International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–50

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

jo u r nal h o mep age: w ww.els evier .c o m/lo c ate / i jed ur es

Teacher research in secondary education: Effects on teachers’professional and school development, and issues of quality

Paulien C. Meijer a,*, Helma W. Oolbekkink b, Jacobiene A. Meirink c, Ditte Lockhorst d

a Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlandsb Radboud University, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlandsc ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, P.O. Box 905, 2300 AX Leiden, The Netherlandsd Oberon, P.O. Box 1423, 3500 BK Utrecht, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 5 March 2012

Received in revised form 25 October 2012

Accepted 29 October 2012

Available online 26 November 2012

Keywords:

Teacher research

School–university collaboration

Research quality

Research validity

Teacher learning

School development

A B S T R A C T

This article describes an empirical exploration of three initiatives in which teachers in

secondary education (learn to) research their own practice in collaboration with

university-based research institutes, aiming at professional development and knowledge

construction.

We found evidence of professional development, mainly at the level of the individual

teacher and to a lesser extent at the school level. Teachers reported that they developed

their knowledge and skills with respect to doing research, as well as a more critical

attitude, and consciousness of and intentions to change teaching performance.

Organisational conditions appeared to be related to results at school level.

The article concludes by stating that, if teacher research is to lead to the collaborative

development of more scientifically accepted knowledge, greater attention will need to be

paid to the dissemination of knowledge as well as to the quality assurance of the research

performed.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This article describes the results of an empirical exploration of three initiatives in the Netherlands in which teachers insecondary education (learn to) do research in their own practice. The three initiatives all include collaboration betweenuniversity-based research institutes and several schools providing secondary education (teaching pupils aged 12–18). Basedon experiences with teacher research and inquiry-based teaching (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a; Darling-Hammond,1999), Dutch secondary schools have set up several initiatives enabling teachers to research their own practice. Theseinitiatives are in line with newly developed views on teacher learning, which attempt to create a more attractive teachingprofession, and respond to public demand for more ‘‘academic’’ teachers.

Studies around the globe have shown that collaboration between teachers and researchers significantly adds to teachers’professional development. This is firstly, because teachers regain their interest in scientific issues; and secondly, becauseteachers and researchers exchange their experiences in theory and practice at a deeper level (Dresner & Worley, 2006). Thepresent article combines an in-depth description of three of these initiatives in the Netherlands with an exploration of long-term experience in other countries. In doing so, we aim to provide recommendations for the further development of such

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 253 2141.

E-mail addresses: p.c.meijer@uu.nl (P.C. Meijer), h.oolbekkink@ils.ru.nl (H.W. Oolbekkink), meirink@iclon.leidenuniv.nl (J.A. Meirink),

DLockhorst@oberon.eu (D. Lockhorst).

0883-0355/$ – see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.10.005

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–5040

initiatives. Such a development will also require a reconsideration of the present relations between teachers, schools andresearchers when conducting research in education.

This article aims to answer the following questions:

1. W

hat are the learning outcomes of secondary school teachers’ research for both teachers’ professional development andschool development?

2. H

ow are these learning outcomes related to the organisation of teachers’ research projects in the schools?

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Teacher learning

Nowadays, studies about teacher learning tend to value teachers’ own knowledge and beliefs (see, for an overview,Calderhead, 1996; cf. ‘‘knowledge in practice’’ as described in Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999b) and are often based on the idea thattheir learning is situated in the workplace (e.g., Putnam & Borko, 2000). In a review study on teacher professional development,Van Veen, Zwart, & Meirink (2011) found that teacher learning is fostered when professional development trajectories meet thefollowing criteria: the content needs to be closely related to teachers’ daily teaching practice; teachers should work in closecollaboration with colleagues (cf. Meirink, Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009); a substantial amount of time should be allocated tothe project; and trajectories should be aligned with school policy or a national reform. Also required is a clear idea about how thetrajectory will influence teachers’ knowledge and behaviour in the classroom, a focus on the active participation of teachers andan inquiry-based way of learning. The latter of these has become an increasingly central topic in research studies. Burton andBartlett (2005) viewed teacher research as a highly effective way of working in collaboration with teachers on theirprofessionalisation. Zeichner and Noffke (2001) indicated that, next to contributing to teachers’ personal professionaldevelopment, teacher research also contributes to the teacher knowledge base as well as to the status of the profession.Recently, in the Netherlands as well is in other countries, the context in which teachers’ professional development takes place isalso influenced by a call to ‘‘academise’’ teaching staff. We will elaborate this in the next section.

2.2. ‘‘Academising’’ teaching

Huberman (1996) stated, ‘‘Teachers collect, analyze, and interpret data; and they are meant to do it carefully,systematically, and rigorously’’ (p. 132). Freeman (1998) similarly defined the relationship between education and researchand stated ‘‘that teaching is about asking questions, and that in asking questions, you will learn’’ (p. vi). He maintained thatteachers should ask questions more frequently, which would result in an inquiry-based attitude and a more academicallyinclined interpretation of teacher-hood. About twenty years ago, the concept of ‘‘scholarship’’ was introduced (e.g., Boyer,1990; cf. Coppola, 2007; Hatch, 2005) and this became a crucial concept at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching. The Foundation argues that teachers should aim to be ‘‘Scholarly Practitioners’’; these are individuals who, amongother things, employ inquiry to inform their decisions, are agents of change and possess an ethical obligation to engage incritical examination and to share. Coppola (2007), in line with the work of Boyer (1990), claimed that it is time to abandonthe time-honoured debate about teaching versus research, and focus on the concept of ‘‘scholarship’’, which does morejustice to the full scope of academic work, where teaching and research coincide. In Coppola’s work, scholarship has thefollowing characteristics:

� A

scholar’s work is ‘‘informed’’: the teacher/researcher should be well-informed about the subject of teaching/research andall its designs and methods. Hatch (2005) added that this can only be achieved if teachers collaborate in their teaching/research. � A scholar’s work is ‘‘intentional’’: the teacher/researcher has to be able to underpin all choices in teaching/research based

on his or her aims.

� T he knowledge developed is ‘‘impermanent’’: the teacher/researcher has to be aware that his or her work and knowledge

are always evolving, and never ‘‘done’’.

� R esults and processes in a scholar’s work are ‘‘inheritable’’: this type of work is transferable – it is something which can be

learned. As a condition, results and processes should be public, in order to trace how the results (in teaching/research)came about.

According to Coppola, teaching and research should be integrated. If education is academic in nature, theabovementioned characteristics will apply, so dividing the two is artificial and unnecessary. For example, a teacherobserves students to assess whether they grasped the explanations, and the use of tests allows the teacher to examine thestudents’ learning processes. Bryk (2009) added that in order for this to be the prevailing standard, which is appliedsystematically, teachers and researchers should closely collaborate. This requires that all those involved have an open mind,that is, teachers as well as scientific researchers, school administrators and all others involved in developing knowledge inand about education.

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–50 41

2.3. Teachers doing research

The combination of insights into teacher learning in and from their practice, on the one hand, and the call for a moreacademic interpretation of teaching, on the other hand, is most evident in the initiatives that focus on the teacher-as-researcher, or practitioner research. These initiatives originated in Anglo-Saxon countries about three decades ago. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999a) discerned five features of the initiatives at that time:

1. t

he prominence of teacher research in teacher education, professional development and school reform; 2. t he development of conceptual frameworks and theories of teacher research; 3. t he dissemination of teacher research beyond the local level; 4. t he emergence of a critique of teacher research and the teacher research movement; and, 5. t he transformative potential of teacher research on some aspects of university culture. (p. 15).

A key characteristic is the underlying view of teachers as ‘‘expert knowers’’ when it comes to students and classrooms.Another characteristic is the emphasis on teachers’ own needs, as identified by observation and research, for a betterunderstanding of their students’ learning and knowledge development. It is these characteristics that typify initiatives andprojects that focus on experienced teachers who (learn to) do research. In such initiatives, teachers are explicitly seen asknowers and as agents in their own classrooms and in the broader context of school and education in general (cf. Cochran-Smith & Demers, 2008), and not (implicitly or explicitly) as receivers and implementers of ideas developed by others. Often,teachers themselves initiate such projects and bear full responsibility for the co-development of their knowledge (see alsoHenson, 2001). Some initiatives take it one step further by claiming that this type of teacher research should replace the typeof research that is carried out by research institutes. For example, Mitchell, Reilly, and Logue (2009) claimed:

[collaborative teacher research] represents a substantial shift away from previous models in which research was thepurview of university faculty acting as experts, imposing invasive designs to manipulate, or judge teachers’ practice.(p. 348)

More than ten years ago, Anderson and Herr (1999) described – specifically in the context of the United States andEngland – the growing distrust by academic researchers of research done in schools by teachers. This was based on the viewthat such research would not result in valid and reliable knowledge, and would not stand the test of scientific rigour.Currently, many scientific researchers do not view such types of research as generating knowledge, but as a way of achievingteacher professionalisation, creating career paths for teachers, or school profiling (Kelchtermans, 1994; Ponte, 2002;Mitchell et al., 2009). Furthermore, according to Anderson and Herr (1999), schools often view such initiatives asthreatening, because they imply a change from a culture-of-doing to a culture-of-thinking. They stated that teacher researchcannot be described in terms of the three existing research paradigms: the positivistic, the interpretative and the criticaltheory (cf. Gage, 1989):

. . .the insider status of the researcher, the centrality of action, the requirement of spiraling self-reflection on action,and the intimate, dialectical relationship of research to practice, all make practitioner research alien (and oftensuspect) to researchers who work out of Gage’s three academic paradigms. (Anderson & Herr, 1999, p. 12)

Almost ten years after Anderson and Herr, Cochran-Smith and Demers (2008) described the debate that took place inschools and research institutes and found that it centred on questions of (a) whether teacher research should chiefly be seenas professionalisation, and (b) whether teacher research adds to the (scientific) knowledge base. Question (a) pertains to thefirst research question of this study about the results of teacher research. Question (b) links to a much broader discussionthat, according to Cochran-Smith and Fries (2008), implies a political stance in relation to (student) teacher learning, askingwho decides what counts as research, and what knowledge counts as ‘‘true’’. In addition, Groundwater-Smith and Dadds(2004) described how scientific knowledge comes to be developed increasingly in collaboration with ‘‘the field’’, for example,through collaborative action research. This requires a redefinition of the concept of the research community that willaccentuate relations between researchers and teachers. They claimed that these should not be separate persons in future.

In the remainder of this section we will explore question (a) by taking stock of the results reported in studies across theglobe regarding the professionalisation of teachers and schools. Question (b), which pertains to the issue whether and howthis type of research might add to the development of (scientific) knowledge and the roles of those involved, will bediscussed at the end of this article.

2.4. Learning outcomes of teacher research

Wilson and Berne (1999) described a range of initiatives in teacher research and found that systematic investigationabout what teachers learned in such contexts was lacking – apart from a few simple inventories in which teachers hadindicated that working on such projects was ‘‘useful’’. Moreover, in most of these projects, the results were described in waysthat did not allow for any wider generalisations beyond the individual project in its specific setting. Based on initiatives atthat time, Anderson and Herr (1999) proposed criteria for what they referred to as practitioner research. By doing so, they

Table 1

Five types of validity for practitioner research at initiative level, based on Anderson and Herr (1999).

Type Description

Outcome validity Whether the research undertaken leads to outcomes for teachers and for the school

Democratic validity To what extent and in what way all parties involved in the researched problem are involved in the research

Catalytic validity To what extent all people involved in the study come to understand reality or the problem better, and how this

leads to a transformation of knowledge, beliefs, behaviour, etc., of teacher researchers and others

Dialogic validity The way in which dialogue with peers is sought as a means to guarantee the quality of the research

Process validity To what extent problems are framed and solved in a manner that permits the ongoing learning of the

individual or the system

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–5042

aimed to reveal the opportunities for this type of research and also systematically to enhance its quality. They discerned fivetypes of ‘‘validities’’, which indicate the quality of teacher research carried out in schools: outcome validity, process validity,democratic validity, catalytic validity and dialogic validity (cf. James & Worrall, 2000; Newton & Burgess, 2008). We willelaborate these validities, summarised in Table 1, in a further part of this article. However, Anderson and Herr did notexamine to what extent the initiatives at that time met these criteria.

In a review study on the impact of teacher research in various initiatives in the United States, Zeichner (2003) found thatteachers had started to question assumptions about themselves and about their students, and that they developed newperspectives on their own teaching and on their students. According to Zeichner, this broadening of perspectives related tochanges in teachers’ professional identity, mainly because they had learned to articulate and examine their own ideas aboutteaching and learning. In his review, Zeichner stated that the reported findings, while certainly encouraging and promising,were also incomplete. In each initiative, teachers seemed to work and report in different ways, impeding systematiccomparisons of results and processes. This seems to be partly inevitable, considering the complexity of such initiatives, inwhich there are huge variations in the type of research, its quality, its relation to actual teaching, the school context and thecollaborations with research institutes.

This article aims to describe systematically the results of three initiatives in the Netherlands, in which teachers (learnt to)do research in schools, in collaboration with research institutes. We used the criteria of Anderson and Herr (1999) as theseprovide indications of the quality of the research in these initiatives. Anderson and Herr describe five validities meant to givean indication of the quality of practitioner research, namely outcome validity, process validity, democratic validity, catalyticvalidity and dialogic validity. Outcome validity tests whether the action undertaken in research solves the initial problem andthus leads to outcomes for teachers and for the school. Ideally, solving the problem leads to a more complex understanding ofthe matter under study and thus to new questions for future study. Process validity asks to what extent problems are framedand solved in a manner that permits on-going learning of the individual or the system. This criterion refers to, among otherthings, methodology such as what counts as evidence in practitioner research. Democratic validity asks whether multipleperspectives are taken into account in the study, for instance, by collaborating with stakeholders of the research problem.Catalytic validity indicates to what extent all people involved in the study come to understand reality or the problem better,and how this leads to a transformation of knowledge, beliefs, behaviour, etc., of teacher researchers and others. It stresses theimportance of learning to know reality and encouraging participants to transform it. Finally, dialogic validity stresses theimportance of a critical dialogue with peers about the research project in order to guarantee a certain level of quality. Thesevalidities are summarised in Table 1. In the method section we describe in further detail how we used these validities in ourstudy.

3. Method

3.1. Initiatives and participants

We focused on the processes and products of three initiatives in the Netherlands, in which teachers in secondaryeducation researched their own lessons and/or school practice. The three initiatives each lasted about one year upon time ofdata collection. In Table 2 the characteristics of the three initiatives are briefly described. The names of schools and teachersare not mentioned in this article in order to guarantee anonymity. Since the organisation of the teacher research projects inthe three initiatives showed many similarities, we chose to describe the initiatives rather than the eleven schools separately.The three initiatives are referred to as A, B and C. Participating schools within each initiative are referred to with numbers.

3.2. Data collection

A general framework was used for designing interview guides, which were slightly adapted in each of the three initiativesto fit the context. All teachers (n = 45) and administrators (n = 16) were interviewed individually. The interviews lastedapproximately 30–45 min and contained two main subjects: the outcomes of research for teachers’ professionaldevelopment and school development; and the organisation of this research within the school and the initiative. With regardto the outcomes of the teachers’ research projects questions such as the following were asked: ‘‘What are the outcomes of

Table 2

Characteristics of the initiatives.

Initiative A Initiative B Initiative C

Number of schools 4 3 4

Number of participating

teachers/administrators

15 accomplished teachers 20 accomplished teachers 10 accomplished teachers

5 administrators 6 administrators 5 administrators

Teachers’ subjects – Mathematics (3)

– Science (1)

– Biology (1)

– Dutch language (3)

– English (1)

– French (2)

– German (1)

– Economics (2)

– History (1)

– Chemistry (2)

– Biology (2)

– Dutch language (4)

– French (1)

– English (2)

– Classical languages

(Latin/Greek) (1)

– Economics (1)

– Geography (2)

– History (2)

– Social studies (1)

– Visual & Art Education (1)

– Business economics (1)

– Technique (1)

– English (1)

– Dutch (2)

– Science (2)

– Philosophy

– Geography (2)

– Visual and Art education (1)

Participation 3 Schools: voluntarily

1 School: obligatory

Voluntarily Voluntarily

Goal Enlarge training possibilities for

in-service teachers, contribute

to development of teacher

education starting from school

as the context of applied research.

Stimulate an active research

attitude in teachers, contributing

to school development.

Encourage a systematic way to

investigate school practice for

teachers, so they can deal critically

and in a grounded way with innovations.

Stimulate research culture.

Supervision design – Supervised by 2 researchers

– Supervision in 2-h meetings with

teachers from all schools

– Supervision on demand

– Supervised by 3 researchers

– 6 workshops on research skills

(duration 2 h)

– (monthly) Supervision

on demand

– Supervised by an in-service

training centre (6 sessions

at the centre and school

visits or email guidance)

– Training on research skills

– Supervision on demand

– Supervision by experienced

teacher researchers on

demand (at one school)

Time Structural time

(160 h)

Structural time

(150–200 h)

No or limited structural time

(a possibility of declaring hours

afterwards)

Time pressure Time pressure

Clash research– teaching Clash research– teaching Clash research– teaching

Positioning No specific attention No specific attention Attention to positioning initiative

in the school by management team

and teacher researchers

Output Requirement: research report Requirement: research report No requirements

Collaboration Pairs/triads 1 school: pairs/triads

2 schools: individual

Individual

Topics of research

projects & data

collection instruments

Free (within framework formulated

by school)

Examples

– Evaluation of student learning in

independent study periods (teacher

and student questionnaires)

– Effect of teacher training course on use

of language in teaching practice lessons

(student and teacher questionnaires)

– Teacher competencies in pre-vocational

secondary education and senior general

secondary education/pre-university

education

(interviews and questionnaires)

1 school: free

2 schools: free within framework

formulated by school

Examples

– Conditions for successful

implementation of Cambridge

English (interviews, literature

study, observations)

– Students choices for ‘‘technasium’’

(literature study, interviews,

participant observation,

document analysis)

– Improving reading strategies

in French (intervention

with pre- and post-test)

3 schools: free

1 school: management team

involved in choice

Examples

– Evaluation of the use of an

open study centre at school

(teacher and student

questionnaires)

– Explorative study on the

concept of ‘student mentoring

and care’ (teacher questionnaire

and interviews)

– Design research on a new way

of student preparation for

exams in English. Focus on

text assignment (student

questionnaire and interviews)

Level/nature of

research (local validity)

Mainly research on school-wide issues Mainly research at classroom level Mainly research on school-wide issues

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–50 43

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–5044

doing research for teachers themselves?’’, ‘‘What are the outcomes for students?’’, ‘‘What are the outcomes for colleagues?’’and ‘‘What are the outcomes for the school?’’ With regard to the organisation of this research, the questions asked included:‘‘How did the research process develop?’’, and ‘‘How was this research process supported, by whom and in what way?’’Interviews with school administrators followed the same interview scheme as the interviews with the teachers.

The interviews were conducted about one year after the start of the initiatives. In all cases the initiatives had a plannedduration of at least three years in total, which means that the interviews could not be considered as reflecting the final resultsof the initiatives.

3.3. Data analysis

The analysis consisted of the following four steps:

1. A

s a first step, we used the criteria for practitioner research described by Anderson and Herr (1999; see Table 1) tosummarise the data for each school. All relevant quotations of teachers and school administrators were identified,transcribed and selected for further analysis.

2. T

wo researchers independently grouped and labelled all selected quotations of the interviews with both administratorsand teachers, by type of validity. Grouping and labelling were discussed until consensus was reached (see Table 3,columns 2 and 3). Four of the five validities were used. A fifth type, the process validity, which addresses the question ofwhether practitioner research fosters a continuous or permanent development for teachers, was not included in theanalysis as we found no data that provided clear information about this validity. This probably would have required datacollection at several points in time and over a longer period.

3. F

or each type of validity we scored which kind of outcome was mentioned at each school. To answer the first questionabout the outcomes of research we searched for similarities and differences between teachers versus schooladministrators, between schools and between the three initiatives for each type of validity. More specifically, we studiedthe frequencies in which the different (subcategories of) outcomes were mentioned and the distribution of the answersover the initiatives.

4. F

inally, we examined whether similarities in outcomes were related to similarities in organisation characteristics. Tworesearchers independently considered whether the differences in outcomes between the three initiatives could be relatedto differences in the ways in which teacher research was organised within a particular initiative.

4. Results

4.1. Learning outcomes of teacher research

In order to answer research Question 1 (What are the learning outcomes of secondary school teachers’ research for bothteachers’ professional development and school development?), an overview of results is provided in Table 3 grouped foroutcome validity, democratic validity, catalytic validity and dialogic validity. In the explanatory text that follows the mostprominent results for each initiative are illuminated. Next, similarities and differences between schools are reported andillustrated with excerpts from the interviews.

4.2. Learning outcomes in Initiative A

With respect to outcome validity, Table 3 shows that in Initiative A the teachers in the four participating schools allreported an increase in research knowledge and skills. Also, a large part of the teachers reported a more critical attitudetowards their own functioning and to school policy. Both were also perceived by the school administrators. For the secondtype of validity it appeared that colleagues, other than fellow teacher researchers, were not actively involved in the researchprojects. Students and colleagues were often respondents in the research projects. The third type of validity, catalyticvalidity, shows a more diffuse image in Initiative A: teachers in school 1 and 3 reported most changes in their knowledge,behaviour and attitude towards teaching as a result of being a teacher researcher. Finally, for dialogic validity Table 3 showsthat all schools in Initiative A succeeded in knowledge sharing both inside and outside the school. They presented the(preliminary) findings of their research projects to colleagues, management teams and teacher researchers from otherschools.

4.3. Learning outcomes in Initiative B

In Initiative B, the teachers in all three participating schools reported an increase in research knowledge and skills, andthis was also reported by school administrators. In two schools an increase in critical attitude towards own functioning andwith regard to school policy was reported. For the democratic validity, teachers in all schools reported that colleaguesshowed little involvement in the studies they undertook. However, school board and coordinators did take an interest. Theyfurthermore reported getting feedback from fellow teacher researchers. In terms of catalytic validity various transformations

Table 3

Four types of validities, categories and subcategories and reported outcomes in schools.

Validity Categories Subcategories/explanation Reported in schools:

Outcome validity Research knowledge and skills � With regard to own functioning (more

and deeper reflection)

A1, A2, A3, A4; B1, B2, B3;

C1, C2, C3, C4

Critical attitude � With regard to school policy (asking

critical questions)

A2, A3, A4; B1, B2; C1, C2, C3, C4

A1, A2, A3; C2, C3

Knowledge of literature � About subject of research

� About education in general

A1, A2, A4; B1, B2; C1, C2

A1; C2

Knowledge about students � Related to subject of research A4

Culture change in school � More involvement of teachers in school

policy by asking critical questions

C1, C2, C3

Democratic validity Involvement of colleagues � Colleagues show little

� Feedback on research by fellow teacher

researchersnvolvement in study

� Coordinators/school board take an

interest in the research

� Colleagues are involved in helping to

find direction for the research

A1, A3, A4; B1, B2, B3; C1, C4

A1, A2, A3, A4; B1, B2, B3; C1

A2, A4; B1, B2, B3; C1, C3

B2; C1, C3

Students/colleagues as

respondents

� Students and/or colleagues are

respondents in the research

A1, A2, A4; B2, B3; C1, C2, C3

Students as researchers � Students carry out observations C2

Catalytic validity Transformation of knowledge � Knowledge with respect to subject

matter, e.g., using literature

A1; B3; C1

Transformation in behaviour

(self and others)

� Developing artefacts, e.g., lesson

materials for colleagues

� Pedagogy, different teaching methods,

coaching

A3; B2, B3; C1, C3

A1, A4; B1, B2, B3

Transformation in attitude � Raising consciousness, e.g., thinking more

about consequences of own teaching

behaviour and students’ problems

� Openness towards students

� Critical attitude towards own

teaching practice

A3; B1, B2, B3; C2

A1, A3; B3; C1

A3; B2; C2

Dialogic validity Knowledge sharing outside

school

� Distributing research outcomes, e.g.,

(project specific) conferences,

or publishing articles in journals

A1, A2, A3, A4; B1, B2, B3;

C1, C2, C3, C4

Formal/informal knowledge

sharing within the school

� Informal with both teacher researchers

and colleagues

� Formal, e.g., by presenting the results

to the management team, or by writing

in the school journal for colleagues

� Formal research meetings/workshops

within the school for teacher researchers

in which they act as ‘‘critical friends’’

� Research coaching by colleagues

C1, C3

A2, A3; C1, C2, C3

A1, A2, A3, A4; B1, B2, B3

B1, B2; C4

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–50 45

are reported, but in only one school was transformation of knowledge included with respect to subject matter. In all threeschools transformations in behaviour are reported mainly with regard to using different teaching methods and developingartefacts (lesson materials). Also, raising consciousness and thinking more about one’s own teaching practice was reported inall three schools in Initiative B. Lastly, for dialogic validity teachers in all schools reported distributing research results,confirmed by school administrators. Considering knowledge sharing in schools this was mainly related to formal researchmeetings or workshops in the school.

4.4. Learning outcomes in Initiative C

Participants of Initiative C reported the learning outcomes of research knowledge and skills. The teachers of all fourschools of Initiative C emphasised in the interviews the development of a critical attitude towards their own functioning andin relation to decision-making on school level (e.g., ‘‘As I became a better researcher, I also became a more critical teacher’’.)Other than in Initiative A and B, both teachers and school administrators of Initiative C reported a cultural change in schools.This cultural change was, according to these participants, characterised by an increased involvement of teachers in schoolpolicy by asking critical questions, for instance, during team meetings and internal conferences.

With regard to the democratic validity, Table 3 shows that although colleagues helped find direction for the research andschool managers took an interest in two schools, in the other two schools colleagues had little interest and were hardlyinvolved. Students and teachers were often respondents in the research projects. In one school, students even carried outpart of the research. For the catalytic validity, Table 3 shows a skew image for Initiative C. One school reportedtransformation of knowledge, behaviour and attitude, while another school reported none. The other schools reported ontransformation of behaviour and attitude respectively. On dialogic validity, the schools of Initiative C show a different picture

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–5046

than the schools of both other Initiatives. Knowledge sharing outside the school was mainly concentrated on internalconferences of Initiative C. Knowledge sharing within school was far less mentioned by the Initiative C schools. Sometimesteacher researchers discussed their research informally, but there were no formal research meetings, except formalpresentations to the school management.

4.5. Comparison of findings from the three initiatives

We found many similarities with respect to outcome validity – which refers to whether the research undertaken leads tooutcomes for teachers and schools – in the different schools. In terms of participation in the initiative, teachers in all schoolsdeveloped knowledge and skills in doing research, including knowledge related to research methods, and skills in datacollection and analysis. The school administrators also reported an increase in teachers’ research skills. In addition, themajority of the teachers, with the exception of teachers in two schools, indicated that they had developed a critical attitudetowards their own functioning in the classroom. For example:

I have become less impulsive. Whether that is positive or negative I don’t know. When I read something I used to think:that’s nice, I should do something with that. But now I am more inclined to think: what does it mean if I start this.

Reported outcomes show mainly differences between schools on school level. The most salient were that in Initiative Bteachers and administrators did not report the development of a critical attitude by the teacher researchers towards schoolpolicy, and that changes in school culture and work experience were mainly reported in Initiative C. The latter refers togreater depth and challenge in teachers’ roles, and to the changed collaboration between colleagues.

Table 3 shows many similarities between schools when democratic validity – to what extent and in what way all partiesinvolved in the researched problem are involved in the research – is considered. For example, both students and colleagueteachers – with the exception of two schools – were involved as respondents in the teachers’ studies. Students functioning as co-researchers were rare; this occurred only in one school. The involvement of colleague teachers in research was ineffective sincecolleagues thought of the research as ‘‘showing off’’, or were cynical during interchange on the teachers’ research projects:

There is – because they don’t know very well what it’s all about – a kind of envy of some kind. ‘‘Are you leaving again?Academic school? Yeah, right’’. This is probably related to the pretentiousness. Academic. . . they should have called itresearch group. . .

Catalytic validity deals with the question of whether the research resulted in a better understanding of the researchproblem and whether this leads to a transformation in knowledge, behaviour and/or attitude. The teachers in this study didnot explicitly report a better understanding of the research problem, although a transformation of behaviour and attitudeseems to imply that. Some differences were found in catalytic validity between the schools of the three initiatives. In twoschools (A2 and C4) none of the teachers or school leaders reported results belonging to catalytic validity. At seven schools,raised consciousness and intention to change behaviour were mentioned (as indicative of transformation in attitude):

Well, in that sense, I do look more critically to myself now, there are things I can improve based on the research, andyou see things such as ‘‘Hey! When I do it this way then my students are more involved’’. And these are things that candevelop over time.

At nine schools teachers reported a change in behaviour (in their own teaching practice), referring to developing studymaterials or to a change in pedagogy. For example:

In the classroom my students do not sit in rows anymore, they do not write in their books anymore, but I stimulate anactivating way of working all the time. I’ve learned that from my research project . . . and I teach everything now in theway that I learned from my research.

With regard to dialogic validity, which refers to the way in which dialogue with peers is sought as a way of guaranteeingquality, we found that all schools disseminated the research results outside their own school by, among other things,presentations at conferences or publishing articles in journals. Teachers in schools from Initiatives A and B regularlyconsulted each other about their research projects, sometimes with a researcher from a participating university present atsuch meetings. In contrast, teachers from schools in Initiative C had more informal conversations about their researchprojects with both teacher researchers and other colleagues. In five schools from Initiatives A and C the teachers also formallypresented their research results for the management team or in a school journal for colleagues.

A closer look at the right-hand column of Table 3 shows relatively little difference between the schools with respect todemocratic validity. For outcome validity, we found many similarities between the three Initiatives. The three initiatives onlyshowed differences between schools related to outcome validity in the development of a critical attitude towards school policyand a change in school culture. More profound differences between schools are found for catalytic validity and dialogic validity.

4.6. Organisation

To define which elements of the initiatives worked out well, we analysed how teacher research was organised at thedifferent schools. This relates to the second research question: ‘‘How do these results [of the three initiatives] relate to the

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–50 47

way these initiatives are organised?’’ Table 2 lists the similarities and differences in the organisational characteristics of thethree initiatives. Here, we will focus specifically on the differences found.

A small difference can be found in the nature of teacher research projects. In Initiatives A and C in particular, teachersconducted their research at the level of school policy, while in Initiative B, the research topics were mostly aimed at dailyteaching practices or cross-curricular matters. Another difference between the schools concerns the structural time (i.e. atimetabled allowance) teachers received for their research projects, which varied from none or limited structural time to200 h in one year (Initiative B). The teachers who were allocated less structural time experienced a high workload pressure.All teachers reported clashes between the nature of doing research (it requires peace and space) and their teaching activities(which can be characterised as ‘‘ad hoc and hectic’’).

Additionally, only in Initiatives A and B were requirements formulated for teachers’ research output. In these twoinitiatives teachers worked individually, in pairs, or in groups of three, whereas in Initiative C most teachers workedindividually on their research projects. Finally, differences can be found in the ways in which the research projects werepositioned in schools. In Initiative C, relatively greater attention was given by school managers to positioning the initiativewithin the existing school structures. In Initiatives A and B this occurred less often.

Relating the findings for the validities of each initiative (right-hand column of Table 3) to organisational characteristics(Table 1), we found that the differences in validities appear to be related to differences in organisational characteristics of theinitiatives. To be more specific, the development of a critical attitude towards school policy was only found in the schools ofInitiatives A and C, and not in schools of Initiative B. This difference might be explained by the variation in nature of theresearch projects. In Initiatives A and C, the research mostly concerned school-wide issues, whereas in Initiative B theresearch mostly dealt with classroom issues. By doing research on a school-wide basis, teachers come in contact with policychoices and apparently look at these choices critically.

In addition, a change in school culture was only reported in Initiative C. The teachers in this initiative reported thatcolleagues showed a more critical attitude and asked more questions related to school policy and during decision-makingprocesses. This outcome can be related to the concern of school managers to position this initiative within the structures ofthe school, which was evident more often in Initiative C than in Initiatives A or B.

In two schools (A2 and C4) teachers reported no outcomes for catalytic validity. Since the teachers of other schools withinthe same initiative did report outcomes for this type of validity, this result cannot be explained by differences in theorganisational characteristics of the particular initiatives.

Finally, for dialogic validity a difference was found in how teachers discussed their research projects. Teachers in InitiativeC reported on their research projects less often at formal meetings with colleagues, and there was no collegial feedback fromother teacher researchers. On the other hand, teachers from schools in Initiatives A and B reported mainly formal exchangeswith colleagues and other teacher researchers about their research outcomes. This difference can be related to the amount ofstructural time teachers were allotted for their research projects and the level of collaboration. In Initiatives A and B teacherswere allotted an amount of structural time for their research projects and often worked in pairs or groups of three. This madeit possible to organise meetings in which teachers could function as critical friends. In the schools of Initiative C no structuraltime was available for teachers and they mostly worked individually. Despite differences in the requirements for output andthe coaching/training of teacher researchers in schools, no relation to organisational characteristics of the three initiativescould be found.

5. Conclusions and discussion

With regard to the first question of this article (What do initiatives involving teacher research projects result in for bothteachers and schools [after one or two years]?), we can conclude that these initiatives lead to outcomes for individualteachers. All teachers identified outcomes in terms of improved knowledge and skills in relation to doing research. They alsoidentified a more critical attitude, and the realisation of and (intention to) change actions in the classroom were mentionedby a large number of teachers as an outcome of the research. To a lesser extent, results at the level of the school werereported. Only representatives from Initiative C reported changes in school culture. The involvement of teachers’ colleaguesin research was negligible in most schools.

The second research question (How do the results relate to the way these initiatives are organised?) concerns therelationship of the results to the characteristics of the organisation of the examined initiatives. We found that there was littleevidence of a relationship between the results at a teacher level and the way the initiatives were organised within the schoolsin the period of time (one or two years) that was studied. In other words, despite their differences, the three examinedinitiatives lead to approximately similar outcomes for the individual participating teachers.

We did find indications of a relationship between the results at a school level and the way the initiatives in the schoolswere organised. At schools where teachers developed a critical attitude towards school policy (Initiatives A and C), theresearch projects were mainly focused on whole school or policy issues, while in Initiative B the research focused more on theclassroom. Participants in Initiative B never mentioned the development of a critical attitude towards school policy.Furthermore, schools participating in Initiative C reported a cultural change in their schools; in these schools, managementpaid explicit attention to the positioning of the initiatives within the schools, and in some cases by the teacher researchersthemselves (see Table 3). In both Initiative A and B there was no attention to such a positioning of the initiatives, and a changein school culture was not reported. We came across dialogic validity in and outside the school in Initiatives A and B and to a

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–5048

far lesser extent in Initiative C. Within these initiatives the teachers acted as ‘‘critical friends’’ by, among other things, doingresearch in pairs and trios, structurally organising peer feedback, and organising internal conferences.

Interestingly, James and Worrall (2000) argued that teacher researchers should refer more to other teacher researchers,and not just rely on the work of academics. Referring to dialogical validity, they took the view that ‘‘the need for evidence,open to peer critique, is axiomatic to any activity that claims to be research’’ (p. 112). The need to openly discuss researchfindings is, however, not automatically supported by schools. Also, Van de Ven (2007) found that dialogue, which he claims isessential for obtaining critical insight, is often missing in practice-based research.

When considering these conclusions in relation to the question of whether education in the schools and the teachersthemselves have become more ‘‘academic’’, we refer to the discussion on the value of teacher research in the introduction tothis article. Coppola (2007) argued that we primarily need to take into account the development of teachers’ scholarship,which means that teachers’ work is informed, intentional, impermanent and inheritable. The teachers in this study appearedto work particularly on the idea that teachers should be informed. They gained knowledge and skills in research methods andin gathering knowledge on their research subject. However, it appeared to be difficult to transfer this knowledge to others,within or outside the school. In most cases, the individual teachers viewed themselves as informed. Only occasionally didteachers indicate that they hoped that processes within the school would be better informed, but this entailed no more than‘‘more questions are being asked’’.

According to many of the teachers, the intentionality of the research within schools is expressed by their critical attitudetowards the choices they make in their work. The teachers considered that they are now making more substantiated choices,in other words, they are assessing their choices on the basis of their past or future goals. Interestingly, this does not onlyapply to the research that the teachers carried out. A number of teachers indicated explicitly that they are now substantiatingother choices relating to their teaching practice as well as the aims they have in their teaching (cf. Zeichner, 2003). Moreover,school administrators indicated that they could see that the teachers concerned were now asking other more criticalquestions in the school, as a result of which well-grounded choices were being made at the school level. In fact, this was oneof the outcomes of the initiatives most appreciated by school leaders. Interestingly, this issue goes further than thedescription of intentionality given by Coppola (2007). Coppola took the lessons of the individual teacher and research as thestarting point, whereas we found that the orientation towards well-grounded choices went further and included schoolpolicy as a whole.

The impermanence of the initiatives was particularly commented on by individual teachers. A majority indicated thatevery research initiative resulted in new questions, that their research would never finish and that their own teaching (andthe teaching practice in school) would continue to develop. To school administrators this appeared to be a more difficultissue, and to some teachers as well; they would prefer to see direct results coming from their research. They would like tofind solutions to problems, which are subsequently settled. The awareness that every research generates new (and oftenmore) questions, demands change from both teachers and schools, as this is a way of thinking that might be new for them.

The inheritability turned out to be a difficult issue. There certainly is an intention to make research results transferable,and on a small scale this has also happened. For instance, teachers presented their research during conferences and in interimreports, but they were not used to writing research papers, which they found difficult. In combination with school leaderswho expect ‘‘solutions’’, this placed a weight on the teachers’ shoulders. Here, we can see a relationship with the work ofVogrinc and Zuljan (2009), who found that for teachers writing research reports was one of the less interesting activities ofthe research process. Moreover, this is the activity most distant from the hectic pace of daily teaching practice; it demandstime and space and teachers find it difficult to create these.

These conclusions point to a difference between the outcomes for the individual teacher researchers, on the one hand, andfor the school, on the other. Therefore, the next question is how the research, the research results and the participation insuch an initiative might lead to developments in the school, for example, a change in school culture. This was one of the mostimportant aspects considered at the start of the three initiatives, and affects the way one thinks about teachers’ professionaldevelopment (see Cochran-Smith & Demers, 2008). In the described initiatives we found many differences in the relationshipbetween individual development and school development. A number of schools intended to make this relationship moreexplicit, and experimented with the design of this on a small scale.

A further debate concerns the question of whether this type of research is important for developing scientific knowledge(see, for example, Groundwater-Smith & Dadds, 2004). Research institutes have criticised the quality of teacher research(e.g., Van de Ven, 2007; Newton & Burgess, 2008) and see these initiatives primarily as a form of professional development,while in schools teacher research is not considered to be part of the job as a teacher. Teacher researchers regularly receivedremarks from their colleagues that they had ‘‘better get to work’’ (see also Anderson & Herr, 1999). This issue relates to thedialogic validity and the inheritability of the research. We might conclude that such inheritability is still in its infancy,although it should be noted that the initiatives had only been running for one or two years. One is aware of the importance ofdescribing results in a way that is transparent and transferable, but until now, this is hardly a tradition in schools. Whetherresearch, such as in the described initiatives, can be considered ‘‘real’’ research was questioned both within schools and theacademic world (the term is debated in Metz & Page, 2002). More attention to dialogic validity and inheritability is necessaryfor a better acceptance of teacher research within the academic world as well as schools (cf. James & Worrall, 2000).

A final conclusion concerns the classification of Anderson and Herr (1999), which we adopted in this article to analyse thedata. The four types of validity we used – outcome validity, democratic validity, catalytic validity and dialogic validity –jointly provide an analytic framework to describe the effects of teacher research in a more extended way than most

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–50 49

frameworks that have been used until now. These are mainly restricted to direct outcomes for the teachers, comparable tothe outcome validity. But schools appear to differ also on the other three types of validity, and it is precisely on thesevalidities that the international debate on the usefulness of teacher research is concentrated.

6. Recommendations

Our findings strengthen the suggestion that research should take place in collaboration, in order to create a situation inwhich knowledge is generated by teachers and contributes to knowledge development about education. Firstly, with regardto collaboration between teacher researchers, Mitchell et al. (2009) emphasised that collaborative action research leads togood results, especially for novice teachers who, together with more experienced colleagues, can gain a better insight intothe relationship between theory and teaching practice. Secondly, collaboration with people outside the research group, suchas immediate colleagues, teachers from other schools, students, or parents, represents an elaboration of the democraticvalidity of Anderson and Herr (1999), and implies that knowledge in these contexts should be generated in dialogue withthose for whom the research results might have consequences (see also Bryk, 2009). This goes beyond the principle of criticalfriends, because the same requirements with respect to peer review have to be met as in academic research. Thirdly, inconnection with collaboration between teachers and academics, Darling-Hammond and Snyder (2000) described thesupervision of teachers as essential for professional development in this type of research. Moreover, if the aim is to generateknowledge that is of use to teachers themselves, and to the school, other schools and the scientific knowledge base, thissupervision must grow into collaboration between schools and research institutes which is aimed at the production of suchknowledge (see also Newton & Burgess, 2008; Bryk, 2009; Vogrinc & Zuljan, 2009). McNiff (2002) discussed collaborativeaction research, in which both teachers and academics are involved, as a way of improving education, locally and elsewhere,and the body of knowledge about teaching. However, this will only work well if all parties involved perceive themselves aslearners (Noffke, 1997), and this includes developing a focus on all issues regarding scholarship.

The next recommendation addresses the accessibility of research results. There is no tradition of this in schools andcollaboration with research institutes helps to make research accessible. The latter relates to the inheritability and thedialogic validity, as described in the present article and elsewhere, which have not yet been realised in the initiatives of thisstudy, but are crucial for taking this type of research seriously, as indicated most effectively in Newton and Burgess (2008).According to Freeman (1998), the results of teacher research only have an effect on teacher behaviour when they arereported correctly, and are easily accessible. For teachers and schools this is difficult. Only in collaboration with researchinstitutes can results be made accessible. This means that the supervising institutes not only supervise the development ofresearch skills, but the development of all types of validity.

The third recommendation relates to the use of the classification of Anderson and Herr (1999) for the analysis of this typeof initiative. It would be interesting to determine whether this classification, especially the democratic, catalytic and dialogicvalidity, can be used to stipulate the further direction of initiatives for teacher research in schools. This could increase thequality of teacher research in the future. Of course, we note here that a fifth validity, the process validity, has not been takeninto account in this article. With additional data collection this certainly should be considered in future.

A last recommendation – and maybe the most important – is that teachers, schools and research institutes shouldredefine the relation between teachers and knowledge. Teachers do not consider themselves as knowledge producers; theylook at themselves as knowledge users (see also Freeman, 1998). Many schools and academics also see the teachers’ role asknowledge user. A context for teacher research in which schools and research institutes collaborate requires a fundamentallydifferent definition of the relation between knowledge and teachers. It also requires a change from a ‘‘doing’’ culture to a‘‘thinking’’ culture in school (cf. Ellstrom, 2008).

Finally, in the eyes of the participating teachers these initiatives are significant, but such types of initiative takeconsiderable time and effort and will only succeed when all concerned are prepared to perceive themselves as learners (cf.Bryck, 2009). This is an extension of the types of validity described by Anderson and Herr (1999), because it concerns learningby all those involved. The next step is to examine what is needed to allow this collaborative learning, or the development of acollaborative scholarship, to take place.

References

Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher,28(5), 12–21, 40.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bryk, A. S. (2009). A message from the president. Retrieved from: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/

index.asp.Burton, D., & Bartlett, S. (2005). Practitioner research for teachers. London: SAGE.Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(15), 15–25.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.Cochran-Smith, M., & Demers, K. E. (2008). How do we know what we know? Research and teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J.

McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 1009–1016). New York: Routledge.Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2008). Research on teacher education: Changing times, changing paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J.

McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 1050–1093). New York: Routledge.Coppola, B. P. (2007). The most beautiful theories. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(12), 1902–1912.

P.C. Meijer et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 39–5050

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523–545.Dresner, M., & Worley, E. (2006). Teacher research experiences, partnerships with scientists and teacher networks sustaining factors from professional

development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 1–14.Ellstrom, P. (2008, September). Knowledge creation through interactive research: A learning approach. Paper presented at the European conference on

educational research. Gothenburg, Sweden.Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. London: Heinle & Heinle.Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A historical sketch of research on teaching. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.Groundwater-Smith, S., & Dadds, M. (2004). Critical practitioner inquiry: Towards responsible professional communities of practice. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.),

International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 238–263). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Hatch, T. (2005). Into the classroom: Developing the scholarship of teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 819–836.Huberman, M. (1996). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73(2), 124–140.James, M., & Worrall, N. (2000). Building a reflective community: Development through collaboration between a higher education institute and one school over 10

years. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 93–114.Kelchtermans, G. (1994). Actie-onderzoek, een strategie voor professionele ontwikkeling [Action research a strategy for professional development]. Schoolleiding

en Begeleiding [School Leadership and Supervision], 12, 137–167.McNiff, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. London: Routledge.Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2009). Understanding teacher learning in secondary education: The relations of teacher activities to

changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 89–100.Metz, M. H., & Page, R. N. (2002). The uses of practitioner research and status issues in educational research: Reply to Gary Anderson. Educational Researcher, 31(7),

26–27.Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R. C., & Logue, M. E. (2009). Benefits of collaborative action research for the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 344–349.Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2008). Exploring types of educational action research: Implications for research validity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,

7(4), 18–30.Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal and political dimensions of action research. Review of Research in Education, 22, 305–343.Ponte, P. (2002). Actie-onderzoek voor docenten: uitvoering en begeleiding in theorie en praktijk [Action research for teachers: Implementation and support in

theory and practice]. Dissertation. Utrecht University, Utrecht, Nederland.Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–

15.Van de Ven, P. H. (2007). A collaborative dialogue—Research in Dutch language education. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(3), 112–132.Van Veen, K., Zwart, R. C., & Meirink, J. A. (2011). What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. In M. Kooy & K. van Veen (Eds.),

Teacher learning that matters (pp. 3–21). New York: Routledge.Vogrinc, J., & Zuljan, M. V. (2009). Action research in schools. An important factor in teachers’ professional development. Educational Studies, 35(1), 53–63.Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional

development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301–326.Zeichner, K., & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.