Looking Back To Find a Vision: Exploring the Emancipatory Potential of Teacher Research

Patricia A. Crawford and Jeffrey Cornett
Patricia Crawford is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Early Childhood Education, and Jeffrey Cornett is Associate Professor, Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Research is an intimidating word, one that conveys an image of dour scientists in white jackets, peering through microscopes and conducting a whole array of experiments. Even within education circles, research often has been interpreted as a controlled scientific endeavor, something traditionally engaged in by academics. For decades, education research largely was limited to a positivist paradigm, in which the only studies considered to be valuable were experimental ones, and the only findings accepted as sound and relevant were those that yielded hard numbers and widespread generalizations (Aronowitz,1988; Berlin,1990; Lincoln & Cuba, 1985; (Popkewitz, 1984; Shannon, 1989). The fact that the professional literature was full of research representing this single, scientific perspective sent a strong message to classroom teachers: Education research was serious business, something that clearly belonged within the domain of academia, and it was an activity that practitioners, "real teachers," were wise to avoid.

Missing Pieces: Alternative Perspectives

Despite the many experimental studies that have contributed greatly to our understanding of children and their learning, we have come to realize that this type of research has its limitations. Teaching and learning are very complex acts, ones that cannot (and should not) always be controlled. Complex actions and interwoven relationships cannot always be well- represented by a number, score, or set of statistics (Bissex, 1990; Nixon, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In fact, statistics often can lead to misinterpretations and can be manipulated in ways that do not fully represent their intent, content, or context (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Popkewitz, 1990).

In response to the challenges of conducting research on complex, multilayered issues, alternative paradigms began to emerge within the field of education research. The term "paradigm," coined and propagated by Thomas Kuhn (1970), refers to the perspective or lens through which people view their world. Therefore, the paradigms through which we operate have the potential to inform our values and affect the ways that we think, act, work, and approach problems. As Patton (1978) notes:

A paradigm is a worldview, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of the real world. As such, paradigms are deeply embedded in the socialization of adherents and practitioners: Paradigms tell them what is important, legitimate, and reasonable. (p. 203)

Thus, paradigms have the potential to change the way in which researchers approach questions and go about the business of investigating problems, collecting data, and reporting findings (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,1999; Cuba, 1990; Lincoln & Cuba, 1985).

During this century, many educators began to explore education from a constructivist paradigm; one in which schooling was situated within a social world and in which teaching and learning were viewed as complex, multilayered, meaning making activities that draw from both the social and cognitive realms (Donaldson, 1979; Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wells, 1986).

In order to explore the dimensions and implications of this type of teaching and learning, some scholars began to adopt alternative paradigms of education research. Those paradigms valued context, acknowledged the ways in which schooling was embedded within the larger framework of the social sciences, and required the use of qualitative methodologies to better represent the complex realities of teaching and learning within this holistic social world. Consequently, a wider range of research began to appear in the professional literature including descriptive statistics, ethnographies,case studies, historical research, and a variety of theoretical pieces. In spite of these changes, debates continued to rage regarding both the legitimacy and significance of qualitative research, and positivism continued to be the dominant research paradigm in many facets of the field.

Beyond the complex issues related to quantitative versus qualitative research paradigms, many of the studies presented in the professional literature were missing two key elements: a real-life classroom context and the voice of the teacher (Allen & Shocklev, 1996; Lytle & Cochran-Smith 1990a,1990b). Thus, the most common place for teaching and learning-the classroom-often was left unexplored, and the person who best knew the children and learning situation in question-the teacher-was left unheard.

Teachers As Researchers: Looking Back

During the past two decades, "teacher research" has come to the foreground in discussions of education policy and professional development (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992; Smulyan, 1987). Voices as diverse as those of classroom teachers (Atwell, 1993; Chandler & the Mapleton Teacher-Research Group, 1999), teacher educators (CochranSmith & Lytle, 1992; Short, 1993), critical theorists (Kincheloe, 1991, 1993; Shannon, 1996), and professional organizations have called for teachers to pose questions about their own instruction and their students' learning, and to engage in relevant, well-grounded, inquiry based studies. This movement has produced an untold number of classroom-based studies and professional books (for examples, see Allen, 1995; Allen & Gonzalez,1997; Chandler & the Mapleton Teacher Research Group, 1999; Dudley Marling, 1997), and the development of entire journals devoted to the study and celebration of teacher research (see Teacher Research: A Journal of Inquiry, edited by Brenda Miller Power and Ruth Shagoury Hubbard, as an example).

With the current groundswell of support, it is easy to assume that teacher research is nothing more than a fashionable trend, a recently developed bandwagon that will come and go like so many other innovations that wax and wane in their relevance to education life. The recent emergence of the "teacher researcher" moniker, along with the current attention given to the teacher research phenomena, could lead many to believe that the whole concept is a new idea. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. Although often cloaked in different terminology, teacher research has a solid history.

Historical Influences

Current scholars (e.g., Hubbard & Power, 1999; McFarland & Stansell, 1993) trace the development of teacher research all the way back to Comenius (1592-1670), who advocated the use of observational techniques as an aid to both child psychology and teaching methodologies. In the 18th century, Rousseau (1712-1778) advocated observing children closely as a way of understanding the learning process. Pestalozzi (1746-1827) built on Rousseau's work through the utilization and application of naturalistic observation methods. Herbart (1776-1841) then used these same concepts, combining them with scientific methods of research, in order to develop a systematic approach to curriculum development.

These early beginnings set the stage for more recent innovations in the field. Maria Montessori (1870-1952) invoked the use of structured observational techniques in her studies of children's learning. She also supported classroom teachers in using these same types of techniques in their daily work with children, encouraging them to observe and determine "sensitive periods," those times when students are most interested in and capable of learning about a specific concept. Teachers then could adapt their teaching by providing the appropriate materials and experiences to meet children's needs and interests during these periods. The research teaching connection in the Montessori model closely links teachers' observations with instructional change and educational improvement.

Later, the Progressive Movement and other 20th century reforms ushered in a whole new range of support for teacher research. John Dewey, leader of the movement, asserted that education should emphasize children and their active learning, and that the classroom should be viewed not only as a school setting, but also as a laboratory. In his renowned work, Democracy and Education (1916), Dewey emphasized the importance of finding continuity between theory and practice. He also called upon teachers to become involved in "reflective action" and to be participants in the work of education research (cited in McFarland & Stansell, 1993).

Dewey's influence is clearly evident in the work of Lucy Sprague Mitchell, his student and eventual colleague. Describing herself as a scientist not "by training or temperament" but "by conviction," she noted that, "I was a child of the times, and joined the movement to make education of children a science of human behavior" (Mitchell, 1953, pp. 545, 538). She worked to establish the Bureau of Educational Experiments in 1916. This organization served as a clearinghouse for education Research and supported naturalistic and experimental investigations about teaching and learning, with research taking place in both laboratory schools and other field settings (Antler, 1987).
In one of these field settings, Caroline Pratt, another early 20th century reformer, extended the work of Dewey and Mitchell via the establishment of what would later become the City and Country School. An avid proponent of teacher-directed, classroom- based research, Pratt (1948) reflected on her own development: "My own education was given me not in teacher-training courses, not by professors of pedagogy, but by children themselves" (p. 7). In her landmark book, I Learn From Children, Pratt (1948) repeatedly links the professional work of teaching young children with ongoing research, acknowledging that real teacher development could not exist solely through the study of theory, but rather requires application with children. In speaking of the City and Country School, she notes:

Nor would I have dared to hope that it would become, as one of our many distinguished parents has described it, "an experiment under a glass dome-reaching toward an end that the tested residue of the work could be applied to the vast areas of public education." (Pratt, 1948, p. 176)

Harriett Merrill Johnson also worked with the Bureau of Educational Experiments, through which she established a nursery school in 1919. She believed that good early education is built on child-centered principles and the teacher should be a researcher who creates a supportive educational environment and develops instructional plans based on careful, ongoing observations of students. She urged the use of anecdotal records as data sources, and kept verbatim records of her students' spontaneous comments. Antler notes, "Johnson pioneered the development of sustained, observational studies of young children, though she did not conduct experiments with specific hypotheses to be tested or with matched control groups" (Antler, 1987, p. 287). In short, Johnson viewed research as something that sprang from the lives and learning of children in their classrooms, and teachers as capable professionals who could pose thoughtful questions, collect data, and be active in the world of research.

It is significant that educators Such as Dewey, Mitchell, Pratt, and Johnson not only advocated for the alignment of ongoing teaching and research, but did so within the context of strong social and political agendas. Progressive educators situated the professional work of teaching and research within the larger mission of transforming society by advocating for democratic values and ideals. They viewed research and teaching as partner activities that could be directed to bringing about a more sound education system, as well as a more just society.

Current Trends in Teacher Research

Current trends in teacher research, while built upon the philosophical and practical foundations laid by these pioneering educators, also draw upon the action research model that came to prominence in the 1940s and 1950s (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,1992; McFarland & Stansell, 1993). Action research explores the questions and happenings of everyday life (Nixon, 1987). It situates the problems to be considered within a natural context and honors the voices within those contexts, with studies typically being carried out by on-site participants or their designees. Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist who coined the term in the 1940s, posited that action research differed significantly from mainstream empirical research because it did not separate the investigation of a problem from the process of solving it (McFarland & Stansell, 1993).

Because it blurs the lines between theorists and practitioners, as well as between research and practical action, action research has the potential to be subversive and to shift the prevailing power structures in the worlds of both theory and practice (Berlin, 1990; Kincheloe, 1993; Nixon, 1987). Action research, when embedded within a critical framework and wedded to a sense of praxis, invites interested parties to reconsider definitions of expertise and to revisit the roles that all participants play in the research process. More specifically, critical action research raises pointed questions of power: Who gets to name the foci of research? Who gets to participate in the shaping of studies and the collection of data? Whose voice will be heard in the reporting of this research? And, finally, who stands to benefit from the research?

Today, action research takes the form of teacher research, which Lytle and Cochran-Smith (1990a) have defined as a "...systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers about their own school and classroom work" (p.84). Although born out of naturalistic inquiry and everyday classroom life (Hubbard & Power, 1993), teacher research is also carried out in a focused, planned, and systematic manner. It is part of teachers' ongoing efforts to make sense of their worlds by focusing on questions that involve not only academic arenas, but also the social, political, cultural, and economic realms (Berlin, 1990; Kincheloe, 1993; Popkewitz, 1990; Shannon, 1996).

A critical, action-based perspective stands in opposition to the prevailing hegemony that traditionally has defined education research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Researchers, operating from this paradigm, recognize that the call to disinterested, decontextualized research is a political strategy, one that seeks to divorce theory from practice, as well as to alienate inquiry from values. Conversely, critical teacher researchers embrace and make explicit socio-historical contexts and view their accompanying values as being central to the research act. As Popkewitz notes, "[t]he commonsense practices of educational research tend to remove social and historical concerns from problems of the construction of procedures and rules for research" (1990, p. 51), while in critical action research, "[t]he questions at hand, the concepts brought to bear upon the investigation, and the particular contextual variations contain ambiguities and complexities that researchers work through to Shape and fashion their methods of inquiry" (Popkewitz,1990,p.51).Seen in this light, critical teacher research has the potential to be not only a vehicle for a way of knowing and a vehicle for improving practice, but also a catalyst for change and a form of democratic action (Kincheloe, 1993).

Past Meets Future

Teachers have always had significant, firsthand insights about education life, as well as well-developed, tacit knowledge about classrooms, schools, communities, and the children in their care. Teachers are the ones most often affected by education research and the policies built thereon. Thus, it is imperative that teachers have opportunities not only to contribute to the teacher research conversation, but also to shape the course of this discussion.

Teacher research, with its rich socio-history and its forward- looking vision, provides a wonderful opportunity for partnerships between university and public school faculties, adds a unique and significant contribution to the body of professional knowledge, and provides a forum for effecting change through fundamental questioning of prevailing power structures. In short, teacher research both informs and validates the very important professional work done by educators work that is situated directly at the intersection of practice and theory. The words of Carolyn Pratt (1948), who helped to pave the road for teacher researchers more than a half century ago, seem all the more relevant today, as teacher research enters the new millennium:

And so, while we continually beat out our ideas together, tested our findings and our theories on each other, in the end it was the teacher who applied the principles, put the theories into practice, verified the findings by her own experience. The teacher in her classroom was the scientist in the laboratory and the artist in the studio, rolled into one, and supreme in her own sphere. It could not be otherwise. (p.177)

References Allen, J. (1995). It's never too late. Portsmouth, NH: Heinernann.
Allen, J., & Gonzalez, K. (1997). There's room for me here: Literacy workshop in the middle school. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Allen, J., & Shockley, B. (1996). Composing a research dialogue: University and school research communities encountering a cultural shift. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 220-228.
Antler, J. (1987). Lucy Sprague Mitchell: The making of a modern Woman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Aronowitz,S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis, MN: Universitv of Minnesota Press.
Atwell, N. (1993). Foreword. In C. M. Santa, K. G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action (pp. vii-x). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Berlin, J. A. (1990). The teacher as researcher: Democracy, dialogue, and power. In D. A. Daiker & M. Morenberg (Eds.), The writing teacher as researcher: Essays in the theory and practice of class-based research (pp. 3-14). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bissex, G. L. (1990). Small is beautiful: Case study as appropriate methodology for teacher research. In D. A. Daiker & M. Moremberg (Eds.), The Writing teacher as researcher: Essays in the theory and practice of class-basedresearch(pp.70-75). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook/ Heinemann.
Chandler, K., & the Mapleton Teacher-Research Group. (1999). Spelling inquiry: How one elementary school caught the mnemonic plague. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1992). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront? American Journal of Education, 100, 298-322.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28, 15-25.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Donaldson, M. (1979). Children's minds. New York: Norton.
Dudley-Marling, C. (1997). Living with uncertainty: Classroom life and other messy realities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher researchers. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative paths to empowerment. NewYork: Falmer.
Kincheloe,J.L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Kuhn,T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1990a). Learning from teacher research: A working typology. Teachers College Record, 92, 83- 103.
Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1990b). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-11.
Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 447-474.
McFarland, K. P., & Stansell, J. C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C. M. Santa, K. G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action (pp. 12-18). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Mitchell, L. S. (1953). Two lives. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Nixon, J. (1987). Teacher as researcher: Contradictions and continuities. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 20-32.
Patton,M.Q. (1978). Utilization-Focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Piaget,J. (1952). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research: The functions of the intellectual. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Popkewitz,T.S. (1990). Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical theory and methodology. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 46-66). Newbury, Park, CA: Sage.
Pratt, C. (1948). I learn from children. New York: Harper & Row.
Shannon, P. (1989). Paradigmatic diversity in the reading research community. Journal of Reading Behavior, 2, 97-107.
Shannon,P. (1996). Teachers researching during troubling times. Teacher Research, 4,12-23.
Short, K. G. (1993). Teacher research for teacher educators. In C. M. Santa, K. G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.),Teachers are researchers: Refection and action (pp. 155-159). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Smulyan, L. (1987). Collaborative action research: A critical analysis. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 57-70.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.