ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

$This study

of education an

Tel Aviv Unive

analysis. An ea

15th World Co

2002.�Correspondi

fax: +972 3 547

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–41

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teacher educators as researchers: A profile of researchin Israeli teacher colleges versus university

departments of education$

Sima Yogeva,�, Abraham Yogevb

aLevinsky College of Education, Tel Aviv, IsraelbSchool of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

Abstract

The teacher research movement has encouraged the development of practitioner research action-oriented and

reflective studies among teachers and teacher educators alike. This study compares the profile of research conducted in

the Israeli academic teacher colleges with that performed by university faculty. A content analysis of the 204 papers

presented at the recent conference of the Israeli Association of Educational Research reveals, that teacher college

research indeed focuses on teacher education issues and the relevant study populations. Yet, it does not depart from

traditional university research in terms of types of studies and research methods. Dream and reality are therefore mixed

in teacher education research.

r 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

The present study compares the substantive andmethodological profile of research done in Israeliteacher colleges versus that performed by facultymembers of schools or departments of educationin Israeli universities. This comparison aims at

e front matter r 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

te.2005.07.009

was supported by the research unit on sociology

d the community at the School of Education of

rsity. We thank Timna Ziv for her help in data

rlier version of the paper was presented at the

ngress of Sociology held at Brisbane on July

ng author. Tel.: +972 3 540 5633;

3 305.

ss: yogev@post.tau.ac.il (S. Yogev).

answering the question whether research done inteacher colleges has some distinct features thatmay best serve the improvement of pre-serviceteacher training. The understanding of the Israelicase may exemplify how research done in teachercolleges may possibly be harnessed to deal withissues that are of great concern to teacher traininginstitutions elsewhere.In the recent two decades much emphasis has

been put, both in Israel and abroad, on the needfor teacher educators to base their knowledge ontheir own research, among other sources. Thisemphasis derives from the drive in many countriesto bring the teacher colleges into the broader

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–41 33

academic mainstream. For example, Goodlad’s(1990, pp. 154–195) survey of teacher educatorsacross 6 types of American teacher educationinstitutions in the United States has demonstrated,that pressures of doing research exist not only inmajor research universities but also in public andprivate universities and colleges that focus onteacher training. The question is whether theresearch conducted in typical teacher traininginstitutions differs from that conducted in researchuniversities.

The teacher research movement, also knownworldwide as action research, participatory re-search, teachers’ self-study or practitioner research(Zeichner & Noffke, 2001), has consistentlyencouraged the production of knowledge regard-ing the practice of teaching among teachers,teacher educators, and academics (Cochran-Smith& Lytle, 1999). Teacher educators, in particular,have been encouraged to conduct practitionerresearch to enhance their own reflective teachingand that of their students’ (Noffke, 1997) and toenhance their academic standing vis-a-vis theiruniversity counterparts (Russell & Korthagen,1995).

What is practitioner research and what are thearguments for and against its value? Cochran-Smith (1993) defines this research as a ‘‘systematicintentional inquiry by teachers about their ownschools and classroom work’’ (pp. 23–24). Practi-tioner research, done by teachers as well as teachereducators, is important for several reasons. Wewould focus our discussion on teacher educatorsbut obviously they are but one group engaged inpractitioner research. First, teacher educators whoengage in research model this mode to theirstudents as a normative behavior in the multiplearray of what a teacher’s work entails. Second,many of the issues studied by practitioners arenormally not in the core domain of non-practi-tioner research since they are derived from thepractitioners’ own concerns and dilemmas. Third,the practitioners’ acquaintance with the innerdetails of their practice and related factors maygive them an advantage over outsiders (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Fourth and most impor-tantly, by practitioners researching their own workthey may improve their practice. All the above

notwithstanding, this does not go to say thatuniversity researchers should be excluded fromresearch dealing with school issues or settings butthat practitioner research may have a niche of itsown.On the other hand, much criticism has been

raised against the legitimacy and validity ofpractitioner inquiry. The underlying thread be-neath most reservations seems to be the belief thatpractitioners may be research subjects and con-sumers of research rather than producers ofworthy educational knowledge (Lagemann,1996). Teacher research has been mostly viewedas a means of professional development (Clifford,1973; Good, 1963) and as such ‘‘yis devalued intosomething which concerns only the individual whocarried out the action researchyIn this wayythepower in the social system works to neutralize thevoice and the influence of practitioners andpromote the hegemony of traditional academicresearchers.’’ (Somekh, 1993, p. 28). Furthermore,the ability of practitioners to do research isquestioned claiming that they are not trained todo research and therefore use less rigorousstandards (Foshay, 1994; Hitchcock & Hughes,1995). Huberman (1996) wonders about the valueof practitioner research vis-a-vis its effects onteaching practice and educational outcomes. Healso questions practitioners’ ability to transcendpersonal biases and avoid distortions and self-delusion.Despite the growing pressure on teacher educa-

tors to increase their research productivity, itremains unclear what kind of educational researchis actually conducted in the various institutions ofhigher education. Does the research done in theteacher colleges duplicate that done in researchuniversities or has it taken on distinct features?Does it focus on teacher education topics, relevantresearch populations and particular study methodsnecessitated by practitioner research? These globalissues are particularly relevant in countries such asIsrael, where teacher education is divided betweenuniversity schools of education and teachereducation colleges.We know that teacher education research

traditionally suffers from low priority in universityschools of education (Schneider, 1987), and that

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–4134

university faculty frequently see teacher knowledgeand academic knowledge as divided and irrelevantto each other (Zeichner, 1995). Furthermore,despite the growing popularity of qualitative andinterpretive research methods in educational re-search in general, it is still disregarded or under-evaluated by many university faculty members.Nevertheless, advocates of practitioner researchpurport that faculty members of teacher collegesought to develop their own research niche fromboth substantive and methodological perspectivesin order to enhance teacher-training concerns. Thequestion is whether teacher educators actually doit or whether they prefer to follow the traditionalresearch patterns of their university counterparts.

In order to better comprehend the emergence ofthe issue of research in teacher colleges we aregoing to look at some social–historical develop-ments in teacher colleges in Israel.

1. ‘‘Academization’’ and research in Israeli teacher

colleges

Teacher education in Israel is divided betweenuniversity schools or departments of education,which train high school teachers, and the teachercolleges, which are sponsored by the Ministry ofEducation and are responsible for training kinder-garten, elementary and junior high school tea-chers. Special education teachers and schoolcounselors are trained in both types of institutions.

The original division between these institutions,from the early statehood years, has designated theteacher colleges as post-secondary non-academicinstitutions. However, their academic standing haschanged since the 1980s, in accordance with thedecision of the Israeli Council for Higher Educa-tion (CHE) to expand the higher education systemby upgrading existing non-academic colleges andaccrediting new private and public colleges. Sub-sequently, the teacher colleges have undergone an‘‘academization’’ process, based on CHE approvalof their upgraded curricula leading toward theB.Ed. degree, and their accreditation as academiccolleges of education (Ariav, Kfir, & Fejgin, 1993).At present, all 27-teacher colleges (not countingthe Jewish orthodox teacher colleges, owned by

orthodox groups and parties) have been recog-nized as academic colleges. These colleges aregeographically dispersed and serve the three majorschool sectors—Jewish and Arab state schools andthe Jewish state religious schools.Following their academization, teacher colleges

were pressed to develop their research capabilities,and many of them have established research units,which help teacher educators in their researchprojects. Research in teacher colleges is enhancedby their own leading research figures, whoadvocate teacher education research as a meansof exposing students to a research culture andenhancing the professional development of teachereducators (Kfir, 1999; Kfir, Libman, & Shamai,1999). They are backed by the Ministry ofEducation, which established the inter-collegiateMofet institute. This institute sponsors profes-sional workshops for teacher educators, publica-tions on teacher education and teacher educationresearch, and an international conference heldevery 3 years. It also distributes annual researchfunds to teacher educators through an inter-collegiate research committee. In addition, theteacher unions together with the ministry haveestablished promotion ranks for teacher educatorswithin the teacher colleges, which reward theirresearch productivity in addition to other criteria.Despite the growing pressure on research pro-

ductivity and on hiring teacher educators who holdPh.D. degrees, many of the veteran faculty mem-bers of the teacher colleges still hold master degrees,and various colleges find it difficult to develop afull-scale research culture. In their elaborate studyon that topic, Shamai and Kfir (2002) found thatinsufficient budgets, lacking expertise, and organi-zational problems, result in the division of theacademic teacher colleges into 4 groups: thosewhich lack research culture altogether, colleges witha minimal research culture, colleges adhering to anoptional research culture, and few teacher collegeswith a leading research culture.This situation is further enhanced by the fact,

that not all the research done in the teachercolleges focus on teacher education issues. Forexample, among the 27 research projects spon-sored in 2000 by the inter-collegiate researchcommittee, less than half dealt with teacher

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–41 35

education, and the rest focused on other pedago-gical and disciplinary subjects (Tzarfati, 1999).The relevance of the latter to the interests ofteacher educators notwithstanding, such subjectsare also studied at the universities, and theydeviate from the major mission of teacher educa-tors’ research. Although the latter subjects are also

relevant in teacher education some questions may be

raised: would it not be wiser and more cost efficient

if teacher colleges would funnel their resources into

areas frequently neglected by university researchers

and instead concentrate on topics closely related to

teacher training? Would it not better if they utilize

research methodologies that would enable a practi-

tioner’s experience and insight shed a better light on

the state of affairs? Would this kind of inquiry better

enable direct application in the practice of training?

Moreover, it should be realized that faculty atuniversity schools of education tend to viewresearch done in the teacher colleges as mainlyproviding practical rather than academic knowl-edge and as carrying little scientific significance.While some university professors advocate re-search development in the teacher colleges, othersstill believe that college teacher educators shouldconcentrate on teacher training and performresearch mainly in collaboration with universityprofessors (Yair, 1999).

Given the above circumstances, it becomes im-perative to examine whether teacher educators at theteacher colleges have succeeded to develop researchthat differs from university educational research inboth substance and methodology, thus chartering theresearch culture at the teacher colleges.

2. Research methods

2.1. Present study

To explore this issue we conducted a quantita-tive content analysis of the papers presented at therecent conference of the Israeli Association ofEducational Research (Ayala) held at Tel AvivUniversity on October 2000. The association wasestablished almost 30 years ago, and the partici-pants of its conferences until the early 1990s weremainly faculty members of university schools of

education. During the last decade the proportionof teacher college faculty participating in theconferences has rapidly increased. Of the 204studies presented at the 2000 conference, 88 wereconducted by teacher college faculty, some incollaboration with university faculty—thus con-stituting 42% of the presented studies. Thisproportion clearly reflects the pressures put onteacher college faculty to demonstrate researchactivity for promotion considerations.Papers presented at the Ayala conference are

appropriate for our analysis for four reasons.First, since this meeting constitutes the majorIsraeli research conference on education, it attractsmany participants from all over the country andrepresents the research conducted in variousinstitutions. Second, the proportion of rejectedsubmissions for the conference was small (about10%), and the papers presented may therefore beassumed to represent the entire spectrum ofconducted research. Third, the presenters wererequired to submit long abstracts of their papers(about 1200 words). Each abstract was evaluatedby two independent readers, and the acceptedabstracts were corrected by their authors accord-ing to the evaluators’ comments. This procedureensured that each abstract published in theconference proceedings (Ayala, 2000) suppliedsufficient information on research questions, the-oretical background, study methods, results, andconclusions, thus enabling our coding and analy-sis. Finally, university participants were mainlyjunior and mid-range faculty members (fullprofessors mostly contributed keynote addresses).This further enabled a reliable comparison withresearch conducted at the teacher colleges, thefaculty members of which may also be consideredof junior and mid-range academic status.The 204 studies presented at the conference

(excluding keynote addresses and other non-regular sessions) were divided into 3 groupsaccording to their authors’ institutional affilia-tions: 66 papers were presented by either single ormultiple authors from the teacher colleges, 108were authored by university faculty, and 30 weredefined as ‘‘others’’. This last group consists of 17studies jointly authored by faculty of teachercolleges and the universities (mainly reports of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–4136

Ph. D. dissertations conducted by teacher educa-tors under the supervision of university faculty), 4studies conducted by authors with double iden-tities (affiliated with both a teacher college and auniversity), and 9 papers whose authors are eitheraffiliated with other institutions (mainly theMinistry of Education) or which represent colla-borations between university or teacher collegefaculty and authors from other institutions.

Table 1 presents the distribution of number ofauthors among the 3 groups of studies and thetypes of collaboration among multiple-authoredpapers. The upper part of the table indicates thetendency for single authorship among faculty ofthe teacher colleges in comparison to universityfaculty. This tendency has been attributed byShamai and Kfir (2002) to the lack of anestablished research culture at the colleges. Thelower part of the table, referring to the multiple-authored papers, further illuminates this lack ofresearch culture. Intra-institutional collaboration,usually between members of the same department,is more common among university faculty thanamong teacher educators at the colleges. Yet, thelatter’s higher tendency toward inter-institutionalcollaboration reflects the cooperation of leadingresearch figures in different teacher colleges onvarious project endeavors.

2.2. Coding procedures

In order to code the variables pertinent to theabstracts we used two independent coders who

Table 1

Paper authorship by researchers’ affiliation

Teacher colleg

Number of authors

One author 42.4

Two authors 31.8

Three authors or more 25.7

Total (%) 100.0

Collaboration in multiple-authored papers

Intra-institutional collaboration 73.6

Inter-institutional collaboration 26.4

Total (%) 100.0

N 66

consulted each other on conflicting codes andmade the final coding decisions. Much of thecoding process, however, was quite standard anddid not require elaborate deliberations.We coded four variables—two related to sub-

stantive research issues and the other two toresearch methods. The codes used for eachvariable are as follows.

1.

e

Subject area of studies: The subject areas werecoded according to the 19 conference sections.Since the participants chose in advance thesection to which they submitted their abstracts,these sections reflect their substantive researchinterests. The 19 sections were collapsed intofour equally-sized categories: (1) educationalpolicy—consisting of the sections on educationalpolicy, politics and management, the socialcontext of education, and educational history;(2) curriculum and teaching—the sections oncurriculum planning, mathematics and scienceeducation, students’ achievement evaluation,study environments, and in-school evaluation;(3) educational psychology and counseling—thesections on language and learning, cognitive andsocial processes in learning, abilities and intelli-gence, child development, educational counsel-ing, and special education; (4) teachereducation—the sections on teacher training,teachers’ professional development, and profes-sional development in higher education.

2.

Study population: Five categories were used todepict study populations: (1) students—studies

University Other

33.3 20.0

43.5 60.0

23.1 20.0

100.0 100.0

83.4 0

16.6 100.0

100.0 100.0

108 30

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tab

Sub

Sub

Ed

Cu

Ed

Tea

To

N

w2 ¼

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–41 37

conducted on k-12 students and on students inhigher education; (2) teachers and principals—informal schools; (3) teacher educators—mostlyteacher college faculty; (4) teaching trainees—ineither teacher colleges or university schools ofeducation; (5) others—a mixed category con-sisting of other populations (e.g., students’parents), combinations of the above populationcategories, or no study population at all.

3.

Type of study: Six categories distinguishedamong the following study types: (1) theoreticalor historical studies; (2) descriptive—mainlyproject descriptions; (3) experimental studies;(4) other empirical quantitative studies, mainlysurveys; (5) action research—determined accord-ing to author’s declaration or coders’ judgmentthat the study evaluates an author-initiatedactivity. Most of these studies were qualitative;(6) other empirical qualitative studies.

4.

Research methods: Five categories were used: (1)statistical—representative sampling, accordingto the authors’ claim for population representa-tion; (2) statistical—non-representative sam-pling; (3) ethnographic—qualitative casestudies; (4) reflective—according to authors’declaration or coders’ judgment that interpre-tive methods of data analysis were used; (5)other—mainly theoretical or historical analyses.

3. Results

The findings are reported in 3 sections. We firstpresent the substantive and methodological re-search profiles of the different groups of research-

le 2

ject area of study by researchers’ affiliation

ject area Teacher c

ucational policy 15.2

rriculum and teaching 13.6

ucational psychology and counseling 22.7

cher education 48.5

tal (%) 100.0

66

33.6; df ¼ 6; po.001.

ers by individual variables, and subsequently shiftto a multivariate analysis of the research profiles.

3.1. Substantive research profiles

Table 2 presents the distribution of subject areasof the studies performed by the 3 groups ofresearchers—faculty of the teacher colleges, theuniversity schools or departments of education,and others. The differences between the academicstaff of the teacher colleges and the universities areclear-cut and statistically significant. While uni-versity faculty concentrate their studies on curri-culum and teaching, as well as on educationalpolicy matters, almost half of the studies con-ducted by the faculty of the teacher collegesfocused on teacher education.Similarly, Table 3 demonstrates the differences

between the 2 groups of researchers in terms of thepopulations they study. Research in the teachercolleges focuses on teaching trainees and, to someextent, also on the teacher educators themselves,while university research mainly investigates stu-dents, teachers, and school principals. Thesedifferences are also highly significant. Thus, fromthe substantive point of view, studies conducted inthe teacher colleges have indeed created a parti-cular research niche by focusing on teachereducation topics and the relevant populations.

3.2. Methodological research profiles

The question is whether the different substantiveconcentrations of the 2 groups of researchers arealso reflected in different research methodologies.Table 4 relates to the types of studies conducted by

ollege University Other

28.7 13.3

35.2 26.7

23.1 36.7

13.0 23.3

100.0 100.0

108 30

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Study population by researchers’ affiliation

Study population Teacher college University Other

Students 10.6 30.6 30.0

Teachers and principals 16.7 28.7 16.7

Teacher educators 10.6 0.9 0

Teaching trainees 33.3 5.6 23.3

Other 28.8 34.3 30.0

Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 66 108 30

w2 ¼ 41.3; df ¼ 8; po.001.

Table 4

Type of study by researchers’ affiliation

Type of study Teacher college University Other

Theoretical or historical 3.0 5.6 3.3

Descriptive 9.1 13.9 10.0

Experimental 6.1 15.7 13.3

Other empirical quantitative 36.4 36.1 36.7

Action research 10.6 1.9 3.3

Other empirical qualitative 34.8 26.9 33.3

Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 66 108 30

w2 ¼ 12.3; df ¼ 10; n.s.

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–4138

the 3 groups of researchers. As shown, teachereducators tend more than university researchers toconduct action research and other empiricalqualitative studies, while university researchersshow a relatively higher tendency toward experi-mental studies. Differences between the 2 groupsin the performance of other types of studies—theoretical or historical, descriptive, and quantita-tive studies other than experimental—are verysmall. Therefore, their overall differences in studytype concentration are not statistically significant.

Table 5 directly relates to the major methods ofdata collection and analysis used in the differentstudies. It is clear from the table that researchers inthe teacher colleges tend, more often than uni-versity researchers, to use reflective or interpretivemethods of data analysis, while the latter show arelatively higher tendency toward ethnographicanalysis. However, there is no difference between

the 2 groups in the use of statistical analysis ofdata collected from non-representative samples,and a small difference, in favor of universityfaculty, in the use of statistical analysis of datacollected from representative samples. Since sta-tistical data analysis is most frequently used byboth groups, the overall differences between theirresearch methods also do not reach statisticalsignificance. Thus, both in terms of study typesand research methods the faculty of teachercolleges reveal some distinct patterns of prefer-ence, but their particular tendencies toward thesepatterns do not reach statistical significance incomparison to university researchers.

3.3. Multivariate analysis of the research profiles

Our analysis up to this point is based onbivariate analyses of particular research patternsby the researchers’ institutional affiliations. It ispossible, however, that some of these separatevariables partly overlap each other, at least insome of their categories. It is therefore importantto perform a multivariate analysis of the researchprofiles of the different institutional groups basedon all the variables put together, thus controllingfor their inter-correlations. The most suitablemethod for this purpose is discriminant analysis,which distinguishes among nominal categories ofone variable (the researchers’ institutional affilia-tions in our case) on the basis of a group ofinterval variables (Klecka, 1980). To enable thisanalysis we had to transform the nominal cate-gories of the four variables—research subjectareas, populations, study types and methods—into interval variables. This was done by turningthe categories of each of the four variables into agroup of dummy variables, using one of thecategories of each variable (the ‘‘other’’ categoryor the category least significant for group distinc-tion) as an excluded comparison category, in orderto eliminate over-identification problems. To thesewe added the number of paper authors, creatingaltogether a discriminant analysis based on 16distinguishing variables. The analysis, using Wilks’direct method, resulted in two discriminant func-tions, the first of which was statistically significantand is fully presented in Table 6.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Research methods by researchers’ affiliation

Research methods Teacher college University Other

Statistical—representative sampling 3.0 7.4 3.3

Statistical—non-representative sampling 36.4 37.0 46.7

Ethnographic 9.1 18.5 10.0

Reflective 37.9 22.2 26.7

Other 13.6 14.8 13.3

Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 66 108 30

w2 ¼ 9.1; df ¼ 8; n.s.

Table 6

Discriminant analysis: research profile by researchers’ affilia-

tion

Variables Standardized

function

coefficients

Subject area:

Educational policy �0.22

Curriculum and teaching �0.40

Teacher education 0.28

Study population:

Students �0.26

Teachers and principals �0.34

Teacher educators 0.27

Teaching trainees 0.37

Study type:

Theoretical or historical �0.09

Experimental 0.11

Other empirical quantitative 0.16

Action research 0.30

Other empirical qualitative 0.32

Research method:

Statistical (representative and non-

representative sampling)

�0.06

Ethnographic �0.22

Reflective �0.07

Number of authors �0.15

Wilks’ l 0.69

w2 (df ¼ 32) 71.5

p o0.001

Group centroids

Teacher college 0.83

University �0.52

Other 0.00

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–41 39

As the table shows, this first function distin-guishes quite successfully among the 3 groups ofresearchers. This is demonstrated by the relativelylow Wilk’s lambda coefficient (the lower thiscoefficient is the more discriminant power ispresent in the function). The group centroids(which are the mean function scores of thedistinguished groups) show that the functionmainly distinguishes between the research profilesof teacher educators and university faculty, whilethe third group of other researchers stands inbetween these two.The research profile of each group, controlling

for the inter-correlations of all variables, is derivedfrom the standardized function coefficients of the16 distinguishing variable, which indicate their neteffects on the discriminant function. These positiveor negative effects should be interpreted inaccordance with the direction of the groupcentroids. Using the arbitrary cutting point of7.30 to signify a substantial discriminant effect, itappears that the research profile of teachereducators in the teacher colleges consists of bothsubstantive and methodological patterns. It ismainly determined by their tendency to studyteaching trainees (and to some extent also to studyteacher educators themselves, though the standar-dized coefficient does not reach the pre-set cuttingpoint), and by their focus on action research andother qualitative studies. Their tendency to con-centrate on teacher education issues is also quiteimportant, though also not quite reaching thecutting point. On the other hand, the research

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–4140

conducted by university faculty is mainly distin-guished by its focus on curriculum and teachingtopics and its concentration on the populations ofteachers and principals, and to some extent also onstudents. The various methods of data analysis, aswell as the number of study authors, do notdistinguish well between the 2 groups of research-ers.

4. Discussion

Our analysis demonstrates that we witness thebeginning of the crystallization of practitionerresearch in Israeli academic teacher collegescontent wise but it is not distinctive from themethodological perspective. It mainly departsfrom university research by concentrating onteacher education issues and focusing on therelevant populations of teaching trainees andteacher educators. While it shows some tendencytoward action research and other qualitativestudies, it nonetheless does not largely departfrom the traditional types and methods of researchon which university schools of education focus.

This in itself is not a major shortcoming, sinceteacher education research may also employ tradi-tional research methods, the present study being acase in point. However, the teacher research move-ment in its various forms has emphasized the needfor practitioner research such as action researchand reflective analysis as a means for the profes-sional development of both teachers and teachereducators and the improvement of teacher training.It is not that alternative research methodologieswould grant teacher colleges more prestige but thatthese would enhance teacher training. The findingsof this research carry implications for both Israeliand worldwide higher education institutions dealingwith teacher training.

All in all, the Israeli case exemplifies theworldwide research reality in academic institutionswhich emphasize teacher training—the emergenceof a distinct research culture from that of classicresearch universities. Previous research, such asGoodlad’s (1990), emphasized the assessment ofteacher education institutions on the basis ofwhether teacher educators deem research impor-

tant vis-a-vis other activities like teaching, prepar-ing teachers and other services. Today, the focus instudying teacher colleges should be on what kindof a research culture develops within them, to whatextent it differs from what prevails in researchuniversities and how practitioners research actu-ally benefits the teacher training agenda.Our study is raising the issue of dream and

reality in teacher educators’ research. On the onehand, it is possible that dream and reality areindeed mixed in the research culture that Israeliteacher colleges attempt to develop. Trying toestablish unique research features, they indeedconcentrate on research topics and populationslargely neglected by the universities. Yet, depend-ing on the universities for their academic status,they seem to be reluctant to create a majorbreakthrough in terms of their study types andresearch methods. One must also recall the factthat most teacher educators have been trained byuniversity faculty in research methods, and there-fore tend to duplicate the research models they areused to. This pattern may be true not only ofIsrael, but also of other countries in which teachereducation is mainly carried out in specific institu-tions outside the university, subsequently sufferingof lower academic esteem. The need for cross-cultural studies on this issue is evident.On the other hand, it is possible that the present

findings only represent the first phase in thedevelopment of a unique research culture in theteacher colleges. The methodological break-through may occur later on, along with thestabilization of the academic status of thesecolleges. This may be especially true in the Israelicase. Recently, leading teacher colleges wereallowed by the CHE (Council for Higher Educa-tion) (explain in English) to submit proposals forM. Ed. programs, which are now reviewed by aspecial CHE committee. Despite the fact that theseprograms are mainly teaching-oriented, and stu-dents will be exempt from a research thesis, theystill raise the hope of teacher college researchersfor further development of the research culture ofthese institutions (Kfir, 2002). The profile ofresearch in the teacher colleges should thereforebe re-examined in the near future to assess itsfurther potential development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Yogev, A. Yogev / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 32–41 41

References

Ariav, T., Kfir, D., & Fejgin, N. (1993). The ‘‘academization’’

of teacher education in Israel. Teaching Education, 5(2),

151–162.

Ayala (Israeli Association of Educational Research) (2000).

Educational research and its application in a changing

world—The conference book (two volumes). Tel Aviv: Tel

Aviv University (in Hebrew).

Clifford, G. (1973). A history of the impact of research on

teaching. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Handbook of research

on teaching, (2nd ed) (pp. 1–46). New York: Rand, McNally.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/Outside:

Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research

movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7),

15–25.

Foshay, A. W. (1994). Action research: An early history in the

US. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9, 317–325.

Good, C. V. (1963). Introduction to educational research. Y. N.:

Appleton Century Crofts.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the

classroom teacher. London: Routledge.

Huberman, M. (1996). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer

look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73, 124–140.

Kfir, D. (1999). Training teachers for an academic profession—

An introduction. In D. Kfir (Ed.), Training teachers for an

academic profession (pp. 6–15). Jerusalem: Van Leer

Institute (in Hebrew).

Kfir, D. (2002). Research in teacher colleges in the era of M.Ed.

in education: Two obstacles and one hope. Shvilei Mechkar,

7, 6–7 (in Hebrew).

Kfir, D., Libman, Z., & Shamai, S. (1999). The role of research

activities in academic colleges of education. Dapim, 28, 8–16

(in Hebrew).

Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. London: Sage.

Lagemann, E. (1996). Contested terrain: A history of educational

research in the United States. 1890– 1990. Chicago: The

Spencer Foundation.

Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimen-

sions of action research. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of

research in education, Vol. 22 (pp. 305–343). Washington,

DC: American Educational Research Association.

Russell, T., & Korthagen, F. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers who teach

teachers. London: Falmer Press.

Schneider, B. (1987). Tracing the provenance of teacher

education. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), Critical studies in

teacher education (pp. 211–241). London: Falmer Press.

Shamai, S., & Kfir, D. (2002). Research activity and research

culture in academic teachers’ colleges in Israel. Teaching in

Higher Education, 7(4), 397–410.

Somekh, B. (1993). Quality in educational research: The

contribution of classroom teachers. In J. Edge, & K.

Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop, teachers research: Papers

on classroom research and teacher development (pp. 26–38).

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Tzarfati, E. (1999). An intercollegiate research division. Dapim,

29, 163–166 (in Hebrew).

Yair, G. (1999). Research activity in colleges of education:

From dream to reality. Dapim, 29, 144–146 (in Hebrew).

Zeichner, K. M. (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research

and academic research. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 1(2), 153–172.

Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research.

In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching,

(4th ed) (pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American Educa-

tional Research Association.