University Science Teachers as Researchers: Blurring the Scholarship Boundaries

Research in Science Education (2005) 35: 281–298 © Springer 2005DOI: 10.1007/s11165-004-5600-x

University Science Teachers as Researchers:Blurring the Scholarship Boundaries

Sandra K. AbellUniversity of Missouri, Columbia

Abstract

In this paper I examine the phenomenon of university teachers as researchers in their own classrooms.I use examples of three research teams in which we studied: (1) student response to a science andsociety course; (2) teacher and student perceptions of inquiry in a physics course; and (3) teachingand learning about the nature of science in an elementary science pedagogy course. In addition todescribing each study, I compare their purposes, researcher roles, and actions taken. I use thesecomparisons to address the ideological clashes and dilemmas of ownership, action, and quality thatarise in this kind of research. Finally, I comment upon the significance of university teachers asresearchers for themselves, their institutions, and the research community.

Key Words: action research, college/university science teaching, self-study, teacher research

Teachers at all levels are concerned about their effectiveness. We want to know:Am I having an impact on my students? This question reveals concerns about bothself-efficacy and student learning. At the university level, the question is also perti-nent to the rewards structure – can I demonstrate to the promotion committee that myteaching is effective? Can I maintain my scholarship at the same time that I reflecton my teaching and my students’ learning? The purpose of this paper is to open a di-alogue about how university instructors can work to improve their own teaching andtheir students’ learning in scholarly ways. In particular, I will explore the variabilityand viability of teacher research in undergraduate science instruction.

In this paper I examine the phenomenon of university teachers as researchers intheir own classrooms, using examples of three research teams with which I have beeninvolved. First, I describe the studies. Second, I compare the purposes, researcherroles, and actions taken within these three studies. Next, I address the ideologicalclashes and dilemmas of ownership, action, and quality that arise in this kind of re-search. Finally, I comment upon the significance of university teachers as researchersfor themselves, their institutions, and the research community.

Theoretical Underpinnings

The argument in this paper derives from two separate but related literatures. Thefirst, led by Ernest Boyer (1997), reconsiders the traditional university triad of teach-

282 SANDRA K. ABELL

ing, research, and service. Boyer recommended a more integrated view of schol-arship. He redefined the work of the professorate as encompassing four types ofscholarship: the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching.

What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar – a recognitionthat knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching.(p. 24)

I will argue that this view of faculty work does not go far enough, because it continuesto set boundaries to the activities of scholarship, boundaries which could constrainour work. We need to conceive of the intellectual project of the professorate as farmore integrated than this. University teachers as researchers blur the boundaries ofscholarship and create a fuzziness in between Boyer’s categories that may help usredefine the professorate once more.

The second literature from which I derive my claims is the teacher research move-ment led by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993). Fenstermacher (1994) outlined fourresearch programs that have changed the face of teacher knowledge research: Clan-dinin and Connelly’s work on personal practical knowledge through teacher narrative(Clandinin, 1992; Clandinin & Connelly, 1996); Schön’s notions of reflective prac-tice for professional development (Schön, 1983, 1987, 1991); Shulman’s researchprogram on teacher knowledge types (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986; Wilson,Shulman, & Richert, 1987); and Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s leadership in the teacherresearcher movement (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, 1999a, 1999b). These researchprograms have shifted the perspective of teacher knowledge from knowledge pro-duced by others to knowledge residing within teachers. Furthermore, according toFenstermacher, the work of these research programs, and in particular the teacheras researcher movement, has reframed issues of knower and known in research onteaching, from teachers as objects of research to teachers as co-researchers.

The teacher research literature has expanded in recent years by the inclusion ofself-study, typically teacher research carried out by teacher educators in universitysettings (Hamilton, 1998; Loughran & Russell, 2002). These studies suggest theusefulness of teacher research as a form of professional development. Yet, whetherteacher research or self-study, studies that involve teachers in examining their ownpractice and their students’ learning are guided by an action research framework.Action research is undergirded by the belief that research is a reflexive endeavour, notthe application of pre-specified methods. It is a tool to change and enhance practice.“Action research aims to help those people directly concerned with a situation underresearch . . . to articulate, validate, and develop their views and to design action inorder to improve the situation they live in” (Altrichter, 1993, p. 40). An iterative cycleof planning, action, observation, and reflection is a distinguishing characteristic ofthe action research framework (Hopkins, 2002). This framework characterises thethree studies discussed in this paper, although each study employs the framework inslightly different ways.

UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TEACHERS AS RESEARCHERS 283

Three Studies

In this paper, I describe three studies in which I was a member of the research team.In each study, university teachers, both scientists and science educators, became re-searchers in their classrooms. I selected these studies because they represent a varietyof types of undergraduate science instruction aimed at different student audiences,and because they illustrate differing modes of teacher research. Examining theircommonalities and differences will help understand the opportunities, constraints,and dilemmas of university teachers as researchers.

These studies took place in three courses: (1) a biology course for biology majors;(2) a physics course for elementary education majors; and (3) a science educationcourse for elementary education majors. First, I describe the studies in terms ofthe players, research questions, methods, and findings (Table 1). My purpose isnot to detail the studies for their own sake, but to examine these key components.Next, I perform a cross-case analysis of the three studies, comparing their purposes,researcher roles, and actions taken (Table 2). I then interpret what these analysesoffer to our thinking about the issues, constraints, and benefits to university scienceteachers as researchers. Finally I return to a definition of scholarship that blurs thetraditional boundaries.

Study 1. Biology 108: Genetics and Human Affairs

Bio 108, designed for biology majors (although non-majors also take the course),explores the science of human genetics through the examination of relevant socialissues. In previous semesters, the professor and students examined topics such asgene therapy, the eugenics movement, DNA testing and the legal system, AIDSin Africa, and anthrax. Through lecture, Socratic seminars, and writing-intensiveassignments, students are required to apply their knowledge of science, as well aspolitical, social, and economic arguments, to understand these complex issues.

A few years ago, the biology professor (who has taught the course for the past9 years) and I were members of a team from our university that participated in theAmerican Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) project, SENCER:Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (AAC&U, 2000).At the SENCER summer institute, we learned a variety of strategies for helpingstudents connect science and civic engagement by teaching science through socialissues. Catalysed by the institute, we decided to study SENCER-related issues inBio 108. We could then use our findings to report back to the SENCER staff.

We (the biology professor, myself, and a graduate research assistant majoringin Rural Sociology with experience in interview methods) collaborated to definea study. The biology professor wanted to know: How do students respond to mycourse? In particular, she wanted to know how students reacted to and learned fromseveral key course components – group work, Socratic seminars, microtheme writ-ing, and journal writing. Grounded in her interest, we generated the following re-search question: What are the students’ expectations and experiences in Biology 108,

284 SANDRA K. ABELLTa

ble

1E

ssen

tial

Feat

ures

ofth

eSt

udie

s.

Con

text

Play

ers

Res

earc

hqu

estio

nM

etho

dsFi

ndin

gs

Bio

108:

unde

rgra

duat

ebi

olog

yco

urse

for

maj

ors

•B

iolo

gypr

ofes

sor

•Sc

ienc

eed

ucat

ion

rese

arch

er•

Gra

duat

ere

sear

chas

sist

ant

How

dost

uden

ts’

expe

rien

ces

and

expe

ctat

ions

com

pare

with

the

inst

ruct

or’s

?

•Pa

rtic

ipan

tob

serv

atio

n•

Inte

rvie

ws

•C

ours

eev

alua

tion

Stud

enta

ndfa

culty

perc

eptio

nsof

jour

nal

wri

ting

diff

ered

.

Phys

ics

290E

:un

derg

radu

ate

phys

ics

cour

sefo

rel

emen

tary

educ

atio

nm

ajor

s

•Ph

ysic

sed

ucat

ion

prof

esso

r•

Scie

nce

educ

atio

nre

sear

cher

•Ph

ysic

sTA

How

doth

epr

ofes

sor,

TA,

and

stud

ents

perc

eive

inqu

iry-

base

din

stru

ctio

n?

•In

terv

iew

s•

Fiel

dno

tes

•In

stru

ctor

’sre

flect

ive

jour

nal

Tens

ions

inte

achi

ngan

dle

arni

ngth

roug

hin

quir

yex

peri

ence

dby

alls

take

hold

ers.

ED

CI

317:

anun

derg

radu

ate

elem

enta

rysc

ienc

epe

dago

gyco

urse

•L

ead

cour

sein

stru

ctor

/sci

ence

educ

atio

nre

sear

cher

•Sc

ienc

eed

ucat

ion

TA/r

esea

rch

assi

stan

t•

Scie

nce

educ

atio

nre

sear

chas

sist

ant

How

dow

ete

ach

natu

reof

scie

nce

inou

rco

urse

and

how

dost

uden

tsle

arn

it?

•Pa

rtic

ipan

tob

serv

atio

n•

Inte

rvie

ws

•St

uden

tart

ifac

ts

Som

eco

mpo

nent

sof

NO

Sem

phas

ised

and

lear

ned

wel

l;ot

hers

not.


Table 2Thematic Analysis of the Studies.

Case Purpose Teacher as researcherrole

Actions taken

Bio 108 • To answer theprofessor’s questionsabout hereffectiveness;

• To provide externalprogram evaluationto a funding agent;

• To strengthen the tiesbetween biology andscience education.

Teacher as participant:• collaborated on

research questionand design;

• cooperated ondata collectionand analysis.

Professor changedher journal writingexpectations;

Provided feedbackto SENCERprogram.

Physics290E

• To inform theteaching of thecourse for futureofferings;

• To documentimplementation of anew course as a wayto generate newknowledge for thefield.

Teacher as participantand researcher:• collaborated on

research questionand design;

• cooperated ondata collection(e.g., interviews);

• acted as researchinstrument (e.g.,reflective journal);

• collaborated onanalysis and writeup.

Professor and TAformed a study groupto think more deeplyabout their teaching;

Publicationscontributed to thefield.

EDCI317

• To study andimprove ourteaching;

• To mentor graduatestudent researchers;

• To build on anexisting researchprogram.

Teachers asresearchers:• full teachers and

full researchers inthe study.

Changed instructionto make NOS moreexplicit;

Publicationscontributed toknowledge base inthe field.

286 SANDRA K. ABELL

and how do they compare to the instructor’s expectations? In addition to inform-ing the course professor, this study would satisfy our original commitments forevaluating the SENCER project.

The graduate research assistant collected data through participant observation –she took field notes in the course one period a week throughout the 15-week semester.She conducted one individual interview each with the professor, with 3 students whowere part of the same small group, and with 3 teaching assistants, 2 of whom hadtaken the course previously. These field notes and interview transcripts, along withthe final course evaluation, served as the data sources for the study.

One key finding from the study was that instructor and student perceptions ofthe journal writing assignments differed greatly. Students wrote journal entries inresponse to readings and in preparation for Socratic seminars, and then wrote post-seminar entries. The instructor viewed the journals as a writing-to-learn exercise(Bean, 1996) where students could engage in critical thinking, a view she had learnedabout through taking workshops from our university’s Campus Writing Program.“My views [of journaling] are very positive . . . I tried it for the first time last yearand I got some of the most interesting and involved writing from that” (Professor,Interview). However, students saw the journals as busy work and conceived the in-structor’s purpose as checking up on them (Coggin, 2002). “I think the journals arevery repetitive. It’s like you are writing it down because it’s an assignment whereasyou would already have thought about it and you know what you are thinking”(Student, Interview).

After the course ended, the research team met to discuss the data. This meetingprovided an opportunity for the biology professor to reflect on the findings and re-think her instruction in the course. During our meeting, we discussed the disconnectbetween her views and student views of journal writing. She decided to reconfigurethe journal assignment in two ways: (1) provide more structure and clearer expec-tations to the students; and (2) offer students some degree of choice on the journalassignments. The study had directly informed her teaching and she was excited toimplement the changes. We also had something to report to the SENCER program.

Study 2. Physics 290E: Physics for Elementary Education

PHYS 290E was specially designed for elementary education majors, replacingPHYS 210, a more traditional lecture/lab course for non-majors. Course goals in-cluded the development of student understanding of both science content and scien-tific inquiry. The PHYS 290E professor selected Powerful Ideas in Physical Science(American Association of Physics Teachers, 1996) as the curriculum for this course,because it engaged students in investigating scientifically oriented questions, com-paring their ideas to nature, and developing explicit models supported by observableevidence. He chose three Powerful Ideas (light, electricity, and heat) to teach overthe 15-week semester. Our study focused on the electricity unit.


The research team for the study included the physics professor, his teaching assis-tant (TA), and me, a science education professor. The physics professor had taughtphysics and chemistry at the high school level for 19 years, and had been a TA inPHYS 210, the course that 290E replaced. However, he had few experiences teachingscience through inquiry. During the inaugural year of PHYS 290E, he taught onesection of 24 students during the fall semester and another during the spring semester.The TA, a female international doctoral student in the Department of Physics, ob-served him teach during the fall semester and was responsible for teaching her ownsection of the course during the spring semester. The physics professor and I definedthe research question and methods, analysed the data, and wrote up our findings forpublication. I was responsible for collecting data via observations and interviews.We involved the TA in the research only at the level of discussing the assertionsgenerated as a form of member checking.

We decided that it would be valuable to document the experience of the professor,TA, and students as they participated in the course during its inaugural year. In partic-ular, we generated the following research question: How do the professor, graduateteaching assistant, and students perceive inquiry-based instruction in a universityphysics course? We wanted to both help the professor and TA improve the course,and contribute to the knowledge base concerning the teaching of physics as inquiryat the undergraduate level. The data collection methods we used included guidedinterviews and participant observation. We gathered field notes of staff planningmeetings (to provide information about how the professor and graduate assistantexperienced the course and thought about their teaching); field notes from a se-lect few class periods (to provide an understanding of the context and practice ofthe course); interviews with the instructor and the graduate assistant at three timesacross the semester (to provide insight into the beliefs, knowledge, and tensions ofthe instructors as they enacted the course); and an end-of-course interview with 4student volunteers (to provide the student perspective on inquiry in the course). Wetape recorded and transcribed all interviews. A final data source for the study was theprofessor’s reflection journal (which provided a record of his thoughts, feelings, andactions). The interviews with the professor, graduate assistant, and students were theprimary data source.

We found that both instructors and students experienced conflicts in teaching andlearning through inquiry. During the teaching of a 6-week electricity unit, the profes-sor faced several challenges: knowing when and how to tell the scientifically accurateanswer; deciding when and how to introduce scientific terminology; doing inquiryvs. following a set curriculum; and doing inquiry vs. testing. The professor and theteaching assistant also experienced several tensions. Their orientations to scienceteaching differed in terms of their science learning goals, beliefs about teaching andlearning, and beliefs about assessment. The students experienced frustration withthe inquiry approach related to their views of learning, their need as learners to getthe right answer, and the disconnect they felt between the inquiry approach and theassessment used in the course. During the course they were also building their viewsof inquiry and their visions of themselves as future teachers.

288 SANDRA K. ABELL

One purpose of the study was to inform the teaching of PHYS 290E. During thesecond semester the course was offered, the physics professor and teaching assistantformed a study group to read and think about issues involved in teaching science forunderstanding. The analysis of data from our study contributed to their reflection ontheir practice. As a result, both grew in their thinking about best practice in under-graduate science teaching (Volkmann, 2002; Volkmann & Zgagacz, 2004). A secondpurpose of our work was to generate knowledge for the science education researchcommunity. We have presented papers at conferences and written for publication(Volkmann, 2002; Volkmann, Abell, & Zgagacz, 2002; Volkmann & Zgagacz, 2004).We are hopeful that this work will help break the cycle of teacher-centred didacticinstruction in undergraduate science education.

Study 3. EDCI 317: Teaching Science in the Elementary School

EDCI 317 was built on a reflection orientation (Abell & Bryan, 1997) that providesopportunities for students to build theories of science teaching and learning as they:(1) observe others teach; (2) reflect on their own teaching; (3) read expert theories;and (4) examine their own science learning. In this latter context, students engagein a 6-week investigation of the phases of the moon (Duckworth, 1987) where theymake observations, keep records of their sightings, participate in large group datasharing, solve problems in small groups, and maintain a journal of their learningexperiences. Two of the researchers, myself and a graduate teaching assistant, hadextensive experience planning and teaching the course, and were interested in learn-ing more about our students’ experience. The other member of the research team,a graduate research assistant who was planning to teach EDCI 317 in the comingyear, served as a participant observer in two sections of the course. Furthermore,both graduate students had taken a course that I had taught on the nature of science(NOS) in science teaching. We shared an interest in thinking more deeply about NOSissues.

We were interested in studying and improving our teaching of the phases of themoon, a significant component the course. We viewed the moon study as a way toaddress three course goals: (1) to help students think about their own science learningvia building understanding of phases of the moon; (2) to help students build their the-ories about science teaching and learning; and (3) to enhance student understandingof NOS. We planned to examine the third goal in more depth through a self-study ofthe moon investigation. This study was also an attempt to contribute to the NOS re-search literature through understanding what happens when teacher educators modelscientific activity and science discourse as well as discuss epistemological featuresof science in the context of a science methods course. Our research question was,“How do we teach nature of science and how do students learn it during a 6-weekmoon inquiry?”

Through participant observation of two class sections during the moon investi-gation, interviews with select students, and examination of student moon journals,


we aimed to gain insight into our teaching of the moon, the experience of studentsduring the moon investigation, and their construction of NOS ideas. During themoon investigation, we intended to emphasise certain features of NOS, that scien-tific knowledge: (a) is empirically based; (b) involves the invention of explanations;and (c) is socially embedded. After the moon investigation, students realised thatscientists make observations and generate patterns, but failed to recognise featuresof scientific observation. They could separate the processes of observing from cre-ating explanations in their learning, but did not articulate the role of invention inscience. Similarly, students valued the social dimensions of learning, but were unableto apply them to the activity of scientists. Although we found our teaching to beexplicit about students’ science learning, we found that we did not help studentsmake direct connections between their science learning activities and NOS. Thesefindings helped us to change our teaching to incorporate more explicit instructionabout NOS. Furthermore, we have contributed to the research literature through ourpublished work (Abell, George, & Martini, 2002; Abell, Martini, & George, 2001).

These three studies illustrate that teacher research at the university level, althoughsharing similar research questions and methods, can be diverse in purpose and leadto a variety of types of action. Through further analysis, we can also uncover issuesand dilemmas that can arise for those university faculty engaged in teacher research.In the next sections, I compare the studies in terms of purpose, researcher role,and actions. I use these comparisons to delineate the dilemmas faced by universityscience teachers as researchers.

Comparing the Studies

The three studies described above were alike in that they involved multiple re-search team members, occurred in similar research settings, and utilised similarresearch methods. However, when I compared the studies as three cases of teacherresearch, I found that they differed in their purposes, the roles of the teacher re-searchers, and the actions taken. Table 2, and the discussion below, make thesedifferences explicit.

Purpose

The purpose of all three studies was first and foremost to satisfy faculty members’desires to know about their students’ learning and therefore about own teachingefficacy. However, secondary purposes distinguish the studies. In the case of the Bi-ology 108 course, a secondary purpose of the study was to satisfy our agreement withthe SENCER project that we would return to campus and evaluate the teaching ofSENCER-like courses. Furthermore, I had recently been hired to direct a centre withthe mission of improving science education through the collaboration of scientists

290 SANDRA K. ABELL

and educators. Thus, I was interested in using this project to strengthen ties betweenbiologists and science educators on campus.

In the case of PHYS 290E, we wanted to inform the teaching of the course. Sincethe semester of the study was the first time the course was offered, we wanted toimprove the course as it expanded to more sections in future semesters. However, wealso saw this first time offering as an opportunity to generate new knowledge. Wecould study, in vivo, the process of teaching and learning physics through inquiry inthe university setting, a setting which had not been explored in this way.

In the EDCI 317 study, we were building on an existing research program aboutstudent learning in the course (e.g., Abell, Bryan, & Anderson, 1998). Through thisresearch program, we tried to influence the science teacher education communityin their thinking about preservice teacher learning. Furthermore, in this particularstudy of the course, I was interested in mentoring graduate students in research andin teacher education.

This variety of purposes for involving science and science education faculty instudying their teaching is important to consider when planning and carrying outprojects involving university teachers as researchers. It is important to realise that notall research team members hold the same purposes. In my experience, making eachresearcher’s purposes clear at the beginning and throughout such work eliminatespotential conflicts later, and maximises the benefits of the work for all involved.

Researcher Role

The role of the teacher as researcher also differed among the studies. George(2001) described a continuum of teacher involvement in research in their classrooms,from teacher as participant (where teachers consent, then consult, then cooperate,then collaborate), to teacher involvement as the research instrument. In the Biologystudy, the professor was toward the participant end of the continuum, consenting tothe study, collaborating on defining the research question and design, and cooperat-ing on data collection. The questions and methods were not imposed by outsiders,but the instructor was not directly involved in data collection or analysis. She steppedback into the research team at the level of interpreting the findings and taking ac-tion on her course. The graduate student researcher was not a course instructor, butbecame a participant observer for much of the course.

In the physics study, the professor occupied the middle of the continuum. Some-times he acted as participant, when I, as outsider, interviewed him and observed hisinstruction and planning meetings. At other times, he acted as research instrument –keeping his journal, assisting with data analysis, and writing for publication. As amember of the research team, I observed little of the course itself, instead relying onthe professor, TA, and students to interpret course events.

In the elementary methods course study, two of the three researchers were bothteachers and research instruments; we designed and taught the course and we de-signed the study and analysed the data. The third researcher assisted in collecting


data (student interviews and field notes) that would have been difficult for us asteachers to collect. As a future instructor of the course, she served in an apprentice-ship for teaching at the same time that she assisted in data collection. Clearly thereis no single (or best) way to carry out a study of one’s teaching.

Actions Taken

The final dimension I would like to examine across these studies is that of action.Because each of the studies emerged from a genuine interest in improving teaching,we should expect to see the results of the studies informing practice. That hap-pened for these studies. However, studying your teaching could result in additionalactions – reporting the results in promotion documents; presenting results to yourdepartment or institution; publishing your results for the research community, takingbroader action to change programs and policies. George (2001) defined a continuumof purpose in teacher research, beginning with improving one’s practice, movingthen to improving the local community and the larger community, and ending withtransforming society. As can be seen by the three studies, multiple purposes leadto multiple actions. However, multiple purposes may also create conflicts related toownership, action, and quality.

Dilemmas of University Teachers as Researchers

University science teachers and their colleagues face dilemmas of ownership andaction, as well as ideological clashes that reflect issues of quality, when they un-dertake research in their own classrooms. Below I briefly discuss each dilemma,grounding each in evidence from the previous cross-study comparison.

Dilemmas of Ownership

What Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) referred to as insider/outsider perspec-tives, or what Fenstermacher (1994) discussed as the issue of the “knower” and the“known” can be framed under this dilemma in university teacher research. Whenteams of researchers participate in a study in which one of the researcher’s teachingis under examination, we have to ponder: Who asks the questions? Who generates themethods? Who collects and analyses the data? Who does the write up? Who presentsthe data? Who owns the study? When the study gets written for publication, whotakes credit and in what order? The answers are not clear cut, and must be negotiatedwith every study. Furthermore, the negotiations must also take into account the prac-tical and emotional needs of the instructor, especially as pertains to data collectionand analysis (Will data collection interfere with learning? How will findings aboutineffective practices be discussed?). Finally, independent of the degree of ownershipthe instructor assumed in collecting data, she must feel the ultimate ownership whenreporting the data.

292 SANDRA K. ABELL

In the cases described above, the instructors took on different levels of ownershipin studying their teaching – whether consenting, cooperating, collaborating, or be-coming the research instrument. Not only did the instructors play different roles ineach of these studies, they also played different roles at different phases within aparticular study. Our goal should not be to make all university teacher researcherstake ownership of studies at the level of teachers as research instruments. Instead,we should be willing to engage with our colleagues at whatever level is comfortable,meaningful, and practical to those involved. By bringing our roles and intentions tothe forefront of conversations, we can negotiate the best outcomes for all researchteam members.

Dilemmas of Action

As illustrated by the three studies, a variety of purposes exist for engaging inuniversity teacher research. First and foremost is the need to understand and improveour teaching. The instructors of all three courses held this as part of their purpose.Second is the purpose of generating knowledge for audiences beyond one’s class-room. Knowledge generated in such studies could inform and improve the academicprogram, unit, and institution (for example, by providing data to outside accredit-ing bodies). Knowledge generated in such studies could also be published for thebenefit of others beyond the institution (in both the research and teaching commu-nities). When university science teachers become researchers in their classrooms,two additional purposes can emerge: (1) to build relationships across academic units(e.g., education and science); and (2) to validate one’s scholarship of teaching forpromotion decisions. These purposes can be held differentially across members of aresearch team and lead to differential action taking.

For example, in the biology teaching study above, the purpose with which weentered the study was a highly personal one on the part of the instructor – to find outhow her students experienced the course for the purpose of improving it. However,my purpose as a member of the research team went beyond the course, and includedbuilding relationships between biology and science education, and providing infor-mation to the SENCER project. Furthermore, in writing this paper, I am using thestudy for purposes not at all associated with the improvement of the course. Thesediffering purposes lead to differing actions among members of the research team –some members might take action on their teaching while others write for publication.As long as team members keep their purposes clear and their actions open, conflictscan be avoided.

Ideological Clashes and Dilemmas of Quality

An ideology is the body of doctrine, myth, symbol, ways of thinking of a socialmovement, institution, class, or group. I claim here that the ideology of the university


clashes with the ideology of studying your own teaching. For example, the ideologyof the university has been characterised by the “publish or perish” syndrome, yetin university teacher research, learners come first. The university values knowledgefor the sake of knowledge, yet in teacher research, knowledge is generated primarilyfor the sake of improving practice. The university has traditionally valued objectiveknowledge as the highest form, whereas teacher research recognises that all knowl-edge is subjective. New views of “scientifically based research” in the US (Coalitionfor Evidence-Based Policy, 2002; Shavelson & Towne, 2002; Slavin, 2002) implythat replicable knowledge is best. However, teacher research is highly contextual.The studies take place in particular settings with particular players. The instruc-tion and learning that occurs is a one-time only event. Replicability in the strictestsense is impossible. Such clashes come to the forefront as researchers attempt touphold the ideology of teacher research while operating within the ideology of theuniversity.

Furthermore, different purposes may have different implications for quality con-trol in university teacher research. For example, if a university teacher researcher’smain goal is improving teaching, does the study have to be replicated or publishedto be legitimate? If a university teacher researcher is interested in documenting hersuccess for promotion purposes, could the findings of a self-study be suspect? Fur-thermore, how will a study of one’s own teaching “count” for promotion as comparedto publications in the researcher’s own scientific research?

All three studies I described employed a naturalistic research design, involvingthe collection of qualitative data. I recently attended a conference session about “Re-searching Your Teaching,” led by an English professor (Ebest, 2003). Her contentionwas that qualitative research was the only viable type of teacher research. I wouldtake a more catholic approach. Studying one’s own teaching could employ eithernaturalistic or experimental designs. Teacher researchers could collect quantitativeor qualitative data. It is the research problems themselves that warrant the methodsemployed (Howe & Eisenhart, 1990). The studies reported here involved questionsbest answered through qualitative methods, but that need not always be the case. Wemust be open to authentic questions, grounded in our needs as teachers, and answeredthrough whatever methods make sense.

However, we must demand rigour in this kind of work. Too often I have heardteacher research presented as the equivalent of “what I did on my summer vacation.”We must demand from teacher research what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) referto as “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers” (p. 7). We mustdemand that studying your teaching is approached with the same passion and vigouras being a scientist. We must demand systematic attention to evidence. We mustdemand an historical perspective (What else has been done? What came before?On what theories am I building?). This attention to rigour will demonstrate thatuniversity teachers as researchers are building their scholarship of teaching throughdoing such work.

294 SANDRA K. ABELL

Conclusion

Classroom research carried out by university faculty is starting to be recognisedas one form of scholarly work. Guidebooks exist that help faculty members learn theprocess of classroom research (e.g., Cross & Steadman, 1996). In the science educa-tion literature, several reports of university teacher research recently have appeared(Adams & Slater, 2002; Heady, 2001; Nazario, Burrowes, & Rodriguez, 2001).

Yet what is the significance of university teachers as researchers for themselves,their institutions, and the research community? First of all, university teachers, likeall teachers, are interested in how effective they are. They understand the thrill ofmaking a change in instruction that is well-received by their students. They feel re-warded when their students learn. Studying one’s own teaching is affirmation. It alsoprovides information about what needs to be changed. This is the main motivationfor all teacher research.

Studying one’s teaching at the university level is also good for the institution.First of all, university teacher researchers aim to improve their teaching. This isa grassroots form of professional development that demands few institutional re-sources. Cochran-Smyth and Lytle (1993) and others (see for example, the TeacherResearcher sessions at the National Association for Research in Science Teach-ing annual meetings) have demonstrated that engaging K-12 teachers in teacherresearch improves practice. Studying university teaching could possibly representprofessional development at its most transformative (see Loughran & Russell, 2002),although this claim remains to be investigated. Secondly, universities of all types areunder increasing scrutiny to demonstrate, not only that they can bring in researchdollars, but also that they are successful in educating undergraduates. Studying one’sown teaching can provide data for accreditation bodies and annual reports to doc-ument the teaching and learning that is taking place on campus. Finally, universityteachers as researchers can help build a shared vision of teaching across a programor department, that leads to further study and change.

Studying one’s teaching is also important for the science education research com-munity. We have too little evidence about what works in classrooms, K-20. However,I do not agree with those who claim that randomised controlled trials are the answer(e.g., Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2002; Slavin, 2002). Teaching and learn-ing are context-intensive enterprises. University teacher researchers can provide richdata about their contexts that can be transferred to other university classrooms, via anumber of viable research methodologies.

As scientists and science educators engage in more teacher research at the uni-versity level, we must also heed a basic caution. Studying one’s teaching and studentlearning requires expertise, including knowledge of educational theories and researchmethods. I believe the best self-study at the tertiary level involves the collaborationof scientists and science educators, who jointly decide upon the viability of datacollection and analysis methods based on the research questions. These faculty mustalso be responsible for preparing capable graduate students to assist in the research.Important questions about undergraduate science teaching and learning are many;


the critical factor is the expertise of the research team working together to define andcarry out classroom-based studies.

At the university, the boundaries between teaching/research/service are typicallyseparated when we report and get rewarded for our activities. Teacher research, how-ever, is about blurring these scholarship boundaries. What it means to be a scholarwithin the university has been defined by the standards at each of our institutions.What it means to be a scholar has been reconsidered by thinkers such as Ernest Boyer(1997), who recognised “that knowledge is acquired through research, through syn-thesis, through practice, and through teaching” (p. 25). Although he acknowledgedthe ties among the various intellectual functions of the university, Boyer neverthelessdivided the functions into separate categories. I believe that Boyer did not go quite farenough. University teachers as researchers blur the scholarship boundaries, makingseparate categories for such functions an inaccurate rendering of our work. Teachersare natural researchers in their classrooms; they wonder what works, conduct varioustrials, and collect evidence from students. When we are teaching, we are researchingand synthesising and applying. Moreover, much of our research activity also involvesteaching (e.g., through mentoring undergraduate and graduate research assistants).Research teams that include both scientists and science educators can bring theexpertise of all team members to bear on this process. Thus, studying universityteaching is, in essence, an act of blurring the boundaries and redefining scholarship inwhich we can simultaneously improve our teaching and generate knowledge. Boyer(1997) posited that “good teaching means that faculty, as scholars, are also learners,”and that “inspired teaching keeps the flame of scholarship alive” (p. 24). Universityteachers as researchers embody Boyer’s remarks.

Author Note

Previous versions of this paper were delivered at Central Queensland Universityin July, 2002, and at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, March, 2003.

Correspondence: Sandra K. Abell, Southwestern Bell Science Education Center,University of Missouri, Columbia, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USAE-mail: [email protected]

References

Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science meth-ods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education,8, 153–166.

296 SANDRA K. ABELL

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice el-ementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-basedinstruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82,491–510.

Abell, S. K., George, M. D., & Martini, M. (2002). Instructional strategies forteaching phases of the moon in elementary methods. Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 13, 85–100.

Abell, S. K., Martini, M., & George, M. D. (2001). “That’s what scientists have todo”: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during amoon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1095–1109.

Adams, J. P., & Slater, T. F. (2002). Using action research to bring the large classdown to size. In Innovative techniques for large-group instruction (An NSTAPress Journals Collection) (pp. 54–57). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Altrichter, H. (1993). The concept of quality in action research: Giving practition-ers a voice in educational research. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices ineducational research (pp. 40–55). London: Falmer Press.

American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2000). SENCER:Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (Request forProposals). Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of Physics Teachers. (1996). Powerful ideas in the physicalscience. Washington, DC: Author.

Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing,critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton,NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Clandinin, D. J. (1992). Narrative and story in teacher education. In T. Russell &H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 124–137). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledgelandscapes: Teachers stories-stories of teachers-school stories-stories of schools.Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2002, November). Bringing evidence-drivenprogress to education: A recommended strategy for the US Department ofEducation. (Available: http://www.excelgov.org/displayContent.asp)

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research andknowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). Relationships of knowledge and practice:Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Re-view of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). The teacher research movement:A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.


Coggin, J. R. (2002). Biology 108: Report and analysis. Unpublished manuscript,University of Missouri-Columbia, Southwestern Bell Science Education Center,Columbia, MO.

Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing thescholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Duckworth, E. (1987). Teaching as research. In E. Duckworth, “The Having of Won-derful Ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning (pp. 122–140). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Ebest, S. B. (2003, February). Researching your teaching, Teaching RenewalConference. University of Missouri-Columbia.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledgein research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research inEducation (Vol. 20, pp. 3–56). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

George, M. (2001). Defining teacher research. Unpublished manuscript, PurdueUniversity.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teachereducation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hamilton, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study inteacher education. London: Falmer Press.

Heady, J. E. (2001). Gauging students’ learning in the classroom: An assessmenttool to help refine instructors’ teaching techniques. Journal of College ScienceTeaching, 31, 157–161.

Hopkins, D. (2002). A teacher’s guide to classroom research (3rd ed.). Philadelphia:Open University Press.

Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative)research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2–9.

Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2002). Improving teacher education practicesthrough self-study. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Nazario, G. M., Burrowes, P. A., & Rodriguez, J. (2001). Persisting misconcep-tions: Using pre- and post-tests to identify biological misconceptions. Journalof College Science Teaching, 31, 292–296.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for

teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schön, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn. New York: Teachers College Press.Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education

(Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research). Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educationalpractice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.

298 SANDRA K. ABELL

Volkmann, M. J. (2002, January). Instructional challenges in modeling scientific in-quiry: The case of physics for elementary education. Charlotte, NC: Associationfor the Education of Teachers of Science.

Volkmann, M. J., Abell, S. K., & Zgagacz, M. (2002, July). Teaching physics to pre-service teachers: The challenges of inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville,Queensland, Australia.

Volkmann, M. J., & Zgagacz, M. (2004). Learning to teach physics through inquiry:The lived experience of the graduate teaching assistant. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 41, 584–602.

Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing:Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploringteachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.

Documents

University Science Teachers as Researchers: Blurring the Scholarship Boundaries