Researching Teaching

Methodologies and Practices for Understanding Pedagogy

John Loughran

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781135700782
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

A book for anyone who recognizes that teachers, their teaching practice, knowledge and skill should be a focal point of research efforts. The contributions to this volume are internationally authored by leading academics. A range of innovative research methodologies are represented and explained. The book articulates the special professional skills and knowledge that teachers have and need. It will inspire teachers and researchers alike in understanding the art of teaching.

1 Researching Teaching for Understanding

John Loughran

Introduction

As a high school science teacher I was often concerned about thinking of interesting ways of teaching my students. However, the rush and bustle of school life quickly taught me that most things were urgent and immediate. It was important to be ready to move when the bell rang at the end of a lesson, there was a constant need to respond quickly to events, and time was always a resource that was in short supply. Therefore, attempting to genuinely engage students in their learning was more an idealistic goal than a common achievement. To realize the goal meant attempting to balance the constant (non-direct teaching) demands of school while attempting to know more about how students learnt and how particular teaching strategies genuinely impacted on students’ learning outcomes. This tension between the nature of teachers’ work and the time, energy and expertise necessary to inform practice through research, I believe, is a constant dilemma for teachers.

Much of my knowledge about teaching and learning was tacit and therefore implicit in my actions as I was rarely required (or encouraged) to make it explicit through articulation—to myself or to others. In retrospect I sometimes wonder what I thought researching teaching might have meant or what it might have involved. However, I do not think I would be exaggerating to say that I thought researching teaching was something which was the domain of others (academics) far removed from the actual classroom, sadly reinforcing the stereotype so well described by Schön (1983) of the swampy lowlands of practice and the elevated highlands of theory. I also think that my view then was perhaps not all that different from many of my colleagues and was probably a part of the ongoing tension inherent in teachers’ work.

The idea that researching teaching required some form of study at a distance from real classrooms was perhaps superficially influenced by an understanding of research as a form of knowledge and an approach to practice which was far removed from the work of teachers. Such a view would see schools as simply being a data source which, following data collection and analysis, could lead to conclusions which might be reported—but not necessarily in a form that would be particularly accessible or helpful to teachers in their everyday classroom practice.

I was reminded of this view of researching teaching when a colleague (Jeff Northfield) invited me to collaborate with him when he was himself struggling to ‘make sense’ of his experiences during (and following) his return to high school teaching. In Opening the Classroom Door (Loughran and Northfield, 1996), Jeff, as an experienced teacher educator and educational researcher noted that:

For many years I have pondered the way in which teacher knowledge and experience has been regarded by teachers and other educationalists. I have repeatedly heard comments such as, ‘I am only a teacher’ when teachers introduce themselves at the start of a new course; ‘It is only about me and my teaching’ when sharing their experiences, and; ‘It is only in my classroom in my school’, which indicates that teachers feel their knowledge and experience does not extend beyond their own situation. I find myself thinking the same way about the story of my experiences in the secondary classroom…many teachers have learned to rely on educational ideas coming from outside the profession. Policy and curriculum ideas have generally been produced by others, with teachers the first targets of the change process. Teacher ability to adapt ideas to suit particular contexts have been part of the rhetoric but it has been rare to have the introduction of new ideas associated with the time and support needed for teachers to implement new approaches with understanding.
Teacher personal opinions have had little place in the introduction of most educational change. Teacher knowledge and experience is rarely regarded as a sound basis for shaping educational change. Teacher knowledge has been regarded as idiosyncratic and difficult to analyse and be understood in any generalizable way.

While teachers may acknowledge external knowledge as having higher status than their own knowledge, they are quick to point out that educational theories and ideas are often irrelevant in assisting them to address day-to-day teaching concerns. After returning to school teaching I can identify closely with the teacher feelings about the educational knowledge that matters. From the perspective of an educational researcher I had to come to terms with the teacher knowledge I was gaining. It was extremely powerful but closely linked to a particular class of students in particular contexts. It was difficult to analyse and communicate to others. My day-to-day concerns did not seem to fit with the diverse range of ideas and theories I had in my background. Teaching made me feel that my growing knowledge was limited, like the teachers who made the comments at the start of this section…For me, the return to teaching was often a confusing and unsettling experience…The dailiness of teaching and its unpredictability appeared to dominate my reflections…My attempt to analyse and communicate my understanding of teaching and learning at the end of the year was only partly successful…Very vivid and significant teaching episodes should have been a basis for understanding but it was difficult to separate my own responses and the missed opportunities from any coherent description of progress…On reflection, my frustration during the year was in trying to analyse the day-today teaching experiences in a way that might lead to consistent improvement in classroom interactions. I was also struggling to find ways of communicating my ‘teacher knowledge’. I was experiencing the earlier observations made about teachers and their knowledge, yet feeling that I should have been able to better understand and use my experience. I would argue [now] that teacher knowledge has different characteristics in the way it is developed and used. (Loughran and Northfield, 1996, pp. 134–5)

Jeff’s reflections on his experiences reminded me of the importance of researching teaching in ways that are both accessible to teachers and useful in their work and this is difficult if research is something done to teachers rather than with them—or by them. In essence, if teachers’ knowledge is to be better understood, to be helpful, informative and valuable to the profession and the educational community at large, then researching teaching needs to be similarly understandable, useful and valuable to teachers. However, this is difficult to achieve if research is not an important part of teaching and teachers’ work. In fact, it is this notion of research being separate from the work of teachers that led Northfield (1997) to develop a compelling argument about the status of teacher-research in his paper ‘It is interesting …but is it research?’ in which he (in a similar way to the extract above) begins to unravel the thinking which underpins the ‘typical’ understanding of research in comparison to the type of research that teachers may find helpful and choose to be engaged in.

In many ways I would now argue that an important way of conceptualizing research is by considering it to be seeking answers to questions and, in regard to researching teaching, that the questions are those which are important in the teaching and learning environment. Therefore, the approach (method) to the research depends on the questions and the type of evidence (no matter the form: quantitative, qualitative or both) one might consider appropriate and helpful in answering those important questions.

Researching teaching, then, is something which may be conducted in a variety of ways and the diversity of approaches needs to be recognized, acknowledged and understood; particularly by teachers as they are (hopefully) the end users—if not always the producers—of the knowledge. However, understanding teachers’ perceptions of, and approaches to, research is important and it has been through involvement in the PEEL (Project for the Enhancement of Effective Learning) (Baird and Mitchell, 1993; Baird and Northfield, 1992) and PAVOT Projects (Perspective and Voice of the Teacher) (Northfield, Mitchell and Loughran, 1997) that much of my understanding and appreciation of researching teaching has developed.

The PEEL project (which is more fully examined by Mitchell in Chapter 4 in this volume) highlights the importance of researching teaching for teachers but, importantly, does so with a direct link between the research and teachers’ practice. For the past 15 or so years, PEEL teachers have been involved in examining their teaching and its impact on students’ learning as they have worked towards answering the question, ‘How can we help our students become active (rather than remain as passive) learners?’ This research question has spawned numerous projects and has been one of the most remarkable stories of ongoing research and the development of understanding of classroom teaching and learning that I have encountered. What may (by some) be regarded as a simple question has led to the development of a knowledge base and of teaching procedures and strategies which both resonate with, and are accessible to, teachers as they strive to enhance their students’ metacognition (Flavell, 1976; White, 1988).

As a result of the PEEL project, teacher-research projects have been encouraged and developed through PAVOT. Again, understanding what research means and how it is interpreted and used by teachers is important but it is clear that there are a number of important features which have become identifiable through these projects. These features are comprehensively outlined by Loughran and Northfield (1997) but, for now, some of these features include:

• The need to recognize that teachers begin with comprehensive ‘big picture’ aspirations as they begin to study their classrooms. Most frequently, their studies centre on classroom concerns which represent persistent tensions, dilemmas and difficulties. They are reluctant to focus on more narrowly defined areas as they remain aware of the complexity and uniqueness of their classrooms and the way many factors interact in these settings.
• Teachers focus on their classroom issues and are conscious that this limits generalizability to other situations (e.g. ‘It is only my classroom’ and ‘No-one else will be interested’ are common teacher responses).
• The complexity and perceived uniqueness of teacher concerns makes communication to others difficult and teachers tend to feel isolated with their concerns.
• The primary role of the teacher means that new findings and teaching become interwoven. Teachers feel they need to act immediately on new possibilities and adjust their teaching. The research focus therefore alters, as adjustments are made, and new insights and possibilities emerge. Hence the intertwining of teaching and researching is such that as one alters so does the other so the traditional notion of research of ‘holding the problem in place while it is researched’ is not really possible as the problem develops, shifts and changes as it is responsive to the continual shifts in the teaching.
• Teachers have shown little interest in merely studying a problem to clarify it, or prove its existence. As just stated, they want to do something about it. This means that their research almost always includes designing and implementing new approaches—classroom interventions that are intended to achieve change. However, teachers (unlike traditional researchers) have to deal with the consequences of their interventions as part of their daily routine with the class. Negative consequences can affect a class for the remainder of a year. This means that research can be a high-risk activity for teachers and significantly affect their primary role as a teacher.
• For most teachers, the primary purpose in studying their teaching is to teach more effectively in their own classroom settings. This is a very personal purpose and is one that is usually not part of the research agenda for an academic researcher who is researching other people’s classrooms and wider contexts.

Therefore, in researching teaching there are a number of important issues to be considered and to be communicated to the educational community. In many ways, the work of PEEL and PAVOT is similar to the development of self-study in education faculties, which continues to grow and gain acceptance in the research community.

The S-STEP (Self-study in Teacher Education Practice) SIG (Special Interest Group) of AERA (American Education Research Association) has become a major source of research into the teaching practice of teacher educators with the main intent that such research will inform practice. A most important touchstone for this work is the book by MaryLynn Hamilton (Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: Self-study in Teacher Education, 1998) which illustrates a variety of approaches to researching teacher education practice. The wave of self-study research has highlighted interesting parallels with some of the tensions and dilemmas of researching teaching whereby attempts to better align the learning through research and the actions of practice become problematic as the two become more closely intertwined and personal.

It is this need to continue to forge stronger links between research and practice that was the genesis of this book. At the first S-STEP Conference at Herstmonceux (UK) in 1996 I was amazed by a presentation of a longitudinal research project being conducted by a group of teachers in Alaska. Not only was their research approach very well organized, and their data collection clear and appropriate, but their presentation took a form that caused me to question some of my ‘taken for granted’ assumptions about researching teaching. This group of teachers presented their research findings as a play (Austin et al., Chapter 7) and it demonstrated such a clear understanding of their work that it caused many conference participants to reconsider not only their own research positions, but also the manner in which they offered their knowledge to the educational community.

The participants in this book have continued this challenge by being willing contributors in a project to demonstrate a diverse range of approaches to the researching of teaching. It is an attempt to highlight the need for all in education to ‘reframe’ our understanding of our taken-for-granted notions of researching teaching. The book is organized in sections that are designed to illustrate particular themes so that the overall project offers a coherent pathway along a continuum of approaches to methodologies and practices in researching teaching.

Researching Teaching Through Pedagogy

The first section is Researching Teaching Through Pedagogy. This section of the book opens with Max van Manen’s chapter in which his exploration of our understanding of pedagogy illustrates a number of important issues both about pedagogy and how research approaches impact on it. Max’s work with anecdotes illustrates the value of exploring new ways of looking into pedagogy through students’ eyes and offers a powerful way for teachers to reconsider their classroom practice and their students’ learning.

Chapter 2 is by David Treagust and Allan Harrison. They illustrate how an expert pedagogue’s approach to, and practice of, teaching can be ‘unpacked’ and ‘defined’ in ways that are particularly apt in helping us to understand the complex nature of teaching and learning and the value of being able to describe and analyse teaching. Their analysis sheds new light on teachers’ skills in a way that goes far beyond a technical-rationalist approach.

The third chapter in this section is by Ian Mitchell, the co-founder of the PEEL project. In this chapter, Ian gives a full account of the PEEL project and how it has developed interesting ways of researching teaching that are ‘teacher-friendly’ and ‘academically valuable’. Ian puts a compelling case for working with teachers in ways that help to develop a rich understanding of teaching and learning so that it might highlight the difficulties associated with articulating and documenting teachers’ professional knowledge-in-action.

Researching Teaching Through Collaboration

The second section of the book is Researching Teaching Through Collaboration. The first chapter in this section is by John Smyth and documents his approach to genuinely working with teachers in researching their practice whilst maintaining a real desire for the research to be an integral part of the change process in schools—a change process (hopefully) driven by teachers. John’s approach to research clearly demonstrates how working in partnership with schools opens up the possibilities for teachers to use initiatives and opportunities in ways that can be more advantageous and beneficial to the local school community than could realistically be possible by simply implementing bureaucratically mandated ‘reform’.

Peter Grimmett and Maureen Dockendorf’s chapter follows Smyth’s and their work illustrates the tensions, difficulties and dilemmas faced by an ‘external expert researcher’ working in collaboration with a ‘teacher-researcher’ in an attempt to support teacher-research groups. Their chapter illustrates both interesting research and an interesting approach to conveying that to others. Their chapter represents two experiences but as one story: ‘Maureen was engaged in practice with other practitioners; Peter’s practice was engaged with her practice as one of the facilitators. It was not meta-facilitation; just another form of facilitation. Facilitation, we both soon learned, was like stepping into a labyrinth. There were times whe...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of Tables and Figures
• 1. Researching Teaching for Understanding
• Section One: Researching Teaching Through Pedagogy
• Section Two: Researching Teaching Through Collaboration
• Section Three: Researching Teaching Through Context
• Section Four: Conclusion
• Notes On Contributors