An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration Mary D. Burbank*, Don Kauchak Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Utah, 1705 East Campus Center Drive, Room 142, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9256, USA Received 4 January 2001; received in revised form 7 February 2002; accepted 24 April 2002

Abstract Historically, teacher professional development has taken place in isolation and has been dependent upon input from outside ‘‘experts’’ (Sandholtz, A companion of direct and indirect professional development activities, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, 1999). As an alternative, collaborative action research actively involves teachers in professional reflection, validates educators as producers of knowledge, and recognizes their role in professional development and decision making. The value of teacher research is well documented (Cochran–Smith & Lytle, Inside outside: teacher research and knowledge, Teachers College Press, New York, 1993) but unless deliberate attempts to share findings are established, the products of teacher research often remain within individual classrooms. Strategies to develop collaborative research capabilities are needed. While teacher collaboration may take many forms, action research teaming has become the centerpiece of one urban teacher preparation program. This paper presents quantitative and qualitative data from a study involving a university, school districts, and teacher candidates. Preservice–inservice dyads were taught how to use action research to examine, analyze, and reflect upon their teaching. Results indicate general acceptance by both new and experienced teachers, with developmental differences influencing the process. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher research; Action research; Teacher collaboration

1. An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration The issue of professional development is receiving increased attention, as educators at all levels are realizing the centrality of teachers to school *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-801-581-6074; +1-801-581-9682. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.D. Burbank).

fax:

reform and improvement (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). The educational community is searching for alternative ways to actively involve teachers in their own professional development. Collaborative action research, which combines groups of teachers in the design, implementation, and evaluation of action research projects, provides one mechanism for professional development that addresses the needs of teachers in contemporary classrooms. Through formalized, teacher generated research, collaborative sharing between preservice and

0742-051X/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00048-9

ARTICLE IN PRESS 500

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

inservice teachers provides opportunities for structured dialogues and professional linkages. This article describes research on preservice and inservice dyads involved in collaborative action research within a teacher education program. The goal of this article is to examine and analyze the factors impacting the teaming process through data gathered from participants.

2. Theoretical framework As a profession, teaching is often described as highly individualistic. Decision making is isolated and problem solving and collaboration with peers limited (Lortie, 1975). When collaboration does take place, it is too often limited to an exchange of daily anecdotes, or discussions of ‘‘tricks of the trade’’ to improve practice (Hargreaves & Daw, 1990). In those instances when teachers do consider change in their practice, they often receive input from outside ‘‘experts’’ through district inservice opportunities or from administrative mandates. While suggestions for improved practice via research-based inservice activities may be well intentioned, their impact is limited. Traditional research often fails to influence classroom teachers due to its inaccessibility, its lack of relevancy, and the tendency for its findings to be perceived as either inconsistent or contradictory (Kennedy, 1997). Further, the majority of research provided to teachers follows a scientific model where the process of gathering evidence is based upon rigid, formal rules of science, a way of generating knowledge that many educators, including teachers, are currently questioning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Kennedy, 1997). Similar to contacts with research, many inservice experiences are limited in their relevancy and often leave teachers in an isolated position (Hargreaves, 1992). One of the major limitations of traditional models of professional development is the passive role imposed upon teachers, who find it difficult to implement ideas that are often conceptually and practically far removed from their classrooms. Specifically, professional development opportunities are often limited in the

degree to which teachers can work actively and collaboratively. True collaboration involves equity and mutual participation. Moving teachers from the passive role of many inservice endeavors to truly collaborative ones requires opportunities where teachers can generate, invest in, and participate actively and equally in the professional development opportunities before them (Johnston & Kirschner, 1996; Kirschner, Dickinson, & Blosser, 1996). To ensure teachers a more active role in their own development, we must broaden our definition of professional development to include the experiences and voices of teachers in environments where they are encouraged to collaborate (Tom, 1985; Winters, 1999). Specifically, professional development must include opportunities for active interpretive processes that examine the complex contexts of classrooms and schools. To encourage this type of analysis we must help teachers use alternative forms of inquiry such as peer observations, interviews, biographies, and journals to better investigate the nature of schooling and school issues (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Gitlin, Barlow, Burbank, Kauchak, & Stevens, 1999). Collaborative action research attempts to redefine teacher professional development by encouraging reflective inquiry within school communities that promote dialogic examinations of practice. 2.1. Teacher research and professional development During the last decade, increasing numbers of educators have viewed reflectivity as an essential element of teaching and teacher development (Bullough & Gitlin, 1995; Norman, Sprinthall, & Thies-Sprinthall, 1996). Various methodologies designed to promote reflection have encouraged teachers to become critical consumers of research, participants in research discussions, and developers of research-based approaches to classroom decision making (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992; Zeichner, 1994). Action research is a form of inquiry that addresses these essential characteristics of effective professional development. As an alternative to more traditional forms of ‘‘scientific’’ research

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

delivered to teachers, action research recognizes teachers’ central roles in decision making, based upon the needs of their students and schools. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) describe this research in the following way: Traditionally, views of beginning as well as inservice teacher practice are typically organized to disseminate a knowledge base constructed almost exclusively by outside experts. This means that throughout their careers, teachers are expected to learn about their own profession not by studying their own experiences but by studying the findings of those who are not themselves school-based teachersyWe argue for a different knowledge base; one that is not designed so that teachers function simply as objects of study but also as architects of study and generators of knowledge. (pp.1–2) Implicit in this approach is a fundamental recognition of teachers as active and empowered decision makers who are valid producers of knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Through action research, teachers can come to understand and appreciate research as a personally meaningful process. While many methods of inquiry foster teacher reflection, action research has become the centerpiece of many professional development programs. At the heart of action research is a methodology that encourages teachers to raise questions about theory and practice and encourages evaluation of teaching through systematic inquiry (Bullough & Gitlin, 1995). The active involvement of classroom teachers in action research can create knowledge that is both personally relevant and meaningful to teachers, qualities often missing from research generated by others (Kennedy, 1997). Though studies indicate that teacher research can be a valuable form of reflective inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) teacher research often stays within the boundaries of individual contexts or classrooms, limited by individual experiences and perspectives unless schools establish formalized opportunities for exploring research through discussion and analysis. One way to overcome this isolation is to encourage collaboration with informed peers through established

501

frameworks within school communities. Unlike many traditional means of professional development, collaborative methods provide teachers with opportunities to interact professionally on topics that are relevant and applicable in their classrooms (Smylie, 1995; Tom, 1985). While many agree that teacher collaboration provides an effective, systematic mechanism for reducing teacher isolation, we must be aware of the degree to which teachers’ voices drive the implementation and outcomes of collaborative efforts. Hargreaves and Daw (1990) note that while teacher collaboration is critical, historically it has been sanctioned primarily by outside experts, and teachers have rarely had a say in what takes place during collaboration. The significance of active teacher autonomy in professional development opportunities cannot be overstated. In one study of teacher development, Sandholtz (1999) found that experiences that provide teachers with autonomy, choice, and active participation were critical to effective professional development. Further, in many ‘‘collaborative’’ endeavors, the framing of research questions, data collection measures, and reporting of outcomes are dictated by those outside of classrooms who are often in positions of power (Erickson & Christman, 1996). Not only has teacher professional development been dictated by bureaucrats’ voices within school systems, but also by those outside of schools within the higher education research community (Gitlin, Kauchak, & Burbank, 2000). To balance this input from ‘‘outsiders’’, teacher initiated research is proposed as a vehicle through which educators can formally participate in efforts designed to initiate change (Allen & Calhoun, 1998). While teacher collaboration may take a number of different formats, action research teaming has been identified as one effective mechanism for promoting teacher dialogue (Allen & Calhoun, 1998; Burbank & Kauchak, 2001). Specific advantages of collaborative action research include an increase in teachers’ ability to take control over their professional lives and opportunities to make public their personal views about educational goals and expectations (Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-Gray, 1999).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 502

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

While other research has investigated action research teaming between inservice teachers and teachers and university researchers (e.g., Fichtman, 1995; McLaughlin, Hall, Earle, Miller, & Wheeler, 1995; Ross et al., 1999), no research exists on the use of the teaming strategy as a vehicle to collaboratively engage preservice and inservice teachers in these professional development efforts. Additionally, investigations into the dynamics of effective teacher partnerships are limited. This article provides a discussion of alternate forms of teacher research teaming.

In order for school change to occur, incremental development must take place through formalized structures such as grade level or interdisciplinary or departmental teams attending to school goals (Bullough, Kauchak, Crow, Hobbs, & Stokes, 1997). The research teaming of inservice and preservice teachers described here illustrates one strategy for encouraging and formalizing teacher collaboration as a means of creating school change.

3. Project focus 2.2. A PDS alliance One mechanism for encouraging formalized professional development utilizing teacher research is to link the action research practices of preservice and inservice teachers in Professional Development Schools (PDS). Traditionally, a PDS is a school in which college or university faculty work collaboratively with school practitioners over time in order to meet multiple goals. Professional Development School partnerships foster exemplary practice, provide collaboration between public school and university faculties, and offer continued renewal to participants in the PDS process. In addition to improving teaching and learning and upgrading the education of preservice teachers, PDS alliances provide professional development opportunities for veteran teachers through field-based research and inquiry. Ideally, PDS partnerships provide teachers with opportunities to examine innovative teaching and participate in shared decision making. The goals of teacher as researcher, teacher as decision maker, teacher as teacher educator, and teacher as political activist are often foremost in the design of PDS alliances (Holmes Group, 1990; Robinson & Darling-Hammond, 1994). While exposure to research regularly takes place at various levels within PDS frameworks, formal connections between the research endeavors of inservice and preservice teachers have often been isolated from each other. Unfortunately, research is often identified by teachers as the least significant component of their PDS partnership (Moore & Hopkins, 1993).

At the University of Utah formalized professional development linkages between teachers are taking place via collaborative networks between preservice and inservice teachers. By connecting preservice–inservice teams within existing school frameworks such as departmental teams, participants are more likely to continue their professional endeavors beyond the scaffolds provided through their school–university partnerships (Gitlin et al., 1999). Preservice teachers involved in this study completed a year-long cohort program by participating in classes held on the university campus and at selected sites within local school districts. Action research occurred in conjunction with the student teaching experience and included the development and completion of self-selected projects that examined the relationships between teachers and the instructional contexts in which they find themselves. Through their study, preservice teachers analyzed and evaluated factors that impact classroom teaching and student learning. Additionally, the act of collaborating through preservice–inservice teaming provided opportunities for teachers at both levels to dialogically examine the realities of the contextual demands of classrooms and schools. As the first step toward increased involvement in professional development, interested inservice teachers hosting a teacher candidate completed a graduate course designed to explore action research teaming with their teacher candidate. Funded through a grant from the Utah State Office of Education, participants received either

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

graduate credit or a stipend for completing course work and participating in seminar discussions that provided: (1) a basic understanding of action research and its relationship to traditional research, (2) an introduction to the phases of action research teaming, (3) opportunities to conduct action research in collaboration with their student teachers and, (4) a communication component in which participants shared their research experiences with others. The overriding goal of the course was to provide experiences that validated teacher research through opportunities for professional development. This collaboration had potential advantages for both groups of teachers. For veterans, PDS sponsored action research teaming provided teachers with structured assistance to help them understand and implement action research in their classrooms. When preservice teachers see practicing, experienced teachers using action research in their classrooms, they are more likely to continue their involvement with research throughout their careers (Gitlin et al., 1999). Under the direction of the veteran teachers, preservice teachers selected research projects designed to address the learning needs of their students. For each preservice–inservice team, the preservice teacher identified a topic of study and worked in collaboration with the site teacher to determine how initial plans would play out in the classroom. Project themes encompassed a broad range of topics including: ways of accommodating differing learning abilities through instruction, video taping to improve language production and comprehension in English as a Second Language (ESL) students, examining teacher role identification, developing oral interviews as a diagnostic tool, using peer tutoring to increase learning for middle school social studies students, using contracts to increase students’ academic performance, examining the impact of classroom diversity on minority students, and increasing goal setting skills among high school ESL students. Data gathered by the inservice teachers included, but were not limited to, observing teacher–student interactions, measuring levels of student participation, analyzing documents, and reviewing the content of lessons. The inservice teachers provided

503

the preservice teachers with ongoing feedback at each stage of the action research projects. Teacher teams identifying teaching issues in need of investigation began by developing a baseline description of an issue. Following this review of their classroom needs, team members completed a four-stage process that included the identification of a problem statement, the development of a plan of action, data collection, and finally, an evaluation of outcomes in their teaching. A sample project illustrates the four-stage process in Fig. 1.

4. Research design The study reported here used both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate the process of collaborative action research. The quantitative portion of the design included an exit questionnaire that investigated the value of action research teaming as a method for collaboration, professional development, and as a tool for investigating research. The qualitative data included analyses of course assignments, taped and transcribed transcripts from exit interviews, and transcripts from course seminars. 4.1. Participants Ten preservice and ten inservice teachers were identified, based upon their willingness to participate in the teaming course. The inservice teachers were all secondary teachers and represented diverse content areas (i.e., social studies, English, French, English as a Second Language (ESL), and science) and ranged in experience between 3 and 20 years. Each of these teachers completed a research teaming course in conjunction with their supervisory work with preservice teachers. The preservice teachers were post-baccalaureate students across multiple content areas. The preservice experience included a year-long program where cohort participants completed course work in curriculum and instruction, student teaching, and action research. All names in this paper are fictitious.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 504

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

[A Sample Project] At one school a preservice-inservice team investigated ways of promoting inclusion while increasing and maintaining self-efficacy for Latino/a students using the four-stage investigative process of action research. Team members were drawn to their project based upon the cultural similarity of the teacher candidate to the Latino/a students in her class and by the high percentage of students of color in an introductory English class. During Stage I of their project, the teacher team investigated levels of self-efficacy and self-confidence of Latino/as and their participation in classrooms. From their initial observations and interviews with high school English students, team members determined that many of their Latino/a students felt isolated and alienated in their classrooms and were unwilling to participate in classroom learning activities. Following problem identification, team members developed a plan of action and began data collection. During Stage II, team members examined and implemented strategies for increasing self-confidence of Latino/a students by providing opportunities to contribute their beliefs, values, and opinions in the classrooms. Systematic guidance and feedback were provided on students' oral and written work in order to increase the degree to which students were able to comfortably express their views within the classroom context. Additionally, students were encouraged to use their native languages (primarily Spanish) as a bridge to the English-based content. Finally, students were encouraged to read and write about topics that were personally relevant. During Stage III team members gathered samples of students' written work and monitored student participation during group work and class discussions.

In the final stage of the project, team members evaluated data from their study examining the relationship between the academic and interpersonal support provided to their students. Based upon data analysis, team members concluded that the type of support provided to Latino/a students impacted levels of self-efficacy. Specifically, activities such as increased feedback on writing samples and encouraging students to actively participate in class discussions resulted in improved attitudes toward the class and an increase in classroom community. While many Latino/a students continued to struggle because of their limited English proficiencies, many began speaking more in class both in English and in their native languages. The researchers further concluded that students' confidence in writing and willingness to participate in discussions improved as a result of more relevant curriculum and supportive instruction. Fig. 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

4.2. Data collection To investigate the impact of research teaming this study used formal and informal observations, interviews, and artifacts collected through course work from preservice students and inservice teachers enrolled in an action research course. Preservice teachers’ assignments included identifying an action research problem, creating a plan of action, and gathering data through observation, video taping, journal entries, and quantitative measures of student performance such as test scores, attendance, and participation in classroom activities. The final assignments included a comprehensive action research report, complete with a literature review, and a reaction paper evaluating the significance of action research for their preservice experience. Completed assignments were collected, copied, and evaluated to identify general themes. In addition to taped and transcribed class meetings and assignments, preservice and inservice teachers were interviewed following their teaming experiences. Additional data sources from the inservice teachers included reports and observation notes, written commentaries to preservice teachers, and a series of analysis papers. Feedback on the entire experience was collected from both inservice and preservice teachers through final analysis papers. A wrap-up focus group meeting with inservice teachers, conducted by the researchers, was taped and transcribed. The final evaluation component also included a survey where each preservice and inservice teacher was asked to evaluate anonymously the value and utility of the teaming experience (Appendix). 4.3. Data analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Because of the low total N (20) no statistical analyses were performed. To analyze the qualitative data we began by having each research team member examine the content of journal entries, action research assignments, meeting transcripts, and interviews. Major themes taken from the questionnaire (teaching, research, communication, professional development, and future

505

willingness to engage in action research) formed a basis for our analysis. Using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) we determined subthemes in each of these areas, using a form of triangulation (Denzin, 1989). We then analyzed those themes until we reached consensus on which themes appeared to best represent the views of participants. Members of the research team read all data individually to determine the frequency of response. We then met to see if we agreed on subthemes. In essence, we were looking for emerging patterns that were grounded in the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

5. Results Data from the present study are presented in two sections. In the first, quantitative data examine differences in the responses of preservice and inservice teachers to collaborative action research. In the second section, qualitative data are examined in terms of similarities and differences between these two groups. 5.1. Quantitative data Quantitative data from the questionnaire administered after the collaborative action research experience revealed that inservice teachers were more positive about the process than their preservice collaborators on all items except one. Comparisons between preservice and inservice teachers on the questionnaire indicate inservice teachers strongly believed action research teaming to be an effective vehicle to improve their teaching practice (x% ¼ 6:0; see Table 1); teacher candidates were less positive ðx% ¼ 4:7Þ about collaborative action research as a vehicle to change their teaching. Inservice teachers were also more positive ðx% ¼ 5:5Þ about the potential for collaborative action research for examining views about research than their preservice counterparts ðx% ¼ 4:2Þ: Both groups viewed the collaboration process as an effective vehicle for dialoguing with their team counterparts, but again developmental differences appeared. Experienced teachers thought collaboration provided an effective vehicle to talk with their

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

506

Table 1 Preservice and inservice teachers’ evaluations of action research teaming Survey questions

STEs

1. Action research teaming has provided an effective vehicle to dialogue with my Teacher Candidate or Site Teacher Educator respectively, about teaching. 2. Action research teaming has provided an effective vehicle to dialogue with my Site Teacher or Teacher Candidate respectively, about research. 3. Action research teaming has been an effective vehicle for my own professional development. 4. Action research teaming has resulted in changes in the way I think about teaching. 5. Action research teaming has resulted in changes in the way I think about research. 6. I would be willing to participate in action research teaming in the future. Rating scale : Strongly disagree Not sure Strongly agree : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

teacher candidates about both teaching ðx% ¼ 6:2Þ and research ðx% ¼ 5:3Þ: Teacher candidates, while generally positive about the dialogic possibilities of teaming, were markedly less positive about its potential to provide a forum for discussion about teaching ðx% ¼ 4:7Þ and research ðx% ¼ 4:0Þ: These developmental differences also appeared on views about teaming as a vehicle for professional development, but did not occur in the two groups’ willingness to engage in collaborative action research in the future. Experienced teachers were more positive about collaboration as a vehicle for professional development ðx% ¼ 6:7Þ than their preservice counterparts ðx% ¼ 5:3Þ: However, when asked if they would be willing to participate in action research teaming in the future, preservice teacher candidates were more positive ðx% ¼ 6:4Þ than their veteran counterparts ðx% ¼ 5:8Þ: 5.2. Qualitative data Qualitative data further corroborated developmental differences between team members on a number of dimensions. Teaching. For one inservice teacher, collaboration provided opportunities to explore her own methods of teaching through the process of mentoring a preservice teacher. The greatest advantage for me with this process has been the amount of sharing that it created

TCs

x%

sd

x%

sd

6.2

1.6

4.7

2.4

5.3

1.9

4.0

2.1

6.7

0.4

5.3

2.1

6.0 5.5 5.8

0.9 1.1 1.5

4.7 4.2 6.4

2.1 0.9 0.8

for Connie and me. I feel that I was better able to do my job as a mentor teacher because I was involved in more than just helping her write lesson plans. I’ve had the opportunity to share my thoughts on working with students in different frameworksyThis is the first time I’ve been asked to justify my teaching practice and to actually articulate the reasoning behind my practice. I found that doing this created an avenue for building confidence in what I do, what the teacher candidates are learning, and in the profession of teaching (Sally, middle school teacher). Other veteran teachers noted that action research teaming increased their awareness of student learning. For example, one veteran teacher concluded that the quality of students’ work improved if students were provided with explicit criteria, were shown how to implement selfmonitoring strategies, and were encouraged to use these cognitive tools across assignments. Beginning teachers also found research teaming useful for improving practice and were positive about its influence on their teaching. One preservice teacher who examined her English as a Second Language classroom reported, ‘‘I was forced to look at my own assumptions about students and my curriculum. I’m more clear than ever about the need to let the curriculum flow according to students’ needs’’. Another preservice teacher reported that ‘‘action research teaming

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

forced me to look at important questions regarding my students’ development—forced me to reflect on my own teaching and curriculum’’. As a group, preservice teachers viewed action research teaming as a formal opportunity to examine their teaching practice; increased attention to curriculum, instruction, and student-teacher interactions were among the benefits mentioned. In concrete terms, research teaming provided teachers at both levels with opportunities to examine how they served students. In a project entitled, ‘‘Increasing and maintaining the selfefficacy of Latino/a students while promoting the inclusion of all students’’, an action research team examined the influence of systemic school structures and instructional and curriculum choices on the self-efficacy of Latino/a students. For the preservice teacher, teaming with her site teacher ‘‘allowed for the freedom to experiment with curriculum that allowed for connections with Latinos(as)’’. Her action research partner also benefited from the process. I have really enjoyed working with Monica and feel privileged for the opportunity to team with her. As I have read her journal entries, I must admit that my own horizons are being broadened. Sharing her perceptions and inner thoughts have made me view my ‘‘teaching world’’ through her eyes and through the eyes of a Latina. I can’t tell you the impact the teaming has had on me (Karen, inservice teacher). For another team, the outcomes from a project entitled ‘‘The impact of peer collaboration on assignment completion in a middle school social studies class’’ extended beyond the confines of the project to other content areas and beyond the school itself. The preservice member commented: Throughout this action research project the stages of group work were addressedystudents were explicitly instructed on what peer/group work is. The groups were used for nonacademic as well as academic purposes. The students learned how to work with others in a cooperative and collaborative manneryreal learning is not an isolated endeavorythe

507

transfer of what they have learned will reach well beyond the classroom (Connie, preservice teacher). Other preservice teachers were less sure of the direct impact of their action research experiences on their classroom teaching at this stage of their development. One preservice teacher reported ‘‘Some change has happened in how I look at teaching. But I am not sure how much influence action research has had on that change’’. Without a concrete frame of reference to think about changes in their teaching, preservice teachers may have been less positive in their evaluation of action research as a mechanism for improving their teaching. Research. For experienced teachers, teaming provided a viable mechanism for thinking about research. I believe that the only way to motivate teachers to do anything beyond what is explicitly stated in their written agreements is to make it a part of the a ‘teaching culture’. Once teachers forget that research is something extra, they may begin to do it spontaneously. The only way to achieve this goal is to get enough motivated teachers together to collaborate on successful projects (Dave, inservice teacher). However, another inservice teacher noted that preservice teachers may not be ready to think about research at this stage of their development: One practical disadvantage of the research process is that most student teachers are unprepared to conduct truly meaningful research because most have few research skills and little or no frame of reference of classroom experienceyFor this reason research may appear valueless to Sonia; she merely went through the motions. But, going through the motions may be the primary benefit of the project for student teachers (David, high school). Developmental differences between inservice and preservice teachers also influenced the teaming process by affecting project choices, understanding of concepts, perceptions of classroom events, and

ARTICLE IN PRESS 508

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

ability to follow through on project completion. As inservice teachers noted, differences between how the inservice and preservice teachers viewed their classrooms were considerable: Topics that site teachers would address are not necessarily those that a teacher candidate would choose on their ownythe issues being addressed by Sara were not necessarily issues that I wanted to addressyI think her quest for identity in the classroom stemmed from her personal experiences over the first few weeks in the classroom (Ryan, middle school teacher). Preservice teachers frequently used action research projects to clarify their personal teaching identities, something that veteran teachers were not concerned about. Developmental differences also affected project ownership. One experienced teacher commented: I wasn’t sure if I was totally committed to the action research. I felt I was committed to helping Esther come to some realizations about assessment but it seemed as though I was leading her to answers I already knew to be true. It was almost as if I was watching with anticipation instead of being an active part of the research project (Kyle, middle school teacher). Developmental differences were also noted by a site teacher who expressed her frustration in guiding a teacher candidate through a process that she knew was not the direction she would personally take on her own. In an earlier journal I addressed some of my initial concerns with the research project. I reflected on the plan she was putting into action and that it tended to feel like a personal attack on my teachingyEven though I tried to remove emotion from the process, it was impossible. I also knew what some of the outcomes would be before she even tried them, and I had a difficult time not telling her ‘You’re just wasting time trying that.’ For her it wasn’t a waste of time, because she needed to see for herself that the strategy wouldn’t work (Sally, middle school teacher).

Differences in developmental stages were also negatively perceived by preservice teachers. As a preservice teacher noted, ‘‘I don’t think my site teacher valued my research or thought it an important topic for academic dialogue. Rather, I think that he thought it was too personal’’. Preservice teachers were also less positive than inservice teachers about the influence of action research teaming on the ways they thought about research. ‘‘My Site Teacher and I have very different approaches to research. She was much more concerned with the finished product’’. Specifically, My site teacher had a stake of her own in terms of credit, grades, pace, and amount of work coveredyAt times, it becomes the job of the teacher candidate to negotiate and to make compromises (Paula, preservice teacher). Another preservice teacher reported, ‘‘I am not sure if research teaming will impact the way I think about research. It will depend on time for me’’ (Sally). For other preservice teachers, the limited impact of action research teaming on beliefs about research may have been due to the novelty of conducting action research. While I began this experience not really knowing anything about action research teaming I learned a lot about research by conducting the project. I have a better understanding about how important it is to let the data speak for itself and not to have too many expectations regarding outcomes ahead of time (Laurie, preservice teacher). Communication. Inservice teachers evaluated action research teaming as an effective vehicle to dialogue with their student teachers about both teaching and research. They felt teaming facilitated communication because, ‘‘We were able to be open, honest, and direct’’. Another site teacher reported, ‘‘This was an extremely valuable component for opening dialogue for us. We both had questions and concerns that were brought to light as a result of our conversations’’. By comparison, preservice teachers were less positive about teaming as a vehicle to dialogue

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

about teaching and research, though they did perceive action research as a viable forum for discussion. The process that my Site Teacher Educator (STE) and I went through to refine the purpose and goals for the action research project forced us to look at the larger picture—in terms of students’ needs and curriculum design. Action research provided us with a platform from which to begin a dialogue (Annie, preservice teacher). While both inservice and preservice teachers viewed teaming as generally beneficial, their reasons often varied. For inservice teachers, action research teaming provided opportunities for increased dialogue, a springboard for professional development, and a catalyst for examining the value of teacher research. One inservice teacher commented: Not only has the teaming been of benefit for Monica, but also me. Her journal entries, surveys, and discussions have led to stronger conclusions and a sense of direction for her research. What I have found most helpful is the time we have spent talking about the ‘events’ of the day. Sharing perceptions, thoughts, and reactions in an honest, open, and direct manner with each other has really enhanced communicationyConversations have helped me greatly in understanding her, her culture, and her project (Karen, high school teacher). Key to the success of teacher reflection via action research was the creation of collaborative venues that allowed for discussion, debate, and reflective analysis. One preservice teacher commented: Through action research teachers are provided with an evaluation of a problem, a plan of action, and an analysis of the results. The benefits of this type of evaluative process allows teachers to change and shift in ways that allow for flexibility (Connie, preservice teacher). For some dyads, the power dynamic between preservice and inservice teachers may have limited open communication. That is, the impending

509

threat of a final evaluation may affect some preservice teachers’ willingness to openly discuss limitations in their teaching. In one instance, a preservice teacher actively took a stand against her site teacher’s perceived lack of interest in working on the project collaboratively. The teaming was mainly for me an act of satisfying the site teacheryI accept the process but it must be more collaborativeyMy site teacher had her own goals and interests. As a preservice teacher I was vulnerable. By vulnerability, I don’t mean helplessness. It is true, however, that the student teacher is in an unequal relationship in terms of power, not only with the site teacher, but with supervisors and administrators. The student teacher must negotiate a productive and collaborative relationship that involves many fine judgements and compromisesyIt should be kept in mind that the action research project, if the site teacher decides to collaborate, is going to have very emphatic and definite opinions about how to do the projectyher [site teacher] concern was to do something easy and quick that could be wrapped up and finishedyIt is naive to think that simply declaring that the project is the property of the student teacher is going to override the factors of the day-to-day goings on in classrooms (Paula, preservice teacher). In addition to power differentials leading to communication problems within some research teams, dyad gender differences may have affected general communication strategies. Communication difficulties were considerably more common for male inservice teachers and their female preservice counterparts than for same gender dyads. As one preservice teacher reported. I didn’t have a dialogue with my site teacher about anything. He would talk at me occasionally, but we didn’t have a dialogueyI don’t think he valued my research or thought it important as an academic dialogue. Rather, I think he thought it was too personal. While I didn’t feel comfortable raising this issue with him, this is how I felty

ARTICLE IN PRESS 510

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

These findings are consistent with those of others who have studied the impact of gender on supervisory relationships (Nelson & Holloway, 1990) as well as gender in peer collaboration (Meter & Stevens, 2000). Professional development. Veteran teachers evaluated collaborative research teaming very highly as a mechanism for professional development as well as how they thought about research in general. One teacher reported: yAction research teaming begins to bridge the gap between academics and the reality of classrooms. Teachers, including myself, are so often defensive about teacher educators because they perceive academic research and educational literature as ivory-towered and impracticalyIf teachers can compare literature with their own research, and collaborate on research with colleagues, and possibly even with universities, then teachers become more scholarly and scholars become more accessible (David, high school teacher). Another inservice teacher reported that action research teaming provided a mechanism for professional growth through peer collaboration, ‘‘Research teaming creates a feeling of community and professionalism because teachers learn from one another and listen to each other as experts’’ (Shelly, middle school teacher). Inservice teachers also viewed collaborative research teaming as an effective strategy for promoting self-reflection. The teaming experience was an opportunity to remove myself from my own classroomyI began to observe with a different lens. I became reflectiveyMy research team member wanted to increase student participation with a student centered focus. The student teacher (Kathy) wanted the students to ask questions and develop their own solutions. As I observed Kathy, I began to reflect upon my own practice. I had to ask myself. ‘Do I monopolize the classroom? Do my students feel comfortable asking questions? Who guides most of the discussions in my classroom?’ As Kathy’s project progressed, I, too, looked critically at

my interactions with my students. I began to see patterns of teacher-directed discussionsyI implemented more student centered activities and was pleased with the increased student participation (Carol, middle school teacher). The spark of enthusiasm from teaming prompted a number of teachers to consider ways for continuing with action research beyond the initial experience with their preservice teacher. One teacher reported: I have never considered myself a scientific person—a researcher. So I approached the action research project with mixed feelings and some hesitationsyI lumped all scholarly research into this ‘nice-to-know-but useless’ bin with most of those educational theories and philosophiesybut the main reason for joining this project was that of collaborating with my student teacherySometimes I was beside her discussing and dissecting; sometimes I stood silently in her shadow observing and watching; but always I knew that I was an integral part of this projectyWe had developed a genuine trust for each other and were able to discuss problems in an open honest dialogueyThrough this teaming experience I have learned that other teachers can be considered research resources. As to the future or our project, I have given much thought. I am committed to continuing the weekly communication program enlisted by my student teacheryOur project provided an opportunity for collaboration across classrooms and provided a forum for exciting and enlightening teacher-colleague discussions (Gloria, high school teacher). These findings are consistent with results of others (e.g., Sandholtz, 1999; Winters, 1999), who highlight the need for professional development experiences that are teacher generated and directly applied to their classrooms and schools. Qualitative data indicated that initial teacher resistance to action research teaming may stem from its perceived affiliation with ‘‘outsider’’ research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Specifically, some teachers were suspicious of research

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

produced by those outside of and unfamiliar with the realities of classrooms and schools. The enthusiasm expressed by this group of teachers is particularly significant because teachers in this district have historically been resistant to professional development opportunities offered through inservice and workshops. These findings are consistent with others (Gitlin, et. al 2000; Sandholtz, 1999), where teachers viewed professional development opportunities as hierarchically imposed, containing information that is often less than credible and useful. While generally receptive to research teaming, preservice teachers reacted less positively to collaborative research as a vehicle for their professional development. Preservice teachers’ uncertainties may be due to their developing understanding of what teaching and professional development entails. As one preservice teacher noted, ‘‘I’m not sure I see the tie to professional development at this stage in my career’’. Opportunities to truly collaborate on projects were perceived as essential. One preservice teacher commented: Without my site teacher’s help and willingness to discuss the possibilities and implications of this project I could not have conceived of it in the way we did. Her experience was crucial in refining various aspects of the project and in helping me to conceptualize its entirety. I cannot say enough about the importance of teacher–teacher relationships (Annie, preservice teacher). While action research provided teachers with a tool for examining their own practice, the power of action research teaming stemmed from its ability to foster collaboration and professional development through collaborative research. Action research alone allows for reflective teaching, collaborating with another teacher adds a wonderful dimension to that reflection. You are able to discuss and consider how well the project is working and what needs to be changed, rearranged, taken out altogether or enhanced upon. There were many instances when I would be frustrated and disillusioned by

511

the project; areas, that unless verbally discussed, may have gone unnoticedyI became more willing to step out of my comfort zone, take chances and try things I may not have tried without that support (Connie, preservice teacher). Willingness to engage in action research in the future. Both inservice and preservice teachers reported they would investigate teaming in the future, but this was the only dimension on which preservice teachers were more positive than their veteran counterparts on the questionnaire data. Two preservice teachers remarked, ‘‘I would love the opportunity to collaborate on another project. The teaming is so valuable’’ and ‘‘Absolutely—in fact I will!’’ Additionally, By participating in action research throughout one’s teaching career, growth as an individual and as an educator is a definite reward. Through action researchyeducators are challenged to investigate philosophies and strategies which affect their studentsyTeaching ‘ruts’ can be avoided through teacher research by paving a path to continuous growth, both professionally and personally (Monica, preservice teacher). For veteran teachers, the impact of teacher teaming was equally significant. The teacher research teaming model you have developed is extremely effective for two main reasons. First, as prospective teachers go through student teaching they begin to develop habits—good or bad—that will remain with them for a long timeyTeacher research arms teacher candidates with a critical model to evaluate their own teaching methods. Second, action research teaming begins to bridge the gap between academics and the reality of classrooms (Dave, inservice teacher).

6. Summary and implications Data from this study indicate promise for collaborative research teaming across a number of areas. First, self-reflection was validated for

ARTICLE IN PRESS 512

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

preservice teachers by observing such practices among inservice teachers. Collaborative action research was perceived positively by both preservice and inservice teachers on a number of dimensions including changing teaching practice, changing views about research and as a vehicle to dialogue about research and teaching practice. These finding were especially robust for the experienced teachers participating in collaboration. In addition, teaming led to feelings of ‘‘community and professionalism’’ (Kathy, preservice teacher). For others, research into practice had potential for extension beyond the structure of this study as suggested by deliberate plans for continuing projects. However, while research teaming was positively received by both inservice and preservice teachers, our study also uncovered limitations that must be considered in future development efforts. Timing was a problem; both inservice and preservice teachers noted problems with conducting action research projects along with (or on top of) the demands of student teaching. One inservice teacher reported: Trying to have teacher candidates do this at all while they are teaching for the first time, coping with the demands of teaching aside from lesson plans, taking classes themselves and trying to find a job is overwhelming (Karen, high school teacher). For preservice teachers, attending to the immediate, technical aspects of teaching was foremost, a finding consistent with other research (Berliner, 1994; Borich, 2000; Burden, 1986; Ryan, 1992; Veenman, 1984). The ability of students to take part in action research teaming while wrestling with the demands of teaching as a novice may be overwhelming (Feldman, Rearick, & Weiss, 1999). To avoid overload, future development efforts may want to consider the timing of projects and levels of teacher assistance needed to provide adequate support in the classroom prior to beginning projects. Veteran teachers were more positive about collaborative action research as a vehicle to improve teaching, to examine research, to encourage dialogue about teaching and research, and as

a vehicle for professional development. One explanation of the generally more positive responses of the experienced teachers to collaborative action research may be developmental differences between participants. Increased experience in both classrooms and schools allowed veteran teachers to focus on subtle aspects of the process that may have been unappreciated or lost on beginning teachers. While developmental theories of teacher development have been criticized as being overly simplistic (Fessler, 1992; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1993), our data suggest that developmental differences significantly influenced participants’ understandings and appreciation of action research as a personal professional development vehicle. Future research should investigate ways of making collaborative action research more meaningful for preservice teachers. Our data also suggest that developmental differences within preservice and inservice dyads influenced the focus of collaborative action research projects. Preservice teachers frequently selected topics, such as developing a personal teaching identify, that were not developmentally interesting to veteran teachers. Further research and development efforts might pair teachers at similar developmental levels. Unfortunately, this same-level collaborative pairing then loses the mentoring benefits of preservice and inservice dyads. Also, research suggests that conflict and differences of opinion are critical to the process of change in practice (Meter & Stevens, 2000). The appropriate balance of healthy conflict versus consensus is a crucial empirical issue for future research. Needed are fine-grained studies that investigate the processes involved in effective collaborative action research teaming. In addition, the long-term effects of participation in collaborative action research need to be investigated in terms of both internal variables such as attitudes and understanding as well as actual practice. Though data from this study indicate promise in broadening opportunities for professional development, the hierarchical power of inservice–preservice experiences also affected true collaborative partnerships. Collaboration requires trust and sharing (Hursh, Gurney, LaCelle-Peterson, & Ramdin, 1996); whether true collaboration can

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

occur within unequal teacher dyads in which evaluation plays a role, is both an empirical and practical question. To ensure the long-term viability of collaborative action research in schools, mechanisms must be created to institutionalize the process; structured opportunities within schools and school communities must offer support in systematic and sustained ways. Through collaborative action research, experienced teachers are provided with mechanisms to systematically mentor their novice peers into the profession. Without such collaborative opportunities, it is highly unlikely that reflective investigations will extend beyond preservice experiences, unless beginning teachers see similar practices utilized by practicing teachers in schools (Gitlin et al., 1999). Collaborative action research teaming can provide one effective professional development strategy. Findings of the current study suggest that collaborative action research teaming enhances the professional development of both preservice and inservice teachers by engaging them in the process of examining teaching and research in a manner that is both collaborative and evolving (Darling-Hammond, 1994). However, the present research revealed that effective teaming is highly dependent upon common project goals among team members, structural opportunities for working as teams, and similarities in the developmental needs of participants. The challenge for teacher educators is to create structures both within their programs and within schools to provide opportunities for this professional development strategy to develop and grow.

Appendix Reviewing the process of action research teaming For each of the statements listed below, indicate your agreement or disagreement by circling the number that best expresses what you think about the statement. Your replies to these statements may range from strongly disagree (SD or 1) to strongly agree (SA or 7). Strongly disagree 1 2 3

Not sure 4 5

Strongly agree 6 7

513

1. Action research teaming has provided an effective vehicle to dialogue with my Teacher Candidate/Site Teacher about teaching. 2. Action research teaming has provided an effective vehicle to dialogue with my Teacher Candidate/Site Teacher about research. 3. Action research teaming has been an effective vehicle for my own professional development. 4. Action research teaming has resulted in changes in the way I think about teaching. 5. Action research teaming has resulted in changes in the way I think about research. 6. I would be willing to participate in action research teaming in the future.

References Allen, L., & Calhoun, E. F. (1998). School wide action research: Findings from six years of study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 706–710. Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performance. In J. Mangieri, & C. Collins (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students (pp. 161–186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Borich, G. (2000). Effective teaching methods. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bullough, R. V., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland. Bullough, R. V., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., Hobbs, S., & Stokes, D. (1997). Professional development schools: Catalysts for teacher and school change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 153–169. Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Action research teaming: An examination of multiple teaming configurations. The Professional Educator, 24, 11–23. Burden, P. (1986). Teacher development: implications for teacher education. In J. Roths, & C. Kating (Eds.), Advances in teacher education, Vol. 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1992, May). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront. American Journal of Education, 100, 298–324. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons, challenge and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 514

M.D. Burbank, D. Kauchak / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 499–514

Erickson, F., & Christman, J. (1996). Taking stock/making change: Stories of collaboration in local school reform. Theory into Practice, 35, 149–157. Feldman, A., Rearick, M., & Weiss, T. (1999). Teacher development and action research: Findings from five years of action research in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Fessler, R. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and guiding the professional development of teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Fichtman, D. (1995). Action research, school change, and the silencing of teacher voice. Action in Teacher Education, XVI, 59–70. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1993). Teacher development and educational change. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. Gitlin, A., Barlow, L., Burbank, M. D., Kauchak, D., & Stevens, T. (1999). Pre-service teachers’ thinking on research: Implications for inquiry oriented teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 753–769. Gitlin, A., Kauchak, D., & Burbank, M. D. (2000). The struggle for legitimate knowledge: Teachers’ thinking on research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Hargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of teaching: a focus for change. In A. Hargreaves, & M. G. Fullen (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 216–240). New York: Teacher’s College Press. Hargreaves, A., & Daw, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived congeniality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 227–241. Holmes Group, Inc. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group Inc. Hursh, D., Gurney, H., LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Ramdin, K. (1996). From Miriam’s living room to the Genessee Valley collaborative: Working together for reform. Theory Into Practice, 35, 178–185. Johnston, M., & Kirschner, B. (Eds.), (1996). Editorial comments. Theory Into Practice, 35, 146–148. Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26, 4–12. Kirschner, B. W., Dickinson, R., & Blosser, C. (1996). From cooperation to collaboration: The changing culture of a school/university partnership. Theory Into Practice, 25, 205–213. Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McLaughlin, H. J., Hall, M., Earle, K., Miller, V., & Wheeler, M. (1995, January). Hearing from our students: Team

action research in a middle school. Middle School Journal, 26, 7–19. Meter, P., & Stevens, R. (2000). The role of theory in the study of peer collaboration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 113–127. Moore, K., & Hopkins, S. (1993). Professional development school: Partnerships in teacher preparation. Contemporary Education, 64, 219–222. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Nelson, M. L., & Halloway, E. L. (1990). Relation of gender to power and involvement in supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 473–481. Norman, A., Sprinthall, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 666–703). New York: Macmillan. Robinson, S. P., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Change for collaboration and collaboration for change: transforming teaching through school–university partnerships. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press. Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of collaborative action research on the knowledge of five Canadian teacher-researchers. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 255–275. Ryan, K. (1992). The roller coaster year: Essays by and for beginning teachers. New York: Harper Collins. Sandholtz, J. H. (1999). A companion of direct and indirect professional development activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In T. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Tom, A. R. (1985). Inquiring into inquiry-oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 35–45. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143–178. Winters, K. (1999, January 28). Teacher quality: Report on teacher preparation and qualification. EDInfo (Online). [email protected]. Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 9–27). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.