The purpose of this study was to examine what happens when teacher candidates engage in practitioner research in a pre-service program with a focus on inquiry and the goal of
improving pupil learning. For more than a decade, teacher education programs at HU have utilized teacher research, or “inquiry,” as a way to encourage teacher candidates’ questioning, reflection, and decision-making based on the data of classroom practice. With the advent of a broad research initiative in teacher education reform, Teachers for a New Era (TNE), the inquiry project was revised to place an explicit focus on pupil learning. At the same time, an inquiry scoring rubric was designed to assess the inquiry projects. This dissertation drew on the data from the larger TNE research project. This study utilized a mixed methods approach, providing three views on learning to teach through inquiry using quantitative analysis of rubric scores of teacher candidates’ inquiry papers, a content analysis of a sample of candidates’ projects, and longitudinal case studies of two candidates as they completed their master’s program and through the first two years of teaching.
In this chapter I first discuss the mixed methods approach used in this study, including the contributions of quantitative methods and interpretive qualitative methods in the form of content analysis and case studies. I then describe the context of the study in terms of the pre- service program at HU and as a study that drew data from the larger TNE initiative, and also utilizes multiple research settings. Next, three analyses are described as well as issues of reliability, validity, and limitations of the study.
Mixed Methods
A mixed methods approach was utilized in this dissertation about practitioner inquiry “to understand more fully, to generate insights that are deeper and broader, and to develop important knowledge claims” (Greene, 2007, p. 251) than might be captured from a single method. Given the complexity and scope of understanding learning to teach through practitioner research in the teacher education program and into the first years of teaching, a mixed methods design was most useful for investigating this complex issue through multiple vantage points (Creswell, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). Using qualitative and quantitative methods offered a number of methodological advantages in the thorough investigation of the questions, including the potential for: (1) triangulation, or convergence in the results of the same issue, across methods; (2)
complementarity, or elaboration and clarification from the results of one method to another; (3) initiation, or the re-framing of the research due to the discovery of contradictions among
methods; (4) development, whereby the results of one method informed the findings of another method; and (5) expansion, or extending the research parameters by using different methods for various research elements (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).
In using multiple methods, then, a more comprehensive view of learning to teach through inquiry was possible. The interpretations and findings generated from three analyses worked together to address the various research questions, and contribute to an understanding of learning to teach through inquiry in a broader and richer way than any single analysis might have done. The research approach was a modified sequential explanatory mixed methods strategy, as described by Creswell (2009), whereby the findings from the initial quantitative analysis were further developed through qualitative content analysis. This design was modified sequential explanatory strategy in the sense that an additional third phase of qualitative data was used as an
additional sequential strategy in order to further expand and elaborate on the findings of the previous analyses. The collection period for the third phase began prior to the first two phases and extended for a period of three years, for the development of case studies (see Figure 3.1). Unlike many sequential explanatory strategies, this design gave equal weight to quantitative and qualitative data collection. Analysis #1 was a quantitative analysis of rubric scores for 92 inquiry projects collected from two cohorts of master’s level candidates in May, 2006 and May, 2007, conducted as a pilot and exploratory analysis. The results of this quantitative analysis was then further developed in Analysis #2, a qualitative content analysis of twelve selected inquiry projects, representing the range of rubric scores in Analysis #1. The data for Analysis #2 were collected and analyzed following the analysis of rubric scores in Analysis #1, in August, 2007. Finally, Analysis #3 included two longitudinal case studies of teacher candidates in a program focused on the role of inquiry, further expanding the findings of Analysis #1 and #2 by taking a longitudinal perspective that explored whether and how candidates take an inquiry stance in practice. The data collection for Analysis #3 began in August, 2005 and continued through June, 2008. All three analyses were intended to provide complementarity, allow for initiation, and triangulate findings (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).
Using this mixed methods approach, the study cut across two dimensions, through increasing depth and across time. First, the different analyses provided a telescoping vision in examining the issues of learning to teach through practitioner inquiry. Analysis of a relatively large sampling of scored papers provided a broad view. This was refined through the close examination of a more finite sample of the papers using content analysis. Then, an intimate examination of learning to teach through inquiry was offered in case studies, providing deeper
Figure 3.1 Mixed Methods Modified Sequential Explanatory Design
Analysis #1 – Exploratory Pilot
Analysis #1 – Exploratory Analysis
Analysis #2 – Content Analysis