Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Kenneth M. Zeichner
To cite this article: Kenneth M. Zeichner (2003) Teacher research as professional development
[1]
for P–12 educators in the USA , Educational Action Research, 11:2, 301-326, DOI:
10.1080/09650790300200211
KENNETH M. ZEICHNER
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
301
Kenneth Zeichner
302
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
303
Kenneth Zeichner
304
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
teachers to work for social change by working on issues of equity and social
justice within the classroom or beyond (Anderson et al, 1994). These
categories are not mutually exclusive. All teacher researchers are interested
in improving their own classroom practice. In addition, some researchers
are also interested in sharing their learning with others or in contributing to
social reconstruction.
A second dimension of variation in teacher research is concerned with
the context in which the research is conducted. Teachers conduct research
alone as individuals, as part of small collaborative groups, or in school
faculty groups involving everyone in particular schools. When the research
has been done in connection with a group, the groups have varied according
to their size, the basis for their formation, and whether there is an external
facilitator and/or university faculty involvement. Some teacher research
groups involve teachers from the same team, department or school, and
others mix together teachers from different schools.
Another dimension along which teacher research has varied is in
terms of the sponsorship of the research. Here we have seen many different
sponsors of the research, including teachers themselves, school districts,
teacher unions, colleges and universities, state departments of education,
regional educational laboratories, professional subject matter associations,
regional staff development centers, school/university partnerships,
educational foundations, and the federal government. Among the colleges
and universities that have been involved in sponsoring teacher research are
those that offer specific courses on teacher research, support teacher
research master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, and those like the
University of California-Davis and George Mason University that have set up
structures to organize and support teacher research on a broad scale.[4]
Most of the time participation in teacher research has been on a voluntary
basis, but sometimes in the case of school-wide teacher research,
participation has been compulsory.
There have also been a variety of external incentives provided to
teachers for participating in research, including time away from school to
think together with colleagues, money, university credits and fulfilling
degree requirements, and professional advancement credits. Some programs
involve teachers in research for a year or less and others enable teachers to
continue their involvement for several years.
Within the teacher research programs themselves, there is often
variation in terms of the form and content of individual studies. For
example, Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) have described four different forms
of systematic and intentional inquiry by teachers in North America: (a)
journals, (b) oral inquiries, (c) studies which represent teachers’
explorations of their work using data based on observations, interviews, and
document collection, and (d) essays. They argue that this broad view of
teacher research accounts for some of the ways that teachers inquire about
their practice that do not fit with university models for doing research. As
305
Kenneth Zeichner
306
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
307
Kenneth Zeichner
which had been produced for local cable television. All of this was directed
toward illuminating what goes on in the research groups (e.g. rituals and
routines, the role of the facilitators), and the program’s influence on the
ways in which participants think about their practice, their classroom
practices, the learning of their students, the culture of schools where
several people have participated, and on individuals and practices beyond
these individual schools.
In interviews designed to assess the impact of the program, many
teachers reported that doing research had helped them develop more
confidence in their ability as teachers to influence the circumstances in
which they teach. They now felt a greater sense of control over their work
and thought they were more proactive than before in dealing with difficult
situations that arose in their teaching.
Many teachers also reported that engaging in research caused them to
look at their teaching in a more analytic, focused and in-depth way, a habit
they claimed they have now internalized and made use of subsequent to
participation in the program. These teachers stated they were now more
likely to step back and examine what they were doing using the tools they
acquired in the program, and that they have become more concerned with
the need to gather data and to understand the impact of their teaching.
Many teachers reported that they were now more likely to talk with
colleagues in their buildings about their teaching and that being part of a
teacher research group convinced them of the importance of collaborative
work with other teachers. They felt that the quality of these conversations
with colleagues were better than before their participation in a research
group.
Several teachers indicated that the research experience raised their
expectations for how they should be treated by others. Because they felt
that they were treated with respect and trust within this program and were
given substantial support, they now expected other staff development
activities to display the same respect for teachers and ambitious view of
their capabilities.
There was a ‘multiplier effect’ in the group experience. Teachers said
that they learned things about teaching not just from the research that they
conducted themselves, but from the research conducted by all of the group
members. There is also substantial evidence in the interview data and in the
research reports that teachers became more ‘learner-centered’ in their
practice as a result of conducting research, a process that almost always
involved collecting data from one’s students. Many teachers claimed that
they were now much more convinced of the importance of talking to their
students and listening carefully to them, that they now listened much more
closely and effectively to their students than before, and that they had
developed higher expectations for what their students know and can do.
Although there is very little evidence in these data of improved student
learning as measured by standardized test scores, many of the teachers
308
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
309
Kenneth Zeichner
hard work that is associated with teacher research that makes a difference
in terms of teacher and student learning. Many of those interviewed who
had participated in this program reported that conducting research was one
of the most difficult and intellectually challenging things that they had done
in their careers. It is important to emphasize that these program effects
occurred under particular contextual conditions (e.g. voluntary experience,
groups with a particular set of rituals and routines, teacher control over the
research process). Following the discussion of all of the programs, I will look
across the cases to speculate about which program conditions are the most
important enablers of teacher transformation.
310
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
311
Kenneth Zeichner
312
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
from their classrooms. All of the study group sessions were audiotaped and
transcribed and the group members were interviewed several times
individually and in groups. Karen Gallas and the three group organizers
also kept field notes, records of informal conversations, and samples of
materials used in the groups, and interviewed the former principal of the
school.
The child study group frequently uses the descriptive review process, a
standard format for examining individual students developed at the
Prospect School in Vermont (Himley & Carini, 2000). This very distinct and
structured protocol involves beginning a group session with a series of
reflections on a word or on a focusing question for participants to keep in
mind to help them prepare for the topic of the meeting. Each meeting is
chaired by one of the teachers and particular teachers present the
situations of a student to be examined by the group. Someone takes
responsibility for taking notes at each meeting and the notes are circulated
to all group members. The chair provides summaries of the presentations
and discussions in the group. A particular talk protocol of ‘rounds’ is often
used to structure the conversations in the group. This very formal process
involves going around in a circle, giving everyone in the group a chance to
speak. No cross-discussion is permitted until all have had a chance to
speak. These very predictable and structured routines with regard to group
talk create a situation where the group members listen closely to one
another.
I’d always heard the term active listening and I thought: this is
really active listening in action ... I was struck by how respectful
everybody was, and people could actually sit and listen and not
have to jump in ... People were really forced to listen to each other.
(Gallas, 1998b, p. 24)
As the group has developed over time, the descriptive review in which an
individual child’s work is examined in depth was supplemented by several
other forms of reflection and analysis, such as discussion of particular
curricula, assessment instruments, and instances of student talk. Prior to
beginning the formal agenda of the meeting there is a 15-minute period of
informal conversation, with food provided by the group members.
The children’s literature group, in contrast to the child study group,
has a very informal style of conversation and does not have the kind of
formal protocols that direct the process of each meeting. The topics of these
meetings involve discussions of commonly read texts or of literature on a
particular theme and consider children and their learning in relation to
books. Although these two groups provide very different models of teacher
learning in inquiry groups, they both create a physical and intellectual
space away from the hectic pace of the school day where teachers can slow
down and reflect about issues of teaching and learning.
313
Kenneth Zeichner
The function of the space apart for them was that it set the stage
for a distinctly different kind of mental activity from that required
in the crush of the teaching day. (Gallas, 1998b, p. 72)
Gallas (1998b) concludes that the kind of deep thinking and public self-
critique that goes on in these groups is made possible by a commitment to
children, teaching and self-improvement and by the close association of
teachers over time in an atmosphere where they feel valued and wanted:
‘Self-critiquing takes place in safe settings with colleagues who know, care
about, and respect each other’ (Gallas, 1998b, p. 78).
The analysis of the effects on teachers and their students of
participating in these groups revealed several different influences. First,
because the groups place teacher knowledge at the center of teacher
inquiry, affirmation of teachers and what they know about the educational
process is an important outcome of participation in the Lawrence study
groups. This affirmation is more than just a confirmation of what teachers
already believe. On the contrary, it is:
A declaration that teacher knowledge is central to the improvement
of practice, but that knowledge must always be called into
question based on teachers’ developing understanding of children
and the process of teaching and learning. (Gallas, 1998b, p. 85)
A second outcome of participation in these groups for teachers is a
broadening of perspective. In the analysis of the group transcripts and in
the self-reports of teachers there is evidence of teachers questioning their
assumptions about themselves and their students and of developing new
perspectives toward their practices and students. This broadening of
perspective is associated with changes in the professional identities of
teachers as they gain the ability to articulate more clearly their ideas about
teaching and learning.
Finally, there is also some evidence in the report of the study of the
groups, of changes in classroom practice that results from group
participation. Teachers’ self-reports indicate examples of changes in teacher
behavior toward particular students and sometimes their parents after a
descriptive review of those students, and changes in student assessment
practices after a series of seminars in the child study group focused on
district assessment practices. There is also some evidence of teachers giving
their students more choice within their reading programs following
discussions about teachers’ reading practices. There is no direct discussion
in the study report of how the groups might have influenced the learning of
the students in group members’ classrooms, but the implication is that
student learning was enhanced as teachers reflected deeply and critically
about their practices in the company of their colleagues.
Gallas (1998b) discusses several factors that she and her colleagues
have identified as keys to the success of these study groups. These include:
the voluntary attendance of teachers over a long period of time, valuing the
knowledge that teachers bring to the experience while simultaneously
314
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
315
Kenneth Zeichner
316
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
many of the schools, Calhoun & Allen (1996) argue that in assessing the
effects of doing action research, one must take into account the extent of
implementation of the model.
Various changes were reported to be associated with the school-wide
action research process in Georgia. In ‘high implementation schools,’
students showed increases in achievement that were attributed in part to
the school-wide action research efforts. Also, teachers who were deeply
involved in the research reported an increase in their sense of efficacy (Allen
& Calhoun, 1998). Calhoun & Allen (1996) spell out a variety of the specific
effects reported on the school learning environment:
Six [schools] reported that students have more opportunities to
read books of their choice during the school day. Four schools
reported that their classrooms and schools operate more as a
community or family, with less segregation by ability level. Three
reported providing more time for students to write during the
school day and more instruction in writing. (p. 158)
Other data is cited that attributes improvements in student achievement
and behavior to the research in 11 of the schools. For example, five of these
schools reported increases in student achievement as indicated by course
grades and/or results on standardized achievement tests. However, the
specific nature of these changes is not indicated. Five of the 11 schools
reported major reductions in student referrals and suspensions. Other
schools reported improvements in student attendance, in student self-
esteem, and improved attitudes toward mathematics. It is hard to interpret
these data, though, because little information is provided about the specific
nature of the research studies or about the effects on schools and students.
Discussion
This discussion of the nature and impact of teacher research based on
studies that have systematically examined teachers’ research experiences
has revealed that under certain conditions, teacher research seems to
promote particular kinds of teacher and student learning that many
teachers find very valuable and transformative, qualities not often linked
with most professional development experiences for teachers. Here we have
seen evidence that the experience of engaging in self-study research helps
teachers to become more confident about their ability to promote student
learning, to become more proactive in dealing with difficult situations that
arise in their teaching, and to acquire habits and skills of inquiry that they
use beyond the research experience to analyze their teaching in an in-depth
manner. Teacher research, under certain conditions, seems to develop or
rekindle an excitement and enthusiasm about teaching and to provide a
validation of the importance of the work that teachers do that seems to be
missing from the lives of many teachers. We have also seen evidence of
direct links between conducting teacher research under particular
conditions and improvements in students’ attitudes, behavior and learning,
317
Kenneth Zeichner
although these improved student outcomes have not always been reported
in sufficient detail.
Because of the limited information that has been provided by teachers
and those who have studied them about the conditions under which teacher
research has been organized and supported, at this point we do not have a
clear view from empirical research of how the contexts that support teacher
research make a difference in terms of teacher and student learning. The
studies reviewed in this article provide us, however, with a set of ‘working
hypotheses’ that can be used as a basis for exploring more deeply into this
matter in the future. Although the particular structures and routines were
different from one another, it appears that their positive effects can be
attributed to several underlying similarities.
From the studies reviewed in this article, it appears that creating a
culture of inquiry that respects the voices of teachers and the knowledge
they bring to the research experience is a key dimension of teacher research
programs that are successful in enabling the kinds of teacher and student
learning discussed here. This respect for teacher knowledge and teacher
voice can be brought about in different ways, but appears to be essential to
a transformational teacher research experience. This does not mean that we
should romanticize the voices of teachers (Hargreaves, 1996) and
uncritically glorify everything that emerges from their research. Teacher
research needs to be taken as seriously as any other kind of inquiry and
evaluated by those who would use it on the basis of both moral and
educational criteria (see Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Gallas’s (1998a)
argument that teacher inquiry communities need to maintain a delicate
balance between honoring teachers’ voices and expertise and asking them to
critique what they know accurately describes the conditions within the
teacher research groups in Wisconsin and Massachusetts (also see Wilson &
Berne, 1999).
One aspect of the investment in the intellectual capital of teachers
shared by all but one of the programs reviewed here is that teacher
researchers were given or took control over most aspects of the research
process, including defining a research focus, data collection and analysis
strategies. This openness to teachers determining the focus and direction of
their own inquiries might not be attractive to those who would like to move
teachers’ practices in particular predetermined directions (e.g. in relation to
standards), but the ownership of the research by teachers seems to be
essential to teacher research which makes a difference for teachers and
their students.
The studies reviewed indicate that the experience of conducting self-
study research under certain conditions seems to move teachers in a
direction of more ‘learner-centered’ instruction where they become more
convinced of the importance of listening to and studying their students and
more willing to use what they learn from this ‘student watching’ to influence
classroom events. They begin to approach teaching more from the
318
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
standpoint of their pupils and to give their pupils more input into classroom
affairs.
One way in which the tension between school and district
improvement priorities and teachers’ own definitions of their individual
development priorities has been dealt with is for a school or school district
to organize teacher research groups around areas of priority and to allow
teachers to develop their own research foci within these broad areas. The
Madison program, for example, has organized several of its research groups
around areas of district priority (e.g. race and gender equity, assessment,
elementary school literacy) and has used funds from different departments
within the district responsible for those areas to fund the groups. This
setting of broad areas for research and then giving volunteer teachers the
autonomy to develop their own research projects within these areas of
priority seems like a reasonable way to tap into the power of teacher inquiry
to promote broad school and school district improvement goals. When
teachers lack the ability to determine their research focus, as appears to
have been the case for some of the teacher researchers in the Ames, Iowa
program, they reacted negatively to what they perceive as an administrative
attempt to increase controls over them. Obviously, within particular school
districts, a balance will need to be achieved between professional
development that focuses on individuals and that which focuses on
organizational features of schools (Guskey, 1995).
Another condition that seems to be important to the success of teacher
research in promoting teacher and student learning is collaboration over a
substantial period of time in a safe and supportive group environment. All of
the programs examined in this article involved teachers working in groups
over a period of at least a year. This experience of working in a group where
all of the members are engaged in self-study seems to help teachers develop
new dispositions and skills to collaborate with their colleagues. When
teachers feel safe and supported in these groups which meet over a long
period of time, communication among group members becomes more
authentic and informative than daily teacher discourse in the staffroom. The
sustained nature of the dialogues in teacher research groups over a long
period of time seems to be uncommon in teachers’ experiences, but
important to the in-depth analysis of teachers’ practices that is often
achieved in teacher research groups.
In addition to the safety and security provided by teacher research
groups, it also appears to be important that the groups provide teachers
with intellectual challenge and stimulation. Teacher researchers in several
of the programs studied valued the difficulty and challenges provided by
group discussions of teachers’ inquiries, contrary to popular images of
teachers as wanting quick fixes and as not interested in or capable of
serious intellectual engagement with ideas. Teachers interviewed in
Madison, for example, frequently compared the ‘deep discussions’ that they
saw themselves engaged in as teacher researchers with the shallowness of
319
Kenneth Zeichner
320
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
often forced to endure. It will also not compensate for the failure of our
society to provide the social preconditions necessary for educational success
for all students: access to decent jobs, housing, food, health care, for all
families. In this era of educational accountability and standards, teacher
research is not a tool that can be used by policy-makers or administrators
to externally impose particular changes on teachers’ practices. When it is
organized and supported, though, according to the kinds of conditions
discussed above, it can become a professional development experience that
has a clear impact on teachers and their students in the ways described. It
can become a transformational professional development experience of great
importance to teachers.
In the end, the quality of learning for students in our schools will
depend to no small extent on the quality of learning and opportunities for
professional development that we provide for our teachers. While it is
appropriate and necessary at times for policy-makers and school
administrators to set directions for reforms and to provide teachers with the
skills and content that they need to carry them out, there must also be a
place in teachers’ lives for the kind of professional development that has
been discussed in this article, which respects and nurtures the intellectual
and leadership capacity of teachers. It is toward this important goal that
John Elliott has contributed so much over his career.
Correspondence
Kenneth Zeichner, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 225 N. Mills Street,
Madison, WI 53706, USA (zeichner@facstaff.wisc.edu).
Notes
[1] This research was supported in part by the US Department of Education and
the Spencer and McArthur Foundations. The opinions expressed do not
reflect the positions of these organizations.
[2] In addition to his great influence on my work throughout the years, I had the
privilege of working with John in Namibia a few years ago.
[3] A few other studies have systematically examined the impact of teacher
research in the United Kingdom (e.g. Dadds, 1995; Burgess-Macey & Rose,
1997).
[4] http://education.ucdavis.edu/cress/projects/teachresearch.html;
http://gse.edu/research/tr
[5] http://madison.k12.wi/us/sod/car
References
Allen, J.B., Shockley, B.B. & Baumann, J.F. (1995) Gathering ‘Round the Kitchen
Table’: teacher inquiry in the NRRC school research consortium, Reading
Teacher, 48, pp. 526-529.
321
Kenneth Zeichner
Allen, L. & Calhoun, E. (1998) Schoolwide Action Research: findings from six
years of study, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, pp. 706-710.
Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994) Studying Your Own School. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1995) Action Research:
inquiry, reflection, and decision-making. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Atwell, N. (1987) Class-based Writing Research: teachers learning from students,
in D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds) Reclaiming the Classroom: teacher research
as an agency for change, pp. 87-94. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Berthoff, A. (1987) The Teacher as Researcher, in D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds)
Reclaiming the Classroom: teacher research as an agency for change,
pp. 28-39. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Boles, K., Kamii, M. & Troen, V. (1999) Transformative Professional Development:
teacher research, inquiry, and the culture of schools, paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (Eds) (1999) How People Learn: brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of
Education Press.
Brodhagen, B., Caro-Bruce, C. & Klais, M. (1999) The Nature and Impact of
Action Research in One Urban School District, paper presented at a Spencer
Foundation sponsored invitational conference on Collaborative Research for
Practice.
Burgess-Macey, C. & Rose, J. (1997) Breaking through the Barriers: professional
development, action research and the early years, Educational Action
Research, 5, pp. 55-70.
Calhoun, E. (1994) How to Use Action Research in a Self-renewing School.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calhoun, E. & Allen, L. (1996) The Action Research Network: action research on
action research, in B. Joyce & E. Calhoun (Eds) Learning Experiences in
School Renewal: an exploration of five successful programs, pp. 136-174.
Eugene: ERIC Center on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Center for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (1998) Changing Teaching
Practice and Improving Student Performance: the role of professional
development. Philadelphia: Center for Policy Research in Education.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993) Inside-outside: teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1998) Teacher Research: the question that
persists, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1, pp. 19-36.
Corcoran, T. (1995) Helping Teachers Develop Well: transforming professional
development. Madison: Center for Policy Research in Education.
322
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
323
Kenneth Zeichner
324
TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
325
Kenneth Zeichner
326