Hello! This is our last week of class with official "readings." Can you believe it! After this Thursday the 28th we will focus on course presentations, and our blog responses will be discussions about these presentations and your related seminar projects. Thanks for your thoughtful posts about last week's readings. It seems that the examples of teacher research really allowed you to begin to synthesize our discussions/readings throughout the semester and consider the many uses (and potential misuses) of teacher research.
For this week, we are focusing on Teacher Research and Institutional/Policy Change. There are a couple of chapters to read in _Inquiry as Stance_ and three articles I will email to you today. In short, these readings ask questions about how teacher research might be directly connected to policy change at the institutional or even governmental levels. How can knowledge generated from teacher research, which is often related to personal contexts and not viewed as definitive, be used to create/change policy? How can teachers/teacher educators argue for such a use of knowledge from teacher research? How is teacher research a kind of social movement? How is "inquiry as stance" (Cochran-Smith and Lytle) an important metaphor for its potential to create change? And, perhaps most important, do you buy this argument? Can teacher research accomplish educational reform?
Okay, I had to jump in here after just a page and a half of Schoen's article. Is it just me, or does this read like a policy document written by the Bush Administration? I know I'm jumping to conclusions because I haven't gotten to the end yet, but really -
ReplyDelete"Thus, the versatility of the approach for use with diverse topics is soundly and empirically substantiated" (p. 211)
"In the absence of such data, comparative judgments and decision making are adversely affected" (beginning of p. 213)
"The discussions here do not entertain serendipitous responses, but rather research-based options" (near end of 2nd column on p. 213)
Anyway, I'm really frustrated with the reading this week. The language of NCLB is such that arguing with some of the tenets comes off as completely ridiculous, especially when you're talking to someone who doesn't teach (and I'm sure that's very deliberate). Sorry if I make angry posts this week - it's not personal :-)
Courtney, Just a note of encouragement - keep reading! I started with the other two Janet sent and really enjoyed them. Now I'm dreading the Schoen one I'm about to start but wanted to give you the heads up not to be discouraged too early. Forge on! (:
ReplyDeleteI started with Schoen and read it not thinking of national policies, but local school policies. It wasn't until I read the other articles that I found Schoen too formulaic. Was that her intent? on what level?
ReplyDeleteI am having some issues merging the ideas of Schoen with Foreman-Peck and Murray because I was in agreement with the overarching ideas expressed in each article but am concerned that the Schoen article can transfer into a recommendation of action research as an institutional/national policy. Foreman-Peck and Murray spend the majority of their article explaining and advocating for critical action research and emphasize that it is directed towards an idea of emancipatory knowledge and involves uncovering false beliefs about practice. (Foreman-Peck & Murray, p. 150). Schoen puts forth a model that can “socialize” pre-service and in-service educators into the action research community that accepts teacher research as a way of developing professional understanding. (Schoen, p. 211) The cycle of critically reflective practice that she outlines reinforces the belief that “action research challenges individuals to reflect on how they think and purposefully explore alternative strategies,” and touts the value of collegial dialogue as a primary side effect of implementation. (Schoen, p. 212) Foreman-Peck and & Murray contribute similar ideas but place the caveat that they are “critical of institutional or national policies that prevent the realization and development of a group’s ‘critical theorem’.” (p. 151) As much as I would advocate that teachers implement action research into their teaching philosophy, I see the concern that critical action research will no longer be emancipatory once it is co-opted by the institution.
ReplyDeleteSchoen states in the generalization section of her article that durability and flexibility are key factors that must exist in order for action research to have sustainability. It must be maintained across time and occur across different settings, people, and behaviors. (Schoen, p. 212) This means that administrators and the institution of schooling must be accepting of action research and must create the opportunity that allows teachers to question, assess, investigate, collaborate, analyze, and refine. But under the critical social science approach, institutional acceptance of teachers defining a problem, planning an intervention, implementing and evaluating the outcome, and reformulating the question to research further negates the ‘critical’ aim of transforming consciousness and practice.
For those of you in the critical pedagogy course, can you please help me understand how the epistemology of critical social science is constructivist? Foreman-Peck & Murray explain that “knowledge develops by a process of active construction and reconstruction of theory and practice by those involved.” (p. 150-151) I understand how they are applying a constructivist framework, but I do not understand why they consider it a critical epistemology. All I can assume is that I am turning words around and matching them up with the wrong definitions. Even though the authors use the word critical to express that they question “positivist notions of rationality, objectivity and truth” and “institutional or national policies,” I am certain they intended the word critical in critical social science to align with Carr & Kemmis’ ideas that action research is critical theorizing with an emancipatory intent. Please help me understand how a critical framework that encourages change is constructivist and not critical.
Beth, I think part of the problem is that I read Ch. 3 in Inquiry as Stance first, so I was already in that mind set. I agree with Marianne's concern that "action research will no longer be emancipatory once it is co-opted by the institution" (see post above). I've completed more of the reading now, so I'll be calmer, but I couldn't finish Schoen's article.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I need to start my post this week in thinking through some of the ideas mentioned through my own teacher lens. What I mean by that is that I’ve been trying to read the texts both through my current understanding of education, research, and knowledge construction in general as well as through my previous high-school teaching self of almost seven years ago. The reason I mention this is because while reading through all of the texts, and especially through the idea of “inquiry as stance” I first became enthusiastic and optimistic about the idea of teachers as researchers who constantly and consistently inquire into their own classrooms and change the world one student and one class at a time through publishing their findings, which more or less depending on which text one reads essentially sees teacher researcher as some kind of panacea for the current top-down standardized curriculum and for bettering all students lives in general. And I have to admit that on second thought, some of me still does buy into this, but not while considering in the same thought how my overworked and overstressed high school teaching self would have perceived of this. I think the problem, as we’ve debated, is that the inquiry as stance idea sounds good in theory, but what about in actual practice?
ReplyDeleteA question that continues to haunt me as we continue to read about teacher researcher is how many practicing classroom teachers are actually completing research outside of requirements for graduate courses or to earn degrees? As much as we have learned, nowhere have I seen any estimates of how many teachers are actually doing these kinds of things. Along these same lines, a troubling statement in this weeks’ reading, to me, was one by Foreman-Peck and Murray (2008) that there is “no evidence that national policy is informed by the findings or the deliberations of action researchers” (p. 159). No evidence? While I have confidence, as many articles have shown, that yes, teachers are inquiring into their own practices, asking questions about what they can do better on a given day to help their students, I wonder how many are actually disseminating this knowledge and how many could/should.
Tying this back into my own experience and why I mentioned thinking about inquiry as stance in relation to my previous teaching – for the three years that I taught high school, I can confidently say that I think I not only did a good job (notice that I didn’t say great) but also that on many levels I embodied the inquiry as stance position. I constantly asked what I could do to better help my students learn and constantly assed these methods in the ways I best knew how to. However, I can say with just as much confidence that looking back I realize that I did not have the necessary knowledge or language that comes with theory to effectively help students question the larger systemic issues that shape who they are and who determines this. I guess what I’m saying is that I could have only become so effective by simply being a “good” teacher who inquires into issues within my specific classroom, but I have to conclude that it is necessary for teachers to develop the necessary theory and language to better influence locally and to be able to make a difference globally. I think it is problematic when teachers are not “asked to provide a literature discussion or to identify where there were gaps in current knowledge” (Foreman-Peck & Murray, 2008, p. 147). And although several argue that teacher researcher that simply improves one’s own individual practice is useful, and I agree that to some degree this is true, I also believe that it essential for teachers to become knowledgeable about and ask their students to become inquirers too into how their immediate classroom and knowledge is affected by and affects all people and all knowledge. I realize that I am more of a “critical” action researcher, but I think teachers and students must understand who they are in relation to the larger social, political, and economic society.
That said, I also realize the impossibility of this task – to go from a community that is largely not completing primary or secondary research necessary to better teach and influence knowledge of education in general to people who truly embody inquiry as stance and have the potential to eventually change policies. I think a partial solution is presented by Carr and Kemmis’ who push for collaborative groups to help action researchers “become critical” because “without this special preparation they argue that the individuals are not capable of undertaking action research because their judgement is contaminated by uncritical assumptions which are culturally determined” (as cited in Somekh, 1995, p. 349).
ReplyDeleteCochran-Smith and Lytle make it clear that social change and justice are essential for inquiry as stance: “In short, the largest purpose—the bottom line—of inquiry as stance is education for social change and social justice” (p. 150). I couldn’t agree more but wonder what we’re doing to equip teachers to make these changes. In the Somehk article, she mentions that a practitioner researcher is often “expected to be superwoman or superman and do everything,” adding, “There is a difference between giving practitioners control and burdening them with work that someone else could have more easily on their behalf” (p. 346). I do think we have to be careful about expectations of teachers and assumptions about what their research can and should do. As I’ve stated before, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is where university-based teacher researchers can help to work with K-12 teachers build research communities in their schools and provide them with the knowledge they may need to help contribute to our knowledge of education.
Marianne, maybe we can talk more about your question in class...it seems like there's a lot to unpack, and I'm not sure if I understood it the same way or if I'm understanding your question right.
ReplyDeleteFor my post, one thing I really want to highlight is something Beth mentioned in her post – being a critical researcher. To me, this is rather important to teacher research. I was particularly interested in Foreman-Peck and Murray’s discussion of “critical action research” (p.150) as a way to critique the limiting nature of institution (broadly defined). They write, “this model of action research is critical of institutional or national policies that prevent the realisation and development of group’s ‘critical theorems’” (p.151). They also argue “Critical action research theorists see…the cooption of action research by the organs of state management of education – as a misappropriation of action research” (p.155). In this sense, action research is a way of challenging and critiquing the establishment (if you will). It is a way we can work toward “social justice ends” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, p.145) in our research. While I would argue these are important approaches to action research that we need to address, I also think that this can be a rather daunting task for any researcher – especially teachers who must still work within the institutions they may be critiquing.
ReplyDeleteIn being critical, we also need to think about our own roles in the research. One thing I really liked about Somekh’s work was the discussion of teacher researcher and multiple selves. When we think of our multiple selves, it forces us to consider our “political awareness,” our notions of change, our “conflicting motives” etc. (p.348). In this sense, our research can be as much about helping students and enacting social change/justice as it is about critiquing and coming to a better understanding of our selves as teachers and our roles and beliefs within and about education. I think to some extent, we practice this sort of critique on a daily basis in the classroom. For myself, I constantly critique my own teaching in a number of ways – from the assignments I give, to my engagement in class discussions, to the structure and dynamics of my classroom. While these things on their own aren’t necessarily action research, they are an integral part of it.
Another aspect important to teacher research is knowledge – what is it? Who defines it? Whose knowledge counts? We’ve talked before about how practitioner knowledge is viewed as “low-status knowledge” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, p.130). This, of course, is problematic, for teachers have invaluable experiences and practical knowledge, which is important to educational change. I really liked how Cochran-Smith and Lytle talked about knowledge and practice in chapter five. They write, “practice encompasses …ongoing investigations into the social, cultural, intellectual, relational and political aspects of knowledge construction” (p.133). If we think about the practice of teachers in this sense, we cannot ignore the invaluable nature of practitioner knowledge.
I also like how they discuss inquiry as stance in relation to practice – “Fundamental to the notion of inquiry as stance is the idea that educational practice is not simply instrumental in the sense of figuring out how to get things done, but also, and more importantly, it is social and political in the sense of deliberating about what to get done, why to get it done, who decides, and whose interests are served” (p.121) This, of course, goes back to my initial discussion of critical action research. I really like the end of this quote about what, why, who, and whose interests are served. The “whose interests are served” really stood out to me as I read this portion of the text. My answer would be the students. But what does it mean to serve the interests of the students? I think that teachers, administrators, and political bodies may have differing opinions on this (though they all may have a genuine desire to see students “succeed”.)
I apologize if my post seems disjointed. There were a lot of ideas and quotes I wanted to pack in!
Marianne, I agree with Beth. I looked back at that article after reading your post, and I think your question is one that is better to discuss.
ReplyDeleteI want to start by framing my earlier mindset. Cochran-Smith and Lytle say, “We fully acknowledge that we are sharply critical in this chapter – some would say ecoriating – of NCLB's ideas and assumptions” (p. 61), and next to that I wrote, “Abandon hope all ye who enter here!” I've been through this before when reading a collection of essays on the National Reading Panel, so most of what Cochran-Smith and Lytle note in Chapter 3 was not surprising to me. I noticed a trend in Chapter 3 that has really bothered me for some time, and it is a concern that is connected to the question of whether or not teacher research can affect broader policy.
ReplyDeleteIn their analysis of the language of NCLB, Cochran-Smith and Lytle indicate (without using these words) that the understanding of knowledge production is that of the “banking system” - Friere's term. They say that “an objectified image of knowledge and a transmission view of teaching and learning ar eimplicit in nearly all of the official discourse” (p. 67). Like Beth, I'm going to try to put on my pre-graduate school teacher goggles on to unpack my thoughts here – so much of what I'm going to say isn't directed at my particular experience of the academy (that's my disclaimer). To me, the above quotation is a description of the attitude of traditional institutions of higher learning, such as those one would attend in order to earn a degree in education. However, some of the other reports related to NCLB find that “schools of education and formal teacher training programs [are] failing to produce highly qualified teachers” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, p. 65). This confuses me because it seems that policy makers want to use the discourse and image of knowledge that is associated with the academy, but they don't want to accept what the academy produces when that discourse is dominant. I reckon this to folks who disavow “those liberal elitists,” but who still want their kids to go to private schools. Goodness knows I understand the world is not painted in stark black and white, but this is just a little more cognitive dissonance than I can take. My comment to myself on page 68 was, “So university programs can't prepare teachers, so we should use SBR and EBE based on research structured the way academic research at a university is structured??? What??” and then my head exploded.
I run into this same issue of cognitive dissonance when considering the question of the role of teacher research in affecting larger policies. Somekh says that action research is “a methodology which is broadly defined and takes widely different forms, and that this is the right and proper consequence of action research being grounded in the values of the individuals or group who are carrying it out” (p. 340). This definition of action research seems to be as far from the idea of “Scientifically Based Research” (as defined by the NCLB documents) as one can get. I understand that Somekh and Foreman-Peck and Murray aren't saying that action research is necessarily unscientific, but the loose definitions, broad guidelines, and sometimes lack of some portions (like literature reviews, as noted by Foreman-Peck and Murray) would seem to exclude these studies from consideration. In fact, as Beth also noted, Foreman-Peck and Murray found no evidence at all that these sorts of studies affect policy makers' decisions. If policy makers don't like the results they get from the academy, why aren't they out there looking for research that is outside the academy? I think there needs to be a place for the publication of practitioner research along with a very loud voice in policy makers' faces asking these uncomfortable questions about the dissonance between what they say and what they do. I do feel a little sorry for doctors and other health care workers regarding the health care bill, because I sure understand what it feels like to have folks writing laws about your profession without bothering to ask you for your expert opinion.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked the section of Foreman-Peck and Murray's article regarding warrants and knowledge claims (beginning on page 157). I thought this was a very good explanation on how teacher research could be held to rigorous standards while at the same time allowing for the variability that comes with research that is very specific to the context in which it is conducted. It seems policy makers think we teachers are too stupid to handle this, but Foreman-Peck and Murray suggest that “knowledge claims should be clearly identified, and the warrant for the claim should be made available so that the reader can make an informed judgement” (p. 160). Imagine, a teacher, able to make an informed judgement!
I know what I am seeing is actually a struggle between the forces of professionalization and deprofessionalization. As I end, I promise from now on to be on the side of professionalization – I will go back to my classroom, and I will be a critical action researcher, and I will do everything I can to publish my work, for as Somekh says, “teachers need a vision for learning, some notion of high quality intellectual life which they seek for their pupils. . . more significantly, it provides them – and other practitioner researchers – with a 'high quality intellectual life' of their own” (p. 343).
I've been approaching this weeks readings with a discourse analysis framework in mind--I guess this is sort of a default one for me. Anyway, in an above post Beth poses the question: " how many practicing classroom teachers are actually completing research outside of requirements for graduate courses or to earn degrees?"
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this a lot too, and have been trying to find group(s) of teacher researchers in Appalachia for my class project. So far, I haven't found any teacher research groups in this area. I think they must exist, but they are really hard to find. Looking at this situation through discourse theories offers some explanation. I have been reading a newer book on discourse analysis called "Discourse and Practice" by Theo van Leeuwen. In this book, Leeuwen defines discourse as a recontextualization of social practice. In other words, the people, actions, settings, etc. that comprise some sort of social activity or action become recontextualized into some discursive form (writing, speech, image, etc.). Because power is always at play with discourses, the recontextualization of a social practice may serve the interests of those creating the discourse rather than those being represented. Education, I think, is one such area--just look at all of the negative circulating discourses about teachers and schools (discourses that readily serve politicians and corporations--basically anyone but teachers and students).
Okay, so this has been a long winded way for me to address the question of can teacher research lead to emancipation of some sort. I think the answer is 'yes', but it must begin with practice changes that also change local discourses about teaching. As Marianne said, one concern here is teacher research just becoming another arm of the education system that keeps teachers trapped. I also agree with Courtney's statement in her last post about the struggle between professionalization and deprofessionalization. I think that, although many schools pay lip service to the professionalization of teachers, they don't want instructors that question too much or too deeply--it just wouldn't be good for business.
If it is actually the case that teacher research groups or teachers doing their own research is rare, this seems to be the best place to start creating positive change. Cortney's quote from Somekh applies well here: teachers need "a 'high quality intellectual life' of their own" (p. 343). If enough teachers began a critical action reserach type practice in a local context, over time the surrounding culture would take notice, and, the discourse about teachers would also begin to change (in that local context). If other local contexts experienced similar change, then, I could see the possibility of discourse changes at regional and national levels. If the teachers in our education system can change the discourses circulating about them and get others (parents, families, companies, etc.) behind them, many of the restrictive policies and laws being created today would seem nonsensical.
Prior to taking this course, my ideas of teacher research were rather minimal. I took a course at IU while working on my master’s degree and the information that we were given on teacher research was very light and fluffy compared to what we have been reading in this class; much of the reading focused on coming up with questions about one’s individual teaching practice and analyzing outcomes with the intention of improving instruction and teaching practices. Although much of what we read this semester has focused on this too, I feel like we have been given a variety of different lenses and tools to use to look at teacher research in a much more critical way. Due to this, I think that my ideas about teacher research are much different now than they were prior to beginning this course. Prior to taking this course, I was very idealistic about teacher research and the benefits of conducting research in the classroom to better individual teaching practices and outcomes, but also to better the educational system as a whole. After reading various articles and chapters from the books this course, I’m not so sure any more. Within her article, Schoen states, “action research is operationally defined as a professional research tool that empowers teachers in monitoring and analyzing personal practices with the intent of expanding their knowledge base and enhancing instructional prowess” (215). Within this passage, the word empowers is very interesting because I am not sure that teacher research is as empowering in practice as it sounds in theory.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading various articles this semester, I have noticed that much of the writing that is done about teacher research is not necessarily being written by practicing teachers. In addition, it seems as though teacher research projects are being contemplated in various ways as possible requirements to obtain/maintain licensure as well as means for evaluation. As stated in the introduction o f “Action Research and Policy,” “the move to make teaching an evidence-based profession has led to a proliferation of government sponsored research initiatives, encouraging teachers to engage with the research findings of others, including teachers’ own research, and to undertake research themselves” (1). Additional evidence of this is hinted at within the Schoen article, but is also more explicitly mentioned by Price and McDonough (previous articles that we have read). If we allow teacher research to move in this direction, then what was developed to be an empowering course of action will be transformed into a suffocating course of action. Teacher research will lose some of its empowering characteristics if we begin to use it in mandatory ways as a means for evaluation.
In thinking about whether or not teacher research can accomplish educational reform, I again am not sure. I might be thinking along pessimistic lines today, but I think that teacher research is a very difficult and time consuming task. As Heather mentioned, we need to think about the practicality of this research. In the event that the research can be conducted, one also has to consider that much of the time the research that is being done is evaluating local knowledge and is searching for a solution or explanation for a very specific population of students. To accomplish educational reform, I think that we need to be thinking on a larger scale. Although my posts this week seem a little negative, I think that teacher research can be beneficial in smaller scaled ways. I believe that teacher research has the potential to reform individual teaching practices and outcomes as well as building and possibly district policy. When we start looking at transformation happening beyond the individual classroom, I become a little skeptic. It takes a lot more than one or even a couple of teachers to change policy within a school building, district, and on an even larger scale. I’m not even completely convinced that others view teacher research as “research” because it has the potential to look different.
ReplyDeleteNot to be too idealistic, but I would like to take a moment to truly admire the information given by Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) fifth chapter in Inquiry in Stance. At the beginning of the chapter, both Cochran-Smith and Lytle cite the original uses of teacher research both inside the classroom and outside of it. They cite two major ways inquiry was used or has been used: as either a requirement for a teacher preparation program or as an intervention to boost test scores. Both, they say, are ineffective uses of teacher research, stating that “neither of these conveys the idea of inquiry as a critical habit of mind that informs professional work in all its aspects” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 120-1). What I love about this is that this statement truly captures the idea of being a “lifelong learner” and stresses the need for inquiry in today’s school policy and curriculum creation. Their use of teacher research in all aspects of education says that it is not only the teacher’s duty to encourage and perpetuate classroom research, but also the duty of the administration, the university professors, and the community to conceptualize inquiry and act upon it to cause change.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I admire this extension to Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s definition of teacher research theory is its logic. The theory now states that inquiry in stance is about practice and action. It evokes the element of change that should be embraced among educators and school officials. Many times over, the classroom has become a set of stale lessons and guided instruction, rather than a place of true inquiry among the teachers and the students…guided by the content. This is where authentic research and practice are formed, a classroom that questions the world through the content. To me, a teacher that is researching in his or her own classroom with his or her own students, is more likely to allow research to be done by an outsider, is more likely to perform action research themselves, is more likely to embrace change and encourage learning. Education has never really proven to enforce the status quo, but upset it. Why we now use the classroom to generate test scores that perpetuate the status quo, seems illogical to me. I have always seen the classroom as a space for enlightenment not memorization.
There are just some things in this world that should just be. School should be a place of constant metamorphosis, a place where the sky really is the limit, a place where growth and maturation are both encouraged; rather than, a place of ritual, repetition, and monotony. If the classroom could be used as a venue for research and inquiry, then “the creation of a healthy public sphere and civic encouragement can be achieved through participatory social inquiry and inquiry-based organizing” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 163). In other words, the classroom does become an open space for encouraged learning and growth from not only the teacher’s perspective, but from a student’s, a professor’s, a researcher’s, an administrator’s, etc…
Is it too idealistic? I went too far, didn’t I? I feel like I should end this with a unicorn metaphor and a clip-art image of a rainbow…