or disconfirm) if what I was doing in the classroom was effective teaching and learning. I also emphasized that as future teachers, they needed to have a tool that would help them to determine if the instructional methods they used were successful. I believed that action research was such tool.
What follows in part H is a discussion of how I used the apprenticeship model.
This is followed by separate discussions of each of the data sets discussing the themes that emerged fiom these preservice teachers’ initial introduction to action research and how my own action research influenced what I learned about teaching this course.
136 Apprenticeship Model
For organizational purposes, the discussion of the apprenticeship model is divided into five areas. Those areas include: (a) revisiting a rationale for using the apprenticeship model in this study, (b) questions related to the apprenticeship model that I wanted to respond to in this study, (c) modeling, (d) guided practice, and (e) application.
Rationale for Using the Apprenticeship Model
Standard teaching practice asks that students acquire factual knowledge in separate, unrelated categories. This knowledge is then tested to see whether the information has been retained. But when ‘Teaming how to do something” (such as how to do action research), the measure of success is shown through the “doing.”
Learning about action research and learning to do action research require an understanding of the knowledge gained and an ability to use the knowledge gained appropriately. The students in this study did not carry out their own action research study, but they were a part of my study and saw how my study developed.
Concurrently they practiced research skills such as taking field notes, collecting data, and coding data. They wrote them own proposals as the final requirement for the course.
Action research involves a set of culturally defined methods for conducting inquires. It also requires a set of rules and form of communication for presenting the results. Vygotslqr (1978) himself makes a case for the fact that while most everyday learning occurs spontaneously in the context of everyday experience, there is some
137 learning that has to be taught and organized, through manufactured situations. The learning of action research for these preservice teachers involved the provision of new understandings and the manifestation of new ways of questioning, new ways of arguing, and new ways of communicating. The preservice teachers could not make these new understandings for themselves. The apprenticeship model provided a purposeful induction to these understandings, which were beyond the preservice teachers’ own experience and knowledge.
Lave (1988) says: “Apprentices learn to think, argue, act, and interact in increasingly knowledgeable ways with, people who do something well, by doing it with them as legitimate, peripheral participants.” In this study I used an apprenticeship model to provide a foundation for preservice teachers’ comprehension of how to do action research. The structure and organization of the apprenticeship model provided the opportunity to internalize, through guided practice and application, the knowledge and skills the preservice teachers were developing. It also provided the opportunity for these preservice teachers to develop identities as—and become—members of a community of practicing researchers. I theorized that identifying as a member of my action research project would encourage them to begin to be more knowledgeable and skillM in the process of doing action research. I proposed that by having the opportunity to participate peripherally in my study, the preservice teachers would pick up the relevant social language, imitate my research behavior, and begin to act m accordance with, the community of researcher norms.
Lave’s model did not, however, provide a structured instructional role for me as the teacher. Consequently, I was more mfluenced by Rogoff (1990), who proposes
138 a more formal, instruction-orieiited, cognitive apprenticeship model in. which novices are systematically coached, guided, and supported by expert practitioners. “Guided participation,” as she calls it, depends on communication and negotiation between teacher and learner about what new knowledge or skill is needed and how it can be made compatible with existing understanding and capability. Rogoffs approach is tooted in Vygotskian theory. Vygotsky advocated apprentice-like coaching. His concept of “zones of proximal development’ suggest that teachers design authentic tasks that are more difBcult than students may handle alone, but not so difGcult that they cannot be resolved with the support of a teacher or more knowledgeable peer who models appropriate strategies for resolution.
hi this study, my own knowledge and skills enabled me to assist the preservice teachers in applying knowledge, and my familiarity with the established discourse of action research enabled me to support the preservice teachers in their attempts to master it.
Researchers have found that apprenticeship models are ideal for teaching students how to use strategies for thinking critically, for gathering information, for organizing, and for monitoring, and these researchers have spearheaded the recent interest in “cognitive apprenticeships” (Resnick, 1989). My tacit goal was to develop preservice teachers who would look critically at teaching and learning and be able to make substantiated decisions based on good research about what does and does not work in a classroom.
In conclusion, the apprenticeship model fit my needs because it provided for actually “doing’’ while I systematically modeled, coached, guided, and supported the
139 preservice teachers’ learning. It gave them the opportunity to think about the skills they were learning by emphasizing reflection. It provided the opportunity for them to become members of an actual research group. And, finally, it helped them develop critical thinking skills.
Apprenticeship as It Relates to the First Research Question
The first question m my study utilized the apprenticeship model: How does an apprenticeship model for action research serve as a vehicle for shaping how a group of preservice teachers constructs beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research?
Using an apprenticeship model was central to the instructional model 1 used and studied for this research.
Three-step Approach
1 used three steps of the apprenticeship model as a vehicle for teaching action research to preservice teachers. These steps include:
1. Modeling
2. Guided practice
3. Application
In planning for activities in each of these steps, 1 considered the expert-like processes that were involved in doing action research, such, as (a) focusing the inquiry,
(b) formulating a question, (c) reviewing the literature, (d) collecting the data, (e)
140 analyzing the data, and (f) ethical issues. I considered ways that I could model these strategies for the preservice teachers using authentic data from our class sessions. I tried to design authentic tasks to lead the preservice teachers into those processes and to engage them in effective strategies of doing research.
By using these three steps and by thinking about the processes of doing action research, I was able to teach beginning action research skills to my students.
Modeling.
I modeled (step one) action research by showing my own research in progress.
The learning of how to do action research has many levels such as: learning how to formulate a question, learning how to review the literature, how to collect data, how to code data, how to understand ethical issues, how to report the results, how to write the research proposal, and understanding the cyclic nature of research. I had already used the skills of action research and I was ready to share my own learning of an action research methodology. Every time an aspect of action research was presented to the preservice teachers, I shared with them my own research. Table 4 2 indicates the various ways that I modeled action research in the course.
141 Action Research Methods Modeled in Class Research proposal Shared my proposal and human subjects’ clearance
Research permission of participants Signed permission forms
Importance of collaboration Discussed books in Book Club Collaborated writing proposal
Varied approaches in research projects Described my action research
Taking field notes Took field notes in class
Other data collection methods Videotaped class session Audiotaped Book Club discussions
Data analysis Shared my initial coding of their Journal data with the students
Research Journal/reflection I wrote research journal and shared with the students
Cyclic nature of research—influence Demonstrated how research questions were on research evolving as I taught the course and conducted research Made instructional changes in light of research findings
Questionnaire Shared my pre-/post-surveys with the students
Table 42: Modeling action research.
142 Guided practice.
The apprenticeship model provides for guided practice (second step). The research skills necessary to become proficient in action research must develop through active, meaningful practice. I wanted them to practice all the components of action research that I modeled in class. I gave the preservice teachers the opportunity for repeated practice of the skills to help increase the fluency of their performance in the components of action research. The apprenticeship model offers support in the development of early skills in order to build upon new learning. 1 wanted my support to fade gradually in order to encourage the preservice teachers to become more and more independent.
The students needed plenty of opportunity for guided practice (the second step) in order to succeed in doing action research for themselves. Therefore, I provided opportunities for guided practice of the skills I was modeling. These practices were incorporated into the course context. This helped them to use the skills immediately in meaningful ways. Table 4.3 indicates the various ways that the students practiced action research skills in the course.
143 Action Research Skill Practiced by Students Coding Practiced coding from their field notes
Note taking Practiced collecting verbatim transcripts during direct observation Practiced taking notes ofrof audiotapes
Journal writing Practiced writing their own journals about how they were feeling about action research Practiced a writing reflective journal on their reading and class sessions
The question Practiced developing their own research questions
Proposal Practiced developing their own research proposals
Observations Practiced taking field notes on observations
Table 4.3: Guided practice.
I provided coaching and correction as the preservice teachers learned by practicing these action research skills on their own, and with feedback from, me and
from fellow students. I gradually withdrew my support as they developed
competency. My own research journal indicates examples of coaching:
Linda said she would be using a survey with 20 questions to collect data, I told her that 20 questions was probably too many and gave her some tips for developing a questionnaire. 1 think she was confusing my own individual interview questions with the pre-/post-survey. We talked about how it is not enough to write a few questions on a sheet of paper, tell the kids to write answers and think that this yields valuable evidence. She also said that she was only going to do this at the end of the course. So I coached her in
144 understanding not to write just one questionnaire, but to use a series of questions. I showed her how I gave a pre-/post-survey and also asked for feedback after every class. [JE 8 11-20-00]
Andy sent me an e-mail with his proposal attached. It is due this week. I guess he wants to make sure that he is dotting all his i’s and crossing the t’s. I forgot how scary this process of writing a proposal could be. He just needs me to reassure him. They all want a right answer.... [JE 10 12-7-00]
Application.
The apprenticeship model provided opportunities for the preservice teachers to apply (the third step) the newly practice skill without my support. However, the line between guided practice and application was blurred in my study. Although the apprenticeship model calls for application where the students perform independently of the teacher, 1 still provided feedback as the preservice teachers developed their research proposal. They did not actually do the research because their field experience at this point in their education process was limited. They were spending only one half-day a week in the field, and that was to observe a reading program for their literacy course. They did develop their own research proposal independently, however, which is part of the application process.
Pre-survey
1 gave the preservice teachers a pre-survey to help measure their attitudes and understandings of action research at the beginning of the course. The students were asked to briefly respond to the following questions (see Appendix A).
145 I asked the first question to obtain preliminary knowledge of their understanding of the term action research. I believe that the term “action” gave them some indication of what the term meant since all of the preservice teachers indicated that action research had to do with action being done in the classroom. The following quote is typical to all of the preservice teachers’ responses:
Well, I am not really sure but it sounds like fiom the word action that we are actually going to be involved in the research, like case studies or etc.” [GPRS]
The second and third questions were posed to give me an understanding of the preservice teachers’ beginning understanding of themselves as researchers and a description of any research they had previously completed.
All of the preservice teachers described themselves as researchers. Five students said that they were researches because of the new information they were assimilating in their education courses or acquiring on their own. They defined themselves as researchers by statements that had to do with the knowledge they were gaining to support their own development as future teachers. Some examples of this are:
Yes, [I am a researcher]. I am a student and I am always trying to learn more and more information. I am researching everyday about different subjects, how to understand people better, and so on. [G PR S]
Yes, U am a researcher]. I believe you do research every time you acquire new information whether it be fiom past experiences, lectures, or reading materials. You are constantly getting new information that you did not previously know and that is what a researcher does. [WPRS]
I think I am a researcher because everyday I hear of something that interest me or somethingI would like to know more about I try to find as much information as E can about it, or ask others about it. |H PR S]
146 At this point, these preservice teachers associate research with gaining knowledge rather than research associated with teaching and learning.
The other three preservice teachers viewed themselves as researches not only because of the leammg of new material but also because of their ability to reflect.
Their responses indicated that they were engaged constantly in thinking about their lives and also in evaluating what they are learning:
Yes, [lam a researcher] because I think a lot about what I’ve done in the past and see what could have been done differently. I also look to other sources to help me better myself. [Y PR S]
Yes, I definitely consider myself a researcher. At this point in my life I am researching how to become the best teacher I can be. I also believe I am doing personal research, or soul searching, at this time in my life. No longer am I under my parents’ beliefs, I am researching and discovering who I am. [KPRS]
Yes, [lam a researcher] I am always reflecting on things that happen in life/classroom. I also look for ways that other people handle the same situation. [LPRS] These preservice teachers think of research as reflection, but without
systematically doing a research study.
When asked to respond to the question (survey question #3) describing their
own research experiences, five out of the eight preservice teachers described
incidences of term papers completed for high school or college courses as their
research experiences. For these preservice teachers, research was something they
wrote about after reading what someone else had written. The following statement
demonstrate that idea:
I have done a research paper on William Glasser, B. F. Skiimer, JFK, and several others. I have also done research papers on teacher empowerment and integration, various laws of the constitution, and much more. [B PR S]
147 Most of the research that I have done in my school career has been looking at the research of others and gaining sight from their perspective. QE PR S]
Three of the preservice teachers extended the concept of research to their field experiences:
In my school experiences I have done research on people, theorist and theories, and also about my own views on certain issues. I have done experiments that contribute to research. I have done interviews with diSerent field experience teachers about what methods they use. [W PR S]
I am learning about kids everyday [sic] in my field experience [and] to me this is research. [GPRS]
In my pursuit to become a teacher, I have been researching and reflecting and discovering my beliefs about teaching. [K PR S]
One student’s response showed a beginning understanding of the use of research data collecting techniques. She said:
Just recently I have researched the Kounin Model for classroom management. I used books, Internet sources, and case studies and then presented the information to my class. I also, just recently, researched the benefits of teaming and interdisciplinary curriculum on student, teachers, and parents. For this I used case studies, p i PR S]
The final question on the pre-survey asked the students to list questions that they might be interested in researching. I wanted to determine where their research interests were at this point. I also wanted this as a reference point to be able to check and see if their interest remained the same when they actually wrote their proposal.
All students came up with several questions that they were interested in developing.
The questions generated fell into five categories: effective instruction, parents’ role in school, at-risk students, classroom management, and professional development.
Appendix D gives a list of the questions and categories.
148 -Daily Feedback
The daily feedback that students gave me also helped me gauge how the apprenticeship model for action research served as a vehicle for constructing their beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research.
I asked the student at the end of almost every class to answer the following questions:
1. What is helping you understand action research?
2. What do you need more clarification on?
This process had a dual purpose. It not only aided me in gauging the preservice teachers’ understanding of action research and development as a researcher, but it also helped me to build relationships of trust with them. By getting the preservice teachers’ feedback, I made adjustments in my instruction (organizational strategies and materials) to support the preservice teachers’ own understanding and efforts. For example, when the students expressed concern about developing a question for the proposal, 1 adjusted my teaching and developed a handout that gave them some specific questions to answer to help them to focus their question. Students began to understand that they could influence the agenda of the class as they expressed their daily needs. This is turn helped to establish a relationship of trust because when the students saw that I responded to their needs by making adjustments in my instruction they became more articulate and comfortable talking about their needs.
There were six themes that emerged from the daily feedback to the first question. Three response themes had to do with models that I used in the course to
149 facilitate an understanding of how to conduct action research. These included sharing my Journal entries, class field notes, and examples of my proposal. Another theme
had to do with opportunities the students had to practice action research skills by
taking field notes. The last two themes, whole group discussion and collaborative
book discussion groups, were helpful to the students because they provided the
opportunity for sharing their concerns and thoughts with peers. All of the preservice
teachers indicated that being a part of my study was helping them to construct an
identity as a researcher.
The following comments were common to the daily feedback I received in
these six areas.
Sharing My Journal
I really liked seeing your Journal entries. That helped me better understand what was going on. p 11-7-00]
Sharing your Journal gave me a good example of what you are expecting and what you think about the class. [W-l 1-00]
Class Field Notes
Sharing the transcription of the other groups helps us to know what went on in that group. [H 11-7-00]
When I see the things that we said on the transcription it makes me really think about what I am saying and that I need to think more critical about things. [Y 11-17-00]
Tapmg of our groups—this is a good model that we are using and seeing that we could use in our classroom. [L 11-17-00]
150 Proposal
The example proposal helped me and made me a little more confidence in this particular assignment. [W 11-7-00]
The example of proposal was very helpful. [H 11-7-00]
I am glad we got to look at model of the proposal. It helped me see what is expected and gave me direction. [G 11-7-00]
Field Motes
I found taking field notes was a good experience. I consider it an adventure because it is something new to me. It was also challenging because so many time human pass judgment on everything that happens. Now that I have taken those notes I wonder if what I was thinking is really what was happening. It would be interesting to discuss my notes with the people I observed. Three advantages of field notes are: 1) Observation is an excellent resource for teachers to monitor his or her students, 2) they are seen as a personal wake up call, 3) it is interesting to see how people difièr within the same environment doing the same activity. [E11-9-00]
Whole Class Discussions
Talking about the question was helpful. It gave me further understanding of the process. This class is making me really think and analyze what I am reading. I like the discussion because it gives me others perspectives and helps me relate the materials to action research. [W 11-9-00]
Whole group discussions very helpful in understanding AR our discussion answer my questions. (H 11-7-00]
151 Book Discussion Groups
Book discussion group is very helpful I like that we get to talk about our concerns about the books, what we like and what we’re learning. 1% 11-7-00]
Book discussion groups are very helpful to finalize my thought and hear the thoughts of others. [H 11-7-00]
The group discussion helped me to understand Journalizing. It helped me to be able to share my experience with journalizing and also to hear other points of view on it. [Y 11-5-00]
Table 4.4 shows the number of times that students commented on each component in their daily feedback during the course of the study.
152 Component Apprenticeship Phase Times Students Mentioned Area in Feedback My journal Modeling 10
My field notes Modeling 11
My proposals Modeling IS
Taking field notes Practicing 8
Doing field Practicing 12 observations
Whole group Practicing 15 discussion
Collaborative Practicing 15 book discussion groups
Writing their Practicing 15 own journals
Table 4.4: Daily feedback.
[ did not get diverse feedback from, the preservice teachers regarding areas in.
which they needed clarification (daily feedback question # 2). The feedback I did get
focused on identifying their research question and writing the proposal. At the
beginning, their question and proposal was mentioned by all of the preservice
teachers. These initially questions may have been related to their desire to get an ‘^A”
153 grade. The final grade for the course was based on. the written proposal and so students naturally had a need to know what was required to get a good grade. 1 wrote about this is my own journal entry:
I began the day by again going over the proposal and what is required for the course. I am seeing that they need to know what they “have to do.” Before they can really focus on what they are learning. I guess this is connected to their hierarchy of needs. [JE 3 11-7-00]
Sometimes they used this daily feedback to vent about their own fears and fiustration. The common fear was how would teachers ever find the time to do action research. The following comment was common of most students the first week of the course.
I am worried that AR will cause more work for the teacher. Where will we get the time? [B 11-17]
The daily feedback helped me to understand the emerging culture of this course. Sometimes there were things of which I was not even aware that disturbed the students. For example, one student commented that he needed to hear more about what would hinder action research and what might be its possible drawbacks. 1 had not really considered this topic in planning the course, but it was an excellent one, and
I was able to build upon it and make adjustments in the course.
My Journal
I looked at my research journal to understand how my action research in the
class influenced my understanding of how to teach the course, and to identify the
changes that occurred in the course as a result of my understandings. I kept a
reflective journal that provided information about the methods I was usmg. I used it
154 as a sounding board to help me clarify my thoughts and perceptions about what was occurring in the course. I used it to keep track of what I could do to better facilitate students’ learning.
Four themes emerged from the analysis of my journal writing: (a) interactive learning, (b) components of the apprenticeship model, (c) advantages of the apprenticeship model, and (d) changes in practice.
Interactive Learning
My own action research helped me to understand the interactions between my learning and instruction and the students’ learning in the course. 1 was not just standing and delivering content to them, but, rather, I was receiving their input and reactions and making changes in my instruction. The following journal entries are examples of that understanding:
I am convinced that this course needs to have the students’ inputs as an essential component It seems that for real understanding (on my part and the part of the students) to occur I need to have the participation of these students. I need their input and their reactions not only to what they are learning, but also what I think I understand is happening. They are more familiar with their own condition, the conditions I am trying to observe (the understanding of AR). So it only seems logical to me that they can tell me what is really going on. They know if my instruction and my understanding of their learning are on target- [JE 2 11-2-00]
There is interdependency between the preservice teachers and myself. What I am able to teach them is contingent on the responses I get from them. When I see that they don’t understand something I go back and address the issue again, r make adaptations and modification based on their instruction. [JE 9 11-9-00]
The interactive learning between the preservice teachers and myself was evident as I used the apprenticeship model. We learned continually together.
155 Components o f the Apprenticeship Model
My own action research helped me comprehend how to teach the course as I used components of the apprenticeship model. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989),
Gick and Holyoak (1987); and Perkins and Solomon (1988) are among the researchers who agree that learning can be enhanced when content is presented in authentic situations created during experiences that are similar to the situations in which the knowledge ultimately will be applied. The closer the match between the learning situation and the ultimate workplace situation, the easier this transfer will be. The traditional apprenticeship model provides this situation because in an apprenticeship the expert shows the apprentice how to perform the task and watches as the apprentice practices portions of the task. As the apprentice becomes more proficient the teacher turns gradually turns over more responsibility, until the student can accomplish the task independently.
The apprenticeship model was an effective way to teach the content of the course in an authentic context. My research provided an authentic example for the preservice teachers to learn how to do action research in a classroom, hi addition, action research involves performing some complex tasks, and the cognitive apprenticeship model is most useful when a teacher needs to teach a fairly complex process to students (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991). In a traditional apprenticeship, much of the learning occurs as apprentices watch others at work. The cognitive apprenticeship model brings the previously “invisible” thinking that takes place during this Teaming process to the forefiront, making it “visible.” Thus, the teacher’s thinking
156 becomes visible to the students and the students’ thinking becomes visible to the teacher.
Two elements of the apprenticeship model were evident my journal data.
These were the ways I predominately used the apprenticeship model in my classroom, through: (a) modeling, and (b) guided practice.
I used modeling to perform a task so that the preservice teachers could observe and build a conceptual model of the processes that were required to accomplish it. 1 modeled the strategies necessary to do action research. Guided practice consisted of coaching the preservice teachers while they carried out action research tasks. In this study, these elements helped the preservice teachers acquire an integrated set of action research skills. These elements were integrated throughout the course.
As 1 carried on this study, I discovered that the distinction between these elements is blurred. I did not always follow a direct path in using them. It depended on what the student needed &om me and where they were in their understanding if I, for example, modeled more or went directly to guided practice. Sometimes I modeled in the middle of guided practice and sometime these elements occurred simultaneously. Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) indicate that there is no formula for implementing the activities of a cognitive apprenticeship in a classroom.
“Ultimately, it is up to the teacher to identify ways m which cognitive apprenticeship can work in his or her own domain of teaching” (p. 16).
157 Modeling
The use of modeling in the course influenced my approach to teaching the course. Modeling in my course could be observed in two ways. Sometimes I modeled so the preservice teachers could leam simple tasks. For example, a simple task was the signing of the permission form for the study. I showed the preservice teachers some examples of forms and then asked them to sign my form. It was a relatively uncomplicated process. My journal entry for that day indicated that there were not many questions about it, and the ones that were asked were general. For instance, one preservice teacher asked if they needed to use black ink when signing an official document. These types of tasks did not involve deep cognitive processes. They were not difficult to model.
In contrast, most of the action research skills the preservice teachers were learning required complicated cognitive processes. It was in these areas that I discovered how important conversation was in the process of modeling. Many action research skills are more difficult to model because the preservice teachers could not observe what I was thinking. For example, when they observed me taking field notes in class, they could see what words I wrote down on the paper, but they could not see the process of how the field notes were interpreted and why I chose to note certain observations and not others. So, I learned that it was very important to describe to the preservice teachers what I was doing and why [ was doing it I would show them the field notes and then. I would explain to them what my thought process was while taking the notes. This example firom my journal is typical of many examples:
158 I modeled for the preservice teachers the process of developing questions for interviews today. I did not Just show them the questions that I was using; I also verbalized my thinking process of making the questions and the order of asking the questions. As I was doing this, I was thinking, “This seems to be very teacher led, and this is not what I want this class to be.” But as I reflect back on it now, I can see how this process is only a part of the class. The preservice teachers then worked in small groups to develop their own questions. [JE 4 11-14-00]
I also learned that it was important for them to talk about what they were observing. It helped to make understanding more comprehensible both to themselves and to their peers. Rogoff notes that novices vary in their ability and indicates that the development of peers talking with each other is valuable (Rogoff, 1990).
Today, as I modeled the use of case studies from the research 1 was involved in at OSU, I was distinctly aware of how the need to engage in talking things through becomes more prominent when the students encounter unfamiliar activities. It is a tool that seems to help them to overcome barriers to their understanding and help them to acquire new skills. I am seeing their learning is improved when the they have the opportunity to discuss their thinking out loud to bounce their ideas off their peers. I see how the process of talking is significant to the understanding of doing action research because action research is fundamentally about the process of communicating to make something understandable to one’s self and to others. [JE 5 11-16-00]
Modeling the complexities of action research for the preservice teachers
involved two strategies. The first step was making the problem-solving process explicit for them, i.e., “howto do the task.” For example, 1 would model interview
questions that 1 created for my study. The second step was to model the thought
process that went into developing the interview questions. By doing this, I tried to
make the invisible parts of the process visible.
Sometimes I interwove these two different strategies to help make concept
clear and concise. The following Journal entry is an example of that process:
159 One of the class assignments was to have the preservice teachers go to a public place and take field notes, I showed them examples of field notes I took and I explained the process that they were to use, I sent them out to do an observation. The observations contained none oftheir own reflection, I modeled the process again. I took brief field notes of their groups, while they were in book groups. This time when I shared it with them E talked about my reflections, I intentionally did not do both process the first time I modeled field notes because I wanted to structure the situation in a way that would not overwhelm them, [JE 6 11-28-00]
I modeled something at the beginning of the task, presenting the problem and explaining the process that the students were to use, I then gave the preservice teachers the opportunity to try the task. Then I modeled again, after they bad attempted the task.
My action research influenced my understanding of how to teach this course, as I began to understand how tasks that require complicated processes are more difficult to model, because the students could not observe what was happening in my mind, I became more explicit about describing my thinking, I discovered that I needed to plan not only how to model the performance, but also the thought processes behind the performance. In addition, I needed to plan opportunities for the preservice teachers to practice the skills in a similar context, so that they could think through the processes accordingly in actual situations.
Guided Practice
Guided practice consisted of coaching the preservice teachers while they carried out a task, I ofièred feedback, modeling, hints, reminders, and new tasks aimed at bringing then performance close to expert performance. Guided practice was an element that ran through the entire apprenticeship process, I guided them through a
160 wide range of activities as they practiced doing action research skills, providing structure to the process by which they approached action research tasks.
Learning any skill, whether it is driving a car, knitting, or playing the piano, requires practice. Practice requires repeated opportunities to increase fluency of performance. No one can leam to knit Just by reading instructions about knitting, or even by watching someone else knit: They need to try it. In order for these preservice teachers to develop beginning skills for conducting action research, they needed to engage in active, meaningful practice in the skill itself. I was trying to craft a microcosm of action research culture in order to help students think like expert researchers. I wanted to ensure that they had the opportunity to practice the action research skills they were discovering. For example, I would bring my data from class transcriptions and have the students practice coding it I would then show them how I coded the data and we would compare our coding. The following Journal entry indicates what I was discovering in the class:
Through the practice of action research skills it seems like action research has become a vehicle for dialogue in the course. Today we talked about coding transcriptions. I brought examples of data coded from the last class. I divided the students in to their book groups and had each group code the data. The preservice teachers explain what they are seeing to each other. I then brought all parties back together and showed them what 1 coded in the data. They sometimes disagreed with what 1 was seeing. It seems like we are developing into a research community. They are immersed in action research. They e- mail me about their questions; they talk about what they will do in their future classrooms. It is not longer is Just a course where they meet for a few hours a week. By virtue of this cultural immersion they are experiencing action research in a way that seems to makes an impact on their thinking. PE 9 11-30-00]
Practice helped to draw the preservice teachers into an action research culture.
It helped them to begin to think and to develop beginning researcher skills.
161 Scaffolding
üi my study scaffolding was a component of guided practice. It referred to the supports I provided to help the student carry out the task. I provided scaffolding supports, organizational strategies and other supporting materials that supported the preservice teachers’ efforts. My Journal entries reveal that I used these supports for different things. I used scaffolding in this course to: (a) introduce new action research concepts, and (b) grouping the steps in learning a task into manageable chunks.
Introducing new concepts.
Scaffolding m this area consisted of finding connections between what was to be learned and what students already knew, understood, and experienced. I established a context to situate the learning. One example of this was the pre-test.
Traditionally, pre-tests have been way for the teacher to find a connection between what she/he wants to teach and what students already had learned or experienced. In this study, however, the pre-test also provided the preservice teachers with concepts to guide their examination of action research, as well as sparking their interest in it. As
Paul (1992) has pointed out, one cannot think critically until one has something to think about. The pre-test asked questions such as: What is your definition of action research? Would you describe yourself as a researcher? Describe any research you have done in your school experience. The responses to theses questions revealed significant insights to the preservice teachers about what they knew or did not know about action research. This was a way for me to establish a context for the preservice teachers to guide their present and future learning of action research. In other words,
162 it was a way for me to make visible to them their previous knowledge, understanding, and experiences.
Another example of using scaffolding to introduce a concept was the way I approached research terminology. Learning the language of action research involved introduction to, and gaining familiarity with, the ways in which concepts and ideas are related. The preservice teachers were familiar with the concept of “quantitative research” from their past science courses and labs. But the term “qualitative research” was new to most of them. So we began class sessions by discussing their understanding of quantitative research. My journal entry from November 2,2000, indicates that discussion:
The student understood the concepts of quantitative research. [ asked them to remember the science classes and labs from their high school classes. 1 then asked them to call out words that reminded them of that class. Together we came up with terms like “prove,” “objectivity,” “numbers,” “control,” “test tubes,” “biology,” “chemistry,” and “scales.” I wrote these words on the board and used them to build upon these understandings and to introduce qualitative research. I did this by writing a “companion” qualitative word by the quantitative word. For example, by the word “prove” 1 wrote “argue,” and by the word “objectivity” I wrote “subjectivity.” It did not take them very long to understand what I was trying to help them to see. Soon they were giving me qualitative terms, and. by having both lists on the board they could see the distinctions.
It was hnportant that they understand the difference between these terms. They needed to know how to use these definitions when talking about research.
Another example of using sca^lding to introduce a concept was the concept of “etic” and “emic.” My journal entry revealed how the preservice teachers began to understand those terms:
The terms “etic” and “emic” are new to these preservice teachers. This does not surprise me, because they were new to me when Marilyn [my professor at
163 Ohio State] presented them in my first Inquiry course. I used the students experience doing observations to begin discussion about the etic and emic perspective. I asked them how they felt observing people. Their conversation revealed that some one them were not comfortable with that. They said they felt like they were spying. A few students said they felt like they really could not understand what they were observing unless they talked to the students. I spent sometrme just discussing it with the whole group. I defined it, gave examples of it, and also talked some about the gains and losses that occur in research firom these perspectives. Then the students talked, in groups, about what they understood. They talked about the advantages and disadvantages of both perspectives. [JE 7 11-30-00]
These scaffolding activities dealt with connecting concepts known to the students’ previous knowledge, understandings and experiences. Later in the course I experienced additional “YESt” moments as I heard the preservice teachers use terminology correctly during book discussion groups.
Grouping steps in a learning task.
I also used scaffolding to reduce the number of steps in a learning task to a manageable number. I endeavored to design activities to break the tasks down in to manageable chunks, so that the preservice teachers could understand and do them. My entry indicates how I learned to break down this task into feasible portions to teach developing the research proposal:
I have broken the proposal down into chunks to teach it to them. First, they practiced writing questions in their book groups and got feedback fi:om their peers and myself. I gave specific examples of literature reviews and what they entailed. I had them discuss their rationale iu their group. I had them make a specific outline of how they would do their research, even though they are not going to have the opportunity to actually do it. It seems that breaking it down this way has made it more manageable. [IE 6 11-16-00]
164 The Advantage o fthe Apprenticeship Model
The apprenticeship model helped to engage my students in motivated and engaged learning. It was an effective learning experience for the students. I think that this is because it was not a process that occurred only once during the teaching and learning of action research. It was a recurring process.
Because the preservice teachers were actively engaged in a real task and making discoveries on their own, they were motivated and seemed to experience a sense of ownership of their knowledge and tasks. The following entries are examples of this:
Today’s class was designated a work session to give the student an opportunity to work on their proposals and discuss what they were discovering with their peers. I was able to observe, as the students were in deep discussion about their proposals, that they were making finding on their own. Their conversation revealed that they were excited and felt very connected to their tasks. [JE 8 12-5-001
Karen made the comment in book discussion that she liked the fact that the class assignments were really “putting them into the action research experience.” She went on to say that the activities were ones that a real researcher would do, and that they got to do them not just hear about how 1 did them. [JE 6 11-18-00]
Changes in Practice
My journal entries revealed that 1 made changes in my instruction within the context of the course. These changes were influenced by my reflections about my viewpoint related to teaching and learning. Two subthemes emerged concerning these changes. The first had to do with the changes that occurred while I was teaching the course, and the second had to do with a. change that I will make as I plan future teaching of action research.
165 Changes that occurred during the course.
My journal entries revealed three specific changes that I made while the course was in progress. First, I provided for more time on tasks than 1 originally planned in my syllabus:
Because this is new material for the preservice teachers, 1 am discovering that I need to slow my instruction and give a lot of time for them to ask questions and practice. Fortunately, it is a small class and there is ample opportunity to address issues that arise. [JE 3 11-7-00]
My journal entries also revealed my fiustration because I felt some activities were taking longer than I had planned:
Students still asking question about their questions...but we ran out of time. The class is not long enough. I don't know if I will get it all done. [IE 4 11-9-00]
The second change I made during the course was in my teaching style. When I listened to the audiotapes, I discovered that I was talking too much and consequently, the students were listening too much. This was a foie line, because 1 needed to instruct, but I also needed to hear what the students were discovering about action research. Fortunately, I discovered this early on in the course and I was able to adapt my instruction accordingly:
When I listened to the book discussion tapes, I discovered that 1 am talking too much. This should be the opportunity for the students to discuss what they are understanding and learning. I fold that when I start to talk, they become silent. From now on, I am not going to talk in these groups, but be a silent listener. It will be hard. I am going to ask the students to remind me. [IE 2 11-2-00]
I started to interrupt Ellen in book discussion group today, and George reminded me that I am not to talk. We all laughed. But 1 felt good that he felt comfortable reminding me. [JE 4 11-9-00]
166 The third change I made during the course was in. my course evaluation. The followingjoumal entry reveals this change:
I have always believed that assessment is best if embedded within instruction. But it has become obvious to me that while trying to fulfill the college’s requirement for a “grade.” I am not practicing what I believe in this line. The preservice teachers are so uptight about the grade for their proposal, since it is the main requirement for the course. So, I have told them that 1 will not give less than a “B” if they do the work. I want them to get past the grade so that they could be free to discover action research. I am sure the dean will not like this. [JE 4 11-0-00]
Action research encouraged me to make immediate changes in my instruction.
These changes were influenced by my day-to-day research findings.
Change in myfuture teaching ofaction research.
At the end of the course, I revisited my Journal entries and the data to consider what 1 would do differently if I taught this course again. After this evaluation, 1 wrote in my journal about two changes that I would make in my future teaching of an action research course. First, I would integrate the action research with the middle school curriculum, rather than teaching it as a separate portion of the course. Second, I would
encourage the students to engage in collaborative efforts to develop their research
proposals, rather than having them work independently on their proposals.
I taught this course as two separate components: The middle school level curriculum during the first part of the course, and action research during the second part of the course. In the future, 1 would integrate these two sections instead of treating them as separate segments. One of the texts that I used for the course was Dissolving Boundaries: An Integrative Curriculum, by Edward N. Brazee and Jody Capelluti. In retrospect, this would be a good text for teaching action research skills as well, because it contains case studies about middle level teachers integrating the curriculum. Rather than focusing only on
167 middle level curriculum integration, I would instead also fecus on the power of action research in these settings. I think that this would help create a connection for the students. I would encourage the students to collaborate on the development of their research proposals. I did not do this, and I think this perhaps worked against what I was trying to encourage in the course. I talked about collaboration all during the course, I gave students the opportunity to work in collaborative groups, but when it came time to do the final project, which gave the students their grade for the course, I encouraged independence rather than collaboration. Although two students requested to do their proposals together, and I agreed to that, I did not encourage die rest to collaborate. [JE 11-12-14-00]
As I wrote the above entry, I was acutely aware of how distressing it was to me to discover these two issues. I felt that I was not being true to, or implemented, what I believed.
The first sentence in my pedagogical creed (in my methodology chapter) states that I believe preservice teachers do not inevitably transfer learning firom one circumstance to a different circumstance. Yes, as 1 mentioned above, 1 did not integrate the action research with the curriculum. If I had not taught action research as separate sections in my course, then perhaps the preservice teachers would have made the transfer of knowledge in a more natural fashion.
In addition, although I valued collaboration and structured the course to emphasize the importance of collaboration in doing action research, I should have carried the idea of collaboration into the development of the proposals. Not to have done this seems inconsistent with the rest of the course and inconsistent with my
personal creed.
168 I do not know if I would have ever seen, these inconsistencies if it had not been for my own action research during the course. Action research was a powerful tool for looking at my own instruction.
Students’ Journals
The preservice teachers’ journals also helped me gauge how the apprenticeship model for action research served as a vehicle for constructing their beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research. The students wrote ajournai entry for each class. These entries reflected on the readings, the students’ evolving action research proposal, and/or what was going on in class.
The journals also gave them the opportunity to write on anything else that they wanted to write about.
The analyses of the journal data helped me reflect on my teaching and to
implement some immediate changes. I also considered changes that I plan to make the
next time I teach the course. I used a constant comparative approach to analyze the
reflective journal data. I report here on the five themes that surfaced fiom the data:
1. Puzzling about research and the proposal
2. Attitudes and challenges
3. Understanding action research
4. Importance of collaboration
5. Ethical issues
169 Puzzling about Research and Proposals
The first theme that emerged in the preservice teachers’ journals was their puzzlement about research and the proposal. Their journals included writings about how they struggled to develop their research proposals. All of the preservice teachers
were disquieted by this assignment. Although, this apprehension was less evident at the end of the course it continued to be stated in some degree throughout the course. I would go back almost daily and try to answer the questions and concerns I read in their journals. They wondered about their research questions, how to focus their
study. They also puzzled on how to collect and analyze data, although these concerns
were not as dominant, hi particular, many were puzzled about whether their questions
were too big and how to focus them. One worried about APA style and the “required”
length for the proposal. The following comments are indicative of most of the journal
entries in this area:
I am really concerned about the proposal. I guess that I have my question but I don’t know exactly how to focus it now. [L JE 11-2-00]
1 am interested in “at risk” students. How do I get direction for what is expected of a proposal? It seems like it would be very big. [K JE 11-7-00]
How long does the proposal have to be? [G JE 11-2-00]
Because their research proposal was the major requirement for the grade in the
course, it was not surprising that the preservice teachers discussed this in their journals. They were very concerned about getting a high grade in the course. To help
alleviate this concern I reassured my students that I would not give any student less
than a “B” fer the course if they did the work required. I wanted them to get past the
grade so that they could be firee to discover action research. I also developed a very
170 specific rubric about what I was looking for iu the proposal so that they would feel comfortable and confident that they were doing what I expected them to do. However, though I tried to waylay their fears, this concern was present throughout the course.
Two things influenced the preservice teachers’ puzzlement about the proposal.
The first was how I directed the class and the nature of action research itself. The second was their preconceived notions about research.
The Nature o fthe Class and Action Research
I talked about this being an evolving inquiry and how 1 needed to be open to learning in the process of doing research. At first, this may have been too much for them to take in as undergraduate students. Initially, they expected me to KNOW ALL.
They struggled with the idea that I was changing my mind about things I was discovering in my research. They had difficulty with the concept that it was all right if
1 (as the teacher) did not know a right answer, or that there may not be a right answer.
I tried to demonstrate how my research was raising questions and influencing what was happening in the class. This seemed to go against their idea of what is “typical” and what is “atypical” in a classroom. It seemed to me that they adhered to a traditional pedagogy. A set of teaching practices that establishes the belief that power/knowledge lies in the teacher and sustains the current regimes of truth in
society. These preservice teachers did not want to see their teacher as someone who
did not have all the answers. They seemed to want a secure and predictable process
for doing research. They saw little place for their own interpretations and wanted a
recipe for what they should do in a particular investigation and what that proved.
171 Any time teachers choose to break the conventions, the prevailing norms, of the preexisting pedagogic contract, they must expect student resistance and be prepared to justify why such a break is occurring. My own Journal entry reflects my thoughts on this:
This is not the first time that I have struggled with the concept of straying Grom the hegemonic pedagogy with these particular students. I have had all of them in at least one previous class. In those classes, I also asked them to move fi:om a model of learning based on transmission, to one based on constructivism. They continually struggled with it. They seemed to believe that there is an implicit pedagogic agreement. They interpreted any straying fi-om the limits of this as a breach in the agreement. They are resistant to that straying. [JE 2 11-6-00]
Preconceived Concepts o f Research
The second thing that influenced their puzzling about the proposal was their preconceived concepts of research. These preservice teachers assumed that research proves and disproves something. At the beginning of the course they were not comfortable learning that research is not always a set of facts, that theories change and that a researcher did not have all the answers.
This is a different view of research for me. When 1 think of research I think of looking at statistics and numbers and trying to prove that some thing is true. If you don’t have the numbers and facts that prove what you are saying is true then you could make research say anything you want it to. [Y 11-6-00]
The underlying expectation seems to be that research processes are indisputable and that the process could not be questioned critiqued or changed.
172 Attitudes and Challenges
The second theme that developed from the preservice teachers’ Journals was attitudes and challenges. There were three challenges that the preservice teachers wrote about. The first had to do with what they perceived as concerns about implementation. These concerns were time and student cooperation. The third challenge that they wrote about was seeing the connection between the first part of the course (middle school curriculum) and the second part of the course (action research).
Time
We discussed ways a teacher could have time to do action research in the class.
[ thought that the discussion was more than enough to dispel any other concerns about it. However, after the class discussion they all wrote about their concerns about havmg enough time to do action research in their classroom. Although they wrote about concerns, they also had some solutions to suggest The preservice teachers seem to feel that if teachers wanted to make action research a priority, they would find the time to do it. The following student’s journal entry is indicative of most of the preservice teachers’ responses to the issues of time and how they could be dealt with:
My concern is to find time to actually do this. I have thought about some suggestions to successfully accomplish my time concern. First, t could set aside time for a certain day as to when I actually do this and nothing else. It won’t be an issue of well, maybe I’ll get to this tomorrow, but I will have a certain day planned out as to when I am going to take field notes, observe, or whatever. Second, I could efiectively use a student aid, student teacher, or a parent helper to help keep order in the class when I am implementing some of these research ideas. A lot of times, I don’t feel as if teachers take advantage of these people in their classrooms, they Just put them off m a comer witfr a struggling student. I say get them involved in what you are trymg to accomplish, and I almost bet that you could get so much more accomplished.
173 Third, have specific times when you caa collaborate with other teachers to get ideas, suggestions, or comments about research. It never hurts to talk to other coworkers and help each other out. Personally, the more I think about implementing research the more I think it can. be done if you want to do it bad enough. I know I am always worried about time, but there are so many resources out there that can aid me in accomplishing what I need to do. This class has helped me realize that I am excited to try new ideas and help other teachers accomplish their goals also. [G11-9-00]
My own journal entries indicate that I was surprised that time would be a concern to these preservice teachers because they had very little field experience on which to base this concern. When I thought about where this could have developed, one possibility is that it was dependent on their prior beliefs about teaching. These prior beliefs may have given them an understanding that time was an issue for teachers. Prior beliefs about teaching are formed by their prior schooling experiences.
The research tells us that beliefs about teaching and learning are well established by the time preservice teachers begin their formal teacher preparation (Calderhead &
Robson, 1991) and that these beliefs are “tenacious and powerful” (Holt-Reynolds,
1992, p. 344), relatively inflexible, and resistant to change (Pajares, 1992). These preservice teachers were “insiders” who already had a strong sense of what it meant to be a teacher even though they had little experience teaching. They had experienced an approximately 12-year “apprenticeship of observation” (Lottie, 1975) by sitting in classrooms, learning and observing teaching. This apprenticeship of observations is powerful.
I discovered just how powerfiil when I went back and asked the preservice teachers where this idea of time as a problem came fiom. Four of them had parents who were teachers or administrators, and they indicated that they had observed this
174 issue from, watching their parents. The other four sensed that they knew it was an issue from watching teachers and seeing how frantic they were, they never seemed to have enough, time to get things done. None of these four said that they were ever actually told it was an issue, but they felt they knew that it was by observing.
Student Cooperation
The second challenge that the preservice teachers felt they would meet when implementing action research was getting students to cooperate with them in order to collect data. Six preservice teachers mentioned this in their writing. These preservice teachers all planned on teaching middle level students, although they had little field experiences with this age group. They were concerned with the fact that students may not want to be involved in their classroom research. They felt that students in middle grades might not be comfortable being videotaped, audiotaped, or observed.
My concern is, will middle level kids want to do action research? Will they want to participate in my study? I can’t do it without their help. ECids this age are going through many changes physically, mentally, personally, and socially. I worry that doing a study will draw attention to them and they don’t like to be noticed. [W 11-21-00]
1 don’t know if middle school kids would like doing this. It may be hard to get them involved. They are so moody. What if they were in one of those moods on the day you wanted to collect data. This could mess up the whole study. [E 11-21-00]
Two preservice teachers wrote about this concern and then addressed it:
I am concerned a little bit about doing this with middle level kids. 1 think that will be a challenge. They are not cool about having attention drawn to them, and doing research, in your class could do Just that. Maybe the research, could be done in ways that did not draw attention to the students’ participation in the
175 study. I think if you didn’t have a video camera in their face it may be OK. I would try to do it using questionnaires, and Journal entries to collect data. [L 11-16-00]
I guess my other concern besides time, is the students themselves. I question if they will like doing this. But if it presented in a way that indicates we are doing it as a group then maybe it would be OK. Middle level students like to be connected to a group. So I would not just observe one kid. [K 11-31-00]
The preservice teachers did not write about issues such as a non-supportive administrator or colleagues, or even the newness of a first-year teacher as issues that might make doing action research more difficult, although. I mentioned these possibilities in class. The challenges they perceived were based on the things they knew about, or assumed they knew about.
Connections
The third challenge that the preservice teachers wrote about at the onset was seeing the connection between the first part of the course (middle school curriculum) and the second part of the course (action research). This challenge is particular to my study because I incorporated action research skills into the curriculum course. From the beginning, I anticipated that this could make them uneasy and, as I stated previously, I endeavored to address this matter in the first class. Questioning the connection with action researchers (the second part of the course) and the middle level curriculum (the first part of the course) showed up 15 times in 7 of the students’ early
Journal entries. These entries were written during the first four class sessions. There was one preservice teacher that did not mention it at all. The written comments were never more than one sentence and stated sunply that they were having difficulty seeing
176 the connectioa between action research and our study of middle school curriculum during the first part of the course:
E think I have an idea about action research, but I am not able to link action research with other things we discussed in the first part of the course. [E 11-6-00]
I continued to revisit this issue in one form or another trying to help the students make the connection. It was not mentioned in any student's journal after the fourth class. I believe there were three main factors that occurred concurrently in the class that helped dispel their concern: (a) the case studies they were reading, (b) the discussion groups they were involved in, and (c) the influence of my research.
Case studies.
The first was the case studies the preservice teachers were reading. These were about teachers crafting curriculum changes by carrying out action research in their classrooms. The following excerpt fiom ajournai entry is an example of this:
While reading this chapter I was able to realize how action research can happen in a “real” classroom. It showed how teachers could carefully and scientifically pursue their questions about their teaching through research. [K11-16-00]
Discussion groups.
The second thing that occurred to help dispel this concern was that the preservice teachers had the opportunity to discuss and reflect on the case studies they were reading about with their peers. The dialogue gave them the opportunity to answer questions together and to formulate new ideas. The book discussions provided a forum for the social construction of what they were beginning to understand.
177 The following student put it this way:
In our group today, it clicked about why action research is so important to curriculum development in middle schools. I think the light went onl It is a key tool in curriculum. It allows me as a teacher to evaluate and find out what is working in my class and what is not. [G 11-14-00]
The influence o f my research.
The third thing that occurred to help dispel this concern was my research.
They were not only seeing in modeled in class but they were participating in my action research.
In spite of the issue of time, student participation, and their own confusion about the connections in the course, it appeared that most of the students did not let these things discourage them. They had optimistic attitude about doing action research. The following quotes are indications of their confidence.
Right now I don’t see anything that will impede me firom doing this kind of research. It has become part of my teaching philosophy and style. I have a feeling it will always be a main focus in the way I teach my students. [H 11-21-00]
I feel that there is nothing that will impede me firom implementing my research because just that.... It’s MY research! I can’t let little things like time get in the way. [L 12-4-00]
Understanding Action Research
The third theme that emerged in the preservice teachers’ journal entries was the preservice teachers’ understanding of action research. In the beginning, the preservice teachers indicated that the concept of action research was a mystery to
178 them. They had never heard about it before this class. Their understanding about action research was just beginning to take shape as the course began.
The students wrote about their understandings in two specific subtopics: (a) the cyclic nature of action research, and (b) data collection and analysis.
The Cyclic Nature o f Action Research
There were 25 journal entries produced by eight students referring to the cyclic nature of action research. In the action research cycle, the teacher (a) identifies an area to understand, change, or improve; (b) seeks knowledge about that area; (c) plans an action to make that change; (d) hnplements the action; (e) observes the action systematically; (f) analyzes the data and reflect; and (g) revises or redirects the plan.
The students’ journals indicated that they were beginning to identify and understand the action research cycle through the case studies about action research that they were reading, and in what they were teaming and practicing in class. The followingjoumal entries are examples of those understandings:
These cycles that happen in AR don’t just happen in one particular time span and then you are done with the cycles. They go on all the time. I see that happening everyday in class. |B JE 8 11-30-00J
1 know the cycle idea, basically, and I see cycles being done in the case studies we are reading and in our action research study in class. [K JE 4 11-21-00]
Action research is teachers studying their own teaching in order to make it better. They gather and interpret what they are seeing so that they can be more professional. That sometimes that leads into more questions to answer. [H JE 611-16-00]
From collected data a teacher can reevaluate what she has done and if it isn’t working she can change or try to do some thing different and then look at it again. It is a cycle. [L JE 511-16-00]
179 One student created a drawing in her journal to indicate her understanding of the cycle. This drawing was specifically referring to an action research case study she had read and how she saw the cyclic nature of action research in that case study.
Data Collection and Analysis
There were 50 Journal responses referring to data collection and analysis. Six preservice teachers wrote about this area.
I had chosen particular kinds of data for the purposes of lay study. Therefore, in class 1 was using and modeling these particular data collection techniques, including interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and journals. However, I also presented a variety of other data-collection tools, such as sociograms, anecdotal records, students' work, and classroom artifacts. It was not surprising to me to discover that they wrote about what they had been experiencing, rather than what they just heard about. Their journal entries focused on the types of data collection tools they were seeing and actually using in class.
Through my modeling and their practice in class, they began to understand how various kinds of data could be collected and analyzed. I modeled the ways I logged my data through field notes. I also showed strategies for gathering data by collecting their journals and conducting interviews. In addition, the preservice teachers had the opportunity to practice some of these techniques, such as field notes and audiotapes transcription in the course.
180 Field notes.
There were 19 journal responses that I coded in the sub-topic of field notes.
All of the preservice teachers wrote about this topic. At first, seven of them wrote about field notes in a broad way. They were familiar with it. They seemed to have a peripheral knowledge that teachers took notes in the classroom. But most of what they had observed in their field experiences was checklist or things that teachers used to organize classroom instruction. They did not understand that those notes could be carefully looked at to discover topics that could help improve instruction or make changes in the classroom. The eighth preservice teacher viewed field notes as a way a teacher could document what they were doing, and as protection in case an administrator questioned them.
During the course the preservice teachers were given three opportunities to take field notes. First, they experienced it through connection with the text. The preservice teachers read case studies of teachers doing action research. These studies gave accounts of teachers taking, coding, and reflecting on the their field notes. A number of educational scholars have suggested cases as an alternative way of creating authentic learning experiences for preservice teachers (Carter, 1988: Doyle, 1990;
Sykes & Bird, 1992). Cases can provide a vicarious experience for the preservice teachers. Cases can support the consideration of general principles and factors as they interact in complex ways in practice.
Second, they experienced field notes through, opportunities to practice in class.
For example, one of the assignments in the course was for the preservice teachers to go to a public place and take field notes for an hour. In addition, some of the students
181 practiced taking notes during class book discussion groups. Finally, I modeled taking my own field notes in class. I would share the written notes; the transcriptions and coding that developed firom those notes, as well as my reflections on the notes.
By the end of the course, seven of the preservice teachers wrote journal entries that indicated that these three experiences seemed to help them begin to understand the transcriptions, coding, and reflection that occur in the process of taking field notes.
The following entries are comparable to most of the Journal entries:
It helps me to understand how field notes are coded when you share your transcriptions of data firom our class and how you code it. [B 11-14-OOj
It is interesting to me how you can code something in one place and than as you reflect on it you discover that it can fit into another place as well. [H 511-16-00]
Being able to reflect on the notes is very helpful. You may write something down that has no significance to you at the moment but will help you when you reflect on it. [W11-16-00]
Three students wrote that they understood the need to focus field notes in a particular area in order to find the time to do them. They felt that although it was fun and exciting to just observe and take general field notes, it was not very realistic or practical and that as teachers they would need more direction. The following journal entry is an example of this:
There is a need to be practical when you take field notes. I think it is really important that you focus the notes on whatever it is you are trying to study. There is not much time to do this so you can’t just go taking notes on stuff that will not answer your question. [Y11-17-00]
Other preservice teachers wrote about how quickly they had to write and about
the choices that they had to make as they wrote field notes. These choices occurred as
182 they took notes during the class book discussion groups and as they observed in a public place. The following are examples of that:
I learned a lot by observing our class. It made me realize that there is a lot more going on in our classroom than we think there is. Sometimes I decided on my own that something was not important to write down, so I just left it out. I guess this is Just my choice. [H11-15-001
I wrote frantically, trying to get down everything that was happening. In the cafeteria, there is a lot going on at one time. I tried to write what all groups were doing and I just could no do that effectively. 1 had to pick one group and Just observe that group and ignore the rest, [Y 11-16-001
One preservice teacher’s Journal entries also indicated that having these opportunities to practice this technique made her feel like a real researcher. She felt like she was actually doing research, not Just reading about it:
1 especially felt like a “researcher” when 1 was taking these notes at the party. It was cooil [L 11-14-001
The Journal entries also indicated their developing understandings of how to take field notes. Their entries indicated that they were beginning to understand the importance of writing about the particular. But with the initial understanding came initial concerns. Six students who wrote about focusing on the relevant data and trying to be as detailed as possible in the notes seemed to feel an. accountability to know what particulars to write down. They wanted to know which details would be the ones to give them a true detailed picture of what was happening in the classroom?
The following examples show this concern:
How do you know what to write down? If I don’t write something down because I don’t think it is important then 1 may miss something that is important. I understand from our class discussion how important it is to write down thick descriptions when yon take notes because this wül help the researcher to get a very vivid picture. [Y 11-9-OOJ
183 I hope that I know what to observe when I am taking notes for my own research. There was so much happening when I practiced doing this in class. But if I were doing it for my own research. I would not want to overlook stuff How do you know what to look for? [L 11-16-00] -
After reading these journal entries I wrote in my own journal my thoughts about their questionings:
I have told the students about the need to write as much as possible as they take notes and to be as detailed as possible in the notes. But I think that this may be overwhelming them especially now that they have had the opportunity to practice taking some field notes. They are concerned about all that is happening and how to zero in on what is important. I need to discuss with them ways this can be managed so that they don’t think feel it is not possible to do this. I think 1 am also dealing with that problem of them wanting a right way to take field notes. They want an absolute way of arriving at the answer. [JE 11-9-00]
In a subsequent class, we discussed how it might be helpful to focus on only one thing at a time as they practiced learning how take field notes. For example, that they may want to focus on gestures and communication that happen without using words one day, concentrate on spatial relationships another day and add diagrams and sketches to their words the next. In addition, we discussed how this would be less of a problem once they had developed a specific research question because the question would give them focus for their field notes. The daily feedback that day indicated that they found these suggestions helpfid.
One of the things that I found mteresting in their jomnal entries in regards to
writing field notes was their comments on note-taking supplies. All of the preservice teachers wrote about this. I did not put particular emphasis on this in class. 1 spoke
briefly about note-taking supplies such as loose-leaf notebooks, spiral-bound notes
184 books. I also mentioned Post-it® notes or note cards. I was surprised at their responses to this area. They wrote comments, such, as the following:
How did teachers ever get along with out post it notes? The idea of using post it [sic] notes to collect data appealed to me. I am already planning how I will use these when I do research in my classroom. Post it [sic] notes are less intrusive than a big notebook or cUpboard. [L JE 8 11-30 00]
I think the colored note cards would be a good thing to use when you are taking notes. They would be easy to code. They come on tons of colors. Like if you were only looking at one specific thing you could put all your notes on one color card. [H 11-29-00]
1 always thought Post-it notes would be good for walking around and giving kids personal notes. But now 1 can see how 1 will use them in my own research. What a great tool they are to write down things [observe. I can Just keep it in my pocket so I won’t have to run back to the desk and write when I see something I want to write down. [W 11-30-00]
I did not go back and ask them why they focused on this in their writing. 1 was apprehensive that by doing that they would feel I was judging something they wrote as being insignificant. But as I reflected on it I felt that may be the reason it was so important to them was that it was something that was specific and in their control.
The concept of action research was totally new to them. But the idea of the supplies they would use while doing action research was something familiar and manageable to them.
Interviews and surveys.
The preservice teachers wrote about collecting data through interviews and surveys. These entries focused on the use of focus group interviews and individual interviews in my study.
185 One preservice teacher made a coimection between interviews and her prior school experience observation reading workshops. She saw it as a way to get data.
[ have seen, teachers use this format in. reading workshops where teachers interviewed and questioned students about books and writings. I am starting to see that what came out of these reading workshops could be used as data. I think this is great way to collect data because teachers can collect data naturally and not have to worry about finding extra time to do it. [K 11-28-00]
Two students wrote about how they thought they would be able to use pre and post surveys in their future studies based on the model I provided for them in class.
One felt that this was a usable tool because it did not require a lot of time and you could get a diverse amount of information. The other student wrote that a pre-survey would give you a starting point of understanding.
You have to know where the kids are before you can begin to understand where to take them or how to teach. So I think the idea of a pre-/post-survey is great. [E 11-30-00]
These same students wrote about how my interviews and surveys helped them to understand how much prior thought had to go into the development of the questions.
Interview and surveys are a good way to collect data, but it is really important that you think carefidly about the questions in advance. (L 11-14-00]
Understanding the benefits o f data.
By the end of the course seven preservice teachers wrote in their journals about the value of collecting and analyzing data in their future classroom. They began to understand how it was informative and meaningful to the teacher.
Data can help a teacher to change the curriculum when needed. It can help change methods in the ways that they need to be changed, ft can help to prove
186 what the teacher is doing is working. By having proof it is more powerful than just thinking that something works, but not knowing for sure. [B 11-16-00]
Data is the basis for change in the classroom. [K 11-16-00]
Data is what will help you figure out if you methods are successful or not. [Y 11-16-00]
One student wrote about the importance of writing down what was observed and reflecting upon it:
1 think that teachers are constantly adapting and changing when things don’t work. The problem is they don’t write it down and think about it. It has to be written down in order to be data. [L 11-14-00]
The Importance o f Collaboration
The fourth theme that emerged concerning preservice teachers’ understanding of action research was the value of collaboration. The design of the course helped to accentuate the value of collaboration in doing action research. For example, the book/discussion groups gave them the opportunity to experience and practice collaboration. A portion of almost every class was dedicated to preservice teachers working together in these groups. There were two groups, and each group discussed a difierent book. In these groups, they discussed their understanding and reflection about the books they were reading. These groups were also used to discuss other ideas and assignments firom the course. For example, the groups worked together to develop their individual research proposals. This was the main assignment for the course.
They shared drafts of their proposals, and helped each other develop their questions, research, designs, and data collection.
187 There were 25 journal entries dealing with the topic of collaboration. From those entries, two subcategories emerged. These were collaboration with peers within
the course, and collaboration among teachers in the school setting. There were 10
responses under the subcategory of collaboration with peers and 15 responses under
the other subcategory, collaboration among teachers in the school setting. All of the
students addressed this issue fairly uniformly, except for one student who did not have
any entries in the subcategory of collaborating with peers, but had five entries that
dealt with collaboration among teachers, more than any other student had concerning
this subcategory. However, this student commented several times in the daily
feedback that working with his peers in the book groups was helpful to him in
understanding action research.
Collaboration with Peers in the Course
The preservice teachers’ journal entries described two ways that they saw
collaboration with peers in the course as important. The first way had to do with the
benefits of collaboration. The following journal entries are examples of this.
Meeting together allows me to gain new insights and perspectives. Having the opportunity to discuss my ideas with others helped me stretch my thinking and thM critically. |K 11-22-001
The book discussion group gives me the opportunity to share ideas and gain new perspectives. It also allows for that element of flexibility and change. [Y 11-22-00]
I believe that collaboration is extremely important to teachers involved in teacher research, because another person would understand what you are doing. (L 11-16-00]
188 One preservice teacher expressed in his journal that by helping peers to understand a particular issue in the collaborative group, he also was able to bring some clarity to his own thoughts:
Tve heard that you really know something when you can explain it to someone else. That is so true, hi our group I was explaining the idea of bias in the etic and emic perspective. While I was explaining it, I also began to understand it better myself. [B U -28-00]
The second way the preservice teachers described collaboration as being important in the course was the collaboration in the development of their research proposals. Comments such as the following were common:
In our book/discussion group I am learning that someone else may see something totally difîèrent and may have a better idea about my proposal that I would have never thought of on my own. [L 11-2-00]
1 found that through collaborating with the students in my book group, in discussion about my proposal, I was able to share my views and then get feedback and alternative viewpoints. |H 11-28-00]
Collaboration among Teachers in the School Setting
The preservice teachers’ journal entries described two ways that they saw collaboration as being important in the school setting. The first had to do with their understanding that collaboration was an important part of becoming a more efiective teacher. The following journal entries reveal this understanding:
It is very important to have collaboration with other teachers. You can learn many different methods and different styles of teaching that you may have never considered. [H 11-28-00]
189 I think it would be intellectually stimulating to share your teaching ideas with another teacher. You would get feedback ftom. someone who understood. [W 11-21-00]
Collaboratioa with other teachers creates a sense of community you don’t feel like you are all alone. [L 11-9-00]
One student seemed to make the connection between what she learned about middle schools in the first part of the course to what she was learning now:
In the first part of this course we learned how many middle schools are beginning to set up teams for student instruction. Collaboration within these teams is imperative. It is difficult to accomplish anything when essential collaborative relationships are unsatisfactory. [H 11-21-00]
The second way that the preservice teachers described collaboration as important in the school setting was in using action research. Theirjoumal entries described their understanding that, it was helpful to collaborate with other teachers while doing an action research project. The following responses are similar to most of the preservice teachers’ responses in this area:
Even though collaboration is not necessary in action research, I would think that teachers who collaborate are probably much more competent doing action research than the teachers who does not collaborate. Some one else may see something totally different and may have a solution or idea that you would have never thought of on your own. [L 11-16-00] Action research involves collecting data, implementing different techniques, making changes, reviewing these things, sharing the information and getting feedback, and then doing it all agam. It is much more in-depth than 1 originally expected. Therefore, 1 believe that collaboration is extremely important to the teacher. You need some moral support. [W 11-14-00]
Ethical Issues
In the course, I spent a class session dealing with issues of ethics in action
research. There were three distinct strands that emerged firom the preservice teachers’
190 Journal about their understanding of ethical issues in research: (a) standard ethical procedures seen in research, (b) perspective in research, and (c) classroom dilemma.
Standard Ethical Procedures
I modeled standard research ethics in this study. For example, I had the students sign consent forms to participate in my study, and I gave them copies of the forms to examine. I assured them that I would protect their confidentiality in the study.
Five of the preservice teachers responded in 14 Journal responses to two standard ethical issues of informed consent and protecting the participants’ confidentiality.
These five preservice teachers’ Journals indicated that they understood that
informed consent was necessary. The Journal entries regarding informed consent were
similar to this one:
It is very important to explain to the students and then have them sign a consent form saying that they agree to let you use them in your study. [K 12-7-00]
Four of these five students mentioned in that they felt teacher researchers
needed to obtain parents’ consent as well as students. They felt that teachers needed
to communicate with parents about the study.
I believe that a contract should be signed where the students knows and agrees to their discussions, participation, etc. to be used in this type of research. The parents also need to consent to this. [H 11-28-00]
Protecting participants’ anonymity and confidentially was pointed out by these
five preservice teachers. Comments such as the following were widespread:
191 I think it is important that your students understand that you are going to keep thing confidential and that you are not going to use their true names in your study. You will protect them. [E 11-21-00]
Perspective
In addition to the standard ethical procedures, I tried to take a more specific ethical stance by constantly asking for their feedback about what I was seeing in the data and what 1 writing about them. I wanted them to understand the perspective of the researcher. I told them that I wanted their feedback about my perspective on them.
I did not do this to model the methodological stance of triangulation. My reasoning was more multifaceted. I did this because 1 wanted to make plain that qualitative research is permeated with ethical issues, and everything we do has ethical implications. In class we talked about the interpretive nature of research and how research is influenced by the researcher’s perspective and situated context. We talked about emic and etic viewpoints. The emic perspective is the insider’s perspective of reality. The etic perspective is the outsider’s perspective of reality.
I used the example of the field notes that they had taken in a public place as an initial jumping off point to discuss this area. We discussed what they saw from an etic perspective as they observed groups of people. We then discussed about what it might have actually looked like from the emic perspective.
I also used the example of the teacher researcher compared with the research on teaching to help the preservice teachers understand this perspective. Teachers are usually do research because they have questions about their teaching and their classroom. Their perspective is firom an insider (emic) perspective. While other
192 researchers may have a question that developed by reading theories and others’ research, they represent an etic perspective (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Teachers are absorbed in the situation. Research on teaching, no matter how insightful and involved, is always in some ways removed from it if an outsider does it. We discussed how both perspectives have value in the field of education.
The preservice students’ journal writing indicated their beginning understandings about the perspective of the researcher. All of the preservice teachers had journal responses about the perspective of the researcher. They teachers wrote 32 entries in their journals that I coded as an indication of their understanding of the researcher’s perspective and the ethical issues that encompassed. These 32 entries were related to the advantages and disadvantages of both the etic and the emic perspectives. The preservice teachers all discussed the advantages and disadvantages of both perspectives. The following example points out that the preservice teachers understood the major advantage from an etic perspective was the ability for the researcher to give a different perspective to a situation:
I think that the advantage of having an etic view is that you are not involved in the group, you may have different view of the situation. [L 11-17-00]
All of the preservice teachers wrote that the biggest advantage of the emic perspective was that it provided the opportunity for a close and knowing representation of what was happening in the situation.
When an outsider [researcher] comes in to view your classroom practices, he or she has no idea of the behavioral patterns of the kids or your teaching style for that matter. [G 11-21-00]
193 I think that an advantage is that you get a closer perspective on what is going on in the group. It is easier to know why a certain person acted a certain way if you are involved or on a closer proximity. [B 11-21-00]
The preservice teachers’ journal entries also indicated that there was an understanding of how observations are contextualized within a personal perspective.
Five preservice teachers wrote that they were able to see how interpretations can be construction ftotn both, an etic and emic perspective. They wrote that that they did not think a non-biased position was possible from any perspective.
Two preservice teachers, although acknowledging that the researcher’s perspective was a dilemma, wrote that they felt that taking detailed notes was a way to help alleviate the problem, as indicated by the following entry:
We need to describe as much as we can when we are looking at things from an emic perspective. Because we all have bias and this perhaps will help make those biases visible. It is really important to use what you called “thick” data. [H 11-30-00]
One student’s candid response dealt with how continual alermess to a researcher’s bias assists in producing more trustworthy interpretations:
I don’t think there is anything wrong or right with having biases, as long as you acknowledge that you have it [sic]. We all have them. It would not make anyone happy to hear me say this, but I am sure that we have “Christian bias” here at school. We Judge others by the values and standards of our culture here. [L 11-21-00]
In their journals the preservice teachers indicated that the best approach would be a balance of both an emic and an etic perspectives. They felt that though it is important to look yourself at what is happening in a classroom it is also helpful to have another person’s point of view.
194 Classroom Dilemmas
All of the preservice teachers were particularly concerned about what to do if they should discover something in their students’ Journals that was harmM to the students. They mention such things as sexual abuse, suicide, drugs, and alcohol. They felt that they should break the trust of confidentiality in cases like that and get help for the student.
One student indicated that it was difBcult for him to forecast the ethical issues that he might face because he was not in the classroom yet. He said that some of the case studies they were reading about action research painted perfect conditions for doing action research and that ethical were not even mentioned.
Near the end of the course the preservice teachers’ journal writing began to indicate that they were beginning to understand that action research was a tool that could assist them in their future classrooms. Six of them specifically indicated in their journal entries that they saw action research as a way to help them, as future teachers, understand the occurrences in their classroom and a way to make things work in their future classroom. The following are examples of their thinking:
The big thing that E have learned that really is important in action research can be in helping you look at your classroom rather than have someone else look at your classroom. [E 11*30-00]
I am discovering that action research will help you become a more efiective teacher and cater to the needs of your students. Helping your students learn is the most important priority you should have. You should know how to do find out what works yourself. [EV 12-1-00]
195 Focus Group Interviews
Although focus groups may be held at any point in a research study, I did these interviews near the end of the course. By this time, it seemed that the preservice teachers had developed a perspective about the elements of action research and the course and would be able to discuss them in a thoughtfiil manner.
1 met once in focus groups with each of the study’s two book groups. Each book group was made up of four students who met to discuss a book. 1 used these two book groups as the basis for the focus group interviews because the group members were already used to having discussions as a group. Because 1 wanted to focus on the dynamics of the group, interactions in the group, 1 thought it best to keep the group unchanged. I combined the data from both groups in the writing of this section.
1 used a constant comparative approach to analyzing the focus group
interviews. 1 report here on the six categories that emerged from the data:
1. Important aspects of the course
2. Changes in thinking
3. Benefits of the apprenticeship model
4. Connections
5. Proposal
6. Implementation
196 Important Aspects o fthe Course
To generate discussion, and to have the preservice teachers begin to identify factors that they had in common, I asked the preservice teachers in both, groups to write down five important aspects of what they were learning from the class. I then asked them to prioritize the top three of these five and to designate them as most important, next important, or least important. I encouraged them to be forthright in their responses by telling them there was not right or correct answer and that I was looking for their diverse views. I wanted to shift the emphasis from me, as the interviewer, to the preservice teachers’ thoughts and opinions. I did not wish the interview to “embody the preconceived ideas of the interviewer as the attitude of the subjects (participants] interviewed” (Rice, 1931, p. 561; cited in Krueger, 1988, p. 18).
In a roimd-robin format, each preservice teacher then shared their three most important aspects that they were learning from the course designating which was most important next important and least important. As they shared them, I wrote them down and gave each a numerical value (3 for most important, 2 for next important, and
I for third important). By doing this I also was able to help them to see factors in the course that they all had in common. In addition, I was modeling how I set up a table of frequency and combined value of importance in the four subtopics. It is interesting to note that the most important topics were the same for both focus groups: (a)
significance of action research, in the school setting, (b) significance of collaboration,
(c) significance of the cyclic nature of action research, and (d) significance of the
students’ journals.
197 I used the most importance aspect they were learning firom the course as a jumping-off point for discussion. I describe the discussions in the following pages.
The Significance o f Action Research in the School Setting
The significance of action research in the school settings was ranked as the
most importance things that the preservice teachers were learning in the course.
Conversation among the eight preservice teachers revealed that they were beginning to
comprehend the importance o f action research in education. Although focus groups
may be held at any point in a research study, I did these interviews near the end of the
course, because by that time, it seemed that the preservice teachers had developed a
perspective about the elements of action research and the course and would be able to
discuss them in a thoughtful manner.
The preservice teachers discussed four aspects of the significance of action
research. First, they discussed their perceptions that action research was important
because it did not interfere with the teacher’s primary role of teaching. Rather, it was
an extension of teaching to include critical reflection upon teaching.
I think the most important aspect I have learned is how action research is useful for the classroom teacher. It is not some project that has nothing to do with teaching. It has everything to do with teaching. It gives the teacher a way to look and see if something is working, and if it isn’t [working] they can make changes. [LEG2]
Second, they discussed the fact that an inquiry did not have to be extensive and
complex. I had stressed this in outclass discussions. It seemed to me that if
preservice teachers could see how this tool could be used to make small improvements
that would be a positive factor in their initial teaching practice.
198 I think an important aspect is that your concern should be a manageable one. You should not take on too big a project to research. At first I thought it had to be a big project. But now I think it is better to take on something small and work on it. [AFG2]
Third, they discussed their understanding that action research could enhance teaching and, therefore, the quality of learning for students. They said that action research would help them to be more effective teachers.
I am learning that action research helps to provide a better learning environment for kids. Based on their needs and their abilities you can see what needs to be changed or worked on. [M FG 1]
Fourth, they discussed the methods of data collection in action research. The preservice teachers stated that these methods did not seem too demanding on a teacher’s time, which was a concern for all of the preservice teachers. This issue was raised by each of them at one time or another during the course.
My biggest concern all along has been the time factor. [ am learning that it does not have to be some big project like I initially thought. The last few classes that we have had have stressed that it does not have to be a big time thing. This is good. Time was my biggest fear by far. [B FG I]
The students were in agreement that the ease of data collection in action research was an important aspect of action research. They felt that there were many
ways to collect data that fit right into the art of teaching and would not require a lot of
additional time for the teacher.
Finally, one student discussed empowerment, as being an important aspect of
action research. I hoped that by teaching action research skills to preservice teachers
they would be empowered and better prepared for the never-ending changes, that are
thrust upon teachers, not only under the name of school reform, but also in the day-to-
199 day instructional decisions of the classroom setting, I wanted to help them learn to analyze and. evaluate these changes and decisions on their own and not just accept mandates because an administrator deems that a particular change is necessary. I wanted them to be prepared with a tool that would help them to make pedagogically sound choices. This student had articulated that as being the most important thing she was learning:
My number one thing is empowerment It isn’t just that I know how to write a proposal, collect data, and understand the cycle of action research. But I also know that by domg action research in my classroom I can be a leader because not many teachers are doing it. I will get to make the decisions about what is working for my students rather than have someone else tell me. [W FG I]
1 was surprised to discover that the preservice teachers viewed the four preceding concepts as important elements of action research. These four elements seemed to have to do with professional and personal benefits that they believed came out of action research. I did not expect preservice teachers with little field experience
to have these types of insights. It seems to me that the by being involved in my study
they may have been provided with the opportunity to consider how using action
research would be important in both personal and professional ways.
The Significance o fCollaboration
This was the item ranked second most important by the preservice teachers.
Five preservice teachers indicated that collaboration was the important aspect of the
course. Their comments, in the focus groups, indicated that they saw each person as
having a stake in the course; each one contributed. Collaboration was not viewed as
negotiation, but it involved a repeated process of sharing, of giving, and of taking.
200 The ideas and suggestions of each person were listened to, reflected upon, and respected. The following comments are similar to most comments about this area.
Collaboration is an important issue. We are all in this together. The collaboration in discussion groups helped me understand. I learned a lot from other people. [H FG l]
Collaboration in our groups helped me a lot. We didn’t always agree on an issue. But we would discuss and listen to each other. Sometimes, I changed my mind about an issue; sometimes I did not. But that is what helps me to understand. [EFG2I
I thought the fact that we shared ideas and talked about things was good. I think this helps to prepare us for teaching, because in the middle school we will be working in teams. I just hope that we get the same respect for our ideas there as we do here. I think we all feel pretty comfortable just saying how we feel and listening to each other. [L FG 2]
The preservice teachers needed to develop skill to work not only with their
future students, but also with the many different teachers they would meet.
The Significance ofthe Cyclic Nature o f Action Research
Five students indicated the cyclic nature of action research as an important
aspect of the course. Their conversation in the focus groups indicated that they saw
benefits for teachers who were able to reflect on their practice and make adaptations in
instruction as a result of their reflections.
Action research is a cycle in that you have a question about a change you want to make. You try the change, and you get all your data see if it worked, if it didn’t then you try somethmg else. This is helpfid to the teacher and the kids. [WFGlj
Acting on what you find is my second most important aspect. You get your question, your data, you wonder about it and then you act upon it. [K FG 2]
201 The cycle gives you the change to try again if what you thought would work didn’t. You start all over with a new question. Even if it does work it may lead to other questions. [Y FG 1]
These preservice teachers were starting to understand the general nature of the action research cycle that Kemmis and McTaggart (1982) have popularized: plan-> act-> reflect-) plan. They also were beginning to understand that fay using the cyclic nature of action research they could plan, act, and teach more purposely.
The Significance ofthe Students' Journals
Five preservice teachers indicated that writing in their journals was an important aspect of what they were learning in the course. Their conversation, in the focus groups, indicated that writing in their journals helped to faring clarity to what they were learning and discovering in the course. The following comment is similar to all the comments regarding this aspect.
Writing in my journal afaout what I read and what we discuss in class really helps things to set in my mind. I hear it in class or read it, faut when I write it down in my own words, with my own perspective it becomes cemented. [LFG2]
One comment indicated that the preservice teacher was considering how since journals helped him to understand how they could also help his future students.
I think I am going to use journal writing with my own students. When you write down your thoughts and opinions afaout what you learn and think- it helps make things clear. It is like having a conversation. I think it would help kids to learn better. |B JE I]
Journal writing seemed crucial to these preservice teachers. Action research was a new concept for them. By writing m the journals they had the opportunity to develop and elaborate on their personal meaning making afaout action research.
202 Changes in Thinking
Changes in thinking was the second category that developed from, the data on the focus group interviews. Two subtopics that emerged from the discussion in this category: (a) changes in thinking about research and (b) changes in thinking about teachers as researchers.
Changes in Thinking about Research
In the focus group conversation, all of the preservice teachers indicated that there was a major change in their thinking about research. At the beginning of the course, the preservice teaches considered research to be something that they read about. It was done by outside experts, a select group. By the time the focus group interviews took place it was no longer viewed as only something done by others. Now it was seen as something that individual teachers could do in the classroom to transform their own teaching.
Research is so much more that I originally thought. It is more than reading about what some professional wrote in a book, and then takes it to your classroom. I know now it is something I actually can do in my classroom. I see that there are many ways to implement action research. I think the biggest discovery is the cycle. It is always changing. There are always questions, more things to discover. That is what makes it exciting. [HFGII
One comment indicated that when teachers do their own research, and share the finding with others, they make their ways of understanding teaching and learning more evident to themselves and to others, as well.
I have changed my mind about how important action research is to other teachers. At first 1 thought you are only doing this to make a change m your
203 owa class. But now I see that it also benefits teachers you share your research with as well. I think many teachers have the same problems in class. But they don’t talk about them. [YFG2]
Changes in Thinking about Teachers as Researchers
In the focus groups, four of the preservice teachers generated statements that had to do with transformation in their thinking about teachers as researchers. Up until this class they had never had access to information about teachers doing research. The following statement is similar to the four statements made concerning this area.
[ have changed my mind about a teacher doing research. I just never thought of teachers as researchers before. Before this class we really had not been trained to be researchers. We had never heard about this in other classes. It was really new. But it makes sense because a teacher does know what works or does not work in her class. I feel confident that I know how to do this. I guess that iff think about it, people in every profession could be researchers. I mean if they wanted to study at what they were doing and make changes. It is not only limited to teachers. [G FG 2]
Much of what preservice teachers know and understand about school comes from their prior experiences. However, the idea of teachers doing research forced them to think out side the box.
Benefits o f the Apprenticeship Model
The third category that emerged from the data on the focus group interviews was the benefits of the apprenticeship model that I was using to teach the topic. The conversation in the focus groups indicated that the preservice teachers felt that this model was effective in two ways.
First, the preservice teachers learned how to apply the knowledge they learned m the course. They did not just hear it in a lecture or read it in a textbook. They
204 applied theories to real-Ufe situations through such things as focusing the inquiry, formulating a question, reviewing the literature, collecting the data, and analyzing the data. There were five preservice teachers that talked about this particular benefit of the apprenticeship model. The following remarks are comparable to the comments made by all five of them:
The way you are teaching this really helps me to understand how to use it. I can. read about something m case studies, but when, you are actually involved and doing things like field notes and looking at actual data it becomes much clearer. [W FG I]
I think just being involved in your research gives me a better understanding. Having to write my own proposal was really helpful to me. I learned so much just from the literature review. I am beginning to understand how to do it because I am getting practice actually doing the process. [L FG 2]
Three students spoke about the second way that the apprenticeship model was effective. This was that my study made the process of action research visible to them.
My modeling action research skills allowed them see things, which were not possible through lecture type instruction or pictured and described in text. Also, modeling offered the advantage of letting the preservice teachers “see” what was being
explained while I talked. For example, they did not have to read text about data
collection and then look at examples of data collection to put the two together, but as 1
modeled my data they could do both simultaneously. The following statement is an
indication of the understanding all three of these students spoke about.
Seeing your research and your data gives me a better understanding of what you are telling us. I can look at the diagram of the cyclic part of action research, but when I see you actually making changes the cycle it becomes much clearer. I understand howto implement it [C FG 1]
205 Connections
The fourth category that surfaced from, the focus group interviews was that of making the connection between action research (the second part of the course) and the middle school curriculum (the first part of the course). As I said before, the students were concerned about this issue at the beginning of the course. Their beginning journal entries stated that they were having difficulty seeing the connection between action research and our study of middle school curriculum during the first part of the course.
By this point in the course, their conversation no longer reflected that beginning concern. At this point they were making a connection between action research and the middle school curriculum. They were beginning to see the benefits of action research in using, developing, and evaluating curriculum. The following comments are parallel to the comments made by all the preservice teachers:
1 think it is important to know how you will evaluate curriculum. Action research helps us do that. We expect our doctors to keep up to date and be able to look at the best ways to treat us, I think that AR does that for teachers. It helps us to focus on what is the best curriculum, and what methods to use. Teachers get a lot of changes in curriculum. They need to know how to evaluate these changes. [H FG 1]
You have to be able to adapt. Your curriculums will always change. Action research will help you prepare for the changes. |X FG 2]
It [action research] is a way of assessing the curriculum. Is it working or not? Are kids getting it? If not, you modify the practice. [M FG 1]
Sometimes you might have to make your own curriculum for something new you want to teach. Action research would be a way to see if what you are creating is working. |LFG2]
206 The Proposal
The fifth category that emerged firom the focus group interviews was the proposal the preservice teachers were writing. In the focus group the preservice teachers seemed to welcome the opportunity to discuss their proposals. The conversation revolved around their concerns, and their eagerness to implement their proposal.
Four of the students still had concerns, but now the concerns seemed to have more to do with the topic and their narrow experience.
My question has to do with African Americans. I am interested but also scared. I have had very limited experience with action research and with blacks. My problem will be in understanding a difierent culture. So in my study I will be learning from them. [L FG 2]
My proposal question is about parent involvement. There is so much information on that. It really excites me. But I have never been a parent. I don’t have personal experience. I wonder how this will efîèct the development of my study. (H FG 1%
Two students had concerns about focusing their topic.
My difficulty is narrowing it down. It is broad. I am interested in the learning styles of gifted students. I never realized how much information is out there until I did the literature review. It is really interesting to look at the different styles. There are more than I thought. I think I should focus on maybe just one or two. [W GF 1]
The other two students were eager to develop a proposal that could be useftd in their future classroom.
I am excited about being able to work on something that I will use when I have a classroom. My question is on self-esteem that is doable no matter what grade I teach. [LFG2I
207 Implementation
The preservice teacher exhibited confidence when they discussed the possibility of doing action research once they had their own classroom. Their language seemed confident. They used words like definitely and certainly to talk about doing this in the future. It seems that the reason for this demonstration of confidence was they felt they were prepared to do IL They said this feeling of being prepared came from writing the proposal and their involvement in my research. The following comments are similar to all comments regarding this category:
I will definitely do this. I feel comfortable because I am writing a proposal and I have seen action research done and implemented in this class with your work. [EFGl]
I have had the practice writing a proposal and seeing you do it. [M FG I]
One of the students. Bob, mentioned his experience in the classroom, but also said he would do it because he saw how this would help students to learn.
The students talked about the value in using action research in their future classrooms. Four of the preservice teachers felt that it was valuable because it was good for the students. The other four indicated that action research would help them to be better teachers. The following comments are similar to all comments about the value of using action research.
Action research helps you notice things you might not see in your class, and gives the chance for better learning opportunities. [E FG 2]
Students are the focus. You are doing what is best for them when you look at your teaching and their learning. |H FG IJ
The biggest value is that it helps us to be more effective as teachers. [W FG 1]
208 The focus group interviews were essential to my study as I tried to explore the ej%ctiveness of my instruction and the students’ learning. The categories that developed from these interviews were indicative of the way the preservice teachers were constructing their beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research.
Individual Interviews
In-depth, individual interviews revealed a number of distinct ways in which five of these preservice teachers were constructing beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting action research. Since the individual interviews took place outside of regular class time, I could not require that the students participate. I asked for volunteers and five students volimteered for me to interview them.
From a cross-case analysis of these interviews, five themes emerged:
1. Prior field experiences
2. Understanding action research
3. Benefits of action research
4. Future implementation
5. The proposal
Rather than discussing each of these themes separately, particularly because some of the themes repeat earlier data analyses, I choose to describe how these themes
209 were evident in each interview. Pseudonyms for participant have been used to maintain anonymity. Table 4.6 provides an overview of the demographic data on the preservice teachers who were involved in the interviews.
210 Participants’ Gender
Linda Hillarv George Karen Ellen
Female XXXX
Male X
Participants’ Prior Field Experiences
Urban School
Suburban X XX XX School
Rural XXX XX X School
Early XXX XX Childhood Grades K-2
Intermediate X X Grades 3-5
Middle XX XX X XXX School Grades 6-8
Participants’ Two Cognate Areas
Science X X
Social Studies XXXX
English X XX X
Math
Table 4.5: Participant demographic data.
211 Linda
Prior Field Experiences
Linda and I met for dinner at the Mount Vernon Country Club on November
30,2000. She is a very vivacious and open person, and the conversation flowed easily. Linda’s mom is an aid in a special education classroom, and often during the course she would share with the class things that were happening in her mother school.
In contrast to the other students in the course, Linda is a free spirit. She often changes her hair color and does not seem to be afraid to experience new concepts. Right from the beginning she embraced the idea of action research. Linda’s two cognate areas are
Science and English.
We began the interview talking about her three prior field experiences. The first of these experience took place her freshman year. She went once a week for 10 weeks to an eighth grade English placement in a rural school. She seemed to view this teacher as nontraditional in some regards:
She had some unusual ideas about teaching. Like, she didn’t believe in a teacher’s desk in the room because she did not believe the teacher should be sitting down, [agreed with that! I learned a lot from her about the intensity of teaching. There is no time to sit down!
Although, the teacher did not write a reflective Journal, Linda saw her a being verbally reflective about her practice.
We talked about what to change and what to keep. We talked about students’ behavior. She helped a lot when I had to teach one lesson. She asked me what I would change if I did it again. She also let me sit in on a parent conference.
212 Linda’s second placement occurred during her sophomore year. She went for a half a day every week for 10 weeks to a seventh grade English, classroom in a suburban schooL This experience seemed to reaffirm her belief in the importance of building relationships with the students. To Linda, the primary responsibility of the teacher was to be able to break down the boundaries between students and teaches.
She felt this was a difficult task.
There needs to be mutual respect. You usually see the students respecting teachers because of the power teachers have over the kids. But you don’t always see teachers respecting students. In a really good classroom you don’t see the power trip. The kids have to give you the power you can’t take it. You really need to build relationships with them.
Our conversation specified that she observed this teacher talking and Joking with the students, and that the classroom climate seemed to be relaxed and open.
However, it did not seem to her that the teacher was as concerned about teaching and learning as she was about relationships. She never observed this teacher being reflective about her practice.
She doesn’t talk about teaching. I never observed this teacher being reflective about her practice. 1 would say she was probably more concerned with building relationships with the kids than she was with her actual instruction. But that is important, too. If they don’t like you they won’t leam anything. Kids loved her—always coming into her room, doing decorations and stuff.
Her third placement was the first semester of her junior year. This placement was occurring at the time of this interview. It was for one half-day a week in a nearby first grade classroom. Because she was a firture middle level educator, the purpose of this placement was not clear to her and she indicated that she was not happy with this assignment.
213 I don't think it is meaningful since it is to (lielpl fulfill a middle level phonics requirement, so why am I placed in an early childhood class?
She also did not see reflection on the part of the teacher. When I suggested that perhaps the limited time that she was there prevented her from see it, she agree that might be the case. However, she still felt that the placement with this particular teacher was not good for her as an apprentice trying to leam about teaching.
Even though I was only there for a half a day a week, she did not seem to want to help me leam. Like she had a parent conference and when I asked if I could sit in on it. She told me she wanted it to be private. I think that would be a good way to model what to do in a parent conference.
1 asked her what she had leamed from the placements. She paused before answering, and 1 sensed that she did not want to say anything that was negative, although she bad already indicated that she was not happy in the first grade classroom.
Her initial response was a not detrimental answer.
I leamed about difiêrent teaching styles in these placements. I believe that it is good to observe that because not all teachers teach the same way.
Then there was a slight pause in the conversation. During this time, 1 sensed she was thinking about what she was going to say. Finally, she continued talking:
If I were the teacher working with a preservice teacher, 1 would talk to them more. The first grade teacher does not talk to me. I come into the room and I jump right into [leamingj centers to help out. At the end of the time I just leave. There is no time to be reflective and think about what is happening. I feel like 1 am just there to help not to leam. I never have any one on one time with the teacher. I never was even to get introduced to her.
214 Understanding Action Research
This class was Linda’s first experience with action research. Her past research experience was looking for information in text.
I am an academic person. I don’t mind doing the research we had to do in school, ft was Just looking up information. But there was no ownership. We Just rewrote stuff. I didn’t really care about it.
Before the class started she had a sense that action research was also looking for information.
I thought it had it had to do with searching out information. Actively learning about stuff. I Just took the two words and put that together. Discovering what it really is was a big step for met Like a major change in my thinking about research.
During the course of the interview Linda discussed aspects of the course that had helped her to understand action research. She mentioned the factors that 1 have mentioned in previous data analysis such as my modeling, collaboration in book discussion groups and writing of the proposal. However, she said the phenomenon that helped her the most seemed to be the actual practice of action research skills.
1 think the biggest thing was the practice we did in class and other places. For example, the observations really helped me to be aware of my own biases. Also taking field notes made me understand how hard it is to write things down, or even what to write down.
The Benefits o f Action Research
Linda had understandings about what e&ctive teaching would look like to others in her classroom. By learning that a teacher can be a researcher she has developed new understandings of how she wants to look at her teaching and students learning.
215 I always knew I would be teacher with a lot of activity in my class. 1 didn’t want to stand and deliver. But now I am looking at a way to see if the activities are working by writing down what I observe. I really need write it down, and reflect on my lessons. I think your own action research helps me to see how teaching is changing every day. What happens in class e&cts what you plan for tomorrow. You reflect and make changes. I wish this were [sic] emphasized in all of our courses.
For Linda, the benefits of action research were that it would help teachers be more professional and encourage collaboration.
You are interested in being a better teacher. That is why you are doing this. You aren’t afiaid to let us know you. Like when you gave us your joiunal that gets us into your head and lets us know what you are thinking. Where yon are going? I think this deepens the learning and makes it effective. Your research was pointed at our interest because yon wanted to become a better teacher. In the classroom if students write they are bored then perhaps you need to make a change. Action research can help you know if that change is working or not. If you don’t make a change then you should explain why you are not making a change (like grammar). Everyone hates grammar, but there is a purpose for it. I don’t think that teachers really communicate and help kids understand the purpose. I think action research helps you understand your own purpose and then maybe you can communicate it to kids more. What has really started to crystallize is the value of collaboration. I know you don’t have to have collaboration but if you do it will encourage communication between teachers. When you document what you are observing and then share it with someone else they might see somethhig that you don’t.
Future Implementation
Linda was self-confident about her skills as a researcher. She felt that the
course had prepared her with the skills to begin to implement action research in her
own classroom. It appeared as if she had a strong sense of efficacy. She revealed that
if she did not have collaboration support from her peers she would still attempt to do
action research in her classroom.
216 I have leamed from you that this is not something to be afraid of. I feel that from being involved in you study I have already done this. It is not really new. So I don’t think it will be a problem. 1 would have no problem initiating this. 1 think 1 will probably do it right from the beginning of my career. Those ways it will just seem ordinary. People [other teachers] will think that it is Just what 1 do. It will be part of my teaching style. If I can’t find a peer to collaborate with me, or even support me, 1 will still do it. 1 think it will make me a better teacher. 1 think you should not be pompous about it though. Maybe just quietly do it.
She also did not think the process of action research was a difficult process to leam or to accomplish.
When I talk to people about what we are doing, like non-education majors. They say, gosh that is a lot of work. But it is not busy work! Education course can sometimes be busy work, like show and tell stuff. This class has no finals and no test. I am learning that we don’t have to have test to show what we leam. When you have to demonstrate what you leam, like doing the proposal, it is much more meaningful.
The Proposal
The writing of a research proposal helped to change Linda’s attitude toward
research. She was beginning to develop an appreciation for the process.
Writing a research proposal has helped me to look differently at other people’s research. 1 have more respect for it now that 1 understand the intensity of the process.
217 Hillary
Prior Field Experiences
Hillary and I conducted this interview at a dinner meeting at the Mount Vernon country club on November 21,2000. Hillary is a junior with a major in middle level education. Her two cognate areas are English and Social Studies. We began the interview talking about her three prior field experiences.
The first of these experience took place her fieshman year. She went once a week for 10 weeks to an eighth grade English placement in a suburban school. The teacher was a National Board Certified Teacher. This means that the teacher has gone through a process that measures a teacher’s practice against specific national standards. The process is a series of performance-based assessments that includes teaching portfolios, student work samples, videotapes, and thorough analyses of the candidates’ classroom teaching and student learning. Teachers also complete a series of written exercises that probe the depth of their subject-matter knowledge, as well as their understanding of how to teach those subjects to their students.
This placement was a constructive experience for Hillary. It seemed to be a good introduction to the teaching field.
It was great to be with her. It was really important to her that kids leamed. She would change her instruction^ to meet their individual needs. She was also really good at using multiple intelligences when she taught. That was the first time I heard about it from her [sic]. She did cooperative learning in her classroom. The kids were also very organized. They knew what she expected and they did it. The other thing that she did was she assessed kids all the time, not just at a unit test. I think she was a really good model for me to have my first time.
218 This teacher seemed to be reflective about her practice and she shared that with
Hillary. Hilary in turn appeared to understand the connection between reflection and changes in mstructioaal decision making and classroom practices.
She was very reflective. Every day after school or after every period we would sit down and talk about what happen. She talked about how the lesson went and if it should be changed for the next class. She knew her students very well and so she had to change how she taught from the AM to PM. 1 leamed from her how important it is to ask the question, “What have I done?” She constantly reflected on what she did in the classroom. I would watch her and see how many decisions she made. It was amazingl I think it was the reflection that helped her be a better teacher.
Hillary’s second field placement occurred her sophomore year. She went for a
half a day every week for 10 weeks to a sixth grade classroom in a rural school.
Contrary to the experience her freshman year, this placement did not seem to be as
good a match for her. This teacher never used the text. Hillary said she had never
seen a teacher do that before and seemed to think it was an interesting idea and
perhaps would be a good idea under different circumstances.
He really didn’t use anything to replace the text else either. The kids just sort of did projects. It was like, “Constructivism gone bad.” The students in the class were involved in many “hands-on activities.” For example, the students went outside and collected leaves, and wrote reflective journals. But I did not observe input or feedback from the teacher. The kids were pretty much on their own to work in the center. 1 didn’t like it because when they tried to ask him questions he would say, “You know what you are supposed to do.” I would try to help, and often times it was hard because I didn’t know.
She never observed this teacher being reflective about his practice.
He didn’t share with me. I didn’t notice him writing things down or anything like that and he didn’t talk to me about it. He didn’t talk to me much at all.
219 Her third placement was the first semester of her junior year. This placement was occurring at the time of this interview. She spent one half-day a week in a fifth grade classroom. She enjoyed the time in the class.
I liked this experience. I did get to do some stuff. I led book groups with the student every time I was there. But I was pretty much, on my own. No one really told me what to do.
She did not see reflection on the part of the teacher. I suggested that perhaps the limited time that she was there prevented her fiom seeing it, she agree that might be the case because the teacher did ask the students to reflect in their journals about their reading.
I asked her what she had leamed in the placements. Her initial response did not include the second or third placement. She spoke only about the first placement.
From [the teacher] 1 leamed how important it is to focus on the needs of the students. You need to think about what they need and think about how you will meet those needs. It won’t be the same for all kids.
When I asked her about the second and third placement she said:
1 guess I leamed what not to do with kids. I don’t think that effective teaching is just letting kids go on their own and that is what I saw. I think there needs to be teacher direction and modeling.
Understanding Action Research
This class was Hillary’s first experience with action research. Her past
research experiences was looking for information in text.
To me it [research] always meant going to the library and reading what other people had researched. I did not mind doing the school research but it was sometimes boring because I did not see how it connected with stuff.
220 Before the class started she had a sense that action research was also looking for information and then taking action on what she leamed.
I took it as doing the research part and then going in and doing something about it. But the research part was stuff that I read about—not that I observed. I never knew about action research being to go out and make changes &om what I observed.
Hillary spoke with feeling about the aspects of the course that were helping her understand action research.
Everything is helping me! Just being a part of it! We don’t feel like you are just teaching us this, but that we are a part of it. You model it and then we also get a chance to do it. Like we did the field notes and the transcriptions. Those things make us feel a part of it. I really think I understand it. The importance of our group discussion has really helped me. I hope that when I teach I have someone in the school that I can talk to. Also, I have discovered that change is good, because it may lead to improvement.
The Benefits o fAction Research
Hillary spoke about collaboration as a benefit of action research. This understanding of the importance of a collegial bond started to develop in the book discussion groups, and she was able to foresee how that same connection would be helpfid in the regular classroom setting.
What has started to crystallize is the importance of collaboration, that talking to each other. In book discussion group I share my observations and reflections. When I talk about it they sometimes see somethmg that I don’t I can see how this would be very effective when I have my own classroom. It would be great to have someone to bounce ideas off of.
One more benefits of action research that Hillary saw was that it was an aspect
of effective teaching. It was a way to look at classroom practice and evaluate the
instructional technique.
221 I think that if you are going to be effective iu the classroom then you need to do some form of action research. There needs to be an organized way to identify and solve teaching problems.
Future Implementation
Hillary thought she would implement action research in her own classroom someday. She was confident that she would. She indicated that she understood how to do it, and was not afraid to try. She seemed to view it as a professional responsibility.
I see all the different parts of it and I see how it comes together. All the data goes into making the complete picture. The further we go along with it the more 1 see that I can do it. It may not be easy, but doable, and I can do it. I am confident. I think we [the class] all have gained that. At the beginning our group talked about the time issues a lot. Now we are saying, “Yes! We can do this!” 1 think that as we start teaching action research will become part of the way we teach. It will be part of us. I think right from the beginning, even when we are interviewing, it will be part of who I am. I plan on doing this. 1 think there will always be problems. There will maybe parents or peers that say they don’t agree with it. This worries me because the eight of us know about this and we know we want to do this. But when we get out in school there may not be support Being alone does kind of scare me. But I also know that 1 will still do it. I think we have been empowered in this class to go into the schools and share this. We believe it is good. We see the difference between this class and other education classes that we are taking. Like the stuff we do has a purpose. Not busy work! We leam things deeper and better. We don’t leam it to just get a grade. We apply this stuff right now in class. We don’t have to wait till we leave here to use it.
The Proposal
Hillary reported that her proposal had given her a sense of accomplishment.
She was proud of her newfound understanding, and had gained confidence through the process.
222 Value of my actioa research proposal is my ownership. I got to pick my question. It is something that I am interested in. I wish that I could go forward with it and just do the whole thing. But I am not in the position to do that now. I want to see what happens. I want to collect the data, see what it means and make the changes. I wish I had a classroom to do that in now. lamexcitedl 1 am really proud that I was able to do this. It has helped me to feel more confident as a future teacher because I have a way of seeing that what I am doing is working. Before this class no one every told me there was a way to tell if it was working. That was kind of scary!
George
Prior Field Experiences
George and I conducted this interview at a dinner meeting on November 29,
2000. We had to fit it in around basketball practice, so instead of going to the country club we went to a downtown restaurant. Both of his parents are educators. His father
is a middle school principal and his mother is a teacher. It appeared that because of this he came to teacher education with some strong prior beliefs. We began the
interviewtalking about his prior field experiences.
The first of these experiences took place his freshman year. He went once a
week for 10 weeks to a sixth grade placement in a rural school. As George discussed
this experience it seemed that he felt very comfortable with the placement. He said
that the teacher did an excellent Job. I asked him why he believed that, and his initial
response was because, “He really had control of the kids.” Later in the interview he
discussed some of this teacher’s other qualities.
The teacher was at the kids’ level. He interacted with them, joked with them. I thought that was really good and I liked that. He made it fim, and that is one thing E want to do. His instruction was very clear. He was really good. I like him.
223 George was not sure if this teacher was reflective about his practice. He indicated that because he did not know about being reflective, at that time of the placement, that perhaps he did not know how to look for it.
George’s second placement occurred during his sophomore year. Although
George was not a special education major, he went a half a day every week for 10 weeks to a special education classroom in a rural school. The teacher was from his hometown, and George knew him.
He graduated from where I did, back home. He taught behavioral disorder kid—Special Ed. It was a real good experience for me because most of the kids where from a low economic backgrounds, so I got to see that point of view. It was a challenging Job because a lot of the kids where way out of control. He had discipline problems. He couldn’t always get a lot done.
George never observed this teacher being reflective about his practice. But as in the previous experience, he was not sure that he understood what reflection was at the time. Therefore, 1 asked him to consider what went on in that classroom from his present understanding of reflection.
Well, now that I know what reflection is so I don’t think that the guy in the special class really was reflective. He always had to write stuff down. There were a lot of fights and stuff-so he documented a lot. But I didn’t really see him being reflective about his teaching. Just writing down stuff like discipline problems to document is not reflection, as I know it now.
His third placement occurred during the first semester of his Junior year, at the time of this interview. It was for one half-day a week in a suburban third grade classroom. He did not enjoy this placement and felt that it was not in his best interest to be there. He now knew how to look for reflection in a classroom, but he did not see it occurring.
224 My third placement IS a waste of time, ft is not where I want to teach. We just go in there and help out. We don’t get any direction of how to do anything. We are supposed to be observing reading. I think that we are there because we are an extra pair of hands. I don’t think she is reflective. I haven’t seen it, and I do know what to look for now. She really does not talk to me much.
Understanding Action Research
George’s past research experiences entailed writing reports. Before the class started he had a sense that action research was also looking for information and then taking action on what he leamed.
When I think of research I think of writing reports. The term “research” is a negative term. I don’t like to do big papers. Action research I knew had something to do with getting involved with the class because of the word action. I have a lot better understanding now. Before 1 Just thought of it as research. But I think action research is a different kind of research. The teacher is interacting; you are doing stuff that will be useful. One way to describe it would be always changing. It is going to be something different every day.
This class was George’s first experience with action research. But he felt that he had done parts of it before, only he did not know at the time that it was action research. He went on to explain:
I think I did parts of action research in the field experiences where we had to keep ajournai and write what we saw, and what worked and what didn’t. Just kind of reflect on that. I think that is AR. But I didn’t put the action to it. I didn’t really do anything about it, because I was just a student. I did the reflection. I stopped at that. I didn’t do the rest on the continuum.
225 The Benefits o fAction Research
For George, the benefits of action research were the effects on decision making and teaching. He felt that using action research would result in being more reflective in his thinking about teaching and that would lead to changes in instructional choices and classroom practice. He saw research as a professional responsibility.
The papers and stuff that I did in the past the purpose was to gain knowledge, sort of an overview to be acquainted with the subject matter. AR is important because it gives you the opportunity to look and think about what you do in the classroom. You reflect on what you do so you can decide to make changes. Then you look at those changes and see if things are working. This will help you to be more professional. I think it is your responsibility to know if what you do works or not. 1 think the rewards will be looking at my own teaching and making changes. Rather than someone else telling me about the changes I should make. Knowing that I am willing to change and can change. I think it will help me to grow.
George also talked about the personal and professional benefits of action research. He spoke about the value of collaboration in action research and the fiiendships that could develop out of doing an action research project with a peer.
I think collaboration with other teachers is really important—sharing ideas. 1 think that when you do an action research project with another teacher you are sharing something that you both believe is important and you support each other. It is a connection. This is probably really good for a new teacher to do with an older teacher. The new teacher would not feel so alone.
Future Implementation
George was confident about his skills as a researcher. He felt that the course had prepared him with the skills to begin to implement action research in his own
classroom and had changed his views about how to teach.
226 I am ready to do this. The course has helped me: the class and group discussions, your sharing what you are doing in our project. What my peer say help me to think and look at things differently. I can also see how talking about things could help students in the classroom. Learning happens in talking aboutit. The book is good. I like it. The questions in class really make me think about AR. Your journals and notes help. When I first came to class I was always use to one person just teaching me—one subject. That is how I thought I was going to teach. I thought I would lecture. Then this class changed that. The action research stuff. I didn’t know what it was. I did not have that experience. It was new to me. I could not pull fiom any of my past stuff about what 1 thought about teaching for this class... Not at all. So lam learning every day.
Even though George expressed confidence in his ability to undertake an action research project, when I asked him what things worried him about doing action research time was still a concern. It had been his concern all through the course.
However, I don’t think I really understood where his concern started until he made this statement:
I think the challenge wül be finding the time to do it. 1 am going to be coaching.
He was also concerned about other teachers not valuing his research. 1 asked him if that would impede the process. The following is his reply:
I don’t care what other people really think. I would share it with others, cause I would want them to share with me. One of the things this class has helped me to leam is how to share what you are thinking. In this class I have had some practice with people not agreeing with me. At first, I was not sure about disagreeing but now I do it. It doesn’t bother me if other don’t agree with me. The benefits of sharing with, others are that you learn and grow—you may even change your mind. The disadvantage is... I don’t think that there are any. Even if you. don’t agree. It will make you think.
227 The Proposal
The writing of a research proposal helped George to be reflective and introspective. Writing the literature review increased his knowledge and helped him to focus his question. He was comforted by the fact that the proposal did not have to be a complex study. He also felt that this was a good process for preservice teachers to undertake.
1 think writing the proposal is a stressful thing. 1 really had no idea what 1 was doing when 1 started out. But as 1 did the literature review 1 began to have more direction. 1 began to focus and really reflect on what 1 was thinking about for my question. 1 am surprised that it can be a small project in your own classroom...not big 1 never realized it could is so specific. It is kind of personal. 1 think it is good for students to have this. 1 think this is the reason older teachers seemed to write off and resist new ideas in education. They don’t have a way to tell if it is good or not.
Karen
Prior Field Experiences
Karen and 1 conducted this interview at the country club at a dinner meeting on
November 28,2000. 1 am Karen’s academic advisor, so 1 knew that she was a strong academic student. Past conversation with Karen had revealed an extended interest in action research. She had asked me to be her advisor for her senior research project.
She planned to do action research in that project. This is a requirement for students who have been enrolled in honors courses at the college.
Her two cognate areas are Social Studies and English. We began the interview talking about her three prior field experiences.
228 The first of these experiences took place her fieshman year. She went once a week for 10 weeks to an eighth grade science placement in a rural school. I questioned why she was placed in a Science class when she her focus was on English and Social Studies. I thought her response was quite candid:
I don’t think they [teacher educators] look carefiiUy at where they are placing you. They just want to get you into a building. I was just a fieshman, and at the time I was not sure about my two minors, although I was pretty sure science would not be my choice. This placement probably Just cemented that thought. I thought science would be more hands-on, but it was not. I knew even as a fieshman that I wanted to have hands on learning in my classroom.
Karen was not given much opportunity to interact with the students in this placement. But she leamed fiom observing.
I really did not get to do much in that classroom. The teacher was in control. I don’t think he wanted to give that up. So I mostly just watched. I didn’t like that a whole lot, but I did leam things fiom watching. I saw things that the teacher probably did not see. He mostly stood in one place and did a lot of lecture stuff. It looked like the kids were really paying attention because he was strict. But I could see kids acting like they were taking notes, and really just doodling on the paper. 1 leamed how important it is for the teacher to move around the classroom and make sure that kids are working.
The second placement occurred during her sophomore year. She went for a half a day every week for 10 weeks to a fourth grade classroom in a suburban school.
She felt that this teacher was philosophically with her own philosophy of teaching and learning. There was much “hands-on” application in the classroom and group work.
I liked this placement. I agreed with the way the teacher taught. The students were actively involved. It was not just lecture, like the first placement. My teacher used a lot of hands on application. It was not just book knowledge. They role-played a trial that was going on in Revolutionary times. They leamed in a team setting and they were organized as a team (like we leam in this class). I agree withrthat way of teaching. The down side of that is that
229 sometimes they got off task and distracted. But the teacher was cool with it I also was more involved in this class. Even though I was only they’re for a short time. I felt like I was part of it. The teacher talked to me more. I felt like a teacher.
Karen’s third placement was occurring at the time of this interview. It was for one half day a week in a nearby second grade classroom. Being in that classroom confirmed her belief that she did not want to be an early childhood teacher. She questioned the rationale of placing a middle level education major in an early childhood placement.
I really can’t say much about it. I just show up and go into the classroom and work with kids on their reading. I do it to fulfill the requirement for the middle level literacy course. But lamina second grade class. So that is not middle level. Sometimes these placements don’t make sense. But it has confirmed my thoughts about not wanting to be in early childhood.
She thought that the first teacher probably knew about reflection because she was asked to reflect on the lesson she taught. She did not actually observe any of the teachers reflecting on their own instruction. But if these teachers did reflect on their own instruction they did not share it with her. She seemed to think this was a contradiction in what was effective instruction. There was no modeling.
1 was asked to be reflective about lessons I taught in the first placements. But 1 was not asked in the other placements. I assume the first teacher knew about reflection and did it because she asked me to do it, but she did not share her reflections with me. I never saw any of the teachers write reflective thoughts down, but that does not mean it was not done. They never talked to me about how their own lesson went. So they really were not modeling what they asked me to do. They were supposed to be teaching me how to teach. Right? So they should have modeled reflection.
Karen shared her understanding as to why teachers did not share reflection on their own instruction. As I listened to her I thought that out of the mouths of babes the truth is sometimes foimd.
230 Maybe they want us to think that they are the perfect teachers and they do it right all the time. But I think it is important to show preservice student that regular teachers do slip-up and that they may have to reteach something.
Understanding Action Research
This class was Karen’s first experience with action research. Although she knew about reflection, she had had not heard about action research before this class.
She was starting to understand how reflection was part of action research. She also understood the useflilness of action research in teaching and learning.
I had no idea about action research. The concept was totally new. I had never even heard of it before this class. I had heard about reflection and now 1 understand how it is part of action research, but it is not all of it [action research]. I have always been reflective. I didn’t know it could go farther. Action research gives you the opportunity to change and improve. You can see what you have done and make changes. Your teaching gets better through action research.
During the interview Karen discussed aspects of the course that had helped her to understand action research. She mentioned the factors that had been revealed in previous data analysis, such as my modeling, collaboration in book discussion groups, and writing of the proposal. However, she said the phenomenon that helped her most was the changes I made in my instruction base on the feedback that I received flom the students. This helped her to understand the action research cycle.
I had some difficulty at first understanding the cycle in action research. You ask for feedback every day, and then you would come back to us and say this is what I think you are telling me and this is what I am going to change to help you understand. It was like I said before about teachers not wanting to admit that something was not going right. You didn’t do that. I could see the changes that you make. I could see how the cycle.
231 The Benefits o f Action Research
Karen felt that action research was beneficial to her, now, as a preservice teacher, and in the future, when she had her own classroom. She talked about three areas where she believed action research provided support. These were collegiality, individual satisfaction, and in-depth learning.
First of, I think that learning about action research is beneficial to preservice teachers. We always thought we would make changes in our teaching but we never were taught a process of how to do that. Action research provides support to the teacher. When we are teachers on are own 1 can also see how it will help us. It will help us to form relationships with, other teachers especially if we are working together on a project. Even if we are not [working together on a project] I think I would build relationships because I trust someone enough to share what I am learning. Plus, 1 think there is some professional satisfaction in conducting a project like this. You just don’t complain that kids are not getting it, you find a way to help them get it and can show that it works. One of my concerns about having my own class is management. I feel like I am easily manipulated. But now I know that 1 could use action research to try to solve a management problem in my classroom. The other thing is you leam a lot about what is going on in education because you have to read and do a literature review. It would help to keep you current on stuff.
Future Implementation
I asked Karen if she thought she would do action research when she had her own class. She was secure about her abilities to do research. She felt that the course had equipped her with the skills to begin to implement action research, in her own classroom.
We have had a lot of practice m class. I think it is a matter of trying it now^-and you can’t really teach that. I think that I can do this and I am ready to go. I think that some teachers and maybe even administrators might be skeptical about this. I can’t believe there are too many out there that really know about it. But if I do it and if they see it work, then I think they might change their mind. The way I am, I think their response may impact me some but I don’t think it would stop me.
232 Karen did not think the process of action research was a difficult process to leam or to accomplish. She seemed relieved that it did not have to be a huge full-scale study but could be something modest in size.
I think it is easier than I thought as first. 1 thought it would have to be a big project. But it could be as simple as meeting the needs of one student that has a problem. Plus you could share what you leam with another teacher.
The Proposal
Karen felt that although she found writing the research proposal demanding, it was a good learning process that resulted in constructive personal and professional outcomes.
Writing this was very stressful for me. I had never done anything like this before. But I learned so much. Not just academic stuff like in the literature review about at-risk students, but also about myself as a future teacher. It has given my confidence in my future teaching. Like I said before, I am worried about management of the class, [and] this gives me confidence in a way to look at my management problem. It isn't just a shot in the dark.
As a post note, Karen was the only one of the students to try action research after the course was over. She did it for her senior independent project. I was to be her advisor in this project, but I did not return to the college the following year.
Ellen
Prior Field Experiences
Ellen and I conducted this interview at a dinner meeting at the country club on
November 27,2000. Ellen was one of my academic advisees, so I felt I knew her fairly well. I always felt that Ellen was a very confident student. Her class work was
233 always prepared well in advance and thought out. One day she confided to me that she was never a strong student in high school and worked very hard to make sure that her work was of a good quality. Conversations with her indicated that she seemed to have a lot of love and support from her immediate family, but that her extended family was also an important part of her life. One day, she told me about her uncle was earning his PhD. in education, and because of this she was very interested in the process that I was going through. Her goal was to someday be a curriculum coordinator of a school district.
Ellen is a junior with a major in middle level education. Her two cognate areas are English and Social Studies. We began the interview talking about her three prior field experiences.
The first of these experiences took place her freshman year. She went once a week for 10 weeks to a eighth grade placement in a rural school. This placement was not a constructive experience for Ellen. Many times the success or failure of a preservice teacher depends upon how well they can match the views of the cooperating teacher. Such was the case with Ellen. Her first comment about it was that she “did not fit well with her teacher in the eighth-grade experience.” This was typical of her discussion about all her first two field placements. She seemed focused on how well she matched, or did not match, with the teacher.
I did not fit well with my teacher in the first experience. We were like oil and water. I did the eighth grade because I had to do it. I did not like going to field. As I think back there was a lot that I learned because her views were different. But it was learning what I was not going to do rather than what I should do. She was really structured. She did not let any explanation or discussion go on. She always led. She didn’t like the lesson I taught because there was cooperative learning in it It was different from her style. One day
234 she was not there and we had a sub and he let me have the class the whole day. It was great! So that reafBrmed that I could do it even though it was different than what she did. We Just did not mix. She could not accept that I would not do things the way she did them. But you kind of have to match in the field experiences. So it did present a problem. When I came out of the experience I did not think I wanted to teach eighth grade, but that was because I was conflicting so much with the teacher that I could not focus on the students.
Her second field placement occurred during her sophomore year. She went for a half a day every week for 10 weeks to a fourth grade classroom in a rural school.
Contrary to the experience her fiieshman year, this placement seemed to be good a match for her. Her first comment about it was that she “fit well with her teacher in the fourth-grade experience.” As 1 indicated before was typical of her discussion about her field placements. Her focus was on her match with the teacher.
1 fit well with my teacher in the fourth-grade experience. We just connected. 1 think we had the same philosophy about teaching. She never really talked to me about her philosophy but 1 could tell that by the way she ran the classroom. Well, she had a lot of activities going on in the class. The kids wrote in journals. She also had a good relationship with the kids, but she still had discipline. They would come and talk to her about things other than school. They told her about things in their home life. These are things that 1 want to have in my own classroom. She also gave me a lot of chances to do things in the class. 1 graded papers, and worked with students. 1 read to them. She introduced me as a teacher.
Her third placement was occurring at the time of this interview. She spent one half-day a week in a first grade classroom. This was to fulfill a requirement for her middle level literacy course. She did not talk about a fit or match with the teacher.
Instead she focused on the match of the grade level. She did not understand why she was placed there.
The first thing 1 would change is the placement itself. The placement that I am doing now Just does not make sense. Granted 1 am observing reading, but 1 don't plan on teaching early childhood. My certification will not be in early
235 childhood. I need to leam how to teach reading to middle level kids. So this seems to be a waste of my time. The teacher is nice enough. She just does not have time to spend with me. I just go m there and help out.
She did not see reflection on the part any of the three teachers. She said that if they did reflect it was not something they shared with her. I asked her why she thought they did not share and she said:
Perhaps it is too much of a risk for them because they are tying to set an example of what is the right thing to do. Maybe they think they would make themselves vulnerable if they admitted that something didn't go as planned. Maybe they think I would challenge them. But I think it would be good for them to share the things that did not work.
Understanding Action Research
Ellen’s past understandings of research had to do with looking for information in text and writing reports. The fact that the word research was present in the description of action research seemed to cause her some concern.
I think of my past experiences and the research was just writing a paper. I thought to myself. What am 1 getting into with action research? I was fearful of what it entailed because it was called research. That term had negative association for me. I did not like doing research. It was usually boring and it was usually something the teacher wanted you to be interested in. There was no ownership.
Ellen spoke about my research, as a key aspect of the course that was helping her understand action research.
The thing that helps me understand how to do action research the most is you going through the process with us. You are doing it, modeling it, and sharing it I can see the cycle when I see changes you make in your instruction. You are very open about everything. You don’t make the changes like in the dark—so that we don’t know. You share it with us when you feel you have not been clear about something or need to reteach it. You are modeling bemg reflective and letting us know about it.
236 The Benefits o f Action Research
Ellen indicated she perceived the benefits of action research as being both professional and personal. On a professional level she felt that it would help her to a more efiective teacher and that it would also help the teacher to combat the sometime cynical view that society has about teachers.
Action research gives me a way that I can look, at my teaching and the students learning and see if it is working. It gives me the opportunity to make changes, document them, and share them. It is personal. It is not something that some body else wants you to do. It is something the teacher decides to do. I think it would impact my worth, about how I feel about teaching. Like what I said earlier, my primary role is to give the child an education. But I don’t think that is what society focuses on today. They see teachers as baby-sitter. I think this view is hard on teachers’ self-esteem. But I think as a profession you can make it more that that. Action research would help the teacher feel more professional it would combat that idea society has about teachers as baby sitters.
On a personal level, Ellen felt that being involved in my action research in the course benefited her because she developed the strength to defend for what she
believed about teaching and learning.
I have gained a lot Just by talking with my classmates about education issues. One of the good thhigs that happened for me is that I have learned to stand up for myself in this class. At first when I didn’t agree with something that was said in our book discussion group I would not say anything, or I would vent to my roommate. Now I voice my opinion in class. This is a good thing to practice. I think I am learning to voice my opinion when it is appropriate and in the right manner. I leam a lot by talking with others. I need to be able to do this in the school where I am going to teach.
237 Future Implementation
Ellen was certain that she would implement action research in her own classroom. She indicated that she understood how to do it, and was not aôaid to try.
However, it was interesting to note that she tempered her enthusiasm with some skepticism that had to do with not having a classroom to apply this in yet
I would be comfortable doing action research. I mean why not? I know how to do it. The problem that I see as far as thinking about how I will do this is that right now I don’t have a real situation that I can look at and see that it needs fixed. 1 am only looking at what I think needs fixed. I am learning the practice before I have the opportunity to implement.
The Proposal
Ellen indicated that writing her proposal had given her a sense of professionalism. She was able to make a connection between writing the proposal and effective classroom practice.
But I really believe it helps a teacher to be more professional when she is involved in something like this. Writing this proposal was not easy. But it helped me to feel professional. The literature review increased my knowledge base. Developing the question helped me to focus on things I thought might need changed. I also know that there are teachers out there that have never heard about this, so it helped me feel like I would have something professional to contribute once I have my own classroom.
Post-survey
I gave the preservice teachers a post-survey to help measure changes in their attitudes and understandings of action research at the end of the course. The survey consisted of four short-answer questions similar to those asked in the pre-survey (see
Appendix A).
238 For the first question, all of the preservice teachers presented a broad definition of action research that described it as teachers studying their own practice in order to improve what was happening in the classroom. This student's response paralleled all of the students’ responses:
Action research is when 1 study something in the class that I am interested in like how do 1 address the learning styles of students, and then 1 take what 1 discover and change my teaching. [W PO S] The remaining students also added the concept of gathering and interpreting data to better understand an aspect of their teaching. They also indicated that they understood that in order to be considered research it should be published in some form. The following example is a succinct example of this:
Action research is developed on a continuum. A teacher has a problem to solve in her classroom. She reflects on that question and decides how to collect data and analyze it. Then she examines the data. But the thing that really makes it research is the fact that she writes up the process and the results and shares it with others. This can be done in a big way...like a publication in ajournai, or it can be done in a small way...like presenting it at a team meeting. [LPOS]
Although none of the students mentioned the cyclic nature of action research in their answer to this question, 1 knew that they did have an understanding of this because it appeared in many of their journal entries.
As in the pre-survey, all of the preservice teachers considered themselves to be researchers, but their responses to question three showed a change in their thinking.
They no longer defined research as writing about what they read, now they understood the idea that action research involved inquiry in their own classroom. These responses are characteristic of all of the responses:
It [research] is more than just what some professional writes in a book and then you read about and write about or maybe take to your classroom. It is
239 something that I do individually in my classroom and there is many way [sic] to do i t [HPO S]
Before this course I thought that research was just looking up or finding out information. My views have changed because action research involved the changing of things and the application of what is found out. It is a cycle... when you research about something and implement it and if it doesn’t work, you start over with a new research question. [Y PO S]
All of the students, in answering question three, mentioned their involvement in my research as an indication that they had done research. This preservice teacher’s statement was concise representative of all the preservice teachers:
For a teacher to be considered a researcher she needs to follow a process. 1 think the actual doing of action research process with you has really been helpful to us to think of ourselves as action researchers. We have looked at data with you and analyzed it. We have done field observations and we have transcribed field notes. 1 think all of these things help us to feel like researchers. [K PO S]
For the final question (#4), they all listed the question that they used for their proposal as a question that they would like to research. This was difierent fi:om the pre-test where they listed several questions they were considering. The process of developing the proposal seemed to help them to focus on one of their questions. This outcome was intentionally built into the course, since they had to have a question for their final project—the proposal. A common theme emerged from class discussion on the day that the post-test survey was given, which was that the preservice teachers were fitistrated that they did not have the opportunity to actually do the research. My owu journal fi)r that day indicated the following:
The students expressed a degree of frustration that they are not given the opportunity to actually do the research now that they have written the proposal. Linda said she was really excited about what she had written and wanted to try it and see if it worked. All but Bob nodded their head m agreement to April commenL Kareu said that she was going to have the opportunity to perhaps
240 implement her proposal for her senior honors project I suggested that since four of them had social studies as a cognate area, and since I was teaching that course, we could possibly implement their research into that course. [JE 10 12-7-00]
Overall, the pre- and post-surveys showed a change in the preservice teachers’ understanding of action research and in what they understood to be involved in doing research. The questions they were interested in researching did not change from beginning to end, but on the post-survey, they focused on one question, rather than several. This seemed to indicate that they had developed a focus for a possible research project.
Final E-mail
At the end of the course, I sent an e-mail to the eight preservice teachers and
asked them to prioritize which of the course assignments most helped them to
understand and implement action research. Six preservice teachers replied to my e-
mail. Table 4.5 shows how the six respondents prioritized the experiences they had in
class.
241 Student Task Students Total Points Earned for Each Task EK AG MY LE EW AL
Observing 4 4 4 1 1 1 15 in the field
Writing your 3 5 1 2 5 4 20 reflections on field observation
Analyzing my 2 4 5 4 3 2 20 data in class
Writing the 5 3 3 3 4 5 23 proposal
Taking field 1 2 2 5 2 4 16 notes in class and m book discussion groups______
Table 4.6: Tasks (5 Pugh] to I Pow]) as prioritized in students’ final e-mails.
242 I totaled the points for each item. The individual rankings were highly variable, but writing the proposal received the highest total score overall.
When I collapsed the data to show which class activities received either a 5 or
4 (high prioritization) or a 2 or 1 (low prioritization), I learned that writing the proposal did not receive any low rankings. It would seem that this task was the activity most valued by the respondents.
Taking field notes in class had the most divergent ranking. Four of the students ranked this activity low, while two students ranked it high. The students who ranked taking field notes as low also ranked relatively high what they learned about observing in the field, indicating that the taking field notes helped some students and not others.
Summary o f Data Collectedfrom the Students
In the preceding pages I have described my analysis of the data fiom five data sources (pre- and post-surveys, daily feedback, students’Journals, focus group interviews, and individual interviews) in order to ascertain how action research served as a vehicle for shaping this particular group of preservice teachers’ construction of beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting research. The themes that emerged in the course of data collection and analysis were presented and discussed. Some of the themes appeared across data sources. The following charts present an over view of the cross-data themes. Each of these themes was generated through constant comparative analysis of the topics that the preservice teachers
243 repeatedly emphasized in the data. I have combined the themes from the previous analyses into three larger categories:
1. Themes that indicated beginning identities as researchers, and beginning skills in action research;
2. Themes that indicated concerns in the course and in the implementation of research in a future classroom; and
3. Themes that indicted changes in beliefs about research and the ability to do research.
First, several themes emerged across the data sources that seemed to indicate that these preservice teachers were developing beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research. Table 4.7 summarizes these themes.
244 Data Sources
Daily Students’ Focus Group Individual Final Feedback Journals Interviews Interviews E-mail
Themes
Valuing X XXX X apprenticeship model
Learning from X X book discussion groups
Learning from X whole group discussions
Learning from XXXX the proposal
Valuing the X XX cyclic nature of action research
Learning from X XX data collection
Learning from XXXX data analysis
Valuing XXX collaboration
Understanding X ethical issues
Valuing X X student journals
Table 4 J: Cross-data themes related to beginning identities and skills.
245 Across the data, themes emerged that indicated the preservice teachers were being encuiturated into action research. They were beginning to see themselves as teacher researchers. They were beginning to develop skills as practitioners of action research. The preservice teachers had been introduced to the cultural tools and conventions of action researchers. They had participated in learning experiences that
they indicated were significant for them.
Additional themes emerged 6om a cross-data analysis that indicated the
preservice teachers had a variety of concerns about the course itself and about the
implementation of action research. These concerns were evident in the daily
feedback, the students’ journals, but not in the focus group interviews, and the
individual interviews. Table 4.8 illustrates these concerns as they were identified in
the various data sources.
246 Data Sources
Daily Students’ Feedback Journals
Concerns
Concerns about the course
Developing XX the research proposal
Connections X between the course sections
Implementation of Research
Time to do XX research
Student X cooperation with research
Ethical issues X
Table 4.8: Cross-data concerns.
247 It seems significant that concerns were only evident in two of the data sources.
Although, 1 asked in the focus group interview and the individual interviews to give them the opportunity to express concerns, there were only two data collection sources
(journals and daily feedback) where they expressed their concerns. Both of these data sources involved students’ writing about their thinking. Perhaps they felt more comfortable writing about their concerns than talking about them. The literature ou journal writing supports the fact that journal writing is a safe place. According to
Schneider (1994), journal writing is closest to natural speech, and such, writing can flow without self-consciousness or inhibition. The process of obtaining daily feedback was set up to seek the preservice teachers’ concerns about the course, thus providing myself with valuable information about the course and their understanding of it. Reading what they wrote daily about the class gave me insight into which activities they most valued and which concepts were most difficult for them to understand.
Mandates from teacher reform movements require that teachers leam new roles
and teaching strategies. Unfortunately, the burden created by daily teaching and by
attempts to implement various aspects of reform continue to take up the bulk of
teachers’ energy, thought, and focus (McDiarmid, 1995). These preservice teachers
seemed quite cognizant of the fact that it takes time to change, yet teachers already
have busy schedules and face multiple and competing demands. Part of what 1
patiently addressed in my class was how to carve out time, opportunities, and other
resources that teachers need to do teacher research. Concerns about finding time to do
action research, was evident in both the daily feedback and the student’s Journals.
248 Finally, I collapsed the data across the five data sources, as indicated by Table
4.9, to look at the changes that occurred in the students’ understanding of action research at the beginning and at end of the course.
Understanding
Beginning End of Course of Course
Themes
Understanding No understanding Understanding of action research of action research Understanding that teachers could and should do research
Seeing self Gaining knowledge by Research was something that as researcher reading information and individual classroom teachers writing about it could do to transform their own Research was something teaching and students’ learning done by others
Formulating Broad question Developed a focus fora possible a question research project. Framed question in a way that helped to understand teaching and learning
Table 4.9: Changes in preservice teachers’ understanding of action research.
249 The results of my study indicated changes from the beginning to the end of the course in the preservice teachers’ beliefs about action research and their identities as researchers. At the beginning they had no knowledge of action research. By the end of the course they understood not only the basic component of action research^ but also were beginning to understand that action research was something that teachers could and should do in their classrooms. Research was no longer viewed by these preservice teachers as something that was done by others, but, instead, as something that could and should be done by individual teachers to enhance their own instruction.
Summary o f My Journal
My Journal provided an understanding of how my own action research in the course influenced my understanding of how to teach the course using a cognitive apprenticeship model. The interactive learning between the preservice teachers and myself was evident as I used the apprenticeship model. I used this approach in the course because teaching action research and doing action research at the same time provided an authentic context for the students’ to leam about action research. The use of an apprenticeship model to teach action research engaged the preservice teachers m authentic activities that, in turn, encouraged their engagement in their learning. My journal entries described changes that I made in the course and changes that 1 will make the next time 1 teach the course.
250 CONCLUSION
This chapter has described the data and interpretations of a project to teach action research through modeling and sharing my own research project. The data seemed to indicate that these preservice teachers were developing some beginning understandings about ways to conduct research in their future classroom by seeing it modeled and having the opportunity to practice action research skills. Much of their conversation and many of their journal writings indicated the potential positive effects of conducting research in the classroom. They indicated that action research would help them to be better teachers, because of the hnpact it could have on student
learning. The results of this study chronicle the development of these students’ beginning identities and skills as researchers. The implications of these findings will be discussed in Chapter 5.
251 CHAPTERS
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of my study was to understand and describe how the apprenticeship model for action research shaped and influenced how eight preservice teachers constructed beginning identities and skills as researchers. I also wanted to
understand and depict how my action research influenced my understanding of how to teach the course. As I conducted the cross-case analysis for my study, I realized that I
had indeed answered the original questions posed in Chapter I. I would now like to
restate each question, followed by a discussion of the implications and conclusions of
this study.
252 This chapter is organized into six sections:
I. Research questions
n. Methodology
in. Findings
IV. Implications
V. Long-term effects
VI. Conclusion
Research Questions
Question One
This study looked at two questions. The first question was how an apprenticeship model for action research served as a vehicle for shaping how preservice teachers constructed beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research. The research process included the observation and interpretation of eight preservice teachers’ classroom experience as they learned about action research.
An attempt was made to understand events and behaviors in the context of the classroom in which they occurred. A commitment was made to the presentation of the participants’ points of view as critical to the study and to an acknowledgment of the researcher’ s perspective as one of many possible views through, which, participants’ perceptions were filtered. This first question guided the study by probing for the essence of these preservice teachers’ experiences as they learned about action research.
253 Only a few studies exist which examine teachers’ perceptions about action research, including their experiences doing research (McCutcheon, 1986), the outcomes from teaching a course (Bennett, 1994), or how to teach, a course on action research (Bendau, Covert, Dyer, Christenson, Johnston, Risko, & Slutslq^, 1999).
There are even fewer studies on preservice teachers’ perceptions about action research, including their experiences doing research (Keating, Diaz-Greenberg, &
Baldwin, 1998). This study augments the begimiing literature in this area.
Question Two
The second question was how my own action research in the course influenced my understanding of how to teach the course. I wanted to look at the changes that occurred as a result of my understandings.
This question was used to study the influence on the preservice teachers of modeling the action research process while teaching a course on action research. It provides an approach that may be useM for teacher educators who are trying to provide their students with an integrated introduction to action research while also meeting the demands of state mandates and regulations.
Action research is often viewed as being “local” in nature, with the outcome
having significance only within the context of the particular situation. Although 1
understand the premise behind this viewpoint, I do not completely agree. It seems that
while local application is valuable in itself, it can reasonably be extended beyond
“local-only” outcomes. Examples of extending action research to other contexts are
available in the writing of Touhnin (1996), Dick (1995), Bawden (1995), and others. I
254 recognize that the outcomes in this study are specific to the situation in which, they arose. Nonetheless, they can provide insight into the value of the learning processes that led to them. Callo (1995), Pretty and Chambers (1993), and Lomax (1986) refer to this, and Newby (1997) draws on the theoretical fiamework of discourses to argue that:
While the fact of reflexivity prevents us fiom returning to the naive view that research findings can have the objective status of timeless and more or less context-fi:ee truths, it does not condemn us to a view of knowledge which is no more than a multitude of personal accounts of particular situations, (p. 77)
Although other teacher educators might experience the process of teaching action research differently, it is likely that some commonalties will occur among preservice teachers who are developing a beginning understanding of action research.
Thus, by carefully looking at the experiences of these preservice teachers in this classroom, this study may hold implications for other educators of preservice teachers by providing an introduction to the art of classroom inquiry. In addition, the use of action research as a research methodology may provide a model for teacher educators to look at their own teaching practice.
Methodology
The participants in this study were eight preservice teachers in course EDU
308 at Mount Vernon Nazarene College in Mount Vernon, Ohio. The course was a required curriculum course for all middle level students who were seeking teacher certification in grades 4-8. When these students entered the class on September 4,
2000, they had no idea that they would be invited to be mvolved in my dissertation
255 study. However, because of my earlier experiences with them, I was not surprised that they agreed to be involved. [ had had all of these students in another class, a freshman-level, 3 credit-hour course called Foundations of Education, and another student had been in a 2 credit-hour Diversity course I had taught the previous semester. In addition, I was the academic advisor for four of the eight students.
During the first part of the course, we used case studies to explore the theories, research, and exemplary practice of middle level schools that support smdent-centered curriculum. In addition, 1 continued to develop my relationship with these preservice teachers by talking with them about their academic, social, and spiritual lives, and their work experiences. They shared their Joys and struggles with me.
During the second half of the course, my focus changed as 1 began my research. 1 observed my students as they developed beginning research skills and identities as researchers. The class met twice a week for one-and-one-half hours each time. During these class sessions, from October 31,2000, to December 14,2000, data collection was ongoing. I used handwritten field notes to record observations in the classroom. I collected 13 hours of audiotapes of formal, individual interviews. I audiotaped 15 hours of class discussion and book discussion groups. Additional data was collected that included pre-test and post-test surveys, daily feedback, the preservice teachers’ reflective journals, and my researcher’s Journal. The processes of data collection and interpretation were repeatedly discussed with the preservice teachers.
256 The audiotapes were analyzed and reanalyzed throughout the period of data collection, and again, after all data had been collected and transcribed. Analysis continued during the writing process as data were revisited and reviewed.
Findings
In Chapter 4 of this document, the interpretations of various kinds of data were presented in seven parts: (a) apprenticeship model, (b) pre- and post-surveys, (c) daily feedback, (d) students’journals, (e) focus group interviews, (f) individual interviews, and (g) researcher’s journal. Each part was organized according to themes as they emerged from constant comparative analysis. The analysis of these different data, although presented independently for clarity, represent an entwined set of themes that developed interdependently as these preservice teachers began to construct beginning identities and skills as researchers. These data were used to look at the two questions in this study. The summary of the findings is presented as it relates to each of the research questions.
Ftndîngs-Question One
How does an apprenticeship model for action research serve as a vehicle for shaping how these preservice teachers construct beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research?
£ looked at the data to try to understand how action research served as a vehicle for shaping how this particular group of preservice teachers constructed beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills for conducting research. The themes that
257 emerged from these different data sources indicated that the preservice teachers were beginning to adopt the attitudes and processes of action research. At the beginning of the course they had no understanding of action research. By the end of the course they had a broad understanding that action research involved teachers studying their own practice in order to improve their teaching.
By the end of the course they were also beginning to see themselves as teacher researchers, and developing beginning skills as practitioners of action research. The data provided evidence that the preservice teachers had beginning understandings of
the cyclic nature of action research, and beginning skills in data collection and
analysis. They also had beginning skills in the transcriptions and coding of data.
They understood the value and necessity of reflection in action research. Furthermore,
they had written a research proposal and developed a focus for a possible research
project. They had developed a basic understanding of the ethical issues in action
research, such as signed consent and informing participants. The preservice teachers
had been introduced to the cultural tools and conventions of the community of action
researchers. They had participated in learning experiences that they indicated were
significant, meaningful, and interesting to them.
Fmdings-Questfon Two
How does my action research in this course influence my own understanding
of how to teach the course?
As with the first question, to address this question I looked at the data. I
sought to understand how my own action research in this course influenced my
258 understandings of how to teach the course. My action research helped me to understand the interactions of my learning and instruction with the students’ learning in the course. I was not Just standing and delivering content to them, but rather I was using their input and reactions to make changes in my instruction. Using the apprenticeship model allowed me to model action research processes for my students.
My course seemed to be a natural fit for a cognitive apprenticeship approach because teaching action research and doing action research simultaneously provided an authentic context for such an apprenticeship.
Implications of the Study
Although the findings in the previous pages relate specifically to my experiences and the experiences of the eight preservice teachers in the course, other teacher educators may find some of the insights from this study helpful in their own situations (Eisner, 1998). As a result of the findings fiom this study I have some recommendations for teacher educators and suggestions for further study, including (a) implications related to question one and (b) implications related to question two.
Implîcatîons-Questîon One
How does an apprenticeship model for action research serve as a vehicle for shaping how these preservice teachers construct beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills m action research?
259 The Complexities of Teacher Education
This study may help provide a framework for teacher educators who are trying to provide their students with a multitude of skills m a time frame that is often filled by the increased demands of teacher education and the changes mandated by education reform initiatives. The argument for the limited time span of this study is crucial to the understanding of its relevance for teacher educators in the current political and educational context To me, this argument seems to be a powerful statement concerning the applicability of this study for other teacher educators.
In the current American political climate, state boards of education feel pressure to control institutions of higher education. My situation was not much different from many teacher educators who are faced with the daunting task of preparing students with the course work and subject matter they need as well as meeting the educational requirements of licensure. In order for the reader to understand the implication of these reforms, I provide a brief overview of their history.
Although states now assert considerable control over teaching, it did not start out this way. In 1857, the year the National Education Association was founded,
William Russell proposed that teachers be given control over entry into their profession:
Let a teachers’ association receive a charter from the state and proceed, without further authorization, to examine and pass upon applicants for membership. It is up to the association itself to issue certificates of membership, which will also serve as legal evidence of competency to teach. That is all there is to it. Let teachers claim the right, set up proper standards, and assume the responsibili^ of admitting and rejecting candidates; the state and public will quickly, gladly, and appreciatively accept such an assumption of responsibility by the teaching profession, (cited in Wesley, p. 23)
260 More recent educational commissions continued to add to the demands, requirements, and changes of teacher education. Since the issuance of A Nation at
Risk in 1983 and the barrage of national commissions and task force reports that followed, general and specific reforms to change teacher education have emerged.
The first reports focused on recommended changes in public education, including moving to more site-based governance, new roles for teachers, different scheduling and grouping arrangements, and so forth. The next reports focused on critiques of teacher education. The Carnegie Task Force (1986) viewed teachers as the key to reform and recommended a bachelor’s degree in the arts and sciences as a prerequisite to a master’s in teaching degree. In the master’s program, the task force called for a better-developed professional curriculum with systematic knowledge of teaching, including intemships and residencies in schools.
In response to these reports, the 1985 Holmes Group report (1986),
Tomorrow's Teachers, and two subsequent reports. Tomorrow’s Schools (1992) and
Tomorrow’s Colleges ofEducation (1995), recommended the dual goals of reform of teacher education and the reform of the teaching profession.
Similar to the Carnegie study, the Holmes reports called for an extended
teacher education program in which a master’s degree would follow a four-year
baccalaureate. There was an emphasis fiom the Camegie/Holmes Group studies on
producing professional educators who are able to make sound decisions based on
substantial theoretical understandings. The recruitment, training, and licensure, of a
261 competent teaching force are now widely recognized as among the central policy and goals issues of educational reform efforts (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Darling-
Hammond & Cobb, 1996).
In September 1996, still another reform effort came to the forefront. The
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) proposes an audacious goal: That by the year 2006, America will provide all students in the country with access to “competent, caring, and qualified teachers.” In pursuit of this goal, the Commission has launched a comprehensive effort to transform teacher development in ways that will dramatically enhance student academic achievement.
To implement this comprehensive effort, the Commission has created a reform agenda
for how teachers are prepared, recruited, selected, inducted, and supported, as well as
how schools support, assess, and reward teachers’ work.
The NCTAF’s recommendations closely entwine licensure and teacher education. The multistate consortium is, as the Carnegie report and the Holmes Group
also recommended, working on new ways to license teachers, with a focus not Just on
subject matter and professional knowledge, but also on demonstrated skill in the
classroom. Given these sources of study and recommendation, as well as the
emerging efforts of the National Board for Professional Teachmg Standards to identify
and certify outstanding teachers, the profession has gained the “three-legged stool”
(Parkas & Johnson, 1997) of quality assurance—licensing, accreditation, and
advanced certification.
262 New federal regulations and licensure requirement mandates, although valid, encumber those of us in teacher education because they leave few, if any, resources of time and money to offer additional courses to preservice teachers. In order to meet these standards additional content knowledge is needed.
For those teacher educators who are teaching in a four-year institution (rather than programs that require a bachelor’s degree in the arts and science as a prerequisite to a master’s in education), the issue is even more complex. In these programs, the prescribed state and federal requirements leave little time for students to take courses outside of the required education course work if they wish to graduate in four years.
For example, all of the above-mentioned reports advocate reflection on practice as a central aspect of the teacher education program. But where does the time come to
teach reflection skills to preservice teachers?
One way to find that time is by integrating these skills into other course
content. For instance, the idea of teacher reflection has been integrated into many
course syllabi by having preservice teachers write in reflective journals during many
of their field experiences and while student teaching. The idea behind this is that a
good teacher is a reflective teacher, one who thinks about what she is doing and how it
is working. Such reflective writing is becoming one of the main ways in which
teacher education at the school, college, and university levels focuses participants on
teachers’ own practice as a source of learning about teaching. It encourages
preservice teachers to relate their practice to then understanding of the teaching and
learning process and to the educational context m which it takes place. Usually these
journal entries include a synopsis of teaching experiences, examples of leammg
263 occurrences, analyses of the occurrences m the context of both the teaching experience and the wider educational context, and indications of the ways in. which those analyses can impact future teaching sessions. Reflection is not a time-consuming concept to teach, so it can be taught m a relatively short period.
All of the above-mentioned reports advocate thoughtful, long-term inquiry and research into teaching and learning. But this process is not a required part of teacher education. I argue that to meet state and federal standards, all preservice teachers need to know how to do teacher research—yet colleges are not providing this information.
It takes more instruction time to teach students how to do systematic inquiry, thus it is more difficult to find the time for this instruction in a teacher education program. In this study, 1 argue that by teaching action research as a portion of the curriculum course, 1 was able to give students the opportunity to develop understandings that would not have developed otherwise. The data from my study revealed that I did not sacrifice curriculum content to do this because the preservice teachers were able to see the connections between action research and the middle level curriculum. For example, they understood how the case studies they read in the first part of the course were connected to an action research study.
The skills required to do action research—such as writing field notes, developing anecdotal records, observing in the classroom, developing surveys and sociograms, collecting classroom artifacts, using action research’s cyclic process and writing a research proposal based on a question that has to do with the teacher’s own practice—reach beyond the elements of traditional teacher education. Possession of these skills enables preservice teachers and in-service teachers to examine the 264 theoretical principles necessary to understanding the cultural, social, and ethical issues in teaching; how children learn; how curriculum decisions might be guided; and how students’ cognition might influence teaching.
Action research does not necessarily have to ask critical, sociocultural questions. It can also be used to sustain the status quo with regards to organizational power structures. Examples of this stem from Lewin’s (1946) work within, organizations. Action research can take place in many difièrent setting by a variety of workers in a wide variety of community, organizational, or institutional settings.
Despite the potential for improved teaching and learning that could result from teachers being allowed and encouraged to do action research, I acknowledge that there are principal dilemmas that teachers who are doing action research must face. These obstacles are deeply entrenched in the culture of the schools and universities and, thus, difBcult to alter. Some are identifred by Bendau et al. (1999) and Nunan (1999): lack of time, lack of ongoing support, fear of being revealed as an incompetent teacher, and
fear of producing a public account of their research for a wider (unknown) audience.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) identify additional obstacles to teacher research:
teacher isolation, a school culture that works against raising questions, a technical
view of knowledge for teaching, and the negative reputation of educational research.
These are powerM obstacles, and there is not a simple solution to them or a simple
way to create the conditions that support teacher research. However, Cochran-Smith
(1993) believes that a framework made up of a community of teacher researchers will
help to ofiset these problems. By wotfcmg together, the members of this community
can play an important part in school reform.
265 The Apprenticeship Model
The use of the apprenticeship model in this study may help provide a framework for teacher educators who want to help preservice teachers to reconstruct their beliefs about research.
At the beginning of the first class, the students in this study answered open- ended questions to assess their conceptions of the nature of research and the role of the researcher. At the beginning of the course, analysis of the data from the students’ journals, focus group interviews, and individual interviews indicated that the preservice teachers believed that research consisted of seeking information by reviewing books, articles, and magazines, then reporting on what they found. This was because most of their past experience with research had had to do with term papers. In addition, in the preservice teachers’ belief systems, teachers were not considered to be researchers, histead, they believed that research, which created new knowledge in. education, was something that was done by people other than teachers.
The preservice teachers believed this because they had never experienced anything diSerent.
Beliefs,
There is a plethora of definitions of teacher beliefs. A variety of researchers have explored the structure of teachers’ belief systems. Clark (1988) identified
teachers’ beliefs as preconceptions and implicit theories. He noted that these beliefs
seemed to be “eclectic aggregations of cause-effect propositions from many sources,
rules of thumb, generalizations drawn from personal experience, beliefs, values,
266 biases, and prejudices” (p. 5). In this present study, the data provided evidence that the preservice teachers had preconceived beliefs about what research was and who did it. For instance, at the beginning of the study they understood research to be the act of gaining knowledge through library readings. They understood this because it was supported by their personal experience of research from past school assignments.
Caiderhead and Robson (1991) reported that preservice teachers held vivid images of teaching from their experiences as students. These images affected students’ interpretations of course experiences and powerfully influenced the translated knowledge and projected practices they would apply as teachers. Goodman
(1988) discovered that teachers were influenced by guiding images from past events that created intuitive screens through which new information was filtered. A case in point is that at the beginning of this study the preservice teachers had no knowledge of action research, and believed that research was something that was done by others, i.e., not teachers. They assumed this because they had never experienced or seen their own teachers doing research.
Additionally, Green describes belief as a proposition that is accepted as true by the individuals holding the belief (Green, 1971). Beliefs are “tenacious and powerful”
(Holt-Reynolds, 1992, p. 344), relatively inflexible, and resistant to change (Pajares,
1992). Pajares (1992) suggests that entrants to preservice teacher education courses are “insiders” who already have a strong belief of what it means to be a teacher. He explains:
267 The classrooms of colleges of education, and the people and practices in them, differ little from classrooms and people they have known for years. Thus, the reality of their everyday lives may continue largely unaffected by higher education, as may other beliefs. For insiders, changing conceptions is taxing and potentially threatening. These students have commitments to prior beliefs, and efforts to accommodate new information and adjust existing beliefs can be nearly impossible, (p. 323)
Considering the power of the belief systems of preservice teachers indicated in the literature, the reader can appreciate the challenge of changing these beliefs.
Britzman (1991) writes:
Prospective teachers, then, bring to their teacher education more than their desire to teach. They bring their implicit institutional biographies—the cumulative experience of school lives, which in turn inform their knowledge of the student’s world, of school structure, and of curriculum. All this contributes to well-worn and common-sense images of the teachers’ work and serves as the frame of reference for prospective teachers’ self-images, (p. 443)
In my study, the sociocultural perspective, these conceptions about research
and teachers doing research were based on the preservice teachers’ own experiences.
Preservice teachers begin to develop beliefs about teaching from their experiences as
elementary students. These beliefs may be somewhat modified by later experiences in
high school and college, but often these later experiences only confirm the notions
formed in elementary school. Additionally, these beliefs are highly correlated with
specific, intense memories of the students’ own learning experiences in elementary,
high school, and college courses. For instance, I can remember how most research
was presented to me in such courses. The “research” I did was “assigned by the
teacher.” It did not emerge from my mterests; I went to the library and read about a
268 topic written by an individual who wrote much better than I ever dreamed of writing.
I then rewrote it in my own words because I had been threatened by the doom of plagiarism hell if I used the words of the original author.
Preservice teachers need to know about action research because powerful experiences often lead them to believe that they know how to teach without any questioning of these traditional methods. For them, teaching is an action word, it is not a process to be contemplated, studied, and reflected upon. Preservice teachers do not often see learning to teach as problematic. They frequently see themselves as
“bom” or “natural” teachers who, through trial and error in the practicum classroom, will develop a repertoire of teaching techniques. They do not believe that teacher
research will help them because such research is not a part of then conception of the
teacher or a part of their past experiences.
Traditional teacher education seems at times to have little impact on the beliefs
and experiences that preservice teachers bring to teacher education. A fimction of
teacher education has been to enculturate, or assimilate, students into the subculture of
schools. Traditional teacher education programs at times “[pose] the process of
becoming a teacher as no more than an adaptation to the expectations and directions of
others and the acquisition of predetermined skills—both of which are largely
accomplished through imitation, recitation, and assimilation” (Britzman, 1991, pp.
29). Knowledge is conceived of as a commodity to be transferred to student teachers
who, in turn, are viewed as empty receptacles. This form of functional socialization
serves the interests of cultural transmission and social reproduction (Britzman, 1991).
269 What it does not confront, however, are the preservice teachers’ initial belief systems about learning to teach and how these beliefs system interact with experience in the teacher education program to form a system of meaning.
The research indicates that significant development within preservice teachers, including belief changes, occurs in those teacher education programs that operate within a more constructivist orientation, where preservice teachers examine their own beliefs and then build upon them (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The apprenticeship model and action research fit into a constructivist firamework. This sociocultural view adheres to principles that view the learner as actively constructing knowledge. From this perspective, knowledge is not passively received from the environment, but rather is a process of adaptation based on and constantly modified by a learner’s experience of the world.
Although the terms “belief’ and “knowledge” are sometimes use synonymously, distinctions exist between them. To understand a preservice teacher’s ability to construct a beginning identity as a researcher and beginning skills in action research, it is necessary to understand the distinctions between beliefs and knowledge.
As I have indicated on the previous pages there is a plethora of terminology defining teacher beliefs.
Nespor (1987) differentiated between knowledge and beliefs, arguing that knowledge information is semantically stored, whereas beliefs reside in episodic memory drawn from experience. Nespor argued that beliefs draw their power from previous episodes or events that influenced the understandings of subsequent events.
Further differentiating between knowledge and beliefs, Nespor indicates that
270 knowledge systems are open to critical examination and beliefs are not; belief systems are likely to be unbounded and illogical, while knowledge systems are more defined and receptive to reason. Comparing the two systems, Nespor found beliefs to be strong predictors of behavior and far more influential than knowledge in determining how individuals organize and define tasks and problems. Nespor (1987) reported beliefs to be basically unchanging, explaining that when beliefs do change, it is neither the result of argument or reason but rather a “conversion or gestalt shift” (p. 321).
These experiences are believed to influence and flame not only how preservice teachers leam, but also how they use what is learned. Nespor contended that these richly detailed, episodic memories later serve as an inspiration or a template for one's own teaching practices. Other researchers also have noted the episodic nature of beliefs (Caiderhead, 1988; Caiderhead & Robson, 1991; Clark, 1988; Goodman,
1988). Their studies suggest that students' educational beliefs significantly influence the perceptions and judgments they make about their own and others’ teaching, as well as their interpretation and development of professional knowledge.
Because preservice teachers’ prior belief systems are tenacious, it was not enough simply to give them knowledge about action research. Because of my prior experiences with research, I had a personal understanding that the students’ history of stereotypical research learning experiences in elementary school, high school, and college would impact the way m which they understood the nature of research and who should do research. In order to change their beginning belief that teachers did not
engage in research, I used the apprenticeship model to immerse them in the process
271 and made them an active member of a research community. Through the use of an apprenticeship model in the course, the begirming perception of their abilities and capabilities about research and their ability to do research seemed to be altered.
Implications-Question Two
How does my own action research in the course influence my own understanding of how to teach the course?
My own action research helped me to comprehend how to teach the course as I implemented the components of the apprenticeship model. I tried to enhance the apprenticeship experience of the preservice teachers by presenting the content of my action research in an authentic situation. Because the study was done in the context of an authentic classroom 1 was able to help the preservice teachers understand the potential usefulness of action research and to transfer the ability to do action research flom my classroom into their future classrooms.
The apprenticeship model was an effective way to teach action research.
Modeling, coaching, and scaffolding are the core of apprenticeship. In this study, these three processes helped the preservice teachers acquire an integrated set of action research skills through the processes of observation and practice. I relied on the preservice teachers' feedback during these three steps to see determine whether these processes were helpful. I modeled the strategies necessary to do action research, while providing organizational strategies and other supportmg materials to support the preservice teachers’ owrieffi)rts.
272 What I learned in this study has application, for other teacher educators who want to look at their own. instruction through, au actiou research mode. lu the following pages I will discuss (a) issues that others should be aware of as they do au actiou research study, (b) beuefîts of usiug au actiou research model, aud (c) difficulties iu doiug such a study.
Awareness ofthe Issues o f Application
Teachers who are consideriug doiug au actiou research to model actiou research for their studeuts should be aware of several issues before beginuiug. First, flexibility is a key componeut to uudertakiug a study such as this one. When I designed an actiou research project to study this course iu this way, I constructed a classroom environment to challenge aud encourage the preservice teachers’ beginuiug understandings about actiou research. 1 had theoretical ideas that guided my teaching activities. However, as 1 have discussed iu Chapter 4, unanticipated concerns aud questions, emerged during the course, such as their persistent concerns about the research proposal, issues of time, ethical issues, aud the students’ inability to connect the first part of the course aud second part of the course. These issues demanded my willingness to adjust.
Second, teacher educators who plan to do actiou research, should consider
having a peer with whom they can discuss concerns, ideas, aud observations. The
unanticipated concerns and questions mentioned in the previous paragraph made my
teaching a task of construction. This construction was one that paralleled and
simultaneously occurred with, the construction of knowledge of action research
273 concepts undertaken by the preservîce teachers. The preservice teachers had my input and support, which helped and encouraged them to understand the concepts of action research. In turn, because I was doing this study for my doctoral dissertation, I had support and feedback from my advisor, Marilyn Johnston, and two student colleagues,
Shirley Bendau and Marcy Christenson.
If I had been doing this study independently, however, I would have had only the preservice teachers’ feedback and input to impact changes in my day-to-day instruction—there would have been no one else to hold me systematically and consciously accountable for what I was discovering. I would not have an observer questioning the activities that I carried out with preservice teachers or encouraging me to make changes. Although collaboration is not a requirement of action research, engaging in it can provide support and help eliminate the isolation that characterizes teaching. Collaboration promotes professional dialogue and, thus, creates a more professional culture in schools.
It is true that my reflection on my own teaching practices was designed to provoke and stimulate conceptual and teaching changes. But 1 had to be motivated enough to do this for myself. Part of my motivation stemmed from the fact that 1 was undergoing this process for my doctoral dissertation. But most of my motivation was intrinsic—1 was curious and wanted to know. But 1 believe this study would not have been as good as it was had 1 not had Marilyn, Mary, and Shirley with whom to discuss various issues. 1 suggest that collaboration is a valuable aspect of an action research design. As people work together and communicate during the process of investigating the characteristics and context of the issues that disquiet them, they have the
274 opportunity to develop immediate and deeply relevant understandings of their situation. They would not have this opportunity if they were working alone. Working together, they become actively involved in the process of dealing with those problems.
Collaboration can generate greater understanding and, hence, action. After going through this process, I am committed to the concept of collaboration in inquiry.
Perhaps good research, can be done alone, but in order for teachers to be included in research they need to work with, or have access to, others who can support and challenge their work. They need to be afBrmed as inquiring persons and to know where they stand in relation to others. Inquiry can be a difBcult and lonely path, and teachers need all the support they can get as they engage in it.
The Benefits o fDoing This Study
In addition to the benefit of obtaining a greater understanding of my own classroom instruction, an overlap of personal and professional benefits resulted from this study. Engaging in action research gave me instructional self-confidence, because it increased my capacity to analyze classroom phenomena and made me more aware of the classroom culture. I was attentive and focused on what the preservice teachers were saying and doing and learning in a more systematic way. The sense of openness, participation, and responsibility I felt from the preservice teachers in my study also contributed to encouraging me to make instructional changes. I derived four benefrts from of this model: (a) user-friendliness, (b) practicality, (c) reflection, and (d) interactive learning.
275 User~frîendîiness.
One of the benefits of action research for my study was that that it was user- fiiendly—it fits nicely into the school setting. I was able to use action research as part of my normal classroom activities. I felt that no other research method that I had been taught could be integrated as easily into the classroom situation and my teaching practice.
It is important to point out, however, that the conditions for my study were ideal. I did not have to worry about administrative constraints or issues of time. I had the support of the academic dean, because he wanted me to finish my dissertation. For example, he required me to serve on only two academic committees (rather than the required four) until my dissertation was complete.
Teachers who wish to implement action research in their classrooms, on the other hand, may have to contend with political and social processes in order to carry out the research. These teachers may not find the conditions in a public school setting as user-fiiendly as I found the conditions at the college where I taught. For example, I doubt that a teacher would be relieved of school committee work in order to provide time to do action research. Teachers are rarely given support to do research. Research projects have to be coordinated with, integrated with, or added to what they are already doing.
More effort needs to be applied to informing teachers about how they can make time to do research in. their classroom, ht addition, administrators and parents
276 need to be informed about the potential benefits for students as a result of teachers doing action research. People who are not familiar with action research need to begin to understand how it positively impacts teaching and leammg.
Practicality.
A second benefit of action research for my study was its practicality. Action research enabled me to make use of my teaching practice as a research opportunity. I did not have to leave the classroom to do this research, and I became a better teacher due to going through the process of action research. Action research enhanced my awareness of what I was learning and increased the amount of information 1 consciously learned. Throughout the study I engaged in continuous, concrete, and precise observation about my teaching practice. I experienced a sense of meaningfulness and practicality relatively early in the process. 1 did not have to wait till the end of the study to realize what learning was taking place, because 1 was observing my own learning on a daily basis. In turn, I was learning from what I was observing and making changes in my instruction as a result of what I was learning.
The action research cycle can be regarded as a learning cycle (Kolb, 1984).
ReflectiorL
A third benefit I discovered while doing action research was the power of reflection, because this study required me to engage in deliberate and conscious reflection. Dewey (1904) emphasized the importance of teachers reflecting on their practice and integrating their observations into their emerging theories of teaching and
277 learning (p. 16). Schon (1984) argues strongly that systematic reflection is an efiective way for practitioners to leam. Indeed, reflection required me to challenge my own interpretations of things I was discovering, which I believe is a crucial feature of effective action research (and, for that matter, of effective learning). I agree with
Nixon (1981), who asserts that one of the assumptions about action research is that
any teacher in any classroom can undertake it. But this does not mean that it can be
taken lightly. As I went through the process of completing this study, I was acutely
aware of the intellectual demands made by action research. At times it promoted
serious and often uncomfortable questions about my classroom practice. It required a
willingness on my part to leam about my own classroom and a desire to develop
professionally.
Interactive [earning,
A fourth benefit of action research to my study was that action research
generated interactive learning between the preservice teachers and myself. I found
this more ethically satisfying and more occupationally relevant than traditional ways
of teaching. During many of my past teaching experiences I worked in a culture of
isolation, separated firom students’ ideas and concerns. So, receiving the students’
feedback and making changes in my instmction based on that feedback was rewarding
and pertinent to my instruction.
278 The Difficulties in Doing This Study
I want to be fair and acknowledge the difficulties of doing action research—1 do not wish to paint too rosy a picture for other teacher educators. But because 1 have experienced the positive impact action research had on my own practice and understanding about teaching and learning, it is hard for me to focus on the difficulties, although I was aware of them. Instead, 1 found myself asking: “Why don’t all teachers use it? Why is it not more prevalent?” 1 could not go to the literature to answer these questions, because there is no literature in this area.
I found three difficulties while doing an action research study: (a) achieving a dual purpose, (b) leaving the comfort zone, and (c) living with ambiguity.
Achieving a dual purpose.
It is possible that action research is more complicated to do than conventional research because it has dual purposes. Teacher educators who resolve to do an action research study will be taking on responsibility for change as well as for research. That is a big undertakingl For example, I not only wanted to understand how my own action research in the course influenced my understanding of how to teach the course, but I also made changes in the course as a result of those understandings. Kemmis and
McTaggart (1982) maintain that action research is intended to have both, action and research outcomes. It is intentionally a solution-oriented inquiry that is group or personally owned and conducted. The action research process is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of
279 the terms “action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982). Action research actively involves participants in research: It is action and it is research. This duality presents difBculties that would not be apparent in other research models.
Leaving the comfort zone.
The second difficulty that teacher educators who want to do action research may face is leaving the comfort zone of their familiar thoughts, feelings, and actions as teachers. Certainly, 1 faced this during my study. Although 1 knew that being a teacher today requires changing one’s thinking as well as technical and management skills, I was hesitant to take the leap into action research. 1 finally decided that just as teacher education was in a state of reform, so also must I be willing to change.
Change requires thinking, feeling, and acting differently. In order to make changes within myself, I needed to be willing to move out of my comfort zone. I did not have much experience with conventional research, but at least it a known entity, because I had been taught how to do it and had used it for three or four years during my college and graduate studies. Action research methodology, however, was something that I had to leam firom scratch.
Teachers who want to do action research must be willing to leave their comfort zones. They must be willing to make the changes that the results of an action research study may require of them.
280 Ambiguity.
Teacher educators who want to do action research must also be able to deal with ambiguity. Throughout this study, I felt challenged by the ambiguity of what I was observing. The data, although rich, was clouded with extraneous, and sometimes contradictory, information. I struggled to get past this information, to tease out the essence of what I was observing, and to determine what was relevant to my study. But as negative as this factor sounds, it possessed a silver lining: My frustrations and difficidties were eventually transformed into a personally meaningfhl and valued learning experience. I learned to recognize the values of patience, organization, tolerance for ambiguity, and focusing on an area of inquiry about my teaching. [ began to enjoy the challenge of a less-structured process, which allowed me the freedom to “search for pieces to the puzzle” (Merriam, 1988, p. 37).
Long-term Effects
The purpose of this study was to look at how an apprenticeship model for action research served as a vehicle for shaping how these preservice teachers constructed beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research.
I think the data presents evidence that this did occur.
But as I consider the study's long-term effects, I ponder two dilemmas. First, [ wonder whether these preservice teachers will implement action research in their
future classrooms. Second, I am concerned about the issue of plausibility: Should action research be taught to preservice teachers? In the fbllowmg pages I will consider these dilemmas.
281 Future Implementation
Determining whether the preservice teachers will implement action research in the future was not the object of this study. My question was concerned with preservice teachers’ beginning identities as researchers and beginning skills in action research. However, I think that future research could explore the likelihood of whether preservice teachers will implement action research in their classrooms. I had anticipated incorporating an action research project into a methods course in which I would have been teaching these same students the next school year. I felt that this would give them the support they needed to take their research proposal to the next step. Regrettably, I left my position after the school year ended, and did not have the opportunity to complete the process I had mapped out for myself. In retrospect, the data 1 collected substantiated that these students left my class at the end of the semester feeling that they were researchers and planning on doing teacher research in their own classroom someday. But I do not know if that will happen, although I would like to think so.
The findings of the earlier study 1 was involved in, at The Ohio State
University, suggest that teachers who participate in an action research, study are more likely to use inquiry models in their own teaching (Bendau, Covert, Dyer, Christenson,
Johnston, Risko, & Slutsky, 2000). This did not happen immediately in the Ohio State study, however. Many factors, such as collegial support, administration’s attitude toward action research, and time constraints influenced how quickly the teachers in the
Ohio State study implemented action research, m their classrooms. It took three years for some of the experienced teachers in the Ohio State study to do action research. For
282 my study, I suspect that, realistically, there would have been a better chance of the preservice teachers implementing action research, had I remained at the college and provided the additional support the following semester, as 1 had planned to do.
Learning requires knowledge. I know that the preservice teachers in my study
learned how to do action research, but I do not know if they needed more knowledge
in order to take such research into their future classrooms. As I said in a previous
chapter, I do not think that knowledge can be given to students directly, which is why
1 used the cognitive apprenticeship approach. Using a cognitive apprenticeship model
allowed the preservice teachers to take part in closely controlled and dynamic mental
work, just as traditional apprentices once participated in learning crafts. This was a
way of helping the preservice teachers develop generative knowledge. The question
is, did these students need additional opportunities to elaborate upon and question
what they were discovering so that their knowledge could become truly generative?
To understand a possible response to that question, 1 referred to Resnick and
Klopfer(1989). They indicate three criteria that must be in place for a cognitive
apprenticeship model to be effective. I compared, their criteria to what occurred in my
study.
First, cognitive apprenticeship requires a real task; the preservice teachers in
this study were involved in a real task, doing action research in a real study. Second,
cognitive apprenticeship involves contextualized practice of tasks, rather than
exercises on component skills that have been lifted out of the contexts in which they
are to be used. These preservice teachers were involved in a contextualized practice.
Third, cognitive apprentices need opportunity to observe others doing the kind of work
283 they are expected to learn to do. This criterioa also existed in my study. I know from the data I collected that learning about action research was something that the preservice teachers were excited about; they said they were eager to use it in their future classrooms.
In reality, more needs to be learned about the particular kinds of experiences and courses that facilitate the personal and professional transformations that preservice teaches must undergo to become teacher researchers.
Plausibility
The second dilemma I ponder is the plausibility of preservice teachers becoming involved in the process of inquiry in the midst of learning how to teach. I believe they can, and should, learn, how to do research in their classrooms in the formative years of teaching.
I agree with van Zee (1998), who asserts:
...[L]eaming howto reflect upon one’s practices is an essential component of learning to teach. I also believe that teachers have distinctive knowledge that must be spoken and added to work being done to improve instruction in general. To know what happens during induction into teaching, we must create opportunities for new teachers to teU us—not as anonymous subjects in university researchers’ studies, but in their own voices from their own perspectives, (p. 252)
Like van Zee, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) assert that inquiry should be an
“integral part of teaching across the professional life span” 65) and emphasize that
“we need social and organizational structures supportive of beginning and experienced teachers’ learning and collaboration” (p. 65). Similarly, Sergiovanni contends that
“hiquiry from the beginning is not only a good idea, but a doable one” (cited in
284 Poetter, 1997, p. x). More recently. Power and Hubbard (1999) claim, ‘\..the newest of teachers can be researchers, grappling with challenging research questions in sophisticated ways” (p. 36).
There is research that supports developing action research skills in preservice teachers as a powerful strategy for improving their teaching (Keating, 1997a). In addition, preservice teachers with action research skills may describe student behavior rather than evaluate it. Fueyo and Koorland (1997) state:
Instead of judging children as being unmotivated, misbehaving, or inarticulate, teachers prepared as researchers are more like describe the same child as...getting out of their seat 50% of the time during the 30 minute lesson. ...[T]he more objective description provides nonjudgmental bases for determining appropriate intervention and outcomes in contrast to usmg labels for categorizing or stigmatizing children, (p. 342)
In addition, if preservice teachers are taught action research skills in their teacher preparation classes, they will come to believe that it is part of the profession.
Clearly, preservice teachers who are taught to view inquiry as an expected norm are more likely to use it.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am a neophyte in action research. I have been involved in it for only the last five years. I continue to be startled by the impact of the process on my teaching and on myself. My dissertation became more than a study to be completed; for me, it was a process that led to the core of what it means to be an educator. The experience and the knowledge gained during this process, in turn.
285 changed me as a teacher and as an. individual. I am now more reflective and less apt to pass Judgment on occurrences.
In the future, I hope that the action research process will continue to encourage me to ponder and struggle with other questions about my practice. These future issues also will require a wealth, of reflection, analysis, and research. I no longer expect to
“solve and answer” these questions; however, action research will draw me into the
intricate process of teaching/leaming and will help me to once again recognize that the
teaching process is enormously individual.
286 APPENDIX A
PRE- AND POST-TEST SURVEY QUESTIONS
Pre-survey Questions
1. What is your beginning definition of classroom-based research or “action research”?
2. Would you describe yourself as a researcher? Who or why not?
3. Briefly describe any research you have done in your college or high school experience.
4. List question you might be interested in researching.
Post-survey Questions
1. What is your ending definition of classroom-based research or “action research”?
2. Would you describe yourself as a researcher? Who or why not?
3. Briefly describe any research you have done in. your school experience.
4. List question you might be interested in researching.
287 APPENDIX B
GUIDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
L Name.
2. Cognate areas.
3. Position in undergraduate/grad program.
4. Describe any field experiences you have had so far in your preservice experience.
5. To what degree do you think those teachers are reflective about their practice?
6. Tell me about the things you have observed in these experiences. Have you seen anything that you would like to change?
7. What do you think is your primary role as a teacher?
8. Have you ever had any experience doing action research before? If so, what went well and not so well? What did you see as the value of this research?
9. What was your sense of classroom-based inquiry/teacher research/action research before you started this portion of the class?
10. What have you learned that is new?
11. Have you changed your mind about anything?
288 12. Does it seem harder or easier than you first thought it would be?
13. Why?
14. As you think about doing research in your own classroom someday, what do you think will be the challenges? The rewards? Why?
15. What kinds of things worry you?
16. Do you anticipate talking with other students about your project while conducting your study? Why or why not?
17. What do you see as the benefits or disadvantages of talking about it?
18. If not, would you be willing, or feel it necessary, to initiate a research group?
19. What do you feel that you still need to know to do your research project?
20. Once you have your own classroom what do you think administrators and peer teachers will think/respond about you doing research?
21. How will their thoughts/responses influence you?
22. What kinds of questions are you thinking about?
23. What things are helping you in the course to understand action research?
24. What things are still not clear to you?
289 APPENDIX C
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
L If you were asked to Identify the most important aspects of what are you learning, what would they be? I am interested in your diverse opinions—there are no “correct answers.” I am looking for discussion.
a. Write answer on the form provided.
b. Prioritize lists, with “1” being the most important skill.
c. Participants identify top three priorities and write each on a note card, then
share with the group for discussion.
2. lam going to go around the group and ask each of you to explain how you came to your decision. If anyone has questions please ask for clarification.
3. How have you changed, your mind about what action research entails since the beginning of this class?
4. What is the biggest discovery you have made concerning action research?
5. In what ways has my research project helped you to explore this idea of action research?
290 6. As you prepare to write your proposal, how are you feeling about it?
a. What do you feel that you still need to know in order to write the proposal?
b. What seems difBcult about defining your questions?
1. Do you think you will feel comfortable doing action research once you have a classroom of your own?
8. What do you feel is the value of action research?
9. Is it important for teachers do be able to talk about theories?
10. What are your final comments on the topic of action research?
291 APPENDIX D
STUDENT RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What are the different of learning styles for black students and white students? [G and
B]
What methods of teaching have been shown to be most effective for middle school students? [K]
What methods of teaching help students learn better? [W]
What are the prime motivators of middle school students? [K]
What works and what does not work with middle school students on interdisciplinary teams? [K]
How the spirit of a child reflects his or her learning? [E]
Parents’ Role
What is the role of family involvement in a student’s performance? [HI
292 At-Risk Students
Why do students fall through the cracks? [Y]
Classroom. Management
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Behavior Modification? [L]
Professional Development
How do teachers keep up with the changes in the profession? [H]
What ways can teachers self-evaiuate their own practice? [H]
293 LIST OF REFERENCES
Alwin, D. F. (Ed.). (1978). Survey design and analysis: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Apple, M. W. (1987). The de-skilling of teaching. In F. S. Bolin &. J. M. Falk (Eds.), Teacher renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
Andreasen, A. R. (1983). Cost-conscious marketing research. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 74-79.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1989). Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 612-623.
Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design ofeducation: A Journey to create the Juture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. 0. (1984). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. New York: Pergamon.
Barnes, D. (1992). The significance of teachers' frames for teaching. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to rejlection (pp. 9- 32). New York: Falmer.
Batten, M., et al. (1991). Recently recruited teachers: Their views and experiences o f preservice education (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Bawden, R. J. (1995). Systemic development: a learning approach to change. Centre for Systemic Development: Occasional Paper #1, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Australia.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Du%, T. M., 8c Perry, D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Belanger, J. (1992). Teacher research as a lifelong experiment. English Journal, 81(8), 16-23.
294 Bellenger, D. N., Bernhardt, K. L., & Golderstrucker, J. L. (1976). Qualitative research in marketing. Chicago: American. Marketing Association.
Bendau, S., Covert, J., Dyer, J., Christenson, M., Johnston, M., Risko, G., & Slutsky, R. (1999, April). Conducting action research while teaching about it. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Bendau, S., Covert, J., Dyer, J., Christenson, M., Johnston, M., Risko, G., & Slutsky, R. (2000, April). The rocky road o fteachers becoming action researchers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bennett, C. K. (1994). Promoting teacher reflection through action research: What do teachers think? Journal o f StaffDevelopment 15(1), 34-38.
Berlin, J. (1990). The teacher as researcher: Democracy, dialogue, and power. In D. A. Daiker & M. Morenberg (Eds.), The writing teacher as researcher: Essays in the theory and practice ofclass-based research (pp. 3-14). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Biehler, R. F., & Snowman, J. (1990). Psychology applied to teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bikien, S. K. (1983). Teaching as an occupation fo r women: A case stucfy ofan elementary school. Syracuse, NY: Education Designs Group.
Blau, G. L. (1987). Using a person-environment fit model to predict job involvement and organizational commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 30, 240-257.
Bogdan, R. C., & Bikien, S. K. (1992). Qualitative researchfor education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Aliyn & Bacon.
Book, C. L., & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Differences in entry characteristics of elementary and secondary teacher candidates. Journal o f Teacher Education, J7(2), 47-54.
Book, C. L., Byers, J., & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Student expectations and teacher education traditions with which we can and cannot Eve. Journal o f Teacher Education, 54(1), 9-13.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (excerpts) (265-28^. InAnthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 265-285).
295 Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis o fstyles, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organizatioa fit and the Theory of Work Adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 44, 32-54.
Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical stucfy o flearning to teach, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review o fEducational Research, 52(1), 37-60.
Brousseau, B., & Books, C., & Byers, J. (1988). Teacher beliefs and the cultures of teaching, w/bwrna/ o f Teacher Education, 59(6), 33-39.
Brousseau, B. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1988). How do teacher education faculty members define desirable teacher beliefs? Teacher & Teacher Education, 4, 267-273.
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Contributions to Human Development (Vol. 21): Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 108-126). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Brown, L. D., & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideological and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. The Journal o fApplied Behavioral Science, 19,277-294.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory o f instructioru Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Bullough, R. V. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education./owma/ o f Teacher Education, 42(1), 43-51.
Bumafbrd, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (1996). Teachers doing research: Practical possibilities, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Butler, J., & Scott, J. E. (1992). Feminists theorize the political. New York: Routledge.
296 Calderhead, J. (1988). The contributioa of field experiences to student primary teachers’ professional learning. Research fn Education, 40, 33-49.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. reacAmganrireacAer£(c/«cnrion, 7(1), 1-8.
Gallo, V. N. (1995). Towards community development: Exploring possibilities with the rural poor in the Philippines through participatory systemic action research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, New South Wales, Australia.
Carney, T. F. (1990). Collaborative inquiry methodology, Windsor, Ontario, Canada: University of Windsor, Division of Social and Decision Sciences.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 2/" century. Washington, DC.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook o fresearch on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language o fteaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cazden, C. B., & Mehan, H. (1989). Principles fi:om sociology and anthropology: Context, code, and classroom. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 47-57). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(1), 255-265.
Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: Falmer.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice and research, hi D. Schdn(Ed.), The reflective tiim: Case studies in reflective practice (pp. 258-281). New York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, C. M. (1988). Askmg the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research, on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 1 7(2), 5-12.
297 Clift, R., Veal, M., Johnson, M., & Holland, P. (1990). Restructuring teacher education through, collaborative action research. Journal o f Teacher Education 41(2), 52-62,
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-10.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront? American Journal o fEducation, //(3), 298-324.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, /9(3), 2-10.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991a). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper Series as a case study. In T. M. Du%, J. Lowyc, D. H. Jonassen, & T. M. Welsh, Designing environments for constructivist learning (pp. 9-36). New York: Spring-Verlag.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 5/(5), 34-40.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991, Winter). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. In The American Educator (pp. 6-46). Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (Eds.). (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts o f reading, writing, and mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Copper, L. R. (1990, April). Teachers as researchers: Attitudes, opinions, and perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Crow, N. A. (1987). Preservice teachers' biography: A case stucfy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
298 Cruickshank, D., & Aimaline, W. (1986). Field experiences in teacher education: Considerations and recommendations. /oMrna/ o f Teacher Education, 37(3), 34-40.
Cunningham, D. J. (1991). In defense of extremism. Educational Technology, 31(9), 26-27.
Cunningham, J. B. (1993). Action research and organisational development, London: Praeger.
Danziger, K. (1971). Socialization. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: Teachingfor America's future. New York: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. L. (1996). The changing context of teacher education. InF.B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educators handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation ofteachers (pp. 14-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofqm'st, L. H. (1984).A psychological theory o fwork adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1989b). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative researchfpp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation o ftheory to practice in ed : The third NSSE year book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Dewey, J. (1929). Sources of a science of education. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The collected works: Later works (pp. 3-50). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement o fthe relation o freflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education [Reprint). In J. A. Boydston, P. R., Baysinger, & B. Levine (Eds.), The middle works o f John Dewey 1899-1924: Vol. 9. Carbondale, EL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1916.)
299 Dick, B. (1995). Session 5-The change process and action research. Action Research and Evaluation On-Line. S t Lucia: Bob Dick. Retrieved from ftpr//psy.uq.edu.au7Iists/arHst/areoI_session05.
Dill, V. (1996). Alternative teacher certification. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook o fresearch on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 932-960). New York: Macmillan.
Doyle, W. (1990). Case methods in the education of teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 77(1), 29-41.
Drucker, P. F. (1994, November). The age of social transformation. The Atlantic Monthly, 53-80.
Duckworth, E. (1986). Teaching as research. Harvard Educational Review, S6, 481- 95.
Eisner, E. W. (1975). The perceptive eye: Toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Occasional paper of the Stanford evaluation consortium, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: Macmillan.
Elliott, J. (1985). Educational action research. In J. Nisbet & S. Nisbet (Eds.), Research, policy andpractice: World yearbook o feducation (pp. 231-250). London: Logan Page.
Elliott J. (1988). What is action-research in schools. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart, The action research reader. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Di M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook o fresearch on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
Farkas, S., & Johnson, J. (1997). Different drummers. Washington, DC: Public Agenda.
Fehnan-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman&G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook ofteaching and policy (pp. 150-171). New York: Longman.
300 Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1989). The cultures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook o fresearch on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1995). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher handbook (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feistritzer, C. E. (1986). Teacher crisis: Myth or reality? Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1991). Nursing research: The application o fqualitative approaches. London: Chapman & Hall.
Fleischer, Cathy (1995). Composing teacher-research: A prosaic history. Albany: State University of New York. Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative? Journal for the Theory o f Social Behavior, 22, 175-198.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy o f the oppressed New York: Continuum.
Fueyo, V., & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. JbwrW o f Teacher Education, 48, 336-334.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gettys, C. M., & Holt, M. A. (1993). Survey assessment o f teachers 'perception concerning professional staff"development. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. ^RIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 742.)
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
Ginsburg, M. (1986). Reproduction, contradictions, and conceptions of curriculum in preservice teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(2), 283-209.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
301 Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research, Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1993, Fall). Interview with. John. I. Goodlad. New Schools, New TECHNOS Quarterly For Education and Technology, 2(3) 1-6.
Goodman, J. (1984). Reflection and teacher education: A case study and theoretical analysis. Interchange on Education, /5(3), 9-26.
Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers’ professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4 , 121-137.
Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. R. (Eds.). (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency fo r change. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Stucfying children in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Green, T. (1971). The activities o f teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grennan, K. F. (1989, Fail). The journal in the classroom. Equity and Excellence 24(3), 38-40.
Hall, D. T. (1987). Careers and socialization. JbumaJ o f Management, 13, 301-321.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor. In. Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 357- 364).
Head, F. A. (1992). Student teaching as initiation into the teaching profession. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23(2), 89-107.
Heath, S. B. (1982) Ethnography in education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthom (Eds.), Children in and out o f school. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hillocks, G. (1990). Teaching, reflecting, research. In D. A Daiker & M. Morenberg (Eds.), The writing teacher as researcher: E sscq /sin the theory and practice o f class-based research (pp. 3-14). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskiatt perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.
302 Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory o f vocational personalities and work environments. Englewood Clifis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-189.
Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Holmes Group (1991). Tomorrow’s schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Holmes Group (1995). Tomorrow’s schools o feducation. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Holly, P., & Southworth, G. (1990). 'The developing school. London: Falmer.
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325-349.
Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Rees, R. (1977). The bureaucratic socialization of student teachers. lournal o f Teacher Education, 25(1), 23-26.
Hubbard, R. S. & Power, B. M. (1993). Art o f classroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hursh, D. (1995). Developing discourses and. structures to support action research for educational reform. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical (pp. 141-153). New York: Teachers College Press.
JacuUo-Noto, J. (1992, April). Action research and school restructuring: The lessons learned. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodology, and meaning. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Janis, I. L. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. (Eds.), Handbook o fqualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, J. M. (1975). Doing field research. New York: Free Press.
303 Kahn, R., & Cannell, C. (1957). The dynamics o f interviewing. New York: John Wiley.
Keating, J. (1997a). High schools o f the 21st century. Customized Text. San Diego, CA: Aztec Shops, San Diego State University.
Keating, J., Diaz-Greenberg, R., Baldwin, M., & Thousand, J. (1998). A collaborative action research model for teacher preparation programmes. Journal o f Teacher Education 49(S), 381-390.
Kemmis, S. (1991). Improving education through action research. In O. Zuber- Skerritt, Action research for change and development, Aldershot, England: Avebury.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982).The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988).The action research planner (3rd ed.). Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1990b).The action research reader, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Quarterly, 72,661-678.
Kerr, S., VonGlinow, M. A., 8c Schriesheim, J. (1977). Issues in the study of “professionals” in organizations: The case of scientists and engineers. Orgcmizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 329-345.
Kidder, L. H. (1981). Qualitative research and quasi-experimental frameworks. In M. B. Brewer & B. E. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knodel, J. (1993). The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Succèsfo lfocus groups: Advancing the state o f the art, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source o f learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krueger, A. R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
304 Kwo, 0. (1996). Reflective classroom practice: Case studies of student teachers at work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 273-298.
Lamport, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305-342.
Lanier, J., & Henderson, G. New directions for education. Handbook o f research on teaching (pp. 1-102). New York: Macmillan.
Lather, P. (1986). Research, as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257-277.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart. New York: Routledge.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Institute for Research in Learning, Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H. (1983). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subject warrants recruitment, and teacher education. Journal o f Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), 3-16.
Lawson, L. (1993). Theory of Work Adjustment personality constructs. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 43, 46-57.
Levinson, B., Fowley, D., & Holland, D. (1996). The cultural production ofthe educatedperson: Critical ethnographies o f schooling and local practice. New York: New York University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal o f Social Issues, 2, 34-46.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cuba, E. G. (I9i5). naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lomax, P. (1986). Action researchers action research: A symposium. British Journal o f Inservice Education, 75(1), 42-49.
305 Lortie, D. (1975), Schoolteacher, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Macleod, J. (1995). Ain't no makin ’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Maeroff, G. I. (1988). The empowerment o fteachings: Overcoming the crisis o f confidence. New York: Teachers College Press.
Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. T. (1994). The feminist classroom: An inside look at how professors and students are transforming higher education in a diverse society. New York: Basic Books.
Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts o fthe western Pacific: An account o fnative enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes o fMelanesian New Guinea, New York: Dutton. (Original works published 1922.)
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, P. R. (1989). The scientist practitioner model and clinical psychology: Time &>r change, Australian Psychologist, 24(1), 71-92.
McCarthy, L. P. (1987). A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the curriculum. Research in the Teaching o f English, 21, 233-265.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview (Qualitative Research Methods, Series 13). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCutcheon, G. (1987). Teachers’ experience doing action research. Peabody Journal o f Education, 64(2), 115-127.
McDiarmid, G. W. (1995). Realizing new learningfor all students: A Jrameworkfor the professional development o fKentucky teachers. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
McDiarmid, G. W., & Price, J. (1990). Prospective teachers’ view o f diverse learners. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
McGee-Brown, M. J. (1995). Multiple voices, contexts, and methods: Making choices in qualitative evaluation in early childhood education settings. In J. A. Hatch (Ed.), Qualitative research in early childhood setting (pp, 191-211). Westport, CT: Press.
306 McGowen, K. R., & Hart, L. E. (1990). Still diffèrent after all these years: Gender diferences in professional identity formation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 118-123.
McPherson, G. (1972^. Small town teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 74, 424- 432.
Mehan, H. (1995). Resisting the politics of despair. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 26(3), 239-250. hi Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 389-395).
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R. EC., Fiske, M., & ECendall, P. L. (1990). The focused interview: A manual o f problems andprocedures (2nd ed.). London: Collier Macmillan.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A, (1994a). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o fqualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. A. (1994b). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method (A. E. George, Trans.). New York: Frederick A. Stokes.
Moos, R. H. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care settings. Jbwrna/ ofVocational Behavior, 31, 231-247.
Morgan, D. L. (1988).Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1998). The focus group kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing fimded qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o fqualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
307 Moss, P, A. (1996). Enlarging the dialogue in educational measurement: Voices from interpretive research traditions. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 10-28.
Munfay, H. & Russel, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal o f Teacher Education, 45(2), 86-95.
Myers, C. (1988). 4 teacher educator studies his teaching: A self-study with multiple perspectives. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Nanda, S. (1987). Cultural anthropology (excerpt). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. In Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 349-356,418-434).
National Commission of Excellence in Education (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative fo r educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal o f Curriculum Studies, 19,317-328.
Newby, M. J. (1997). Educational action research: The death of meaning? or. The practitioner’s response to utopian discourse. Educational Research, 59(1), 77- 86.
Nixon, J. (1989, Winter). The teacher as researcher: Contradictions and continuities. Peabotfy Journal o fEducation, <54(2), 20-32.
Noffke, S., & Stevenson, R. (1995). Educational action research: Becoming practically critical. New York: Teachers College Press.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models ^ p , 7-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinie & Heinle.
308 Oja, S. N., & Pine, G. L (1987). Collaborative acüon research: Teachers’ stages of development and school contexts. Peaboify Journal o f Education, 64(2), 96- 115.
Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. Philadelphia: Palmer.
Osborne, B. (1996). Culturally relevant pedagogy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 27. la. Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 29-44).
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review o fEducational Research, d2(3), 307-332.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perkins, D. N., & Solomon, G. (1988, September). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(\), 22-32.
Poetter, T. S. (1997). Voices o f inquiry in teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Power, B. M., & Hubbard, R. S. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher researchers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Pretty, J. N., & Chambers, R. (1993). Towards a learning paradigm: New professionalism and institutions for agriculture. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment-Research Series, 1(1), 48-83.
Raizen, S. A., & Michelsohn, A. M. (Eds.). (1994). The fiiture o f science in elementary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Ray, R. E. (1993). The practice o ftheory: Teacher research in composition. Urban, IL:NCTE.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiiy. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). Introduction: The imperative for systemic change. In C. M. Reigeluth & R. J. Garfinkle (Eds.), Systemic change in education. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13-20.
309 Resnick, L. B. (Ed.) (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor o f Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview. In Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 1-18). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Richardson, L. (1997). Fields o f play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Richardson-Koehler, V. (1988). Barriers to effective supervision of student teaching. Journal o f Teacher Education, 39(2), 28-34.
Rist, R. C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (pp.545- 557). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rival, L. (1996). Formal schooling and the production of modem citizen in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In B. Levinson, D. Foley, & D. Holland, The cultural production o f the educated person (p. 164). AJbany: SUNY Press.
Roden, J. K., & Cardina, C. E. (1996). Factors which contribute to school administrators’ hiring decisions. Education, 117,262-225.
Rogoff, B.(199QÎ). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of Communities of Learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, /(4), 209-229.
Rossman, G. B., & Ralhs, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rubin, L. (1989, November-December). The thinking teacher: Cultivating pedagogical intelligence. Journal o f Teacher Education, 31-34.
Rudduck, J. (1988). Changing the world of the classroom by understanding it: A. review of some aspects of the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. Journal o f Curriculum and Supervision, 4(1), 30-42.
310 Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution o fAmerican educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Sagor, R. D. (1992, April).Collaborative action research: A cultural mechanism for school development and professional restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Sanjek, R. (1990). On ethnographic validity. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings o f anthropology. Ithaca, NY: ComeE University Press.
Saphr, E. H. (1934). Emergence of a concept of personaUty in a study of cultures. Journal of Social Psychology. 5:408-15. Reprinted in D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), SelectedwritingofEdward Sapir in language, culture, andpersonality {\9A9). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. In H. Wolcott, Education as cultural transmission and acquisition. International Encyclopedia o fEducation (1994,2nd ed., pp. 126-131). Oxford, England: Pergamon. hi^n/Aropo/og)/ and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 126-131).
Schempp, P. G. (1989). Apprenticeship-of-observation and the development of teachers. In T. J. TempUn & P. G. Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into physical education: learning to teach, (pp. 13-37). Indianapolis, Indiana: Benchmark Press.
Schneider, P. (1994). The writer as an artist. Los Angeles: LoweE House.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o fqualitative research (^p. 118-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary o f terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973, November 9). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 182, 553-559. In Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp.132-138).
Smart, J. C., Elton, C. F., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1986). Person-environment congruence and Job satisfaction. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 29, 216-225.
311 Spindler, G. (1982). Doing the ethnography o fschooling: Educational anthropology in action. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1994). Pathways to cultural awareness: Cultural therapy with teachers and students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. In Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 152- 160).
Spradley, J. S. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stallings, J. (1986). Using time effectively: A self-analytic approach. In K. Zumwalt (Ed.), Improving teaching (pp, 15-27). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stevenson, R. (1995). Action research and supportive school contexts: Exploring the possibilities for transformation. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Education action research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Street, L. (1986). Mathematics, teachers, and an action research course. In D. Hustler, T. Cassidy, & T. Cuff (Eds.), Action research in classroom and schools. London: Allen and Unwin.
Stringer, E. (1996). Action research: A handbookfor practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review o f research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 457-521). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Tabachnick, B. R., Popkewitz, T. S., & Zeichner, K. M. (1979-1980). Teacher education and the professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange, 10(A), 12-29.
Thomas, J. A., & Pedersen, J. E. (1998, January). Draw-a-science-teacher: A visualization o fbeliefs and self-efficacy. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74(A), 409-412.
Toulmin, S. (1996). Is action research really “research”? Concepts and Tranffiormations, 1(1), 51-62.
312 Tumey, C. (1988). The practicum curriculum. Journal o f Teaching Practice, 5(1), 3-18.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1990). Learning together: A history o f coeducation in American public schools. New Haven and Hew York: Yale University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation.
Veenmann, S. (1984). Perceived problems ofbeginning teachers. Review o f Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178.
Vygotslty, L. S. (1978). Tools and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development o f higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 365-373).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Walsh, E. (1995). Schoolmarms: Women in American schools. San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.
Ward, F. E. (1971). The Montessori method and the American school. New York: Amo Press & The New York Times.
Watts, R. (1987). Development of professional identity in Black clinical psychology students. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 28-35.
Weade-Lamme, G. (Personal communication, e-mail message, April 23, 1998).
Weinstein, C. S. (1989). Teacher education students’ preconceptions of teaching. Journal o f Teacher Education, 40(^, 53-60.
Wells, W. D. (1974). Group interviews. In R. Ferber (Ed.), Handbook o fmarketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wenden, A. (1982). The process o f self-directed learning: A study o fadult language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Wesley, E. B. (1957). NEA: The first hundred years. New York: Harper & Brothers.
313 Whorf, B. (1956). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language, hi J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, MA: Technical Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In. Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 374-388).
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 513-551.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review o fEducational Research, 55(2), 130-178.
Wolcott, H. (1982). The anthropology of learning. In G. Spindler (1997), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (pp. 310-338). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Wolcott, H. (1994). Education as cultural transmission and acquisition. International encyclopedia o f education (2nd ed., pp. 126-131). Oxford, England: Pergamon. In Anthropology and Education Course Packet 1999 ED P&L 925 Ohio State University (pp. 126-131).
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zaharlick, A. (1992). Ethnography in anthropology and its value for education. Theory into Practice, 3/(2), 116-125.
Zeichner, K. (1986). The practicum as an occasion for leammg to teach. The South Pacific Journal o f Teacher Education, 14(2), 11-27.
Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & Sikula (Eds.), Handbook o f research on teacher education (pp. 329-48). New York: Macmillan.
Zeichner, BL M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1985). The development of teacher perspectives: Social strategies and constitutional control in the socialization ofbeginning tsdchnxs. Journal o f Educationfor Teaching, II, 1-25.
Zuber-Skerritt, 0 . (Ed.) (1991). Action research for change and development. Aldershot, England: Avebury.
314