Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 27 November 2014, At: 16:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
Developing a research partnership:teachers as researchers and teachereducatorsChristina Thornley a , Rae Parker b , Karon Read b & VivienneEason ba University of Otago , New Zealand;b East Taieri School , Mosgiel, New ZealandPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Christina Thornley , Rae Parker , Karon Read & Vivienne Eason (2004)Developing a research partnership: teachers as researchers and teacher educators, Teachers andTeaching: theory and practice, 10:1, 20-33
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600320000170891
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2004
Developing a research partnership:teachers as researchers and teachereducatorsChristinaThornleySchool of EducationUniversity of OtagoDunedinBox 56New [email protected] Thornley*1, Rae Parker2, Karon Read2 & VivienneEason2
1University of Otago, New Zealand; 2East Taieri School, Mosgiel, New Zealand
This paper discusses a combined university–school research project involving three associateteachers from the pre-service teacher education degree at the University of Otago, New Zealandin the examination of their literacy teaching practice. The provision of resources for thiscollaborative study allowed the teachers to design the project in response to the learning needs ofthe children in their classrooms. The paper specifically analyses the research experience for theteachers as they theorized their classroom literacy practice and utilized the research findings toinform the content and processes of teaching at both the primary and tertiary classroom levels.
Teachers as curriculum decision-makers
The translation of curriculum policy into classroom programmes is the incontestabledomain of teachers. Governments and policy-makers have long recognized this factand responded to it in accordance with their beliefs about teacher autonomy,curriculum conformity and the needs of society and children in schools. Since 1887,New Zealand teachers have performed this distinctive activity, and current curricu-lum policy continues to recognize the act of teaching as an act of curriculumconstruction. Indeed the New Zealand Curriculum Framework describes the schoolcurriculum as the way in which a ‘school puts into practice the policy set out in thenational curriculum statements. It takes account of local needs, priorities andresources, and is designed in consultation with the school’s community’ (Ministry ofEducation, 1993, p. 4). It is arguable that the decisions that teachers make at thislevel of implementation are as crucial to children as those that underpin nationalpolicy. The complexity of teaching as characterized by the individuality of students,the dynamic nature of classroom interactions and the demand for innovation defiesany claim that teachers may ‘be simply implementers of something that gains itslegitimacy elsewhere’ (Grundy, 1998, p. 31). However, teachers’ decisions arecontingent upon the autonomy they are granted, the degree of curriculum prescrip-
*Corresponding author: School of Education, University of Otago, Box 56, Dunedin, NewZealand.
ISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 8765-4321 (online)/04/010020-14 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10/1080/13540600320000170891
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
8 C. Thornley et al.
tion and their professional theories. It is for this reason that mandated curricula andtheir associated professional development are perpetually intertwined.
The current New Zealand curriculum has been developed as part of the systemiceducation reforms of the 1990s and reflects the desire of consecutive governmentsfor curriculum unity throughout the country. The initial indication of this occur-rence came in the government’s Achievement Initiative (Ministry of Education, 1991,p. 1) that outlined the intention to establish ‘clear learning outcomes particularly inthe subjects of English, mathematics, science and technology’. Progression andcontinuity of learning were to be fundamental principles in the determination ofstandards ‘which can reasonably be expected of students at a particular level oflearning’ (Ministry of Education, 1991, p. 1). This required that teachers woulddemonstrate an increased consistency of curriculum interpretation and implemen-tation. From the outset, the Ministry of Education recognized the unavoidableimpact of classroom curriculum decision-making by teachers and understood thatlegislation alone would be insufficient to ensure the desired changes. They perceivedthat teachers required opportunities to learn about new national curriculum initia-tives and the provision of state-funded professional development to support therelease of each national curriculum statement was the outcome.
The Ministry of Education heralded this professional development as a means tofoster ‘a sense of ownership’ (1993, p. 2) of the reformed curriculum and ‘developthe professionalism of teachers, so that they have information, skills and understand-ings’ (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 1). This increased commitment to pro-fessional development (Ministry of Education, 1995) was viewed positively by NewZealand teachers. However, some were concerned that the content and design of theprogrammes emanated solely from centrally controlled curriculum policy and failedto address their learning needs and those of the children in their classes (Thornley,1999).
International examples of curriculum professional development explain theseresponses. It appears that where curriculum and professional development policiesare nationally mandated, as for example in England, there is a greater degree ofteacher resistance to these learning opportunities, thus placing notions of teacherownership at risk. Hirst’s (1989, p. 272) observations of the prevalent professionaldevelopment practices in England and Wales support this discussion as he notes thechanges that have occurred for teachers as their professional development has beenincreasingly associated with national initiatives. He considers programmes to be‘concentrating severely on the practical demands of new legislation’. Day (1993,p. 230) described this as a manifestation of the movement ‘away from the oper-ational definition of teacher as “professional” towards that of teacher as technician’.The teachers in this research were ‘sympathetic to the needs of national initiativesin the short term, [although] many were concerned that their longer term needs werebeing squeezed out’ (Day, 1993, p. 229).
Alternative approaches that foster teacher learning in response to self-selectedcurriculum problems are well explained by Lang et al. (1999) in their discussionconcerning the relationship between the origins of curriculum policy and thepurpose of professional development. They describe models of professional develop-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Developing a Research Partnership 9
ment from The Netherlands and Germany, which are associated with teacher drivencurriculum innovation. The outcomes of such practice where the teachers haveidentified and developed solutions to curriculum problems show that ‘when teachershave control over their learning, they can produce relevant solutions that are highlyvalued by their colleagues’ (Lang et al., 1999, p. 127). In Andalusia, teachers havethe option of working in ‘self-training programmes’ that give ‘them room to learnabout what they want and are motivated by’ (Estebaranz et al., 1999, p. 154). Suchteacher learning processes that are self-directed have been shown to foster inno-vation in teachers’ theories and practices concurrently. It is learning that comes‘from their own experience, and from direct contact with the problems’ (Estebaranzet al., 1999, p. 169).
By 1997, some teachers in New Zealand believed that they were experiencing anerosion of their own decision-making opportunities in the face of increased demandsfor uniformity. They saw this as being reflected through the increasingly prescriptivecurriculum requirements and the technicist nature of professional developmentprogrammes (Thornley, 1999). McGee (1997, p. 289) elucidates this further in hiscurriculum discussion regarding ‘central versus local control’. He explains that NewZealand teachers are in a ‘response situation’ in that the curriculum decisionsoccurring in schools are interpretations of prescribed curricula. However, even insuch circumstances the decisions that teachers make are still highly significant fortheir students. The challenge then becomes one of seeking ways for teachers todevelop as professionals with knowledge and understandings that enhance theircurriculum decision-making in a manner that is not dichotomous to national goalsfor schooling.
Teacher-generated curriculum knowledge
Current New Zealand accountability and compliance procedures require that teach-ers document their planning and the assessment of their students’ learning from thenational curriculum statements (Ministry of Education, 1999). The EducationReview Office, who monitors individual teachers’ and schools’ actions in this regard(1999, p. 4), has raised questions about the purpose of some assessment data and itssubsequent usefulness, stating that ‘in many cases the only use made of thoserecords is to provide information that helps teachers report to parents’. This wouldsuggest that the aims of using assessment to improve children’s learning andclassroom programmes (Ministry of Education, 1994) have been addressed predom-inantly at the individual classroom level. Without discounting the importance of thisprocess, the potential of accumulated assessment information to act as a window onteachers’ curriculum actions and innovations has continued to be overlooked. Suchassessment practices are characterized in two ways: the first being the inattention tothe worth of this material as a foundation for teacher research, and the second beingthe lack of opportunity for the dissemination of this teacher generated knowledgebeyond the immediate classroom context.1
These claims do not mean to imply that the significance of classroom-basedresearch as a means to disperse practical and theoretical knowledge emerging from
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
10 C. Thornley et al.
classrooms has been completely ignored, but rather severely under-utilized. In thepast, the involvement of researchers from the Ministry of Education, Universitiesand Schools of Education has contributed to an emerging understanding of curricu-lum implementation within the New Zealand context. Despite this, a recent Minis-try of Education (2000) research contract reports ‘significant gaps in the research oncurriculum, assessment and pedagogy [claiming that] … There is a dearth of re-search evidence about what happens to the individual learner’. For this reason, thefeasibility of New Zealand teachers contributing to this knowledge must be investi-gated. However, Stenhouse (1975, p. 143) in his statement concerning such re-search raises the point that ‘it is not enough that teachers’ work should be studied:they need to study it themselves’.
Endorsement for teacher research as the foundation for professional developmentmodels (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Cole & Knowles, 1993) is extended to makethe connection between curriculum and teacher learning by Stenhouse (1975,p. 143), who states that ‘curricula specification should feed a teacher’s personalresearch and development programme …’. This intertwining of curriculumspecification with teacher research and professional development has contemporaryimplications for New Zealand primary teachers. Certainly they are operating in anenvironment of curriculum specification as has been claimed earlier in this work, buttheir professional development programmes are typically founded upon models ofteacher learning that fail to recognize the significance of theory and research as abasis for teacher knowledge generation. In accordance with the recognition of thepivotal role that teachers play, attention must be given to the theoretical foundationsthat underpin the curriculum construction that occurs through the on-going deci-sions made in classrooms.
Teacher research: possibilities or improbabilities.
An initial review of the research literature uncovers points for inquiry emanatingfrom concerns over the feasibility of teacher research at this moment. While on onehand there are those researchers who would strongly advocate for this means ofteacher learning, there are others who take a more cautionary stance. Routman(1996) claims that teachers already fulfil the role of researcher and ‘simply need tobe making the mental shift to thinking like one’ (p. 169). Specifically she explainsresearch as:
… wondering, posing questions, problem solving, trying out new procedures, workingout our thoughts through writing, and ultimately acting on our new insights bychanging our practices. (Routman, 1996, p. 168)
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993, p. 7) provide a definition that is not at odds withthat of Routman in referring to research as ‘systematic and intentional inquiry’.However, Routman’s (1996) explication of research is founded on characteristically‘teacherly’ behaviours and omits to demand the analysis and theorizing of data andthe dissemination of the research findings. Aldeman’s (1993) work suggests thatthese are the actions that are the mark of effective research and that technicist
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Developing a Research Partnership 11
research practices may not serve to advance teacher knowledge culminating inimproved outcomes for students. Given that teacher inquiry appears to be so similarin practice to the research process, it may seem surprising that the literature reviewundertaken in this field reveals the following range of seemingly compelling reasonsfor teachers’ not to engage in research. These may be presented as complicationsfaced as teachers adjust their priorities (to accommodate those of teacher re-searcher), or barriers encountered when teachers attempt to transcend the boundaryreal or imagined between one role and the other. Irrespective of their status, originor form, the relevance of each of these factors in the contemporary New Zealandcontext is worthy of explanation and evaluation if alternative models of teacherprofessional development are to be investigated.
• Intensification of teachers’ work. This phenomenon has evolved currently as a resultof the systemic reforms in the compulsory education sector (Apple, 1989; Malin,1999). Throughout the 1990s the variety of demands placed on teachers andschools through curriculum expansion and reform has been recognized as over-whelming (Ministry of Education, 1997). For this reason, teacher researchprojects may sometimes be viewed as yet a further demand.
• National curriculum priorities. The priorities associated with new national curricu-lum requirements dominate teachers’ attention for innovation and supercedethose that emanate from individual classrooms (Hirst, 1989; Thornley, 1999).
• Teachers’ preference for the practical. The act of teaching is in some spheres depictedas practical rather than theoretical. In such cases, theory may be associatedprimarily with teacher education in the academy while schools often exemplify thepractical (Anstey & Bull, 1996; Elliot & Hatton, 1998; Graham & Thornley,2000). Hatton (1998) explains the perils of technicist practice where teachers mayignore the theoretical dimensions of their work and fail to reflect in a way thatcould ensure justice for each of the students for whom they are responsible.
• Self-belief. Teachers believe that they do not have the skills to become involved inresearch; rather. they see research as the preserve of academics (Routman, 1996).This perception may also have evolved as an artefact of different literacies.
• Different literacies. Teachers and academics do not share the same language toilluminate and analyse educational practices (Groundwater-Smith & Marsh,1999). This may make collaborative projects more difficult in both their concep-tion and interpretation.
• Perceptions of teachers’ work. There is some thought that teachers’ work only occurswhen they actively engaged with children (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). There-fore, research undertaken in ‘school time’ may not be perceived by teachers,parents and their schools as a valuable endeavour.
• Giving voice to doubts. The contemporary culture of schools does not necessarilyfoster open dialogue among teachers about the complexity of teaching (Elbaz,1991) or the personal professional problems that teachers experience (Graham,2000). The research process by necessity exposes uncertainties (Cochran-Smith &Lytle, 1993) that under investigation may produce discomfort for teachers.
Each of these appears as a legitimate reason to deter teachers from an active
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
12 C. Thornley et al.
involvement in the research process. However, as obstacles they each deserve closescrutiny in their own right and also in the context of their existence. The researchproject described in this paper sought to focus on each of the aforementionedreasons as three teachers undertook a year-long commitment to classroom research.
The Exploring Language Research Project: teacher research
The Exploring Language Research Project was a collaborative venture undertakenby the University of Otago, School of Education and primary classroom teacherswho are also associate teachers for the Bachelor of Teaching degree in bothuniversity and school contexts. It was designed to ascertain the feasibility ofengaging associate teachers from the Bachelor of Teaching pre-service primaryteacher education degree at the University of Otago in the research process. Formany associate teachers the opportunity to participate actively in research may ariseonly when they enrol as students at the universities and colleges of education.However, this degree like those from some other teacher education programmes ispredicated upon the notion that student-teacher learning should be informed bycurrent education theory and research literature. For this reason, the classroomteachers, with whom pre-service student-teachers work, must be able to articulatethe theoretical foundations of their work and have the research knowledge totheorize children’s learning.
In the classroom context this project aimed to illuminate the literacy practices ofchildren and teachers, and to provide essential New Zealand-based research findingsto enhance both the on-campus and the in-school teaching practices. Specifically itsought to involve teachers in theorizing their own practice and children’s learningwithin the context of the ‘exploring language’ strand in ‘English in the New ZealandCurriculum’ (Ministry of Education, 1994). In a preliminary collaborative univer-sity/classroom research project on this same topic, two of these three teachersgathered and analysed research data from audio-taped conferences with children asthey discussed their reading and samples of their writing. This research examinedthe ways in which 5-year-old children responded to the exploring language strand andcritiqued the manner in which the achievement objectives were levelled over theyears of schooling. While the teachers were adept at analysing and interpreting thedata in the same manner that they would for assessment purposes, their unfamiliar-ity with the contemporary curriculum research literature base restricted their partici-pation in theorizing and reporting the overall findings.
The following year, a successful funding application for the follow-up projectmade a major contribution to the scale of the study. The University of Otago‘Research into Teaching’ grant allowed each of the three teachers to be releasedfrom their classroom responsibilities to conduct their research in the university fora week of each school term for one year. It was considered that such an approachwould in part reduce the effects of intensification (Apple, 1989; Malin, 1999)through the provision of non-classroom contact time. These teachers were alsocommitted to a school-wide professional development programme connected to thenewly released national curriculum statement Health and Physical Education in the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Developing a Research Partnership 13
Figure 1. Features of school–university collaborative research project
New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1999b). It was hoped that theweeks of classroom release would facilitate a reduction of the time pressures thatwould in turn promote better outcomes for the literacy project and also allow aninvestigation of the research role for teachers. In other words, the teachers’ attentionwould not captured totally by concerns related to their day-to-day duties in schools.At the university they would be free to engage in uninterrupted collegial dialogue asthey searched and read the literacy research and theory, analysed and interpreted thedata collected from their classrooms and prepared to publish their findings. Theproject was planned to incorporate the features as shown in Fig. 1.
The research process
The teachers identified the key questions and determined the data collection andanalysis methods for the literacy project with the intention that research would takeaccount of the demands, needs and responses of the children in their classrooms.The teachers’ involvement was contingent on their understanding that the outcomes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
14 C. Thornley et al.
would be disseminated through teacher education classes, teacher conferences,research reports and publications. For this purpose, their involvement in the re-search process was facilitated by a university staff member with lecturing and schoolliaison responsibilities for the Bachelor of Teaching degree. This role includedvisiting the teachers in their classrooms, interviewing the children, maintainingon-going dialogue concerning the implementation and progress of the project andsupporting the processes surrounding the reporting and dissemination of thefindings.
Concurrent with this focus was the collection of data to uncover the teachers’views and responses to their involvement in the research process. For this reasonaudio-taped discussions were taken and records were prepared to maintain anongoing account of the teachers’ thinking and practices throughout the year. Thisdata collection method aimed to capture not only the collaborative reflections thatemerged from their professional reading and collegial discussions, but also touncover the tensions and dilemmas associated with the dual roles of teacher andresearcher. It was possible from the analysis of this data to evaluate the researchexperiences against the potential barriers to teacher research identified earlier in thispaper.
While the project seemed to evoke an air of enthusiasm among those who wereinvolved, it also effected tensions that in many cases could be related back to thepotential barriers identified from the literature search. It appeared that for these teachersthe most frustrating predicaments were those that they encountered as they negotiateda pathway between the opportunities that unfolded for their programmes from theliterature and the limitations that they perceived from the existing curriculum:
We have a huge dilemma and it’s about the constraints from the curriculum and time.
To actually implement all of the ideas that they read about as a means to developthe children’s knowledge and skills in ‘exploring language’ did not seem possible andso the research task as is commonly experienced often became one of acceptingconstraints. However, without discounting the discomfort that may have occurredfrom the exposure to such an array of new ideas, the teachers were positive abouttheir research. The most commonly stated benefit being:
Taking time to reflect and to have opportunity to read.
Certainly, time spent browsing libraries, locating literature, reading and discussingthe theory in order to plan subsequent teaching and the next stages of the projectwere the predominant activities undertaken by the teachers in the university.
As demonstrated from the earlier comment, these teachers were fully aware of theon-going demands of the national curriculum reforms. They had been involved asparticipants in numerous Ministry of Education professional development contractsand, as an outcome, obviously commanded a clear understanding of the require-ments for compliance in the implementation of curriculum. Their aims for teachingand learning were not at odds with those outlined in the curriculum statements andtheir knowledge and understanding of the English syllabus must be described asthorough. It became apparent from the following observations that the issue of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Developing a Research Partnership 15
ownership over their learning had in the past been unresolved, confirming thefindings of Hirst (1989) and Thornley (1999). In light of the following comments itmust be accepted that this research professional development model has made acontribution that cannot be ignored:
This has been wonderful. The best P.D. we’ve had because it’s … more meaningful.
… and it’s our choice.
Despite the often-stated claim that teachers are mostly interested in the practicalaspects of their work, these teachers’ comments frequently illustrated that theyvalued the opportunity to be able to theorize their practice within the broaderframeworks of the research literature. In discussing transmission models of pro-fessional development, they noted that:
It’s not making us think its just giving us the practical means to make a class moreefficient … [whereas] we own this.
They also raised doubts over the ability of teachers currently to reflect on theirteaching in more erudite ways. However, the overall outcomes of this projectdemonstrate that these comments are neither about teachers as people nor about thework of teachers, but rather they are about the professional development andresearch opportunities that teachers commonly experience.
I don’t think that teachers have the technical knowledge to formulate a philosophy. Wehave a kind of intuitive feeling about why we are doing what we’re doing and it’s nomore definite than that I think in most cases.
… because now it’s based on something other than, and solider than intuition andwe’ve got some knowledge of theory.
It is not possible to tell from the scope of this project the extent to which theseteachers were influenced by the emphasis that the Bachelor of Teaching degreeplaces on student teachers’ abilities to theorize and critically reflect on their teachingpractice. It does seem feasible that the teachers’ involvement in the universityprogramme may also have illuminated the relevance of this focus for their ownresearch. Significantly, there was no observable rejection of these ideas and theconcept of accessing hitherto elusive knowledge and theory in order to create newtheory was eagerly embraced. Certainly, if one objective of professional developmentfor associate teachers is to support their incarnation as teacher educators, then theseresults provide a strong indication of success in this respect:
We’d have a bit of common background knowledge with the students.
… and hopefully they wouldn’t just see us as ignorant practitioners and [think that] allthey would be able to get from us would be, you know activities.
… the practical side.
This appetite for theory and research was played out also in the milieu of theclassroom where the work of theorists became a common touchstone for ongoingdialogue. Applebee (1996) and his work on ‘curriculum as conversation’, introducedthrough the earlier project, was a frequent reference, Wolf and Gearheart (1994)and Williams and Columb (1993) were used in the contexts of planning, teachingand the children’s learning:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
16 C. Thornley et al.
I think we’ve got theories to back up our statements [about] what we want to changein the class, how we are going to go about it.
Amidst the positive statements surrounding the research experience were those thatidentified the self-doubt and discomfort produced by the research process, particu-larly as a study of one’s own practice (Graham, 2000). An outcome of the collabo-rative nature of this project and the manner in which it was structured ensured thatit provided its own support:
We’ve been lucky that there are three of us in this project so we can talk and try andhelp each other throughout and support each other.
For associate teachers the opportunity to work in the university setting providedthem with insights into the research process and the place of research in thepedagogy and content of teacher education programmes. In discussing the accessi-bility of reading research and theory, one teacher described the difference betweeninteractions in the university and school as necessitating that they were:
… learning new rules for discourse.
For teachers the act of leaving the familiar territory of their classrooms to participatein a process filled with unknowns highlighted elements of self-image and teacher-im-age generally. Unexpectedly the most positive aspect of this related to the increasedbelief in self as a professional belonging in worlds both inside and outside of theclassroom:
It has given me belief in our professional status.
It’s about believing. People talk about teachers using their professional judgementand … now its based on something other than, solider than intuition.
However, even though initial apprehensions about the project had substantiallydiminished, the belief in the ability of teachers to engage in the research process aspart of their regular practice was by no means achieved.
So I’m not sure whether being a teacher researcher isn’t a logical impossibility. … butmaybe you can be a teacher which means you are part of the class … or you can be aresearcher which means you’re stepping back and observing them.
This comment made in the last phase of the project was perplexing in that it eitherexemplified that we were far from having any conclusive findings about how teachersmight see themselves as researchers or simply opened the avenue for discussionsabout objectivity and subjectivity. Either way it becomes a catalyst for a moreextensive study that would address these issues through an examination of teachers’priorities and their perceptions of their responsibilities.
By contrast, the following statement alluded to research as an uncomfortableaddiction; one that prevented any return to an uncomplicated acceptance of techni-cist approaches to either their teaching or their learning:
… ‘Just where’s it going to end?’ is our comment today. Your know because it isn’t isit? Because each time we do something we find something else out.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Developing a Research Partnership 17
Conclusion
As teachers constantly make decisions that affect children’s learning, it beholds thosepeople responsible for curriculum and professional development policies to ensurethat these decisions are more than random responses to the multiplicity of classroomdemands. While it is essential for teachers to have clearly articulated research-basedtheories (congruent with their practices and mandated policies) as the foundation onwhich to found such decisions, it is not immediately obvious how this may beachieved. To date, information revealed through research that analyses teachers’professional development has frequently been dismissed in favour of transmissionmodels explaining policies of curriculum reform. In the contemporary New Zealandcontext, opportunities for teachers and professional developers to pursue alternativemodels are limited due to the allocation of resources that support the dominantmodels. In contrast, the funding that was provided for this project by the Universityof Otago has facilitated the uncovering of significant information concerning thefeasibility of teacher research as a professional development model. It is argued herethat the effect of such learning would be to enable teachers to locate their curriculumdecisions concerning children’s learning within a broader theoretical context.
The influences underpinning the content and processes through which teacherslearn, develop theory and create new knowledge about teaching are in some instancesexternal, and founded upon national rather than classroom needs. This paperpresents no argument for ignoring national priorities. It is accepted that nationalinitiatives such as those arising from the Literacy Taskforce Report (Ministry ofEducation, 1999c) demand national attention through a variety of actions accessibleto all teachers. Notwithstanding the importance of such projects, in order to achieveteacher ownership of curriculum initiatives there must be opportunities for teacherlearning that emanate from teachers’ questions that are related to the needs of theirclassrooms. For this reason, national projects must be able to co-exist with classroom-based projects as identified by teachers, and national priorities must be presented ina manner that facilitates participation by individual teachers in individual ways.
A summary of the reasons that may prevent teachers from undertaking research asprofessional development confirms that engagement in the act of teaching does notinevitably dictate that you are a researcher. While teachers actively undertakeinquiries into their work as part of the assessment of children’s learning, definitionsthat identify this action alone as research have been demonstrated to be restrictive.For the teachers in this project, an examination of their regular classroom assessmentpractices verified that their practices were entirely congruent with the data collectionprocedures employed in this project. Teachers commonly analyse work samples andconduct group or individual conferences (although not audio-taped) as part of theirassessment procedures.
However, simply framing these practices as research or professional developmentfails to take account of the time that teacher researchers must devote to the study ofresearch literature and theory and the time consumed by the act of writing todisseminate any findings. For this reason teacher research projects necessitate theestablishment of support mechanisms to ensure manageable time and study commit-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
18 C. Thornley et al.
ments for teachers and also a reassessment of the roles of teacher and of researcher.While the teacher release time was utilized effectively in this project, there isevidence to suggest that many of the benefits could be achieved using more modestresources particularly in cases where such work became the teachers’ sole focus forprofessional development. The findings indicate that it would be possible forteachers to work collaboratively with a facilitator who could assist with aspects of theresearch process. The facilitator’s role would be that of research mentor assistingteachers who were inexperienced in this work. Furthermore, they would aim to easethe time spent on reading and writing through the location of relevant readings andprovision of additional support for the presentation of findings to the wider edu-cation audience.
This paper presents no argument for the demise of all current professionaldevelopment practices, but rather presents an alternative that would be available toteachers who chose this model. The outcomes of their projects would also providedesperately needed classroom research into teaching to inform the Ministry ofEducation as they meet their commitment to on-going curriculum reviews. Forthose teachers who preferred the traditional models of professional development,classroom-based outcomes would also be available inform teachers of the effect ofspecific pedagogical practices and teachers’ classroom curriculum decisions.
Figure 2. Model for research-based professional development
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Developing a Research Partnership 19
Figure 2 asserts particular relationships between professional development,teacher research and curriculum theory to inform teacher decision-making thatemerged from the research. Teacher research as professional development has beendemonstrated here to produce positive outcomes for teachers. However, the scopeof this paper precludes an interrogation of the effects of the curriculum decisionsmade by the teachers in this project on children’s learning.2 As New Zealandeducators and policy-makers claim concern over the unequal access to educationthrough contemporary school practices, Hatton (1997) and Aldeman (1993) claimthat more equitable outcomes are made possible only when teachers theorize theirown work. This is a convincing reason to pursue teacher research models ofprofessional development.
Notes on contributors
Vivienne Eason is a primary teacher at East Taieri school in Dunedin.
Rae Parker is a primary teacher at East Taieri school in Dunedin.
Karon Read is a primary teacher at East Taieri school in Dunedin.
Christina Thornley is a lecturer in the School of Education at the University ofOtago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Notes
1. The authors subscribe to a constructivist view of teacher knowledge where new knowledgeand theory can be generated as a result of teacher prior knowledge and experience (Lange& Burroughs-Lange, 1994). Furthermore, that in the words of Anstey and Bull (1996)‘every act of teaching is based on, and creates a particular theory or theories’ (p. 26).
2. Reports on the classroom practice related to this project are yet to be published but areavailable from the authors on request.
References
Aldeman, C. (1993) The practical ethic takes priority over methodology, in: W. Carr (Ed.)Quality in teaching: arguments for a reflective profession (London, Falmer).
Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (1996) The literacy labyrinth (Sydney, Prentice Hall).Apple, M. (1989) A political economy of class and gender relations in education (New York and
London, Routledge).Applebee, A. (1996) Curriculum as conversation (Chicago, IL, and London, The University of
Chicago Press).Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H. & Simpson, T. (2000) The
effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on education outcomes,Ministry of Education research report (Hamilton, University of Waikato).
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993) Inside outside teacher research and knowledge (New York:Teachers College Press).
Day, C. (1993) The importance of learning biography in supporting teacher development: anempirical study, in: C. Day, J. Calderhead & P. Denicolo (Eds) Research on teacher thinking:understanding professional development (London and Washington, DC, Falmer Press).
Education Review Office/Te Tari Arotake Matauranga (1999) Student assessment: practices inprimary schools (Wellington, Education Review Office).
Elbaz, F. (1991) Research on teachers’ knowledge: the evolution of a discourse, Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 23(1), 1–19.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
20 C. Thornley et al.
Elliot, R. & Hatton, E. (1998) Neutrality and the value-ladenness of teaching, in: E. Hatton (Ed.)Understanding teaching (2nd edn) (Sydney, Harcourt Brace).
Estebaranz, A. Mingorance, P. & Marcelo, C. (1999) Teachers’ work groups as professionaldevelopment: what do the teachers learn?, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 5(2),153–170.
Graham, S. (2000) Curriculum co-construction: researching from inside the classroom. Unpublishedpost-graduate project report, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Graham, S. & Thornley, C. (2000) Connecting classrooms in pre-service education: conversationsfor learning, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 235–245.
Groundwater-Smith, S. & Marsh, H. (1999) The challenge of change in education: schooluniversity partnerships, Challenge of Change in Education. Proceedings of the Change inEducation Research Group (Sydney, CERG).
Grundy, S. (1998) The curriculum and teaching, in E. Hatton (Ed.) Understanding teaching (2ndedn) (Sydney, Harcourt Brace).
Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing teachers changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodernage (London, Teachers College Press).
Hatton, E. (1998). Understanding teaching, in: E. Hatton (Ed.) Understanding teaching (2nd edn)(Sydney, Harcourt Brace).
Hirst, P. H. (1989) Implications of government funding policies for research on teaching andteacher education: England and Wales, Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 267–273.
Lang, M., Day, C., Bunder, W., Hansen, H., Kysilka, M., Tillema, H. & Smith, K. (1999)Teacher professional development in the context of curriculum reform, in: M. Lang, J.Olson, H. Hansen & W. Bunder (Eds) Changing schools/changing practices: perspectives oneducational reform and teacher professionalism (Louvain, Garrant).
Lange, J. & Burroughs-Lange S. (1994) Professional uncertainty and professional growth: a casestudy of experienced teachers, Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(6), 617–631.
Malin, M. (1999) An undebated conundrum in the ethics of classroom research: the conflictingrights of researcher, teacher and student within an agenda of reform, paper presented at theAustralian Association for Research in Education (Melbourne, AARE).
McGee, C. (1997) Teachers and curriculum decision making (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press).Ministry of Education (1991) The New Zealand Education Gazette (vol. 70) (Wellington, Govern-
ment Print).Ministry of Education (1993) The New Zealand Curriculum Framework/Te Anga Marautanga o
Aotearoa (Wellington, Learning Media).Ministry of Education (1994) Assessment: policy to practice (Wellington, Learning Media).Ministry of Education (1996) Curriculum Development Update 14, The New Zealand Education
Gazette (Wellington, Learning Media).Ministry of Education (1997) Curriculum Development Update 21, The New Zealand Education
Gazette (Wellington, Learning Media).Ministry of Education (1999a) New Zealand Education Gazette/Tukutuku Korero (vol. 78) (Welling-
ton, Learning Media).Ministry of Education (1999b) Health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum
(Wellington, Learning Media).Ministry of Education (1999c) Report of the literacy taskforce (Wellington, Ministry of Education).Routman, R. (1996) Literacy at the crossroads: crucial talk about reading, writing and other dilemmas
(Portsmouth, Heinemann).Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development (London, Heinemann).Thornley, C. (1999) Curriculum professional development: for training or professionalism?,
Curriculum and Teaching, 14(2), 123–136.Williams, J. & Columb, G. (1993) The case for explicit teaching: why what you don’t know won’t
help you, Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 252–271.Wolf, S. & Gearhart, M. (1994). Writing what you read: narrative assessment as a learning event,
Language Arts, 71, 425–440.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
uckl
and
Lib
rary
] at
16:
32 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
