Teacher Research as a Professional Development Activity for P-12 Educators

Following the presentation of a conceptualframework that describes the dimensions of variation in P-12 teacher research in North America, the paper reviews the results of several systema

Teacher Research as a Professional Development Activity for P-12 Educators

Kenneth M ZeichnerUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

July , 2000

CONTACT : University of Wisconsin-Madison

225 North Mills St

Madison, Wisconsin 53706Phone: 608-263-4651Fax: 608-263-9992E-mail: zeichner@facstaff.wisc.edu

This work was supported in part by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S Department of Education The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of OERI, and no official endorsement should be inferred

AbstractThis paper reviews research related to the professional development impact of school-based teacher research programs for P-12 educators Following the presentation of a conceptualframework that describes the dimensions of variation in P-12 teacher research in North

America, the paper reviews the results of several systematic studies of school-based teacher research programs and identifies several conditions under which school-based teacher research becomes a transformative professional development activity for teachers

Teacher Research as a Professional Development Activity for P-12 Educators 1

By validating teachers as knowers as well as doers, teacher research can turn traditional professional development on its head, offering the possibility of major long-term

changes that are generated by teachers themselves, based on their own investigations of practice (Check, 1998, pp 17-18)

P-12 Educator Professional DevelopmentDespite an emerging consensus in the teacher education literature about the need to change dominant practices in P-12 educator professional development to be more consistent with new and ambitious visions for school reform that view teachers as educational leaders (Corcoran, 1995; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1994; Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999), a

“training model,” unconnected to teachers’ daily work and disrespectful of teachers’

knowledge, continues to persist as the most common form of professional development for teachers in the U.S (Miller, 1995; Miller, Lord, & Dorney, 1994) This is the case despite the fact that teachers generally neither like these programs nor use them to improve their classroompractices (Richardson,1994) The majority of professional development experiences for teachers

in the U.S are one-shot, one day or even briefer experiences (CPRE, 1998; Sparks & Hirsh, 1999) Two- thirds of U.S teachers state that they have no say in what or how they learn in professional development activities provided to them in schools (U.S Department of Education,

1994) Most of the inservice or staff development that teachers are now exposed to is of a more

formal nature; unattached to classroom life It is often a melange of abstract ideas with little attention paid to ongoing support for continuous learning and changed practices (Lieberman, 1996, p 187)

In the last decade, numerous organizations including the U.S Department of Education, American Federation of Teachers, The National Staff Development Council, The National Councils of Teachers of English and Mathematics, and academic scholars of teacher education have articulated sets of standards or “design principles” for describing good professional development (e.g., Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996; NCTE, 1996; NCTM, 1996;

NPEAT, 1998; National Staff Development Council, 1995 a,b,c; U.S Department of Education, 1995) These standards, which are often linked to research on teacher learning, commonly emphasize the importance of providing teachers with participant driven and intensive

opportunities to engage in inquiry and reflection over time with colleagues about issues that matter to them in the course of their daily work This common vision of good professional development, while recognizing the need for teachers to learn new skills and content to meet school district initiatives for reform, emphasizes the need for professional development

opportunities to respect and build on the knowledge and expertise that teachers already have and to nurture and support their intellectual leadership capacity

Teacher Research as Professional DevelopmentDespite concerns expressed by some over the years that teachers are incapable of conducting research or that research will take time away from that which teachers should be devoting to their students (e.g., Hodgkinson, 1957), it has been argued for many years that P-12

educators should conduct research about their own practice as a form of professional

development In the U.S we can first see evidence for this call for teachers to become

researchers as early as 1926 in Research for Teachers written by Burdette Ross Buckingham,

Director of the Bureau of Research at Ohio State University

The teacher has opportunities for research which if seized, will not only powerfully and rapidly develop the technique of teaching, but will also react to and vitalize and dignify the work of the individual teacher (p iv)

A few years later, Dewey (1929) referred to teachers’ potential contributions to

educational research as an “unworked mine.” Over the years, a number of different arguments have been made as to why teachers should engage in research One of the most common claims

is that teachers will become better at what they do by conducting research and that the quality

of learning for their pupils will be higher It has also been asserted that teacher research will stimulate positive changes in the culture and productivity of schools and raise the status of the occupation of teaching in the society Additionally, it has been declared that teacher research will produce knowledge about teaching and learning that will be useful to other P-12 educators,policy makers, academic researchers, and teacher educators

It has been argued for example, that teacher research as a form of professional

development has often had a profound effect on those who have done it, in some cases

transforming the classrooms and schools in which they work For example, Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1992) claim that:

When teachers redefine their own relationships to knowledge about teaching and

learning, they reconstruct their classrooms and begin to offer different invitations to

their students to learn and know A view of teaching as research is connected to a view

of learning as constructive, meaning-centered, and social Teachers who are actually researching their own practices provide opportunities for their students to become similarly engaged what goes on in the classrooms of teacher researchers is

qualitatively different from what typically happens in classrooms (p 318)

It has also been concluded from analyses of researchers’ self-reports that teacher research helps teachers to become more flexible and more open to new ideas (Oja & Smulyan, 1989), to be more proactive and self-directed in relation to external authority (Holly, 1990), boosts teachers’ self-esteem and confidence levels (Dadds, 1995; Loucks Horsley, et al., 1998; Webb, 1990), narrows the gap between teachers’ aspirations and realizations (Elliott, 1980), helps teachers develop an attitude and skills of self-analysis that are then applied to other aspects of their teaching (Day, 1984), changes patterns of communication among teachers leading to more collegial interaction (Current & Hirabayashi, 1989; Selener, 1997), and alters teacher talk about students from a focus on student problems to an emphasis on student

resources and accomplishments (Atwell, 1987), and helps teachers become more aware of their impact on students ( Allen, Shockley, & Baumann, 1995) These kind of claims led Grundy andKemmis (1988) to conclude:

The first hand accounts of teachers and students who have been involved in these projects reveal that action research has often been a major and significant experience in their personal and professional development and often a uniquely transforming

experience In short, there is plenty of evidence in print and in people to justify a claim for action research based on performance rather than promise (p 331)

Despite the growing amount of testimony in the literature about the positive outcomes associated with teachers doing research, there are a number of problems with drawing

conclusions from these statements alone, about the value of teacher research as a professional development activity First, many of the references in the literature to the value of teacher research are anecdotal in nature and are not the result of systematic and intentional exploration

of teachers’ experiences (Huberman, 1996) Second, even if we accept the accuracy of the claims that have been made about the impact of teacher research, we are often provided with little or no information about the specific characteristics of the research experience and /or research context that are responsible for promoting this growth

Teacher research 2 has become very common now throughout the world (see Zeichner,

in press; Zeichner & Noffke, in press) and has been implemented in many different ways that reflect different ideological commitments and beliefs about teacher and student learning

(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998) Similarly, conceptualizations of the process of teacher

research vary substantially in different locations, ranging from those that implement a

particular structure of the inquiry process such as the action research spiral popularized

throughout the world in the 1980's by Australian academics (e.g., Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)

3, to more open-ended approaches that enable researchers to choose from a variety of different methods of doing research on one’s own practice, including some not typically found within academic research communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) In cases where a particular structure of the research process is provided to and/or used by teachers, there are also importantdifferences between the step by step problem solving versions that are part of a number of widely used teacher inquiry programs (e.g., ASCD, 1995; Sagor, 1992) and the more reflexive

and cyclical models that place much more emphasis on problem setting and formulation (e.g., Elliott, 1991)

The contexts in which teacher research is conducted also vary greatly For example, teachers conduct research either alone, in connection with a research group, or as part of a whole school faculty (Calhoun, 1993), and the particular motivations and conditions associated with teachers conducting research differ across North America (Noffke, 1997) It is unlikely that all of the various forms of teacher research and ways or organizing and supporting it result

in the kind of positive outcomes for teachers and their students that are often reported in the literature It is important to begin to identify the particular aspects of the teacher research experience that are associated with different kinds of teacher and student learning

Studying the Impact of Teacher Research as a Professional Development Activity

There are at least two ways in which we can begin to gather evidence about the efficacy

of different ways of conceptualizing, organizing and supporting teacher research as a

professional development activity One way is to examine what teachers who have conducted research have had to say about the experience and its impact Although there are now an increasing number of research reports that have become readily accessible as papers, in books

or journals and through the internet which discuss the influence on students of activities

associated with teacher research, it is not that common for teachers to discuss in these reports the conditions under which their research was conducted and supported, or the influence of the research as a professional development activity

A second strategy for gaining a better understanding of the nature and impact of teacher research as a professional development activity is to examine those instances in which teacher

research has been systematically investigated There are a limited number of studies of teacher research programs that address both the conditions under which the research was conducted and its influence on teachers, classrooms, pupils and schools This paper will focus on an analysis of what has been learned about the nature and impact of teacher research conducted under different conditions from the few existing systematic studies of teacher research as a professional development activity To a lesser extent, it will also draw upon the first hand reports of teachers who have conducted research

A Conceptual Map of Teacher Research in North AmericaBefore examining the evidence related to teacher research as a professional developmentactivity for P-12 educators, I will attempt in this section to sketch out some of the ways in which teacher research activity in North America has been conceptualized, organized, and supported across and within particular teacher research programs.4 There are several major dimensions along which teacher research activity in North America has varied These

dimensions relate to the purposes and motivation of those who engage in the research, the conceptions of teacher research that are held by the researchers and program organizers, and theconditions under which the research is organized and supported

Noffke (1997) outlined three different motivations that have existed for teachers who have conducted research about their own practices First, there is the motivation to better understand and improve one’s own teaching and/or the contexts in which that teaching is conducted Here the main interest is in how the research can contribute to the betterment of one’s own individual situation as a teacher and life in a classroom, school and community

Second, there is the motivation to produce knowledge that will be useful to other educators either in the same settings or in other settings Here teacher researchers are interested in sharingtheir research with other educators through seminars, conference presentations and

publications Finally, consistent with the democratic impulse that was originally associated with the use of action research in the U.S back in the 1940's (Foshay, 1994), there is the motivation to contribute to greater equity, and democracy in schooling and society Here there

is an explicit agenda by teachers to work for social change by either working on issues of equity and social justice within the classroom or beyond (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994) These categories are obviously not mutually exclusive and reflect the emphasis within

particular research projects All teacher researchers are interested in improving their own classroom practice In addition to this motivation, some researchers are also interested in sharing their learning with others or in contributing to social reconstruction

A second dimension of variation in teacher research is concerned with the context in which the research is conducted Here we have seen teachers conducting research alone as individuals, as part of small collaborative groups, or in school faculty groups involving

everyone in particular schools When the research has been done in connection with a group, the groups have varied according to their size, the basis for their formation, and whether there

is an external facilitator and/or university faculty involvement Some teacher research groups involve teachers from the same team, department or school, and others mix together teachers from different schools

Another dimension along which teacher research has varied is in terms of the

sponsorship of the research Here we have seen many different sponsors of the research

including teachers themselves, school districts, teacher unions, colleges and universities, state departments of education, regional educational laboratories, professional subject matter

associations, regional staff development centers, school/university partnerships, foundations, and the federal government Among the colleges and universities that have been involved in sponsoring teacher research are those that offer specific courses on teacher research, support teacher research master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, and those like the University of California- Davis and George Mason University that have set up structures to organize and support teacher research on a broad scale Most of the time participation in teacher research hasbeen on a voluntary basis, but sometimes in the case of school wide teacher research

participation has been compulsory

There have also been a variety of external incentives provided to teachers for

participating in research including time away from school to think together with colleagues, money, graduate credits and fulfilling degree requirements, and professional advancement credits Some programs involve teachers in research for a year or less and others enable

teachers to continue their involvement for several years

Within the teacher research programs themselves, there is often variation in terms of the form and content of individual studies For example, Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) have described four different forms of systematic and intentional inquiry by teachers in North

America: (a) journals which provide accounts of classroom life over time, (b) oral inquiries which consist of written records of teachers’ oral examinations of their practice in a group setting, (c) studies which represent teachers’ explorations of their work using data based on observations, interviews, and document collection , and (d) essays which represent extended

interpretations and analyses of various aspects of schooling They argue that this broad view of teacher research accounts for some of the ways that teachers inquire about their practice that

do not fit with university models for doing research As was mentioned earlier, some teacher research involves the investigation of specific research questions and follows some variation of the well known action research spiral (e.g.,Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Elliott, 1991) This is what Cochran-Smith & Lytle refer to as “studies.” Other teacher research is more holistic and focuses simultaneously on a variety of questions (Gallas, 1998) Some teacher research is focused at the onset on the improvement of practice Other research is more concerned at first with developing a better understanding of practice.5 Zeichner’s (1997b) discussion of the different kinds of questions and issues that have been investigated by teachers in the school district program in Madison, Wisconsin illuminates the kind of variation that exists in the foci

of teacher research studies that have invesigated specific research questions using the action research spiral In Madison, teachers have investigated a variety of questions and issues

3 Better understand one’s practice in general- e.g., What is going on in my classroom?

A specific question emerges later

4 Promote greater equity- e.g., How can I help the girls in my math class feel more confident about their abilities in math and to participate more in class activities?

5 Influence the social conditions of practice- e.g., How can I get the school district to reallocate funding to support teacher-initiated professional development work?

As can be seen from the variation in the framing of studies in Madison, Wisconsin, the scope of teacher research includes studies that focus within the classroom, those that focus beyond the classroom but within the school, and those that focus on issues that extend

beyond the school

Individual teacher research studies also vary in the way that they relate to knowledge generated external to them, including academic educational research and studies by other teachers For example, Troen et al (1997) describe three patterns that emerged when they examined teacher researchers’ work done in collaborative inquiry seminars in Brookline

Massachusetts Some teachers used concepts, questions, and ideas from external research as thestarting point for their own research, others used them as a resource, usually consulting them later on in the research process (see McDonald, 1986) , and still another group did not use them

at all and felt no need to connect to academic research or the research of other teachers becausethey felt that it would not be helpful to do so

Teacher research programs across North America also differ in terms of the structural conditions that they set up for teacher researchers These differences include the rituals and routines that are established in research groups (i.e., how the teacher research groups work), theresources that are provided to teachers to support their research (e.g., materials to read,

literature searches, publication support, released time), the opportunities that are provided for

teachers to interact with others about their work, and the ways in which teachers are

encouraged, supported or required to represent their research to others (e.g., as a paper, on video, through a conference presentation, etc.)

Finally, and probably one of the most significant dimensions along which teacher research programs vary is the philosophical orientation toward teachers and their learning that

is embedded in the organization, structures, and human interactions in a program Some

programs replicate the hierarchial patterns of authority and the dim view of teachers’

capabilities that permeates dominant forms of professional development for teachers and others display a deep respect for teachers and their knowledge and break down typical authority patterns which limit teacher autonomy and control The key questions to ask with regard to the philosophical realm are concerned with the degree to which teachers feel respected,

intellectually challenged as well as supported, and the degree to which they have control over their own research both in terms of its substantive focus and the methods used to carry it out

Systematic Studies of Teacher Research as Professional Development

There was a feeling on the part of the many teachers that the mere use of the methods ofstudy which they employed caused them to change their ways of teaching The

methods of study enabled them to get new insights into reasons for children’s behavior and into procedures for helping youngsters improve their behaviors (Wanne, 1952, pp 491-492)

There are relatively few cases where the professional development process associated with teacher research has been systematically studied In these few cases, data have been collected from teachers over a period of time to assess both the conditions under which the research was organized and supported and its impact on teachers, their pupils, and schools In this paper, we will examine data from studies of teacher research in the Madison, Wisconsin School District Classroom Action Research Program; the Inquiry seminars in the

Learning/Teaching Collaborative in Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts; the Lawrence SchoolChild Study and Children’s Literature teacher study groups in Brookline, MA., the Teacher Action Research Project in the Bay Area IV Professional Development Consortium in Northern California; and school wide action research projects carried out in Georgia and Ames, Iowa

These programs, although limited in their ability to represent the full range of diversity

in teacher research programs across North America, reflect a number of different approaches to conceptualizing, organizing and supporting teacher research For example, the Madison and Bay Area programs involve teachers from different schools working in small research groups while the Massachusetts programs involve several teachers from within the same schools working in research groups On the other hand, the Georgia and Iowa programs represent school- wide research efforts within individual schools Participation in the Madison program isfor an academic year while teachers conduct research over several years in the other programs

The Nature and Impact of the Madison, Wisconsin Classroom Action Research Program

In this voluntary school district sponsored professional development program that originated in 19906, teacher researchers meet in mixed school groups of 8-10 over the course of

a school year.7 The groups are facilitated by two experienced teacher researchers from the district and meet once per month during the school day for a half day or full day The groups are organized either around levels of schooling (e.g., elementary) or by topical themes (e.g., race and gender equity) The researchers formulate a research question and carry out an

investigation related to this question over the course of the academic year Monthly seminars are held by the district for the group facilitators to provide support in facilitating research groups Researchers complete a written report of their studies that are published by the district and distributed to all schools

With funding from the Spencer and MacArthur foundations, a two year study was done

of the nature and impact of this program (Brodhagen, Caro-Bruce, & Klais, 1999; Zeichner, 1997a; Zeichner & Klehr, 1999; Zeichner, and Caro-Bruce, & Marion, 1998 ) In addition to documenting the work of two research groups, interviews were held with 74 teachers who had conducted research in the program as well as with 10 individuals who had facilitated research groups All of the written reports of the studies were also analyzed along with four videos of teachers talking about their research that had been produced for local cable TV All of this was directed toward illuminating what goes on in the research groups (e.g., rituals and routines, the role of the facilitators, etc.), and the program’s influence on the ways in which participants think about their practice, their classroom practices, the learning of their students, the culture ofschools where several people have participated, and on individuals and practices beyond these individual schools

One part of the study sought to identify the key features of the Madison program as a professional development activity Some of these are:

(1) It is a voluntary program in which teachers assume ownership of the professional development process (e.g., choosing their own research questions, data collection and analysis strategies) Because teachers can choose their own research issues and can connect their research to their everyday work situations, they develop a personal

investment in the process that is often missing from professional development activities for teachers

(2) There is a recognition and respect by the program organizers and group facilitators for the knowledge that teachers bring to the program and for teachers as professionals This is communicated by the provision of released time (i.e., providing time and space for thinking and working with colleagues away from the hectic pace of the normal school day), comfortable meeting venues, the particular way in which the meetings are conducted that embraces teachers’ struggles and provides intellectual challenge, and by the opportunities made available to teachers to present and publish their work

(3) The activity takes place in a nurturing and supportive environment over an extended period of time The groups provide teachers with emotional support and a chance to think deeply about their practice with colleagues

(4) Although there is some variation across research groups, the group meetings are conducted according to the same overall structure (e.g., the development and refinement

of research questions from September- November) and specific rituals and routines (e.g.,check-in and check-out procedures), providing a culture for teacher learning that

respects the knowledge and voices of teachers

(5) Facilitators play a number of different roles in the groups that include: providing an

overall framework within which research is conducted, modeling the asking questions tohelp teachers think more deeply about their practice rather than providing answers, providing technical assistance in forming and refining research questions and collecting and analyzing data, providing teachers with written records of group conversations about their projects, and assisting teachers in the writing of their research reports (6) The support of group facilitators by providing them with an overall structure for the operation of the groups, with numerous resources for use in the groups, and a regular seminar in which to discuss issues of group facilitation is an important feature of this program.

(7) The program requirement of writing a final report of the research for publication in the district was felt by many to be an important vehicle for analyzing and synthesizing their research

In interviews designed to assess the impact of the program, many teachers reported thattheir participation in the program has helped them develop more confidence in their ability as teachers to influence the circumstances in which they teach They now feel a greater sense of control over their work and think they are more proactive than before in dealing with difficult situations that arise in their teaching

When I am in the classroom now, I realize that I really do have ownership over a lot of things that I want to change or do rather than saying the principal should do this or that

I am capable of looking at a problem and coming up with a plan It would be helpful to still be in an action research group, but I can still problem solve with my own classroomand study a situation ( Madison action researcher, Zeichner, 1997a, p.22)

Our job can really be isolating and we get into the habit of accepting things that are wrong and not doing anything about it The conviction that I can solve problems that I see in my classroom was strengthened by action research (Madison action researcher, Zeichner, 1997a, p 22).

Many teachers characterized the experience of conducting research as energizing and validating

I had a chance to step back and see again why I am teaching I became inspired I was excited about teaching again (Zeichner, 1997a, p.13)

Many teachers also reported that engaging in research caused them to look at their teaching in a more analytic, focused and in-depth way, habits they claim they have now internalized and made use of subsequent to participation in the program These teachers claim they are now more likely to step back and examine what they are doing using the tools they acquired in the program, and that they have become more concerned with the need to gather data and to understand the impact of their teaching

I look at classroom interactions differently now Prior to actually gathering data on the how and why of my students, I made assumptions as I think we all do, about why particular students are acting or achieving the way they are And one of the things I learned, not just through my research but by listening to other people’s too, is that our assumptions are wrong more often than they are right And so I began to ask questions about my own teaching And when things happened in the classroom, I began to ask questions And by the time I finished my year as a classroom action researcher, I was

very much in the habit of looking at things through questions (Madison action

researcher, Zeichner, 1997a, p 27)

Many teachers reported that they are now more likely to talk with colleagues in their buildings about their teaching and that being part of a teacher research group convinced them

of the importance of collaborative work with other teachers They feel that the quality of these conversations with colleagues is better than before their participation in a research group

Several teachers indicated that the research experience raised their expectations for howthey should be treated by others Because they felt that they were treated with respect and trust within this program and were given substantial support, they now expect other staff

development activities to display the same respect for teachers and ambitious view of their capabilities

There was a “multiplier effect” in the research group experience Teachers said that theylearned things about teaching not just from the research that they conducted themselves, but from the research conducted by all of the members of their group There is also substantial evidence in the interview data and in the research reports that teachers became more learner-centered in their practice as a result of conducting research, a process that almost always involved collecting data from one’s students Many teachers claim that they are now much more convinced of the importance of talking to their students and listening carefully to them, that they now listen much more closely and effectively to their students than before, and that they have developed higher expectations for what their students know and can do In the process of conducting research, many teachers developed a new appreciation for the knowledgetheir students bring to the classroom and several teachers now keep much more detailed

documentation of their students’ academic progress.

There is also some evidence in these data that the development of a greater disposition

to listen to students leads to more democratic and interactive work in classrooms A number of teachers reported that they have become more willing to let their students participate in

decision making about classroom affairs including curriculum issues, indicating a general movement to more interactive classrooms

I gave them a list of all the labs that I did and my classes at that time were basically justhands-on labs “ What labs do you favor, which do you not like, why don’t you like them, and how can I improve them for students next year?” They gave me so much insight into where they were coming from with this that it really helped me I was able

to go back to a number of the labs and change them to reflect what they had suggested

It worked so much better the ways they suggested I was like “oh wow.” You know we should really spend more time talking to the kids (Madison middle school science teacher in Zeichner, 1997a, p.22)

Although there is very little evidence in these data of improved student learning as measured by standardized test scores, many of the teachers reported improvements in pupil attitudes, involvement, behavior, and/or learning as a direct result of specific actions taken in their research The evidence for these changes is provided by teacher observations, careful documentation of classroom activities, the analysis of student work samples, and teacher designed assessments In a number of cases, teachers reported that the learning resulting from actions implemented as part of their research were greater than gains seen before, either from

the same students, or from different students with the same curriculum There are several instances where teachers reported greater equity in student learning in connection with their research (e.g., girls’ learning in science classes).

As teachers conducted research, they implemented a wide variety of new practices with their students that address learning and behavior issues These included the introduction of newgrouping and scheduling patterns (e.g., “looping,” heterogeneous grouping); multicultural literature and music; the use of computers in chemistry, music, foreign language, and physical education classes; student journals; writing workshop; integrated and thematic curriculum; service learning projects; and new pupil assessment practices A number of the projects sought

to develop better communication between parents and teachers, among resource teachers, or between resource and classroom teachers Following are two examples of the kind of

improvements in student learning typically reported by teachers

• A kindergarten teacher implemented a new collaborative writing program and

reported that pupil attitudes towards writing and writing skills improved by the end of the year to a much greater extent than it had in previous years Most students were now writing complete sentences as opposed to the past when only

a few students would be writing sentences by the end of the year, and not every day (Frankwicz, 1997)

• A social worker, English teacher and the nurse in a high school incorporated a

service learning component into a required unit on the life of Malcolm X They wanted to see if the addition of service learning could address the problem of students not passing the course because of failure to complete this assignment

They reported that the addition of a service learning project involving high school students teaching sixth graders about Malcolm X resulted in an increase

in the proportion of students who completed the class and in more positive attitudes among students, many of whom had a history of frustration and academic failure in school (Hammatt-Kavaloski, 1997)

Although most of the evidence of program impact shows influences within the

classroom, there is also evidence of the influence of teacher research beyond the classroom These include such things as more and better communication among the staff in particular schools about issues of teaching and learning, better communication between resource teachers and classroom teachers, and improvements in grouping, scheduling and schoolwide discipline policies

Although this evaluation study has shown that there are many positive effects on

teachers, and on student learning associated with the practice of teachers conducting research that are consistent with what is reported in the professional development literature (e.g.,

Corcoran, 1995; Little, 1994), it is important to stress that there are particular conditions in this program that are linked to the realization of these outcomes It is not clear from this one study alone, exactly which of the factors associated with this program (e.g., released time, group facilitators, the identification of a research question) are important to the realization of the outcomes found here

This study of classroom action research in Madison, Wisconsin has also revealed a number of complications and difficulties that were part of the experience for some teachers At

a very basic level of logistics, the well laid plans to free teachers up during the school day

sometimes did not work because of a shortage of substitute teachers There were a few

occasions when teachers were called back to their schools during an action research meeting because of the inability of the district to supply a school with a sub Even when subs were available and teachers could attend the meetings, there was a lot of work that they had to do to prepare things for a sub and they sometimes felt guilty about being away from the classroom

In addition to these logistical issues, some teachers found various aspects of the action research process difficult and frustrating For some, narrowing down an area of interest into a research question and finding time to write in their action research journals were two of the most common challenges of the research experience Others were frustrated at times with the lack of time in some of the larger groups for everyone to have the opportunity to share the progress of their research in enough depth

At another level, several teachers who were either trying to build more positive relationswith their colleagues or were challenging things that were accepted by most of the staff in theirschools, uncovered and sometimes intensified tensions that made their lives more complicated Conducting research was often difficult, complex, and sometimes frustrating for teachers, but many teachers valued the intellectual challenges posed by the research experience in

comparison to what they saw as the superficial nature of many of their professional

development experiences While this study of the Madison program confirms many of the positive reactions of teachers to the opportunity to conduct research on their own practice, it also reveals the complexity and hard work that is associated with teacher research that makes a difference in terms of teacher and student learning Many of those interviewed who had

participated in the Madison School District program reported that conducting research was one

of the most difficult and intellectually challenging things that they had done in their careers andthat it was also one of the most worthwhile professional development experiences in their careers.

It was one of the most valuable things I’ve ever done It was extremely difficult but rewarding because you are focusing on things that are important to you (Madison action researcher, Zeichner, 1997a, p.17)

Teacher Research in Inquiry Groups in the Learning/Teaching Collaborative

The Learning/Teaching Collaborative located in Boston and Brookline Massachusetts is

a teacher-initiated professional development partnership in its thirteenth year One aspect of the Collaborative initiated in 1996, the Inquiry Seminar, focuses on introducing classroom

practitioners to teacher research as a vehicle for enhancing teachers’ professional development These seminars are held at two schools, Edward Devotion School in Brookline and the Jackson-Mann School in Boston The individual groups, whose participants include college faculty as well as classroom teachers, meet during the school day every three weeks in three-hour sessionsfor the presentations of individual members’ research projects Each group is facilitated by a member of the partnership who is not a member of the faculty at the school in which the group

is located Each presenter has up to one hour for presentation at the meeting

A three year study funded by the Spencer and MacArthur foundations has examined the nature of learning in the Inquiry Seminars and how work in the seminars broadens and deepens teacher knowledge The study has also examined the effects that participation in the seminar has had on classroom practice at school and at the college The data sources for the study

include audio tapes of all of the seminars at both schools, a detailed record of all of the

activities of each group including the articles and handouts provided to them, journals kept by several teachers in each group in which they reflect about their ongoing research and practice, and exit responses gathered from all of the teacher researchers during the last ten minutes of each group meeting Data analyses have indicated how classroom practice including

curriculum and assessment have been directly affected by participation in the Inquiry seminar, how teachers in the seminar have assumed new leadership roles, and new cross-school

connections and learnings that emerged

As is the case in the Madison program, specific rituals and routines provide a structure for the group meetings Three members present something from their research at each meeting and something from each presenter is distributed to the group prior to each meeting The group meetings follow a protocol borrowed from the Coalition of Essential Schools that emphasizes asking clarifying questions and giving warm supportive feedback and discourages giving

“answers” to the researchers

This protocol provides a structure for reflecting out loud about a teacher presenter’s work and consists of (1) asking clarifying questions to obtain missing information; (2) giving “warm” complimentary and supportive feedback; (3) providing “cool” more distanced comments that suggest alternative approaches to a question and different interpretations of data (4) giving the presenter space to reflect on and respond to the feedback; and (5) debriefing and discussing next steps (Boles, Kamii, & Troen,1999, p 6)

Also, as is the case in the Madison program, teachers in the Learning/Teaching

Collaborative reported that they learned important things not only from their own research but from all of the research done in their group For example, one teacher’s use of art in his

classroom was influenced by another teacher’s research project:

I think about children’s artwork in a different way since Emily’s presentation It is no longer peripheral in my classroom, but rather I have begun to weave art into the

mainstream learning as a result of her work (Troen, Kamii, & Boles, 1997, p.6)

Troen, Kamii, & Boles (1997) conclude after examining the data on these two seminars that “the Inquiry Seminar has begun to have an effect on most teachers’ practice.” (p.14) The changes that occurred in connection with participating in these teacher research groups are reported in a fairly general way although some specific examples are given about changes in teaching practices in a later analyses of teachers’ research in Boles, Kamii, & Troen (1999) For example,:

The research I did on kids in my class and how they worked with Guided Reading- it changed how I’m teaching reading Now the whole setup of the class is different (p 13).Changes are also reported in the areas of curriculum, assessment, and teaching

philosophy For example, it is concluded that teachers developed a greater interest in

curriculum development while conducting research and engaged in a variety of curriculum development activities that ranged from “developing new lessons in established curriculum units to implementing entirely new curricula” (p.14)

There was also a keen interest in new forms of assessing student learning within the tworesearch groups Here teachers were involved either in work with student portfolios or with other personally developed assessment methods For example, Troen, Kamii, & Boles (1997)

report that as a result of a group discussion about how children perceive their own intelligence,

a teacher researcher described in an interview the use of a new assessment method that enabled her to gain access to children’s conversations previously unknown to her:

I’ve developed new prompts for my learning log I’ve changed the format of my writing workshop in the third and fourth grade I’m aware of kids’ conversations now-I have kids listen to their own conversations Their collaborative composingsessions are what I’m particularly interested in now- the unofficial conversationsthat occur during writing workshop (pp 15-16)

In addition to changes in teaching and assessment practices that were associated with conducting research Troen, Kamii, and Boles (1997) also reported more subtle changes related

to teachers’ fundamental philosophies of teaching and learning They conclude that teachers have developed new dispositions and skills to collaborate with their colleagues as a result of the presentations and discussions in the groups

In the more recent analysis of the experiences of teacher researchers, Boles, Kamii, & Troen (1999) identify several factors that they think contributed to the eager and sustained participation of the teachers in the inquiry groups They are:

· The topics teachers chose to focus on grew out of authentic classroom and school-based

contexts and were intrinsically interesting to the participants

· The seminar conversations were intellectually stimulating, frequently leading to new

questions about important dimensions of practice

· Participants found something compelling, useful, or provacative in each of their

colleagues’ work (p.25)

Boles, Kamii, & Troen (1999) also think that the structured and predictable format of the group meetings which included the use of the tuning protocol, 3 presentations by

researchers and an exit response form, and the preparation for meetings that led to focused discussions, 8 were important factors in creating intellectually demanding and imaginative discussions that were highly valued by the participants

The Lawrence School Teacher Study GroupsLawrence School, a culturally diverse public elementary school in Brookline MA serving 550 K-8 students, has been a very active place for teacher inquiry for over a decade Two teacher study groups were initiated by and are organized and led by three teachers: Anne Martin (child study group) and Iris Feldman and Linda Goldman (children’s literature group) although various teachers within the groups share leadership responsibilities for particular group sessions These groups have involved approximately 15 teachers from the school on a voluntary basis most of whom have more than 20 years of experience and meet for about one and one half hours after school in a loft area above a classroom The teachers chose to meet after school rather than during the school day and have not attempted to obtain released time

A three year study funded by the Spencer and MacArthur foundations investigated the processes and structures of these two inquiry groups and their effects on classroom practice over time Karen Gallas, a first and second grade teacher at the school at the time, served as theprincipal investigator of the study and all of the teachers in the groups served as co-

investigators maintaining ongoing journals and gathering data from their classrooms All of the study group sessions were audiotaped and transcribed and the group members were

interviewed several times individually and in groups Karen Gallas and the three group

organizers also kept field notes, records of informal conversations, samples of materials used in the groups, and interviewed the former principal of the school.

The child study group frequently uses the descriptive review process, a standard format for examining individual students developed by Pat Carini at the Prospect School in Vermont This very distinct and structured protocol involves beginning a group session with a series of reflections on a word or on a focusing question for partcicipants to keep in mind to help them prepare for the topic of the meeting Each meeting is chaired by one of the teachers and

particular teachers present the situations of a student to be examined by the group Someone takes responsibility for taking notes at each meeting and the notes are circulated to all group members The chair provides summaries of the presentations and discussions in the group A particular talk protocol of “rounds” is often used to structure the conversations in the group This very formal process involves going around in a circle giving everyone in the group a chance to speak No cross-discussion is permitted until all have had a chance to speak These very predictable and structured routines with regard to group talk create a situation where the group members listen closely to one another

I’d always heard the term active listening and I thought: this is really active listening in action I was struck by how respectful everybody was, and people could actually sit and listen and not have to jump in People were really forced to listen to each other (Gallas, 1998b, p.24)

As the group has developed over time the descriptive review in which an individual child’s work is examined in depth was supplemented by several other forms of reflection and analysis such as discussion of particular curricula, assessment instruments, and instances of

student talk Prior to beginning the formal agenda of the meeting there is a 15 minute period of informal conversation with food provided by the group members

The children’s literature group in contrast to the child study group, has a very informal style of conversation and does not have the kind of formal protocols that direct the process of each meeting The topics of these meetings involve discussions of commonly read texts or of literature on a particular theme and consider children and their learning in relation to books Although these two groups provide very different models of teacher learning in inquiry groups, they both create a physical and intellectual space away from the hectic pace of the school day where teachers can slow down and reflect about issues of teaching and learning

The function of the space apart for them was that it set the stage for a distinctly

different kind of mental activity from that required in the crush of the teaching day (Gallas, 1998b, p.72)

Gallas (1998b) concludes that the kind of deep thinking and public self- critique that goes on in these groups is made possible by a commitment to children, teaching and self-

improvement and by the close association of teachers over time in an atmosphere where they feel, valued and wanted

Self-critiquing takes place in safe settings with colleagues who know, care about, and respect each other (Gallas, 1998b, p 78)

The analysis of the effects on teachers and their students of participating in these groupsrevealed several different influences First , because the groups place teacher knowledge at the center of teacher inquiry, affirmation of teachers and what they know about the educational process is an important outcome of participation in the Lawrence study groups This