The focus of this chapter is the development of critical reflection, teacher learning processes and levels of change. In particular, this chapter reports on the impact of the professional learning strategies utilized during the project. As ‘critical’ reflection was identified in the literature as necessary for productive educational change to take place (Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990; Peters et al., 1996; Smyth, 1987a), this concept is further defined and discussed in light of the type of reflection that teachers did engage in. Building on the work of Smyth (1989a), teachers’ reflections (written and oral) were coded in order to identify trends in the type of reflective action that different activities elicited.
Although original research questions focused on exploring “what changes could be identified as a result of teachers engaging in critical reflection and participatory action research”, the analysis phase of this research went beyond identification of general changes (theoretical and practical) to focus more strongly on the different kinds of teacher theorizing, questioning and problematizing that took place. This enabled clearer links to be made between the development of a critical perspective and the
reconstruction of practical action.
As chapters 5-8 provide specific examples of teachers’ learning and pedagogical change, this chapter is more concerned with the learning process and making links with the literature in order to discuss whether second order changes, cultural change and productive collaboration occurred (Cuban, 1988; Cuban, 1993; Fullan, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hargreaves, 1992; Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990).
Pedagogical Intentions and Philosophical Orientation
The design of the professional learning strategies developed in conjunction with this research drew on the work of Fullan (1993), who placed school-based professional development through collaborative inquiry at the heart of educational reform. Central to the intention of the project was the notion of teachers as researchers who contributed to their own professional knowledge as a result of systematic and collaborative inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Kincheloe, 1991). The
concept of the project was also shaped by research and literature that recommended the formation of ‘communities of practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991), ‘learning communities’ (Cranton, 1994; Jalongo, 1991; Shaw, 1998) and ‘learning organizations’ (Conzemius & Conzemius, 1996; Marsick & Watkins, 1996; Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1993) where research, rethinking and renewal were regarded as normal and essential work practices.
The project design was also constructed in response to calls for a greater emphasis on pedagogy and ICT, rather than a singular focus on technical skills (European Experts' Network for Educational Technology (EENeT), 1998; Fullan, 1992; Fullan &
Stiegelbauer, 1991; Jurema, 1998). In addition to this, the work of Fullan (1991) and Conners (1991) was acknowledged so that professional learning activities aimed to encourage changes in teacher beliefs, assumptions, content knowledge, practices and use of materials as they related to curriculum decisions and ICT use. These dimensions of learning were identified as necessary if productive educational change were to occur (see Chapter 2).
Thus the key strategies developed to promote and support teachers’ professional learning were:
• development of a culture of inquiry through engagement in a participatory action
research process
• critically reflective practices, with an emphasis on pedagogy
• establishing a support network or learning community
• productive collaboration and sharing with other colleagues.
Professional Learning Strategies
This section outlines the professional learning strategies associated with this research. These strategies were analysed for indicators of critical reflection, which enabled
recommendations about the strengths and application of particular strategies to be made. The impact of teacher collaboration and the development of a learning community are then discussed, together with the implications for school-based learning and
Developing a Culture of Reflection through Participatory Action Research
Overview
Smith’s framework for participatory action research praxiology (1997, p. 198; see also Chapter 3, pp. 49-50 for detailed description) guided the selection and development of a range of professional interactions and reflective practices, specifically:
• Understanding self: Teachers engaged in conversations and written reflections to make explicit some of their values and beliefs about teaching and ICT (Walk and Talk, Snapshot, Journal Proformas: see Appendix 2).
• Making connections, developing trust within the group: At the beginning of the project, teachers spent several days together to share stories and experiences, examine values, articulate interests, listen to each other and make personal connections. After these initial interactions, teachers self-selected themselves into inquiry teams based on common interests. At least one day each term was provided for them to come together as a group for network and inquiry team meetings.
• Contexts: Teachers wrote about their own contexts and practices as well as visiting at least two other teachers’ classrooms and writing a response to their experience (Snapshot, School Visit Reflections: see Appendix 2). When teachers visited each other, they were encouraged to actively plan for and participate in the visit, set a focus for such participation, clarify roles and responsibilities and clearly delineate expectations and follow-up.
• Integrating theory and practice: As part of their induction into the program, teachers were provided with a workshop on the action research process. Time was then provided for teachers to come together regularly (at least once per term, usually 2-3 times) to discuss the issues they were working on, questions arising and how they might proceed in action. Weekly journal writing and online posting of summaries each term contributed to communication process between teachers. As well as analysing issues directly arising from their action research, teachers also read related articles that were selected to support and challenge their theoretical and philosophical positions. Once a term, they posted a reading response on the online forum.
• Developing critical insight: Teachers were encouraged to share summaries of their reflective journals online and to write their final reports collaboratively, encouraging the development of common understandings and analyses. The group acted as ‘critical friends’ to one another, responding to online postings and email communications.
• Investigate/act/educate/analyse: Teachers worked through several research cycles in relation to their action research projects. At two six-month intervals, teachers wrote an extensive account of their research issue and the
understandings they had developed. Teachers also conducted a professional learning evaluation to identify their own professional change and learning (Appendix 3).
• Transforming structures and cultures: Teachers identified changes to support their research, including: planning and curriculum structures; classroom organization; timetables; teaching strategies; beliefs and values; learning theories; and collaborative relationships with students and other staff. At the beginning of the project, teachers were asked to frame a problem or question related to teaching and learning. A sub-thread of investigating ways that ICT could support student learning in relation to the focus area of their inquiries was also planned. Teachers’ orientation as researchers within the PAR process is first examined, followed by an analysis of the impact of the professional learning strategies that were utilized.
Orientation within the PAR process
Interest in the area of teacher research or practitioner inquiry has been steadily building for well over a decade (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlem, 1994; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Hollingsworth & Socket, 1994; Kemmis, 2000; Kincheloe, 1991; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995; Schon, 1983; Stenhouse, 1985; Whitehead, 1999). Two conceptual frameworks are used to discuss the practitioner research that was conducted as a part of this project.
Kemmis (2001) builds on the work of Habermas (1972) to suggest that practitioner
research can be characterized by three areas of interest: technical interests in getting
practical interests in improving practice, informing practical decision-making and
increasing self-understanding in context; and emancipatory interests in arriving at a
critique of work and work settings, connecting the personal and political, and
“developing an understanding of the way people and settings are shaped and re-shaped discursively, culturally, socially and historically” (p. 92). He warns that participatory action research should be a response to questions, dissatisfactions or injustices that already exist as a result of the life experiences of a group or else it runs the risk of becoming a “solution looking for problems”. Kemmis’s framework was used to analyse teachers’ action research interests, which were characterised by either technical or practical interests. Those that began with a singular technical interest (e.g. developing a web site) shifted to include more practical interests as the year progressed.
Teachers who designed their initial action research project as a technical endeavour, with a specific goal or problem to be solved, expressed concerns about “lack of
progress” and “not getting to the research” midway through the year. This was despite the fact that they had addressed a range of broader teaching and learning issues and made significant changes in their classrooms and school structures (meeting times, opportunities to collaborate with other staff). Reflection about what they were doing and what they saw as important resulted in a shift to more practical and broader pedagogical interests. This resulted in teachers changing the focus of their action research to a more general change and learning endeavour. This does not mean that action research projects initiated by technical interests are inadequate, but that there needs to be a process and opportunity for such projects to broaden their focus as teachers increase their
understandings of their inquiry focus.
Like Kemmis (2001), Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) also distinguish between three broad conceptions of teacher research: teacher research as “practical inquiry”; teacher research as “ways of knowing within communities”; and teacher research as “social inquiry” (p. 17). They caution that such conceptions are also interrelated and not separated by exclusive distinctions. While similar in underlying concepts to Kemmis’s (2001) view, they suggest a further sophistication and complexity, both in terms of the interrelationships between the different conceptions and opening up possibilities for a continuum of development within each strand.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) conceptualization of teacher research as practical inquiry is couched in open terms, focusing on the generation of practical knowledge rather than achieving defined goals and solutions. Teachers’ practical knowledge is assumed to be “some of the most essential knowledge for teaching”, with such knowledge developing from “reflection in and on practice” (p. 19). The practical knowledge generated by such inquiry is variously described as ‘craft’ knowledge generated when teachers use their professional judgments to bring many different knowledge bases and pedagogical positions to bear on their teaching. This conception of teacher research is characterized by ‘immediacy’ and a response to the everyday
knowledge needs of teachers that give rise to a need for classroom change. Allteachers
in this research project were concerned with the generation of practical knowledge at some level, even when their concerns shifted to a focus on their own teaching and learning role within the classroom. As can be seen from their action research projects (see Chapters 5-8), practical concerns were always strongly represented in the issues they chose to write and reflect upon, particularly teaching strategies and classroom organization.
Considering teacher research as waysof knowing in communities includes, but goes
beyond, Kemmis’s (2001) characterization of practical interests. Rather than only focus on ‘self-understanding’, they embrace the broader perspective of collective inquiry that includes a critical dimension:
…teachers generate local knowledge of teaching, learning, and schooling when they make classrooms and schools sites for research, work collaboratively in inquiry communities, and take critical perspectives on the theory and research of others. (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 18)
Teacher practice is conceptualized as a “critical and theory-building process” guided by the larger goal of creating rich learning opportunities for students that increase their life chances (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p.18). This type of teacher research addresses a range of pedagogical dimensions, including the impact of relationships, capacity for responsive action and formulation of new questions for inquiry and future learning (p.
18). Regardless of whether teachers began with a focus on practicalinterests or ways of
Initially I planned to explore how to integrate ICT more effectively into the Scientists in Schools program. However I have found that as part of my own reflection on how to achieve my goals I have diverted some issues. …Thus I have reformulated my major issue into creating a teaching and learning environment within my class and how, through changing my approaches to teaching and learning, the students are more engaged in learning as well as in the SIS Project.
(Muriel, 6 month Professional Learning Evaluation, Aug 2000)
Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) third conception of teacher research as social inquiry
is similar to Kemmis’s (2001) characterization of emancipatoryinterests where “the
emphasis is on transforming educational theory and practice toward emancipatory ends and thus raising fundamental questions about curriculum, teachers’ roles, and the ends as well as the means of schooling” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 18). Emancipatory interests were not stated up front as a specific focus of teacher inquiry but particular readings and speakers during the project resulted in some teachers questioning
curriculum and the nature of schooling. Grappling with emancipatory concerns tended to be something that ebbed and flowed in the course of reflective practices or as a part of theorizing about practice and purpose. Identifying a strong political perspective was problematic, as captured in the following journal entry:
I started with such high ideals about the project developing a critical/political and sociocultural perspective but I’m not really sure how to facilitate this. If I’m working with the group in the spirit of PAR then it doesn’t feel right for me to bring issues to the group that I think would be ‘good’ for them. At the moment their concerns are practical and it seems that teachers want to focus in on what they think they can realistically change and impact. If you don’t see yourself as operating politically, why expend energy trying to change the broader political system in which you work? Teachers rail against the political and the ‘powers that be’ or ‘leadership’. Perhaps the first step is to develop self-understanding and clarity of values and beliefs before our vision can go beyond? Or perhaps I’m missing something more subtle in the reflections of the teachers as they worry about their ESL kids or assessment or having to measure outcomes at the expense of teaching well? Can the political be brought to the group or must it
emerge from already felt discord or dissonance? What does ‘political’ look like at a local level or in the eyes of teachers?
(Researcher Journal, July 2000)
Emancipatory interests can be connected to values, ideals and vision. In a small way, taking action to enact such beliefs rather than simply espouse them could be taken as a step towards emancipatory action.
The action research process resulted in a range of different kinds of questions being posed by teacher researchers, with a shift in emphasis noticeable as the year progressed. Questions were coded into the following categories:
• What to teach: content and skills students need to develop, what’s important and
worthwhile?
• How to teach: effective strategies and approaches, engaging students?
• How to effectively organize for teaching?
• What works: what has been the impact of teaching, changed practices, and use
of new resources?
• How best to communicate and share with other staff?
• Confronting the legitimacy of particular practices—is this good for students?
• Equity of access to resources by students—what are the implications of
inequity?
• How am I doing as a teacher: my role, knowledge, strategies and impact on
students?
• How to change school structures and timetables?
• How to maintain personal motivation and direction: where to from here?
Although teachers’ questions were strongly weighted towards the technical or practical, they also illustrated a concern with understanding and improving their own practices and the impact they had on their students. Many ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions focused on what to do or teach, but some confronted what students were being asked to do and reflected on personal effectiveness. Where questions asked early in the action research cycle focused mainly on issues of practice, pedagogy, resources and evaluation, later questions also addressed communicating and sharing with staff and beyond the school, changing school structures, maintaining personal motivation and direction and future
planning and development. Thus teachers’ concerns changed over time and broadened from the immediate demands of knowing what to do to embrace a sense of themselves as learners who had worthwhile contributions to make in their professional community. At the very least, the action research project was a catalyst for more systematic and ongoing reflection about particular teaching and learning issues. It provided a focus for implementing change and mirrored the contradictions raised by Kemmis (2000) as to what actually happens when teachers become researchers — do they investigate their reality in order to transform it (Fals Borda, 1979) or transform their reality in order to investigate it (Kemmis, 2000. p. 8)? Both appeared to occur in dialogical relationship with one another. For example, teachers surveyed, interviewed and reflected with students to find out their opinions about use of ICT, which in turn introduced a new dynamic into the relationship between teacher and student.
At its strongest, the participatory research project led teachers into new areas of reflection and theorizing and developed a strong sense of professionalism, confidence, morale and motivation for some of the participants:
I would like to publicly thank the Department of Education for allowing me to participate in this wonderful, meaningful and thought provoking project…I have never worked so hard in my life. I have never wanted to work as hard as I now want to work.
(Nina, 6 month Professional Learning Evaluation, August 2000) It was a very exciting time for me because it is the first time I have been
acknowledged, by my school, as being part of the project. I had the honour of presenting numeracy at my school. I felt very comfortable and confident talking about how we teach mathematics and my part in the project. The other staff and quite a few of the parents gave me heaps of positive feedback and were very interested in my approach. It is always a boost to the confidence and ego to be given such encouraging feedback. This was undoubtedly the highlight to my week.
Power and influence
Several influences impacted the questions/issues that teachers decided to pursue for their participatory research. One external constraint was a Department of Education requirement that teachers’ concerns link in some way with technology use in the classroom and that they address either Early Years or Middle Years initiatives. This constraint was not viewed as problematic to teachers and actually helped to provide some initial focus and structure. It also linked their action research to initiatives that they saw themselves as needing to incorporate into their practice.
An internal influence was the strong desire of the teachers to work together in small groups. During the initial group formation and community building phase, teachers