Working With a Teacher Research Group: Logistics, Identity, and Learning

Author(s):

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

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

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

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 01 B, Professional Identity

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

13:15-14:45

Room:

OB-E2.18

Chair:

Clive Beck

Contribution

how to inspire teachers to be proactive, reflective professionals who take ownership of their own professional development?’ Teachers vary in their learning styles, their level of engagement and their understanding of the benefits of acquiring and developing their competences. Therefore, their focus on internal or external stimuli for engagement in professional development will vary (European Commission on Teaching, 2013, p. 34)

This proposal reports on a teacher researcher group that we formed (along with two co-facilitators) which consisted of 12 secondary school teachers/administrators (excluding ourselves). Over two years we met monthly for approximately two hours. In order to understand the process more fully we conducted research on the teacher researcher group.

The research questions were:

What processes did we use for developing the teacher-research group? What worked and what did not work?
What impact did the teacher researcher group have on the participants?
How did we develop a research community for and with a group of teachers?

Why Teacher Research?

Professional development (PD) can take many forms. Earley and Porritt (2012) draw on the Training and Development Agency’s definition of PD: “a reflective activity designed to improve an individual’s attributes, knowledge, understanding and skills. It supports individual needs and improves professional practice” (Training and Development Agency, 2012). Similarly, Schon (1983) argues that both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action are important forms of professional learning.

As governments narrow curricula and try to codify what teachers should know and be able to do supporting teacher researcher groups is essential. For example, Finnish guidelines for teaching and teacher education are very general, with many of the details developed locally (Sahlberg, 2011). In particular, extensive, top-down interference in teaching and teacher education can be counterproductive because it strips from teachers opportunities for learning and their professionalism.

European Commission on Teaching (2013) supports teacher development :

To be fully effective in teaching, and capable of adjusting to the evolving

needs of learners in a world of rapid social, cultural, economic and

technological change, teachers themselves need to reflect on their own

learning requirements in the context of their particular school environment, and to take greater responsibility for their own lifelong learning as a means of updating and developing their own knowledge and skills. (p. 9).

Teacher research took root in the 1990’s. It has been defined as the systematic “research that is initiated and carried out by teachers in their classrooms and schools” (Shagoury & Powell, 2012, p. 2). This is consistent with Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1990), who believe that “[t]hose who have daily access, extensive expertise, and a clear stake in improving classroom practice have no formal way to make their knowledge of classroom teaching and learning part of the literature on teaching” (p.2). Understanding teachers as “uniquely positioned” (Cochran-Smith, 1990; Goswami & Stillman, 1987) to detect patterns in the classroom that others might not recognize (Hubberman, 1996), it is not a surprise that teacher research has developed as a meaningful contributor to research (e.g., Atwell 1987; Miller 2002).

The European Commission on Teaching (2013) recognizes that “[f]or teacher education systems to enable all teachers to acquire and develop the competences they need … stimulating teachers’ active engagement in career-long learning and competence development, in effective ways (p. 34). Communities of practice are one way to bring together "groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). If there is a positive dynamic within the community teacher motivation and learning can increase.

Method

Much of the methodology was qualitative as defined by Merriam (2009) and Punch (2014). Qualitative inquiry is justified as it provides depth of understanding and enables exploration of questions that do not on the whole lend themselves to quantitative inquiry (Merriam, 2009). It opens the way to gaining entirely unexpected ideas and information from participants in addition to finding out their opinions on simple pre-set matters. Data Sources • Co-facilitators’ written reflections after each meeting • Monthly agendas and notes for each meeting • Co-facilitators engaged in structured discussions with focused questions twice each year (e.g., What is working? What has surprised you?) • The teachers completed three surveys over the two years. • Each teacher wrote a formal report on his/her study. The surveys of the teachers included questions such as: • To what extent do you see yourself as a researcher? • How has your classroom teaching practice changed as a result of your research? • Which aspects of our monthly meetings do you find helpful? Each of the teacher’s reports included: • Challenge/Issue You Addressed (e.g., Why this research this important to you?) • Literature Review • Methodology (e.g., Why did you use this methodology? breadth or depth • Findings • Reflection on your initiative (e.g., What will you do differently in your teaching now that you have done this research?) Data Analysis A modified grounded theory approach was used, not beginning with a fixed theory but generating theory inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2014). The theory is developed inductively from the data using a set of techniques and procedures for collection and analysis (Punch, 2014). As Strauss (2003) puts it, “The basic question facing us is how to capture the complexity of the reality (phenomena) we study, and how to make convincing sense of it” (p. 16). The three facilitators read over our data including the teachers’ reports a number of times. Initially we had 25+ themes. We returned to overall research questions regularly to keep the focus on the intent of the study – processes, impact, and community. We eventually reduced to four themes which we felt were most salient and captured the essence of our work together: 1. Logistics 2. Identity 3. Learning 4. Community At our final meeting of the year we shared with the teachers the four themes. They unanimously agreed these four themes were appropriate.

Expected Outcomes

Logistics We went through a number of steps: finding a doable research study; narrowing the area of research; and developing research instruments. This proved to be an excellent structure because the teachers were systematically led through the research process which kept them moving forward. In their surveys all said they were feeling very positive about their research. We used a participant/discussion-driven format -- listening to others’ work and providing feedback. One teacher commented: it feels good to hear how others are doing. ... everyone’s work is so interesting – it’s like being a part of a cool documentary process! I have found the focus after the check in is always spot on – and that’s because you ladies ask us if doing something for the next session works – so we get a hand in determining what we would like to focus on. Identity The teachers’ identity shifted from tentative researchers to competent researchers. Catherine said, “I really had no identity as a researcher before… as I learn more about how to research I am gaining momentum and courage to move forward even if there are mistakes.” Learning All reported their classroom practice had been positively influenced. Josh noted, "I think I have become more reflective of my practice, more thoughtful and self-critical – I’m learning a lot from my peers’ research and practice and then applying it to my own.” Community Over time we became a community: we made personal connections through informal discussions pre-and post our meetings and the monthly check-in gave each person a voice. The funder who attended five of our meetings praised our work noting both the rigour of the research being conducted and the sense of community among the group members. She commented, “it is interactive learning par excellence and the members are learning from one another as well as from the expert.”

References

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Beauchamp, G., Clarke, L., Hulme, M. & Murray, J. (2014). Research and teacher education. Policy and practice within the United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BERA-Paper-1-UK-Policy-and-Practice.pdf Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11. Earley, P., & Porritt, V. (2010). Effective practices in continuing professional development: Lessons from schools. London: Institute of Education, University of London. European Commission on Teaching (2013). Supporting teacher competence development for better learning outcomes. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/doc/teachercomp_en.pdf Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Hubberman, M. (1996). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73(2), 124-140. Livingston, K., McCall, J., & Morgado, M. (2009). Teacher educators as researchers. In A. Swennen, & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming a teacher educator: Theory and practice for teacher educators (pp. 191 – 203). Dordretcht: Springer Academic Publishers. Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Shagoury, R. & Power, B.M. (2012). Living the questions: A guide for teacher- researchers. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Strauss, A. (2003). Qualitative analysis for social scientists (14th Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Author Information

Clare Kosnik (presenting / submitting)

University of Toronto

Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning

Toronto

Clive Beck (presenting)