See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249747836

Action research in teacher education

Article  in  Action Research · March 2008

DOI: 10.1177/1476750307083716

CITATIONS READS

53 6,585

2 authors, including:

Julian Kitchen
Brock University
87 PUBLICATIONS   734 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Self-Study and Diversity II: Inclusive Teacher Education for a Diverse World View project

Admissions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julian Kitchen on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Action Research
Volume 6(1): 7–28
Copyright© 2008 SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1476750307083716

ARTICLE Action research in teacher

education

Two teacher-educators practice action

research as they introduce action research to
preservice teachers

Julian Kitchen
Brock University, Canada

Dianne Stevens
University of Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT

Two teacher-educators, an instructor and a teaching assistant,

designed an action research project focused on enhancing their
professional practice and the practice of their students by intro-
ducing the preservice teachers to action research. Both teacher-
educators viewed this decision as progressive and emancipatory,
as action research encourages inquiry and reflection, connects
theory to practice, and creates links between preservice and
in-service teaching. Simultaneously, the teacher-educators inte-
grated preservice curriculae, modeling the enriched teaching
and learning that can result from an interdisciplinary approach.
Data include preservice teachers’ action research proposals,
KEY WORDS
reports and reflections, as well as the teacher-educators’ reflec-
• inquiry tions and collaborative conversations. Instructors used self-study
methodology to reflect on their effectiveness in enhancing the
• instructional
professional lives of their students and themselves. A significant
improvement number of preservice teachers indicated that engaging in
• interdisciplinary action research expanded their conceptions of teaching; such
• self-study expansion holds potential for fostering change in schools.
• teacher
collaboration

7
8 • Action Research 6(1)

Phase 1: Identifying an issue

Introduction: People and context

Action research became an integral part of the teacher education program for 32
preservice teachers (PSTs) in Secondary Program One (SP1), and for ourselves, as
their instructors. Julian, instructor of the Teacher Education Seminar (TES), and
Dianne, teaching assistant, introduced our PSTs to action research, while making
the implementation of the process an action research project for ourselves. Our
enthusiasm for this two-tiered action research project rested on the belief that we
could encourage inquiry and reflection, connect theory to practice, and link pre-
service and in-service teaching. By so doing, we would broaden the traditional
parameters of what it means to teach, for ourselves and our PSTs.
Context is critical to change initiatives (Fullan, 1999; Sarason, 1982). Two
features of our organizational structure encouraged us to engage in action
research. First, our institution groups preservice teachers in cohorts for three
foundation courses – TES, educational psychology, and sociology. We viewed
this arrangement as an opportunity to explore action research as a collaborative,
interdisciplinary project, developed in conjunction with other instructors. While
we realized the increased challenge of this added dimension, as we were working
within the tight confines of an eight-month teacher education program, we
reasoned that integration could help balance the added workload for PSTs, while
modeling collaborative teaching and integrated curriculum.
Second, our PSTs spent 14 days observing and assisting in partner schools
prior to their first practicum. We reasoned that this period of observation would
enable them to identify inquiry questions of personal interest that related to
themes in the educational psychology course. It was important to us that students
form their own questions (Laidlaw, 1992). Giving them the freedom to choose
research topics that were personally meaningful was in line with our participa-
tive, democratic approach (Brislington School, 2001), and we hypothesized that
choice would enhance their chances of having enlightening experiences. This, in
turn, could encourage them to continue action research as in-service teachers, and
contribute to our end goal of fostering teacher-based research as a professionally
emancipatory model.

Identifying the problem: Rationale and baseline data

Peer dynamics and personal commitment

Prior to undertaking this project, we had known each other for a number of years
as graduate students. Over time, mutual interests led to many conversations that
illuminated our common values, beliefs and philosophies. Julian invited Dianne
to work with him as a teaching assistant, putting beliefs into practice by intro-
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 9

ducing our PSTs to action research. While Julian had employed action research as
a classroom teacher, he reasoned that Dianne’s greater experience with collabo-
rative action research would complement his experience as a TES instructor.
Guiding our project plans was a shared belief in the power of education to
enhance individual lives and contribute to social change. Our orientation towards
viewing teachers as agents of empowerment for their students, reinforced by our
many years of classroom teaching experience and our academic studies, made us
committed practitioner-researchers (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Thus, we
believed strongly in the importance of developing awareness of the complexity of
classroom and school cultures in new teachers, and fostering in them the ability
to adapt their practice to the needs of students within their social contexts
(Bullough & Gitlin, 1995). Our experiences also instilled in us respect for
teachers as curriculum makers (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992), and an emancipa-
tory orientation towards educational research and teacher development (Kemmis
& McTaggert, 2000). As we sought to encourage preservice teachers to become
proactive through reflection and inquiry into their practice, we committed our-
selves to inquiring into our teacher education practices.

Connections: Reflection and inquiry, theory and practice

When Julian became a teacher-educator in 1999, he was aware of the persistent

concerns of preservice teachers regarding the tension between educational theory
and classroom practice. Since the Holmes Group (1986) identified this tension,
the reform of teacher education programs has been a priority for many teacher-
educators and educational researchers. Making connections between theory and
practice has proved elusive, as researchers have come to realize the complex set of
skills teachers require to reflect critically on their practice in order to address the
needs of students in schools (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). Julian
attempted to bridge this gap by requiring those in his class to employ a range of
reflective practices: writing personal narratives; reflecting on critical incidents
during practice teaching; examining case studies; and undertaking critical analy-
sis of educational readings. These practices were designed to help them negotiate
the complexity of teaching by relating theory to their complex and rich lived
experiences as learners and aspiring teachers (Brislington School, 2001). Based on
the performance of his students and their feedback on his course, Julian was
satisfied that personal reflection and critical analysis were helpful. However, he
identified the explicit promotion of inquiry into practice as a priority. We hoped
that action research, with its emphasis on reflection and inquiry for the purpose
of taking positive action, would improve the instructional practice of preservice
teachers and encourage them to become active in curriculum development, reflec-
tive practice and research into practice. Should this happen, their gains would
ultimately benefit the students they taught.
10 • Action Research 6(1)

Positioning ourselves in the field

While a shared commitment to improving practice led us to develop and research

this two-tiered action research project, we position ourselves differently within
the five traditions of practitioner research identified by Zeichner and Noffke
(1991). Julian locates himself within the self-study in teacher education tradition
(Kitchen, 2005a, 2005b), whereas Dianne places herself within the action
research tradition.
Self-study is a methodology characterized by examination of the role of the
self in the research project and ‘the space between self and the practice engaged
in’ (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 15). While self-study research has ‘used vari-
ous qualitative methodologies and has focused on a wide range of substantive
issues’ (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 305), the emphasis self-study places on
reflection means it is highly compatible with action research. Thus, as we planned
our teacher education action research project, Julian suggested we journal, write
reflections, examine letters and emails we wrote to our preservice teachers, and
note details of our conversations with each other, in order to engage in meaning-
ful reflection on our roles as teacher-educators. As Bullough and Pinnegar (2001)
state, it is through written reflection and teacher conversations that we negotiate
the tensions between ourselves and our contexts, between biography and history.
Because of her involvement in collaborative action research, Dianne has
observed that empowering teachers to bring implicit theory to the conscious level
and to develop explicit educational theory could ultimately enrich the learning
milieu for students. She believed that, by engaging our PSTs in a significant action
research project, we would enhance their learning experiences and develop a
modest, collaborative learning community. Her hope was that our small project
would be a first step in enlarging the concept currently held by our PSTs as to
what it can mean to be a teacher.
In summary, we made plans based on the assumption that self-study and
action research are mutually complementary. Furthermore, we believed that
combining action research with self-study would enrich our assessment of the
two-tiered action research project; by examining our own reflections and conver-
sations before, during and after the project, we would understand more deeply
the complexities of teacher education.

An interdisciplinary dimension

As we considered possibilities for incorporating action research into a crowded

curriculum, we were intrigued by the possibility of designing an interdisciplinary
assignment. Julian had long been interested in strengthening partnerships among
the instructors for his cohort for the purpose of enhancing instruction across the
curriculum, but the circumstances and timing had been problematic. This project
offered an opportunity for instructor collaboration that could simultaneously
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 11

serve as a model of interdisciplinary teaching for our PST students. As well, our
experience as teachers fostered a belief that building interdisciplinary connections
into our teacher education course would enhance meaningful knowledge connec-
tions for our PSTs.
When the educational psychology instructor, Joanne, expressed an interest
in collaboration, Julian proposed that the preservice cohort take part in an
interdisciplinary action research project. As the issues identified by our student
teachers could be subsumed under the topics discussed in the educational
psychology course, the theoretical aspect would be part of the educational psy-
chology course; the TES instructors would facilitate the research project in both
the university and practicum settings. We were excited by the opportunities to
make connections and model collaboration. The three instructors planned one
joint project providing assessment opportunities for both courses in order that the
overall workload of preservice teachers would be minimally increased.
Nevertheless, we each had separate concerns. Dianne was aware that not all
action researchers access formal theory as part of the process, and that some
people believe theory imposes unwanted outside influence on the teacher.
However, the richness of the theory–practice connection influencing action
research had played a significant part in Dianne’s growth as a high school
teacher. Furthermore, her thesis research on teachers’ professional growth
revealed that teachers who continue to develop professionally throughout their
careers do seek out theory to enrich their teaching practice (Stevens, 2006).
Finally, we were accessing theory to ground their action research project. Dianne
was confident that incorporating a theoretical component into the project would
inform the action research plan of the preservice teachers and enhance their
growth.
Based on his experience, Julian was aware of the interpersonal and logisti-
cal challenges posed. For example, it would be difficult to arrange ongoing meet-
ings of the three instructors, yet everyone needed to work toward a common end,
and consensus of intent was critical. In terms of logistics, he knew that both
instructors had to approve proposals prior to the first practicum and that the final
reports for educational psychology needed to be complete by the end of term.
Without downplaying the challenge, Julian thought he possessed the insider
knowledge (Kemmis & McTaggert, 2000) to make this work. He was also
prepared for an implementation dip (Fullan, 1999) during the first year of inter-
disciplinary action research.
In summary, we realized that including an interdisciplinary dimension in
this two-tiered action research project was pushing the limits. However, the
idea also had significant merit, and reflected our belief in the connection and
integration of knowledge.
12 • Action Research 6(1)

Theoretical frameworks and perspectives

Having established our personal and professional motivation, and with the
research of others as our baseline data, we reviewed action research literature to
select the framework and perspective best suited to our particular teacher-
education context. This review affirmed our belief that action research has the
potential to improve school culture and increase student success because of ‘the
potential of teacher research to help in the reform of schooling’ (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1990, p. 2). When school-based action research projects are focused,
connected to school program and vision, supported by administrators, and allo-
cated time and resources, they can have significant success. Indeed, as Sagor
(1992) notes, ‘Institutionalizing collaborative action research can transform
school culture, and it is that culture that fuels meaningful educational change’
and moves ‘educators in a continuously upward spiral in both their understand-
ings and their practices’ (pp. 187–8). These ideas, which were congruent with our
personal philosophies, encouraged us to embark on this worthwhile project.

The framework
Action research is generally defined as a form of educational research wherein a
professional, actively involved in practice, engages in systematic, intentional
inquiry into some aspect of that practice for the purpose of understanding and
improvement (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988;
Sagor, 1992; McNiff, 2002). Simply stated, action research looks for answers to
the question, ‘how do I improve my work?’ (Whitehead, 1989). The inquiry
process involves data gathering, reflection on the action as it is presented in the
data, generating evidence through the data, and making claims to knowledge
based on conclusions drawn from validated evidence (McNiff, 2002).
Improvement is broadly directed to enhancing learning for the student (Laidlaw,
1992). The research framework has been detailed by Bullough and Gitlin (1995),
Laidlaw (1992), and McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead (1996), amongst others.
We elected to use Bullough and Gitlin’s three-phase process (1995, p. 181).

• Phase 1: Identify and write up a concern or issue; collect baseline data. In

light of the data, reconsider and reformulate the issue and write a question.
• Phase 2: Write and implement an action plan; gather data; analyze data.
• Phase 3: Assess the plan in the light of the data analysis. Make recommenda-
tions for future study and practice.

Differing perspectives
We reviewed three conceptual approaches to action research in our literature
search. The first model links professors with teachers to form an action research
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 13

team in which the professor is acknowledged as having the theoretical expertise

and the teacher is the practical expert. A recent study by Ross, Rolheiser, and
Hoagboam-Gray (1999) is an example. While this approach would invest author-
ity in ourselves as the ‘knowledgeable’ teacher-educators, our preference was to
empower preservice teachers to assume ownership and make choices. We wanted
preservice teachers to understand their ability to independently identify signifi-
cant issues in their teaching context and to feel empowered to work towards
positive change.
The second model, proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), regards
action research as a group endeavor of staff, directed at critical change. While we
value collaboration, we acknowledged our preservice teachers had only limited
time in their practicum setting, and were viewed as transients by the in-service
staff. It was unlikely they would be able to carry out a collaborative action
research project, nor is a beginning teacher well positioned to engage in critical
practice.
In the third model, defined by Sagor (1992), action research is teacher-
initiated and teacher-directed, with the end goal of improving practice, and ulti-
mately improving schools. Sagor acknowledges that individual teachers frequently
undertake action research alone, based on an issue they have identified within
their teaching context. The degree of individual autonomy offered by this model
was consistent with our commitment to empower preservice teachers and suited to
their probable teaching situations.
Although we are attracted to the coherence offered by the other two models,
Sagor’s approach offered us greater flexibility as we explored the dynamics of
introducing preservice teachers to action research, with a view to encouraging the
emancipatory practice of positioning teachers to be theory-makers.

The question
Our research positioned us to formulate our question as follows: given the
requirements and limitations of our preservice teacher education program, is it
possible to introduce action research to our students in a way that will empower
them professionally?

Phase 2: Our teacher-educator action plan

Methods: Developing and implementing a plan

When we introduced the learning task of understanding and applying action
research, we modeled a teaching sequence preservice teachers could use when
presenting a new unit to students. By inquiring into their collective knowledge,
we learned that action research was a novel concept. We then presented an initial
14 • Action Research 6(1)

explanation, orally and in handouts, which included the following: the concept
and philosophy of action research; examples of projects; parameters of this
particular project; an evaluation rubric and guiding questions for writing the final
report and reflection; and a discussion of possible projects and of issues that
might arise.
It was time for our preservice teachers to go into action! Based on their pre-
practicum time in the classroom, each selected an issue of interest and developed
a question over the next few weeks. In many cases, their observations during the
fourteen days became baseline data. We responded to their research questions,
and provided guidance in reconceptualizing and rewriting.
At this point, Joanne, the educational psychology instructor, asked students
to research and write a review of literature pertinent to their action research
project and reflected in course curriculae. The specific purpose of the literature
search was to broaden the experiential knowledge of PSTs to include the experi-
ences of others, available in written form. Joanne collected, assessed, and gave
feedback on this review prior to preservice teachers going on practicum. Thus,
students were able to draw on educational psychology theory as they planned
their individual projects.
Prior to first practicum, each preservice teacher formulated a plan of action.
They implemented their plans and collected data during the practicum and other
field experience days. As they moved into the active research phase, we monitored
their work carefully, mentoring closely if advisable. All three instructors were
available for assistance after class or by email.
Upon returning from practicum, preservice teachers wrote final reports
analyzing their data, assessing their plan, and making recommendations for
future action or study. They concluded with reflections on their inquiry experi-
ences and the place of action research in their future practice. Each person also
shared his or her project in a class presentation. Instructors assessed the reports
and reflections according to the assignment rubric distributed at the beginning of
the project.

Teacher-educator data collection and analysis

There are two types of students in this action research project: our preservice
teachers and the secondary school students they taught during the practica. The
focus of our research was our students in the preservice teacher education
program. Thus, the data we collected consisted of their proposals, project reports
and reflections.
Once our PSTs had completed their projects and reports, we compiled and
interpreted the data we had collected from them to assess our own action research
project: had we implemented an interdisciplinary action research model in such a
way that we empowered PSTs professionally? Specifically, had they enhanced
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 15

their practice and expanded their concept of what it means to be a teacher? Data
samples and our analysis follow.

Examples of proposals

• How can I encourage the development of my students’ empathetic skills to

assist in the study and appreciation of literature?
• How can the stress associated with practical lab work be reduced for grade
11 students?
• Can music be used effectively by the teacher as a primary resource when
teaching in the history classroom?
• Will drama and performance in the form of story telling increase students’
social awareness and enthusiasm for text in a grade 9 English mythology
unit?
• How can I make my grade 9 science class inclusive so students of varied abil-
ities, including one hard-of-hearing student, all feel they are contributing
members?
• Will incorporating multiple intelligences into teaching in the history class-
room lead to higher levels of student engagement with the curriculum?
• Is it possible to improve the self-image of gifted female students in computer
programming, a subject that is traditionally dominated by males?
• Does group role-play impact students’ abilities to connect classroom learning
to their lives outside the classroom? If so, which strategies are most power-
ful?
• How can I use multiple intelligence theory to assist students in understand-
ing the process of creating an essay outline as an effective tool for essay writ-
ing?
• Can scaffolding test questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking
skills improve the assessment of learning in a grade 12 physics class?
• Is it possible to improve the self-esteem of gifted but spelling-challenged high
school students by sharing coping strategies?

Examples of projects

The following three examples of students’ action research projects are abbrevi-
ated, one-page reports, crafted from the original eight-page reports written by our
preservice teachers. Although the voices of our PST students are diminished by
the necessary shortening of their stories, the essence encourages readers to imag-
ine the fuller narrative.
16 • Action Research 6(1)

Teresa: Programming for dual exceptionalities

Question: How can I best program for a student with an exceptionality (Asperger
Syndrome) who is in a gifted program, while maintaining a suitable learning
environment for other students?
Baseline data: I was surprised to observe a variety of disabilities and learn-
ing styles in my school’s gifted program. Later I read studies estimating up to
300,000 children in the US are both gifted and learning disabled, and a second
estimate that 0.71 percent of the Swedish population has Asperger Syndrome.
Plan and implementation: I decided to focus on the case of a young, gifted
boy with Asperger Syndrome in my Latin class who appeared to be most at risk
in my current environment. This student had chosen Latin as an option, but had
difficulty remaining focused on the lessons and on homework. His mark was
below the class median; he had failed two tests, and was on academic probation.
As well, he was socially isolated because he appeared ‘weird’ to his classmates.
Learning the boy was highly skilled in computers and mathematics, I focused on
his strengths to build his confidence, while altering the environment in the
following four ways:

• Physical environment: Children with Asperger Syndrome are easily distracted

and lack concentration. With my associate teacher’s approval, I placed the
boy at the front of the class and questioned him frequently to help him attend.
We supplemented this approach by developing a system whereby teachers
tapped gently on the desk as a nonverbal cue requesting his attention.
• Language and communication environment: To diffuse the difficulties this
student had understanding instructions, I set up extra help sessions once a
week. These enabled me to add explanations or to simplify the lesson con-
cept if it seemed too abstract.
• Social environment: Children with AS often do not understand the rules of
social interaction. This was true for this boy, who was frequently bullied or
isolated. I broached the possibility of talking to students and staff about AS.
Subsequently, staff was informed, and the student was coached as to how to
respond to unwanted attention.
• Curricular environment: AS students are visual learners, who think con-
cretely. I developed grammar charts and vocabulary exercises as graphic
organizers, and helped the student develop a color-coordinated visual system
of tabs to sort binder material.

Conclusions: Although the student’s grade was still below average, sitting
at the front had doubled his attention span. As a result, he passed the next two
tests and was no longer on academic probation. As a result, I enhanced my
commitment to helping students develop their natural learning processes, and
acquired strategies to help me work with at-risk students.
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 17

Siow-Wang: Using cooperative learning to stimulate investigation and excitement

Question: Can the use of cooperative learning strategies in a grade 12 physics

class stimulate higher-level investigations and discoveries by students, and elevate
the excitement of learning?
Rationale: Physics is the study of the nature of the universe, and the learn-
ing of this subject should be accompanied by investigations, discoveries, and a
sense of excitement for the learner. Only through such learning can a student
truly understand how things work, and be able to use this knowledge to further
discover new theories.
Baseline data: The grade 12 physics class was highly motivated to earn high
marks and attend university. They worked hard at solving textbook problems,
but were generally passive and unexcited about physics. My questionnaire
revealed the students liked physics, had been successful in physics the previous
year, needed the credit for university, and found the classes to be generally useful
and interesting. They proposed more variety in teaching techniques and less time
spent taking up homework.
Plan and implementation: As the conclusion to a unit, I required the class to
apply the theories I taught to solve a real-life problem that the engineers at the
jet propulsion laboratory faced with the Mars Global Surveyor. The class was
divided into six teams; each team was responsible for tackling one or more unique
problem, which constituted part of the solution to the larger problem. A random-
ly selected student in each group reported back to the whole class. The activity
incorporated cross-curricular connections, investigated assumptions, and fostered
interdependence and teamwork.
Conclusions: The success of the cooperative learning activity was deter-
mined through teachers’ observations during the activity and a post-activity
students’ questionnaire.
Observations revealed that students were motivated to solve problems,
although they found it difficult to consider various assumptions because they are
seldom asked to do so. Students’ presentations were mostly successful, with only
one team experiencing difficulty. My associate teacher and I noted that students
asked numerous questions of a broad-based nature.
The post-activity questionnaire revealed students’ positive reaction to this
activity. They enjoyed applying theoretical learning to real-life situations and
putting things in context. The authenticity of the experience made the point that
the curriculum can have real-life applications, and students gained confidence in
their ability to handle real-life issues.
18 • Action Research 6(1)

Maureen: Classroom management

Question: Will reading about classroom management approaches and subse-

quently choosing and utilizing one method improve my classroom management
skills?
Baseline data: My previous knowledge and experience of classroom man-
agement.
Plan and implementation: After reading several classroom management
theories and reflecting on them, I chose to work with Jacob Kounin’s group
management approach. Kounin advocates a preventative practice in which
teachers develop specific skills to create an effective learning environment that
limits misbehavior. The primary skills are as follows:

• With-it-ness: The teacher shows s/he knows everything going on in the class-
room.
• Momentum and smoothness of transitions: The teacher manages and plans
lessons effectively to prevent misbehavior that multiplies during poorly
structured transitions.
• Group alerting: The teacher uses strategies to maintain student engagement.
• Learner accountability: The teacher holds students responsible for their own
learning.

I decided to employ Kounin’s four sets of teacher behaviors during my four-

week practicum. I focused on one of these primary skills each week of teaching in
my three American history classes, and observed how well it worked and how
comfortable I felt. I noted my responses in a journal, reflected upon what did and
did not work, and discussed classroom management with my associate teachers
every week. One challenge I faced was working with two associate teachers with
divergent classroom management philosophies and styles.
Conclusions: I found I can learn about classroom management by reading
and then implementing new strategies in a careful and reflective way. I don’t have
to rely on my personality or on unmediated experience. I found some skills felt
almost natural, but I needed to push myself to employ strategies that do not feel
natural. As a result of this experience, I realized the importance of setting up and
maintaining a positive classroom culture in order to create a constructive learning
environment for students. In the future, I intend to spend time at the beginning of
the term establishing a constructive classroom environment. At the same time, I
recognize that I also need to develop more effective strategies for responding to
misbehaviors as they occur.
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 19

Analysis of proposals and projects

Table 1 Source of the research question

Perceived needs of students 21

A desire to improve a particular teaching skill 6
Personal experience as a student 4
Preconceived ideas 1

Table 2 Projects classified by theme

Multiple intelligences in the classroom 6

Reducing stress to improve learning in science classrooms 5
Stimulating learning through language-based strategies 5
Stimulating learning in other ways 4
Equity 3
Assisting students with learning disabilities 3
Evoking empathy and connecting to real life 3
Classroom management 2
Students’ personalities 1

We were intrigued by the diversity and scope of the research questions preservice
teachers formulated (see Table 1).
Those who grasped the concept of action research from the start – approxi-
mately two-thirds of the class – generally found it easy to identify an issue they
wished to pursue as a project. Predominantly, proposals focused on student
learning needs, with most PSTs extending their thinking beyond traditional
approaches to classroom learning. For instance, six projects applied multiple
intelligences as a way of addressing the diverse ways in which people learn and
express their learning. Other projects in which teachers worked to improve a
professional skill were also directed at improving the learning environment,
which ultimately benefits students. For instance, as Maureen improved her class
management, the classroom context became a better place in which to learn.
Projects based on a preservice teacher’s experience as a student were often quite
poignant. For example, Joshua, who had been spelling-challenged in school,
wanted to know if he could help students who had the same challenge by sharing
the coping strategies he had developed over many years of trial and error.
A number of proposals and the follow-up projects addressed students’ emo-
tions and their experiences outside school. These included proposals concerning
stress reduction and equity in the classroom. Three proposals focused on simul-
taneously enhancing empathy and intellectual development, thus giving credence
to the holistic nature of learning, while others sought to make knowledge mean-
ingful in the world (see Table 2).
20 • Action Research 6(1)

In summation, the focus and direction of the projects enhanced the profes-
sional development of these future teachers by empowering them to reach out to
children in significant ways; action research had enhanced their practice. We
expected that PSTs’ understanding that they have the ability to positively affect
students’ learning and lives likely expanded their concept of what it means to
teach, as Maureen indicates, but we looked to PSTs’ reflections for confirmation.
The final reports revealed our students’ values and beliefs; as instructors, the
information we gained about the PSTs enabled us to be more professionally
responsive to their needs.
Not everyone found it easy to identify a question. One-sixth of the class had
difficulty reconciling action research with their pre-existing conceptions of
research as objective, statistical, reproducible, and requiring control groups to
assess validity. While some of these people came to understand, others remained
doubtful and unable to reconcile concepts right to the end. A second group, also
approximately one-sixth of the class, appeared unable to engage; they struggled
to find topics of personal interest and their proposals were often unfocused or
limited in nature. In future, we intend to respond to these challenges by providing
students with examples of research questions and projects written by other pre-
service teachers.
Ultimately, 23 of our 32 preservice teachers successfully applied the action
research process in a way we classified as ‘excellent’. Two students exceeded
expectations by presenting their projects at an educational research conference
the following year.

Students’ reflections and our analysis

Along with assessing the influence of action research on the practice of our PSTs,
we wanted to understand the impact this work had on their conceptions of teach-
ing. The reflections they wrote at the conclusion of the project provided us with
insights into both, and indicated they had some understanding of teacher-as-
researcher.
Many credited their action research projects with raising awareness of
educational issues. For example, Leslie learned ‘to continuously and consciously
observe, monitor, and reflect in order to improve my own practice’. Teresa
credited her project with ‘making me more aware of underlying issues within the
classroom, both social and academic’. More significant, in our view, is her next
sentence: ‘I think that the process of reflection and investigation that accompanies
an action research project forces a teacher to examine alternative ways of teach-
ing and learning – both of which are important in the process of life-long-
learning’. By taking an active role in creating and researching her practice, Teresa
moved beyond simply designing and implementing lesson plans. Instead, she was
‘forced’ to reflect and investigate, to see herself as an agent capable of transform-
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 21

ing learning among students. This sense of agency also emerged in Maureen’s
reflection: ‘I enjoyed this project tremendously. I would not have been as con-
scious of classroom management, nor as willing to experiment with different
strategies, if I had not had the opportunity to choose this topic.’ By ‘working on
the intersection of theory and practice’, she was reminded ‘of the need to keep
learning and of [her] ability to do so’. These comments convey the joy expressed
by these preservice teachers upon discovering that researching their practice could
make a difference in the lives of their students.
The example of Siow-Wang illustrates the power of action research when it
is combined with deep personal reflection. Siow-Wang, who had been educated
in Asia, sought to reconcile the tensions between her traditional academic educa-
tion and her attraction to cooperative learning activities. Her action research
project, in which she used cooperative learning activities to stimulate high level
investigations and discoveries in physics, provided her with an opportunity to
work through these issues. While cooperative learning proved ‘time consuming’,
she described it as very effective because it motivates students, enhances learning,
and demonstrates to students that ‘teamwork and communication are crucial’ to
solving complex, authentic problems. As a result, Siow-Wang indicated that she
is committed to using cooperative learning in future lessons and ‘would conduct
action research on a continuing basis in my future career’. Working through an
issue of interest enabled Siow-Wang to become more reflective and, through
reflection, develop a stronger identity as a teacher committed to authentic learn-
ing and practitioner research. Many of the preservice teachers identified reflection
as an important part of the process, which suggests that explicitly connecting
reflection and action research can be a powerful strategy in teacher education.
While over 75 percent of the students regarded the project as a success, a
cluster of approximately 20 percent of our preservice teachers expressed con-
cerns. One student wrote:
The action research was essentially useless. A research paper would have served us
better. We do not have the experience or the time to worry about it in the practicum.
I found the research part very helpful, but the action part was not.

Embedded in this criticism are three interesting perspectives on the project. This
student quite fairly addresses the tensions caused by delays in the selection of
research questions and the approval of proposals; these delays increased stress
during the high-stakes first practice teaching session. On a deeper level, this criti-
cism reveals a conception of teacher education that sees little place for action
research. The value attached to the academic portion of the project reveals a
possible preference for content or theory over practice in the field. Finally, this
comment raises the possibility that preservice teachers, who have no formal
experience as classroom teachers, are not yet equipped with the knowledge and
experience to be action researchers. These observations, while a concern for only
22 • Action Research 6(1)

a minority, raised important issues for us as we reflected on this project and con-
sidered ways in which to improve implementation in subsequent years.
Most PSTs were intrigued by action research. For example, Leslie wrote, ‘I
was surprised and gratified by how well my students responded to my efforts; this
led to stronger lessons and, therefore, more learning’. The positive feedback
contained in the majority of the reflections indicates that our preservice teachers
benefited by engaging in self-directed action research, as did their students.
They commented that the heightened awareness and deep reflection this project
engendered enriched their conceptions of what it means to teach.

Phase 3: Assessing our plan and considering implications

We reflected on both the action research project and our experiences as teacher-
educators during the project and at its conclusion. Julian maintained a journal
throughout the school year, while both of us wrote retrospective reflections. In
the tradition of self-study, we turned to these records for assistance in assessing
our plan.

Time line
Immediately after introducing the action research project, Julian noted concerns:
I am mindful of the challenges of implementing a complex, interdisciplinary project
on a tight time schedule. As I am unsure what we can reasonably expect from the
student teachers, I cannot anticipate all their concerns or be sure I am guiding them
in the right direction. I feel that I am not entirely in control of this project and am
concerned that the uncertainty may increase the anxiety of students in a one-year
B.Ed. program. (Journal, 15 September)

Time constraints created a number of challenges: collecting baseline data

was rushed and minimal; studies were forced to fit a five-week time frame; PSTs
had to negotiate the implementation of their project with their associate teacher;
and, action research projects frequently took time that would otherwise be
devoted to the curriculum and added to the already heavy workload of fledgling
teachers.
Protecting PSTs from overwork and was a major concern. While the
process generally went well, delays during the first weeks of classes created stress
for some. Julian recalls one example:
Today I visited Josh at Northern SS. He was concerned about his AR project and
was planning to adapt his spelling project to fit into his Chemistry class. While I was
pleased with his willingness to do this, I was also feeling guilty that energy was being
diverted away from his practicum duties. I have had similar conversations with other
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 23

students . . . Next year we need to get off the mark sooner so this does not happen.
(Journal, 10 November)

Collaboration and the interdisciplinary dimension

Julian also identified the collaborative and interdisciplinary dimensions as added
complexities to negotiate, and worried about the inevitable implementation dip.
The challenges of collaboration among the three instructors was an occa-
sional source of tension in this interdisciplinary project. Dianne noted, ‘It isn’t
easy to co-ordinate three instructors, and this project will work better if we are all
moving in the same direction’ (Reflection, July). For the most part, we avoided
overt conflict by clearly delineating roles and treading carefully around each
other’s areas of responsibility. Joanne, the educational psychology instructor,
considered the research questions in relation to learning and motivation; she
offered detailed suggestions and guided them to quality resources. On the other
hand, she did not address the methodological and implementation dimensions of
the projects.
While Dianne was given considerable autonomy in introducing action
research and responding to student work, she was always conscious that Julian
was ultimately responsible and accountable. Julian, as the team leader, gave
considerable latitude to Dianne and Joanne. He kept in mind the larger project
objectives and made adjustments along the way to accommodate the directions
the others were taking. At times this meant silently making concessions for the
sake of team cohesion.
We worked closely together. Each week after class, the two of us met for at
least an hour to jointly work out procedures and respond to issues emerging from
the preservice teachers. Meeting with Joanne was more problematic, due to dif-
ferences in schedules and the nature of our positions. It was impossible to meet on
Mondays, as we taught TES in the morning while Joanne taught educational
psychology in the afternoon. Furthermore, as she was a part-time instructor with
a busy consulting practice, there were few occasions when it was possible for
Julian and her to meet.
In summation, we believe that we modeled collaborative, interdisciplinary
teaching. At the same time, we acknowledge difficulties in coordinating instruc-
tions, expectations and marking, and accept we must meet more often if we hope
to present the assignment with greater consistency, work out problems together,
and optimize our results.
24 • Action Research 6(1)

Offering choice

Dianne’s reflections also reveal gritty points. She found that offering PSTs choice
of project was met with some reservation and possibly suspicion. While many
preservice teachers were excited by the prospect of research into a practical issue
of personal interest, the silent, expectant posture of some signaled to Dianne that
they doubted they would, in the end, have choice. Dianne recalled:
When I first stressed each person was to choose a project of meaning to him or
herself, I sensed some level of silent incredulity, an ‘Oh, yeah. Sure’ attitude. At some
point, at least some people thought they would be pointed in a direction. I told them
a story about my daughter-in-law who attended a faculty of education just last year.
Her action research project grew into an enormous – and to her, meaningless –
literacy project. When I asked her what she really wanted to know in her teaching
situation, she replied, ‘I needed to know how to walk into a classroom where I knew
no one and find out where each student was in math before I began teaching.’ I
replied, ‘That should have been your action research project.’ I sensed the story had
some impact, and our students were closer to believing they really would have choice
in this project. (Reflection, July)

Validating the research process

Validating the process proved to be a significant challenge, as a number of PSTs

were dubious as to whether action research could really be considered ‘research’.
This is hardy strange, given the empirical, positivist model that dominates our
culture. These questions were not easily answered. Possibly, the deep roots of
doubt could be addressed through discussion of research traditions, preferably in
advance of initiating the action research project.
Furthermore, although the majority of PSTs understood the ‘action for
improvement’ part of action research, a significant number worked within the
traditional research paradigm directed at eliciting information rather than chang-
ing practice. We need fine-tuned strategies to overcome this conceptual block.

The positives

In retrospect, we believe the achievements of our PSTs reflect our rationale for
undertaking this project. A majority of our students reported in their reflections
that they did connect theory to practice through action research inquiry and
reflection. Many found the experience worthwhile and planned to engage in
further action research as in-service teachers. Their reactions speak to the power
of action research as a methodology that encourages new teachers to consider
becoming researchers of their own practice.
As instructors, we were pleased that many elements we specifically built
into the design and delivery of the action research assignment contributed to a
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 25

positive learning experience: offering choice; making interdisciplinary connec-

tions; and responding sensitively to our students’ proposals and projects.
Furthermore, our collaboration as teacher-educators paid dividends; we learned
from each other, as collaborators so frequently do. Having worked through the
process, Julian is now confident he can add action research to his preservice
curriculum. The self-study approach to the assessment of this action research
project revealed to Dianne the deeper dimensions of appraisal this tradition
engenders. Both of us benefited professionally, and our growth better positions us
to help our future students.
While there were challenges along the way, student data validated the opti-
mism Julian expressed in a journal entry.
The preservice teachers’ enthusiasm for their action research projects seems to arise
from the pleasant discovery that they could be more effective practitioners if they
researched their own practice. Maureen, for example, enjoyed ‘working on the
intersection between theory and practice’ and credited this project with making her
more ‘willing to experiment with different strategies’. Indeed many of them felt
empowered as professionals capable of bridged theory with practice, and able to use
their judgment to adapt curriculum and instructional strategies to their students’
needs and to the context. (Journal, 22 September)

The overall success of the projects are conveyed in Dianne’s reflection

below:
Our students’ work makes me optimistic about teaching and education. They have
done so well with the projects they undertook! They have managed to reach out to
students in unexpected ways in their first session of practice teaching. This bodes
well for the teachers they will be and for their future students. (Reflection, July)

Future growth plans

In our role as teacher-educators, we will continue the iterative process of improv-

ing our practice and enhancing the action research project design for the next
cohort of preservice teachers.
Looking beyond the implementation issues to larger issues, we have identi-
fied other ways in which we may be able to build on the success of our first
efforts. While we have generally established good relationships with partner
schools and associate teachers, we now need to make connections with adminis-
trators and teachers to delineate ways in which the school-based action research
project could be more meaningful to their school communities. We would also
benefit by sharing information with the community of teacher-educators within
our institution as to how we employ action research in our classes.
26 • Action Research 6(1)

Educational significance and implications

Our study indicates that introducing PSTs to action research can help them
develop professionally through reflection, inquiry into practice, and connecting
theory and practice. Our analysis of the final reports, reflections, and feedback
from students indicates preservice teachers are quite capable of selecting and
carrying out projects beneficial to students. They enjoy choosing issues of signifi-
cance to themselves, and derive satisfaction from the implementation and
analysis of their projects. When teachers learn they are capable of transforming
student learning by researching their own practice, their conceptual understand-
ing of teaching and learning changes. The connection between teacher-
growth and student-growth becomes explicit. These results clearly point to the
benefits of teacher education programs providing authentic opportunities for
PSTs to explore and expand their practice in order to meet student needs
(Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005) through such vehicles as action
research.
It is significant that PSTs express an intent to actively research their practice
as in-service teachers. While we did not follow our students into their first years
of teaching, we are hopeful that this experience of epistemic agency will encour-
age some of them to regard themselves as agents of change capable of influencing
the parameters of their workplace and positively affect their own and their
students’ growth. At the same time, we recognize that traditional conceptions of
education are robust and difficult to change. While our project had a positive
impact on our students as they left the program, we recognize that day-to-day
classroom concerns and school cultures will often distract them from the
systematic reflection and ongoing experimentation necessary to become adaptive
experts (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005). It is crucial that dispo-
sitions towards reflective practice and inquiry into practice be supported in the
work environment during the induction years, if we hope to link preservice and
in-service teaching. Doing so will ultimately create communities around educa-
tional issues focused on positive educational change.
Teacher-educators willing to model being adaptive experts by explicitly
researching and reflecting on teacher education practices can individually influ-
ence many students. However, significant change requires institutional commit-
ment to growth-inducing teacher education experiences through which PSTs can
research and reflect on their practice in authentic classroom situations.
As teacher-educators, we grew professionally through the endeavors of our
PSTs by consciously examining our teaching practice through action research and
self-study, and by reflectively engaging in interdisciplinary and collaborative
teaching. Teacher-educators also need support from their institution and from
colleagues who form a community of learners if they are to continue growing pro-
fessionally over the years of their career. Working together, we can enhance the
 Kitchen & Stevens Action research in teacher education • 27

profession of teaching, improve student learning, and – given time – contribute to

the betterment of society as a whole.

References

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L.

Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
Brislington School. (2001). Seminar on action research. Retrieved from: http://edu.
projects.uwe.ac.uk/trainingschool/methodology/action-research.htm
Bullough, R. V., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies
for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland.
Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical
forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P.
Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research in curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York:
Macmillan.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research:
The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support profes-
sional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 587–604.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action researcher planner. Victoria: Deakin
University.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggert, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.
567–606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kitchen, J. (2005a). Looking backwards, moving forward: Understanding my narra-
tive as a teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1), 17–30.
Kitchen, J. (2005b). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher
educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 194–207.
Laidlaw, M. (1992). Action research: A guide for use on initial teacher education pro-
grammes. Retrieved from: http://www.actionresearch.net/moira.shtml
McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for
new action researchers (3rd ed.). Retrieved from: http://www.jeanmcniff.com/
booklet1.html
McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project.
London: Routledge.
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hoagboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of collaborative
action research on knowledge of five Canadian teacher researchers. The
Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 255–274.
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (rev. ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28 • Action Research 6(1)

Stevens, D. E. (2006). Of bricks and butterflies: Four teachers’ quest for professional
growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind,
‘How do I improve my practice?’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1),
41–52.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 298–332). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.

Julian Kitchen is an Assistant Professor at Brock University in Hamilton, Ontario,

Canada. Dr Kitchen has engaged in action research, teacher research and self-study
of teacher education practices as a teacher and a teacher-educator. Other fields of
research are gifted education, teacher education, teacher induction, and teacher
development. Address: Brock University, 1842 King Street East, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada L8K 1V7. [Email: jkitchen@brocku.ca]

Dianne Stevens is a recent graduate of the University of Toronto. Her dual research
interests focus on student engagement and teachers’ professional growth. Dianne’s
involvement in action research resulted in two awards from the Ontario Educational
Research Council: Teacher-Researcher of the Year Award (2003) and Distinguished
Paper Award, co-authored with Julian Kitchen (2004). Her thesis received a
Recognition of Excellence Award (2007) from the Canadian Association of Teacher-
Educators.

View publication stats