Teacher Inquiry as Research and Knowledge Generation

Author(s):

Clive Beck(presenting / submitting)Clare Kosnik(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 03 B, Teacher Inquiry

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-02

17:15-18:45

Room:

B033 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Clive Beck

Contribution

In our longitudinal study we are following 42 teachers, of whom 20 began teaching in 2004 and 22 in 2007. In this paper, we give particular attention to three questions: (i) how extensive was the teachers’ learning and inquiry in this initial period; (ii) how important was the learning for their understanding and practice; and (iii) in what sense could their inquiry be regarded as research and knowledge generation?

The study is relevant to the Conference focus on educational research. One of our findings so far is that the teachers learn far more through informal than formal methods. This means that, if such learning and inquiry could in fact be seen as research and knowledge generation, this could help substantially in an era of decreased funding for academic educational research.

There is some recognition that teachers inquire and learn “on the job.” But people disagree about how much they learn in this way and the status of the knowledge acquired. The current press for “research-based” or “evidence-based” education suggests some lack of confidence in the ideas and practices teachers arrive at on their own.

However, several prominent theorists over the years have argued for a more positive view of both the quantity and significance of the knowledge acquired by teachers in the course of teaching. Schon (1983) rejects what he calls the “technical-rationalist” notion that teacher effectiveness comes primarily through “the application of scientific theory and technique” (p. 21). On Schon’s (1983) view, practitioners do research and generate theory: “reflection on the unexpected results of [classroom] experiment leads to theory” (p. 181). And such theory is “fundamental to practice,” giving “springboards for making sense of new situations” (p. 317).

Similarly, Zeichner (1995) regrets the fact that teachers have to endure top-down PD that “ignores what teachers already know and can do and relies primarily on the distribution of prepackaged and allegedly ‘research-based’ solutions to school problems” (p. 161). In the same vein, Carr (1995) argues that teachers have “extensive theoretical powers” and constantly use theory in “conceptualizing their own activities” (pp. 34-35). Academics must acknowledge teachers as theorists and work alongside them if they are to have significant impact on the field.

Along the same lines, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) state that “practitioners are deliberative intellectuals who constantly theorize practice as part of practice itself” (p. 2). And Burton, Brundrett, & Jones (2008) maintain that “teachers improve their effectiveness…by asking the right questions and reflecting on the responses in light of what they have previously experienced and read about” (p. 3).

By no means are these theorists denying the potential importance of research by academics. Their point is rather that teacher inquiry should be built into our general conception of educational research, bridging the present gulf between teacher inquiry and academic research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Groundwater-Smith, Mitchell, Mockler, Ponte, & Ronnerman, 2013; Pine, 2009; Zeichner, 1995).

Admittedly, teacher inquiry is usually a sub-category of research. It’s typically “qualitative” (Merriam, 2009; Savin-Baden & Major, 2013): among other things, the sample size is relatively small, questions are largely open-ended, and issues are pursued in greater depth than in a survey. Moreover, it is usually a type of “grounded theory” research (Punch, 2009; Savin-Baden & Major, 2013): ideas emerge from the data rather than being specified as “hypotheses” beforehand and formally “tested.” However, this doesn’t imply that it is not research, since a great deal of academic educational research is also of a qualitative and grounded theory variety.

Method

We draw on several sources in this paper but the immediate stimulus to our thinking is the longitudinal study of 42 teachers (all elementary and middle-school teachers except for 4 in lower high school settings), of whom 20 began teaching in 2004 and 22 in 2007. One participant from the second cohort left teaching recently because she couldn’t get a permanent position, but she continued in the study until 2012. Originally we had 22 participants in the first cohort and 23 in the second, but 2 from the first cohort and 1 from the second left the study for unspecified reasons: data from them is not included here. (Of the original group of 45, 44 are still teaching, an unusual retention rate.) The study sample consisted of all those 2004 and 2007 graduates of several pre-service programs in two large regions who had a teaching position and accepted a general invitation to take part in the study. In the first 3 years of the study we interviewed and observed the cohort 1 participants twice per year; after cohort 2 was added in 2007 we interviewed and observed all the teachers once per year, usually toward the end of the year. Each interview was about one hour in length and was recorded and transcribed. Over the years many of the interview questions were modified to explore new areas and adapt to the changing career stage of the teachers. Each year the same questions were asked of all participants, but probe questions were also asked and additional comment was encouraged. Apart from a few specific rating questions, our research approach was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009), Punch (2009), and Savin-Baden and Major (2013). For example, we studied in some depth a modest sample (the 42 teachers); our interview and observation sessions were largely open-ended; and the themes emerged as the study progressed. In analyzing the interview transcripts, we began by reading them several times to identify themes or "codes" related to the central issues of the study. We then developed a table of themes matched to participants and, going through the materials again, recorded where reference was made to each topic. As we wrote up our findings, we kept going back to the materials for “constant comparison” with the themes, continuing to add, delete, merge, and modify themes.

Expected Outcomes

1. Teacher learning – at least in the early years – is extensive and important. The two cohorts of teachers learned an enormous amount – mainly by informal means – during the early years of their career. They learned by experimenting in their classroom, observing and getting feedback from their students, observing and talking to other teachers, and so on. 2. This learning can be viewed as “inquiry,” “research,” and “knowledge generation.” Although it is largely informal and usually referred to as “learning” rather than “inquiry,” the learning teachers experience can legitimately be called inquiry since it comes about through their sustained attempts to understand and improve practice. (By the same logic we call active learning by students “inquiry.”) Equally, this learning or inquiry can be referred to as “research” and “knowledge generation.” The same topics are investigated as in academic research, and knowledge is produced that other teachers and theorists can build on and use with modifications. 3. Although teacher inquiry is research, there are practical concerns about calling it research in all contexts. The word research can be misleading because of its traditional connotations (which hopefully will change with time). Alternative language is often needed, such as “trial-and-error,” “classroom observation,” and “ongoing learning.” These terms make it easier for teachers to see that research and inquiry can be part of their everyday practice. 4. Teachers should be encouraged to do more inquiry, both informal and formal. While teachers do a great deal of inquiry and produce much valuable knowledge, there is more they could do – to the benefit of themselves, their students, and education generally. Teachers in both pre-service and in-service settings need to have their attention drawn to the possibilities of informal inquiry. With respect to formal inquiry, again teachers need more encouragement and support.

References

Atwell, N. (1991). Side by side. Toronto: Irwin Publishing. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Berliner, D., & Casanova, U. (1993). Putting research to work in your school. New York and London: Scholastic. Burton, N., Brundrett, M., & Jones, M. (2008). Doing your education research project. Los Angeles: Sage. Carr, W. (1995). For education: Towards critical educational inquiry. Buckingham: Open U.P. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: TC Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teacher College Press. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Groundwater-Smith, S., Mitchell, J., Mockler, N., Ponte, P., & Ronnerman, K. (2013). Facilitating practitioner research: Developing transformational partnerships. London and New York: Routledge. Kennedy, M. (2006). Knowledge and vision in teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 205-211. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pine, G. (2009). Teacher Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Zeichner, Kenneth (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic research. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 1(2), 153-172.

Author Information

Clive Beck (presenting / submitting)

University of Toronto, Canada

Clare Kosnik (presenting)