Critical issues in supporting self-study

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Critical issues in supporting self-study Mieke Lunenberg*, Rosanne Zwart, Fred Korthagen Centre for Educational Training, Assessment and Research, VU University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 February 2009 Received in revised form 5 October 2009 Accepted 13 November 2009

In this article, we focus on an analysis of critical issues in supporting teacher educators conducting a selfstudy. As data, we have used the digital logbooks written by the participating teacher educators, the outcomes of the interviews we held at the end of the support process, and of a follow-up questionnaire answered by the participating teacher educators six months later. We have found seven issues critical to enhancing the chances of self-studies being beneficial to the practice of teacher education as well as to the further development of a knowledge base for teacher education. In addition, our study points to four themes for further attention and research. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher educators Professional development Self-study research

1. Introduction “The real challenge of intellectual education is the transformation of more or less causal curiosity and sporadic suggestion into attitudes of alert, cautious, and thorough inquiry.” [Dewey, 1933, p. 181] With the above quote from Dewey, we started the first Dutch self-study project “Teacher educators study their own practice”. The participating teacher educators were invited to work on their own professional development by performing a self-study leading to both the improvement of their practice and a research paper. This combination of practical relevance and the development of public knowledge is, according to Zeichner (2007), the central goal of “the new scholarship in teacher education” as it has taken form in self-study research (see also Zeichner, 1999). To us, the challenge was to become facilitators of this process and to support the participants in their journey of becoming a scholarly teacher educator. Honouring the idea of “Teach as you preach”, we decided to make this challenge the focus of our own self-study. The reason to begin the project “Teacher educators study their own practice” was twofold. First, in Europe, self-study research as a way of promoting teacher educators' professional development is still relatively unknown. In addition, in contrast to most countries around the world, more than 90% of teacher educators in the Netherlands have a teaching job only. The idea of conducting

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 (0) 20 5989222/46; fax: þ31 (0) 20 5989250. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Lunenberg), [email protected] (R. Zwart), [email protected] (F. Korthagen). 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.007

systematic research, let alone research into one's own practice, is rather new to most Dutch teacher educators. Second, in the upper levels of secondary school, teachers are increasingly expected to support pupils in doing research, as a way of better preparing them for university education. As a consequence, teacher educators are expected to prepare teachers for this task (compare Katz & Coleman, 2005). It is here that we are faced with a problem, for in the Netherlands teacher educators themselves often lack research experience. As a result, they are becoming more interested in e are learning to do e research. We thought this project could contribute to the introduction in the Netherlands of self-study, as well as to the growth of the participants' research knowledge. Taking the Dutch situation into account, we were convinced that the participating teacher educators would need support. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. The origins of self-study research The birth of self-study research is rooted in a long tradition of research carried out by teachers, which started in the 1950s (for example, Corey, 1953). The interest in teacher research was strongly enhanced by Stenhouse's (1975) and Elliot's (1978) work on action research and the related idea of ‘teachers as researchers’. More recently, Whitehead has been one of the most well known advocates of teacher research (see McNiff & Whitehead, 2006; Whitehead, 1989). A related development was enhanced by Schön's work (1983, 1987) on the reflective practitioner, which generated interest in the notion of “knowing-in-action”, the tacit knowledge that is implicit

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

in the actions of professionals. As a result, reflection became a buzzword in the field of teacher education. However, it became apparent that in order for a professional's reflections to be relevant to a broader community, more systematic study of one's own practice is needed, and certain methodological guidelines should be followed in order to safeguard the quality of the research into one's own practices (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001). The development of self-study research in the early 1990s is not only the result of such developments in the broader field of teacher research, but also of various developments in the pedagogy of teacher education (Loughran, 2004). Traditionally, in the twentieth century, teacher education curricula followed a “theory-to-practice approach” (Carlson, 1999), in which the university provides the theory, skills and knowledge about teaching, and the school provides the field setting in which to apply and practice them (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Since the middle of the 1970s, however, several studies have shown that this approach does not work well (see for example Lortie, 1975). In the same period of time, new theoretical insights on teaching and learning were developed under the influence of constructivism, which confirmed that “telling it like it is” (Hamilton & McWilliam, 2001, p. 23) is not very productive. These studies coming together eventually led to a change in the pedagogical approaches used in teacher education. As shown in the review study by Munby, Russell, and Martin (2001), since the 1980s the traditional approaches in teacher education have been replaced by more practice-based approaches. It seems that this change also evoked the notion among teacher educators that they should do themselves what, for a long time, they had been encouraging teachers to do, namely reflecting on their own practices and becoming reflective practitioners (Korthagen, 1995). In line with what teachers already had started to do, these developments led to teacher educators' wishes to study the processes involved in the new attempts to improve teacher education practices. However, there appeared to be an important difference between what is requested in teacher research and in teacher educator research. While most teacher research focuses solely on improving the teacher's own practice, teacher educator research has the same focus, but also serves a second goal. As most teacher educators are academics too, they are expected to contribute to general knowledge development through publications in academic journals. Having said this, we have to add that recently an extension of teacher research in the direction of general knowledge development can also be observed. Whitehead describes this process in a recent publication (Whitehead, 2009; see also Ponte, 2002). 2.2. Methods in self-study research In its methodology, self-study research builds on various traditions (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; LaBoskey, 2004). Because of its focus on teacher educators' own practices, qualitative methods are often used. This does not mean that self-study research is per definition qualitative, for quantitative analyses of e.g. student evaluations and tests, can offer teacher educators important insights into their practices. Nevertheless, in self-study research visuals, discourses and texts generally play an important role (Tidwell, Heston, & Fitzgerald, 2009). An important characteristic of self-study research is the focus on the I, which is also the essence of auto-ethnography as a research methodology (Chang, 2008; Coffey, 1999; Ellis, 1991, 2004; Kane, 2002), originally used in cultural studies of one's own people (Hayano, 1979). Hence, Coia and Taylor (2009) advocate autoethnography as an important method in researching teacher educators' own practices, because the process of self-characterization

1281

involves more than the one-dimensional professional identity of being a teacher educator (cf. Reed-Danahay,1997). Identity is socially constructed by how others perceive and define us, by our relationships with others, and by the setting (Bergner & Holmes, 2000). Hence, according to Coia and Taylor, to be a teacher educator at this time, in this culture, is complex, culturally determined, and dialogical (compare Lunenberg & Hamilton, 2008). Indeed, many teacher educators discover that an important characteristic of their selfstudies is that the problem under investigation develops, shifts and changes in response to the continuous shifts in education. This leads to notions such as “ongoing motion” (Ellis & Bochner, 2006) and “continuing tensions” (Atkinson, Coffey, & Delamont, 1999), which are characteristic for auto-ethnography. Critics often point at the risk of auto-ethnographical studies becoming idiosyncratic and narcissistic. As a result, self-studies have often been denied publication (see Knowles & Cole, 1995, for a description of this phenomenon). Clandinin and Connelly (2000), in their book on narrative inquiry (a related method that also highlights experience and story as a meaning-making enterprise) argue that the answer to this problem lies in the process of transitioning from field texts to research texts. Whereas the field text contains the stories, a research text should involve analysis and interpretation (cf. Anderson, 2006). This has to help the reader to see the broader meaning of the study. Ellis (2004) adds that autoethnographic research seeks generalizability not just from the respondents, but also from the readers, and has the intention of opening up rather than closing down conversation. According to Loughran and Northfield (1998), in self-study research it is ultimately the reader who assesses the reliability and validity of the study (for a further discussion on the relation between self-study research and auto-ethnography, see Pinnegar & Hamilton, 2009). 2.3. Scholarship As noted above, an important aim of our project was to promote an identity change in teacher educators in the Netherlands, from a practice-oriented identity towards a scholarly professional identity. Coppola (2007) states that “scholarship” implies the following four characteristics: 1. A scholar has to be informed. S/he is knowledgeable about the problem at hand, about how to find literature and how the problem fits into the international research discourse. 2. A scholar's work should be intentional. S/he should be able to link explicitly, or align the informed goals of a project with the methods being used to implement it, and to have defensible arguments as to why these choices will result in the expected knowledge gains. 3. Scholars understand that their contributions are tentative and theory-laden, and that the new questions arising from their research will make the work itself a target for falsification. 4. Scholars provide the kind of documentation of their work that allows others to evaluate it without having been present. They make their work transparent, and in doing so, trustworthy to others. The body of knowledge exists in forms that can be shared, learned from, and built upon.

2.4. Developing a scholarly identity In our study, we adopted these four characteristics as being important to the process of becoming a scholarly teacher educator. Previous studies in the domains of pupil and teacher learning (Lunenberg et al., 2007; Ponte, 2002) demonstrate that a scholarly identity is promoted by performing practitioner research within

1282

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

a research community. The idea of a research community is based on the educational model of a community of learners (Beishuizen, 2004; Brown & Campione, 1996). Community presumes collaboration and involvement in “a social structure that can assume responsibility for developing and sharing knowledge” (Wenger, 1998, p. 29). In the case of teachers, Putnam and Borko (2000) state that research shows that ‘discourse communities’ promote teacher development, because the members can incorporate each other's expertise for creating new insights. Zeichner (2003) emphasizes the profits of being engaged in collaborative work and study groups for intellectual challenge and stimulation. An important feature of the communities created in research projects can be that novices and experienced researchers work together within one community (Zeichner, 2003), which can lead to stimulating forms of exchange, in which novices extend their “zones of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978). The promotion of teacher educators' professional development through self-study research, in particular the promotion of a scholarly identity, is not always easy. The literature shows that both beginning and experienced teacher educators often feel uncertain and vulnerable when taking the first steps on this research route (Loughran, Hamilton, La Boskey, & Russell, 2004). Little systematic research has been done, however, on ways of supporting this type of professional development. From studies on teachers, it is known what the important factors are in the promotion of a transformative development through research into one's own practice. For example, these involve the creation of a culture of inquiry, respect for teacher knowledge, and the development and safeguarding of the teachers' own foci for inquiries (Zeichner, 2003). In her publications on mentoring teacher research, Fletcher (2005, 2007) sees it as the mentor's task to help teachers identify a suitable research focus of which they feel ownership, to suggest appropriate kinds of research methodology from a wide range of approaches, to encourage them to participate in the research community and to support them to write up their reports for publication. As an important quality for mentors, Fletcher mentions the capability of listening appreciatively, of summarizing systematically what they hear and mirroring it in a way that will enable the teachers to engage with it creatively and productively. Mentors should also be able to ask targeted questions in a sympathetic and supporting way that will stimulate a deepening inquiry. Fletcher warns that it is tempting to provide solutions and sometimes this is indeed useful, but the focus should be on enabling teachers to become more expert researchers. Mentors can also contribute to these goals by creating time and space for research. One may expect that the aspects mentioned above are not only important in supporting teacher research, but also in supporting teacher educators who conduct self-studies. Hoban's (2007) study

on Creating a Self-study Group seems to confirm this. His study is unique in the sense that it specifically addresses the question of how to support a group of teacher educators in doing self-study research. Hoban emphasizes that attention to (1) a connection with one's own practice, as well as to (2) an external goal (publication, presentation at a conference) is important in supporting self-study. Equally important are (3) the availability of literature and external sources, for example for learning about the technical aspects of research. Hoban also points to (4) social aspects such as organizing meetings, because of their support function, but also because of the ‘voyeurism aspect’ (“hearing from colleagues what I did not know about them”). Very important, but sometimes difficult to organize, is that (5) the facilitators create a sense of ‘being next door’. This means that the participants experience feedback from the facilitators as being ‘just in time’ and easy to get. Finally, Hoban asks attention for (6) the finalisation of the self-studies and for discussing possible follow-ups, to prevent the results from fading into oblivion. Hoban's study became an important starting point for our project, and for the way we have framed and studied the support process. 3. Context: the project “Teacher educators study their own practice” 3.1. Project format The project started at the beginning of the calendar year with intake-interviews with each of the participants. Next, eight monthly group meetings were organized, consisting of three main parts: (1) Guided reflection, (2) Information about research phases, (3) Discussing and working on the individual self-studies. The reflection supported the switch from the daily teacher education practice to research and offered emotional support. Factual information about research and discussing the progress of the studies characterized the second and third parts of the meetings. Table 1 gives an overview of contents and goals of the group meetings. In order to emphasize that the participants were part of an international community of self-study researchers, for the second meeting Professor John Loughran (Monash University, Australia) sent a ‘support’ message to the participants, and in the seventh meeting professor Geert Kelchtermans (Leuven University, Belgium) was our guest and commented on the participants' selfstudy drafts. In addition to the group meetings, the participants also received individual support through one-on-one meetings and e-mail feedback from the facilitators, e.g. based on the participants' digital logbooks. In these logbooks, the teacher educators reported on how

Table 1 Overview of contents and goals of the group meetings. When

What

Goals

April May

Introduction Data collection

June September October

Data analysis Presentations Presentations

November December

Writing Meeting with an international expert Evaluation and wrapping up

Getting to know each other; creating a safe learning environment; honing research questions. Honing research questions; discussing suitable research methods; creating the feeling of belonging to a research community, motivating (message John Loughran). Honing research questions and methods of data collection; creating the feeling of belonging to a research community, motivating. Presentations and discussion of the ongoing studies. Focus on contents. Starting with outlining papers. Presentations and discussion of the ongoing studies. Focus on recognizing the uniquity of each study. Exchanging first experiences of writing a paper. Discussing papers in process. Focus on creating a positive and proud feeling about the progress. Meeting with a critical friend (Geert Kelchtermans). Focus on both contents of the papers and the feeling to be part of the international self-study community. Deepening reflection on the process as a whole and stimulating the final step towards publication.

January

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

1283

Table 2 Background information on the participants. Name

Age

Gender

Affiliation

Kathleen Arthur Ben Kitty Ron

43 40 57 52 52

Female Male Male Female Male

University teacher University teacher University teacher Teacher education University teacher

Subject education, program for secondary education education, program for secondary education education, program for secondary education in higher vocational education, program for secondary education education, program for higher education

they perceived their own development with respect to conducting research and becoming a scholar, and on the factors and critical incidents influencing this development. The facilitators' support varied with the stages of the study. At the beginning of the project, identifying the research question, finding literature, and developing instruments were important. At a later stage, data analysis and writing received more attention. In the writing phase, each participant had one facilitator as ‘writing coach’. One year after the start of the project, we conducted exitinterviews. Not only were we as researchers eager to get more insights into the ways in which performing a self-study had enriched the teacher educators, but the exit-interviews also created a reflective moment for the participants. Finally, six months after concluding the project, we sent the participants a follow-up questionnaire. In the design of the project, Hoban's guideline #1 with regard to the connection between the participant's practice and his or her research, received much attention. Safeguarding the individual foci of the participants was an important goal of the intake-interviews, but also in the group meetings and during individual support. From the start on, we stressed that an important aim of the project was that each participant should publish a paper (Hoban's guideline #2). The idea behind the group meetings was social as well as informative (guidelines # 3 and #4). We expected the meetings to be an opportunity for the participants to reflect on their ongoing self-study, to exchange ideas and experience, but also as a place for us to give information about e.g. methodology. We hoped that in this way the group meetings would stimulate both the participants and the facilitators, to become a fruitful research community. Beside the groups meetings, we also saw the individual support as an important means of helping the participants' work to become informed, intentional, tentative and theory-laden. To create a sense of being next door (guideline #5), at the start of the project the three of us decided that we would answer questions from the participants as quickly as possible, meaning that the one of us who had the first opportunity at a given time, would take the turn, taking into consideration Fletcher's recommendations. In the final meeting, as well as in the exit-interviews, we chose the follow-up process as an important point of discussion (guideline #6). 3.2. The participants Five teacher educators, working at three different institutions for teacher education participated in the project. Important criteria for participation were their willingness to study their own teacher education practices, and to have at least four hours a week of working time available for the participation in the one-year project. Four of the participants were unfamiliar with conducting educational research. One teacher educator (Ron) had his PhD in social sciences. None of them had experience with self-study research. Table 2 summarizes the ages, gender and affiliations of the five teacher educators, and the subjects they taught. What did the participants actually do during the project? The right-hand column of Table 1 helps to clarify this. They all started to reflect more deeply on their practice from the vantage point of the concern or focus they had in mind, and began reading the literature

English Mathematics Education Dutch Education

in this field, which created a process of going back and forth between theory and practice. Then the process of formulating a research question, the search for suitable research methods and the collection of the data took place. After presenting their studies to the group, they started writing their papers. Elsewhere, we have reported on the learning outcomes of the participants (Zwart, Korthagen, & Lunenberg, 2008). Summarizing these results, we can say that the five teacher educators reported benefits regarding the theme of their self-study, as well as with regard to conducting research. They also experienced a change in their professional identity. According to the participants, conducting research provided a sharper insight into their practice and more self-confidence in teaching teachers. Self-study even proved to result in transformative learning, i.e. a “fundamental change in one's personality involving the resolution of a personal dilemma and the expansion of consciousness resulting in greater personality integration” (Boyd, 1989, p. 459). A visible external outcome was that the participants presented their experiences and results at two conferences of the Dutch Association of Teacher Educators, and at the International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Educators' Practices (in 2008). Four of the five studies resulted in a e joint e publication (Zwart, Geursen, De Heer, Lunenberg, & Korthagen, 2008; van den Bos, 2008; Morshuis, 2009). The question, however, remains, if, and in what way we as facilitators had helped or perhaps hindered the processes these teacher educators went through. That became the focus of our selfstudy.

3.3. The facilitators In the project, the three authors of this article functioned both as facilitators and researchers. Mieke, the first author, has a background in pedagogy and adult learning/adult education. Twenty years ago, she moved to the teacher education institute at VU University. At the end of the 1990s, she took the initiative and started research into the professional development of teacher educators at this institution, because she realised that the quality of education is determined by the quality of teacher educators. Fred, the second author, has a background in mathematics. He ‘translated’ the idea of ‘realistic mathematics education’ (Freudenthal, 1991) to teacher education and focused on the importance of reflection in teachers' professional development, and on the development of teacher educators. He received several international awards for his research work. Ten years ago, he decided to accept a part-time job at VU University to support Mieke in the development of the new research program. At that time, Fred was already involved in the self-study movement and brought his international contacts into the research program. Rosanne joined the team two years ago. She studied communication sciences and, in 2007, received her Ph. D. degree on a study into ‘Teacher learning in a context of reciprocal peer coaching’. Her expertise and communicative skills, combined with her recent experience as a beginning researcher, has proved to be an important contribution to the success of our project.

1284

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

4. Method 4.1. Research question Our leading research question was: What are critical issues in supporting self-study research? In this question, we ourselves and our roles are included. Hence, when discussing findings and drawing conclusions, we will also give/pay attention to our own learning and the translation of our experiences to other facilitators. 4.2. Data collection We used the following four data sources: 1. The digital logbooks in which, guided by a number of questions, the teacher educators reported on how they perceived their own development with respect to conducting research and becoming a scholar, and on the factors and critical incidents influencing this development. Examples of logbook questions were: What have you gained during the last few weeks with regard to (a) the content of your research theme, and (b) research skills? What has helped your progress and what has hindered it? What are your plans for the next few weeks and what do you need in order to be able to go on? Every three weeks, we e-mailed these questions to the participants, who also answered by e-mail. 2. The exit-interviews. As noted before, a year after the start of the project semi-structured exit-interviews were held with the participants. As described above, the focus of the exit-interviews was an in-depth evaluation of the process of conducting a selfstudy. To prepare, we asked the participants to reread their logbooks. Moreover, we selected fragments from the intake-interview, which we showed and discussed during the exit-interview. In this manner, together with the participants, we constructed an overview of the participants' learning processes. Questions in the exit-interview were for example: How do you perceive your role as teacher educator? How do you feel about research? Next, we showed the fragment of the intake-interview and asked: Do you see similarities or differences? Other questions in the exit-interview were: What helped your progress (with regard to the group, our support, other factors)? What was inhibiting (with regard to the group, our support, other factors)? 3. The follow-up questionnaires. In these questionnaires, we repeated some important questions from the exit-interview and also asked the participants whether or not they had used their experiences with self-study during the six months since the conclusion of the project, what helped or hindered a follow-up, and what we as facilitators could have done to take away any inhibiting influences. 4. Personal reflections. To support the interpretation of the data, and for analyzing our own learning processes, we have used notes of meetings in which the three of us discussed and reflected on the process of the project, and e-mails on the project we sent each other during the year. 4.3. Data analyses We manually analyzed the data in two ways. First, we used Hoban's six guidelines as criteria for a deductive analysis of critical issues in the process (Patton, 2002). The digital logbooks, exit-interviews and follow-up questionnaires were analyzed on sentences that told something about these

six critical issues. Examples are sentences that included phrases such as: “What helped .”; “It is stimulating .”; “I worked with .”; ‘The group made .”; “Then I found out .”; “Through . I discovered .”; (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000; Merriam, 1998). Second, we followed a grounded theory approach (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), adapting an inductive analysis (Patton, 2002) to find out if our data would provide additional critical issues that were important for supporting the participants. Here, we also used the guidelines presented by Kelle (1995), and Richardson and Kramer (2006), who explain that the researcher should strike a balance between using pre-existing theoretical notions and working with an open mind. We also applied the notion of abduction, defined by Richardson and Kramer as “the process by which useful explanations are developed” (p. 499), as our research question aimed at finding explanations for the processes that took place. Building on individual coding of the texts, categories were developed in relation to the research question. To strengthen the internal validity of the analysis, two researchers independently conducted each analysis. The results obtained were then compared and differences were discussed and decided upon. In sum, we used triangulation of data sources, data analysis and researchers (Patton, 2002; Yin, 1994). 5. Findings Our findings confirmed Hoban's study and proved all six guidelines mentioned by him to be critical to the support of the teacher educators' self-studies. Below, we will phrase each of Hoban's six guidelines in the way they emerged in our own study. Our second analysis e based on the grounded theory approach e yielded one additional critical issue, which can be summarized as: “Support the participants in finding fitting research methods and instruments”. The teacher educators did explicitly report on each of the critical issues as will be described and illustrated below using fragments from the interviews, the digital logbooks and the questionnaires. The descriptions will show that giving support can also have an ambiguous side. 5.1. Guard the connection between the self-studies and the individual practices and concerns of the teacher educators Self-study research begins with a question from the teacher educator's own practice. Translating this question into a research question and research format caused some frictions. The participants experienced difficulties in going beyond the story and taking their own research seriously. Playing a role in this was uncertainty whether a small aspect from one's own practice was interesting enough for research. As mentioned in several logbooks, John Loughran's message for the second meeting was helpful here. John wrote: “It doesn't necessarily have to feel like a substantial breakthrough for yourself in order for your research to shed new light on the theoretical underpinnings of your (or others') teaching”. There is also another side. Moving from practice to a research question includes the danger of drifting away from the problem, challenge or fascination that triggered the study in the first place. Moreover, studying a sometimes very personal question about one's own functioning requires courage. As our study showed, an important role of the facilitators was to support the teacher educators to stay close to themselves and their own practices. Ron stresses this point beautifully in his exit-interview: “Strong point of the facilitators was their fight against the idea that Research is about Important Things (with capitals). That is not the

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

case as I, too, have found out. When I look at our group and myself, I see that we have a lot to offer. We have baggage important enough to describe and report on (as was emphasized again and again by the facilitators). That was also the lesson Geert Kelchtermans taught us: as soon as the focus becomes larger, it becomes more abstract and loses meaning. That was very enlightening to me. Generalization also means loss of meaning.”

5.2. Formulate an external goal, and stimulate the researchers to go public (e.g. give a presentation or write a conference paper) Working towards a specific external goal was motivating as well. Not only because it pushed to make headway, but also because the teacher educators grew as professionals when overcoming their own insecurities and crossing a boundary enabling them to proudly present their own work in progress. Searching for the essence and formulating it in such a way as to show to oneself and others the lines of reasoning seemed to be important. Both Arthur and Ben report on this in their digital logbooks. “The presentation of my study to the group helped me to control my meandering thinking. While explaining my study, I constantly thought about counter-arguments, nuances and questions. So, I was happily surprised to hear that it was a clear presentation.” [Arthur] “Too often I hold back and postpone. So, tonight it really helped that I had to prepare a presentation about my line of research. It gives me a sense of ‘grip’. Good that you invited us to present our study already at this stage.” [Ben] As can be read in Ben's logbook fragment e and other participants have also emphasized this e it is important to be invited to present your own research rather early in the project. This almost ‘forced’ the participants to stop hesitating about the research focus or the instruments to use, and to start extracting the gist from what they had already read, instead of reading more and more literature. It was also motivating: “It is stimulating to think about the final product that I want to put on paper, in a orderly and inspiring way: what I have found and what that means to me. Looking at my data, I am sure that I have something to tell.” [Ben, digital logbook] After the presentations, the writing process started. There was a clear deadline, for in the seventh meeting the international expert, Geert Kelchtermans, would come to discuss the drafts of the papers. 5.3. Realize the availability of external sources (literature, experts in the field and experienced researchers) The teacher educators participating in the project appreciated the availability of relevant sources and information. As the participants' logbooks and the exit-interviews show, this included giving practical tips, for example with regard to literature and research phases, and being a critical friend. “That you [facilitators] knew so many sources made the process go smoothly. When I mentioned a subject I wanted to read more about, you immediately knew useful literature.” [Kathleen, exitinterview] “Reading articles helped. Often I have the idea that I should be able to do it all. Then it is good to read how complex teacher education is. Moreover, it gives a good feeling to find theoretical bases for one's own vague notions.” [Kathleen, digital logbook] In this context, Kathleen also stresses the importance of time as an external source. The availability of four hours of working time

1285

a week e something we had put forward as a criterion for participating in the project e proved to be critical: “Self-study means that you are allowed and even obliged to take the time to think about your motivation and work as a teacher educator. For once, you don't have to do this in the train home, but you can do it in your working time with the help of others.” [Kathleen, exit-interview] Being a critical friend also proved to be valuable, as was the input of an expert: “Then I worked with Rosanne [one of the facilitators] on my proposal (.). What helps is her questioning as an expert, the role she takes. She takes the reviewers' role and that helps clarify my hypothesis, my assumptions. Now I can formulate them.” [Ben, digital logbook]

5.4. Consider the social aspects: create a sense of belonging to a group because of its support function, but also because of the ‘voyeurism’ aspect The sense of belonging to a group was vital. The group indeed functioned as a support, also because of the voyeurism aspect (“hearing from colleagues what I did not know about them”). Working together in a group also stimulated the participants to stick to the time schedule and become conscious of the importance of taking time for one's own professional development. “The group made the meetings more important. The chemistry between us was very pleasant. The openness, everyone struggling, and the fact that you all experience the trajectory in a comparable way.” [Arthur, exit-interview] “The joint reflections at the beginning and end of the meetings were extraordinary. At those moments, I really felt one with the others. Joint reflection on one's practice is very helpful. Everyone should have time for this.” [Kitty, exit-interviews] So, as we had hoped, the group meetings helped us to become a research community in the sense we described above. There were, however, limitations to taking responsibility for each other's studies. Although the teacher educators enjoyed and also needed the individual feedback of the facilitators, as we saw above, they also pointed out that they would have liked to have had more time for peer-feedback and group discussions: “Yeah, maybe I would have liked to have more time for cooperation. To work with a peer. The chemistry in the group could have become even more wonderful.” [Ben, exit-interview] In practice, however, the participants found it hard to find time to read and comment on each other's work. The time available was mainly needed for one's own study. So, given the restricted time available, striking the right balance between working on one's own project and time for cooperation proves to be a point for further consideration and further research. How can we extend the idea of working in a community? And what does this mean for our role as facilitators? 5.5. Create a sense of being ‘next door’ With regard to giving support, the permanent availability of the facilitators (‘being next door') proved, as Hoban emphasizes, to be very important. Based on the logbooks, we often succeeded in giving just enough support, just in time: “Feedback; just in time, just enough. The facilitators were very available and the content of the meetings always matched the stage of my own study.” [Ben, exit-interview]

1286

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

However, this immediate support also had its down side, as Kitty reported: “Again: help of the facilitators. My students have to do more on their own than I myself! It gives a feeling of dependency: I am not even able to carry out a small study on my own.” [Kitty, digital logbook] Kitty's remark has a deeper layer. As the logbooks show, the participants experienced a friction between wanting to do everything perfectly, while at the same time experiencing a lack of time and at times a lack of ability. To the facilitators, the risk of taking over and thus causing a feeling of dependency became apparent (compare Fletcher, Theoretical Background Section). Our study shows that striking a balance between perfection and possibilities, between creating thinking time and making headway, is a delicate task for facilitators. All participants mentioned that the form and content of the feedback given by the facilitators was important. “The feedback was always motivating. You [facilitators] stimulated me to take another look at my work and you trusted me e as a professional e to recognize the flaws in my thinking. That way I have revised and improved my study without anyone telling me that I was on the wrong track.” [Kathleen, exit-interview] “What helped was writing together. And I have experienced again how important positive feedback is. Reactions such as: ‘the Results Section really becomes fascinating” and “Then you have a nice product to send to Geert” are very stimulating. It was also pleasant that Mieke not only gave directions for improving my article, but gave concrete suggestions too, and she even wrote an example for a paragraph. Because we had the luxury to also discuss the content of our study with you, these examples were always crystal clear.” [Arthur, digital logbook] Although we mostly seemed to have succeeded in listening appreciatively and giving motivating feedback, with regard to this aspect we have to admit that our interventions were often rather intuitive. Further study and discussion on this aspect seems needed. 5.6. Take the wrapping up of the self-study studies seriously. Discuss possible follow-ups to prevent the results from fading into oblivion. In the final group meeting, the discussion was how the teacher educators would finalize their manuscripts, using Kelchtermans' comments. The facilitators also gave information on the process of submitting a paper, getting reviewer comments, rewriting, and so on. They also told the teacher educators that they would still be available for help, but that the initiative would from now on be with them. During the meeting, this seemed to be reasonable to the participants. “The final meeting was valuable for me: to discuss with each other what the benefits of the project had been for each of us. It stimulated me e looking back e to be conscious about what I already can do and e looking forward e to think about what I would like to learn and do.” [Ron, digital logbook] The follow-up questionnaires six months later, however, show some nuances. For some teacher educators, it was sufficient that the facilitators were available. One of them reports in response to the follow-up questionnaire that she got help with the interpretation of reviewer comments: “Also after the project had ended, I could ask my writing coach for support”. [Kitty]

But there is another teacher educator who would have appreciated some extra attention. In the follow-up questionnaire she wrote: “. in the meeting with Geert Kelchtermans, I discovered some thinking errors in my paper. These asked for fundamental rewriting, which was not motivating. I realize that this was my feeling, but perhaps the facilitators could have asked what help would be needed to finish the paper.” [Kathleen] This reaction made us reflect, afterwards more than at the start of the project, on the question of when the support process is adequately wrapped up, and how do you do that? What will happen with the teacher educators after the project is concluded? Again, these questions require further study. 5.7. Support the participants in finding fitting research methods and instruments The friction between personal involvement in the research theme on the one hand, and the need to study this theme objectively on the other, was a complex one for the teacher educators. It was a facilitator's task to inform the teacher educators about ways to overcome this issue. The introduction of notions such as trustworthiness (as an alternative to reliability), and triangulation proved to be helpful. As mentioned above, there was also a friction between the ideal of perfection on the one hand, and time limitations, lack of research knowledge and experience on the other. Striking a balance between ambitions and possibilities sometimes asked for a very practical kind of support on the part of the facilitators. The teacher educators often associated research with large-scale studies and very timeconsuming instruments, which were not always suitable for selfstudy research. Offering alternatives and supporting the teacher educators in their thinking about data already available (for example student portfolios) proved to be helpful. Finally, the teacher educators were helped in developing fitting methods of data analysis. Kitty, for example, who wanted to use her students' portfolios to study different levels of reflection and how she could support her students to deepen their reflection, was confronted with the very diverse ways students reflected. In her digital logbook she wrote: “What was very helpful, was the meeting on data analysis, especially the example of working with a grid.” [Kitty]

6. Conclusions, personal reflection, and discussion Teacher educators starting a self-study are often experienced professionals. At the same time, with regard to research they are novices. Hence, experienced teacher educators starting a selfstudy have the courage to expose themselves and become vulnerable. For a year, we worked with five teacher educators who faced this challenge and conducted a self-study. As facilitators, we tried to support the participating teacher educators in their research process and to help them overcome frictions. In this article, we have focused on an analysis of critical issues in this support process, which thus became the focus of our own selfstudy. Using as data the digital logbooks written by the teacher educators, the outcomes of exit-interviews, a follow-up questionnaire, and our own reflective notes, our study confirmed the significance of the six guidelines formulated by Hoban (2007). Guarding the connection between the self-studies and the individual practices and concerns of the teacher educators, working

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

towards an external goal such as a publication, and providing literature and access to experts, all of these proved important. Also, the guidelines of creating a community and being available as facilitators contributed to the progress of the teacher educators' self-studies. Finally, attention to the process of wrapping up emerged as a critical issue. Using a grounded theory approach, a seventh critical issue emerged: support the participants in finding fitting research methods and instruments. Although Hoban does not mention this critical issue, its importance is confirmed by, among others, Coppola's study on scholarship and Fletcher's study on supporting teachers' research (see Theoretical background Section). Our own learning process as facilitators may be interesting to others wanting to support teacher educators in their professional development. It yielded what we could consider specifications of the seven guidelines. Firstly, we were impressed by the power of the guided reflection activity at the beginning of the group meetings. Not only did it create an important moment of stop-and-think in the hectic lives of the teacher educators, but, above all, the sharing of struggles and successes created an intense atmosphere of mutual trust. Hence, it is our recommendation to facilitators of self-study research to introduce joint guided reflection into the process, because it both helps the transition from the daily hustle and bustle to a focus on research, and supports the feeling of belonging to a research community. Secondly, we ourselves have struggled with on the one hand continuing our trust in the teacher educators and on the other feeling the time-pressure of the one year that was available to us. What was very helpful in creating a breakthrough in the process was to ask the participants rather early in the programme to present an outline of their study to the group. Hence, we recommend to do this early in the process, and to set clear deadlines, because it helps in finally getting to a publication. Important for us as facilitators is that we supported each other when faced with difficulties and concerns in the relationships with the participants, and that we sometimes could decide to take turns in supporting individual educators. Each facilitator has his or her own individual strengths, which sometimes appeared to make a difference in the process. Hence, we recommend to work if possible with at least two facilitators, in order to create a balanced research community. Moreover, working with more facilitators also guarantees immediate feedback in response to questions of the novice researchers. Finally, regarding our own processes as facilitators, it is important to note that the whole project was very rewarding to each of us. We feel privileged to have had the opportunity to share years of research experience with teacher educators entering a territory completely new to them, and to observe a rapid professional development in them. Four issues emerged that demand further attention and study. They can be summarized as follows. 6.1. Practice and research Connecting practice and research proved to be complicated for a number of overlapping reasons. An important question that came up at the beginning of the project was whether studying the practice of one person could be taken seriously. This question had a methodological as well as an emotional aspect. With regard to the methodological aspect, questions with regard to reliability and generalisation arose; questions which could be answered rationally with the aid of the literature on self-study research. However, the teacher educators also experienced a friction between studying personal aspects of one's own practice and the idea of going public with the results. A tendency could be observed of drifting away

1287

from the problem, challenge or fascination that had triggered the self-study, i.e. to construct a more traditional study instead of a self-study. In other words, the participants felt the challenge of putting and keeping the self in the study. With regard to supporting this process, the literature had little to offer. As facilitators, we had to find our way in uncharted territory. One activity that proved to be helpful in this respect was the guided reflection during the group meetings, experienced by the teacher educators as ‘extraordinary’. 6.2. Possibilities and perfection The participating teacher educators were very experienced in teacher education and maintained high professional standards. Hence, they also wanted their self-study to be perfect. Their research background, however, was limited, as was the time available for their self-study. Our challenge was to help limit their ambitions on the one hand, but on the other to provide enough space for them to discover for themselves what helped and what hindered. The regular reports in the digital logbooks, in which the teacher educators wrote about their struggles, helped us as facilitators to provide optimal feedback and help. In addition, we provided practical tips with respect to creating time for thinking and writing, based on our own experiences and expertise, and we also helped avoid stagnation by setting strict deadlines. As already mentioned above, the availability of four hours a week of working time e something we had put forward as a criterion for participation in the project e proved to be important. In this respect our approach was however largely based on improvisation, although in line with Fletcher's recommendation (2005, 2007) for research facilitators to create time and space. 6.3. Self-study and community Striking a balance between practice and research, between possibilities and perfection proved to be challenging for each individual participant, and consequently for the facilitators. Above, we saw that the focus on the self and the high professional standards the teacher educators tend to set for themselves were pivotal themes. Striking the right balance between working on one's own selfstudy and time for cooperation proved to be a third point for further consideration and research. As echoed in studies on stimulating scholarship in students and teachers (see Theoretical background Section), working together in a group stimulated the participants in our project. The group helped them to keep on track and to become conscious of the importance of taking time for one's own professional development. Therefore, the question arises how far we can extend the idea of working in a community, taking into account the limited time available. As Lunenberg et al. (2007), concluded, both the specific focus on the self in self-studies and the fact that teacher educators are already professionals, albeit in the field of teacher education and not in research, should be taken into account when forming a learning community of teacher educators/researchers. The question how to do this in an optimal manner still deserves further study. 6.4. Support and taking over The fourth friction we found puts our own selves as facilitators centre stage. We discovered that meeting the criterion of creating a sense of ‘being next door’ involved the danger of creating a pitfall. As Fletcher (2005, 2007) warns, the line between offering solutions, because it is useful or because it is tempting to take over, is thin. Although our analysis shows that most of the time we

1288

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289

provided feedback ‘just enough, just in time’; there was one teacher educator who at one time wrote that she sometimes felt dependent. The follow-up questionnaires showed the other side of the coin. Six months after the project had finished, four of the five participants appeared to be satisfied with the wrapping up process, but one participant felt left alone in finishing the final version of her paper. Such feelings do not support the development of a scholarly identity. These reactions make us think again. What is the background to our choices? Does, for example, our ambition to make the project a success play a role when tending to take over? And where and when does our responsibility to the participants end? Our aim is to further explore these four issues in supporting selfstudies by working with a second cohort of teacher educators conducting self-studies. What we have thus far learned from this project is that supporting self-studies should not be taken lightly if we want to enhance the chances of self-studies being beneficial to the practices of the teacher educators involved, as well as to the further development of a solid knowledge base for teacher education, rooted in practice.

References Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373e395. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (1999). Ethnography: post, past and present. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 460e471. Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). De vrolijke wetenschap. Over communities of learners als kweekplaats voor kenniswerkers (inaugural lecture). [The joyful science. About communities of learners as nursery for knowledge workers]. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Bergner, R. M., & Holmes, J. R. (2000). Self-concepts and self-concept change: a status dynamic approach. Psychotherapy, 37(1), 36e44. van den Bos, P. (2008). Leren faciliteren. Wat helpt?. [Learning to facilitate: what is helpful?] Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders, 29(3), 18e25. Boyd, R. D. (1989). Facilitating personal transformations in small groups: part I. Small Group Behavior, 20(4), 459e474. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovation in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289e325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13e21. Carlson, H. L. (1999). From practice to theory: a social constructivist approach to teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 5(2), 203e218. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer. Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2009). Co/autoethnography: exploring our teaching selves collaboratively. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 3e16). Dordrecht: Springer. Coppola, B. P. (2007). The most beautiful theories. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1902e1912. Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath. Elliot, J. (1978). What is action research in schools? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10 (4), 355e357. Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experience. Symbolic Interactionism, 14(1), 23e50. Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: an autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 429e449. Fletcher, S. J. (2005). Research mentoring: the missing link. In F. Bodone (Ed.), What difference does research make and for whom? (pp. 177e190). New York, USA: Peter Lang. Fletcher, S. (2007). Educational research mentoring and coaching as co-creative synergy. International Journal of Evidence-based Coaching and Mentoring, 5(2), 1e11. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, etc.: Kluwer.

Hamilton, D., & McWilliam, E. (2001). Ex-centric voices that frame research on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). (pp. 17e46) Washington: AERA. Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography. Human Organization, 38(1), 99e104. Hoban, G. (April 2007). Creating a self-study group. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Kane, R. G. (2002). How we teach the teachers: new ways to theorize practice and practice theory. Prospects, UNESCO, Paris, 32(3), 348e363. Katz, E., & Coleman, M. (2005). Autonomy and Accountability of teacher-educator researchers at a college of education in Israel. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 5e13. Kelle, U. (1995). Theories as heuristic tools in qualitative research. In I. Maso, P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, & J. C. Verhoeven (Eds.), Openness in research. The tension between self and other (pp. 33e50). Assen: Van Gorcum. Knowles, & Cole. (1995). Teacher educators reflecting on writing in practice. In T. Russell, & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers (pp. 71e94). London: Palmer Press. Korthagen, F. (1995). A reflection on five reflective accounts. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(3), 99e105. LaBoskey, V. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817e870). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J. (2004). A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russel (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 7e40). Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., Kubler LaBoskey, V., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 7e18). London: Falmer Press. Lunenberg, M., Loughran, J., Schildkamp, K., Beishuizen, J., Meirink, J., & Zwart, R. (2007). Self-study in a Community of Learning Researchers: what can we do to support teachers/teacher educators to benefit from our research? European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 411e423. Lunenberg, M., & Hamilton, M-L (2008). Threading a golden chain: an attempt to find our identities as teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 185e205. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. London: Sage. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case learning applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Morshuis, J. (2009). Stage-ervaringen: studenten tussen persoon en professie. [Field experiences: students between person and profession]. Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders, 30(1), 37e41. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 877e904). Washington, DC: AERA. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London/ New Delhi: Sage. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research. Dordrecht, etc.: Springer. Ponte, P. (2002). Actie-onderzoek door docenten: Uitvoering en begeleiding in theorie en praktijk [Action research by teachers: Execution and support in theory and practice]. Doctoral dissertation. Apeldoorn: Garant. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4e15. Reed-Danahay, D. (1997). Auto-ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social. Berg: Oxford. Richardson, R., & Kramer, E. H. (2006). Abduction as the type of inference that characterizes the development of a grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 6(4), 497e513. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heineman. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tidwell, D. L., Heston, M. L., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (Eds.). (2009). Research methods for the self-study of practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130e178.

M. Lunenberg et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1280e1289 Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, ‘how do I improve my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41e52. Whitehead, J. (2009). How do I influence the generation of living educational theories for personal and social accountability in improving practice. Using a living theory methodology I improving educational practice. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 173e194). Dordrecht: Springer. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research. design and methods. London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4e15.

1289

Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research and professional development. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301e325. Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36e46. Zwart, R., Korthagen, F., & Lunenberg, M. (2008, March). Becoming a scholarly teacher educator: the contribution of self-study research to the learning of teacher educators. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Conference, New York. Zwart, R., Geursen, J., De Heer, A., Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2008). The importance of being aware: work in progress by teacher educators and their student teachers. In M. Heston, D. Tidwell, K. East, & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Pathways to change in teacher education: Dialogue, diversity and self-study (pp. 328e332). Ceder Falls, Iowa: University of Northern Iowa.