Qualitative Analysis Of Teacher Research

Author(s):

Kitty Leuverink(presenting / submitting)Rian Aarts

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES C 03, Teachers' Education

Time:

2017-08-21

11:00-12:30

Room:

W2.06

Chair:

Carol Taylor

Contribution

The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of practitioner research conducted by secondary education teachers. A Dutch program for teacher research provides the context of this study.

The European Commission states that in our current society continuous professional development of teachers is a necessity (http://ec.europa.eu/) as the work of teachers becomes more complex (OECD, 2005). Besides teaching, the teacher should also conduct research and improve the educational practice by applying the outcomes. In order to meet these new teaching standards, teachers need to acquire the knowledge and skills relevant for conducting research. Already in 2004, this became explicit in the Dublin descriptors compiled by the Joint Quality Initiative; an European initiative to formulate qualifications that signify completion of the higher education.

Teachers’ engagement in research is known as practitioner research. Practitioner research is the systematic and interactive inquiry by teachers into their own practice for the purpose of improving this practice (van der Donk & van Lanen, 2012). Literature on educational research puts forth practitioner research as an effective strategy for teachers to develop as professionals and thereby improving their teaching practice (e.g. Cochrane-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Dinkelman, 2003; Ponte, Ax, Beijaard, & Wubbels, 2004; Snoek & Moens, 2011; van der Linden, 2012; Vrijnsen-de Corte, 2012; Zeichner, 1993).

Despite the widely recognized value of practitioner research on teachers’ professional development, questions about the quality of practitioner research have been raised (e.g. Leeman & Wardekker, 2013). No general guidelines are available as there is no agreement on the objectives and the process of practitioner research. In addition, there are no criteria for evaluating practitioner research (Oolbekkink-Marchand, van der Steen & Nijveldt, 2014). As more and more teachers are being trained in practitioner research and the amount of practitioner research is growing, this lack of guidelines is becoming a problem.

In our study we focus on teachers in secondary education who conduct practitioner research, while receiving training and guidance by university researchers. The purpose of this study is to contribute to our knowledge about the quality of practitioner research and to develop guidelines for evaluating practitioners’ research. The research question central to this study is: How can we measure the quality of practitioner research conducted by secondary education teachers?

Oolbekkink-Marchand et al. (2014) made an effort to measure the quality of teacher research by using the validity types set out by Anderson and Herr (1999) and further clarified by Newton and Burgess (2008). The validity types encompass: outcome validity (the extent to which a solution is given for the problem), process validity (the extent to which a sound, scientific research method is used), democratic validity (the extent to which stakeholders’ perspectives are taken into account), catalytic validity (the extent to which a change in knowledge, attitude, skills and actions has occurred) and dialogic validity (the extent to which a critical dialogue with peers is carried out).

In order to know to whether professionalization programs in which teachers conduct practitioner research are effective, there is a need to evaluate. The European Commission reports on the difficulty in providing a complete picture of (effects of different activities on) the professional development of teachers (Fredriksson, 2006). This study contributes to the work of the European Commission by reporting on a long term and intensive professionalization program for teachers in which they engage in practitioner research. Furthermore, the study intends to find criteria for evaluating practitioners’ research that are not limited to the Dutch context.

Method

The study was conducted in the context of two Professional Development Schools (PDS) in the Netherlands, in which secondary education schools and Tilburg University are partners. Collaboratively, they have developed a one-year professional development program on practitioner research. The program aims not only for professional development of the participating teachers, but also for school development. Teacher researchers conducted research on a variety of themes (e.g. developing and designing science lessons, application of reading strategies in beta lessons, focusing on teacher-pupil relation). The program consisted of 13 group meetings during a year, in which the participants were trained in research skills (by research experts) and in which they discussed the research process and exchanged feedback with their fellow teacher researchers. In addition to these group meetings, participants could schedule individual meetings with a research expert in order to get feedback on their specific research. The research timeline of this study covered three program years (2013-2016). In each year, about 20 secondary education teachers followed the whole program, which leads to a total of 60 participants. The participants taught at 21 different secondary education schools in the province of Noord-Brabant in the Netherlands. They all completed the research program with a written research report, which we analyzed in order to establish the quality of the research. In total, 52 research reports of 60 teachers were analyzed (eight research reports were written by a team of two teachers). Data for the study are drawn from these research reports. In addition, we analyzed evaluation forms filled out by the participants. Information was requested by open-ended questions about the application of research findings in their educational practice. Evaluations were collected anonymously by the coordinators of both PDS. A follow-up group interview was conducted during the last group meeting. We constructed a coding scheme based on the validities for practitioner research for the purpose of evaluating the research reports. Operationalizations of the different type of validities were based on research by Anderson and Herr (1999), Oolbekkink-Marchand et al. (2014) and Aarts and Mathijsen (2014).

Expected Outcomes

The highest scores were found on the outcome validity; teacher researchers were able to answer their research question and find a solution for the initial problem. Lowest scores were found on the process validity; teacher researchers seem to find it difficult to develop a valid and verifiable research design. The requirements for democratic validity are met as stakeholders are in one way or another included as participants or informants in the study. From the evaluations we concluded that a change in actions, knowledge, attitude or skills (catalytic validity) has taken place within the teacher researcher and to a much lesser extent within the school. The requirements for dialogic validity were built into the program by structuring the group meetings as a professional learning community. However, participants valued the exchanges mostly as a way of sharing experiences on the process of doing research and to a lesser extent as a form of critical peer feedback on the content of the research.

References

Aarts, R., Mathijsen, I. (2014). Praktijkonderzoek in de school: kwaliteit en dilemma's. Script! Retrieved from: http://www.script-onderzoek.nl/ Anderson, G.L., Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm war: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-40. doi: 10.3102/0013189X028005012 Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176596 Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: a means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18. doi: 10.1177/0022487102238654 Fredriksson, U. (2006). European teacher education policy: recommendations and indicators. Paper presented at the Annual Atee Conference. Retrieved from http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/atee Leeman, Y., & Wardekker, W. (2010). Verbetert onderzoek het onderwijs? Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 3(1), 19-22. Retrieved from: http://www.lerarenopleider.nl/ Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2008). Exploring Types of Educational Action Research: Implications for Research Validity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4). 19-29. doi: 10.1177/160940690800700402 OECD. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Retrieved from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development website: https://www.oecd.org Oolbekkink-Marchand, H.W., van der Steen, J., & Nijveldt, M. (2014). A study of the quality of practitioner research in secondary education: impact on teacher and school development. Educational Action Research, 22(1),122-139, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2013.854175 Ponte, P., Ax, J., Beijaard, D., & Wubbels, Th. (2004). Teachers’ development of professional knowledge through action research and the facilitation of this by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6), 571-588. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.003 Snoek, M., & Moens, E. (2011). The impact of teacher research on teacher learning in academic training schools in the Netherlands. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 817-826. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2011.587525. van der Donk, C., & van Lanen, B. (2012). Prakijkonderzoek in de school (2nd ed.). Bussum, The Netherlands: Coutinho. van der Linden, P.W.J. (2012). A design-based approach to introducing student teachers in conducting and using research (Doctoral dissertation). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6100/IR741499 Vrijnsen-de Corte, M. (2012). Researching the teacher-researcher. Practice-based research in dutch professional development schools (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from http://repository.tue.nl/735332 Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Action research: Personal renewal and social reconstruction. Educational Action Research, 1(2), 199-219. doi: 10.1080/0965079930010202

Author Information

Kitty Leuverink (presenting / submitting)

Tilburg University

Teacher Department

Utrecht

Rian Aarts

Tilburg University, Netherlands, The

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.