Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doing Teacher Research, Donald Freeman
Doing Teacher Research, Donald Freeman
TEACHER-RESEARCH:
FROM INQUIRY
TO UNDERSTANDING
Donald Freeman
School for International Training
A TeacherSource Book
Donald Freeman
Series Editor
Manufactured in Canada
p. 19 Illustrations used by permission of Glenn Bernhardt 1996.
p. 93 Figure 5.2 From Teachers' Voices: Exploring Course Design in a Changing Cuuriculum.
Edited by Anne Burns and Susan Hood. Copyright 1995. Used by permission of NCELTR.
pp. 219-223 'Downsizing: How it feels to be fired' by Steve Lohr, Shelly Kaplan, Tom Scott,
Nancy K. McGuire, Eugene Versluysen, Michael McGinn, Diana Erani, James C. Megas,
Phillip Ruby, and Mary Berne copyright 1996, The New York Times. Used by permission.
pp. 172-174 Albert Shanker "Where We Stand: An Important Question" reprinted from
The New York Times. Copyright The American Federation Of Teachers. Used by permission.
p. 225-252 case studies by Maree Nicholson, Margaret Surguy, Maria Vithoulkas,
Athena Frangos, Roger Kennett reprinted' by kind permission of Languages In-Service Program
for Teachers (LIPT).
ISBN 0-8384-7900-6
10 9 8 7 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
BY WAGNER VEILLARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ApPENDIX
3. Discussions . ......................................
204
4,
7. Making and transcribing video recordings . ................ 208
216
AND
5.7
How
FOR INVESTIGATIONS
5.5, 5.6,
TO BE FIRED" (MARCH
ApPENDIX
IT FEELS
219
Vithoulkas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Thank You
The series editor, authors and publisher would like to thank the following individuals who
offered many helpful insights throughout the development of the TeacherSource series.
Linda Lonon Blanton
Tommie Brasel
Jill Burton
Margaret B. Cassidy
Florence Decker
Silvia G. Diaz
Margo Downey
Alvino Fantini
Sandra Fradd
Jerry Gebhard
Fred Genesee
Stacy Gildenston
Jeannette Gordon
Else Hamayan
Sarah Hudelson
Joan Jamieson
Elliot L. Judd
Donald N. Larson
Numa Markee
Denise E. Murray
Meredith Pike-Baky
Sara L. Sanders
Lilia Savova
Donna Sievers
Ruth Spack
Leo van Lier
THANK
You Y
To Ann Freeman,
vi
ACI(NOWLEDGMENTS
Over the past ten years, I have had the opportunity and the privilege to work with many
teachers on the ideas and practices that have become the foundation of this book. My think
ing has evolved through our conversations, largely due to the interest and intelligence of these
colleagues around the world, from Slovakia, to South Africa, to Brazil, and the United States.
Two groups of teachers have been central to the genesis of this work. In Brazil, the par
ticipants and faculty of the Advanced Program for Teachers of English, sponsored in 1995 by
Associa~ao
Alumni in Sao Paulo, took many of these ideas forward into their teaching and
brought them back to our work together. There I met Wagner Veillard, who generously con
tributed his research from the program in Chapters 3 and 6. In the United States, I have hfld
the great opportunity, over the past decade, to work on doing teacher-research with graduate
teachers-in-training in the Masters of Arts in Teaching Program at the School for
International Training. They have shaped my ideas in inestimable ways. To the six-Kristen
Fryling, Ann Hoganson, J.D. Klemme, Clare Landers, David Mathes, and Kim Mortimer
excerpts of whose work appears here, many thanks. I also want to recognize the countless
interactions and conversations with graduate students and my fellow faculty members that
have shaped this book.
My thanks, too, to the friends, colleagues, and mentors who have contributed to the evo
lution of this book; to Thomas Healy and Erik Gundersen at Heinle and Heinle and to
Jessica Robison and Mary Reed at ImageSet Design for helping so skillfully to bring the pro
ject to fruition. And, as always, my thanks to Emily, Laura, and Kathleen for putting up with
me in the process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
vii
SERf ES PREFACE
As I was driving just south of White River Junction, the snow had started falling in earnest.
The light was flat, although it was mid-morning, making it almost impossible to distin
guish the highway in the gray-white swirling snow. I turned on the radio, partly as a dis
traction and partly to help me concentrate on the road ahead; the announcer was talk
ing about the snow. "The state highway department advises motorists to
USe
extreme
caution and to drive with their headlights on to ensure maximum visibility." He went on,
his tone shifting slightly, "Ray Burke, the state highway supervisor, just called to say that
one of the plows almost hit a car just south of Exit 6 because the person driving hadn't
turned on his lights. He really wants people to put their headlights on because it is very
tough to see in this stuff." I checked, almost reflexively, to be sure that my headlights
were on, as I drove into the churning snow.
How can information serve those who hear or read it in making sense of their own
worlds? How can it enable them to reason about what they do and to take appropriate
actions based on that reasoning? My experience with the radio in the snow storm illus
trates two different ways of providing the same message: the need to use your headlights
when you drive in heavy snow. The first offers dispassionate information; the second tells
the same content in a personal, compelling story. The first disguises its point of view; the
second explicitly grounds the general information in a particular time and place. Each
means of giving information has its role, but I believe the second is ultimately more use
ful in helping people make sense of what they are doing. When I heard Ray Burke's story
about the plow, I made sure my headlights were on.
In what is written about teaching, it is rare to find accounts in which the author's
experience and point of view are central. A point of view is not simply an opinion; nei
ther is it a whimsical or impressionistic claim. Rather, a point of view lays out what the
author thinks and why; to borrow the phrase from writing teacher Natalie Goldberg, "it
sets down the bones." The problem is that much of what is available in professional
development in language-teacher education concentrates on telling rather than on point
of view. The telling is prescriptive, like the radio announcer's first statement. It is emphcl
sizes what is important to know and do, what is current in theory and research, and
therefore what you - as a practicing teacher- should do. But this telling disguises the
teller; it hides the point of view that can enable you to make sense of what is told.
The TeacherSource series offers you a point of view on secondlforeign language teach
ing. Each author in this series has had to layout what she or he believes is central to the
topic, and how she or he has come to this understanding. So as a reader, you will find
viii
this book has a personality; it is not anonaymous. It comes as a story, not as a directive,
and it is meant to create a relationship with you rather than assume your attention. As a
practitioner, its point of view can help you in your own work by providing a sounding
board for your ideas and a metric for your own thinking. It can suggest courses of action
and explain why these make sense to the author. And you can take from it what you will,
and do with it what you can. This book will not tell you what to think; it is meant to
help you make sense of what you do.
The point of view in TeacherSource is built out of three strands: Teachers' Voices,
Frameworks, and Investigations. Each author draws together these strands uniquely, as
suits his or her topic and more crucially his or her point of view. All materials in
TeacherSource have these three strands. The Teachers' Voices are practicing language
teachers from various settings who tell about their experience of the topic. The
Frameworks layout what the author believes is important to know about his or her topic
and its key concepts and issues. These fundamentals define the area of language teaching
and learning about which she or he is writing. The Investigations are meant to engage
you, the reader, in relating the topic to your own teaching, students, and classroom. TheY'
are activities which you can do alone or with colleagues, to reflect on teaching and learn
ing andlor tryout ideas in practice.
Each strand offers a point of view on the book's topic. The Teachers' Voices relate the
points of view of various practitioners; the Frameworks establish the point of view of the
professional community; and the Investigations invite you to develop your own point of
view, through experience with reference to your setting. Together these strands should
serve in making sense of the topic.
This book examines teacher-research as an activity that connects the 'doing' of teach
ing with the 'questioning' of research. I argue that these two ways of working can -
and
must - be united if teachers are to become fully recognized as contributors who shape
educational policy and define effective classroom practice. In harmonizing the often con
trapuntal and even discordant demands of getting the job of teaching done with seeking
to better understand how and why learning in classrooms happens as it does, teachers
will redefine the territory of their work.
The central notions which form the backbone of this argument originated in several
places. Some years ago, at a local meeting of teacher-researchers, a colleague, Catherine
Lacey, made the point that good teaching is not enough to recalibrate what counts as
knowledge of practice in education. Her comments broke the shell of what I had
assumed: namely, that doing a good job as a teacher would be enough to garner profes
sional respect. Simultaneously, as I worked with teachers in different settings on how
to
do teacher-research, I began to see that, in fact, the practices of research could be adapt
a ble to the demands of teaching. Finally, my own work in teachers' knowledge led me to
issues of genre and form, and to thinking closely about how the facts and stories of teach
ing are usually and naturally told. The confluence of these influences, along with many
others, have led to this book, to its presentation of how teacher-research can be done,
PREFACE
-ix
and to the assertion that teacher-research has a fundamental role in redefining the
knowledge-base of teaching.
This book, like all elements of the TeacherSource series, is intended to serve you in
understanding your work as a language teacher. It may lead you to thinking about what
you do in different ways andlor to taking specific actions in your teaching. Or it may do
neither. But we intend, through the variety of points of view presented in this fashion, to
offer you access to choices in teaching that you may not have thought of before and thus
to help your teaching make more sense.
- Donald Freeman, Series Editor
STARTING ANEW
hen I started out teaching, doing research was the furthest thing from my
mind. I was teaching French in a rural high school. As a first-year teacher
my concerns centered on getting through the day, maintaining some semblance
of order in my classes, gaining and keeping students' interest, and hopefully
teaching them something. I don't think my experience is that different from
those of many teachers. In fact, it is probably quite similar (Bullough, 1989). My
first five years or so of teaching were pretty much consumed with getting the jorl
done. Gradually, though, I gained a sense of balance and control, of efficiency
in what I was doing in the classroom; I began to feel that I knew what I was
doing and how to do it.
Several years ensued during which I moved from teaching French in a rural
American high school to teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to adults
in Asia. Along the way I increased my skills, deepened my understanding of stu
dents and different learning environments, and became a more proficient
teacher. In the process, the locus of my interests shifted. Because I now felt that
I had the basics under control, I became less concerned with getting the job done
and more interested in how I was teaching. Questions of method and curricu
lum became more engaging, while my interest in activities and technique per se
waned (Genberg, 1992; Berliner, 1988). To draw an analogy: It was like riding
a bicycle. Now that I knew how to balance, brake, and shift the gears smooth
ly, I became intrigued with how to speed up or slow down, how to navigate dif
ferent road surfaces such as gravel or dirt, and even how to ride without my
hands on the handlebars. With this proficiency, I became interested in where
bicycle riding could take me.
But even as my dexterity in teaching increased-and with it my self-confi
dence as a teacher-my sense of certainty did not. Knowing how things work in
the classroom is not the same as knowing that they will work. I continued to
puzzle about why a familiar activity or exercise that had worked so well in the
past did not work with a particular class, to speculate why one aspect of the lan
guage was difficult for students, or to ask myself why some students seemed to
benefit from an activity while others did not. In fact, if I am honest, the list of
these unresolved aspects of my work probably increased, rather than decreased,
the more I taught. As a teacher I was caught between increasing my proficiency
in the classroom and pondering this growing number of uncertainties. So I
turned my attention to proficiency, to getting the job done.
STARTING ANEW
On the idea
of doing, see
Chapter 8,
p.180.
On the social
context of
teachers' work,
see Apple 1986
and Sizer 1983.
and authority for that work. Everyone has an OpInIOn about teaching and
schools, based in large part on the fact that they have been students (Lortie,
1975). In public discussions and debates, this social authority of experience can
translate into the fact that everyone is an expert on teaching. In these discus
sions, what can and will distinguish a teacher's view as professional, in the best
sense, from others in the school community and those of the public at large, is
the fact that it is based not simply on experience but on an articulated, disci
plined understanding of that experience. So in a larger sense, being or becoming
a teacher-researcher is about repositioning yourself as a teacher in relation to
what you are expected to do in your job. This repositioning hinges on articu
lating your knowledge and understanding. of teaching and learning. Here again
the terms are potentially confusing. Like separating the dancer from the dance,
it is difficult and even counterproductive to separate the function of teaching
from the individual who is doing it. For this reason, I use the words "teacher"
and "teaching," and "researcher" and "research" or "researching," rather flu
idly and often interchangeably. The arguments I make here refer to the process
es and functions of teaching and researching; however, I will often do so through
the names of people who carry out these functions.
f,
This book is about uniting the two sides of teaching-the doing and the won
dering-into one form of practice I am calling "teacher-research." The chapters
that follow weave together the story of this unification with the skills and tech
niques for making it happen. The thread of the story of moving from teacher to
teacher-researcher is told in Chapters 3 and 6 by a teacher and colleague, Wagner
Veillard. His voice presents the larger canvas on which specific skills and tech
niques are sketched. Most of these skills and techniques derive from conven
tional social science and, in particular, from qualitative research in education. In
entering the classroom they are reshaped by the demands of teaching. This
refashioning is subtle but critical because it is what makes teacher-research
doable. The techniques and skills for doing teacher-research are hung on a series
of theoretical frameworks that serve as coathangers on which specific aspects of
the work of teacher-research can be displayed and examined closely. As they accu
mulate, these frameworks provide an overall view of the relations among the var
ious skills so that the cycle of teacher-research can be seen as an integral whole.
Interspersed throughout the text are investigations, which are tasks that will
anchor what you are reading in your experience. Some of the tasks assume you
have students with whom you are presently working as a teacher or intern; oth
ers can be done by reflecting on your own experiences as a person, learner, and
teacher. The investigations are meant to take you beyond the book into your
own thinking and practices as a teacher. They will help you to tryout and mas
ter particular research skills as well as examine this larger notion of reposition
ing your work as a teacher from doing to wondering. This is the overall aim of
the book: To help you to examine what you do as a teacher, how your work is
structured and how you carry. it out on a daily basis, why some things you do
work or don't work for the learners you teach, and how in large and small ways
t:he work can be done differently andlor better. This aim sits within the larger
frame of implications of what it means to reintroduce speculation, puzzlement,
and wondering into teaching and to strengthen the intimate connection between
these qualities and doing the job.
The structure
of the book
STARTING ANEW
Like any set of values, and the skills that are used to implement them, the think
ing and skills of teacher-research spring from a certain point of view. To set the
For work on
stage for the specifics of the teacher-research process, I want to outline this the
positionality,
On validity
in research,
see Chapter 7,
p.164.
work provides a rationale for repositioning the work of the teacher; making it
explicit serves a number of purposes. Most immediately this discussion can ori
ent you as the reader to the arguments I will make in this book. I am putting my
cards on the table so you can know what to expect; you can learn what I value
and what I assume or take for granted. It is a bit like knowing the kind of restau
rant you are in so you know what to expect on the menu. More generally, how
ever, I want to make explicit my point of view because I believe that any
research and the understandings and statements of facts or findings that result
from it serve larger purposes or ends. Research is never neutral; it is not simply
a matter of investigating the world and finding what is "true" about it. Rather,
it always involves elements of valuing, of assuming certain things and discount
ing others. By making explicit the assumptions from whichI depart, I intend to
own the starting point of my argument. Thus you can know what to expect
from me as the writer and why to expect it. You can position my arguments
within what you believe, and you can act accordingly on the ideas I provide.
Responding . ..
Work by yourself without consulting others. Using index cards or paper to write
on, respond to each of the following questions using the prompt. Don't limit
yourself; write as many answers as come to mind. The aim is to exhaust your
Analyzing . ..
After you have completed your responses to the questions, use one of the fol
If you are working alone: Set your responses aside and come back to
them after you have read the next section on the Five Propositions
(pp. 5-16).
When everyone has read the responses, discuss the patterns and out
liers you see. You may want to list what you find. Ask yourselves,
"Where does the particular pattern come from? Why do we
think/believe it? What is its basis in our collective experience?"
Then stand back again from the patterns themselves and look for
themes among them. Look at how the outliers may also connect to
these same themes.
This process is called "grounded analysis;" it is discussed more fully
in Chapter 5, p. 10l.
What you have just done in this Investigation is to begin to articulate YOUt
individual point of view on what research is before you read mine. By compar
ing your ideas to those of your peers (if you did so) and to my point of view as
you read what follows, you should be able to sharpen your beliefs.
FIVE PROPOSITIONS ABOUT TEACHER-RESEARCH
Working at
the hyphen
(Fine, 1996)
STARTING ANEW
possible distance between two separate and separable professional roles and
processes: One can teach or one can research. To be and do both is to unite roles
by undertaking two processes, teaching and researching, that have convention
ally been separated and seen as distinct. Thus some writers will talk about
teacher-research as "blurring roles" (Boles, 1996) or "spanning boundaries"
(Fine, 1996).
While the boundaries between them have begun to blur in some settings, the
distinction in territory continues to be part of most teachers' and researchers'
experience as well as their perspectives on what they do. This separation
between teaching and researching is based on a view that the two communities
have very different aims. In the field of education, research is supposed to gen
erate knowledge, while teachers are supposed to implement it. Numerous ele
ments in the social contexts of teaching and research contribute to this assump
tion. Researchers receive one specialized form of training and teachers receive
another. Full-time researchers usually work in one setting while full-time teach
ers work in another. Researchers contribute to the understanding and knowl
edge of a professional community, while teachers have a community that is
based in large measure on activity, defined by their subjeot matters, the grade
levels or the school settings in which they teach. To generate knowledge that
transcends settings it is often assumed, perhaps erroneously, that a researcher
can enter a classroom without ever teaching or having taught, can understand
what is happening in that environment, can gather information about it, and can
understand what goes on there, while the teacher who works in that classroom
day-in-and-day-out does not have ready access to the same level of information,
nor can he or she articulate the same type of knowledge and understanding.
Issues of time and autonomy shape these respective roles of teacher
and researcher in critical ways. Time is an acknowledged central feature of
teachers' lives. In their book Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge.,
on teacher-research in the Philadelphia public-school system through Project
START (Student Teachers as Researching Teachers), Marilyn Cochran-Smith
and Susan Lytle (1993) write:
Time is one of the most critical factors in the formation and mainte
nance of learning communities for teacher research. Unlike other
professions which are organized to support research activities, teach
ing is a profession in which it is extraordinarily difficult to find
enough time to collect data and it is almost impossible to find time
to reflect, reread, or share with colleagues. (p. 91)
Like increasing numbers of professionals who practice for the public good, such
as social workers, general practitioners, or family doctors, read:: fer the most
part do not control their own professional schedules in thc:;t.u !le v;ays thal
researchers, who are often employed by colleges and universities, do. N( Ir do
teachers usually have the same degree of professional autonomy in directing
their work. In the case of teaching, it is usually other people who set the cur
riculum, select the materials, place the students, decide how the job is to be
done, and then evaluate it. Most researchers have far greater control over what
they do and how they do it than do their colleagues who are teachers. While this
is partly a function of the intensification of work in our society generally (Apple,
On roles and
purpose in
teacher-research,
see Wong (1995)
Wilson (1995)
and Baumann
(1996).
1. the primacy of teaching and students ... means that research can
never interfere with or detract from a teacher's primary responsibili
ty to help students learn and grow;
2. the pragmatic constraints of classroom inquiry ... mean that the
work demands and realities of full-time teaching affect decisions
about the course of classroom inquiry. (p. 30)
Baumann's principles describe the friction inherent in combining the two roles.
He is alert to the fact that there are things that one does as a teacher that may
shape or even preclude one's role as a researcher, and ethically the teacher in
teacher-research must take precedence. Certainly, as they contribute to learning,
teacher-research efforts will always be ethically valid. However, the ways in
which research is carried out in classrooms by teachers will be shaped by their
basic responsibility to learners.
It is important also to see beyond this friction to where teaching and research
ing converge. At their most fundamental, both teaching and researching are con
cerned with processes of knowing and establishing knowledge. For teachers,
these processes focus on the learning of students; the knowledge established in
classroom teaching is what the students learn through the teaching-learning
process. For teacher-researchers, the processes concentrate on understanding
what is going on in classroom teaching and learning, and the knowledge estab
lished reflects those understandings. To put the connection simply: Teaching
seeks knowledge in students as its end; researching seeks knowledge of teach
ing-learning processes as a means toward that end.
Taken together, these differences in training, time, autonomy, and goals have
tended to distinguish-indeed separate-teaching from researching. They have
emphasized the roles of teacher and researcher, and the people who hold those
roles, over the processes in which they engage and what those processes may
STARTING ANEW
have in common. Working at the hyphen brings together the two activities to
emphasize their common focus. However, it also reshapes both activities. For
teachers to do research, research must be redefined to make it sensibly and active
ly a part of teaching. This entails addressing the factors of time and autonomy
in the social context of work that shape teachers' professional lives, even as we
reconsider our basic definitions of "research." This task of finding the common
core is one that teacher-researchers are uniquely positioned to undertake.
On different
research
paradigms, see
Neuman (1991);
also McLaughlin
and Tierney
(1993).
STARTING ANEW
This relates to
the discussion
of genre; see
Chapter 7,
p.150.
you come to belong. The circle works in both directions, however. When you
play by the rules of the disciplinary community, you are seen as belonging to
that community and you can critique and be critiqued according to its rules. So
acting like a member can get you into the community and thinking like a mem
ber can help you remain part of it. This takes us back to the two sides of teach
ing: as doing and as wondering. Are the rules of the community of teaching
defined primarily by action and by what members can do? Or are they defined
by how members think about what they do-how they puzzle, speculate, and
question the actions in which they are engaged and the outcomes of those
actions? When you hear a statement such as, "She is a great grammar teacher"
or "He works really well with teenagers," is the evidence for these statements
based primarily on activity and what these teachers do, or is it found in their
approach to their work?
While the dichotomy is, to some degree, overdrawn, it is not entirely a false
one. The problem is that teaching is not a discipline. It does not have unified or
commonly held "ground rules for creating and testing knowledge," to use
Shulman's phrase. In fact, when we speak of people "teaching a discipline" such
as math or biology, we are separating the knowledge or cOQ,tent from the activ
ity or the teaching. These traces of activity that teachers accumulate through the
doing of teaching are not seen as knowledge; they are referred to as experience.
Experience is the only real reference point teachers share: experiences as stu
dents that influence their views of teaching, experiences in professional prepa
ration, experience as members of society. This motley and diverse base of expe
rience unites people who teach, but it does not constitute a disciplinary com
munity. Shulman (1988,) argues that education is not a discipline but a field of
study, which he defines as "a locus containing phenomena, events, institutions,
problems, persons, and processes, which themselves constitute the raw materi
als for inquiries of many kinds." (p. 5) When researched, education in general
and teaching in particular is examined through the lenses of multiple disciplines.
When applied to education, these disciplines are themselves modified by the
objects of their investigations. Thus we have educational psychology, sociology
of education, educational statistics, and so on. These modifying terms highlight
the fact that the discipline is somehow transformed when it is applied to class
rooms, schools, teaching, and learning.
10
received forms is always redefined in smaller or larger ways as these things are
enacted in the time and place of particular classrooms by particular people. This
fact is not subversive; it is simply true because teaching and learning are human
activities. People teach people who are learning, which creates a human envi
ronment in which the abstractions of curriculum, materials, and pedagogy are
transformed into actual practice. As Earl Stevick (1980) put it, teaching and
learning are concerned with "what goes inside and between people." (pp.4-5)
In the human environments of schools and classrooms, teachers are isolated
from one another. As educational sociologist Dan Lortie (1975) said, schools are
like "egg crates" in which individual teachers work largely in isolation within
their separate rooms with different groups of students, like eggs in the separate
sections of their carton (pp. 13-17). Given this structural isolation, it is hardly
surprising that a disciplinary community of teaching has not arisen. The knowl
edge or wisdom of practice that could make up a discipline of teaching resides in
individual teachers; it is not shared, exchanged, or communicated as in other dis
ciplines. Teachers learn to talk about what they do, about the techniques and mate
rials they use, about how students are doing, about local school politics, and so
on. These conversations center on doing; they refer to information about teach-~I
ing and learning as embedded in local circumstances and personal experience.
Because teachers' conversations are grounded in local circumstances and expe
rience, they tend to be highly individual and thus do not build a larger shared
realm of inquiry. Professional interaction among teachers is usually highly pro
cedural; it tends to focus on classroom issues, students, conditions of work, and
so on. On the whole, teachers do not talk about information in terms of princi
ples of regularity or canons of evidence, as other disciplinary communities do.
This becomes a major barrier to the creation of a "discipline of teaching." When
people hold isolated personal conversations about individual experiences and
particular teaching circumstances, they do not build a larger discipline or a pro
fessional community to support it. To do so requires a shift of focus. There needs
to be an alternative strategy that will build a set of shared assumptions about
what constitutes the understandings on which teaching is based. In its political
sense, the activity of teacher-research is this alternative strategy. Teacher
research makes public these private conversations and individual intuitions,
grounding them in the local circumstances and personal experience of teaching
on the one hand, and in the disciplined procedures of inquiry on the other. Thus
in a very real sense teacher-research is about the creation of a professional dis
ciplinary community.
There is an instructive parallel to be drawn here with the early days of what
we now know as experimental research. Experimental research is the form of
inquiry that we usually associate with conventional definitions of science and
the production of knowledge. Its assumptions and procedures are at the base of
common notions of scientific method: of proving or disproving hypotheses, of
research design, of objectively verifiable findings, of validity and generalizabili
ty, and so on. However, experimental research has not always been a so-called
"solid science." In fact, a disciplinary community of scientific practice had to be
created to sponsor and defend this type of work and its approach to knowledge.
The process happened in the 1700s, when the British Royal Academy of Sciences
On validity,
see Chapter 7,
p.164.
STARTING ANEW
11
ment of science in the public mind, and he wondered how its distinctive genre
Chapter 7, p. 150
became established as the norm of communication for the scientific community.
In reviewing the records of the first 150 years of meetings of the Royal Academy,
Bazerman (1988) noted that the nature of what this community considered to
be "science" changed rather dramatically:
Those reported events identified as experiments change in character
over the period from 1665-1800. The definition of experiment
moves from any made or done thing, to an intentional investigation,
to a test of a theory, to finally a proof of, or evidence for, a claim.
The early definitions seemed to include any disturbance or manipula
tion of nature, not necessarily focused on demonstration of any pre
existing belief, nor even with the intention of discovery. With time,
experiments are represented as more clearly investigative, corrobo
rative, and argumentative. (emphasis added) (pp. 65"4,66)
Thus it seems that experimental science got its start in the same ways that the
discipline of teaching might. Experimental science began by simply doing things
or, as Bazerman puts it, by "any disturbance or manipulation of nature, not nec
essarily focused on demonstration of any pre-existing belief, nor even with the
intention of discovery." Over a century and a half this definition was refined and
made more disciplined. From an experiment as "any made or done thing," the
definition evolved through three phases: "an intentional investigation, ... a test
of a theory, . . . a proof of, or evidence for, a claim." Through this process of
evolving a definition, the disciplinary community of experimental science was
formed. To be a scientist and a member of that community, one had to play by
its rules. These rules defined, as Shulman said, the "principles of regularity or
canons of evidence" by which the community continues to operate to this day.
They defined the procedures that would generate "scientific" knowledge, a defi
nition that was not static but evolving. I wonder if teaching itself may well be in
the process of evolving rules of its own game, in the larger sense that Bazerman
talks about. Committing to a teacher-research perspective is part of that public
repositioning of teaching as it becomes an independent disciplinary community.
If you think about most of our professional meetings in language teaching
or indeed in other types of classroom teaching-they generally show a wide
variety of what is valued and worth knowing about teaching. In the best sense,
these gatherings of teachers represent a pluralism in both ways of knowing and
forms of knowledge. Like the early proceedings of the British Royal Academy,
the program books lack the standardization of other disciplines, where the
forms of knowledge are much more clearly delineated. I think the multiplicity is
due to the fact that there is not yet an established, generally recognized, and
accepted form of teaching knowledge. In its absence-perhaps until it devel
ops-we see a variety of account~ that range from demonstrations of tech
niques, activities, or technologies to discussions of teaching issues and problems,
to presentations of individual ways of doing things in the classroom, and so on.
12
Such multiplicity might be fine, were it not for the fact that teaching is such a
central social enterprise and therefore many people outside the classroom try to
define what teaching should or shouldn't be. In other words, as teachers we are
naive if we think we are somehow insulated from these attempts to define what
is important and worth knowing in teaching.
This is the central point in this proposition. Thus far, teachers have left it to
others to define the knowledge that forms the official basis of teaching. If they
are interested in contributing to that type of knowledge, teachers have general
ly been asked to change the ways of doing and thinking that serve them as teach
ers in order to become researchers and to do research. Thus the teacher's inter
est or concern must be tailored to a question to fit an existing discipline and the
rules of its game. In language teaching the so-called "parent" disciplines of psy
chology and linguistics; their offspring such as second language acquisition
research, curriculum development, and teaching methodologies; and the related
fields in educational research have shaped the questions asked about language
teaching (Stern 1983). These, therefore, have shaped what was thought to be
researchable in classrooms, whether by teachers or by researchers; in the broad
est sense, these disciplines of psychology and linguistics have circumscribed tht;,
questions that are asked about classroom language teaching and learning and
the types of data acceptable in response. These disciplinary communities have
created the norms and the discourse of research into which teachers have had to
fit if they wanted to be recognized in the study of their own practice (Freeman,
1994; van Lier, 1994). Recognition comes at a price; it shapes the concerns that
can be pursued and the findings that are accepted.
The alternative is to build an autonomous professional community of teach
ing to host its own questions and determine, as Shulman phrased it, its own
"principles of discovery and verification that constitute the ground rules for cre
ating and testing knowledge." This is the direction that teacher-research repre
sents. In moving from interests and questions that are completely embedded in
local circumstances and experience to a larger disciplinary framework of teach
ing, teacher-research is defining its own territory. Teachers are creating, in their
own terms, a new and viable community around the ideas and issues of teach
ing that are central to their work. At its core, this is a question of power and
participation because it means separating from the disciplinary communities
that have hosted educational research thus far, and defining new relationships
with them. However, it is worth noting that the process has historical roots. It
may be little different than the building of a professional community for exper
imental research through the Royal Academy that Bazerman describes.
If someone says to you "But that isn't scientific . .. " what does he
come from?
STARTING ANEW
13
On inquiry,
see Chapter 2,
p.34.
14
I believe that to some degree teachers are victims of conventional ideas of sci
ence. There is a feeling that systematic procedure, the first meaning of discipline,
holds the key to research and being a researcher. However, this leaves the sec
ond meaning of discipline, which is larger and ultimately more pervasive and
powerful, unchallenged. For teachers, focusing on procedure and not consider
ing the professional disciplinary community that gives meaning and value to
that procedure is a risky and disempowering proposition. It can trap teachers in
the ways in which their work is conventionally defined and valued. Teachers are
not, as I said at the beginning of this chapter, paid to ask questions about what
they do; they are paid to do. The professional community that hosts their work
is founded on the idea of action; it values doing, not asking q\iestions. Therefore,
the work is not seen to include building knowledge and understanding about
how teaching is done. Simply put, teachers are paid to get students to learn;
their job is to teach effectively. They are not paid to understand, document, and
generate public knowledge about how students learn and how best to teach
them. Out of this basic contradiction arises the imperative of working at the
hyphen, of teachers learning to research their teaching and learning with their
students in the classroom.
Teacher-research redefines these parameters of teachers' work. When teachers
start to puzzle about what, how, and why they do as they do and to ask ques
tions and speculate about alternatives, they incorporate the element of inquiry
into their work. Inquiry is a state of being engaged in what is going on in the
classroom that drives one to better understand what is happening-and can
happen-there. This orientation is antithetical to most of the ways in which
teachers' work is currently defined, valued, and organized (Freedman, Jackson,
and Boles, 1983). In medicine, physics, law, or architecture, for example, being
a professional entails being able to apply what is known in the discipline to
address new and previously undefined phenomena, contexts, and situations.
Practitioners in these fields learn to puzzle and speculate about what lies outside
the realm of the known (Schon, 1983). As professionals, they are valued for
their abilities to inquire and to apply the known to the new, novel, or unknown.
In teaching the process is reversed: Teachers are valued as professionals when
they know what to do. In classrooms, teachers usually have to deal with the
new, novel, or unknown without adequate time, support, or preparation to
investigate it. They often have 'to act on the unknown in terms of what they do
know, so that experience plays a key role in shaping action. The child who is a
"slow" reader is dealt with in part based on the teacher's experience with other
such learners. Speculating on why that child reads as he does is less a part of the
job than getting him to "perform at grade level." As action is rewarded, the psy
chological space for puzzlement and questioning is diminished.
STARTING ANEW
15
we tend to forget that so-called scientific ways of writing and talking are first
and foremost human: People create them and people give them value. Analyzing
the use of language structures like the agentless passive voice ("Studies have
shown . . .") and the impersonal third person (" Subjects completed three
tasks ... ") common in scientific writing, Bazerman (1988) continues:
These [language] formulations are a human construction and
thus are heir to all the limitations of humanity. [They] do all the
social work of being human with no overt means of doing the empir
ical work which has been considered the work of science.
The appearance of reality projected in scientific texts is itself a social
construction. (emphasis added) (pp. 294-295)
On genre,
see Chapter 7,
p.150.
Bazerman's observations about scientific writing are certainly true about lan
guage more generally. Genres, or language forms that have socially recognized
meanings and values, are based on and carry with them sociaJ assumptions
about and ways of viewing and acting in the world. For teacher-researchers to
talk and write like researchers gives them access to research communities; it also
constrains them to the issues and ways of thinking that are valued and mean
ingful to those communities. Therefore, to see teaching i~' new ways, teacher
researchers will need to create new forms of expression. New understandings
will need and compel new forms of expression, new genres, and new forms of
public conversation about teaching. There are numerous and emerging exam
ples of this process, as we will see in Chapter 7.
There will, no doubt, continue to be a role for conventional scientific genres in
teacher-research. Perhaps the aim should ultimately be one of bilingualism, with
teacher-researchers as comfortable in their own language and ways of displaying
their understandings as they are in the languages of other disciplinary communi
ties. However, because the language of teacher-research is currently so shrouded
by lack of public recognition and thus undervalued, this new genre needs to be
explored. Our first job, therefore, must be to discover and strengthen the indigenous
ways of telling what teachers come to know about teaching and learning through
inquiring into their work as teachers. It is from this position of some strength that
teacher-researchers can build an independent disciplinary community that cap
tures what they are capable of seeing (Freeman, 1996). Simply put, my argument
is that to tell a different story, we will need different words.
STARTING ANEW
Hugette
Ducasse
16
tomb thousands of miles away to carry out his research. But I can do it
Ducasse's comment suggests the reasoning behind this chapter's title. If you
accept the argument that teacher-research is about repositioning teaching and
about who generates the primary knowledge on which work in classrooms is
based, then doing teacher-research involves starting anew as a teacher. But start
ing anew doesn't mean abandoning what you know. It means moving away
from the perspective of doing and being certain that usually animates our work
as teachers to see teaching from a new and different perspective, one of puzzling,
questioning, wondering, and not knowing. This is not starting over as a teacher,
but starting anew from a different set of assumptions, realizing, as Ducasse says,
how wonderful the classroom is as a field for research.
Suggested Readings
Understanding teachers' expertise and how it develops over their careers is a rel
atively recent area of research in education. David Berliner's 1988 paper, "The
development of expertise in pedagogy," (Washington, DC: American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education) is a seminal statement in this area. Victoria
Genburg's article, "Patterns and organizing perspectives: a view of expertise,"
(Teaching and Teacher Education 8 [5/6]. pp. 485-496), provides an excellent
summary. On the social context of teachers' work, I suggest two authors as
ways into this useful literature. Ted Sizer's 1983 book Horace's Compromise:
The Dilemma of the American High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin) is a
classic and very readable statement of the issues. To follow Sizer's thinking and
the reform work that has resulted, see also Sizer's 1992 book Horace's School:
Redesigning the American High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin). Michael
Apple's Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations
in Education (New York: Routledge, 1986) also presents a wide-ranging critical
theory perspective on the social context of schooling. Allen Pearson's book, The
Teacher: Theory and Practice in Teacher Education (New York: Routledge,
1989) is an excellent and clear discussion of the philosophical issues and con
cepts involved in defining teaching as a practice.
In the notion of teacher-research as work at the hyphen, I have been influenced
by Michelle Fine's thinking. Her chapter, "Working the hyphens: Reinventing
self and other in qualitative research," (in Handbook of Qualitative Research,
edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994) is a dense
but worthwhile discussion of how the research process often hinges on creating
distinctions that are often based on power. In her 1996 book, Talking Across
Boundaries: Participatory Evaluation Research in an Urban Middle School
(New York: City University of New York Press), Fine applies this notion of
hyphens as connections and boundaries to teacher-research in schools.
The question of how research supports disciplines in the construction of knowl-
STARTING ANEW
17
edge is a vast one. Two readings offer a good way into these issues: Chapter 3
in L. Neuman, Social Research Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991) pro
vides a good and readable overview. D. McLaughlin and W. Tierney's book
Naming Silenced Lives: Personal Narratives and Processes of Educational
Change (New York: Routledge, 1993) is a fine collection of papers from vari
ous perspectives that aim to raise experiences and issues that are "silenced" or
not addressed in usual research.
And on how implementation shapes policy and curriculum, Michael Lipsky's
book Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service (New
York: Russell Sage, 1980) argues that people like police and social workers are
actually making policy under the guise of interpreting it as they interact with
their clients. Pam Grossman's book The Making of a Teacher: Teacher
Knowledge and Teacher Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1990)
looks at the same phenomenon in teaching as teachers transform curriculum
into what Shulman (1987) has called "pedagogical content knowledge." And
Kathleen Graves's edited collection, Teachers as Course Developers (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), presents six case studies of course develop
ment, written by practitioners in ESL/EFL settings, that 4examine curriculum
from the standpoint of implementation.
18
FRAMING THE
TEACHER-REsEARCH CYCLE
"
Lightfoot's
The Good High
School (1983)
is an example of
research that
works to capture
the complexity
of schools as
they are.
19
ble, constant, and familiar, but they also have a fluid messiness and complexity
that is difficult to capture-much less understand and explain.
Two researchers, Rob Halkes and Jon Olson (1984), who pioneered the field
of teacher cognition, outline an alternative view of teachers' work which starts
to account for this tension between order and complexity. They write:
Looking from a teacher-thinking perspective at teaching and learn
ing, one is not so much striving for the disclosure of the effective
teacher, but for the explanation and understanding of teaching
processes as they are. After all, it is the teacher's subjective school
related knowledge which determines for the most part what happens
in the classroom; whether the teacher can articulate her/his knowl
edge or not. Instead of reducing the complexities of teaching-learn
ing situations into a few manageable research variables, one tries to
find out how teachers cope with these complexities. (p. 1)
Emie versus
etic distinction,
see Chapter 4,
p.69
"Charles"
For Jackson the challenge is to understand the stable, familiar, regularity of the
classroom, while for Halkes and Olson the challenge is to understand how
teachers cope with the "complexities" that make up their teaching. This differ
ence in point of view, to which we will return later in the chapter, lies at the
heart of teacher-research. Simply put, living teaching and looking at it are two
different things. Working at the hyphen of teaching and researching challenges
this gap; teacher-researchers have to combine both perspectives as they live and
investigate their teaching.
Because of the immediacy of teaching, the simultaneity of classrooms and
what it means to cope with complexities can quickly melt away when one is not
in them. In the following extended description, which captures part of a first
year middle school French class, I want to bring some complexity to life. I do so
as an outsider, observing the class, and as an insider to that class, hearing what
is going on in other rooms around me. (The sections in italics echo what I hear
from other rooms but do not see.) What I have written, based on field notes
taken in the class and from talking with the teacher, who is here known as
Charles, is a bit like the cartoon. It creates a small hole for you to look at, while
the larger landscape of the canyon is only hinted at in the distance.
Four six-digit numbers are written randomly on the board. The class
begins as the teacher, Charles, addresses the group of twenty-one sev
enth graders seated at desks in pairs: "Alors je vous donnerai quelques
minutes pour reflechir." [Okay, l'Illet you have a few minutes to think
about these.] Most kids seem to know implicitly that he is talking
about how they will say the numbers in French. They sit quietly,
some looking at the board, others involved in their books or looking
at the scene in the school parking lot outside the classroom window.
28
this tomorrow and it's the last one in the quarter and you'd better
think about your grades. "
Charles rises from where he has been sitting, on the edge of his desk,
and speaks to the class: "Mettez-vous avec un partenaire, et vous
allez pratiquer comment dire ces numeros. Vous aurez un petit cinq
minutes." [Work with a partner and practice saying these numbers.
You'll have about five minutes.] The kids fall to work almost imme
diately. Most pairs are involved as they work through the six digits.
A student who is stuck on "924,429" turns to a neighboring pair:
In the brief silence, the teacher next door can be heard. "What about
the Elizabethan Age? That's number 6. Now that's something I know
a little about from my background in English. What's capitalized
there? Come on now, follow the rules at the top of the page. It's all
laid out for you . ... That's right, the teE" in Elizabethan and . ..
Okay, number 7 ... "
Charles switches the lesson to a review of verbs. Using stylized ges
tures, he mimes various verbs as the students call out the French. He
cocks one hand to the side of his mouth "Chanter." [Sing] the kids
call out. Then, in a fluid transition, he gives the French and the kids
do the gestures. Some falter; others look at their neighbors to check.
The pace is quick but not oppressive; the students seem involved by
it. It seems almost unremarkable that this is the first time, some fif
teen minutes into the lesson, that Charles has spoken except to give
instructions; all the other French, including corrections, has come
from the students.
21
STARTlNG TO SPECULATE
This Investigation refers you to the previous portrait of Charles's French class.
You are asked to imagine two points of view: the first as an observer in the class
and the second as Charles, the teacher.
Rereading the French lesson described above, list three to five things
you might wonder or have questions about as an observer in the class
room. List them in any form you choose-as questions, phrases,
ideas, whatever.
Read through the description again, this time imagining that you are
the teacher. Add to your list another three to five things you might
speculate on or that might puzzle you in this lesson if you were Charles.
Compare the two lists to see where they overlap and where they
diverge. How are the concerns similar or different depending
on whether you are an outsider, an observer, or an (imagined) insid
er, the teacher? Any of these speculations could provide the seeds of
an inquiry.
22
what you can leave alone or let go. With the sheet, it helps to organize the
order- first locate the four corners with one hand while you hold the bunched
up sheet with the other, and so on. With the kayak, you need to decide how to
interact with the object itself; how much strength to use to lift it and how to find
the center of gravity to balance it. Too much power and you will miss the bal
ance point; not enough and you may not find it.
Organizing initial wanderings, speculations, and puzzles into a coherent line
of inquiry has many of these same characteristics. In essence, you will need to
make some decisions about what to control in your teaching situation and how
to control it so that you can research it; by definition you will likewise be
deciding what to leave alone. The former will become your hole to look at
while the latter will become, temporarily, scenery in the background. This
organizing will involve structuring and ordering ideas and thoughts, using
energy and perseverance as you seek to clarify ideas and move ahead with the
process, and you will need to find the right balance among the many other
demands of being a teacher and the methodicalness and discipline of research
ing in your classroom.
In this chapter I layout two frameworks that are helpful-indeed are cen..,.
tral-in this organizing process. Both frameworks are schematic and visual, so
they are like maps of the whole territory of doing teacher-research. They are
also big-picture views of the dynamics and processes teacher-research
involves. The first framework outlines two basic principles that interact to
shape any research inquiry. In grasping these principles you are learning to
balance the yin and yang of organization and intervention in research. Like
lifting the kayak, this sense of balance is essential to carrying forward a
teacher-research project. The second framework is a cycle. It lays out the ele
ments of teacher-research and then connects them to the process of doing the
work. Like folding the sheet, it will suggest an order to activity in doing
research, and at the same time it should help to hold on to an image of the
whole research process.
PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL IN RESEARCH DESIGN:
VAN LIER'S TYPOLOGY
Leo van Lier, an educator who has written about the educational research
process, suggests an interesting way to think about how researchers organize
their relationships and interactions with the environments they are studying. In
posing research questions and developing ways to respond to them, van Lier
(1988) argues that there are two basic principles at work. The first is the princi
ple of organization, which he calls "selectivity." The second is that of interven
tion. Together the two principles outline the kinds of control a researcher can
exert in designing an inquiry. In the principle of organization, the researcher is
deciding how he or she wants to structure the relationship with the participants
and the setting being studied. In the principle of intervention, the researcher is
deciding how far he or she wants to intervene and interact with what is hap
pening in that environment as part of the research process.
Principles of
control in
research design:
How to organize?
How to
intervene?
23
+
More restructuring
and reorganizing of
teaching environment
for purposes of research
AXIS OF
INTERVENTION
Less intervention
into teaching for
purposes of research
More intervention
into teaching for
purposes of research
Less restructuring
and reorganizing of
teaching environment
for purposes of research
(after van Lier 1988; p. 57)
Van Lier uses the two principles as axes. The vertical axis of organization rUllS
from greater to lesser structure and researcher-imposed order in the research
process, while the horizontal axis of intervention runs from more to less researcher
involvement and direct interaction with participants and the research setting.
The following are four vignettes of teacher-researchers organizing their
research processes and intervening in their environments. They are intended tn
describe how organization and intervention might be balanced in each 0 the
four quadrants in Figure 2.1.
Vignette 2A: Maya and using new information to solve a task
For details on
the data-gathering
techniques
mentioned here
Appendix C,
pp.201-218.
24
Maya divides her class of thirty sixth graders into two groups, bal
ancing as far as possible the number, gender, and perceived abilities
of students in each group. She then teaches a lesson to the "experi
mental" group, while the "control" group is out of the room at art
class. The lesson, which is on giving spatial directions, includes both
easier and more idiomatic ways of expressing the same linguistic
functions that the whole class has already studied. The next day
Maya gives both groups the same task and she monitors how the stu
Joan keeps a teaching journal on her class of first graders who are
learning to read. Using her class as it is, she concentrates in her jour
naling on the first part of the morning, when the children are
involved in free reading and writing. While they are at music in the
following period, she is able to spend about 20 minutes looking over
the work the students have just done and making notes on what went
on during the lesson. She is interested in how various students are
progressing in reading, particularly in how their writing and draw
ings reflect their emerging literacy skills. As she reviews the students'
work, she actively challenges herself by writing a short reflective
memo in which she addresses the following question: How am I see
ing this student's learning process-as a teacher who needs to inter
vene and support it or as a researcher who wants to document and
understand it? She often writes down her observations in two
columns, one titled "teacher" the other titled "researcher." After a
month, Joan decides to narrow her research focus by choosing two
students who seem to be encountering literacy in very different ways.
Every few weeks thereafter she reviews her notes and their work and
writes up an analytical memo on each of the two students.
.'
Vera has an adult EFL class whose students have diverse interests. In
the part of the lesson devoted to conversational activities some stu
dents talk quite freely, while others seem less involved. Vera has noticed
that the participation varies and seems to depend on the topic and on
who is present in class on a given evening. Vera decides to give the
whole class a short written survey that asks them for some back
ground information (age, job, number of years studying English, use
of English professionally and socially) and to rate their interest in
various conversation topics. She also asks each student to note the
names of the three classmates the student considers the best conver
sationalists in the class and to explain why. She uses this information
to create a sociogram of the class.
Vignette 20: Setty and the comprehensibility of instructions
25
and at the end of that week asks her students for feedback. After she
has used all three formats, she asks the students to rate the formats
from one-most preferred-to three, and to say why they prefer the
one they rate most highly.
The teachers in each of these vignettes are initiating a teacher-research
process. They have each encountered something in their classrooms, among
their students, or in what they are doing that triggers some wonder, speculation,
or puzzlement. To pursue these lines of inquiry, each makes different decisions
about what to control in their situations, how to structure their relationships to
what is going on in their classrooms, and when and how much to intervene in
the phenomenon they are investigating. Each teacher-researcher's inquiry falls in
one of the four quadrants in van Lier's axes of organization and of intervention
(Figure 2.1). Within her line of inquiry, each of the four teacher-reseachers
makes choices about how to gather information or data. To act on these choices,
each must control certain aspects of the situation by organizing it in specific
ways and/or intervening in the usual flow of teaching to do things differently for
purposes of the research. For example, Maya organizes the class into two groups,
while Joan decides to gather her data from what the students are already doing
in her class. Vera intervenes to do a survey, while Betty structures her teaching
into three week-long formats and asks for student feedback on each one.
INTERVENE?
This Investigation uses van Lier's typology (Figure 2.1) to examine how the
teacher-researchers in the four vignettes balance organization and intervention
to control the situation and phenomenon each is investigating.
To do this Investigation take one of two approaches:
1. Reread the four vignettes and describe the research design the
teacher-researcher is using. What is she studying and how is she col
lecting information about it? Then place each vignette in one of the
four quadrants on Figure 2.1.
Explain to yourself-or to colleagues if you are working with oth
ers-why you put the vignette in that quadrant. How does the
research design reflect the adjacent axes? How does the teacher
researcher reorganize her setting for purposes of her research? How
does she intervene with students in the setting she is studying? Then
consult Figure 2.2 (p. 27).
2. To reverse the process, begin by looking at Figure 2.2. Then, before
reading the narrative that follows it, explain to yourself or your
classmates why each vignette is in that particular quadrant. How
does the research design reflect the adjacent axes? How does the
teacher-researcher reorganize her setting for purposes of her research?
How does she intervene with students in the setting she is studying?
26
Figure 2.2 incorporates the four vignettes into van Lier's typology. Each
vignette balances the two axes in some way. The vertical axis of organization
focuses on how to structure the research process; the horizontal axis concentrates
on how much to intervene in the flow of teaching to carry out the research. The
interaction of the axes highlights the range of choices in how each teacher
researcher controls teaching and the classroom setting to carry our her research.
figure 2.2:
AXIS OF
INTERVENTION
MAYA:
Does restructure
(control/experimental
groups; post-test task)
Does intervene
(treatment:
new material)
VERA:
Does restructure
(to do survey)
Does intervene
(treatment: new
material)
...
More intervention
into teaching for
purposes of research
Less intervention
into teaching for
purposes of research
- - - -
--~---~
JOAN:
Doesn'trestructure
Doesn't intervene
Less restructuring
and reorganizing of
teaching environment
for purposes of research
....
..
BETTY:
Doesn't restructure
Does intervene (three
formats for instruction;
elicits feedback)
Maya's vignette (2A) falls in the upper right quadrant, which is "plus restruc
turing and plus intervention." She wants to examine how a particular interven
tion-teaching specific additional language-may affect her students' overall
ahility to do the task of giving directions. Maya adapts a conventional experi
mental research design in which only half the class receives the "treatment" of
additional instruction for the task. She restructures the situation (the horizontal
axis) by subdividing the class into experimental and control groups that are as
matched as possible under the circumstances, and she intervenes (the vertical
21
axis) in her normal teaching to give only the experimental group the treatment
of the additional language content. She then uses a "post-test" design to com
pare how the two groups do the information-gap activity on how to give direc
.tions, which she audio-tapes. Maya thus restructures the classroom environment
additional content to one group. However, given the inherently messy complex
ity of teaching and classrooms, she cannot create a fully controlled experimen
tal design in which everything about the two groups would be comparable
28
Figure 2.3:
BETTY
Design
as an
action research design
as an
experimental design
Organization
Intervention
29
On grounded
theory, see
Strauss (1987;
pp. 5-6; 22-23).
30
by their differing styles of emerging literacy, on which she then focuses. Joan's
approach to her research is what in qualitative research is often called a grounded
approach (Strauss, 1987) since she is evolving her analysis and her understand
ing from the data as she collects them, rather than imposing preconceived or a
priori categories on the data. Anselm Strauss (1987), who pioneered the ground
ed theory in social science research, defines it this way: "Such theory ought to be
developed in intimate relationship with data, with researchers fully aware of
themselves as instruments for developing that grounded theory. This is true
whether they generate the data themselves [as Joan does in the vignette] or
ground their theoretical work in data collected by others." (p. 6)
Here is another thought experiment that illustrates the difference between
grounded and a priori theory. Let us say, for instance, that Joan decides before
beginning her project to focus on two particular first graders, Drew and Sergio.
She selects the two students because she knows that they come from very different
sociocultural and family-literacy backgrounds. Both of Drew's parents have white
collar jobs; he has three older siblings who are close in age, and there appears to
be a lot of literacy interaction in English at home. Sergio lives with an aunt who
works the night shift at a cannery; he often spends after-sch@ol hours with neigh
bors and friends in the Cape Verdian community, where his home language is a
Portuguese Creole. There probably isn't much formal literacy interaction in English
in his home life. Joan wants, therefore, to track how these two first graders enter
English literacy. She hypothesizes that for Drew the path of literacy in English will
be clearer and more direct than for Sergio. Because she speaks Portuguese, Joan
also plans to look at how Sergio navigates his way between Portuguese and English
in such things as invented spelling as he starts to write.
In this thought experiment Joan brings a number of articulated assumptions
to shape her research. She assumes, based on both other people's research (e.g.,
Heath, 1983) and her own experience as a teacher that family literacy interac
tions in English-such things as the amount and kinds of English-language
materials including newspapers, magazines, and books, around the henne; read
ing of bedtime stories; reading aloud; siblings close in age who are reading and
doing homework; and so on-will have an impact on Drew's learning. She
assumes that Sergio's experience will be different because he does not have the
same family literacy interactions in English and, further, that he may have some
interference from Portuguese as he learns to read English. Together these
assumptions form implicit and explicit ways in which Joan looks at the data
from these two children. These a priori theories, about family lite;ac'Y interac"
tions in English for example, and a priori categories, such as Portuguese versw:>
English invented spelling, shape the ways in which she will approacl~ ~:he
and how she will analyze her data.
Bringing a priori understandings to the research process is not a bad thing. It
is, arguably, a very human and necessary feature of how people lTI1kc sel1s(' of
their worlds, as teacher-researchers and as human beings in general. For instance,
on a November morning in New England, if you decide to bring a coa t when
you go out even though it is warm and sunny, you do so because you assume it
may turn cold at some point during the day. You make this prediction based on
a number of factors: your own experience, the fact that you have been told it is
so, observation and hearing about other people's experiences, and so on. Pre
diction is based on experience and on making assumptions about the world; it
is a feature of being human. It is also a crucial part of the research process.
Prediction can be built upon by using a priori understandings to structure the
research process (the vertical axis) andlor to guide how the researcher intervenes
with what is being studied (the horizontal axis) to collect and analyze the data,
as with Maya [2A] or Betty [2D] in the upper or lower right quadrants of Figure
2.2. The researcher can also actively track assumptions and temporarily set
them aside, as Joan does when she writes reflective memos in her vignette. She
thus harnesses prediction so that it works from the data itself to generate
grounded categories and theories.
Vera's project [2C], which falls in the upper left quadrant in Figure 2.2, dif
fers from Joan's in one major way. Like Joan, and unlike Betty or Maya, Vera
decides not to intervene in her teaching (horizontal axis) to gather data. Rather,
she decides to restructure her lesson in a minor way by having the students com
plete a brief written survey at the close of one class period. The survey is a struc
tured instrument through which she gathers information; she would not use it
unless she were doing the research. Vera designs the survey based on her a prh,
ori assumptions about what may affect the different levels of participation in the
class (i.e., choice of discussion topics, fluency and comfort with English, social
groupings within the class, etc.). Vera's approach is to leave the class as it is (hor
izontal axis), but to structure a specific time and instrument to gather informa
tion about what is going on. She also uses the survey data to build a sociogram
of students' perceptions of "good conversation" by asking each of them who he
or she sees as the best conversationalists in the class. The sociogram is one way
of collecting their views of the social phenomenon of conversation. Alongside
the data on topics and student backgrounds and preferences it provides an alter
native, "second-order" or participants' view of the phenomenon under study.
This typology provides a framework for looking at how the teacher-researcher
may structure the research process, along the vertical axis of organization the
horizontal axis of intervention. Both axes layout possible decisions you can
make as a teacher-researcher about how much to control the situation you are
investigating. As you move up the vertical axis of organization (Figure 2.2) you
are deciding to reorganize your teaching situation for purposes of your research.
This restructuring can mean a major change in the organization of your teach
ing, like Maya's dividing students into experimental and control groups [2A], or
a minor one, like Vera's [2C] doing the survey at the end of a class. As you move
down the vertical axis, you are deciding to leave your teaching situation as it is
and not to restructure it for the purposes of your research, like Joan [2B] and
Betty [2D]. A second set of decisions interacts with these decisions about orga
nization; they have to do with how and how much to intervene in your teach
ing as part of the research process. These decisions are represented on the hori
zontal axis of intervention. They range from not intervening at all, like Joan
[2B], to doing something fully different in your teaching for purposes of the
research, like Betty [2D] with her three formats of instructions. In contrast, after
they decide how to take action to restructure their teaching to pursue their lines
of inquiry, Vera and Maya do not intervene in the actual teaching they do.
For a full
discussion of
seco nd-orde r
research,
see Chapter 4,
p.65.
31
Figure 2.4: Modified van Lier's typology: Researoh design and researoh methods
AXIS OF
ORGANIZATION
~
AXIS OF
INTERVENTION
MEASURING
surveys
structured questionnaires
"systematic" observation
instruments /protocols
sociograms
CONTROLLING
quasi-experiment
experiments
..
More intervention
into teaching for
purposes of research
Less intervention
into teaching for
purposes of research
WATCHING
participant observation;
field notes
case studies
stories/narrative studies
diaries/journals
documenting student work
Less restructuring and
reorganizing of teaching
environment for purposes
of research
ASKING/DOING
action research
collaborative research
interviews (structures and
open-ended)
open-ended questionnaires
elicitation (student journals;
feedback)
Van Lier describes the principal concerns of the researcher in each quadrant
as controlling [Maya, 2A]; asking and doing [Betty, 2D]; watching [Joan, 2B],
and measuring [Vera, 2C]. One way to think about this display is to say that as
a teacher-researcher, when you develop a project you have to ask yourself,
"How do I want to structure this project?" and "What role do I want/need to
play-both within and outside my teaching-to gather data for it?" Your
response can be categorized in terms of one of these four dominant concerns.
Figure 2.4 shows how van Lier suggests that various types of research design
and approaches to data-gathering map onto this typology. Like the four vignettes,
the examples are illustrative and not complete or exhaustive; they do help to
clothe the abstraction of the two axes in the particulars of the research process.
This typology helps to layout the overall landscape of the research process
and the researcher's role within it. It frames crucial questions about how you
balance control over your teaching situation as you organize your research. If
32
The second framework is meant to help organize the work of doing teacher
research. It is the framework around which the remainder of the book is orga
maps out the specific phases involved and offers a way into the skills associat~,
ed with each part of the process. The cycle has six basic elements. It is useful to
think about the elements individually before putting them in sequence, so I have
- Understandings
- "Publishing"-making public
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Question/puzzle
- Inquiry
The elements
of the teacher
research cycle
1. Define each of the following elements for yourself. Make your defi
nitions as concrete as possible; anchor them in your experience.
- Understandings
- "Publishing"-making public
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Inquiry
Question/puzzle
If you are working with others, define the elements for yourself and
then compare your definitions with those of your colleagues.
In making the comparison, identify what you all consider essential to
the definition of each element.
2. Place the elements in the unlabeled framework in Figure 2.5 (p.34).
As you do so, consider why you put them in the order you do. You
will want to think through and/or explain to others, the relationships
among the elements.
Figure 2.6 (p. 38) shows the elements in the labeled framework.
33
Figure 2.5:
34
For the
discussion of
teaching versus
research-able
questions,
see Chapter 4,
p.61.
35
The attendance
story:
Alternative
explanations;
see Chapter 7.
p.169.
31J
which teachers voice their understandings and enter into public con
Comment: The idea of publishing used here comes from the work on process
writing. In that context, the final phase involves students making public their
texts by reading them aloud andlor preparing bound versions that become part
of a class library. Becoming authors is a crucial part of the writing process for
young learners because it situates them among other literate people. Lucy
McCormack Calkins is an elementary school teacher and a teacher-researche;'
who has studied young children learning to write. Her first book, Lessons from
a Child: On the Teaching and Learning of Writing, one of the first teacher
research accounts published, gave substantial impetus both to the process writ
ing movement and to teacher-research in general. In a subsequent book, Calkins
(1986) quotes a seven-year-old writer-author named Greg who explains the con
nection between reading and publishing:
Before I ever wrote a book I used to think there was a big machine
and they typed in a title and then the machine went until the book
was done. Now I look at a book and know a guy wrote it and it's
been his project for a long time. After the guy wrote it, he probably
thinks of questions people will ask him and revises it like I do....
(p.224)
37
Characteristics
of the teacher
research cycle
38
These, then, are the six elements in the complete cycle (Figure 2.6), which serves
to organize what you do as you enter into teacher-research. In subsequent chap
ters we will focus on the phases of the cycle and how the elements in each phase
interrelate. I want to make three general observations about the cycle at this
point. First, it is a cycle. This means that the process has momentum; it feeds
itself and carries itself forward. As the seven-year-old author Greg says of writ
ing, "After the guy wrote [the book], he probably thinks of questions people will
ask him and revises it.... " Similarly, the understandings in most lines of inquiry
spawn further questions and puzzles. The end comes when you decide to stop;
it rarely comes because you have found an answer.
Second, the cycle can have several points of entry, although to do the work
completely there is only one starting point. As a teacher you can get hooked at
pretty much any point in the process. You may decide to have your students keep
learning logs on their progress and this can become the data (data collection).
You may be looking over some students' written work and begin to speculate
about a particular pattern in their mistakes (data analysis). You may explain to a
colleague why you think a certain activity has been difficult for students at this level
(understanding), and then wonder if that is always the case (question/puzzle).
You may hear or read about someone's findings (publishing) and question them
from your experience (inquiry), and so on. However, the starting point of the
cycle-and the place to which the other five phases ultimately lead back-is
inquiry. Inquiry provides the headwaters of the process; it provides the energy
to keep it moving.
Third, if you choose, the whole cycle except for publishing can remain pri
vate to the teacher. Absent making it public, teacher-research need never be
known or indeed affect the outside world. But I believe that going public with
the understandings that result from teacher-research is critical for two reasons.
First, as I have said, making the understandings public gives power to the cycle.
Publishing engages the teacher-researcher in the creating of knowledge, which,
in turn, can shape policy, practice, and conditions of work as well as improve
and deepen understanding of teaching and learning (Kincheloe, 1991). Second,
going public is an important way to test one's findings. If teacher-research remains
entirely private, it can become solipsistic. Teacher-researchers need to hear oth
ers' reactions to their work, to engage in public debate, and to consider various
perspectives. Because they stem from research, these discussions are based on
information and analysis, not simply on opinion. So while there is a choice
about making the work public, there are also consequences of that choice. To
go public with the process of teacher-research and the understandings that result
from it, helps establish a new professional community. It helps to transform edu
cation from a practice of implementation to a practice devoted to understand
ing learning, and it can strengthen teachers' understandings of what they do by
attracting others' informed scrutiny of their work.
n this chapter I have outlined the teacher-research cycle conceptually. The two
frameworks presented are meant to provide maps to guide the work at the
hyphen. Doing teacher-research requires a special kind of balance in controlling
the dimensions and responsibilities of both roles. Like lifting a kayak, it takes a
certain amount of strength and energy to restructure your work in the classroom
so you can pursue a line of inquiry as you are teaching. It may also demand that
you intervene in what you would ordinarily do in teaching for purposes of your
research. Understanding teacher-research also requires organization to follow a
disciplined sequence from inquiry through data collection and analysis to under
standing. Like folding a sheet, the work of teacher-research has its own partic
ular logic and discipline. Finding it in the teacher-research cycle makes the work
more doable. But having read these two frameworks, which, as frameworks, are
rather abstract, you might well ask what does all this mean in practice? That is
the story of the next chapter.
Suggested Readings
There are various approaches to capturing context in doing research. Sara
Lawrence-Lightfoot's book, The Good High School: Portraits in Character and
Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1983), is a pioneering example of what the
author calls "portraiture," an approach that works to capture the texture and
39
40
CARNIVAL RIDES:
AN ACCOUNT OF BEGINNING
TEACHER-RESEARCH
Wagner Veillard
"
PREAMBLE:
Dear reader,
It is raining as I write this note to preface this chapter. I am trying to
imagine who you are and what you may find as you read this
account. As an author, I have to admit that I am excited, and I am
also a bit apprehensive. This is the first time I have "gone public" as
a teacher-researcher; what you will see here is my first work. To
introduce what you will read, I would like to tell you a bit about who
I am and what led me to do some teacher-research in my classroom.
wagner Veillard
41
Wagner Veillard
This Investigation asks you to examine how Wagner Veillard moves from a
teacher's toward a teacher-researcher '5 orientation over the course of this chapte1:
As you read the chapter, make a list of the ways in which the author,
Veillard, approaches his teaching as a teacher versus as a teacher
42
ADMISSION TICKET
The school term is over, and I feel like a child in an amusement park. The
atmosphere is fascinating: lights, music, movement. I do not know what to try
first or where to go next once I make my first choice. A small sign tells me that
I am not old enough for certain rides. When I focus my attention on the many
rides I am allowed to explore, I get mixed feelings of boredom, anxiety, antici
pation, and fear.
The school term is over, and I am fascinated by the possibilities of what one
can do with one's data. There are different ways not only of breaking informa
tion apart, but also of putting it together. I have learned about instruments,
sources, strategies, and the importance of analyzing data before collecting new
evidence. I realized how crucial it is to share what you are doing with colleagues
so that true collaboration occurs. Somehow overwhelmed by these insights, I
really do not know where or how to start my analysis. My only desire is to cri
tique my research procedures. I wish to focus on what I did not do and on what
I could have done better. I am anxious to redesign my plan and continue my
research with a new group of students when the next term begins in August.
Forced to go back and see what I can say based on the data I have, I feel
frustrated. The results are not the ones I would like to present. To make
matters worse, there are huge flames in my burning questions; but how did the
fire get started? In order to answer this question, we must move on to our first
carnival ride.
For Veillard's
account of his
subsequent work,
see Chapter 6.
43
Figure 3.1:
NAT10NALITY
NUMBER
NATIONALITY
NUMBER
Brazilian
27
Mexican
Korean
10
Japanese
U.S. American
Dutch
Argentinian
Finnish
TOTAL
On teaching
versus
research-able
questions,
see Chapter 4,
p.61.
47
Since I really enjoy writing, I decided at the start of the semester that my
inquiry would be related to this skill. Aware of my personal bias, however, I start
ed analyzing my own writing. I was intrigued by the steps of the process: what
happens from the moment I find an idea worth writing about, to the moment I
hand my final version to a reader. I finally stated my research question as:
On assumptions
in the research
process,
see Chapter 4,
p.53.
Although they were not clearly stated, the following expectations were deeply
rooted in my mind:
1. I want my students to see the teacher as a learner/reader in the
classroom.
2. I want my students to understand that rewriting is an inevitable
step in refining ideas and polishing a writing piece.
3. As I give students the chance of reading one another's work, I hope
they will be able to find, and possibly correct, their own mistakes.
4. At some point, I expect students to hand me the final version of an
assignment and say, "This is the best I can do, both in terms of what
I know and how hard I can work."
As you can clearly see, there are many traps in my expectations. The most dan
gerous one is the idea that I want students to look at writing in the same way I
do. In hoping that they will eventually verbalize a sense of achievement, #4
above, I wonder if I am assuming that they need to say what they have done in
order to learn from it. Am I thus looking to be rewarded as the teacher with
44
their statements, even though the students may see their own rewards in the
work they do for themselves?
When you are up there on a Ferris wheel seat, you can usually see the entire
amusement park, and what lies around it as well. I have tried to give the reader an
overall impression of the research project: who my students were, what my initial
interest was, and the kind of environment in which we were operating. It is now
time to go down so that one can find out what I actually did in the classroom.
THE ROLLER-COASTER OR
JOURNALING
In accordance with this ride, I plan to explain very quickly the ups and downs
of how I worked with my students and their writing. I chose my journal as the
cart for this ride for it is the only piece of evidence on which I can rely to take
us from the beginning to the end of this adventure. In looking back at my own
work in the first module of the teacher development program, I saw that my
reflective writings were the most powerful element in the experience. So, on the
very first class, I asked my students to keep journals. I told them that nobody
would read their entries unless they agreed. I also told them that I would be
keeping a journal myself. To link us together in this common enterprise, I asked
them to sign their names on the cover of my journal.
In keeping with Gattegno's ideas on the Silent Way (Gattegno, 1976; Stevick,
1980), my objective was to "learn my students" while "they learned themselves
and the language." So I decided that I would ask students to write in their jour
nals in class at least twice a week for a two-month period. The entries might
relate to themes that the students would develop further in writing their compo
sitions, but they were not restricted to this focus. Below, I have listed some of
topics I assigned in journaling, and my reasons for assigning them:
JOURNAL ENTRY TOPIC
REASON IN ASSIGNING IT
For students . ..
45
On anecdotal
data, see
Appendix C,
p.202.
46
Despite all the good news, however, there were disadvantages in using the
journals. I became too involved in trying to find out how my students were feel
ing about the writing process, and so there were times when I digressed from my
research question. I do not regret what I did, but had I kept a narrower focus, I
would have more relevant data. I have since found it difficult to identify the
most useful journal entries to code, and the analysis is very time consuming. I
was. not able to analyze all of my students' journals because I could only work
with the journals willingly given to me at the end of the semester. As I had said
that they would control their journals, I had to respect my students' privacy.
Therefore, I only have six journals, not including my own, to include in the
study. When I assigned letters, had them prepare interviews, or organized class
discussions, I was able to get a sense of the contents of students' entries without
actually reading their journals, because they used their entries as a basis for
these activities.
However, when I read the actual journal entries for each day in the six jour
nals I had, I realized that there were many details which I was never aware of.
Students were paying more attention to my actions than I could ever have
imagined. For instance, Marcio wrote on February 15: "Veillard took notes a~'
he did yesterday." On April 26 he wrote: "I really don't like English now. And
Veillard is not Veillard, he's something else, 'regular,' only cares about grammar.
Gets angry easily." His entries made me wonder what was I taking for granted
in my teaching.
This carnival ride is over.
THE SWING BOAT: FROM WRITING TO READING
On a priori
data analYSis,
see Chapter 5,
pp.103-105.
Student
Draft
Michel
Number of Words
Euridice
Number of Words
#1
77
83
#2
79
86
#3
82
99
What exactly do these data tell me? One might argue that if the number of
words increases through the drafting and revising process, students are learning
to be more specific and detailed in their descriptions. But someone else might
argue that if the number of words decreases, students are learning to be more
concise and that, as a result, their writing is more powerful. I realize that data
themselves don't tell you the answer. You always have to interpret them in some
41
On redefining
research
questions,
see Chapter 5,
pp.91-93.
way. I also tried to analyze the kinds of comments students wrote on one anoth
er's compositions when I gave them the chance to give one another peer feed
back. Unfortunately, I was not able to reduce these comments into categories
that made sense to me, partly because I didn't have enough data to make useful
comparisons and thus to see the categories.
If I look closely at my data, I am thrown towards the other end of this swing
boat. The only question I might be able to answer does not really deal with writ
ing, but rather with reading, a skill that is very much related to writing. My
research question would then become:
"What happens when my students choose what they read?"
To explain this shift, let me refresh the reader's memory. My students were
required to read one novel per month. According to school rules, the teacher
assigned the book, and the whole class read it. Last semester however, I gave my
students the opportunity to choose one of the novels they would read, the very
first one, so that each student was reading his or her own book. I have outlined
the process by which students chose and read their individual books below.
February 7: Homework- "Think of three books yo~' would like to
read, but for some reason have not managed to."
February 8: "In groups, share your titles and choose one book you
would like to read by February 24. We will all start reading our var
ious books on February 10."
February 9: "Think about a book that had an impact on you. What
was it like? What was the story about? Why and when did you read
it? Why did it have an impact on you? Would you recommend it? To
whom? Remember to bring this book to class tomorrow."
February 10: "Acquaint yourself with the book you brought in.
Describe it: the cover, the pictures, the number of pages, table of con
tents, title, author, year of publication. Why did you choose it? When
do you plan to read it? What kind of story do you expect?
February 13: "Write a brief paragraph about what you have read.
Make two predictions based on what you have read so far. Walk
around the classroom and share what you wrote with a classmate."
February 14: "Prepare a card according to this model:
Your name is reading title of your book by author of the book
y.ou are reading.
"Tomorrow I will post the cards around the classroom so that every
one knows what everybody else is reading. I want to try and create
the feeling of an art gallery by displaying each reader's choice. I will
also record all the book titles in my journal."
48
On displaying
data, see
Chapter 5,
pp.l08-119.
TYPE OF BOOK
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
26
Suspense
Books that have been turned into movies
Sports
Mythology/Fantasy
Science Fiction
Other
49
to be a book from the library? How are you going to grade/test us on this
book?" This opens up the whole issue of how students perceive what they are
doing. Sudeep comes to me at the end of class on February 10 and says: "This
class is better than the others, more active. We don't have to write so much."
He pauses, "I mean, we do, but it is not the same!" 1 say, "Hum, that's right.
You do write here, but how is it different?" Sudeep replies, "We don't have to
copy from a book."
As I have said before, 1 do not necessarily want to present these as research
results, but they do give a flavor of what actually happened.
THE CAROUSEL:
Working at
the hyphen,
Chapter 1,
pp. 5-8 and
Chapter 8,
pp.177-178.
How
As a child I used to look at the carousel and wonder how it was possible for the
horses to move up and down and move around, without getting out of their
predetermined places in the circle. Looking at myself as a learner of teacher
research, 1 believe that my biggest mistake has been trying to make my research
work operate like a carousel. In other words, I have attempted to present neat
contrasts: writing as a process versus writing as a product; oral and written
comments in self and peer feedback versus number or letterv!grades; my person
al beliefs about learning and teaching versus institutional goals. Perhaps I am
setting myself up for failure if I take on the task of changing one of these parts
and try to keep it from affecting the whole. 1 see now that is impossible; the
parts are interconnected like the carousel horses. On the other hand, the disci
pline of research, as 1 understand it, does require structure and regularity, like
the spacing of the horses on the carousel. I need some space to figure out this
seeming contradiction: How do you separate a part of your teaching from the
whole of your work life in order to study it?
Now, I am out of my classroom, in the middle of an exciting ride of the third
module in this teacher development program. I am aware that my cart will twist
and turn, driven by doubts and insights. Every now and then, I may still grab
on to the handle of old beliefs, just for the sake of safety. But I can already pic
ture myself standing in line for the next promising ride, when I will again be
back in the classroom, with my students, perhaps to research again.
-WHAT?
-WHY?
- WHERE?
-HOW?
- WHEN?
"
51
FORMING AN INQUIRY':
FROM QUESTIONS TO
One or two months is really too little time to be able to see what is
happening in a classroom. I need to go back again and again, to
see what is happening . .. whether the things I am finding continue
to be there.
Helena Portillo
t is one of life's ironies that sometimes you need to do things that seem com
plicated in order to arrive at simple insights or understandings. One of the two
characters in Edward Albee's one-act play Zoo Story captures this idea quite
wonderfully when he muses, "Sometimes you have to go a long distance out of
Teacher-research:
52
Figure 4.1:
As you can see in Figure 4.1, this chapter focuses on the first part of the
teacher-research cycle: How you move through the initial stages of inquiry to
identify and elaborate questions, to determine the kinds of data that can
respond to those questions, and how you layout a research plan. However, this
first part of the cycle usually stems from what precedes it. It can, and usually
does, grow both out of assumptions you bring to the inquiry from your experi
ence, and from understandings that you may have gained through reading or
doing other teacher-research. This prior information inevitably shapes the form
of the new inquiry. From it grow the preconceptions you may have for why you
think things happen as they do in your teaching. An orientation of inquiry and
speculation holds these preconceptions up to scrutiny and questioning; an ori
entation of doing and action generally works simply to reconfirm them.
ASSUMPTIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS, AND DEVELOPING
A LINE OF INQUIRY
Kim Mortimer was a beginning teacher-researcher when she wrote the follow
ing in a memo. Here she sets out very clearly the intimate connection between
the preconceptions she brought into the research process, which she calls her
hypotheses, and how she framed her initial inquiry.
Kim
Mortimer
58
54
On what
teachers bring to
teaching from
experience, see
Lortie, (1975);
et al. (1996).
On validity,
see Chapter 7,
pp. 164-175.
55
students' learning?
understand better?
56
What puzzles you about what you see? What are you unsure of?
What aspects of the students' learning do you want to better
understand?
Why do you think things are happening as they are on the tape?
How would you know? What speculations does this raise about
students' learning andlor your teaching?
What do you know about your teaching or their learning that
you are interested in verifying?
Refer to the video-viewing suggestions outlined in Appendix A
(pp. 198-199) for further ideas of how to work with the videotape.
PURPOSE, TIME, AND OUTCOME
Purpose
Time
Outcome
On teachers'
Freedman et al.
(1983).
57
Some ethical
questions
58
the curriculum, or monitoring the playground or the lunch room as called for in
the labor agreement or job description, and so on. Indeed, for many teachers,
the only individually managed time is what are euphemistically called their
"planning periods." In this frame, using time for inquiry is difficult; it often goes
against the grain of school. But it is not impossible.
Though there is an automatic structure to how teachers spend much of their
work time, there is also the space to think differently about what is going on in
the classroom. Simply put, it does not have to follow that because time is struc
tured, therefore ways of thinking-and indeed doing things-must be equally
structured. While you may have to take attendance at the beginning of the class
period, there are many different ways to do so. Calling names off the class roll
is only one. Because it is common to our experience, it seems the conventional
way to do the job. Too often, the demands of what has to get done in teaching
can crowd out creativity and exploration in how those demands are met. I
believe it is generally teachers' preconceptions that do most of this crowding.
Although inquiring into your work as a teacher does mean using time in some
what different ways, it also means rethinking the usual and conventional in your
work. It can often be harder to push this mental reorienta.~ion than to find the
time to do the work.
The use of time is closely related to the achievement of outcomes. Time in the
classroom is generally organized to achieve purposes that are set from the out
side, and these achievements are measured in terms of outcomes. Common mea
sures such as test scores, student progress and achievement, and so on are meant
to track the accomplishments of teaching, and to a degree they do. However,
when purposes are set and outcomes measured by those who are beyond the
classroom, the teacher is reduced to an element in an equation. Teacher-research
recasts these relationships by overlaying a set of teacher-determined purposes
and outcomes on those that already exist in the classroom. This is why doing
teacher-research can feel like doing two things at once, and why, therefore, time
can become such an issue. The social linguist Mikhail Bahktin wrote tha t words
are hardly empty, that they are "overpopulated with the intentions of others."
The same can be said of teachers' time and their classrooms, both of which are
formed and populated by other people's intentions. In engaging in an inquiry
into your teaching, you reestablish the primacy of your intentions in the class
room. You are setting a purpose-the inquiry and its questions-and aiming for
an outcome-the data and their analysis-that will accomplish that purpose
and respond to those questions. This process involves carving out time from the
fabric of your work life in order to achieve these ends: to think through a line
of inquiry to find its research-able questions and to plan the data that will
respond to them.
Rethinking how you use your time in the classroom will inevitably raise issues
of ethics and responsibility. Jim Baumann, the teacher-researcher cited in
Chapter 1, made the point that, of the two jobs, teaching must always take
precedence over researching. Put another way, you would not do something as
a researcher that directly contradicts or interferes with what you know, or must
do, as a teacher. However, drawing that line is not always simple or clear. Because
will need to question some of those beliefs. If you only do what you "know" to
be right as a teacher, you will be caught in the status~quo. Questioning your
assumptions will inevitably mean that you sometimes suspend the known to
inquire into the new or unsure. It is always a matter of judgment, and I think
the line is basically a personal one. I would not do something that knowingly
puts at a disadvantage or otherwise hurts my students or their learning. However,
I would also question whether what I believe to be effective is always so. In that
space between certainty and questions lies room for a line of inquiry that can
open possibilities of new perspectives, understandings, and visions. It also opens
the possibility of risk; once you question what you take for granted, you begin
to challenge the status quo.
Educational researchers like Baumann have argued the issue of ethics from a
number of points of view. Mainly, however, their issues have centered on how a
research project might change the norms of the teaching and learning process in
a classroom or a school. But since teacher-research is, by definition, a compos
ite undertaking, changing those norms falls under the direct control of one-and
the-same person: the teacher who is researching his or her own teaching,.
Writing about large-scale educational research projects, Kenneth Howe and
Katharine Dougherty (1993, p. 20) outline the following list of caveats for
research activities that take place with students in classrooms. The list, which is
adopted from the University of Colorado-Boulder School of Education's Policy
on Educational Research, is aimed at large, multi-site research undertakings in
which researchers come from outside the schools and classrooms they are study
ing. The scale notwithstanding, these guidelines offer a useful point of departure,
particularly when put alongside Baumann's list from Chapter 1 (p. 7). To high
light the contrast in scale, I have annotated each item according to how it relates
particularly to teacher-research:
Research activities in classrooms andlor schools will:
1. Not differ in any significant ways from the normal range of
otherwise receive.
59
This caveat is bedrock to me. Teacher-research should not involve putting stu
dents at a disadvantage. However, since you are the teacher, you already have
responsibility for what happens in class and you are viewed with that in mind.
Teacher-research opens the possibility of examining how to better accomplish
the ends for which you are already responsible.
4. Promise direct benefits (at least in the form of evaluative information)
to the classroom, school, or district.
Because teachers are researching their own work and classrooms, the immediate
benefits to students are obvious. Whether those benefits are recognized at the
school or district level depends on various factors, many of which are beyond
the teacher-researcher's direct control. The publishing phase of the teacher
research cycle, which we look at in Chapter 7, addresses this area.
5. Incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the privacy
(i.e., anonymity or confidentiality) of all individuals who might
be subjects of the research.
60
to inquire into that fluid relationship between teaching and learning, and thus
they seek to better understand what is already changing. The questions they ask
provide the point of entry of their examination.
If you are working with others, you may want to read aloud the
notes you have written for Investigation 4.1. Or, if you are using a
videotape, you may want to watch a portion of it together. Then you
should first brainstorm questions that the reading or viewing triggers
for you. Have someone else write down what you say so that you
have a record.
After you have voiced your questions, ask your listener-colleagues to
contribute theirs. Do not discuss what you have read or seen. Just
gather possible questions. Then change roles and repeat the process.
As you approach your line of inquiry, remember that not all questions are equal.
Some will pull you toward your role as teacher, while others will pull you
toward your work as a researcher. The former we will call "teaching questions,"
the latter "research-able questions." Teaching questions focus on the teacher, on
what he or she does and how he or she does it. As questions, they tend to have
clear boundaries, and they are sometimes even phrased as yes or no questions.
Teaching questions usually carry in them the outlines of their solutions. In other
words, "If I (as the teacher) do this, or if this were the case, then the following
would be true/happen." Research-able questions, in contrast, are open-ended;
they capture issues or phenomena without judging how they will be resolved.
They are usually focused on others-on students, for instance-and not on the
questioner. Rather than solutions or courses of action, they tend to produce
understandings, principles, and further questions.
Finding the "fault line" between teaching and research-able questions is a bit
like riding a bike; it takes practice, self-monitoring, and awareness to become
proficient. Consider these four questions:
1. What kinds of listening activities do my students like?
61
Each one is legitimate and can lead to understanding teaching and learning more
clearly. Beyond the specifics of content, each question differs in its wording, the
assumptions it carries, and the outcomes it anticipates. As you read the follow
ing analyses, think about this fault line: What makes the difference between
teaching and research-able questions?
Shaped by
an assumption
Broaden the
question; query
the situation
6~
Figure 4.2:
Teaching versus
research-able
questions
ORIGINAL
QUESTION
RESEARCH-ABLE
COUNTERPARTS
1. What kinds
of listening
activities do
my stUdents
like?
How do students'
feelings about particular
activities affect their
listening comprehension?
What kinds of listening
activities do students feel
improve their listening
comprehension?
COMMENTS
63
2. What is
the impact
of praise on
the group
dynamics?
3. How
much oral
correction
helps
students
learn?
4. Why do
students
take so
long to
break into
small groups
for group
work?
64
~~---
For an example
of working with
teaching versus
research
questions, see
Wagner Veillard's
account,
Chapter 3,
pp.47-48.
LOOKING AT QUESTIONS:
FIRST-ORDER VERSUS SECOND-ORDER PERSPECTIVES
First- versus
second-order
research
65
66
I find Marton's distinction useful because it makes dear that any inquiry can
exist on two planes: the level of action and the level of perception. As with the
tannery workers, there are the actions that people take and there are the rea
sons, the thinking, the explanations that surround those actions. Teacher
research dearly investigates both realms. It examines the impacts of actions, like
Betty in her study of the comprehensibility of directions, and it also probes per
ceptions and reasons as Vera does in trying to understand how her students
define "good" conversations. More often than not, however, teacher-research
spans both the first-order realm of actions and the second-order realm of per
ception and reasoning within one inquiry. Joan's study of emerging literacy is a
good example. As described, her study looks at what students are doing as they
figure out reading and writing in English. If she were to ask the children about
their reading and writing, what is easy or hard for them and why, and so on, she
would be generating second-order information for the study. If she were to also
interview other teachers or the students' parents and caregivers to get their per
ceptions of the children's work, she would add further second-order informa
tion. All these data are second-order because they capture people's perceptions
and thinking about emerging literacy in these students. When the data come"
from the students themselves, they are firsthand; when they come from other
people, such as teachers or parents, they are secondhand. Taken together, first
order and second-order data can paint a rich and complex picture of a phe
nomenon, which is why Marton and his research colleagues refer to their work
as phenomenography, blending the words phenomenon and ethnography
The four questions, discussed as teaching and research-able (pp. 62-63), offer
good examples of first-order versus second-order questions. In the following dis
cussion, I analyze the orientation of each question. As you can see, these are par
allel distinctions: teaching versus research-able is one, first- versus second-order is
another. Both can apply to the same question, which is to say, a teaching question
can have a first- or a second-order orientation, as can a research-able question.
Refer to
Vignettes;
Chapter 2,
page 25
ions, what they like. If the question were recast as "What kinds of
prehension.
the students' point of view: What do they see as "praise"? How does
67
If you contrast this question with question #2, you can see the dif
ference between first- and second-order orientations that Marton talks
about. This question is posed in a first-order perspective. It involves
time-"students take so long"-and behavior-"breaking into
small groups for group work." The data may show that they don't
have their books, or that they talk a lot to peers as they shift activi
ties, or that they walk very slowly from one group to the other. All
of this first-order information will point to the physical world for
responses to the question "why?" Not having books, talking a lot,
and walking slowly are all data of actions and the material world. As
findings, these can suggest actions to address the situation: Students
should have all the necessary books with them, not talk, move more
quickly, and so on.
The second-order perspective introduces parallel and fascinating dimen
sions to the same question. For instance, you might ask students
what they see happening during the passing times, or whether they
see these transitions as taking a long time. You might examine their
perceptions of the differences between large and small groups as two
social settings, and so on.
68
social world of beliefs, values, meanings, and interpretations for responses to the
question "why?" Together, first- and second-order orientations to a question cre
ate a mosaic of information that can get at the messy complexity of life in class
rooms.
41
Ernic
versus etic
perspective
distinction
69
that its users take for granted as normal, while culture is a system of distinctions
in meaning that members of that group take for granted. Pike used the term emic,
from phonemic to refer to meanings that the insiders of a particular sociocul
tural group assign to a situation. He contrasted it with etic, from phonetic, to
refer to externally observable or documented aspects of a situation or phenome
non. Thus, etic is what outsiders see; emic is what insiders know.
I had a clear experience of this distinction when one of my children started
nursery school. She used to come home talking about something she called "the
blue lion." All I knew about "the blue lion" was that when you sat on it, "you had
to be quiet." From her ernie perspective as an insider to the nursery school class
room, that was all there was to say about it. When I asked her etic questions about
"the blue lion" as an outsider, I would draw blank looks or one-word respons
es. "How big is the blue lion?" I would ask, envisioning a stuffed animal. "Big,"
she answered. "Everybody sits on it at the same time." I tried to imagine thirty
nursery-schoolers sitting on a stuffed blue lion. "When do you get to sit on it?"
"Everyday. We sit there everyday." I was getting nowhere in trying to grasp
what it was. As an insider with her emic understanding of nursery school culture,
the blue lion was a fact of life. From an etic point of view, tiO me as an outsider,
it made no sense. I could not attach the idea to anything I understood. Then,
some weeks later, when I happened to be in her classroom, my daughter point
ed to some worn blue tape that marked a large circle on the carpeted floor.
"That's the blue lion," she said. And it all made sense. This blue circle or line
("lion") of tape was where the children sat at the start of each day for "circle"
or sharing time (Cazden, 1988). So her ernie and my etie perspectives converged,
but they did not replace one another.
J
70
the language?
memorized material?
71
students "What does 'knowing Spanish' mean?" (#1). The other questions carry
forward the first-order orientation toward activities (#3), applying material
(#4), and using memorized material (#2 and #5). Accordingly, questions #2 to
#5 would probably lead to gathering data from an etic perspective on material
taught, how it was taught, and student performance using it. Question #1, how
ever, recasts the inquiry; it would require data from an ernie perspective on how
students define "knowing Spanish." In her last paragraph, above, Hoganson
moves that second-order orientation forward when she writes, "I realized my
concept of 'knowing' a language differed from the concept held by my stu
dents." Hoganson illustrates nicely how the focus can redefine itself, always
within the same line of inquiry. She also shows how probing a phenomenon as
a teacher-researcher can uncover issues that might be missed or overlooked as a
teacher. How students view the subject-matter they are learning is clearly impor
tant in teaching it. In fact, successful instruction depends in part on understand
ing their point of view so that, as a teacher, you can address it.
A
Emic/etic
relationshi ps
72
final observation about ernie and etic. Although they often are character
ized as a dichotomy, and I have presented them here as such, that stark view
can be misleading. In the world, whether you stand inside or outside a setting,
activity, or phenomenon is more a relative than it is an absolute. It is a matter
of perception, both your own and that of others. Do you see yourself as an
insider to this setting? Do others see you as one? That perception is based on an
opposition; in other words, you may be more of an insider than someone
or less one than another person. Going back to the homework example: When
I help my daughter with her math homework, I find the long-division problem
causing difficulty to be pretty straightforward. My daughter tells me that I think
it's easy because I already" know math." Between the two of us, I am in an emic
position as an insider to the world of long division. Hers is etic: it doesn't make
sense to her. Then, after I explain how I would solve the division problem, she
may say, "But that's not the way Mr. G. taught us. That's not the way we do tt
in our class." Suddenly my knowledge and understanding become etic, while my
daughter'S math classroom becomes the ernie frame of reference. To solve the
math problem in the proper way, I need to understand how the insiders do it.
"Look, both ways will work," I say a bit petulantly. "Yeah, but only one is the
right way," she retorts.
Ernie and etic are always comparative. They contrast membership in a p:ll
ticular world of meaning, like my daughter and me in relationship to her math
class. That membership, no matter how transitory, creates a point of view on tlw
setting, activity, phenomenon, or even information. It thus establishes the distinc
tion between those for whom a world of meaning makes sense as insiders (they
know Mr. G's way of doing long division) and those who see, label, and interpret
it from the outside (like my way of doing the math problem). One view, the em !e,
is the way those who are in the context make sense of it. The other expresses
how those same events, issues, or phenomena make sense to people who are out
side them. What is interesting is that both ways may well arrive at the same
"answer," as when we both solved the long-division problem. But the ways of
getting there differ. One way makes sense to one group-the math class and the
textbook authors-the other way works for me with my dated long-division
skills. These different interpretations of the phenomenon can lead to the same
result. The knowledge of long division being taught and learned here is not the
result, but how we get there. So, as my daughter says, the differences between
our ways of solving the problem are significant. There is a right way for her
community, in her world of meaning, and that is the one she needs to learn.
The profound importance of teacher-research is that it can offer public access
to emic understandings of life in classrooms. It can thus make local sense of
these things to a wider world. When teachers research their own teaching and
the learning of their students, they reposition themselves. Their ernie insiders'
views make others' views etic. Most educational research speaks on behalf of
teachers and students. The way it is done, the classroom is a tourist stop and what
happens there becomes local life and customs to be viewed and interpreted. Its
norms, practices, and activities are explained by people who are not natives of
the culture. Even though many educational researchers have been practicing
teachers, or may collaborate closely with teachers, theirs is always an etic view
of classrooms. They do not work there. With teacher-research, the ernie is.,
explained by those who live in the classroom (Elbaz, 1992; Freeman, 1996).
This means that other views become etic. When teachers speak for themselves
through the research process, others cannot claim to speak for them. Like the
math example, the end results in many instances will not be different. But how
these results are arrived at will differ, and that is crucially important. Because,
like the math example, that is where the knowledge actually lies. In that process
of insiders making sense of what happens in classrooms, different knowledge is
created and valued. We turn next to how that actually happens.
DEVELOPING RESEARCH PLANS: GUIDING INQUIRY INTO ACTION
In a grand sense, the research plan is how you go about creating knowledge
through your inquiry. Although we have devoted a good deal of attention to
them, developing research-able questions within a line of inquiry is only half of
what is involved in getting started in the teacher-research process. The other half
involves determining the kinds of data that can respond to those questions. In a
sense, laying out a research plan is like a conversation, in which the questions
are one voice and the data are the other. If the questions ask for something that
the data cannot respond to, or if what the data say does not connect to the ques
tions, then there is a mismatch between how the inquiry is conceived and how
it is carried out, between the research-able questions and the research plan. Such
cases become dangling conversations that are inconclusive.
Developing the research plan is like scripting the conversation. It is like out
lining the talking points in advance so that the individual parts connect and sup
port each other to create the larger argument. First and foremost, the research
plan involves making a series of decisions-some more tentative, others more
definite-that will guide the process of the inquiry into action. The fewer of
these decisions that are made on an ad hoc basis, the more disciplined the
inquiry will be because its structure will be clear and will carry forward the logic
of the inquiry.
See
Investigations
3.1 and 3.2 in
this chapter.
73
WHAT
HOW
WHERE/FROM WHOM Where and from whom willi gather the data?
WHEN/HOW OFTEN
WHY
74
Data are information that comes from various sources. The value of a specific
piece of data lies in these two facets: what it says and where it comes from.
When people talk or write about "sources of data," this distinction is often
blurred, although it is a crucial one. Data are a blend of information and where
that information comes from. A very simple example: If a student says "That
homework was really hard," as the teacher you will hear the comment in light
of who the student is, his or her background with the content, how hard a work
er he or she is, and so on. Who provides the data is an important element in
what the data are. Here a basic map of student(s), teacher, content, activity, and
setting can be useful. Figure 4.4
that information can be found in five
basic areas: the student or students, the teacher, the class content, the activity,
and the classroom or school setting.
Three of these areas, content, activity, and setting, are in the public world;
they produce first-order data. The other two, student(s) and teacher, have inner
worlds. While they take part in the public world, they have opinions, feelings,
beliefs, and so on about what they do. These data about their experiences pro
vide second-order information about how they perceive the public world.
Balancing and blending this public and private information is part of deciding
what types of data can respond to your research question.
The issue of how questions and data line up is central to structuring the
research design. Given a particular question, certain data will respond to it. For
instance, the question "What is the impact of praise on the group dynamics?"
requires data on three items: on "praise," on its "impact," and on "group
dynamics." From the question, however, it is not self-evident exactly what the
data should be or who specifically they should come from. What are data on
"praise," for example? Or "group dynamics?" And what does "impact" mean?
Impact on whom? ... on strong students, on weaker students, on the class as a
whole? None of these issues are self-evident, which reveals the first challenge of
developing a research plan.
Figure 4.4:
~_!~:-----I"'. ~ONTE0
~--
SETTING - - - - - - - - '
Often the research questions speak a different language from the lived reali
ty of the classroom, so that it can be difficult to know where exactly to find
information that responds to them. In the case of this question, the place holders
(see p. 62)-"praise," "impact," and "group dynamics"-make it evident that
these concepts will need definition in order to locate data on them. What you
determine the data to be will, in turn, shapes what the place holder concept
means in the research. If, for example, you take data on "praise" to be the
teacher's positive verbal comments to students, such as "Good job!" or "Your
work is excellent!" you have defined praise in a particular way so the research
question becomes "What is the impact of the teacher's positive verbal comments
(praise) on the group dynamics?" Just as questions and answers build on each
other in a conversation, decisions about what constitute the data are shaped
by-and likewise shape-the research question. This refines more precisely
what you mean.
75
In the case of B (two diamonds), peers use one another to help clarify their own
work and thinking. In the case of C (three diamonds), the group selects one ques
tion to pursue collectively by gathering data in their respective classrooms and
pooling those data to address the common question. In this sense, C becomes a
small-scale multisite research project.
As you read this series of Investigations, you will see that version A tells what
the Investigation is and versions Band C provide suggestions for how to do it in
groups. All five Investigations refer to the matrix in Appendix B (p. 200); use it
to accumulate your work on the plan as you go through the series.
The first Investigation in the series examines what are the data in your plan.
Choose a research question from your list of questions in
Investigation 4.3. Use this question as the foundation for a draft
research plan. It matters less whether the question is one you will
actually research than whether it occupies enough of your interest to
practice designing a research plan around it.
A. With the question in mind, think about what kinds of information
will respond to it. Use the template for a data collection matrix
(Appendix B, p. 200) to write down your responses in the first col
umn, labeled "data." Figure 4.4, p. 75, can be useful in orienting
your thinking and discussion about the kinds of data you will
need.
B. If you are working with others, you will want to work through
this Investigation one person at a time. After the individual choos
es a research question, together you can brainstorm the kinds of
information that might address it.
C. If you are doing a group project, select one question for the group
to plan around. It must be a question that everyone can ;}drlress in
his or her teaching context. Determine the kinds of fOlm3fion
you will gather, bearing in mind that you would each be
so
in your individual classroom settings.
When asked what the data of the study are, sometimes the response will be
"interviews with students," "a journal," or "a questionnaire The problem i.e,
that these are not data; they are means of collecting data. 1 here is eruu,d
difference. Data are information from a source; but that same inffl'-m<ltion C;lI]
be collected in several different ways. For instance, if you \' a l \.-I)lll! (J[(Ic:
76
figure 4.5:
~__""':.:-----4.'" ~NTEN)
~--
experience: opinions;
perceptions; beliefs
journals; surveys;
interviews;
discussions; feedback
cards; sociograms
(,
SETTING _ _ _ _
.....J
curriculum; plans;
materials
lesson plans; teaching
logs; documents
Note:
The data are in bold type; the data collection techniques are in italics. Most of the data
collection techniques are described in detail in Appendix C, pp.201-218.
If you study Figure 4.5, you will see that one means of data collection, journal
ing, for example, can be used to collect data from several sources. Student
journals, oriented to the inquiry, can produce data about their experiences and
perceptions, while a journal kept by the teacher can generate data about his or
her experiences. The type of data, second-order data on experience, is similar; the
means of collecting it, through journals, is the same. But the sources, whether stu
dents or teacher, are quite different, and thus they will produce different infor
mation. Since each means of collection will reveal a slightly different facet of the
data, it is important to bear in mind that the means of collection is not the data.
This point becomes central when we examine the question of triangulation.
Another challenge in data collection is to be realistic when you ask yourself
how you can or will collect the data. Often in teacher-research, the "can" and
the "will" of data collection collide with one another. It is difficult, for example,
to interview individual second graders while you are responsible for the whole
class; it can be hard to take substantial class time to use a questionnaire with a
On triangulation,
see Chapter 5,
p.96ft.
77
class that you see very infrequently, and so on. The realities of teaching often
proscribe the ways in which data can be collected, so it is important to hold
your teaching context firmly in mind as you determine both the data and how
you want to collect them. In Chapter 5, we will look at ways of collecting data
more closely. For purposes of developing the research plan, however, you can
On data
You
can review the data you think you will need to respond to your question,
techniques,
see Chapter 5,
and identify a means to collect each data type. Or you can settle on two to three
pp.93-98,
ways you might collect data, and then examine each way in turn to determine
also Appendix C.
the various types of data it could generate. Returning to the example above,
depending on their focus, student journals can provide second-order data on
participants' perceptions of the class and activities. Journals can also provide
first-order data on students' writing skills, spelling, syntax, vocabulary usage,
and so on. Because time is always a factor in getting the work of teacher-research
done, efficient use of data sources and collection is critical. Having one activity
serve multiple purposes is important; but it is equally important to be clear what
those purposes are. Distinguishing between what the data are and how you will
H
collect them is a crucial step towards that efficiency.
Data Collection
Strategies
The following Investigation examines data collection. You will want to refer to
the matrix in Appendix B (p. 200) to complete this Investigation. Refer to
Investigation 4.6 for an explanation of the options (A), (B), and (C).
A. For each of the kinds of data you have listed in the first column
of your data collection matrix, write down a way to collect them.
Use your imagination; think of the realities of teaching, the activ
ities you might use in class, and how they might provide access to
the data you want. If you can't think of a way to collect a partic
ular type of data you have listed, leave the space blank on the
matrix. If you can think of several ways to collect the same data,
list them all for now.
B. If you are working with others, work through the data on one
person's draft matrix at a time.
C. If you are doing a group project, consider each type of data you
have listed in turn. Discuss the type and decide how each person
might collect it in his or her classroom. Keep in mind the realities
of each person's situation.
Display visually this information about who will be collecting which
data in which ways in two forms:
Grid #1: To get organized, create a grid with the types of data
across the top and the means of collection down the left
side. Fill in the each cell with the names of group members
and their research sites/classrooms. Set this grid aside.
78
Grid #2: To keep track of the group research plan, create a grid
with the names of group members and their research
sites/classrooms across the top and the types of data
down the left side. Make the cells fairly large because
you will be adding more information to each one in
Investigations 4.8-4.10. Enter the means of collection in
each cell where it applies. Leave blank those cells on the
grid that do not apply.
You will use this grid in the remaining Investigations in this chapter.
Decision #3: Where and from whom will I gather the data?
By now it should be clear that data are inextricably linked to their sources. In
the phrase "who says/does what," "who" is as important as "what." Decisions
about where and from whom to collect data are a central part of focusing the
research process; it is here that the research plan is useful. Working through
these decisions in advance can help to keep you realistic and anchored in your
setting. There are a couple of guidelines to keep in mind:
Think about how many people you actually need data from.
It helps to begin by thinking about the "universe," or total group, from
whom this particular type of data might be collected. In the example of students'
experiences of group work, the universe would probably be all the students in
the class. However, it may not be necessary to collect data from the whole
universe on this question. In fact, you may be better served in terms of time
and energy to start with a subset. So the first question is: Given this universe,
what can be a useful and representative subset? Do you need data from every
one in the class, or could you focus on four or six students? If so, how would
you choose them?
In the case of large-scale quantitative studies that use statisticalmeasures, this
question of how to reduce the universe of a study to a reasonable size is known
as "sampling." The basic principle of sampling is representativeness, which is
generally achieved though randomization. In other words, selecting the sample
on a random basis from a given universe of the study theoretically gives every
one in that universe the same chance to be picked as a source of data. However,
as a procedure to guarantee representativeness in teacher-research, randomness
usually doesn't make sense, given the limited size of the universe and the num
bers of students. Therefore, representativeness will depend on other factors, the
most basic of which is the question "Why am I selecting this source of the data?"
On sampling,
see Kerlinger
(1986),
Chapter 8.
gathered haphazardly.
19
811
Decision #4: When and how often will I gather the data?
~;
Refer to Investigation 4.6 for an explanation of the options (A), (B), and (e).
A. For each of the ways of collecting data you have listed in the sec
ond column of your data collection matrix (Appendix B, p 200),
decide when you will collect those data. Think realistically of the
data you need and how often you can-and need to-collect
them. Here again, keep your teaching context firmly in mind.
Temper your enthusiasm with realism to create a schedule that is
feasible for you and meets the discipline of your research.
Scheduling
Data Collection
81
82
Although it may seem premature to think about what you will do with the data
once you have collected them, it isn't. There is nothing less productive than leav
ing the data you have collected to sit around and get stale. For one thing, you
lose out on the excitement of seeing what you have. Like berry picking, it can
be highly motivating to look in the bucket from time to time to see what you
have collected. For another, you lose the opportunity to let the data you have
collected shape what you need to do next. Often the data will reshape the ques
tions, so it is crucial to plan ahead and consider what you will do with data as
you are collecting. This is what is called "first-cut analysis.""
Doing the first-cut analysis is a way of seeing what is in the data. It is not
necessarily, or even often, the ultimate way in which you will analyze the data;
rather, the first-cut analysis is how you will get started. It creates forward
momentum in the research process that will carry you from collecting data into
analyzing them. You can think of first-cut analysis as similar to the process by
which you review your mail. When you pick it up, you find that you need to
open some of the mail to read the contents, while with other mail, like cata
10gues or supermarket circulars, which come already open and accessible, you
can flip through them. Still other mail, such as bills or bank statements, which
you can identify just from the envelopes, you may set aside. This type of review,
which is almost second nature with your mail, is essentially a first-cut analysis.
It allows you to see what is there, according to the categories of action that each
piece of data demands. Occasionally a letter will trick you-like the advertise
ment which is made to look like a bill-and this can cause you to reflect on the
categories you take for granted. This, too, is part of first-cut analysis. As you
review the data you have, you want to be alert to information in them that chal
lenges your expectations, categories, or assumptions.
First-cut analysis usually involves commonsense strategies such as reading
through the data, counting instances (how many people answered ... ), listing
and/or grouping common themes or ideas together, sorting responses by some
characteristics (all the girls said ... ), underlining similar words or themes, com
paring X with Y. To figure out an appropriate first-cut analysis, you need to
hold the data up against the background of the research question and the
inquiry. If you look at the data, you can see what is in them: Can you count
them? Can you make lists from them? Can you read them for themes? Are there
things that you can compare within one data set or among data sets? These are
all ways of unpacking the information that is in the data you are collecting. As
you ask these questions, think about your inquiry and what you want to know.
Whatever you do with your data needs to be guided by the inquiry that triggered
your work in the first place.
The metaphor of unpacking data helps to conceptualize the process of deter
mining first-cut analyses. If each type of data is like a suitcase, unpacking the
data is like taking things out of the suitcase. Before you unpack, however, you
usually scan the room to see where you can hang the clothes that need to be
hung up, whether there is a chest of drawers, where you can put the socks and
T-shirts, and so on. Underlying this process is the fact that you know what you
have in the suitcase, so you know what you need in order to unpack its contents.
Determining the kinds of first-cut analyses you will pursue to unpack your data
is like figuring out the hangers and drawers you need to unpack the contents of
the suitcase. As you take things out of the suitcase to hang them or put them in
drawers, you may notice that you didn't include something you need. Perhaps
the hotel has a swimming pool and you didn't pack a bathing suit. This, then,
is the second critical function of first-cut analyses. As you unpack the data you
have, you can see what other data you may need to collect. Doing first-cut
analyses on your data as you are collecting them serves two functions: It helps'
you to see what you have and it helps you to notice what you don't have and
may want to collect.
---~~---------~-----~---------
A. For each of the types of data you have listed in the first column
of your data collection matrix (Appendix B, p. 200), decide what
your approach to first-cut analysis will be. How will you unpack
the data to see what you have? The aim is to think through what
you will do with the data before you start to collect them so you
are less tempted to let them sit and get stale, and you don't find
yourself with incomplete material. In the last column of the matrix,
jot down one or two logical approaches to first-cut analyses for
each type of data.
B. If you are working with others, work through these decisions on
one person's draft plan at a time. Use colleagues to brainstorm
several first-cut analyses for each type of data.
C. If you are doing a group project, determine one or two approach
es to first-cut analysis for each type of data you plan to collect.
Then, enter this information on Grid #2 that you started in
Investigation 4.7.
Note: In a group research project, first-cut analyses work in two stages.
First, each person should do his or her own analysis on the data he
or she is collecting. This is like (A), above. Second, group members
can pool similar data to do first-cut analyses on them. Keep in mind
83
Suggested Readings
On second.-order research, Ference Marton's work on phenomenography is not as
widely known in the United States as it is in Europe. A 1981 article, "Phe
nomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us," (Instructional
Science 10. pp. 177-200) gives an excellent overview of this approach of ethnog
raphy which focuses on participants' experiences and perceptions. Marton's book
with S. Booth, Learning and Awareness (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996)
provides a more in-depth examination of his approach to researching people's con
ceptions of their work and their worlds. There is also a Web .page that provides an
up-to-date list of phenomenographical research conducted by Marton and his col
leagues (phenomenographica: http://www.ped.gu.se/biornlphegraph.html).
The classic work which launched the emicletic distinction is Kenneth Pike's
Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior
(The Hague: Morton, 1963). In his book, Tranforming Qualitative Data (Thou
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994), Harry Wolcott weaves together exam
ples from his long career as an educational sociologist with a discussion of ana
lyzing and presenting data (see also Chapter 7, pp. 146ff. in this book). Finally,
Vivian Paley's article, "On Listening to What Children Say" (Harual'd
Educational Review 56 (2) pp. 122-131) is an excellent discussion of collecting
data from young children by a leading teacher-researcher.
There are many ways of thinking about the interrelationship among the ':;tu
dent, the subject matter, and the teacher. Science educator David Hawkins, wrote
what is now a classic article on this constellation of relationships which he called
the 'I-Thou-It' relationship, (Hawkins, 1967). Also Pam Grossman's The
Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education (New York:
Teachers College Press, 1990), mentioned in Chapter 1, talks about how teachers
construct their understandings of what they are teaching. In 1990, Man
prepared a very readable survey of research in this area, A Survey (
Literature on Teachers' Subject-Matter Knowledge (East Lansing, Ml:
Center for Research on Teacher Learning).
Many of the books on qualitative research in educational settings ( 'i,: .~ in
tions, some more elaborate than others, on developing research qUC:'i!UI1S. T'wo
that I have found particularly useful and clearly written are Chapter 4
(pp. 49-61) of Joseph Maxwell's Qualitative Research Design: An hl/''rtlctlue
Approach (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996) which overviews the process of
developing a research question, and the section (pp. 295-335) of Michael Quinn
Patton's Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA:
84
Sage Publications; 1990, 2nd ed.) on how to word research questions and on
research interviewing (see Appendix C: Interviews, pp. 216-218). Both books are
also excellent resources on research design and developing research plans.
Maxwell's book is straightforward and accessible. Patton's book is now a clas
sic in the field; he writes in a way that is dearly grounded in his enormous expe
rience of evaluation and research design.
85
COLLECTING AND
ANALYZING DATA
D
Orchestrating
oppositions:
Data collection
and analysis
8&
his chapter is about how to carry out the w.ork of teacher-research. Given
your research question and your research plan, how will you go forward
with collecting the data and with analyzing them?
The chapter is organized around the basic movement from data collection to
data analysis seen in Figure 5.1. It will constantly remind you how that move
ment is more recursive than linear. As you collect data in response to your
research question, you will be pushed to think about collecting more or other
related data to fill out the picture.
Figure 5.1:
From data
collection to
analysis
In this Investigation I use the analogy of shopping for dinner to look at the rela
tionship between data collection and data analysis.
Think about the above analogy. You can approach the analogy in
two ways. In the first, the parallels are not drawn; in the second,
they are. You may approach it (1) by making the connections as you
see them and then referring to what I have done, or (2) by reading
the parallels I have drawn and applying them to your own situation
and thinking.
81
88
productive tomorrow.
89
DATA COLLECTION
90
tionnaires, you need to figure a way to get the other half to respond, and so on.
This is what sticking to your research plan entails. Data collection cannot be a
casual undertaking; it needs to be organized, sustained, and well-managed. The
discipline of doing teacher-research means that you think through changes as
they happen or are forced upon you, and that you keep track of departures from
your research plan by making note of them. What you don't or aren't able to do
is part of the picture of the research, and you will need to take it into account
in the data analysis.
Changes in data collection happen against the backdrop of your inquiry.
They are adjustments in the overall scheme, substitutions within the given menu
of the research plan. Sticking with your inquiry provides direction and coher
ence to these adjustments as you make them. The research plan provides the
structure for data collection; the inquiry provides the reasoning behind it. The
plan manages the ongoing nature of the work by responding to the following
questions: How (when) (where) (from whom) am I going to collect these data?
What am I going to collect next? The inquiry keeps you anchored in your ques
tions: Why am I doing this research? Why am I collecting these data? What am
I going to do with the data? What do I assume/expect? How might I be wrong?
t is important to reiterate that the inquiry and the research question are not
one and the same. The research question or puzzle is a point of entry into the
inquiry. It expresses the inquiry in a form that allows you to investigate it, take
action to understand it, and collect information that may shed light on it. In the
course of doing this work, you may well find another way to phrase the ques
tion, another puzzle, that provides a more fruitful entry point into the inquiry.
Thus the question or puzzle may well redefine itself; however, the inquiry
remains constant. For this reason, sticking with the inquiry does not mean stick
ing to the specifics of the research question. The inquiry houses the question,
and the question furnishes the inquiry with specific direction. Indeed, more
often than not, the specifics of the research question will change through the
work of data collection and analysis. However these shifts can-and should
be traced back to the inquiry itself. In the following account, beginning teacher
researcher David Mathes describes this process of reframing research questions
within an inquiry.
On developing
a research plan,
see Chapter 4,
pp.75-84.
On inquiry and
questions, see
Chapter 2,
pp.34-35.
David Mathes
91
far more pair work than group work. The French levels in the class
es were not as diverse as I had predicted, and I found that pair work
gave the best results for the amount of time I spent with each class.
Therefore, I substituted the words '~pair work" for "group work" in
my inquiry.
I began with the following research questions:
language groups?
92
-----------------------------------------------~---------------
111
DESCRIPTION
journals/diaries
teaching logs
document collection
93
observation
field notes
recording
transcription
94
Like teaching techniques, you can examine each of these data collection tech
niques for its purpose (why use it?), its procedure (how to use it?), and the
advanced preparation and/or setup it may require. Appendix C (p. 201H.)
describes these data collection techniques in detail. Since many people have used
these techniques, given their experience, there is also advice on the pros and
cons of each technique.
Figure 5.3 outlines basic techniques for data collection in and out of the class
room and provides a good starting point for cataloguing the various ways in
which you can collect data in your teaching. Each technique addresses five
areas: (I) What you do in the classroom, (2) what you think about what you do,
TEACHER'S ACTIONS
TEACHER'S THOUGHTS
STUDENTS' ACTIONS
STUDENTS'THOUGHTS
STUDENTS'LEARNING
THE DATA?
(First order)
(Second order)
(First order)
(Second order)
3) What student(s)
do/say
4) What student(s)
think about what they
do/say
5) What student(s)
are learning/have
learned?
keeping teaching
logs; lesson plans
making audio/
video recordings
writing field notes
(by observer, or
teacher depending
on involvement in
activity)
(These depend on
the activity and the
teacher's involvement
in it.)
keeping teaching
log; annotating
lesson plans
having students
keep journals or do
feedback cards
doing surveys or
questionnaires
keeping
journal/diary
making audio/video
recordings
making anecdotal
records
conducting inter
views/discussions
making classroom
diagrams and maps
()
o
t'""
t'""
l'r1
(")
t-j
C)
OUTSIDE
THE CLASS
ROOM/
AFTER
TEACHING
listening to/
transcribing
audio recording;
reviewing video
recording
keeping
journal/diary
doing stimulated
recall with audio/
video recordings
conducting
interviews
conducting inter
views/discussions
collecting docu
ments; student
work; test results
doing surveys or
questionnaires
conducting inter
views/discussions
having students
keep journals
having students
keep journals
doing stimulated
recall with audio/
video recording
conducting
interviews
conducting inter
views
>
Z
making sociograms
:>
o
:>
Z
o
C)
:>
t-j
:>
=
c:.:n
having students
keep journals/
diaries or do
feedback cards
(3) what your students are doing in the classroom, (4) what they think about
what they are doing, and (5) evidence of what they are learning. The table
shows how the techniques cluster in each of these five areas.
TRIANGULATION
_
EXPLORING TRIANGULATION
The following Investigation prepares you for the concept of triangulation in data
collection and analysis.
Working alone or with peers, think about and then discuss what makes
the following physical objects sturdy and able to stand independently:
Group A: a bird bath; a telephone pole; a hat stand; a tree
Group B: a fence; a dry stone wall; a sign board; a bicycle
Group C: a three-legged stool; a traditional native American
tepee; a tripod; a tricycle
Group D: a table; a car; a chair; a cat or dog
A
Triangulation
98
'.1
t its most basic level, triangulation is about what makes something sturdy,
able to support its own weight, and therefore dependable. In the physical
world, things that are "triangulated" are better balanced and physically more
dependable than things that are not, because they are able to stand by them
selves. In the conceptual world of research, triangulation simply builds on this
principle. The term was imported from land surveying, where, as evaluation
specialist Michael Patton (1990, p. 187) explains, quoting from Fielding and
Fielding (1986, p. 23), "a single landmark only locates you somewhere along a
line in the direction from the landmark, whereas with two landmarks you can
take bearings in two directions and locate yourself at their intersection. '; In
research, triangulation means including multiple sources of information or points
of view on the phenomenon or question you are investigating. There are, in fact,
three layers on which you can triangulate your research: the level of the data
sources; the level of data collection, or research methods; and the level of data
analysis, or theoretical triangulation. Of the three, triangulating data sources and
collection is the most common. Qualitative researchers Catherine Marshall and
Gretchen Rossman (1989)define "data triangulation" clearly and simply as ' ,he
act of bringing more than one source of data to bear on a single point." (p. 146)
Triangulating data sources is a matter of where you get your informati;,,,11'
triangulating collection methods is a matter of varying the ways in which iU
gather that information. Researchers Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman
(1984) make a great comparison to detective work. They explain that [he
notion of triangulation is linked to eliminating-or at least minimizing-bias
in findings and thus to increasing your confidence in what you are finding as
you analyze your data:
ness accounts and the like, a case is being made that presumably fits
one suspect far better than others. Diagnosing engine failure or chest
pain follows a similar pattern. All signs presumably point to the same
The classic framework, outlined by sociologist Martin Denzin (1978) details four
basic types of triangulation (quoted in Patton 1990, p. 187).
(1) Data triangulation makes use of several sources of data. In a first
order study of student writing, you might use the writing itself,
your corrections (and notes on how it was written), and the assess
make field notes on the writing class, or you might have a student
and interviews, and collect student work to study the question you
form(s) of data andlor using the same method(s) over a given time
students for a term; the latter might mean shadowing the student(s)
lyze the data. You could analyze a videotape for the sequence of
activity; for gender and participation; and for topic, language used,
97
Figure 5.4:
TRIANGULATION
What
Data triangulation
How
Methodological triangulation;
Investigator triangulation
Where and
from whom
Triangulation in location;
Investigator triangulation
When and
how often
Triangulation in time;
Methodological triangulation
Why
Theoretical triangulation
Working alone or with peers, review the research plan you developed
in Investigation 4.4. Think about the types of triangulation above:
How does each form of triangulation apply to the study you are
designing?
How could you improve triangulation in your study using one or
more of these forms?
Using the framework in Figure 5.4, mark the places on your own
research plan where you could strengthen the triangulation. Be spe
cific about what you would do and how.
The important points to keep in mind about triangulation are these: It can
build stability and confidence in how you interpret your data and thus in what
you find. It illuminates problems and anomalies, and thus raises new questions
to pursue. Triangulation is recursive and not linear; in other words, you don't
just decide on a triangulation strategy at the beginning; rather, you keep return-
jng to the question of how you can know more, have more confidence in what
you are finding, and thus how you can collect more or different data, or how
you can look differently at the data you already have. Therefore, you should
think about triangulation as you plan your research, as you are carrying it out,
and as you analyze your data. At its heart triangulation is a question of the dis
cipline with which you design and pursue your inquiry, which is why it most
often comes to the fore in planning the investigation and in collecting the data.
98
DATA ANALYSIS
99
For discussion
of emic/etic,
see Chapter 4.
p.69-73.
Outliers
100
research, and so on; from the data themselves; or they may be created by the
researcher. If, for instance, you are coding an audio transcript of a class discus
sion, you might do so according to who is talking. Thus you might code the
turns by student names or by gender; the names or the terms "boy" and "girl"
are categories from outside the data, from the class setting. Within the second
option, if you code the transcript according to topics discussed you might use
words that occur in the transcript; these codes come from the data itself. The
third option involves codes generated from the data by the researcher. In this
case, you might find in the transcript that some students are interrupting others,
or "cutting each other off," or others are reacting sarcastically, or "putting other's
comments down," while others are trying to manage the discussion, or "trying to
make it work." These codes, in quotation marks, are your terms; you are giving
names to patterns you see in the data. The second and third options are similar
in that the codes come from data; for this reason they are called grounded codes.
In the first option, on the other hand, the codes come from outside the data
themselves, from the setting, for example; they are called a priori codes.
Naming involves taking the data apart. Grouping involves reassembling the
names you are giving to parts of the data by collecting them into categories. As
with codes, the categories can be grounded, emerging from the data, or they can
be a priori, from outside. Grouping the names you are giving to or finding in the
data begins to create a structure around the data, like the scaffolding on a build
ing as it is being constructed. In this instance, the structure is building toward
an interpretation of the data that accounts for what is going on in them. To
strengthen that structure, you need to find relationships in the data, to identify
patterns among these categories. Finding relationships among groups or cate
gories is like putting cross-braces on the scaffolding, which strengthen it so it will
be less likely to twist or shake.
As you name, group, and find relationships in the data, however, it is critical
ly important to look at what does not fit into the emerging structure of the analy
sis. These pieces that don't fit are called outliers because they lie outside the
analysis. Often outliers will provide important insights about your analysis; they
can show you where the interpretation you are building is weak or incomplete,
and how it needs to be redirected. However, the temptation is to reject these out
liers as the things that do not fit, in order to maintain the momentum of discov
ery and to confirm the architecture of analysis and interpretation you are build
ing. It is here that you need to recall Francis Bacon's injunction: "If we hegin with
certainties, we shall end up in doubt. But if we begin with dOll bts ;' nd we arc
patient with them, we shall end in certainties."
As the data analysis progresses, you will need to layout Wh:H 'lei\] <1rr find
ing in order to see the emerging whole of the interpretation. Th!'i :;tcp is called
data display; the aim is to set out the patterns and relationships vou scc' arnong
the categories. These displays make the interpretation concrete ;md visible; they
allow you to see how the parts connect into a whole. Data dl';plays are both
processes and products, which means that making them is as irr1 portant as hav
ing them completed. As processes, displays are like rough sketches that can point
you toward the finished drawing. The act of drawing can show you what you
want to draw and how to put it on the paper. Often, in subsequent sketches, you
will pick up, reincorporate, and perhaps rework and improve something you
had drawn earlier. The act of drawing creates the evolving sureness of the image.
Similarly, in making and remaking displays of the data, you are refining the
interpretations that fit the data in response to your question and inquiry.
Displays are also products. They are maps of the emerging landscape of the
data and, like maps, they can be created to different scales depending on the
purpose. Maps can show the streets and buildings of the town, or they can show
the major highways and geographical features. Both are valid; their usefulness
depends on the intended purpose. You would not use a street map to drive from
Chicago to Atlanta; nor would you use a highway map to find your way around
Denver. In view of this dual quality of process and product, with any data dis
play you need to 'be aware of how you are creating it, even as you consider the
purpose in putting it together. You need to remember that no display is singular
or exhaustive; displays are dynamic and always open to rethinking and remak
ing. As you display data you can ask yourself, to what question am I trying to
find a response? How are these patterns, categories, and codes fitting (or not fit
ting) together? Is this interpretation pointing me in the direction I mean to go?
2. Reread the first letter in set A, underlining phrases and ideas that
strike you. For each thing you underline, name the theme or concept
with a key word. Write this key word in the margin.
Grounded
data analysis
procedure
As you continue with the process, you may reuse key words and add
new ones. However, do not go backward to change key words you
have already assigned. Let the reading and finding the themes and
101
concepts move you forward. If you notice that you have read a pas
sage and you have not identified any themes or concepts in it, push
yourself to do so. You should not leave any passage unlabeled.
This process is called grounded analysis because you are surfacing
themes and concepts from the data as you read them. The aim is to
unpack the data according to themes and concepts you see.
3. Repeat the process with the rest of the letters in Set A. As you read
several letters, you will probably notice similar themes or patterns.
Write these on a separate piece of paper. Often you can trigger pat
terns by asking yourself as you read: How do these data relate to
others I have seen? What similarities or differences am I finding in
the data?
4. When you have finished reading all four letters, make a list on a sep
arate piece of paper of the keywords you have generated. As you list
them, you will discover clusters and affinities among the words, so
put similar or related keywords together. Name these groups so that
they become categories of your analysis. At the sawe time, you
should keep track of the key words that don't seem to fit in any of
the categories; these are the outliers. They can be as important to
your analysis as the categories themselves.
5. Finally, make a map of the categories (#4) and patterns (#3) to show
how you see them connecting to one another. Again keep track of any
categories or patterns that don't fit into the emerging scheme. Remem
ber: Don't force things to fit; try to let the connections surface.
The map can take several forms: a flow chart; a bubble diagram with
arrows; an outline of headings; a matrix which shows how the cate
gories intersect; or simply arrows among the various categories to
show the emerging relationships. This map is called a data display.
For an example
of grounded
analysis, see
Investigation 1.1
in Chapter 1,
pp.4-5.
of names and/or categories you already determined to the data. Broadly put, in
a grounded analysis you are uncovering what may be in the data; in an a priori
analysis you are looking for things you have determined in advance. This echoes
the distinction between emic and etic views of data discussed earlier. These two
approaches mark an important fork in the road of data analysis. The choice of
which to use should be determined by your purpose, or what it is you want to find
out from the data, which, in turn, is linked to your research question and your
inquiry. The choice is not exclusive; you may start in one approach and shift
over to the other. However, that redirection should be guided by your inquiry.
Grounded and
a priori approaches
to data analysis
PRIORI ApPROACH
Treat the five letters in the second group of letters, Set B (pp.
ployed after holding a regular job. But the research question is:
103
A priori
Data Analysis
Procedure
1. Set up a sheet of paper with two columns. Title the first column
"self-esteem," and the second "interactions with other people."
These are the groups or categories you intend to focus on in your a
priori analysis.
2. Draw five horizontal rows-one row per letter down the paper-so
that you create a matrix display. The intersections of the rows and
columns create cells in the matrix; you now have one cell for each
letter writer.
3. Read through all five letters in Set B.
4. Reread the first letter in set B. Underline phrases and ideas that fall
into either of the categories. For each item you underline, name the
idea with a key word and write the key word in the appropriate cell
in the matrix. As you go through the process you may reuse key
words and/or add new ones.
104
8. Summarize what you have found in each column. You may want to
how findings in the two columns may interconnect. Make any state
9. Finally, return to your list of outliers, the key words that didn't fit in
either category. Read through them to see how, if possible, they may
hold the seeds of important answers and may refocus your analysis.
For an excellent
discussion of
using numerical
analysis in
teacher-research
see McDonough
and McDonough
(1997).
This Investigation uses the material in Appendix D, pp. 219-223 as data for
quantification as a form of a priori analysis.
J
Use all nine letters in Appendix D as your data set, Set C, on which
to practice the basic process of quantifying data. For this Investi
gation, as in Investigations 5.5 and 5.6, assume that the inquiry
focuses on what it is like to become unemployed after holding a reg
ular job. In this case, however, the research questions are:
How often do writers refer to financial issues or to family
issues?
Quantitative
Data Analysis
Procedure
2. Draw horizontal rows across the paper-one row per letter-so that
you create a matrix display. The intersecting rows and columns cre
ate a cell for each respondent in a 2 X 9 (two categories by nine respon
dents) matrix.
3. Read the names of the letter writers and indicate the gender by writ
ing M or F at the left of the first column.
4. Read through all the letters.
105
over it. Focus only on mentions of the two themes: financial or fam
ily issues.
7. Repeat the process with the rest of the letters, marking checks in the
new cell for each respondent.
8. When you have finished, total the checks in each column. These
totals are called frequencies; they indicate how many times the theme
was mentioned.
9. To display your findings, make a chart of the following frequencies:
Frequency (number of mentions) of financial or family issues .
Frequency (number of mentions) per issue, per gender of the
letter writer.
To convert your frequencies into percentages, add the frequencies of
the columns to get the total number of all mentions of either issue.
This is called the N, for the total number of responses. It is critical in
displaying a numerical analysis because it tells how much weight to
give the particular frequency. If, for example, the N is 5, then lout
of 5 equals 200/0. If the N is 60, 12 out of 60 equals 20%.
Using the N as 1000/0, convert each frequency to its percent. To dis
play percents, write them as follows: e.g., 80% (N = ##).
N
Maggie Cassidy
(see Freeman,
1992)
106
107
those might look like or where we might find them. So we adopted a grounded
approach to look at what was going on in these classes. We used the names that
the students had supplied, using "dumb," "not playing along," and "not try
ing," as codes to reanalyze the data we had. These codes provided starting
points to gain an emic view of the students as insiders to the social interactions
in the classroom. I won't relate the outcome of the study-a full account is
available in Freeman (1992)-however, the story illustrates the interconnected
web of inquiry, research questions, and data analyses: How an inquiry drives the
research process, although the specific research question may change. How data
analysis can interact with and reshape research questions and, likewise, how it is
possible-and indeed necessary-to combine a priori and grounded approaches
to data analysis within a single study.
The main differences between grounded and a priori approaches to data
analysis lie in how you approach the data and how you layout what you find.
In grounded analysis, you approach the data to look for meanings that surface
through the process of naming, grouping the names into categories, and finding
relationships among them. When you approach data in an a priori fashion, you
take the categories as the basis for the analysis and look for ,instances, or names,
of those categories in the data, and then for relationships among the categories
(see Figure 5.5). In a grounded analysis the display or mapping involves assem
bling the connections you are finding among the categories from the data.
Displaying these patterns and relationships serves to crystallize the analysis, to
create a gestalt out of the different pieces, and to assemble an integrated inter
pretation. In an a priori analysis, the display serves a different function. It lays
out the amount and kind of data that fall in each category. This provides weight,
emphasis, or textured detail to some categories over others, which in turn serves
to build the connections among them. So the two forms of analysis start at dif
ferent points and generally yield different results.
Clare Landers
198
In the three maps, you see the evolution in Landers's grasp of the data
she had collected. You can see how the various themes and patterns
came together to create a comprehensive view of the student's role in
her classroom. Landers observes, "The mapping was the most inter
esting and difficult aspect of the research process. As I was doing it,
I didn't know what I was going to find, or even if I was going to find
anything. It reminded me of free-writing and not knowing what
information and answers you have inside of you that will emerge in
the process."
f)rt~ft
MANIPULAT/V~
Ac;c;l&NMENr
Tim doesn't
need direct
$Vperv'$ionj
exhibits
creQtivity 8.
conlidence.
'"
Tim works
wI
'I
I+ Re;uLfi I
CQfhiVQ' mQsk
DRAWIN& &
"I
MQtch
Attention
works better
more Frodvctive-
It iffl- wIbNQncy
th
or I,%-Q e
or Billie Jo
stQrt$
drQWin.9j
Qsks iF
he CQn.
~Q'J$) (fWfAit
wlu~t
fAre
we doln!I?".
Attention
8REAKDOWN
.At'
.
tooks Qt hiS /i"lends'
work; SQ'J$ his triend
Will do It
WRITIN&
At:;c;l&IVI
AIME.IV'
#orr
.m."'''9//
t:;EATIN&
('we shQre
Tim dQe5)t't
get dlstrQcted
by hi$ /i"lends
when he)s
notebook",
Exhibits
...... inQdeqvec'l
t '\
It
(fl
Cf4n't
Jefl"
OFTA~
(elkcffve
stn.. te9Y)
I+ Re;uLfi I
(tf:sive me '3 se~nces",
(tOk) now 5lw me one more".
109
Independent or
ReliJses to do work
un'e55 teQcher comes over
Q"d supervises directfy.
TeQcher comes over liequenHy
to remind him to !jet on tQsk.
If teQcher breQks dow"
Qssi5"ment Tim Is more likely
to do it; (;slve me '3 5entences,
Now one more",
(t
110
TeQcher QssistQnce or
QffeniJon U"ti' tQsk is complete
then wQnts to 5how it; (Is this
ri!jht? or l.ook Qt ..l.
ReqUires 'e5S const"nt Qffention;
teQcMr CQn SQy.) ('1)0 this tQsk Qnd
1)11 check bQck with yOel".
8REAkDOWN
of TAc;l(C;
If you are working with peers, put the grounded displays together
and the a priori displays together. It is best to focus on one group of
displays at a time, and then to compare the two groups.
A comparative look:
Working alone or with peers, list the ways in which the two displays
are similar to and different from one another. Consider the following
questions:
What does each display tell you? What does it not tell you?
What information is available in both displays? What
111
You may want to repeat the process with a different person, using
the other data display. The point here is to have the experience of
working from both displays to see how they are similar and how they
differ, and what questions they trigger in your respondent.
After you have finished, make notes for yourself about the process of
explaining a display. Think about the strengths and issues involved
in each type of display. Also consider where each display leads you
in analysis: What are the next questions that arise out of each one?
dence. Finding patterns and relationships in data is the essence of data analysis.
Patterns and relationships will take different forms depending on the content of
the study, the research question, and the inquiry. Howevet, they share a deep
structure of three basic characteristics. Patterns in data can be superior/
subordinate, co-occurring, or sequential or recursive.
In a superior/subordinate relationship, something seems to cause, direct, or
include something
In the data from the unemployment letters, for instance,
there may be patterns, such as a number of writers who say they are angry about
losing their jobs, while others write that losing their jobs has opened new direc
tions in their lives. These patterns can be characterized as superior/subordinate
relationships in which losing one's job can make a person angry andlor create a
sense of redirection in one's life. A co-occurring relationship is a less strong or
hierarchical version of the superior/subordinate relationship. Co-occurrence refers
to when one topic occurs often in the data in proximity to or in a relationship
with a second topic. In the example, if many of the letter writers tdk abont bav
ing financial difficulties in the context of being angry about lming their jobs,
this may be a co-occurring relationship. Lack of money is not the only reason
the writer is angry, but it may be a related reason.
Often, in the complexity of learning and teaching in classrooms, and in schools
as social environments, it is hard to firmly establish clear superior/subordinclte
relationships in data analysis. It is often more accurate and usefu! to talk ab( Iur
co-occurring relationships in order to show how patterns and as[,ccts in the (L,trl
relate to one another without having a definitively causal reldtiOibhip. E:::-'l ,lbhsli
ing causal connections in data through a superior/subordinate relationshlJ) usu
ally requires reference to a norm or standard that is accepted
proh
community. In the case of statistical analyses for example, fh(
ability provides such a norm. Probability is used to define hu\\ likely thing~ are
to co-occur in relation to one another, compared to by chance. Statisticians. ;ll1d
Probability
as a co-occurring
the research community at large, generally use the standard of fJ 0.05 10 talk.
about probable relationships that are "statistically significant.' This means that
relationship
112
than 5 percent of the cases are described in statistical terms as having a "prob
able" co-occurring relationship. The less the probability, as it drops below p < 0.05,
the stronger the possibility of superior/subordinate relationship.
The third type of relationship among data in analysis, a sequential or recursive
one, is based on patterns of order and time. In this relationship one thing pre
cedes or follows another, which precedes or follows a third, and so on. When
the pattern continues linearly, the relationship is sequential; when it connects
back to itself, it is recursive. In analysis, these types of patterns connect data or
categories often through the order of things and not through a hierarchy. Thus
the sequential or recursive types of relationships can be quite common. For
teachers, sequential and recursive relationships are familiar parts of classroom
life. The daily or weekly class schedule is a recursive cycle; the curriculum, when
it is presented in a book, for instance, is usually organized sequentially. Often,
however, language curricula will be spiraled so that topics and skills are returned
to in increasingly depth and complexity, thus combining sequence with cycle.
--~
-------_.'---------
This fourth Investigation in the series on data analysis examines the types Of.,
relationships found in data analysis displays.
Working alone or with a peer, use the two data analysis displays you
created in Investigations 5.5 and 5.6 to examine the kinds of patterns
and relationships you find in them. Start with the display of your
grounded analysis and identify an example of each of three types of
relationships: superiOr/subordinate, co-occurring, and sequential or
recursive. Depending on how you made your map (see Investigation
5.5, step 5), you will probably be able to identify some or all of these
three types of relationships.
If you are working with others, focus on everyone's grounded analyses.
Turn to the display of your a priori analysis and do the same thing.
Given the matrix of this display, you may find it difficult to find a
sequential or recursive relationship; however, the superior/subordi
nate and co-occurring relationships should be easier to identify.
If you are working with others, focus on everyone's a priori analyses.
These three types of relationships can help you to understand the various pat
terns you may find in the data. In this sense, they can serve as archetypes,
against which you can examine the specifics of your data and the interpretations
you are building. At some point, however, the analyses of different types and
sources of data must be put together. Coalescing these separate interpretations
into a version of the whole is where we turn next.
PUTTING TOGETHER ANALYSES: BUILDING A VERSION OF THE WHOLE
Eric Bass is a highly skilled performer who works with puppets of various sizes
which he designs and makes. Bass generally begins by fashioning the head and
then develops the body to accompany it, although he will also work from a
scrap of cloth or other material to make the puppet's torso and then develop a
head to go with it. Bass then builds stories to engage the puppets. He is quite
113
Building
interpretations
emphatic on this point: "You don't decide on the story and then do it. You rec
ognize it in the puppets ... or in a sound, like the notes of a flute, or an image,
or a song." Bass's work is like that of a teacher-researcher or indeed anyone who
is building interpretations out of particular information or evidence. There is, as
we have seen, a stage of assembling the parts, of arriving at viable interpreta
tions of each data set by type and by source. And there is a stage that entails
building a whole interpretation to encompass these, sometimes, disparate parts.
Getting to this second stage can be challenging because it requires taking the
skills of analysis to another level, beyond the specifics of one set of data or one
group of insights, to examine how all the information can fit together.
,
J
J.D. Klemme
Data collection
114
Data analysis
I began coding my data after receiving the students' second entries
and immediately I began to doubt my initial assumptions. I was not
seeing any evidence of improvement. Indeed, some of the second
entries seemed to be more poorly written than the first. I did not eas
ily abandon my assumptions, however, and I held firm, believing that
great progress would come in the next round of data collection.
There were spurious advances, but nothing like the clear, incremen
tal progress for which I had hoped. It was only after finishing teach
ing the class, when I began final coding, that I realized that my data
would shed little light on how students correct errors through jour
naling. Indeed, given the data at hand, I was more inclined to dis
cover why students do not correct errors. I decided to pull back and
open up my research question by asking, f'What is going on when
students are asked to write a journal entry?"
In analyzing his data, Klemme was very explicit about how he assembled the
various strands of his findings. At each juncture he built a cumulative analysis
that pointed toward his research question, almost as if he were building a bridge
from the information he had toward what he wanted to understand. His dia~'
gram, in Figure 5.7, outlines the flow of his findings.
Figure 5.7: J.
PRIOR
./(NOWl.tD&E
(FRENCH C;YNTM)
t':sRAMMA1?J trc.)
C;TU()NTt;
~
TA~/(
PROCEtD TO
II
(JOURNAl.)
Question:
--
DATA
WORb FOR
WORb
TRAf{;LATION
AREA~
COMPl.ETEl>
TA~/(
FINf)INb~
115
Findings
Finding #1: The first thing that I discovered in my coding was that
sentences in the journal entries had strong English syntax, as in the
following example:
"Dans Ie film French Kiss une personne du Fran~ais est repre
sente si un aggressive, alcoolique avec un grand accent."
We could translate the sentence almost word-for-word following
English word order:
"In the film French Kiss a French person is represented as an
aggressive alcoholic with a big accent."
In other entries, the student really is translating directly and actually
plugs English words into the sentences when the Frend].. equivalent is
not immediately retrievable. There were some exceptions to my stu
dents' word-for-word translations. An example of this, in the sen
tence above, shows that the student has some knowledge of French
syntax. Although "une personne du Fran~ais" is not accurate French,
it does show that the student knows something about how French
adjectives are used.
These observations allowed me to conclude that my students seem to
be translating their thoughts word-far-word into French except in
places in which they have prior knowledge of how French varies syn
tactically from English. (Finding #1)
Finding #2: I began my coding hoping to find evidence of student
progress in learning French. I thought that the common mistakes
made in the students' first and second entries would disappear in
later writings. This was not the case. Mistakes that never appeared
in the first and second entries suddenly appeared in the fourth entry.
I concluded that students were not making full use of their linguistic
knowledge. I decided to test this hypothesis with a series of short
interviews in which I asked individual students to correct mistakes
similar to the ones they had made in their written entries. Most stu
dents were able to correct these mistakes quite easily. For example,
one student chose to use the English words monster, witch and
dream in a journal entry, yet during the interview she was able to
come up with each of these words in French. I therefore concluded
that my students do not always make use of their prior knowledge.
(Finding #2)
Finding #3: I now knew that my students were using word-for-word
translation except when they had prior knowledge of French. I also
knew that they were applying this prior knowledge inconsistently. I
decided to choose the entries that I thought made good use of prior
116
117
T
Exam ining the
what-haw-why
of your analysis
he integrated display of your data provides the basis from which you can
make them public, whether through writing them up, presenting them ver
bally or visually, or simply using what you know to argue for what is important
in your teaching and your students' learning. For this reason, it is important to
go beyond the data themselves to the level of findings, to examine what you
know, how you have come to know it, and why you believe it is so. Working in
this way accomplishes two important things. First, it compels you to think
through the discipline on which your research is based. By being explicit to
yourself about not only what you have found, but how you found it-in other
words your research methods-and why you believe it is true, you move your
work from assertion to argument. It will now be possible for you to discuss both
the findings and the methods of your work. Second, this explicitness should
raise questions. By determining what you know, you see more clearly what you
don't know: the areas that remain open or unclear in your work. This is a cru
cial step in examining the validity of your work, as we will discuss in the next
chapter. It also propels the teacher-research cycle forward into the next phase,
for good inquiry leads to further inquiry, just as questions lead to certainties,
which in turn lead to more questions.
It
mm
Review the three displays of data analysis you have completed on the unem
ployment letters (Investigations 5.5,5.6, and 5.7). Bear in mind that the inquiry
has focused on what it is like to become unemployed after holding a regular job.
Within the inquiry, there have been three slightly different research questions:
How are these writers experiencing unemployment? What are
the central issues and concerns for them? (Investigation 5.5)
How are self-esteem and interactions with other people (family
members, peers, etc.) affected by becoming unemployed?
(Investigation 5.6)
How often do writers refer to financial issues and to family
issues? (Investigation 5.7)
1. Read through each display separately. After you have read all three,
on a separate sheet of paper list common or repeating themes, pat
terns, or issues that emerge. Also list any specifics that do not appear
to be repeated in these analyses. It is most useful to do this step on
your own, even if you are working with peers.
2. Referring to the types of relationships in data analysis (Investigation
5.9), organize the information from (#1) above and create an inte
grated display for it.
If you are working with peers, it is most useful if each person creates
his or her own display (or at most with one other person). Creating
a display with more than two people generally becomes unwieldy.
3. Find a colleague who is not familiar with the data and talk through
the integrated display (see Investigation 5.8, Talking Through a
118
Display, p.l11). Keep in mind that the aim is to articulate the links
that you see. Often talking through these connections will make
them more apparent to you. For this reason, you may want to pause
periodically to take notes on what you have just said. (You can also
use a tape recorder to record your narration.)
If you are working with peers, have one person serve as notetaker
while a second person talks through his or her display and the oth
ers respond with questions and comments. Then rotate roles.
4. Reread your notes, referring to the integrated display, to see what
makes sense and what questions you have. Draft a second version of
the display, which now includes: (a) the relationships of themes or
patterns in the data; (b) the what-how-why: What you know about
these relationships, how you know it, and why you think this is the
case, and (c) the new or remaining questions that you have. Finally,
list ways you might investigate each of these questions. This can now
serve as a basis for writing up your work.
TOWARD MAKING ANALYSES PUBLIC
Suggested Readings
There is a tremendous amount of work available on research design and
research methods, and on qualitative and interpretive research in educational
settings. On the issues of research design, I'd recommend two titles. Ruth
Hubbard and Brenda Power's book The Art of Classroom Inquiry (Portsmouth
N. H.: Heinemann, 1993) does an excellent job of laying out design issues in
teacher-research, particularly chapters one through three. Joe Maxwell's book,
Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (Thousand Oaks CA:
Sage Publications, 1996) is a good general guide; however it is more oriented to
119
120
RESEARCHING
TEACHING CONTINUED:
TEACHER FEEDBACI(
ON STUDENT WRITING
Wagner Veillard
PREAMBLE:
Dear reader,
If you have been reading the chapters in this book in order, you will
have gone through a process very similar to the one I went through
when I took part in the teacher development program in Sao Paulo,
Brazil, which I mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 3. As I
explained, the program lasted ten months and was divided into four
modules. The first and third modules involved intensive course work,
during school vacation. We spent the second and fourth modules in
our schools, doing teacher-research. In Chapter 3, I described the car
nival rides I took as I moved my thinking from a teacher's to a
teacher-researcher's point of view. Now, in this chapter, I am again
doing the "work at the hyphen," doing a teacher-research project in
my school as part of the last module of the teacher development pro
gram. This time the focus of my inquiry is the influence of teacher
feedback on students' writing.
wagner Veillard
Yours,
Wagner Veillard
This Investigation, which is the same as Investigation 3.2 (pp. 50-51), asks you
to analyze this chapter from the point of view of research design. You may want
to familiarize yourself with the Investigation before you read the chapter, or you
may want to read the chapter first and then return to the Investigation in order
to complete it.
121
WHY?
WHERE?
WHO?
HOW?
WHEN?
122
On formats
for reporting
research, see
the discussion
of Wolcott in
Chapter 7,
pp. 160-164.
See Investigation
However, once again I found I was trying to cover too much ground if I want
ed to consider all the possible ways a teacher can provide feedback on what stu
dents write. For example, teachers talk to students, cross out incorrect spelling,
underline improper grammar, write comments about content, list questions on
the margins, put letter or number grades on compositions and so on. They often
use more than one of these forms of feedback in a mixed format, or they pro
vide no feedback at all, and sometimes do not even return students' assignments.
128
On fi rst- and
second-order
questions and
research, see
Chapter 4,
pp.65-69.
124
On displaying
data, see
Chapter 7,
pp. 154-164.
Gender
Male:
4
Female: 9
Juniors: 7
Seniors: 6
Age
Nationality
Number of students
Number of students
19
Brazilian
18
Chinese
17
Mexican
16
Bulgarian
15
Number of students
125
5. What happened?
The skeleton of my research plan is divided into six parts, one for each week of
the project. Likewise, I will divide this answer into six parts, but each "week" will
cover more than five lessons because it actually took me nine weeks to collect
all the information I wanted. So I have divided the actua(data collection into
the six "week" segments of the project design. As you may recall, in week #1
my feedback would be on content only; in "week #2," on form only; and then
for weeks #3 to #6, the students would choose the type of feedback they pre
ferred-on form or content-and I would respond accordingly. The goals, objec
tives, and activities of the course, along with my classroom observations and
journal entries, have become the flesh around the few bones I had put together
before classes started.
Week #1: The course activities included the following:
Learn basic information about my students and assess their ntcds.
Ask them to write a letter to a friend telling the person their expec
tations for this class. After that, I hand out my syllabuc;; and we
look for similarities and differences in our expectations.
Encourage writing by asking them to keep a journal and allow
ing them time to do so daily in class. Journaling prompts must be
diverse and interesting.
Provide opportunities for interaction; encourage shciring; c;how
respect for the individual; accommodate differences; cr{~ate team
spirit; build a safe environment. Each person prepar\ . . ;}
and has a chance to survey everyone in the class. We record the
answers and share our findings. My question is "Wh~.:. 1:.1 ngnages
do you speak at home?" and I use it to gather SOIT1('
data on my students and as an informal needs asseSSlrwnt, since it
helps me to find out who considers English as his Of be!" mother
tongue, as Figure 6.2 indicates. Since some students spcclk more
than one language at home, the totals add up to more than Ii, the
number of students.
126
Portuguese
Number of students
10
Chinese
Korean
English
Bulgarian
Spanish
Ask them to find something they like about the book and share
Think about what we did in the first week of classes and answer
the following question: "What did you learn about yourself, other
classmates, the teacher, and the subject (English writing)?"
.!
The following excerpts were taken from three students'-Sonia, Shimoko, and
N adine-Learning Memos:
The most important thing I learned in this class is that you cannot
the class that I did not know before and now I have a better opinion
about them. Also, working in groups is not so bad like I thought. It's
During one week of class at first I thought that I would do really bad
because, I do not write welL But, gradually I realized that I feel com
fortable in the class with other students and that I am not the only
I also learned that Pedro likes to play soccer and all this year I did
n't know that Pedro was Bulgarian until I had learned about him in
this class.
drawing based on what he or she has read. The drawings are com
pared and we have a group discussion on how they feel about the
they write, not on how they write it. Martha writes about how spe
cial her telephone is to her, and how her parents do not let her use
127
... you must be thinking so what? The problem is that I have strict
parents and they are totally oriental types. So they have a lot of rules
(I'm Brazilian, so I don't understand what "totally oriental" means.
Could you explain it a little more, please?) and one of them is they
prohib me to use the telephone, well sometimes they let me use it, but
they ... (What is "a lot of rules"? How many? of what kind?)
I return the papers and they rewrite them. Most of the additional sentences
appearing in their second drafts stand out from the rest of the paragraph because
they are clear-cut answers to my questions and comments. In spite of that, I am
happy for the dialogue we have established. The following is part of Martha's
second draft .
. . . problem is that I have strict parents and they are typical Chinese.
When I say typical Chinese I am referring to those who follow the
oriental culture and their way of thinking are more strict. So they
have a lot of rules, for instance I have to obey them, I can't go out at
night, I have a limited time to get home whenever I am with my
friends and they prohib me to use the telephone. Sometimes they let
me use it, but they make a lot of questions such as ~~Who are you
talking to?", "Who is she?", "What does she want?" and "Why do
you guys take so long to hang up?". But since I have this special tele
phone, I simply can call whoever I want without letting them know.
And because of it, I can also call my boyfriend everyday.
We start reading unit one in the course book, "Viewpoints on Reading Essays,"
and try to discuss it in class. Students seem reluctant to participate. My journal
entry for that day starts like this:
Maybe I should be asking myself what I mean by "reluctant." What
are my expectations? How much "talking" do I want to see? I feel
discouraged. They don't seem to care about anything I do. I have tried
changing the pace of the lesson, my tone of voice, and even the way
they are seated in the classroom. I have chosen personal topics, and
I have given them the chance to work individually, in pairs, and in
groups of four. I see no difference in attitude towards the class. I know
I may regret writing this, but I feel as if they know what I want, but
are simply refusing to do it. The reasons are unknown to me.
In talking to colleagues about it afterward, I realize that I might be using "par
ticipation" and "speaking" as synonyms.
Week #3: The students write a narrative on the topic "What is your morning
routine?" They get in groups of four and read one another's papers. I tell them
to look for similarities and differences in the things they do in the morning from
the moment they wake up to the time they arrive at school. There is some dis
cussion in the whole group. I collect their work and read the papers, focusing on
form only. I pay careful attention to spelling, capitalization, punctuation, subject
verb agreement, and sentence fragments. I return the papers and they rewrite
them. The following show Andrezza's entire first and second drafts. The under
linings and punctuation in bold show my feedback on the form of her writing:
128
First Draft:
,,"d
I ww:.ke up "t I:,:{)O ",m,:. 1M") I set up) t"ke 'I shOllll'er) brush my tee~
!Jet dressed, At "bovt l,:l/) ".m. _ I eQt somethl"S_ ,,"d "t l,:,!{) ".m, I tQke the
~ to schoo',
st"y I" the bus lOr "bout "" hour ,,"d " h,,'f IIste"I"S to my W"'km""_
sometimes I f,,11 "s'eep. I "rrive "t school "t 160 ".m.:.
,,"d
Second Draft:
ww:.ke up 'It l,:O{) Q.m, 1he") I !Jet up) t"ke " shOllll'er) brush my teeth ,,"d set
dressed. At "bout I:,/'J.I) ".m.) I e"t somethi"SJ ,,"d "t l,:,!O Q.m. I t"ke the bus
to school.
sf"y i" the bus lOr "bout "" hour ,,"d 'I hQ'f 'i~";"9 to my WQ'km,,")
sometimes I ((;III "sleep. I "rr1ve "t school "t 16{) ",m.
,,"d
Like Andrezza, the other students simply change the items I mark and recopy
the rest of the composition as it was. At first, I feel upset because 10 of the 13
students write less on this second assignment. In five cases, there is a 50 percent'
decrease in the number of words. Later, as a teacher, I feel a bit pleased with what
has happened because I find it quite boring to correct form only. Nevertheless,
I want to make sure they write more next time.
We are able to finish Unit One in our course book, and I ask them to vote on
the type of teacher feedback they wish to receive on their next three assign
ments. Trying to make their job easier, I make the mistake of using a black pen
to write comments on content and a red one for the comments on form. You can
probably guess what happens. By hoping to make a clear distinction between
the two types of feedback, I have directed the focus of their analysis toward the
color of my pen. After patiently explaining the choice of form or content, the
students remain unconvinced. Antonio, Shimoko, and Nadine write:
" ... Feedback?! ... I would rather have the "black" feedback [on con
tent]. It seems less shocking. The red color [on form] has a "STOP"
"I prefer that the teacher marks in red [on form] grammar and
"For the next three assignments, I prefer in black feedback [on con
tent] because it's easy for me to see my mistakes and in black feed
Out of the 13 students, only Camille and Shimoko opt for feedback on form,
and I feel like giving up the whole research process for the first time. How can
I compare a group of two to a group of eleven? I feel even more discouraged
when I come across an article in the school library. The text describes in detail
the experience of middle-school teachers teaching writing in California, and lists
the numerous advantages of using self, peer, and teacher feedback throughout
129
the writing process. The teachers in the article declare that, according to exten
sive research, students produce more and better writing when the teacher pro
vides feedback on content only. Although I was struck by what I read at the
time, I neglected to note the actual reference. I have since realized the impor
tance of making note of information when you see it so that you can
to it
later. It seems to be part of joining the conversation of research on a certain
topic. I talk to my advisor and colleagues once again, and we decide that it is
better to stick to the original plan. I end one of my journal entries with the fol
lowing sentences.
"I am not that happy about working on this research project, but I
don't think there is enough time to change directions now. I will be
reflecting about my teaching anyway. In order to finish the program,
I will stick to the original plan, and have this be a rehearsal for some
thing I can call my own. Despite the fact my results may seem irrel
evant, I am certain that I will at least learn something about my stu
dents. This alone should force me to remain interested in this project."
Week #4: I have students go through a series of activities before they turn in
their next assignment, an essay based on the question "Who are you?" I ask
them to answer the topic question, using a maximum of five words. Then, I ask
them to answer it again; this time their minimum is 300 words. I play some
background music from the movie Out of Africa as they write. The next day,
they have to answer the same question using any language other than English;
they have a 10-minute time limit. I hand out small green cards and ask students
to write something nobody in the class knows about them. I take the cards home
and prepare a matching exercise. One column has all the students' names, and
the other has the secret facts about them. I use this exercise as a quiz at the
information is listed below:
beginning of the following class.
(1) Antonio
(2) Rob
(3) Pedro
(4) James
(5) Myrthes
21 years old.
(6) Nadine
was terrifying.
130
(7) Martha
(8) Andrezza
(9) Camille
(10) Helen
(11) Juliana
(12) Shimoko
a picture frame.
(14) Veillard
landing.
I ask the students to prepare questions using the formula "If you were Z, what
kind of Z would you be?" My question is: "If you were a color, what color
would you be?" Once each person has a question, we walk around recording
everyone's answers. When this phase is over, we put all the answers of each par
ticipant on individual slips. For instance, Antonio's answers to his classmates'
questions might include: Antonio-blue, zebra, BMW, Monday, hamburger, etc.
I distribute the slips randomly and, based on the answers, each person has to
write about somebody else. In a short paragraph, they respond to the question
"Who is (Antonio)?", and they guess and justify personality traits of the person
whose slip they have. When they are finished, we exchange paragraphs to see
what their classmates have guessed about them. We end the process by having.
a discussion on which activity they enjoyed the most and why. They hand in
their essays on the following day. I provide feedback comments in the manner
they selected, form or content. I hand the essays back to them, and they rewrite
them using the feedback.
We start work on Unit Two of the course book, "Viewpoints on Writing
Essays," and I still do not understand why students are reluctant to speak when
I open the floor for comments. After some thinking, I decide to step back and
get a view of the whole picture. My students have seven classes per day. How
different is my class from the other six? In an attempt to find out how other
teachers provide feedback to what these students write, I develop a question
naire for my fellow teachers with the following questions:
An example of
questionnaire
(re)design
Surveying
fellow teachers
131
132
Week #5: In order to assign another description, I ask students to bring a pic
ture from a calendar to class. This time students have more options in brain
storming because we have reviewed listing, clustering, and freewriting in the
textbook. In the middle of the class, Juliana asks me how they are going to be
evaluated in this class. I understand her question as a desire to know what she
needs to do to get a high grade by the end of the quarter. I tell her that it is a
good question and ask if she minds waiting until the next day for an answer. In
the following class I hand out copies of the "special object" description and the
"waking-up" narrative. Each person gets his or her own writing back. I ask
them to grade both drafts of each assignment using a 0 to 10 scale. In triads,
they share the system they use, and Camille tells the class that "It is funny that
nobody gave less than a 6." It is no coincidence because 6.3 out of 10 is a fail
ing grade in this school, so it seems that everyone is intent on giving at least
passing grades. We laugh about her comment and I ask why that happened. In
the next activity, they are to grade their papers again using a form, the General
Analytic Scale, I found in Houghton Mifflin English 8 by Shirley Haley-James
and John W. Stewig (1990). The grades are lower.
It is interesting to look back at what I have done and realize that, without
noticing, I am once again veering toward my first line of inquiry, "How can my
students assess their own writing?" from Chapter 3. To word it better, I realize
I was searching for answers to the question "What happens when my students
judge their own writing?" At the end of the grading activities, Juliana seems
pleased. Because I am anxious to know the reactions of the entire class, I assign
Learning Memo #2 for homework. My instructions are: "Look back over what
we have done so far. Write a few sentences for each category and include exam
ples of things that ... "
A) You liked (Why?)
On shifting
research
questions, see
Chapter 4,
pp.63-69.
For example, "A" would be something that the student liked doing and that he
or she believes helped in learning to write in English. "B" represents something
the student liked doing, but believes did not help in learning. Students have to
justify their opinions. The following excerpts were taken from their Learning
Memos in response to this assignment.
"This class makes me feel comfortable because I have my own diary
which is the journal and in this journal I am free to write what ever
I want." - Nadine
"I liked when we made up a question to ask everyone in the class
because it helped me to get to know them a little better."-Andrezza
133
"1 enjoy the most when you let us write with music. It's so inspiring!
I think it was a great idea."-Antonio
"Sometimes 1 enjoy the class, sometimes 1 just don't get the main
point of the activity. Like, writing what do you feel or think. I see it
as useless." -Shimoko
"I also liked to judge my own work and give it a grade. But I think
it didn't help very much because it's not I who decide what grade I'll
receive. It is interesting that the teacher is aware that to grade and
judge a composition is not an easy task."-Juliana
"I liked writing an essay about 'Who Are You?' This helped me to
learn things that I've never knew about myself. For instance, I didn't
know before that I love writing." - Martha
We return to writing. I ask my students to brainstorm for 10 minutes about
how they might describe the calendar picture they have brought to class. In
pairs, they exchange pictures and journals. Without reading what is already
there, each person is asked to brainstorm for another 10 minutes a description
for the partner's picture. The journal, in which these additional ideas are writ
ten, and the picture are returned to the writer. We move on to discuss Unit Two
in the course book, which we have finished reading. Then, I ask students to go
back to their journals and look for similarities and differences from the two
brainstormings. Students brainstorm on their own pictures for another 10 min
utes and the class is over. They write their descriptions at home, and they hand
them in on the following day. I return the papers with the type of teacher feed
back each student has selected, and they rewrite their pieces.
I divide the class in half and each group prepares a test for one of the units
we have covered in the course book. Once finished, the groups exchange tests
and answer each other's questions. We discuss the difficulty of the questions, and
then I hand out Bloom's taxonomy of thinking processes. Working in the whole
group, the students classify the questions they have prepared to see whether they
test knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation.
Week #6: I am supposed to tell students the topic for their fifth and last writing
piece, a narrative. However, I cannot think of anything I consider interesting
enough for them to write about. So, I decide to have them suggest topics and
then
one from the ideas they come up with. The plan is simple, yet it has
taken me many unsuccessful trials to resort to it. Since oral participation is not
overwhelming, we end up with three topics on the blackboard: friendship, the
future, and summer vacations. I am baffled when students vote for summer
vacations. First, they talk about the topic in pairs. Then, the entire class works
together to brainstorm ideas, which I write on the blackboard. When it is over,
they copy down whatever ideas they wish. The students write their narratives in
class on the following day. I collect, add the feedback in the manner they have
chosen, and return the papers. The students rewrite them for homework.
I assign some grammar exercises and after that, I spend a few classes on self
assessment. I hand out copies of everything students have written during the six
weeks, and I ask them to look over their work in the order they wrote it. I give
134
them specific tasks such as "Count the number of adjectives in your descrip
tions." This activity has two purposes. It will prepare students to write about
their own progress in Learning Memo #3 and it will help me when I sit down
to analyze the data I have gathered because a lot of information will already be
coded. The third Learning Memo consists of five questions and is completed in
class on green slips of paper. I present the guiding questions and allow time for
them to write their answers before moving on to the next question. These are
the questions:
If not, why?
feedback? Why?
C. Look over your 10 writing pieces (two drafts for each of the five
On discipline in
research deSign,
see Chapter 1,
pp. 8-10 and
Chapter 4,
pp.55-57.
135
Figure 6.3:
Student
Special
Object
Morning
Routine
Who Are
You?
Calendar
Picture
Summer
Vacation
Martha
290
158
335
363
431
Helen
312
168
346
337
392
Camille
133
129
270
247
661
Myrthes
138
226
593
356
497
Juliana
257
315
603
416
624
James
n/a
218
380
300
517
Nadine
225
126
356
480
600
Andrezza
78
63
291
278
325
Antonio
193
113
452
346
293
Pedro
109
41
271
236
345
Sonia
179
103
452
n/a
419
Shimoko
227
159
492
303
370
Rob
455
n/a
Ooined class late)
700
418
880
The following table ranks students according to how much they wrote, as
judged by the total number of words, over the nine-week period.
Top Five:
1. Rob
2. Juliana
Bottom Two:
12. Andrezza
3. Nadine
4. Myrthes
5. Heien
13. Pedro
The top five writers all chose to receive feedback on content. So did the bottom
two. Therefore, I cannot confirm that if the teacher provides feedback on form,
the students will necessarily write less, or vice versa. I should point out that
Rob, who is ranked first, registered late for the class and only joined
group
at the beginning of the third week. Maybe he just enjoys writing and as ;J result
was able to produce more words in four assignments than many
his class
mates generated over five pieces.
In the last week of my project, I asked students to judge their own writings
because I wanted to look for similarities and differences betvlc!'n the \v:1y
evaluated their work and the way I did it. Therefore, I distrihuted gradmg
sheets, taken from Houghton Mifflin English 8- Teacher's
which had
seven categories. I introduced minor changes to the sheets sn th;t they would
suit the needs of these junior and senior students. The categories on tbe grading
sheets were:
136
FOR NARRATIVES
FOR DESCRIPTIONS
Capitalization
Punctuation
punctuation
Spelling
Five senses used
Details are organized
..-.--..
Clear picture of subject
~~.--.-~----
..
---.-----.--~~----.~.-~~-- -~-----~-----.
words
Students read their papers and assigned a grade for each one of the categories. The
ranged from 1 to 5, depending on whether the paper was: poor =1; weak
':; 2; good == 3; very good == 4; excellent:; 5. Students used the description check
list when evaluating the "Special Object," the "Calendar Picture," and the "Who
are you?" pieces. The narrative checklist was used for the "Morning Routine" and
the "Summer Vacation" assignments. Since they looked at both drafts of each
assignment, this activity generated a huge amount of data, which I managed to put
in one single grid, seen in Figure 6.4. Table 1, on the left side, is a condensed verf!
sion of the grid; it contains only the number of excellents (5) each student gave to
his or her writing pieces. Table 2, on the right side, shows the grades I assigned to
their papers using a 0-10 scale divided into two parts: 6 points for content and 4
points for form. The pieces are labeled as follows: so: Special Object; WY: Who
are You?; CP: Calendar Picture; MR: Morning Routine; SV: Summer Vacation: An
X on the table means that the student did not hand in the assignment.
Figure 6.4:
Writing
Assignment
Students
Martha
Table #1:
Table #2:
SO
MR
WY
CP
SV
SO
MR
WY
CP
SV
8
7
Helen
Camille
Myrthes
Juliana
James
Nadine
Andrezza 1
Antonio
Pedro
Sonia
Shimoko 3
Rob
137
1. Antonio
1. Myrthes
2. Rob
3. James
my view of their work, the top three writers were Myrthes, Rob, and Juliana and
offers an
Martha. I still have doubts about why Antonio, the student who gave himself the
excellent
example of
highest grades in the group, did not appear on my list. Likewise, Myrthes, the
first-order versus
student to get the highest grades in my evaluation, did not appear on the stu
second-order
dents' list. Maybe it is a reflection of the fact we were using different scales.
perceptions.
6.5,
and
in
diagrammatic
form, in Figure 6.6. To develop the sociogram, I need
construction
to
arrive
at
a
total
number
of points for each student that represents the number
of a sociogram.
of
times
he
or
she
was
nominated
"best" writer by peers in his or her group. I cal
see Appendix C.
culated these total scores as follows. I took the number of times the person was
chosen as #1, as the best writer, and multiplied it by three; then the number of
times that student was chosen as #2, as second best writer, and I multiplied this
number by two; and then the number of times he or she was chosen as #3, as
third-best writer, and I multiplied that number by one. Finally, I added all of these
scores together to get a total score for that student. In the case of Antonio, for
example, his total score, 9, was constructed as follows: (2 x 3) + (1 x 2) + (1 x 1)
= 6 + 2 + 1 9 or (2 x "best writer" [3 points]) + (1 x "second-best writer" [2
points]) + (lx "third-best writer" [1 point]) = 9 points total score.
Figure 6.5:
Students
Total number
of points:
#1
#2
#3
2
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
9
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
8
0
5
8
8
7
GROUP A
Antonio
Pedro
Camille
Andrezza
3
8
8
GROUPS
Shimoko
Nadine
James
Rob
Juliana
Martha
As you can see, Antonio is considered the best writer in group A and Rob,
Juliana, and Shimoko are considered the best writers in group B. Since both
Camille and Shimoko appear among the top three writers, each one in a differ
ent group, one possible interpretation is that correct spelling and proper gram
mar have a greater impact on peers than they have on me as a teacher. Somehow
this statement seems risky, but it is based on the information I collected.
Figure 6.6: Sociogram
results (diagram):
Students' perceptions of who is tile best writer
III . . . 1
. --
..
;i#'AINTi~O~~~~. "-..
~ ~.~/
.\~ 1.
,,~E'>
..
ANDRfZ:ZA ...... - -
:....4
l ...
'
~ CAMItl..f"
-.... .............
. ......
................
......
'jAM~ ...
; ..,.~ \
:
;; ~
.:
~
.
1':
, '1 ;.
C;HIMOK.O ;
~.
'.~ '~"
: ' /
'.
..
"' 'II....
Ro8
,, .
\.
1
~
J
\.4
I
.....;
MARTHA .. ~JUUANA
. . . ............
"
TEACHER FEEDBACK ON STUDENT WRITING
139
The sociogram data also call attention to Nadine. She is an isolate, whom no
one chose as best writer in the sociogram for group B. Nadine is also one of only
two students to give herself no excellents on any of the five writings, and I ranked
her fifth according to my assessment on the 0 to 10 scale. Based on these facts,
I would say that both she and her classmates have a poor image of her work.
When I asked students to select their best work over the nine-week period,
their answers confirmed what other data, such as number of words per assign
ment (Figure 6.3) and number of excellents given to each piece (Figure 6.4), had
already told me. Seven out of 11 students chose the second draft of their
"Summer Vacation" narratives as their best writing pieces. Only three people,
Juliana, Pedro, and Rob, did not see progress in their writing. Since I do not
have enough information to explain this finding, I will refrain from unground
ed speculation. All the same, Rob offers an insight on awareness of progress in
writing when he notes in his third Learning Memo, "In general, 1 don't really
know what 1 am doing wrong." Camille adds, "Yes, there was some progress
because my content got better." Please remember that Camille had feedback on
form all along. My reply to these comments is "I need to do more research on
students' awareness of their progress, if that's at all feasibl~,"
PREFERENCES BY STUDENT
STUDENTS:
Summary
of findings
by student
Would you
like to continue
getting it?
If not, which
one now?
Martha
content
no
Helen
content
Camille
form
no
content
Myrthes
content
no
both
Juliana
content
yes
James
content
no
Nadine
content
Andrezza
content
yes
Antonio
content
yes
Pedro
content
Sonia
content
Shimoko
form
no
both
Rob
content
no
form
both
form
(X means that the student was absent or did not answer. "Both" was not offered as an option)
140
Number of
students
Choices
Number of
students
Content only
Form only
Summary
of findings by
correction
preference
Most interestingly, by the end of the project, students expressed a more even
distribution about the type of teacher feedback they wanted to receive on their
assignments.
"Content I think is important, but grammar is what I really need to
work on."-Rob
"I want to have the "red" way [on form] which is the grammar mis
take. I changed my mind because the "black" [on content] way did
n't help me, so its hard for me [to see] my spelling errors."-Nadine
it let me know how the reader feels about what he's reading."
Andrezza
"1 would prefer the type you put the little comments ... based on
"1 would like to change because to see which one is better the gram
If I had the energy, this would be the appropriate time for me to start a new
research project with the same group so I could compare the results of this study
with those at the end of another two-month period.
141
On the
orientation of
valuing in
teacher-research,
see Chapter 8,
pp. 188-191.
As I did this research project, I mostly felt excited not only about the Writing
Workshop, but also about all the other classes I was teaching because they
became opportunities for discovery. I loved learning more about myself, my stu
dents, and the subjects we were studying together. Actually, I still feel excited
about these discoveries and as a result, I continue writing on a daily basis in my
journal. It is a record of the small miracles that might otherwise pass unnoticed.
This journal is my daily homework assignment and in order to do it well, I must
143
pay attention in class and listen to what pupils say. I feel like a student again, or
better yet, like a learner. I enjoy teaching some classes more than others.
However, I encounter new people in teaching all of them, and they are like
books that no library could loan me. Even the textbooks I teach from seem
new although I have used them for a while. Like any other learner, there are
times when I feel discouraged because I can't understand or know what to do
for my students. I feel worse when I make the mistake of slipping back into old
ways of teaching.
In a sense, getting started doing teacher-research, which for me happened
through the teacher development program, was like the traffic light I needed in
my career. I have been driving along the highways of the teaching profession
for some time and the roads, or should I say schools, are full of many things.
There are holes: Things taught, and more importantly, things not taught. There
are crazy drivers: Teachers who are looking for shortcuts and who use their
power to break the rules they are paid to reinforce. There are also impatient
people who honk their horns: Parents and administrators who expect institu
tions to produce miraculous results. And there are hitchhikers: People who are
teaching but who have no idea where they are going or hgw they are going to
get there.
I kept on driving, but I was no longer paying attention to the various signs
along the way. That was when the light turned yellow. Somehow I awakened to
the fact something was wrong, either with my car, my driving, or both. Maybe
I had a flat tire or needed more fueL The light turned red. It was time to stop,
pinpoint the problem, and work on the engine to get the car moving again, maybe
even get it running better than before. I found colleagues who were the mechan
ics who helped me to fix my own car. The experience was new for me because
I was not used to getting my hands dirty in my own teaching; nevertheless, I
enjoyed it enormously. I took a test drive while working on this project and now
that it is over, the light has turned green again. My car has free mileage and I
am on the road once more. This is what I see as I look ahead: more reading
about writing, greater professional involvement, perhaps further education, and
doing more teacher-research along the way.
A closing thought: While I have always found it boring to read a writer's or
researcher's thanks to people I do not know, I now realize the importance of
showing gratitude for the invaluable support one gets from others in doing this
kind of work. Rosangela Valle pushed me to apply for the teacher development
program; Terry Aranda, Silvia Correa, Donald Freeman, Kathleen Graves, and
Donald Occhuizzo were terrific advisors; Celina Teixeira, a teacher of French,
piloted my questionnaire; Claudia Vitoriano e Silva, a colleague, supported me reg
ularly; and to my sister, Katia Cristina Veillard, many thanks.
In this Investigation, you use Chapters 3 and 6 to examine what the author,
144
both the strengths and the challenges as he develops the skills and ori
entations necessary to do work at the hyphen of teaching and research.
Working alone or with others, review both chapters. Create two lists
of "lessons learned." The first list should detail what you believe
Veillard has learned from one account to the next. The second list
should detail what you have learned about doing teacher-research
from reading these two chapters.
145
GOING PUBLIC
}. D. Klemme
erhaps because I came to research through being a teacher, I have often felt
susceptible to, and slightly intimidated by, public presentations of research
findings. Sitting in an audience of parents and teachers from our local school
district recently, listening to the state commissioner of eduhation and the local
superintendent of schools, I realized what troubled me. It was not so much the
content of what they were saying, which had to do with school reform and
strengthening teaching tn schools, but the unbridled assertion of knowledge to
reinforce a particular argument. As they spoke, I was jarred by the phrase, "The
research shows (or tells) us," as if there were one unified body of "research," or
that "ie' had the human ability to "show" or "tell" anything without someone to
speak for it. In their comments the speakers did not acknowledge that research
is a product of human experience, and that the knowledge it produces comes
packaged in a point of view. Whether intended or not, the phrase "the research
shows (or tells) us," stifled discussion and cast us, as listeners, in the subordi
nate role of having to accept what was being said as fact without alternative
explanations or interpretations. Although I was uncomfortable, at the time I did
not counter their statements. Perhaps I was silent because I basically agreed with
their arguments; perhaps it was because I did not have any counterevidence with
which to build an alternative view. Perhaps it was the form of interaction and
the social use of knowledge as power that discouraged me from responding. I
do not know why I was quiet in this instance, but I do know that such public
expressions of knowledge are important business. They have everything to do
with how teachers and others create access to knowledge that is publicly recog
nized and valued.
This chapter is about this dynamic, and the issues and processes involved in
going public with what you have learned, or are learning, through doing teacher
research. While this step appears to be the final one in the teacher-research cycle,
it is also a beginning. It marks the point at which you make what you know,
have learned, or are learning through inquiry, accessible to others. So it launch
es the public face of the private undertaking. This part of the cycle has two inter
related impacts. First, making public your understandings can push you to be
clear about what you know, how you found it out, and why it matters. Thus,
second, this public voicing can compel you to be both articulate and account
able for your work. It is important to recognize that, while it is not imperative,
going public with understandings is where the teacher-research process gains
much of its power and social impact. You can certainly take what you have
learned through inquiring into your teaching and channel it directly back into
your own classroom without any public display or ownership of your findings.
This is a valid approach to developing your own understanding of what you do
as a teacher and how your students learn. However, as noted in Chapter 1, if
part of the agenda of teacher-research is to make what teachers know and can
understand about learning and teaching in classrooms more public and influen
tial in education, then going public with the learnings that result from doing
teacher-research is a crucial step.
figure 7.1:
Kristen Fryling
GOING PUBLIC
147
school whose students were almost entirely English-speaking, she found a Spanish
speaking boy had recently joined the class. As the teacher, Fryling wanted to fig
ure out how she might draw the boy into the Spanish class, to recognize his lan
guage expertise and thus to give him a role with his classmates that he would
not have as an ESL learner. As a teacher-researcher, Fryling was intrigued by
how this role would evolve and be defined throughout the term. However, she
had not counted on the attention her teacher-research would generate among
other teachers and staff members.
In her account, Fryling makes public the arrival of a ne\v student ill the
school, thus opening up the possibilities in this commonplace
" .Her mlh
ings and wonderings show how her inquiry took shape as she ',."ollt"emplated the
role that Chico might play in her Spanish classes. By publicly discussing the
issues she faced as Chico entered her class, Fryling establishes the event as one
that can be investigated and understood, rather than simply assumed to be part
of the status-quo of school life. The balance of her case study examines how
Chico's role evolved in her class over a three-month period, as he moved from
observer to interlocutor to teacher of his peers. Fryling views this movement as
evidence of his successful integration into the social fabric of the sixth grade,
and indeed the school, as Chico assumed the publicly recognized role of peer
teacher. She concludes her account with an excerpt from an interview with
Chico, just before the end of her teaching, in which she comments on "Chico's
preoccupation with his present role as a Spanish teacher."
Account 7.18: Kristen Fryling, "Chico's story"
in Spanish:
Chico: "Ah-ha ... Eso fue tambien 10 que querfa decir. Yo querfa
[Yes, that's what I wanted to say. r d like you to teach the calendar,
you're teaching)?]
Kristen:
Chico:
"~Para
Chico: "Sf."
[Yes]
Fryling anticipates how Chico's role as Spanish teacher to his classmates will
continue after she leaves the schooL The brief exchange between them shows the
school as an ongoing context in which research is not easily bounded; it does
not begin or end in neat ways. Indeed, the players and situations that spark the
inquiry generally continue well beyond the period of the teacher-research cycle
itself. By making the work public, as she did in a report to the school faculty,
Fryling showed the progress and accomplishment in this teaching situation, even
as she subtly created conditions for these innovations to continue. Her work
shows the skillful use of the public face of an inquiry, and suggests the possible
GOING PUBLIC
149
usefulness that going public with the teacher-research process can have. It also
suggests the challenges and complexities of how best to capture the fluid and on
going quality of the work.
GENRE
If only going public were as simple as telling what you have found; but it isn't.
Anything written, indeed anything made public, comes in a package. It comes in
a given form that enables others to recognize what it is-or means to be-and
thus to place it within the category of similar things. Because of the packaging
and the responses it triggers, the form can accomplish certain intended results.
150
paper bag without tape or string. You are carrying it when you hap
pen to run into the recipient by chance. You give the gift to the recip
ient on the spot, saying "This is for you."
his process of creating something within a form, matching that form to its
social expectations, and thereby triggering responses to it is called genre.
Sunny Hyon (1996) examined genre from three perspectives: the view of English
for Specific Purposes (ESP), the view of North American rhetorical studies, and
the view of Australian systemic linguistics and its related genre research. From
the ESP view, genres are seen as communicative events that use particular lan
guage patterns or forms to accomplish certain purposes (Swales, 1990, p. 58).
The view of North American new rhetoric studies expands the idea of a form
used to accomplish a purpose to include the social actions a given genre accom
plishes. Proponents of this view of genre are interested in how the actions pro
voked by a genre are shaped by and within a particular social context or setting
(Miller, 1984). The Australian view of genre has its roots in the systemic studY'
of language (Halliday and Hasan, 1989), which looks at how linguistic struc
tures accomplish particular functions or purposes in social settings. This view of
genre emphasizes the connections between the form of language and what it can
achieve. Hyon summarizes the Australian view, as captured in the work of Jim
Martin (Martin, Christie, and Rothery, 1987), who has led much of the
Australian work on genre, as follows: Genres are "staged, goal-oriented, social
processes, structural forms that cultures use in certain contexts to achieve vari
ous purposes" (Hyon, 1996, p. 697).
Taken together, these points of view suggest that genres include three inter
connected elements. First, a genre has a given form usually- but not always
in language. Second, the form is used for a purpose, to accomplish some action
or response. Third, the genre is always used by people with other people in a
social context, and this context shapes the expectations of the form and the out
comes it may achieve. When, at the meeting I attended, the state commissioner
of education said, "The research shows (or tells) us," he was invoking a genre,
saying that research is a form of fact, knowledge, and truth. His purpose was,
among others, to convince, impress, and persuade us, the audience, that what
he was saying was true and, in so doing, to establish his authority and exper
tise. If successful, this strategy worked in part because of the social context. We
were a group of parents and teachers who had come to the meeting to hear their
views on education and school reform. We were probably not at ease arguing
about research, nor were we familiar with the particular research he cited. Thus
we appeared to accept the form at face value. This genre, "The research says,"
which we could call "social claims about research," is part of the social inter
action by which the speakers establish who they are, their authority, and their
case. The social context, which included who the commissioner and superinten
dent of schools were as professional men in politically important positions, and
who we the audience were as women and men from a variety of socioeconom-
Genre: purpose,
form, and social
context
GOING PUBLIC
151
pose, and social context-of the gift-giving. You may find it helpful
to make a 4 X 3 matrix, listing the four scenarios down the side axis
the situations listed below and on the matrix define the three dimen
sions (purpose, form, and social context) of genre for the situations
you have selected. Since there is only very basic information given for
each situation, you will need to fill out some of the details from your
of genre in each situation. You may also prefer to augment the list by
just met
If you are working with others, you may want to choose the situa
tions and do the task together.
152
On action
research, see
Stringer (1996);
also l'lunan
(1992).
GOING PUBLIC
153
tions involved the audience members as active participants, while in others they
were observers. But it was clear from the whole session that the audience of a
research effort had much to do with how research results are received. In terms
of genre, the social context helps to create recognizable forms.
EII!:I
6:15-7:45
POSTER 1
Musical Representation.
POSTER 2
Photographic Representation.
POSTER
Graphic Representation.
POSTER 4
Artistic Representation.
POSTER 5
Spiritual Representation.
POSTER 6
Narrative Representation.
POSTER 7
Poetic Representation.
POSTER 8
Dramatic Representation.
POSTER 9
Multimedia Representation.
POSTER 10
Dance Representation.
The second part of the session, held the next day, involved an active discus
sion of the processes of representation and whether what had been presented
were, or were not, research findings. Did these various forms so alter the nature of
the endeavor that it was no longer recognized by the community as "research"?
One of the panelists referred to the work of philosopher Nelson Goodman on
defining truth. Goodman proposed that in place of the conventional idea of
absolute truth, we use the notion of "rightness of fie' to determine whether
something is accurate and appropriate to what it represents. Goodman described
three types of "fie': of the medium with its message, of the medium with how it
is used, and of the medium with its audience. Thus the idea is that truth or "fit"
is a matter of correspondence among what is being said, how it is said, and how
it is received by the audience. Goodman's three dimensions of the fit of represen
tation to the content are similar to the three aspects of genre: Medium with mes
sage addresses form; medium with use addresses purpose; and medium with
audience addresses social context. This tripartite tension means that there can
not be an absolute determination of truth, but rather there is a constant judg
ment of standard and how the representation fits with the content, given our
perceptions and experience. As I argued in Chapter 1, the "discipline" of the
research inquiry depends both on its internal organization, or the "discipline"
of its method, and on the "disciplines" or fields in which the research intends to
take part. These latter disciplines have standards, or "warrants of truth,"
On disciplined
inquiry, see
Chapter 1,
pp.8-13.
GOING PUBLIC
155
against which the" rightness of fit," or the genre, of the research is assessed. Thus,
presenting data becomes a question of the best fit in its representation, which in
turn is a question of genre, and ultimately of voice and social impact. Choices
in how you present research data are decisions about what you say, how you say
it, to whom, and who may be willing to listen to or read what you present.
ecause it is not yet a firmly established genre, and because the overall archi
tecture of educational research is shifting, teacher-research can offer multi
ple choices in representation. While you may not wish to engage in the range
of options used in the presentation at the American Educational Research
Association meeting, it is nevertheless worth considering the variety potentially
available. I want to outline four kinds of research presentations, keeping in mind
that there are many others and that the rightness of the fit between the under
standings and their presentation is a judgment made by the teacher-researcher
and responded to by his or her audience. The four kinds are interactive presen
tation, virtual presentation, performed presentation, and written presentation.
Interactive presentation involves displaying research tindings in ways in
which the audience can publicly interact with them. Common forms of interac
tive presentation include poster sessions, panel or individual oral presentations,
and teacher-research conferences. These formats bring the presentation and the
audience together in a spontaneous and unscripted way. In choosing this format
the teacher-researcher is encouraging interaction and discussion with his or her
audience. Because the teacher-researcher must be there in person, these presen
tations can be exploratory and open-ended, allowing both presenter and public
to probe the understandings that are put forward. The displays are usually spon
taneous and engaging, but can generally reach only limited audiences. The
emphasis is on making public the process of the research and its results, and
thus creating entry to the whole inquiry. Since the interaction between teacher
researcher and audience can become a means to explore and expand the work
itself, interactive presentations can also offer a way to comment, on multiple
levels, on the process of research and the resulting understandings.
In contrast, virtual presentation does not allow for such direct interaction
between the research process, findings, and the audience. Virtual presentations,
such as videotape or multimedia, capture portions of data as they are, and allow
the audience to hear and see learners and learning processes more directly.
Students talking about or showing their work, for example, can convey learn
ing in ways that secondhand reports may not. Virtual presentations can thus LlC
quite powerful precisely because they bring the participants and the site of the
research directly to the audience. They can reach large audiences simultaneoll
ly and can easily be repeated. However, these presentations are circumscribed I
their virtual-and often technological-nature. Given the media used, it can be
difficult to comment on the process of research and understandings simultane
ously. Thus virtual presentations generally put less emphasis on how the
research was done and more on particular aspects of the results.
In a way, performed presentation blends the strengths of interactive and vir
tual formats. Performed presentations can include readers' theater, narrative or
B
Public
presentations of
teache r-research:
four formats
156
poetry read aloud, and other types of staged events. They bring the presentation
and the audience together in an organized or orchestrated manner. Like inter
active presentations, this format is live, human, and interpersonal. Like virtual
presentations, however, it is scripted and structured in advance. These displays
can be powerfully engaging and can reach large audiences simultaneously;
because they are planned in advance, they are more easily repeated. They can
also comment on the research process and the understandings within the same
format. However, the formality of performance can make it difficult to engage
interactively with the audience, and thus to pursue the exploration and expan
sion of ideas.
The fourth format, written presentation, is probably the most common and
the most self-evident. It is also highly codified: Take a look at the number of arti
cles, books, and style manuals on how to write up research. Like any form of
writing, it involves many subtle decisions and choices. Given the level of norms
and definitions that surround it, written presentation of research is also
arguably the most complex and the most widely accessible. Perhaps because it
is the most classic and permanent form of representation, the written format
involves significant decisions and choices in which genre is most clearly evident.
With any presentation of understandings, but particularly in writing, there are'
choices to make of purpose, of audience or social context, and of form. In deter
mining the purpose you are asking the question: Why am I saying what I am
saying? What do I want to accomplish? Closely linked to these answers about
your purpose are questions of audience and social setting: To whom do I want
to address my findings? Where do I want them to "land"? How would I like my
understandings to be understood? The latter two questions examine the possi
On what sounds
ble impact of your work on those who may see or read it. If, for example, you
"scientific, "
want to convince school or district administrators of a finding, you may want see Investigations
you want to reach parents or colleagues, it may well be that a case study narra
tive will carry more impact. The point is that there is no one way of writing up
your research; written presentation always involves a potential choice of form.
Ann Carlson
GOING PUBLIC
157
teacher and student sort through school life while working on the English language.
At some point in our discussions, Carlson told me of the poetry she wrote and
how sometimes it seemed the most appropriate way to voice these experiences.
Account 7.2: Ann Carlson
"The Card Game"
latest international
crisis.
for a smile,
a familiar joke.
r can't
it for him or
a joke, a language
Such
&1
158
these two different forms of presentation of the same account interact with
social context. The Investigation has two parts> marked (lA)/(1B) and (2A)/(2B);
each part should be done with two different audiences.
If you are working with colleagues> do the Investigation alone and
Written presentation
lA. As a poem: Give Ann Carlson's poem, "The Card Game," to some
one to read. Choose the reader(s) thoughtfully, making note of back
ground, experience in schools, and experience teaching (if applicable).
Introduce "The Card Game" as "a poem about teaching."
After the reader(s) finish, probe the reaction by asking:
What did you learn about the particular teaching situation?
What is the author trying to accomplish? What is her purpose?
Would you call this poem a "research account"? Why or
why not?
lB. As a research report: Now give "The Card Game" to a different audi
ESL classroom."
why not?
Performed presentation:
lA. As a poem: Read "The Card Game" aloud to one (or more) people
who have not read it before. The aim is to see how an audience
responds to the poem when it is performed.
Introduce "The Card Game" as "a poem about teaching."
After you have performed it, ask the audience members how they
GOING PUBLIC
159
why not?
After reading the poem aloud to them, ask members of this audience
why not?
--
--
DESCRIPTION-ANALYSIS-INTERPRETATION
Written
presentations of
teacher-research:
Options and
choices
For example,
Fryling,
"Chico's Story"
(Account 7.1 A
and 7.1 B,
pp.148-149.)
Writing up your research is a bit like dining at an elaborate buffet. There are
multiple choices available, guided primarily by your purpose, or appetite, and
influenced by your audience and who you are dining with. Harry Wolcott, an
anthropologist who has worked extensively in educational settings, has written
a good deal about the choices one can make in preparing written presentations
of research. In Transforming Qualitative Data (1994) Wolcott draws on his
decades of experience with qualitative research to layout the processes by Vvllich
one can "do something with data," or move from the data to making them pub
lic. Wolcott (1994) sketches a series of circles that expand through t-hrec distinct
and thoroughly interconnected layers of making sense of the daLL He eel lIs the
first layer, description, or letting "the data speak for themselves":
One way of doing something with data in rendering an account is to
stay close to the data as originally recorded. The final account may
draw long excerpts from one's field notes, or repeat informants'
words so that informants themselves seem to tell their ,)rie'). The
strategy of this approach is to treat descriptive data as Llct .
that the data speak for themselves. (p. 10)
Wolcott contrasts description with analysis, "a second wav I\f
anr1
reporting data that builds upon [description] ... to expand,
[ 'llC[
the
purely descriptive account ... to identify key factors and n:l1
lip" . d), It))
Analysis operates, he notes, in a "careful and systematic way" to create a metl
level around the data that attempts to show why things are <1'-; they arc. The
third way of dealing with data, which Wolcott labels interpretation, take~
sis to a broader frame by connecting the data to the wider world of purposes
and reasons. To work on this layer, however, the researcher must sometimes "fill
in the gaps." Wolcott (1994) says that interpretation
160
tional data [as description]. The goal is to make sense of what goes
Ways of
describing data;
Wolcott (1994)
1. Chronological order draws on the order of events in time to tell the story.
2. Researcher or narrator order relates the account in "the way the story
immediate data and the larger context. In a study built around a spe
takes the reader into the action and description in the data, using an
account. The full story is told through the lens of these events.
6. Plot and characters tells the story through its main characters and
their interactions, allowing them to drive the account. Like (4) and
(5), this device has a telescopic quality that brings the story into focus
sidering how the groups are portrayed, especially if you may be con
task in that the trick is to not let the framework drive the descriptive
GOING PUBLIC
161
You can read Wolcott's suggestions in a number of ways. They layout possibil
ities for how you might approach describing what you find and, in so doing, may
stimulate you to go beyond the obvious or familiar ways of constructing your
account. They also suggest that different inquiries and the data they produce will
lend themselves to different forms of telling. This is, as I have said, a key deci
sion in the whole issue of genre. But beyond these points, f'think Wolcott's sug
gestions point to the creativity than can be involved in making a public account
of your work. Description makes public the landscape of your research; often
that is exactly all you want to do. However, depending on your inquiry and your
purpose, you may want or need to go beneath the surface, which then brings in
analysis as a way of telling your data.
Turning to analysis, Wolcott also has suggestions based on his experience, as
he discusses how to construct an analysis based in findings. Here again Wolcott
(1994, pp. 31-36) offers his thinking in ten suggestions:
1. Highlight your findings: Stay close to the basic themes and relation
ships that you have found in data analysis and use data to tell them
convincingly.
2. Display your findings: Use data displays to orient the analysis toward
the visual dimensions of your data, both concretely (for example, pho
tos, students' work, or videos) and abstractly, as you represent pat
terns in clear ways. This refers to the work on dat8 displays in
Chapter 5, p. 108-112, 118-119.
3. Follow and report "systematic" procedures: At times, tj-;~ procr>dun'
of the inquiry is what you have to report, because the findings are dis
parate or inconclusive. This means that you tell the stor" of /7()!f' V011
did the research, as opposed to what you found. This Glil he a ,ntical
undertaking because, by doing so, you are opening up ! ''<H.lling (111d
learning through the teacher-research process.
4. Flesh out the analytical framework that guided data collection: Like
(3), you are telling the research process. In this case, you foclls on the
framework that drives your inquiry and tell its story by linking data
to the framework. (See 8, "Following an analytical framework," In
ways of describing data, p.161.)
162
GOING PUBLIC
163
If you are working with others, you can do this part by yourself and
then compare notes. Or you can take one person!s data/displays
(providing you are all adequately familiar with them), and use this
material as a basis for reviewing Wolcott's suggestions.
Validity
184
Wolcott outlines a series of choices that can guide you in "doing something with
data." These choices are shaped both by what you have to say and who you
intend your audience to be. How you represent your work and the understand
ings that result from it are circumscribed, as we said in discussing genre, by
questions of purpose, form, and audience or social context. Underlying these
choices of representation is the issue of how believable your research will be.
This is the basic demand of validity. Validity asks the questions "How could I
be wrong?" and "How might I have misconstrued the evidence?" Questioning
the validity of your work pushes you to reexamine both your understandings
and the research processes that produced them. Thus judgments of validity lie
at the intersection of the inquiry and the disciplined way in which you have
conducted it. As Lee Shulman (1988) points out in discussing research as disci
plined inquiry, people argue about two basic things in research: whether the
findings are valid and whether they have been arrived at in a valid manner.
When people argue the validity of a research account, they are questioning the
credibility of its findings based either on the reasonableness of the inquiry
Does it make sense to ask such questions?-or on the care and methodicalness
of the research processes-How was the research conducted? Was it carried out
in a disciplined manner?
Validity is about establishing credibility in research. Credibility is central to
creating worthwhile knowledge: You want other people to believe the under
standings you have arrived at. The validity of a research project speaks to the
question of how this credibility is established. By what standards is the research
to be believed? Validity is of regular concern in educational research for a num
ber of reasons. First, educational research is generally "applied," as opposed to
"pure," which means it is intimately tied to action. If, for example, a large-scale
research project demonstrates the effectiveness of a certain reading program, it
is more than likely that that program will be adopted in other school systems
based on the research findings. Thus, if the research is valid, if others find it cred
ible, it may well trigger actions that have an impact on other people. Second;
education is a field in which everyone has some experience, based on having
been a student. Therefore, people often have opinions and claim some expertise.
To counteract this common knowledge, educational research has to be credible.
The research on retention in grade provides a clear example of this phenom
enon (e.g. Smith and Shepard, 1987). Holding students back for a year, or reten
tion in grade, is a widespread practice that dates back, in the United States, to
the establishment of age-graded schools early in this century. There has been an
abiding belief that if students are not" ready" to be promoted, they should not
be moved on to the next grade. This readiness has several dimensions: There is
academic readiness, the ability to handle the grade-level content; there is social
readiness, the ability to interact successfully with peers; and there is intellectual
readiness, which is connected to general mental ability and maturation. Reten
tion in grade is a common practice in American schools; it is also one of the most
widely studied aspects of schooling in the United States. Each year thousands of
children are held back in U.S. classrooms, and researchers have sought to find
out whether the practice does, indeed, make a difference to their learning.
Overall, the research has been quite conclusive that retention in grade does not
have a significant positive academic or social impact on students. Yet despite the
validity of the research, parents, teachers, administrators, and school boards
continue to believe that retention is solid educational policy and practice. It
seems to be common knowledge, based on common experience, that staying
back and repeating a grade "works," and research has not been able to chal
lenge that belief.
Because research in education links to actions, and actions have consequences
for others beyond the research, and because educational research often has to
challenge popular beliefs founded in common experience, validity takes on a dif
ferent importance. These factors are doubly applicable in teacher-research, since
GOING PUBLIC
185
it can have immediate implications for actions taken in the classroom, and it can
challenge
common, status-quo assumptions in teaching and learning. Teacher
On education
as a disciplinary
research has to be credible; it has to be valid. The need is present and it is real.
But the question is, by what standards should this validity be assessed? Because,
community,
see Chapter 1,
as we said in Chapter 1, educational research in general, and teacher-research in
pp.1.0-13.
166
The
hermeneutic
paradigm:
Meaning and
meaningfulness
On first- and
second-order
orientations,
see Chapter 4,
p.65.
GOING PUBLIC
167
inquiry in this area? Think about the teachers who questioned the connection
pp. 188-191.
168
.'
Developing
alternative
explanations,
Hochschild
(1997)
169
170
that might lead to an explanation ("Perhaps employees are ... "), and
then what does she look for as meaningful actions to corroborate it
(" If this meaning were true, then ... ")?
Create two columns and for each explanation, list the meaning
Hochschild proposes, in one column, and, in the other column, the
meaningful actions that would follow if that meaning were true.
INTERNAL VALIDITY
While external validity is what most of the world worries about in assessing the
credibility of research findings, it is not the only concern. External validity is
about the implications of the research; internal validity is about the design and
the research process itself. Internal validity is generally divided into four areas:
descriptive validity, also called apparent or content validity; ecological validity,
which is also sometimes called instrumental or criterion validity; interpretive
validity, sometimes called concurrent or predictive validity; and theoretical or
construct validity (Kirk and Miller, 1986; Selinger and Shohamy, 1989). While
the terms may seem off-putting, the concepts are basic and sensible. DescriptivG
validity is about whether what you say or write reflects what you studied. For
example, if you say your study included seventh and eighth graders, and in fact
there were no actual data from the seventh graders, then this is an error of
description or content that should be readily apparent. Ecological validity
addresses whether the means of data collection and analysis capture the infor
mation that you need to address the research question. In this sense, does the
ecology of the study-its research questions, setting, data collection, and analy
ses-all fit together coherently? Are there problems with the instruments used
in data collection or the criteria used in analysis? If, for instance, you want to
investigate students' views of writing and you only look at what they write, but
you do not have them keep reflective journals or write about their writing, or you
do not interview them or give them a survey, you will have created issues of eco
logical validity. You will be looking at first-order data-their writing samples
for evidence of a second-order question-what they think about writing.
Interpretive validity has to do with findings. In his typology for analyzing
data, Wolcott distinguishes among description, analysis, and interpretation. As
you move from one to the next, you move farther from the immediate data to
build a larger view of what is happening. At this point, issues of interpretive
validity may enter in. If the elements of your findings do not fit together analyt
ically or if you are making jumps in logic or interpretation and prediction, your
findings can be weakened by these problems. Similarly, if the theory or ideas out
of which it is constructed are flawed, the whole research project may be built on
shaky ground; these issues are called theoretical or construct validity. These issues
are illustrated in the account that follows, a newspaper column written by the
late Albert Shanker, then president of the American Federation of Teachers.
In his column, Shanker discusses two contradictory research studies on the use
of tuition vouchers. In a tuition voucher program, the state or municipal gov
ernment pays the school tuition, in the form of vouchers, directly to parents so
that they can select the schools that they want their children to attend. The aim
Internal
Validity
GOING PUBLIC
111
of such programs is to create a "buyers' market" in which parents can choose the
kind of schooling-public, parochial, or private-they want for their children.
Proponents of vouchers argue that introducing economic competition will improve
public education; this is not a position shared by the national teachers' unions
however. Shanker discusses two major studies on the use of tuition vouchers in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a city that pioneered this approach. In these studies, and
in the general debate over vouchers, success-or lack of it-is generally framed
in terms of improvements in students' test scores. The two studies, it turns out,
used the same data set, but they reached different-indeed, opposite-conclu
sions. The first study, by John Witte, showed no appreciable benefit of vouchers,
while the second study, by Paul E. Peterson, reanalyzed Witte's data to show that
students who attended private schools on vouchers did benefit. Since both
researchers used the same data, the difference in the studies had to be found in the
analysis and interpretation of those data. Challenging these aspects of the
research involves raising questions of at least internal, and possibly external
validity, which is what Shanker, as teachers' union president, did in his column.
FROM "WHERE WE STAND"
An Important Question
17~
GOING PUBLIC
173
Suggested Readings
There is a great deal written on genre, both in writing and in research. On the
former, I'd suggest Sunny Hyon's fine 1996 summary "Genre in three traditions:
Implications for ESL"(TESOL Quarterly 30 (4): pp. 693-722). On the latter,
Clifford Geertz's 1980 article, "Blurred genres: The reconfiguration of social
thought" (American Scholar, 49) is a classic introduction to widening research
GOING PUBLIC
175
paradigms in social science. The last chapter, "Afterword: The passion of por
trCliture" of Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot's book The Good High School: Portraits
in Character and Culture (New York: Basic Books, pp. 369-378, 1983) puts
Geertz's discussion of "blurred genres" in the context of her research in schools;
it is extremely readable.
On questions of validity in teacher-research and in educational research more
generally, Yvonna Lincoln's article "Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative
and interpretative research" (Qualitative Inquiry 1 (3): pp. 275-289, 1995) pro
vides a very good overview of the issues. Elliot Eisner's article "The promise and
the perils of alternative forms of data representation" (Educational Researcher
26 (6): pp. 4-9, 1997) broadens the discussion to examine the boundaries of
what is considered data in such work. My chapter, "Redefining the relationship
between research and what teachers know," in Kathleen Bailey and David Nunan's
edited volume Voices from the Language Classroom. (New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 88-115, 1995) looks at how teaching is represented in var
ious research traditions.
176
OF TEACHER-RESEARCH
On work at
the hyphen,
see Chapter 1,
pp.5-8.
177
don't learn, and what and how teachers teach them. Thus, while teaching and
research both engage what is happening in classrooms, and so they share to a
degree a common purpose, there has been a great difference in their relative sta
tus and prestige. Efforts to reframe a nonhierarchical relationship have general
ly concentrated on making teaching more like research. With some notable
exceptions, such as exploratory teaching (Allwright and Lenzuen, 1997), action
research (e.g., Stringer, 1996), or teacher-as-researcher (e.g., Cochran-Smith and
Lytle, 1993), the general approach has been to argue that teachers need to adopt
the perspective of research in order to bridge the gap. But moving from lesson
plans, activities, and students to research-oriented questions, data analysis, and
findings can transform both the teacher and the classroom. Thus it is possible
that the daily, ordinary activity of teaching will be sacrificed in order to docu
ment and understand it. I have argued that combining teaching and researching
by working at the hyphen actually transforms both functions and the activities
one does to carry them out.
I
Four
dimensions
of teacher
research
Figure 8.1:
178
I have called these dimensions doing, seeing, telling, and valuing. In a sense, they
serve as points of a compass that orient the underlying attitude and work in that
quadrant of the cycle. In another sense, each dimension (and its attitude) calls
on the teacher-researcher to playa different role: as activist, anthropologist, sto
ryteller, or theoretician, respectively. These roles frame the four underlying ori
entations that are shared by teaching and research. In elaborating them and in
tracing their connections, I want to sketch out the territory in which teaching
and research coexist and suggest how they may better be brought together.
Ken Heile
effective practice activities with senior and junior high school stu
dents. To start off the session, the graduate student teachers had gen
erated several questions, the first of which was "What factors do you
work as a church deacon. The workshop had been led by a man who
was well known for successfully integrating music into the service
leader, Heile said, how he got people to sing in church. The work
shop leader replied, "It all starts in the parking lot, before they even
Heile told the seminar, that it's all part of an attitude, an attitude of
179
"That's how I think about practice," Heile continued. "It starts with
how students feel about the class, and that starts with how you inter
act with them in the hall, on the stairs, in class, and so on. That is
the foundation on which practice is built."
He went on to talk about how he had learned not to limit how he
thought about teaching simply to the classroom. He recognized, over
the course of his career, that the bells and the closed doors that sep
arated the 42 minutes of his Spanish class from the rest of the school
day were artificial boundaries. He also acknowledged that early in
his teaching career, the challenge was to get through class unscathed.
From that perspective, planning practice activities was a matter of
creativity, and managing them was a matter of stamina. Over time,
however, as he looked at what did and didn't work in his teaching,
Heile was drawn inexorably into the wider picture. "But that makes
you a teacher all the time you're at school," one student teacher
reacted, "You're on all the time from 7:15 in the morning to 3:30 in
the afternoon ... even when you run into the kids around town."
DOING AND THE ACTIVIST
Doing as an
orie ntation
180
lift the shawl of shame" from what is not known, misunderstood, or confusing
in teaching, and thus to make those things more public so they can be improved.
While these norms of conservatism, and the conspiracy of certainty that stems
from them, can work against exploration, engaging in a wider and deeper view
of teaching is well worth the risk. Carol Brooks, a high school Spanish teacher,
explains the shift from certainty to not-knowing in this way:
I realize what used to make me tense in the classroom. It was always
trying to beat the clock and always feeling like someone was telling
me, "You have to fit this, this, and this into this lesson." It was me
that was doing it to myself, but nobody ever stopped to tell me,
"That's okay. Maybe if you listen to these kids or watch these kids a
little more closely, you'd see that what they are doing is plenty." To
take the questions they ask more seriously as a guide to where they
are with the material.
In questioning what she didn't know about her students, Brooks created a climate
of inquiry in her work and became a potential investigator of her own world. Her
statement captures two distinct types of doing: One involves getting the job done
and the other, engaging more fully in what is happening as you do it. Brooks
expresses this first type of doing, on which the functioning of schools is built, as
"beating the clock ... [trying] to fit this, this, and this into this lesson." She talks
about the second as "listening and watching kids a little more closely," and "tak
ing the questions they ask as a guide to where they are with the material."
The doing of teacher-research has both meanings. But it is not so much a mat
ter of replacing the first type of doing with the second as it is recasting or trans
forming how you go about getting the work done so that it includes-or even
requires-the engagement of not-knowing, which is the second type of doing.
Subsuming the doing of action within the doing of engagement in that action is
what articulating an inquiry is all about. Speculating, wondering, puzzling, and
forming questions can all carry teaching beyond itself, toward the attitude of not
knowing Duckworth talks about. But this engaged form of doing must be sup
ported by another orientation of looking closely, gathering information, and
probing what you see. As Brooks puts it, "If you listen to these kids or watch
these kids a little more closely, you'd see that what they are doing is plenty."
Carol Brooks
Doing as action;
doing as
engagement
In his pioneering work early in this century, anthropologist Franz Boas argued
that his contemporaries had gotten the process backwards. Boas said that an
anthropologist could not understand a group of people, a community, or indeed
an entire culture only by looking from the outside in. He wrote "If it is our seri
ous purpose to understand the thoughts of a people, the whole analysis of expe
rience must be based on their concepts, not ours" (1943, p. 314). Nowhere is
this statement more true than in understanding the culture of teaching and
learning in classrooms and schools. The aspects that non-teachers see and choose
to tell a bout teaching are interesting, but they are told from the outside in, which
anthropologists and ethnographers call the etic perspective. In contrast, "under
standing the thoughts of a people based on their concepts," to paraphrase Boas,
Seeing
as an
orientation
see Chapter 4,
pp. 69 -70
181
On seeing in
teaching, see
Paley (1986) and
Carini (1979).
18~
Seeing
and seeing
differently
Cunningham: ... Not just if the movie is good, but the way the cam
era works. It's different from the stage. When I started working with
a camera, I was absolutely amazed.
183
that what they are doing is plenty." You need to see your own work for your
self, as Paley says. It is discipline, in the sense of method and structure, that
enables you to engage in seeing differently that which is familiar. Taking some
one else's word for things will probably not transform your own point of view.
These are the two senses of seeing involved in teacher-research: Seeing for
yourself, as Paley talks about, and seeing differently, as Cunningham describes.
They are intertwined aspects of the same process. Just as you must do, in the
sense of activity, in order to do, in the sense of engagement, you must see for
yourself in order to see what is going on in your classroom in a different light.
The public face of these processes of doing and seeing lie in how they are told.
TELLING AND THE STORYTELLER
Telling as an
orientation
Telling teaching is, to use Paley's phrase, a way "to find the meaning of the
scenes in which teachers and students find themselves." When teachers talk
about their work, they often do so in stories; they portray the storied nature of
what they know, and how they see and interact with their world. Ken Heile's
story (Account 8.1) a bout the choral workshop and how singing in church starts
in the parking lot is a case in point. His story can be heard~n a number of ways:
as a personal anecdote, as one teacher's perspective on an aspect of his work, or
even as a truism with a moral-if you treat students decently, they will want to
participate in class. To its listeners, the story may bring new or reconfirmed
insights into teaching, or they may question whether it says anything they didn't
already know. All of these are responses to this particular narrative as a story of
one teacher's practice. Beneath these reactions, however, lie qualities of stories
in general, particularly when they are understood as expressing what someone
knows about a complex activity like teaching.
In accepting the Nobel prize for literature, the writer Toni ]\;1.orriso11
began with the following statement: "Narrative has never been
enter
tainment for me. It is, I believe, one of the principal ways in which we absorb
knowledge" (p.7). Morrison observes that telling stories is d W;1.V ot
and sustaining knowledge; by telling stories about the world, we cumc tu knm\
it in certain ways. We weave values and meanings into a cloth of perception,
absorbing knowledge both by telling and by listening to stories. This is particu
larly true of teaching, where teachers' understandings often take the form of
narratives. Freema Elbaz is an Israeli researcher who has studied teachers' nar
ratives as manifestations of personal and professional knowledge. Flbaz ( 1992;
explains stories as knowledge in this way:
Initially, a "story" seems to be a personal matter: There is concern
for the individual narrative of a teacher and what the teacher herselL
and what a colleague or researcher, as privileged eavesdrol,!,cr~,
learn from it. In the course of engaging with stories however. \VC are
beginning to discover that the process is a social one: The story may
be told for personal reasons but it has an impact on (S "ludience
which reverberates out in many directions at once. (p. 423)
On genre,
see Chapter 7,
pp. 150-154.
11)4
Elbaz and Morrison distill some of the critical qualities of stories: That they
express knowledge, although they may appear as simply entertainment, and that
stories depend on, and indeed, create their audiences. Stories have plots; they
unfold in ways that are surprising and that sometimes defy expected or conven
tional logic. In reading Heile's story, your first reaction might have been, "But
what does singing in church have to do with practice activities in the high school
foreign language classroom?" Perhaps you then saw the link he was making; a
link that you mayor may not have accepted as valid, but a link that evidently
made sense to Heile as the storyteller. In this way, stories are uniquely coherent;
they begin by making sense to their tellers, and usually end up making sense to
their listeners or readers. In this way, stories are, as Elbaz points out, fundamen
tally social. As they are read or told, stories engage other people in webs of under
standing. They thus exist in and through a social context. This social dimension
of stories may reflect the fact that much of teachers' knowledge is built on inter
personal relationships with students, colleagues, parents, administrators, and so
on (e.g., Ben-Peretz, 1995). Like others who work in what are known as the
"helping professions," medical personnel or child-care workers, for example,
teachers are primarily concerned with the worlds of others. Thus, when what
teachers know about teaching is publicly told, it makes sense that it is framed in
the social, interactive form of a story, expressing the unique logic of a specific
teaching situation and through it the broad coherence of shared professional,
knowledge (Carter, 1993).
On narrative
and personal
theories, see
Johnson,
Teachers
Understanding
Teaching (1998).
Contrast
Chapter 6,
Wagner Veillard,
Ken Heile.
185
Teaching
reflectively and
researching
teaching
Herein lies the distinction I would draw between teaching reflectively and
researching teaching. Teaching reflectively, examining your practice to better
understand what you do and its impact, depends on doing, in Duckworth's
sense of engagement, and on seeing, as Paley used the term. However, teaching
reflectively does not require that
practitioner use a particular form of disci
pline or methodicalness to see what is going on, in Merce Cunningham's sense
of seeing differently. Nor does it suggest that by telling the results of their work,
reflective practitioners will necessarily contribute to knowledge of teaching and
learning. That is to not say that reflective teachers are not disciplined in their
thinking and analyses of what they do; they certainly are and can be. Nor is it
to say that reflective teaching cannot be interactive and collaborative; it cer
tainly can. However, at its core reflective teaching is individual; it focuses on the
practitioner developing a clearer and deeper understanding of learners, the
learning process, and how teaching can support it.
Teacher educators Kenneth Zeichner and Daniel Liston write about
American philosopher John Dewey, whose work in the early part of this century
launched the idea of reflection in education. Dewey, in Zeichner and Liston's
words, "defines reflective action as that which involves active, p~rsistent, and careful
consideration of any belief or practice in light of reasons that support it and the
further consequences to which it leads" (1996, p. 9), Like teacher-research, reflec
tive action can be directed in many areas of education, from what is happening
in classrooms, to curricula and materials, to conditions of teaching and school
ing. Fundamental to reflective teaching, however, is the study of learning and
learners. Dewey (1933) outlines this essential focus in his book How We Think:
The teacher must have his mind free to observe the mental respons
es and movement of the student .... The problem of the pupils is
found in subject matter; the problem of teachers is what the minds
of pupils are doing with the subject matter. Unless the leacher's
mind has mastered the subject matter in advance, unless it is thor
oughly at home in it, using it unconsciously without need o
thought, he will not be free to give full time and attention to
observation and interpretation of the pupils' intellectual reactions.
(p. 275, emphasis added)
Dewey goes on to
the kinds of information that may show "the pupils'
intellectual reactions." Interestingly enough, he describes what, in our terms, arc
first-order data, as possible evidence, in italics, of the students' p"f'Cepriolls:
Dewey (1933):
Three attitudes
towards
reflective action
18'
On narrative
and personal
theories, see
Johnson,
Teachers
Understanding
Teaching (1998).
187
Valuing as
an orientation
On teaching as
a disciplinary
community,
see Chapter 1,
pp. ~O-11.
188
Valuing teaching knowledge has two facets, the public and the private, that
intersect and build on each other. In Chapter 1 we talked about the fact that
teaching is not a discipline, in the sense of a field of endeavor engaged in by a
community to generate knowledge. Thus teaching does not constitute a disci
plinary community in the same way that, for example, biology or psychology
does. Within these fields there can certainly be subcommunities, each of which
may hold specific "principles of regularity and canons of evidence," to use Lee
Shulman's term (1988). But the subgroups within a field have more affinity with
one another than they do with groups who are not in their field. Microbiologists
and marine biologists share more with each other than they do with cognitive
psychologists, for example. Pluralism within a disciplinary community can reen
force its fundamental orientation toward what matters in the world. Teaching is
not a disciplinary community; it has not yet developed shared ways of creating
and assessing knowledge. This is the issue of power and status. Because teach
ers do not formally acknowledge what they know about teaching, other groups
are unlikely to do so. Instead, teachers often import ways of knowing teaching
from other arenas; research in general is just such a f6'rm of importation.
Research, as a way of understanding teaching and learning, is appealing because
it seems to offer a more organized, structured, and coherent view of the world,
compared to the personal, idiosyncratic, and social ways of understanding
teaching that are indigenous to teachers' lives. Research is "disciplined";
ers' local understandings seem not to be.
This disciplined perspective that research can bring to teaching has clearly
been attractive. It can help teachers break out of their professional isolation, and
it brings a certain status. There is a cachet to research findings as a form of
knowledge that stories of practice have yet to achieve. As noted in Chapter 1,
however, research itself has not always been the highly structured approach to
investigating and understanding the world that we think of today. Indeed, what
we characterize as research knowledge is a relatively recent phenomenon that
has been
since the mid-seventeenth century. It may well be that teach
ing in general, and language teaching in particular, are on the cusp of a transi
tion as they move to defining their own disciplinary forms of knowledge. In this
transition, there will continue to be vying forms of telling what teaching is, and
more critically there will be differing views of what can and should be seen in
the classroom and by whom.
It would be naive to think that teaching is somehow insulated from the attempts
of other disciplines to define what is important and worth knowing about schools,
enter
classrooms, subject matter, and learning. Teaching is such a central
prise that many people outside the classroom will try to define what it should or
shouldn't be. Because we are in the midst of the highly political landscape of edu
cation reform and social policy, teachers need to move consciously to articulate
their ways of understanding the classroom, and thus to defining their own forms
of knowledge. This first aspect of valuing is its social facet.
Valuing, in a social sense, refers to a group who entertain common views on
what is important and believable; in terms of research, we have called such groups
"disciplinary communities." However, communities do not act; individuals do.
How, then, does valuing become individual? In his work on narrative and how
people talk about their experiences, medical researcher Elliot Mishler has grap
pled with questions of how narratives can be evaluated within the broader
frame of scientific research. In so doing he has tackled the problem of why we
should believe in nonconventional forms, such as stories, as knowledge. Mishler
(1990), who was mentioned in the last chapter (p. 168), argues that validity is a
judgment of trustworthiness that leads to action. He thus makes two important
points relevant to this discussion about how we value what is seen and told. If
validity is a judgment about trustworthiness, then the basic question is: Can I
rely on the particular study as the basis of my own work? An essential measure
of trustworthiness, and hence of validity, is action: Do I trust this study's find
ings enough to act on them? When cast in this frame, the basic challenge to
teacher-research is who will see its understandings as legitimate bases for
action? This second aspect of valuing is its individual or personal facet.
When valuing is cast in terms of trustworthiness, it often collides with the
issue of generalizability in research. While the findings of teacher-research may
be deemed trustworthy enough to trigger individual actions, can they be extend
ed to other teaching contexts? Are they generalizable? Here the comments of a
statistician are interesting. In a classic article titled "Beyond the Two Disciplines
of Scientific Psychology," statistician Lee Cronbach talked about the convergence
of quantitative and hermeneutic approaches in psychology. On the issue of gen
eralizability, Cronbach (1975), noted "When we give proper weight to local con
ditions, any generalization is a working hypothesis, not a conclusion" (p. 125).
Teacher-research is inherently local. The work generally investigates a particu
lar aspect of teaching and learning through the examination of a specific class
room and group of students, within one teacher's experience. Thus the findings
that result cannot presume to be universal. This is not a weakness, but a strength.
Teacher-research simply "gives proper weight to local conditions." Its findings
are, to borrow from Cronbach, "working hypotheses, not conclusions."
This is the central dilemma in valuing teacher-research. On the one hand, indi
vidual understandings may well lead to different ways of doing things and to more
effective actions. This valuing I would call valuing in experience. As you read this
book, for example, as a practicing teacher you will evaluate the various teacher
research accounts here against your experience. If, then, you do something differ
ently in your teaching because of an account-perhaps you rethink the success or fail
ure of an activity, or you approach a situation with a new or different perspective
you will be making a judgment of validity, as Mishler defined it. You will have
found something in the account trustworthy enough to base an action on it. When
you make such judgments, whether positive or not, you grant these accounts by
teacher-researchers the status of research findings. As you value them as ways of
telling teaching, they become part of your individual knowledge of teaching.
These understandings do not create generally recognized forms of knowledge
that can shape the policies and practices that make for effective education, howev
er. They cannot create this form of knowledge unless and until they are valued by
the teaching community. This valuing I would call valuing in community. When
student teachers and fellow teachers in the graduate seminar value Ken Heile's story
of practice as a basis for action, they create a teaching community around that
On trust
worthiness,
see Chapter 7
pp. 164-175.
Valuing in
experience;
valuing in
community
189
knowledge. Because the community is small, however, the impact is limited. This
raises the question of how local knowledge can garner the support and action of
those beyond the immediacy of its setting. The teaching knowledge of individual
practitioners is so deeply contexted, so strongly influenced by social norms at the
building and community levels, so predicated on their beliefs about what works for
students in their classrooms, that generating from it a wider professional knowl
edge base is very difficult. I believe that these orientations of telling and valuing are
critical in transforming the dilemma of this private-public dynamic.
Figure 8.2:
190
The accounts of
Wagner Veillard's
work are in
Chapters
3 and 6.
4'
191
Cathy Fleischer
(1995)
standy living their research in their classrooms, there are infinite places to begin
again and again. There are also multiple opportunities to put the study on hold
for a while, or even to abandon it. All of these interruptions have good reasons,
but none of them make the inquiry and its questions go away. Teacher-research
is work at the hyphen; once you realize that perspective, it becomes a way of
thinking about and working with what is going on in the classroom.
In this way teacher-research is propelled by both its content and its process.
Whatever engages you as an inquiry will continue to pull you forward as you want
to understand the topic more thoroughly. But the way of thinking, the research
process itself, creates its own momentum. These dual sources turn the process
and carry the cycle along. Cathy Fleischer (1995), a veteran teacher-researcher,
describes the momentum this way:
Because teacher-research is more than a method-is, in fact, a way of
thinking about issues of power and representation and storytelling and
much more-its very existence and development are dependent upon
our understanding not only of the particular issue we are researching
but also of the complexities of the research process itself. My own
dynamic development as a teacher-researcher has depended not only
on my interest in my students' literacy (the subject I have chosen to
pursue) but also on my constant reevaluation and rethinking of what
it means to conduct research in the way that I do. (p. 4)
Fleischer talks about the source of her inquiry-her students' literacy-and the
fact of engaging in an inquiry on that issue-"what it means to conduct research
in the way that I do"-as the two foundations of her work. These sources are
clearly intertwined, as the content supports the process, and the process pushes
further into the content. So her teaching and researching come together to focus
on her students' learning.
192
Gandhi goes on to layout the balance between the certainty of action and the
speculation of inquiry:
I am far from claiming any finality or infallibility about my conclu
sions. One claim I do indeed make, and it is this. For me they appear
to be absolutely correct and seem, for the time being, to be finaL For
Suggested Readings
I encourage those who are entering into teacher-research to look at Eleanor
Duckworth's great collection of essays on teaching, The Having of Wonderful
Ideas and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning (New York: Teachers College
Press, 1987). I also recommend any of Vivian Paley's work: Mollie is Three
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), Wally's Stories (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1981), The Boy Who Would Be a Helicopter: The Uses
of Storytelling in the Classroom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1990), and particularly her article "On listening to what children say" (Harvard
Educational Review 56 (2): pp. 122-131, 1986). Another interesting example
of genre and research roles is K. D. Samway and D. Taylor's chapter, "The col
lected letters of two collaborative researchers (in Delicate Balances:
Collaborative Research in Language Education, edited by S. Huddleston and J.
Lindfors. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, pp. 67-92, 1993).
On story and narrative in research, Kathy Carter's article "The place of story
in the study of teaching and teacher education" (Educational Researcher 22 (1):
pp. 5-12, 18, 1993) gives an excellent summary.
There has been a tremendous amount written recently on reflective teaching,
not all of it particularly good. I would suggest Kenneth Zeichner and Daniel
Liston's short and readable book Reflective Teaching: An Introduction
(Mahwah: Nl: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996) as the best entry into this literature.
Joe MacDonald's book Teaching: Making Sense of an Uncertain Craft (New
York: Teachers College Press, 1992), while not explicitly about reflective teach
ing, presents an excellent case of how teachers can transform their work through
self-examination.
BEYOND THE CYCLE: CHARTING THE DIMENSIONS OF TEACHER-RESEARCH.
193
Teacher-Research Accounts
CHAPTER THREE
teacher-research" .............................. 41
CHAPTER FOUR
41
CHAPTER FIVE
CHAPTER SIX
CHAPTER SEVEN
CHAPTER EIGHT
TEACHER-RESEARCH ACCOUNTS
195
List of Figures
CHAPTER Two
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER F OUR
. ..... 75
CHAPTER FIVE
. . 98
" 103
Figure 5.6
(DRAFTS
196
CHAPTER SIX
CHAPTER SEVEN
CHAPTER EIGHT
LIST OF FIGURES
197
Appendix A
Loop WRITING
Setting yourself up: Get yourself in a comfortable writing position; set a timer
or plan to watch the dock. Get a dean sheet of paper and a good writing instru
ment or set yourself up on the computer.
.1.. Think about the teaching you have done recently (in the past week or two),
Start writing about whatever comes to mind in this area and continue writ
ing without stopping for three (or up to five) minutes. Keep going even while
you're thinking. Don't let yourself pause. Don't read over what you have
written. Just keep writing for the allotted time. What you write should be
almost stream of consciousness.
2. Stop at the allotted time; shake out your writing hand. R<elax a minute; stand
up and stretch.
3. Reread what you have written. Underline the key ideas, words, phrases
whatever seems important and grabs you as you read.
4. Without thinking too much about it, choose one thing you've underlined in
Step 3 and write this word or phrase at the top of a dean sheet of paper or
in a new computer document. This now becomes the starting point for your
next loop.
5. Set the timer and start writing again for three (or up to five) minutes. Again,
keep yourself going even while you're thinking; don't pause all.l don't reread
yet. The aim is to keep writing for the allotted time.
Loop writing is best done in series of threes, so you may ,.\ant u) repeat the
process once more.
or
198
episodes. For example, if you are examining turn-taking, you may select
episodes when girls lead off in class discussion. Or you may select
episodes when several students seem to be competing for the floor. The
rationale of your choices is part of the discipline of your work.
At this stage you can also ask participants to view the "copy" tape to
give their emic views of the episodes. If you work in this way, it is use
ful to audiotape their comments about the episodes. You can thus use the
voice track from the "copy" tape to cross-reference participants' com
ments on the audiotape. This process is known as "stimulated recall."
Stage 3. Detailing: Describing the participation structures
Describe as carefully as you can who is doing what in each episode;
these are called "participation structures" (Cazden, 1988).Often you
can use a matrix or table to capture these interactions, or you can write
up field notes. You can also make notes on why you think things are hap
pening as they are. These are called "observer comments," and should
be clearly marked with a bracket or "OC" in the margin to distinguish
them from the descriptive notes.
Stage 4. Generalizing: Getting at principles of social organization
Based on the participation structures, outline statements for why peo
ple interact as they do. What reasons seem to underlie the surface
behaviors in the interactions? These are called "principles of social
organization." At this stage it is critical to triangulate what you believe
is happening by using other data and/or testing your ideas with partic
ipants. Keep in mind, however, that participants cannot always explain
why they do what they do. Therefore, you need to look for other forms
of data to support your findings.
Adapted from Erickson, E, and J. Shultz. 1981. "When is a context? Some issues
and methods in the analysis of social competence." In Ethnography and lan
guage in educational settings, edited by J. Green and C. Wallat. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishers.
See also van Lier, 1. 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London:
Longman, p. 65.
ApPENDIX A
199
..
c=
Cl
....j
>(')
::r:
COLLECTION
STRATEGIES
SOURCES
SCHEDULE
FIRST-CUT ANALYSIS
willi do with
the data? What is my
analysis?
(Investigation #4.5)
(Investigation #4.6)
:;>::l
I
;:0
m
Vl
m
>:;>::l
(')
::r:
(Investigation #4.7)
(Investigation #4.8)
>
....j
>
(Investigation #4.9)
'Tj
:;>::l
(')
o
~
t"'""
~ ~
~~
1--1
/:)
c:::
O~
:;>::l
-<
>-l
;:
~ ~
::e
:;>::l
><
m
Vl
>-l
>
~.
nO:;
::c
>
Z
Cl
::
....j
tr:!
::e
Appendix C
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Prepared
3. DISCUSSIONS................................... 204
with a clear discussion of the pros and cons of each technique. The book
general. The book has excellent examples, drawn from K-12 teaching in
the United States, as well as a clear discussion of using the various tech
niques described.
ApPENDIX
C 201
Definition:
Anecdotal records are quickly written notes about students, student behavior,
interactions with students, or other aspects of the teaching and learning in the
class that seem compelling and related to the inquiry. These notes are called
"anecdotal" bee a use the unit of reference is the "anecdote" or brief vignette.
For some researchers, the term "anecdotal" makes such data suspect and undis
ciplined; however, these notes can be immensely useful in exploring and devel
oping an inquiry. Over time, the notes can help the researcher to detect patterns
or themes in learning and/or behavior.
Purpose:
To allow the teacher-researcher to make note of everyday behavior and
happenings in the classroom in an organized manner. In a sense, an anec
dotal record is an extension of a grade book in which you keep track of
what and how students are doing in the class.
Advance Preparation:
You will need a quickly drawn chart (described in 1, below) to easily cap
ture your observations.
Procedure:
1.. Create a chart to record notes:
Advice:
These records provide a quick, organized way of taking notes on what ~.tl.!
dents say or do as it is happening.
The chart format allows patterns to be identified easily. However, do nor
overload one chart with too many entries. It helps to keep one chaIT per
day/week or activity so that patterns are easier to see and comparisons cue
easier to make.
Accuracy is important. Be careful not to "jump" columns and record
information in the wrong student's row.
2112
Have a back-up system in case you run out of room on the grid. Post-it
notes are invaluable for this purpose.
Try to be consistent in the frequency, quantity, and quality of notes as you
record information.
It also works to use index cards to record such information, using one card
per student. Index cards are more difficult to analyze for patterns because
it is harder to see patterns in the whole class at once.
Further References:
Samway, K. D. 1994. "But it's hard to keep fieldnotes while also teaching."
TESOL Journal 4 (1): 47-48.
CLASSROOM DIAGRAMS AND MAPS
Definition:
Classroom diagrams and maps are visual representations of how space and
movement work in the classroom. As such, they show the locations of people,
desks, windows, and other relevant items. They can also show patterns of move
ment, which some ethnographers call "tracks and traces," as students and the!
teacher move around during the lesson.
Purpose:
To observe how people and things occupy the classroom space, and thus
how the physical environment affects behavior or learning.
To create a gross record of physical movement in an activity or lesson.
Advance Preparation:
If you are making a map of your own classroom to use while you are
teaching, you will need to assign a task that students can complete on their
own so you have time to sketch.
Your paper should be big enough to make your drawing resemble a
"panoramic photo."
Use simple symbols to represent the people and things in the room. This
way you can draw more quickly.
Procedure:
:1. Outline a bird's eye view of the classroom space that shows the walls and
other structures as if you were looking at them from above.
2. Identify everything you can see; be as detailed as you reasonably can. Include
yourself in the picture. Scale is less important than accurately including as
much as possible.
3. Use the same symbol for a category (e.g., circles for students and squares for
desks). You can create ways of showing differences within a category (e.g.,
green circle is a bilingual student; red square is the teacher's desk).
4. To record students' movements, draw a line from where the student starts to
where he or she ends the movement (Day, 1990, below). If the student makes
the same movement more than once-perhaps he or she goes back and forth
to the teacher's desk for help- you can put a check on the basic trace line to
keep track of the number of trips (ASCD, below).
ApPENDIX
C 203
Advice:
The focus is on what you see, as opposed to what you hear or think.
To get students' views of the classroom, the teacher can ask students to
create their own maps. This also allows people to compare and contrast
their spatial perceptions.
Maps can become irrelevant if not done systematically (e.g. one map every
Tuesday), or confusing if the teacher is not consistent in the symbols used.
Further References:
Day, R. 1990. "Teacher observation in second language teacher education." In
]. C. Richards and D. Nunan (eds.) Second language teacher education. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 43-61.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Another set of
eyes (a video-training series on classroom observation). Alexandria VA: Author.
DISCUSSIONS
Definition:
Discussions are opportumtles for students (and teacher') to engage in an
exchange of ideas. They can also be done indirectly via computer, letters, or dia
10gue journals.
Purpose:
To get information about how students are experiencing and interpreting
what is going on in the class.
Advance Preparation:
Decide on the topic; determine whether it will be student- or teacher
generated.
Decide on the format: Will the discussion be face-to-face or conducted in
written form? If it is face-to-face, will the discussion be conducted with the
whole class, in small groups, or one on one? How long will it last and who
will keep track of time? If it is written, what format will be used? Who will
respond to whom? and so on.
Define the parameters of the discussion and how it will operate. For
instance, Who can speak? For how long? How many times? Will students
be asked to express their own opinions or will they be asked to defend an
assigned point of view?
Define your role as participant, facilitator, or observer. Also determine
how you will keep a record of the discussion: Will you be the note taker?
If so, will you take notes during or after the discussion? Another option is
to audio or videotape the discussion (see listings for those techniques).
Procedure:
1. Inform students of your decisions regarding the topic, the format, their role,
and your role.
2. If you are having a face-to-face discussion, have the students arrange seats
appropriately.
3. Get the activity started and bring it to a close.
2114
Advice:
Depending on your purpose and on how much time you allot for students
to prepare, their responses will be more or less spontaneous. Sometimes it
can be useful to assign the topic in advance so that students can think
about what they want to say about it (e.g., How would you describe your
progress this term?). In other cases, a spontaneous discussion can generate
more useful data (e.g., How did this activity help your writing?)
More so than other data collection techniques, conducting oral discussions
requires careful advanced planning and good classroom management
skills. This is especially true if you decide to be an observer or to operate
audio or video equipment.
Discussions become more productive when they are held regularly.
Students learn the rules of the game, and therefore less energy is spent on
setting up and running them.
Further References:
Cohen, E. 1986. Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous class
ARCHIVAL DATA:
Definition:
Archival data are anything produced by the teacher, the students, the adminis
tration, or the parents in conjunction with classroom teaching and learning.
This material reflects what is happening inside, and possibly outside, the class
room. Thus archival data can run the gamut from student work or test scores,
to notes to or from parents or students, to minutes of teachers' meetings or
administrative planning memos, and so on.
Purpose:
To capture data from material generated through, and
with, the teaching and learning process.
III
conjunction
Advance Preparation:
Obtain permission, as necessary legally and ethically, to use the data you
collect.
Decide what you need beforehand.
Obtain access to a copier; help with copying can be extremely useful.
Procedure:
1. Decide what material will be useful to your inquiry. Decide when, and in
what form you want to collect it. For instance, do you want to use student
work as it is turned in without teacher comments, or after you have made
comments or given it a grade?
2. Collect the documents you have chosen.
3. Copy the material and identify it by student, class, date, assignment number,
or whatever identification is relevant to your project.
4. Keep the copies and return the original materials.
ApPENDIX
C 205
Advice:
The amount of archival material can quickly become overwhelming if it is
not carefully managed. It helps tremendously to narrow the focus of col
lection to the data that support your research question.
You also need to create a careful filing system before you start to collect
the material; otherwise it can get lost or become easily disorganized.
In writing up your research, documents can be tools that show students'
production, demonstrate their competency, add life to the research report,
and allow you to illustrate findings for parents and administrators.
Collecting archival data is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it does not
add extra work to teaching because, by definition, you are drawing on mate
rial that already exists in the classroom or school situation. However, copying
documents can be very time-consuming and difficult to do within a teacher's
regular schedule. It can also be costly if you do not have institutional support.
Because the process essentially involves examining existing information
from a new perspective, archival data can allow you to see and hear stu
dents differently. For instance, approaching a written assignment to mark
it can be quite different from reading it to see the kioos of errors the stu
dents are producing. This first stance requires a judgment, while the sec
ond is essentially descriptive.
FEEDBACK CARDS
Definition:
Feedback cards are a fast way of collecting data from individual students. They
are usually done on the spot, just after an activity, and have a short time limit. The
data that result are on 3" X 5 cards, which are easily manipulable for analysis.
II
Purpose:
To collect concisely focused information (e.g., in response to yeslno ques
tions) and factual data (e.g., students' names, ages, nationalities, etc.).
To gather impressions after a particular lesson/activity while they are still fresh,
Advance Preparation:
Have index cards or slips of paper available. Make sure they are big
enough for students to write their answers to the question(s) you will be
asking.
Make sure your questions are specific and clear.
Limit the number of questions. You can also limit the length of
responses (e.g., "Write two to three sentences about X").
Allow a realistic amount of time to answer the question(s).
Procedure:
1. Provide the instructions before handing out the cards so students listen to yon.
2. Model andlor write what students are to do on the blackboard. Often stu
dents will benefit from an example.
3. Pass out the index cards or slips of paper.
4. Give a time warning before collecting (e.g., "You have another minute to fin
ish writing your comments. ").
206
Advice:
Feedback cards are easy to handle and fast to read. They lend themselves
The small size of the card or slip of paper can help students to focus their
comments (e.g., "Write the pros of an activity on one side of the card. Turn
Because there is little time for reflection, you can get a sense of students'
Definition:
An audio recording captures spoken interactions in the activity or lesson.
Purpose:
To capture the oral interactions in an activity or lesson between
and students, and among students.
teache~,
Advance Preparation:
The tape recorder and the microphone should be tested in advance. If stu
dents are to manipulate it, they may need to be taught how to use the
equipment as well.
Procedure:
1. Place a microphone or tape recorder near those students you wish to record.
If you are using a small machine, students can pass it from speaker to speak
er, or have one individual carry it around during an activity.
2. Start the tape running to record the entire interaction.
3. After tapes are made, they will need to be transcribed.
Advice:
Check the equipment thoroughly before class to make sure it is working.
Audiotaping captures what people are saying during class, and it can free
In group work, more than one group can be recorded at the same time if
you use multiple recorders. Be very sure to accurately label the tapes so
you know where the data come from and when they were collected.
Students may be nervous about being recorded and not respond as usual.
You may want to "practice" with the recorder and microphone to allow
4 to 1. That is, depending on the complexity of the talk and the skill of the
transcriber, it can take three or four hours to transcribe one hour of tape.
few "practice" experiences can help you find a strategy for dealing with
ambient noise.
ApPENDIX C
207
Further References:
van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Allwright, R., and K. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the language classroom: An intro
Definition:
A video recording captures both verbal and nonverbal interactions in an activi
ty or lesson.
Purpose:
To capture the verbal and nonverbal behavior and interactions of an entire
class, a group of students, or the teacher interacting with students.
Advance Preparation:
You will need to locate, set up, and test the video equipment. You may also
need to identify a camera person.
Procedure:
1. Locate the video equipment and learn how to use it ahead of time.
2. Test the equipment before class to make sure it is working. (Don't forget to
check the battery if you are using one).
3. Decide whether you want to have a moving or stationary camera. If the ca m
era will be moving, identify a camera person. If the camera will be statiOi:~l r"y
decide where you want to set it up.
4. Decide whether you want to let the video run, or plan to start and stop it as
needed.
5. To analyze the video, you will need to review and transcribe it.
Advice:
Setting the camera up several days before you intend to do any rec(~,~ i:
may help the students to get used to it and thus make them less self-con
scious when you actually begin taping.
Always check the equipment thoroughly to make sure it works ;Illii to
make sure the camera person knows how to operate it.
Don't film with the camera pointed toward any strong source if light
(e.g. windows) or you won't be able to see anything except shado\\''i"
Background noise may make the audio track difficult to hear.
Videos are an excellent way to observe yourself interacting with students.
They also allow you to see what other students are doing when you are
working with an individual or a group.
208
Videos allow you to document participation that is not oral, and thus to
gain a fuller sense of the class or activity. However, for this reason there is
the danger of collecting too much information.
Remember that analyzing video tapes, like transcribing audiotapes, takes
time. You will need a coding scheme (see Appendix A; also Allwright and
Bailey, 1991, below).
Further References:
van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Allwright, R., and K. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the language classroom: An intro
duction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Appendices A-H, pp. 202-223.
CLASS OBSERVATION / FIELD NOTES
Definition:
Class observation or field notes are notes taken by the teacher either as a par
ticipant (participant observer) or as an observer in another teacher's classroom
(non-participant observer). Observations may be general or guided by a partie:'
ular question or concern. Note-taking may be continual or at regular intervals,
(e.g., every five minutes).
Purpose:
To provide descriptions of teacher or student behavior with emphasis on
the setting, group structures, nonverbal information, and interactions
among participants.
Advance Preparation:
Non-participant observers will need to be informed of the focus of the
observation.
You will need paper and writing utensils for notes. It is also possible to
take notes on a laptop computer if you type very quickly.
Procedure:
1. Before the activity or lesson begins, describe the setting briefly. Note the lay
out of the classroom and provide other information about the classroom
environment (e.g., noise level, temperature, lighting). You can also sketch a
quick classroom diagram or map (see technique).
2. As the activity or lesson progresses, make notes about what is happening.
Note interactions between participants andlor individuals' behavior.
3. If you have thoughts or ideas about why things are happening as they are,
note these as well, but mark them clearly. These are called "observer's com
ments" and can be marked with an "OC" in the margin.
Advice:
Observation and field notes are a useful way to gather information about
classroom happenings. Notes are a low-tech alternative to videotaping
and, although they are far less comprehensive, they "predigest" the infor
mation, which you would have to do as you analyzed the videotape.
ApPENDIX
C 209
Further References:
J.
Samway, K. D. 1994. "But it's hard to keep fieldnotes while also teaching."
TESOL Journal 4 (1): 47-48.
JOURNALS KEPT BY TEACHER OR STUDENTS
Definition:
Journals record the thoughts, feelings, reflections, and observations of the
writer. They may be focused on a specific lesson, activity, or student, or they can
describe the writer's more general day-to-day thinking or questions. The
description below is separated into teacher journals and student Juurnals.
TEACHER JOURNALS
Purpose:
To identify
Advance preparation:
You'll need writing materials or a computer.
Procedure:
1. Decide on a regular schedule for writing in the journal.
2. Record your thoughts, questions, or concerns in general or as
a lesson or issue you are currently focusing on.
3. It can be very useful to reread your journal periodically.
on rereading should be kept separately, either in another
nal or in another color pen or computer font.
rdate to
Jour~
Advice:
If your students write in journals during class, you can Llse
time to
write in yours. Often this parallel activity can be very useful in modeling
the value of journaling.
210
In general, the more frequent the journaling, the more useful it is. Ideally
you should find time to write in your journal every day.
You can use the journal to anticipate reactions, writing about things before
they happen. It is interesting to compare your "before" and "after" thoughts.
If you keep your journal on a computer, it is easy to read and to code;
however, if the computer is not available in the classroom, it can limit your
writing time.
Always make back-up disks of any journal kept on computer.
STUDENT JOURNALS
Definition:
Student journals record how students perceive their own learning. These jour
nals are usually longer and more reflective than other forms of data collection.
Purpose:
To collect data from the students' point of view.
Advance Preparation:
You need to decide on the logistics of the journal, (e.g., Is it a section in ari'
existing notebook, a separate notebook, on a computer disk, etc.?).
You also need to decide on the frequency, when and where the students
should make their entries, as well as the general parameters of focus, what
they are to write about (e.g., Is the topic open or is it focused on a partic
ular issue, skill, or activity?).
Finally, you need to decide if, when, how, how often, and who will provide
feedback. There are endless options here. There c~n be no feedback, or the
feedback can be teacher-student, student-student, or whole group discus
sion about journals; it can happen after every entry, weekly, or monthly; it
can focus on form, understanding content, reacting to content, etc.
Procedure:
1. Tell students about your decisions on logistics, frequency, and parameters.
2. Explain what will happen to the data once they finish their journal entries
Advice:
Because they are not face-to-face, student journals can be more private or
personalized than interviews or discussions, for example.
If students write on the same size paper, it will save you a great deal of time
and frustration when photocopying their entries.
ApPENDIX
C 211
Definition:
Lesson plans describe the objectives of a class, the materials and processes
planned to meet those objectives, and the expected roles of participants. They
provide a prospective account of the lesson as planned.
Teaching logs record what happened during a lesson; they provide a retrospec
tive account of the lesson-as-taught. Although they can be used separately, les
son plans and teaching logs are most effective when done together, as comple
mentary forms of data collection.
Purpose:
To allow comparison of the teacher's expectations for a class with what
actually happened.
Advance preparation:
Have paper and a writing utensil ready to take notes during and/or imme
diately after the lesson.
Procedure:
1. Write the lesson plans according to whatever style is most comfortable and
familiar.
2. Leave room for notes that will be taken during class.
3. Teach the class.
4. During class, take notes about student behavior, timing, last minute changes,
unexpected problems or outcomes, etc., in the space allotted on the lesson
plan or on a separate piece of paper.
212
5. Review the notes and lesson plans after the lesson. Write up a teaching log
entry that summarizes all the salient points from your notes. Reference the
log to your lesson plan so you can see what you planned, what you did, and
what happened.
Advice:
The basic questions for the teaching log are: What did you plan? What did
you actually do? What happened? It can help to keep them in mind as you
If you write directly on the lesson plan in a different color ink, your notes
will be easy to see. However, this practice can also deface the plan itself,
so it is best done on a copy of the lesson plan so that you have the origi
and making notes on interleaved sheets of paper; dividing the paper into
two columns and making the lesson plan in the left column and the notes
in the right column; using large Post-it notes (although this can easily get
messy as the notes can separate from the plan and get lost).
If you have access to a laptop computer, you can enter your lesson plarl'
and then enter notes directly in the lesson plan in a different font. You can
also enter your teaching log in the lesson at appropriate points, again in a
different font.
SOCIOGRAMS
Definition:
Sociograms are maps of how participants in a class or activity see one another
as measured by given criteria. Sociograms collect second-order data of partici
pants' perceptions, (e.g., Who is best writer in the class? Who has the best pro
nunciation? Who would I like to work on X project with the most?). A
sociogram can thus capture participants' views of the "chemistry" of the group.
Each participant is an "element," and these elements are connected by arrows
indicating preferences, to compose a "social product."
Purpose:
To have students compare and contrast their views of themselves and their
work to those of others, in relation to the group.
For an example
of a sociogram,
see Chapter 6,
p.140.
Advance Preparation:
Decide what you want to find out in the sociogram. Decide why you want
to find it out: How does the sociogram relate to the research question and
(e.g., All #1 selections will get 5 points or are connected by dotted lines);
ApPENDIX C
213
Procedure:
1. Explain the task and why you are doing it. This context is necessary so stu
dents know what is going to happen with the information. For example, "We
have been studying vocabulary a lot in this class, and I am interested in your
ideas about who seems to have the easiest time learning new words and why.
On this slip of paper, 1'd like you to write down the names of three people in
the class who seem to have the easiest time learning new vocabulary. You can
list yourself. Number your choices from 1 to 3. Then, next to each name,
write why you think that person is good at learning vocabulary. This infor
mation will help me in deciding how to group you in activities next week."
2. To help students be aware of all the choices, it is useful to list everyone's name
on the blackboard. You should also emphasize that students can list them
selves if they choose.
3. Hand out the cards or slips of paper. Do not allow students to talk or con
sult with other classmates while making their choices. They are to work
silently and independently.
4. Collect the cards. At this point, you may choose to have a discussion about
the task.
5. Afterwards build a sociogram with the results. There are two ways to do so
(see Chapter 6, p. 139 for examples).
Numerical analysis: To calculate the total score for each participant, multiply
the total number of times the individual is given a ranking by his or her class
mates by the number of rankings you asked for. For example, in the sociogram
on vocabulary, above, in which students were asked to rank the three best
vocabulary learners, you would take the number of times the person is chosen
"best vocabulary learner" and multiply it by three (since you asked them to list
the three best vocabulary learners in the class); then the number of times that
student is chosen "second-best vocabulary learner" and multiply that number
by two; and then the number of times he or she was chosen "third-best vocab
ulary learner" and multiply that number by one. Add these scores together to
get a total score for that student (see Chapter 6, p. 139, for an example of a
sociogram chart).
Diagrammatic analysis: To draw the sociogram results, write the names of the
students in a random pattern on a large sheet of paper, leaving ample space
around them. Then draw an arrow from Student X to the person he or she
ranked as first for the task. Draw a different type of arrow (color or dotted)
from Student X to his or her second choice, and so on. The map that results will
show visually how students perceive themselves and their peers in relation to the
task. For instance, the student with the greatest number of lines to him or her is
perceived by peers as the best or strongest at the task (see Chapter 6, p. 139, for
a discussion of a sociogram diagram in a research report).
214
It/ ......- --
1t1.. ..... ---
1t3 .................
~ANfONIO
P~~RO~::J'/ ~"'~~~~-r
\\
II
\ 1.
". ...
....
ANf)REZZA ..... - -
':."...4
..........
.....
........
..' . .............. .......
.....
~ CAMII.I. ~
'jAMe>
...
'1 :------, .:
, lI1"',
t
~/MOt::.O'~
~.
".~ '("
: * /
R08
, '"
..
" t JI....... ,.
MATffRA ~JUUANA
.... ........
.......
\v
.4
"'---'
In analyzing
Advice:
It can be very useful to ask students to explain their choices in order to
Sociograms are quick, visual tools that can challenge your perceptions of
how individual students see themselves and are seen by other members of
the group in relation to a task or issue. The diagram can allow you to see
Further References:
ApPENDIX
C 215
INTERVIEWS
Definition:
An interview is a structured oral (or possibly written) exchange with someone.
It aims to gather information. There are two basic types of research interviews:
unstructured or open-ended, and structured. The former allow participants
more latitude in guiding the exchange, while the latter generally follow a pre
determined set of questions (see Patton, 1990).
Purpose:
To gather information and/or perceptions from participants in the study
Advance Preparation:
In both structured and open-ended interviews, it is important to prepare a
guide for the interview in advance. The interview guide outlines the ques
tions and probes that will make up the exchange (see below). (For an
excellent and readable discussion of interviewing, see Patton, 1990, pp.
277-368.)
You need to decide how participants' responses will be captured. Clearly,
the easiest and most common way is to audiotape the 'interview, although
researchers also take notes. (See also the two-minute interview, described
below.)
If you are audiotaping the interview, always check the tape recorder and
microphone thoroughly in advance. You will need to test the recording
level to make sure responses are audible and to check the machine so you
know how to operate it.
If you are interviewing people under age 18 (in the United States) or in a
school setting, it is generally necessary to get written permission from their
parents or guardians. Interviewing people without proper permission may
result in complications later. As a teacher, speaking to your students about
their work is well within your job, however, decisions about permission
may depend more on if and how you plan to use the data beyond your
teaching responsibilities.
reactions.
21ti
Procedure:
1. Start the interview by saying who you are talking to and when (date and
time) so you have that information. You may also want to introduce the pur
pose and general structure of the interview, and how long you expect it to
last. These details can help to relax the person being interviewed.
2. Ask your questions in the form and order on your interview guide. In open
ended interviews you may vary the order of the questions and you may use
probes to elicit further information or clarifications (see Patton, 1990). In
structured interviews you generally follow the sequence and wording of the
questions very closely.
3. When you have finished the questions on the interview guide, close the inter
view. Be aware that it is human nature that people often mention fascinating
and critical information as the interview is winding up and you are packing
away the equipment. In this case, you can either remember their comments and
write them down, or you can ask the person to restate the comment on tape.
4. After the interview, the tape will need to be transcribed.
THE Two-MINUTE INTERVIEW
The two-minute interview is a useful variant on the basic interview and is par
ticularly adapted to teachers who are researching in their own classrooms when
time is a major factor. In the two-minute interview, you limit yourself to one or
at most two short questions. You choose an individual student to interview,
according to the research plan, and you do so during a break or group activity.
Instead of recording the response, you recall the student's answers and write
them down immediately afterwards. Because of the brevity of the interview and
the fact that nothing is being taped, two-minute interviews are rather unre
markable from the students' point of view and are quite easy to weave into the
fabric of class activity. They can seem like a question-answer exchange. For
these reasons, I recommend them as a way to easily sample students' thinking.
Advice:
The advice given for audiotaping (pp. 207-208) also applies to interviewing, as
the vast majority of interviews use a tape recorder. It is well worth rereading
Even if you are taping the interview, it is worth your time to make rough
notes of the person's answers for several reasons. Tapes do fail, and they
tion is at stake. These notes can help you quickly locate passages of the
interview as you need them. Transcripts are lengthy and tapes take time to
listen to, so the notes can serve as a rough table of contents. To this end,
you can note the counter number as the person starts a new topic or
ApPENDIX
C 217
McDonough, ]., and S. McDonough. 1997. Research methods for English lan
218
Appendix D'
The following letters were taken from the New York Times, in an article titled
"Downsizing: How it feels to be fired" (March 17, 1996). They are divided into
two data sets. The first four letters, which make up Set A, are used in
Investigation 5.5, on "Grounded" data analysis. The second five letters, which
make up Set B, are used in Investigation 5.6, on "A priori" data analysis. The
entire set, A and B, are used in Investigation 5.7, on quantification within an a
priori approach.
SET
A:
Letter #2
My wife and I joined the army of the downsized two years ago, and it has been
a mixed blessing. Yes, we have experienced a loss in income; we moved to a small
er house; we scaled down dramatically; we experienced feelings of self-doubt
and uncertainty.
ApPENDIX D
219
Letter #3
Recently, I saw a political cartoon depicting an affluent older man making a
speech at a banquet. He was saying, "Last year, thousands of new jobs were cre
ated in this country." The thought balloon over the waiter's head said, "Yeah,
and I've got three of them." I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
You see, for the past year, I've had two jobs instead of the one job I used to
have. Together, those two jobs pay approximately 10 percent of what my one
job used to pay. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry from a larger university with a well
respected chemistry program.
I had entered graduate school with a dream of working for an LB.M. or an
AT&T, doing research that would make a positive difference in people's lives. It
took me five years after graduation to land that first industry job. I took great
pride in the knowledge that I was working to decrease pollution and produce a
useful product. I took my $20,000 sign-on bonus and bought a condominium.
After 2 112 years, I was downsized out of the company. I spent eight months
writing hundreds of letters, making hundreds of phone calls and networking at
conferences. I got one job offer-800 miles away. I bid tearful good-byes and
put my condo on the market. The market wasn't very good-everyone else was
downsizing, too. My $20,000 became $10,000 overnight.
Just before Christmas 1993, I started work at the central research facility of
a "good, stable company, heavily committed to research." After one year, things
appeared to be going well, so I bought a house. I paid my taxes, bought com
pany stock and planned for my future.
22.
In 1995, I received a pink slip for Valentine's Day. My new job had lasted all
of 15 months. That was almost a year ago, and I'm still looking for full-time
work.
Nancy K. McGuire
Bay City, Michigan
Letter #4
I have been downsized by the World Bank, after more than 15 years working as
an economist. Both my wife and I were made redundant the same month (last
August). I am 57, my wife 53.
Fortunately, we have no mortgage on a large old townhouse in D.C. The
World Bank has given me a more than adequate severance package, we have
managed to save quite a bit since arriving in the U.S. some 16 years ago, and I
can cash in a large part of my pension.
We now look at this unexpected situation as a unique chance to change life
styles, spend more time together, structure our working day differently and do
new things. The first thing we did last year after being made redundant was to
buy an old sailboat! In the short run, we'll go sailing, do a lot of writing and
happily get by on about $3,000 a month pre-tax, compared with close to
$10,000 post-tax before. People shouldn't only look at the negative side.
Eugene Versluysen
Washington, D.C.
SET
ApPENDIX
0 221
Letter #6
I worked for the U.S. General Accounting Office, a Congressional agency that
exposes fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement of Federal funds. The agency
got a 25 percent budget cutback from the Republicans. But no one in my office
expected the New York field office to close.
We received the bad news on Aug. 7. At the time, I was 8 1/2 months preg
nant. I was unable to look for a job because no one was interested in interviewing someone in that condition. I appealed to upper management for an extend
ed time with the employment counseling services, but was denied. The exact
quote from the Washington lawyer was, "G.A.O. didn't get you pregnant."
The office closed on Nov. 10. I have been looking for a job since then. My
husband has taken on a second job, often working 90 hours a week. I am hav
ing a hard time looking for work while caring for my daughter. I can't hire a sit
ter until I have income coming in.
I,
Diana Erani
Riverdale, NY
Letter #7
In the 19 years since receiving my Ph.D., I have worked full-time for seven col
leges and universities in three states. The longest I was able to stay at a single
institution was six years, and I stayed at several institutions for periods as brief
as one year. I have drawn unemployment compensation five, yes five, times. I
have currently been unemployed for two years. I have applied for close to 2,000
jobs.
At age 45, I have little hope that I will have any more of a career as an aca
demic psychologist. The standard cliche is that we need a better educated work
force. Well, from where I am sitting, having an education is no guarantee that
one won't be left behind.
James C. Megas
St. Paul, Minn.
Letter #8
Bell Atlantic, soon to merge with NYNEX, has not had massive layoffs, as yet,
but many have retired with incentives to leave the payroll. These jobs have not
been filled. My story concerns the employees who are left. Many have been sus
pended for minor violations of safety which would have evoked only a warning
222
in the past. Vacation, even though we have earned it, is getting more difficult to
schedule. Forced overtime is on the horizon, as well as punishment for sickness.
Downsizing is a catastrophe for those who lose their jobs, and I would not
presume to say that the irritations I suffer compare to that. However, downsiz
ing makes life very stressful for the ones who hang on to their jobs a little longer,
as well. Mostly, we are living in fear that we are next. We are!
Phillip Ruby
St. Albans, W. Va.
Letter #9
My husband was, until little over a year ago, a senior executive with an inter
national organization. He had been in his field for over 25 years. I was an exec
utive secretary with a worldwide company for 20 years until I was "outplaced"
and he was "downsized." My husband decided to start his own company
a job search firm.
Within my own group of friends, out of four women known as the
"Lunchbunch" at the office, only one is employed at present. The job market
for mature secretaries is bleak and we are getting by, or trying to, by temping:
searching for alternative careers and, in my case, assisting my husband in his
new venture.
Mary Berne
Franklin Lakes, N.].
SET C:
(Use all nine letters for Investigation 5.7, p. 105, quantification within an
a priori approach.)
ApPENDIX
D 223
Appendix E
224
1;A~~}~J&th~.'(.anglJ~ge,
'.. . .
.y~Ofstrllctur~s.
'
LIPT
CASE STUDIES.
225
~O~90
IY:;:\i!'i,71I
. .,.'iittit1dE~be~rlaehllanguageuse.
or'flefiection,.1 decided towork with my Year 10 class, mainly because they were
; They w~r~ni~e vEiryintelligent but less motivated students, who
'\\ftJrtn~~:rrtrare,'Nelreai veJY, disparate and often .conflicting group. of personalities. Year 10
. '~~geirlm~int~iningstudent. attention and~ more' importantly, .in
$mal'g,roLlPt9. w()rkt~gether cooperatively.. A .highly competitive streak in
dOil1irlanthalfofthe stugents led not only to often acerbic competition between
also to instilling a lack of confidence in the more passive students.
;:tmVV~.\i'en
"'ihltro(iil(~p-rlIU'IR
'Yepr1 Ogroup:tothe
ide~ofthe
226
.uCj~dthE~Jist
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
227
irnn""\\lO
'structured way .
'
taping of
228
a lesson.
nc&~~:tI~~..~t~ldf3ll"!ts
~l1lcoiuralg!)
r,h/:\i"i"'r~:Ii'iut:l>
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
229
Sudah~filfisai?
Belum sefesai.
Tenangfahl
Tetap perhatikanl
Baiklahl
Cobs/agio
Hampirb(!ltul.
Jal}gatllupa.
Harus (fiestat.
Seniuaorang akanadagiliran.
$~yangl,
project:
There ate still ... minlltes.
We are going to read about...
Anybody?
230
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
231
thi:n9.fcharl~edin 1990 when LOTE positions were used to provide class tecLcn.enJ!:,<
NRn-lfI$tr~ctl()~'ClI Til'Tle (NIT) and lOTE time was reduced. Class teachers no
'a.tte,ndeql~S~~n&.Whocould
aJClck~()f~all~fr~des, .teCiching
Investigate?
5Ch,ObSi~g\#i;f?~U$formyreSearChproved difficult, though I did want to concentra~e on
""""
','
'"
'.",.",
fni'.'C:' ...UI'iith,theempnasisonwriting.
r~n'sreluctanc~
d,;;'.III!::j.U,';>H',.!.'..fl'C1':>
,,'ni'tn.rO,citrir't1t\Air.' 40 or 50 minute lessons per week to oral and aural. work and
,;esPE~Cic:iIJY;iorl,c':~
chlldrenreached middleprirnary leVeL I Jelt I must 00
gilcolJra,QetnErcliilclren to write in the target language,but what?
cQj~st)jfe.'.mY\/a~IUel1es~abo~ythe
itnon~~heat~ningl~aidtheydrdn'thav?;toao~wer;. .
,rtAhrl'.C!ciingbut,q~~~fle:s~" .. l'tOI1e's:t;
232
'
(I've gqt) books along the same lines (see Appendix 2).
Sflfinish?'!'"
.... .. , '., . . , .. ~)-:~d,
t:'v,vN~:II!y:;r!l.
by.oth?r.LIPT.mernb.~rs
~.~asu.tih9.~DyI8i~~
. that..
Je(~so.ns .. fOJ it. '. wOl,ll<;j b.~ Y~tditficUltif~ot:}.l11li~~~!9:(~.\('j
r~~.(~LI~r~tiIOfrb,e,QOrne:
USC1." cJQ. $tudents,makeol ther.e$O)jf6f!l~.av~l'~:
s9uHdedgood tome!
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
233
and
l$f6,flaa(~hi::hfld todtawhirn/herselfor
234
m,
L:j1t~'~~r\h,W;;ti~P~.~ children still found it difficult, they were now able to either
,r:e$l)ut'6e~$,a,,,aii.lattle.;1
,;j~Rijt~i!>,~~j'.~c"t~~b,o~;~d
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
235
236
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
237
Writing In Spanish
TeJrific
(1)
Don't like it
(3)
I like it
Not good
(2)
(1)
of Resources
Not Useful
Useful
alAIl
Useful
15
6
2
238
Sometimes
Very
Useful
direqt'view~
'.,
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
239
u. ' .. u.':'
nl~>?"0:/:SifVi~n;:$tg~~i'~f~lt "embafrassed'!. four felt "sad", one felt "angry", and 14'cntIS$;:
as"puzzled", "normal" and ''hopeless'', Some children gave
r.
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
241
etworound$.
'
. ... ,-"
--.
.-.,
242
K~i~t1'~~?t
af;iputpslhg
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
243
244
/~nlf$tt(LcftE};
....
'.
..
,<:,'.Y">. . . . .
. . . '..
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
245
!fJ;~iltig~~;.9'fleSSC)tiS
:Gi(~~ij(ilr:~$!s'~fi21iidPfJ.I~titchj'iepaCtehlciildrensrespOAse
F
zi
,,,,.,,,.-.,-,,,,,C1g~ina.t;t.h'e\~.n~9t)hept;09t~ql~, . Th~~>Slill
tglr$E~WI~ecjp,IE~~(jlark:-hc~ir~d;EihO oliVe..skinheqt~b9t:'~hl~as~ 'th~Y.rf?V>I.kn~~'that
I also a$k~<;f, t~~.,9tlJ!cj(e~.Wh.~~h~r,tht}Y\Olrllc;l
.oneoul ~fthtj.~tiopfed .forO~rni~n. '~h ieh, .1
.thclfthe'vhad eniO'V'sd tlilee'xDIDslJie courSe and. ha(1a P9sitive attitudErtowards
246
wherElqy
an::stUdents'.'$elep~,.:'ebW$e$':,i~
sete. at Year 9.
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
247
t~~t. se~med to' have become my norm, particularly at' Year8~'t ",
~r;~!$s.lmtiaIlY t~e same work. in' essentiall'ythe samemanraer;
:ni=i"n'rmi~nr!A through various common exercises and tests.
"
l~tlinQlths
we
2411
were htM:~py,tf1e:t?~
to follow
Ait"iiiilll~> RrA:.Wlrint'IArfr.iI ai~s to understanding when you're stuck for wOI'd.SJ);
............., .... n "
I slipped Into English to tell. Gary not to swat this nl"'... .\.i,il!
DaJrticlJlar student with learning difficulties. Other than that, all SBflmflOrO!
to
~a.;re~t flOp with the French only class, Thf}te. was ,~() intEm:tl$t;~lfi'l()Jlg$l'ltt;l~. '.
'aloi1e~ No suchpr~blE:lms in elas.s B.Why thediffereilc~,?
been
~~t~mjQgJ~f}rijloyth
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
249
ttlE't5ltua,snt:$'
betWE,s.otI1iil.;qlas$es
o.IC()n~DrI9henSion
a.I'11'ark$icut o135~.
or my
o~n
French onl)'."in
the rll3xt module
250
On Reflection
;'~'~~;~~~S()Ursituationat Baiaklava High is unique, in that our students Canri'~t
French ,CRUI'~e. eVery ten wee,ks. This, makes their feeling of security and
paramount. The students clearly felt much more comfortable with a mixture of
Eng,lish in the classroom. They felt more in control, and I felt happier with that.
had always led me use such a mixture, with the aim of increasing the use of
instrJJctiOn$and, so forth, as time progressed.
did I learn from all this? I guess, overall, I learnt once again that I
oWn judgement and my experience to determine what workS ,for
felt t~at., as a partner in the learningexerc,se,1
i,~ftj'~lrpUlp'!3 :n~leJd$, ar)tjfeellng$.,HQpefully,8$8SUCQeS$fUI ',~~~CJ'tEtfiq
m~tch" dourse content and teaching methodologY
'Jn1ferii!stls. ,What works for one , teacher with' one class'in one 'school'
'r,Otne~Ili;111J othersitllatiol1s,riordoes itwork in the same school fordifferel1(
to
tc;>,rB;r'
ull,
by ".egotiation.lt.m~ans~:!()tri;l~rf!
LIPT
CASE STUDIES
251
/"$
e'ml""f /
r<
c.lest __
t:-/
'!,'l v... /
By Tuesday 2115
25~
6i
References
Al1wright, D., and R. Lenzuen. 1997. Exploratory practice: Work at the Cultura
Inglesa, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Language Teaching Research 1 (1): 73-79.
American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL). 1986. ACTFL proficiency
guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
Apple, M. 1986. Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations
in education. New York: Routledge.
Bailey, K. et al. 1996. The language learner's autobiography: Examining the "appren
ticeship of observation." In Freeman, D. and J. C. Richards (eds.), Teacher learn
ing in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. 11-29.
Baumann, J. 1996. Conflict or compatibility in classroom inquiry: One teacher's
struggle to balance teaching and research. Educational Researcher 25 (7): 29-36.
Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the
experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ben-Peretz, M. 1995. Learning from experience: Memory and the teacher's account
of teaching. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Berliner, D. 1988. The development of expertise in pedagogy. Washington, DC:
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Boas, Franz. 1943. Recent anthropology. Science 98: 311-314, 334-337.
Boles, K., and M. Anderson. 1996. "Spanning Boundaries." Paper given at the
American Educational Research Association.
Bullough, R. 1989. First-year teacher: A case study. New York: Teachers College Press.
Burns, A., and S. Hood. 1995. Teachers' voices: Exploring course design in a changing
curriculum. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and
Research.
Calkins, L. M. 1986. The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. 1983. Lessons from a child: On the teaching and learning of writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cambone, J. 1990. Tipping the balance. Harvard Educational Review 60 (2): 217-236.
Carini, P. 1979. The art of seeing and the visibility of the person. University of North
Dakota Press.
Carter, K. 1993. The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education.
Educational Researcher 22 (1): 5-12, 18.
Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.
Clark, C., and P. Peterson. 1986. Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
255-297.
REFERENCES
253
Cochran-Smith, M., and S. Lytle (eds.). 1993. Inside-outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. 1986. Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cronbach, L. 1975. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.
American Psychologist 30 (2).
Cronbach, L., and P. Suppes (eds.) 1969. Research for tomorrow's schools: Disciplined
inquiry in education. New York: Macmillan.
Day, R. 1990. Teacher observation in second language teacher education.
In Richards, J. and D. Nunan (eds.), Second language teacher education. New
York: Cambridge University Press. 43-61.
Denzin, N. K. (ed.). 1978. Sociological methods: a source book. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.
Duckworth, E. 1987. The virtues of not knowing. In The having of wonderful
ideas and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College
Press. 64-69.
Eisner, E. 1997. The promise and the perils of alternative forms ordata representation.
Educational Researcher 26 (6): 4-9.
Elbaz, F. 1992. Hope, attentiveness, and caring for difference: The moral voice of
teaching. Teaching and teacher education 8 (5/6): 421-432.
Fanselow, J. 1977. Beyond Rashomon: Conceptualizing and observing the teaching act.
TESOL Quarterly 11 (1): 17-41.
Fine, M. 1996. Talking across boundaries: Participatory evaluation research in an
urban middle school. New York: City University of New York Press.
Fine, M. 1994. Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative
research. In Denzin, N. and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 70-83.
Fishman, J. 1982. Whorfianism of the third kind: Ethnolinguistic diversity as a world
wide societal asset. Language in society 11: 1-4.
Fleischer, C. 1995. Composing teacher-research: A prosaic history. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Freedman, S., J. Jackson, and K. Boles. 1983. Teaching: an imperiled "profession."
In Shulman, L. and G. Sykes (eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy.
New York: Longman. 261-299.
Freeman, D. 1996. Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers
know. In Bailey, K. and D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the language classroom.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 88-115.
Freeman, D. 1994. Educational linguistics and the knowledge-base of language
teaching. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages
and Linguistics 1994. Washington DC: Georgetown University. 180-196.
Freeman, D. 1992. Collaboration: Constructing shared understandings in a second
language classroom. In D. Nunan (ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56-80.
Freeman, D., and J. C. Richards (eds.). 1996. Teacher learning in language teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
REFERENCES
255
256
REFERENCES
257
258