Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Teacher research as professional development for

[1]
P–12 educators in the USA

Kenneth M. Zeichner

To cite this article: Kenneth M. Zeichner (2003) Teacher research as professional development
[1]
for P–12 educators in the USA , Educational Action Research, 11:2, 301-326, DOI:
10.1080/09650790300200211

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200211

Published online: 19 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6007

Citing articles: 144 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research, Volume 11, Number 2, 2003

Teacher Research as Professional

Development for P–12 Educators
in the USA[1]

KENNETH M. ZEICHNER
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

ABSTRACT This article reviews selected research related to the professional

development impact of school-based teacher research programs for P-12
educators in the USA. Following the presentation of a framework that describes
the dimensions of variation in P-12 teacher research in the USA, the article
examines the results of several studies of school-based teacher research
programs and identifies several conditions under which school-based teacher
research becomes a transformative professional development activity for
teachers.

P–12 Educator Professional Development

Despite an emerging consensus in the teacher education literature about
the need to change dominant practices in P-12 teacher professional
development to be more consistent with new and ambitious visions for
school reform that view teachers as educational leaders (Little, 1993;
Richardson, 1994; Corcoran, 1995; Bransford et al, 1999; Lieberman &
Miller, 2001), a ‘training model,’ unconnected to teachers’ daily work and
disrespectful of teachers’ knowledge, continues to persist as the most
common form of professional development for teachers in the USA (Miller et
al, 1994; Miller, 1995). This is the case despite the fact that teachers
generally neither like these programs nor use them to improve their
classroom practices (Richardson, 1994). The majority of professional
development experiences for teachers in the USA are one-shot, one day or
even briefer experiences (Centre for Policy Research in Education [CPRE],
1998; Sparks & Hirsh, 1999). Two- thirds of US teachers state that they
have no say in what or how they learn in professional development activities
provided to them in schools (US Department of Education, 1994).

301
Kenneth Zeichner

In the last decade, numerous organizations in the USA, including the

American Federation of Teachers, the National Staff Development Council
(NSDC), the National Councils of Teachers of English and Mathematics, and
academic scholars of teacher education have articulated sets of standards
or ‘design principles’ for describing good professional development (e.g.
NSDC, 1995; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996; National Council of
Teachers of English [NCTE], 1996; National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM], 1996). These standards, which are often linked to
research on teacher learning, commonly emphasize the importance of
providing teachers with participant-driven and intensive opportunities to
engage in inquiry and reflection over time with colleagues about issues that
matter to them in the course of their daily work. This common vision of good
professional development, while recognizing the need for teachers to learn
new skills and content to meet school district initiatives for reform,
emphasizes the need for professional development opportunities to respect
and build on the knowledge and expertise that teachers already have and to
nurture and support their intellectual leadership capacity.

Teacher Research as Professional Development

John Elliott’s pioneering work in the United Kingdom was instrumental in
establishing teacher research as an available form of professional
development for teachers in many parts of the world.[2] Despite concerns
expressed by some over the years that teachers are incapable of conducting
research or that research will take time away from that which teachers
should be devoting to their students (e.g. Hodgkinson, 1957), it has been
argued for many years that P-12 educators should conduct research about
their own practice as a form of professional development. One of the most
common claims is that teachers will become better at what they do by
conducting research and that the quality of learning for their pupils will be
higher. It has also been asserted that teacher research will stimulate
positive changes in the culture and productivity of schools and raise the
status of the occupation of teaching in the society. Additionally, it has been
declared that teacher research will produce knowledge about teaching and
learning that will be useful to other P-12 educators, policy-makers,
academic researchers, and teacher educators. This article will focus on the
professional development implications of teacher research. The knowledge
production aspects of teachers’ doing research (its implications for other
practitioners, teacher educators, policy-makers and university-based
researchers) are discussed elsewhere (e.g. Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993;
Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Because the broader US definition of teacher
research has been used in this article, some of the work described does not
fit what educators in some parts of the world understand action research to
be. This broader interpretation is characteristic, however, of much of the
research of elementary and secondary school teachers in the USA.

302
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

It has been argued that teacher research as a form of professional

development has often had a profound effect on those who have done it, in
some cases transforming the classrooms and schools in which they work. It
has also been concluded from analyses of researchers’ self-reports across
the world that teacher research helps teachers to become more flexible and
more open to new ideas (Oja & Smulyan, 1989), to be more proactive and
self-directed in relation to external authority (Holly, 1990), boosts teachers’
self-esteem and confidence levels (Dadds, 1995; Loucks Horsley et al, 1998),
narrows the gap between teachers’ aspirations and realizations (Elliott,
1980), helps teachers develop an attitude and skills of self-analysis that are
then applied to other aspects of their teaching (Day, 1984), changes
patterns of communication among teachers leading to more collegial
interaction (Current & Hirabayashi, 1989; Selener, 1997), alters teacher talk
about students from a focus on student problems to an emphasis on
student resources and accomplishments (Atwell, 1987), and helps teachers
become more aware of their impact on students (Allen et al, 1995).
Despite the growing testimony in the literature about the positive
outcomes associated with teachers doing research, there are a number of
problems with drawing conclusions from these statements alone, about the
value of teacher research as a professional development activity. First, many
of the references in the literature to the value of teacher research are
anecdotal in nature and are not the result of systematic and intentional
exploration of teachers’ experiences (Huberman, 1996). Second, even if we
accept the accuracy of the claims that have been made about the impact of
teacher research, we are often provided with little or no information about
the specific characteristics of the research experience and/or research
context that are responsible for promoting this growth.
Teacher research has become very common now throughout the world
(see McTaggart, 1997) and has been implemented in many different ways
that reflect different ideological commitments and beliefs about teacher and
student learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998). Similarly,
conceptualizations of the process of teacher research vary substantially in
different locations, ranging from those that implement a particular structure
of the inquiry process, such as the action research spiral popularized
throughout the world by Elliott (1991) and Kemmis & McTaggart (1988), to
more open-ended approaches that enable researchers to choose from a
variety of different methods of doing research on one’s own practice,
including some not typically found within academic research communities
(Fishman, 2000). In cases where a particular structure of the research
process is provided to and/or used by teachers, there are also important
differences between the step-by-step problem-solving versions that are part
of a number of widely used teacher inquiry programs (e.g. Sagor, 1992;
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD], 1995)
and the more reflexive and cyclical models that place much more emphasis
on problem setting and formulation (e.g. Elliott, 1991). In the USA some of

303
Kenneth Zeichner

the research done by elementary and secondary school teachers is

consistent with international ways of conceiving action research, while
much of it does not resemble action research as it is known in many parts
of the world (see Zeichner, 2001).
The contexts in which teacher research is conducted also vary greatly.
It is unlikely that all of the various forms of teacher research and ways of
organizing and supporting it result in the kind of positive outcomes for
teachers and their students that are often reported in the literature. It is
important to identify the particular aspects of the teacher research
experience that are associated with different kinds of teacher and student
learning.

Studying the Impact of Teacher Research

as a Professional Development Activity
There are a limited number of studies of teacher research programs that
address both the conditions under which the research was conducted and
its influence on teachers, classrooms, pupils and schools. This article will
focus on an analysis of what has been learned about the nature and impact
of teacher research conducted under different conditions from the few
existing systematic studies in the USA of teacher research as a professional
development activity.[3]

A Conceptual Map of Teacher Research in the USA

Before examining the evidence related to teacher research as a professional
development activity for P-12 educators, I will sketch out some of the ways
in which teacher research in the USA has been conceptualized, organized,
and supported. There are several major dimensions along which teacher
research in the USA has varied. These dimensions relate to the purposes
and motivation of those who engage in the research, the conceptions of
teacher research that are held by researchers and program organizers, and
the conditions under which the research is organized and supported.
Noffke (1997) outlined three different motivations for teachers who
conduct research about their own practices. First, there is the motivation to
better understand and improve one’s own teaching and/or the contexts in
which that teaching is conducted. Here the main interest is in how the
research can contribute to the betterment of one’s own individual situation
as a teacher and life in a classroom, school and community. Second, there
is the motivation to produce knowledge that will be useful to other
educators. Here teacher researchers are interested in sharing their research
with other educators through seminars, conference presentations and
publications. Finally, consistent with the democratic impulse that was
originally associated with the use of action research in the USA in the 1940s
(Foshay, 1994), there is the motivation to contribute to greater equity and
democracy in schooling and society. Here there is an explicit agenda by

304
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

teachers to work for social change by working on issues of equity and social
justice within the classroom or beyond (Anderson et al, 1994). These
categories are not mutually exclusive. All teacher researchers are interested
in improving their own classroom practice. In addition, some researchers
are also interested in sharing their learning with others or in contributing to
social reconstruction.
A second dimension of variation in teacher research is concerned with
the context in which the research is conducted. Teachers conduct research
alone as individuals, as part of small collaborative groups, or in school
faculty groups involving everyone in particular schools. When the research
has been done in connection with a group, the groups have varied according
to their size, the basis for their formation, and whether there is an external
facilitator and/or university faculty involvement. Some teacher research
groups involve teachers from the same team, department or school, and
others mix together teachers from different schools.
Another dimension along which teacher research has varied is in
terms of the sponsorship of the research. Here we have seen many different
sponsors of the research, including teachers themselves, school districts,
teacher unions, colleges and universities, state departments of education,
regional educational laboratories, professional subject matter associations,
regional staff development centers, school/university partnerships,
educational foundations, and the federal government. Among the colleges
and universities that have been involved in sponsoring teacher research are
those that offer specific courses on teacher research, support teacher
research master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, and those like the
University of California-Davis and George Mason University that have set up
structures to organize and support teacher research on a broad scale.[4]
Most of the time participation in teacher research has been on a voluntary
basis, but sometimes in the case of school-wide teacher research,
participation has been compulsory.
There have also been a variety of external incentives provided to
teachers for participating in research, including time away from school to
think together with colleagues, money, university credits and fulfilling
degree requirements, and professional advancement credits. Some programs
involve teachers in research for a year or less and others enable teachers to
continue their involvement for several years.
Within the teacher research programs themselves, there is often
variation in terms of the form and content of individual studies. For
example, Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) have described four different forms
of systematic and intentional inquiry by teachers in North America: (a)
journals, (b) oral inquiries, (c) studies which represent teachers’
explorations of their work using data based on observations, interviews, and
document collection, and (d) essays. They argue that this broad view of
teacher research accounts for some of the ways that teachers inquire about
their practice that do not fit with university models for doing research. As

305
Kenneth Zeichner

was mentioned earlier, some teacher research involves the investigation of

specific research questions and follows some variation of the action research
spiral. Other research is more holistic and focuses simultaneously on a
variety of questions (Gallas, 1998a). Some teacher research is focused at the
onset on the improvement of practice. Other research is more concerned at
first with developing a better understanding of practice (Berthoff, 1987).
Individual teacher research studies also vary in the way that they
relate to knowledge generated external to them, including academic
educational research and studies by other teachers. Troen et al (1997)
describe three patterns that emerged when they examined teacher
researchers’ work done in collaborative inquiry seminars in Brookline,
Massachusetts. Some teachers used concepts, questions, and ideas from
external research as the starting point for their own research, others used
them as a resource, usually consulting them later on in the research
process (see McDonald, 1987), and still another group did not use them at
all and felt no need to connect to academic research or the research of other
teachers because they felt that it would not be helpful to do so.
Teacher research programs across the USA also differ in terms of the
structural conditions that they provide for teachers. These differences
include the rituals and routines that are established in research groups (i.e.
how the teacher research groups work), the resources that are provided to
teachers to support their research (e.g. materials to read, literature
searches, publication support, released time), the opportunities that are
provided for teachers to interact with others about their work, and the ways
in which teachers are encouraged, supported or required to represent their
research to others (e.g. as a paper, on video, through a conference
presentation).
Finally, and probably one of the most significant dimensions along
which teacher research programs vary, is the philosophical orientation
toward teachers and their learning that is embedded in the organization,
structures, and human interactions in a program. Some programs replicate
the hierarchical patterns of authority and the dim view of teachers’
capabilities that permeates dominant forms of professional development for
teachers, and others display a deep respect for teachers and their
knowledge and break down typical authority patterns that limit teacher
autonomy and control. The key questions to ask with regard to the
philosophical realm are concerned with the degree to which teachers feel
respected, intellectually challenged as well as supported, and the degree to
which they have control over their own research both in terms of its
substantive focus and the methods used to carry it out.

306
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Systematic Studies of Teacher Research

as Professional Development
There are relatively few cases where the professional development process
associated with teacher research has been systematically studied. In these
few cases, data have been collected from teachers over a period of time to
assess both the conditions under which the research was organized and
supported and its impact on teachers, their pupils, and schools. In this
article, we will summarize data from studies of teacher research in the
Madison, Wisconsin School District Classroom Action Research Program;
the Inquiry seminars in the Learning/Teaching Collaborative in Brookline
and Boston, Massachusetts; the Lawrence School Child Study and
Children’s Literature teacher study groups in Brookline, Massachusetts,
and school-wide action research projects carried out in Georgia and Ames,
Iowa.
These programs reflect a number of different approaches to
conceptualizing, organizing and supporting teacher research. For example,
the Madison programs involve teachers from different schools working in
small research groups while the Massachusetts programs involve several
teachers from within the same schools working in research groups. On the
other hand, the Georgia and Iowa programs represent school-wide research
efforts within individual schools. Participation in the Madison program is for
an academic year while teachers in Massachusetts conduct research over
several years. The Madison and Iowa/Georgia programs utilize a version of
the action research spiral for structuring teachers’ research while the two
Massachusetts programs do not.

The Madison, Wisconsin Classroom Action Research Program

In this voluntary school district sponsored professional development
program, which originated in 1990, teacher researchers meet in mixed
school groups of 8-10 over the course of a school year. The groups are
facilitated by two experienced teacher researchers and meet once a month
during the school day. The groups are organized either around levels of
schooling (e.g. elementary) or by topical themes (e.g. race and gender
equity). The researchers formulate a research question and carry out an
investigation related to this question over the course of the academic year.
They complete a written report of their studies, which is published by the
district and distributed to all schools.[5]
A two-year study was conducted on the nature and impact of this
program (Zeichner, 1997; Zeichner & Caro-Bruce, 1998; Marion, 1998;
Brodhagen et al, 1999; Zeichner & Klehr, 1999). In addition to documenting
the work of two research groups, interviews were held with 74 teachers who
had conducted research in the program as well as with 10 individuals who
had facilitated research groups. All of the written reports of the studies were
also analyzed along with four videos of teachers talking about their research

307
Kenneth Zeichner

which had been produced for local cable television. All of this was directed
toward illuminating what goes on in the research groups (e.g. rituals and
routines, the role of the facilitators), and the program’s influence on the
ways in which participants think about their practice, their classroom
practices, the learning of their students, the culture of schools where
several people have participated, and on individuals and practices beyond
these individual schools.
In interviews designed to assess the impact of the program, many
teachers reported that doing research had helped them develop more
confidence in their ability as teachers to influence the circumstances in
which they teach. They now felt a greater sense of control over their work
and thought they were more proactive than before in dealing with difficult
situations that arose in their teaching.
Many teachers also reported that engaging in research caused them to
look at their teaching in a more analytic, focused and in-depth way, a habit
they claimed they have now internalized and made use of subsequent to
participation in the program. These teachers stated they were now more
likely to step back and examine what they were doing using the tools they
acquired in the program, and that they have become more concerned with
the need to gather data and to understand the impact of their teaching.
Many teachers reported that they were now more likely to talk with
colleagues in their buildings about their teaching and that being part of a
teacher research group convinced them of the importance of collaborative
work with other teachers. They felt that the quality of these conversations
with colleagues were better than before their participation in a research
group.
Several teachers indicated that the research experience raised their
expectations for how they should be treated by others. Because they felt
that they were treated with respect and trust within this program and were
given substantial support, they now expected other staff development
activities to display the same respect for teachers and ambitious view of
their capabilities.
There was a ‘multiplier effect’ in the group experience. Teachers said
that they learned things about teaching not just from the research that they
conducted themselves, but from the research conducted by all of the group
members. There is also substantial evidence in the interview data and in the
research reports that teachers became more ‘learner-centered’ in their
practice as a result of conducting research, a process that almost always
involved collecting data from one’s students. Many teachers claimed that
they were now much more convinced of the importance of talking to their
students and listening carefully to them, that they now listened much more
closely and effectively to their students than before, and that they had
developed higher expectations for what their students know and can do.
Although there is very little evidence in these data of improved student
learning as measured by standardized test scores, many of the teachers

308
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

reported improvements in pupil attitudes, involvement, behavior, and/or

learning as a direct result of specific actions taken in their research. The
evidence for these changes is provided by teacher observations, careful
documentation of classroom activities, the analysis of student work
samples, and teacher-designed assessments, all contained in the research
reports.
As teachers conducted research, they implemented a wide variety of
new practices with their students that address learning and behavior
issues. These included the introduction of new grouping and scheduling
patterns (e.g. heterogeneous grouping); multicultural literature and music;
the use of computers in chemistry, music, foreign language, and physical
education classes; student journals; writing workshops; integrated and
thematic curriculum; service learning projects; and new pupil assessment
practices. A number of the projects sought to develop better communication
between parents and teachers, among resource teachers, or between
resource and classroom teachers.
Although most of the evidence of program impact shows influences
within the classroom, there is also evidence of the influence of teacher
research beyond the classroom. These include such things as more and
better communication among the staff in particular schools about issues of
teaching and learning, better communication between resource teachers
and classroom teachers, and improvements in grouping, scheduling and
school-wide discipline policies.
This study of classroom action research has also revealed a number of
complications and difficulties that were experienced by some teachers. At a
very basic level of logistics, the well-laid plans to free teachers up during the
school day sometimes did not work because of a shortage of substitute
teachers.
In addition to these logistical issues, some teachers found various
aspects of the action research process difficult and frustrating. For some,
narrowing down an area of interest into a research question and finding
time to write in their action research journals were two of the most common
challenges of the research experience. Others were frustrated at times with
the lack of time in some of the larger groups for everyone to have the
opportunity to share the progress of their research in enough depth.
At another level, several teachers who were either trying to build more
positive relations with their colleagues or were challenging things that were
accepted by most of the staff in their schools, uncovered and sometimes
intensified tensions that made their lives more complicated. Conducting
research was often difficult, complex, and sometimes frustrating for
teachers, but many teachers valued the intellectual challenges posed by the
research experience in comparison to what they saw as the superficial
nature of many of their professional development experiences. While this
study confirms many of the positive reactions of teachers to the opportunity
to conduct research on their own practice, it also reveals the complexity and

309
Kenneth Zeichner

hard work that is associated with teacher research that makes a difference
in terms of teacher and student learning. Many of those interviewed who
had participated in this program reported that conducting research was one
of the most difficult and intellectually challenging things that they had done
in their careers. It is important to emphasize that these program effects
occurred under particular contextual conditions (e.g. voluntary experience,
groups with a particular set of rituals and routines, teacher control over the
research process). Following the discussion of all of the programs, I will look
across the cases to speculate about which program conditions are the most
important enablers of teacher transformation.

Teacher Research in Inquiry Groups

in the Learning/Teaching Collaborative
The Learning/Teaching Collaborative located in Boston and Brookline,
Massachusetts is a teacher-initiated professional development partnership.
One aspect of the Collaborative, initiated in 1996, the Inquiry Seminar,
focuses on introducing classroom practitioners to teacher research as a
vehicle for enhancing teachers’ professional development. These seminars
are held at two schools, Edward Devotion School in Brookline and the
Jackson-Mann School in Boston. The individual groups, whose participants
include college faculty as well as classroom teachers, meet during the school
day every three weeks in three-hour sessions for the presentations of
individual members’ research projects. Each group is facilitated by a
member of the partnership who is not a member of the faculty at the school
in which the group is located. Each presenter has up to one hour for
presentation at the meeting.
A three-year study has examined the nature of learning in the Inquiry
Seminars and how work in the seminars broadens and deepens teacher
knowledge. The study has also examined the effects that participation in the
seminar has had on classroom practice at school and at the college. The
data sources for the study include audiotapes of all of the seminars at both
schools, a detailed record of all of the activities of each group, including the
articles and handouts provided to them, journals kept by several teachers in
each group in which they reflect about their ongoing research and practice,
and exit responses gathered from all of the teacher researchers during the
last 10 minutes of each group meeting. Data analyses have indicated how
classroom practice, including curriculum and assessment, have been
directly affected by participation in the inquiry seminar, how teachers in the
seminar have assumed new leadership roles, and new cross-school
connections and learning that emerged.
As is the case in the Madison program, specific rituals and routines
provide a structure for the group meetings. Three members present
something from their research at each meeting and something from each
presenter is distributed to the group prior to each meeting. The group
meetings follow a protocol borrowed from the Coalition of Essential Schools

310
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

that emphasizes asking clarifying questions and giving warm supportive

feedback and discourages giving ‘answers’ to the researchers.
This protocol provides a structure for reflecting out loud about a
teacher presenter’s work and consists of (1) asking clarifying
questions to obtain missing information; (2) giving ‘warm’
complimentary and supportive feedback; (3) providing ‘cool’ more
distanced comments that suggest alternative approaches to a
question and different interpretations of data ...; (4) giving the
presenter space to reflect on and respond to the feedback; and (5)
debriefing and discussing next steps. (Boles et al, 1999, p. 6)
Also, as is the case in the Madison program, teachers in the
Learning/Teaching Collaborative reported that they learned important
things not only from their own research but also from all of the research
done in their group. For example, one teacher’s use of art in his classroom
was influenced by another teacher’s research project:
I think about children’s artwork in a different way since Emily’s
presentation. It is no longer peripheral in my classroom, but rather
I have begun to weave art into the mainstream learning as a result
of her work. (Troen et al, 1997, p. 6)
Troen et al (1997) conclude after examining the data on these two seminars
that ‘the Inquiry Seminar has begun to have an effect on most teachers’
practice’ (p. 14). The changes that occurred in connection with participating
in these teacher research groups are reported in a fairly general way,
although some specific examples are given about changes in teaching
practices in a later analysis of teachers’ research in Boles et al (1999). For
example, ‘The research I did on kids in my class and how they worked with
Guided Reading – it changed how I’m teaching reading. Now the whole setup
of the class is different’ (p. 13). Changes are also reported in the areas of
curriculum, assessment, and teaching philosophy. For example, it is
concluded that teachers developed a greater interest in curriculum
development while conducting research and engaged in a variety of
curriculum development activities that ranged from ‘developing new lessons
in established curriculum units to implementing entirely new curricula’
(p. 14).
There was also a keen interest in new forms of assessing student
learning within the two research groups. Here teachers were involved either
in work with student portfolios or with other personally developed
assessment methods. For example, Troen et al (1997) report that as a result
of a group discussion about how children perceive their own intelligence, a
teacher-researcher described in an interview the use of a new assessment
method that enabled her to gain access to children’s conversations
previously unknown to her:
I’ve developed new prompts for my learning log. I’ve changed the
format of my writing workshop in the third and fourth grade. I’m

311
Kenneth Zeichner

aware of kids’ conversations now – I have kids listen to their own

conversations. Their collaborative composing sessions are what I’m
particularly interested in now – the unofficial conversations that
occur during writing workshop. (pp. 15-16)
In addition to changes in teaching and assessment practices that were
associated with conducting research, Troen et al (1997) also reported more
subtle changes related to teachers’ fundamental philosophies of teaching
and learning. They conclude that teachers have developed new dispositions
and skills to collaborate with their colleagues as a result of the
presentations and discussions in the groups.
Boles et al (1999) identify several factors that they think contributed to
the eager and sustained participation of the teachers in the inquiry groups.
They are as follows.
• The topics teachers chose to focus on grew out of authentic classroom
and school-based contexts and were intrinsically interesting to the
participants.
• The seminar conversations were intellectually stimulating, frequently
leading to new questions about important dimensions of practice.
• Participants found something compelling, useful, or provocative in each
of their colleagues’ work (p. 25).
Boles et al (1999) also think that the structured and predictable format of
the group meetings, which included the use of the tuning protocol,
presentations by researchers and an exit response form, and the
preparation for meetings that led to focused discussions were important
factors in creating intellectually demanding and imaginative discussions
that were highly valued by the participants.

The Lawrence School Teacher Study Groups

Lawrence School, a culturally diverse public elementary school in Brookline,
Massachusetts serving 550 K-8 students, has been a very active place for
teacher inquiry for over a decade. Two teacher study groups were initiated
by and are organized and led by three teachers – Anne Martin (child study
group) and Iris Feldman and Linda Goldman (children’s literature group) –
although various teachers within the groups share leadership
responsibilities for particular group sessions. These groups have involved
approximately 15 teachers from the school on a voluntary basis, most of
whom have more than 20 years of experience and meet for about 1½ hours
after school in a loft area above a classroom. The teachers chose to meet
after school rather than during the school day and have not attempted to
obtain released time.
A three-year study investigated the processes and structures of these
two inquiry groups and their effects on classroom practice over time. Karen
Gallas, a first and second grade teacher at the school at the time, served as
the principal investigator of the study and all of the teachers in the groups
served as co-investigators, maintaining ongoing journals and gathering data

312
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

from their classrooms. All of the study group sessions were audiotaped and
transcribed and the group members were interviewed several times
individually and in groups. Karen Gallas and the three group organizers
also kept field notes, records of informal conversations, and samples of
materials used in the groups, and interviewed the former principal of the
school.
The child study group frequently uses the descriptive review process, a
standard format for examining individual students developed at the
Prospect School in Vermont (Himley & Carini, 2000). This very distinct and
structured protocol involves beginning a group session with a series of
reflections on a word or on a focusing question for participants to keep in
mind to help them prepare for the topic of the meeting. Each meeting is
chaired by one of the teachers and particular teachers present the
situations of a student to be examined by the group. Someone takes
responsibility for taking notes at each meeting and the notes are circulated
to all group members. The chair provides summaries of the presentations
and discussions in the group. A particular talk protocol of ‘rounds’ is often
used to structure the conversations in the group. This very formal process
involves going around in a circle, giving everyone in the group a chance to
speak. No cross-discussion is permitted until all have had a chance to
speak. These very predictable and structured routines with regard to group
talk create a situation where the group members listen closely to one
another.
I’d always heard the term active listening and I thought: this is
really active listening in action ... I was struck by how respectful
everybody was, and people could actually sit and listen and not
have to jump in ... People were really forced to listen to each other.
(Gallas, 1998b, p. 24)
As the group has developed over time, the descriptive review in which an
individual child’s work is examined in depth was supplemented by several
other forms of reflection and analysis, such as discussion of particular
curricula, assessment instruments, and instances of student talk. Prior to
beginning the formal agenda of the meeting there is a 15-minute period of
informal conversation, with food provided by the group members.
The children’s literature group, in contrast to the child study group,
has a very informal style of conversation and does not have the kind of
formal protocols that direct the process of each meeting. The topics of these
meetings involve discussions of commonly read texts or of literature on a
particular theme and consider children and their learning in relation to
books. Although these two groups provide very different models of teacher
learning in inquiry groups, they both create a physical and intellectual
space away from the hectic pace of the school day where teachers can slow
down and reflect about issues of teaching and learning.

313
Kenneth Zeichner

The function of the space apart for them was that it set the stage
for a distinctly different kind of mental activity from that required
in the crush of the teaching day. (Gallas, 1998b, p. 72)
Gallas (1998b) concludes that the kind of deep thinking and public self-
critique that goes on in these groups is made possible by a commitment to
children, teaching and self-improvement and by the close association of
teachers over time in an atmosphere where they feel valued and wanted:
‘Self-critiquing takes place in safe settings with colleagues who know, care
about, and respect each other’ (Gallas, 1998b, p. 78).
The analysis of the effects on teachers and their students of
participating in these groups revealed several different influences. First,
because the groups place teacher knowledge at the center of teacher
inquiry, affirmation of teachers and what they know about the educational
process is an important outcome of participation in the Lawrence study
groups. This affirmation is more than just a confirmation of what teachers
already believe. On the contrary, it is:
A declaration that teacher knowledge is central to the improvement
of practice, but that knowledge must always be called into
question based on teachers’ developing understanding of children
and the process of teaching and learning. (Gallas, 1998b, p. 85)
A second outcome of participation in these groups for teachers is a
broadening of perspective. In the analysis of the group transcripts and in
the self-reports of teachers there is evidence of teachers questioning their
assumptions about themselves and their students and of developing new
perspectives toward their practices and students. This broadening of
perspective is associated with changes in the professional identities of
teachers as they gain the ability to articulate more clearly their ideas about
teaching and learning.
Finally, there is also some evidence in the report of the study of the
groups, of changes in classroom practice that results from group
participation. Teachers’ self-reports indicate examples of changes in teacher
behavior toward particular students and sometimes their parents after a
descriptive review of those students, and changes in student assessment
practices after a series of seminars in the child study group focused on
district assessment practices. There is also some evidence of teachers giving
their students more choice within their reading programs following
discussions about teachers’ reading practices. There is no direct discussion
in the study report of how the groups might have influenced the learning of
the students in group members’ classrooms, but the implication is that
student learning was enhanced as teachers reflected deeply and critically
about their practices in the company of their colleagues.
Gallas (1998b) discusses several factors that she and her colleagues
have identified as keys to the success of these study groups. These include:
the voluntary attendance of teachers over a long period of time, valuing the
knowledge that teachers bring to the experience while simultaneously

314
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

helping them to problematize it, a focused mission within the group

sessions that is clearly known by all participants, and the autonomy of the
teachers in the inquiry process. By autonomy, Gallas is referring to
teachers’ right to control the professional development process, and sees a
close relationship between teachers’ autonomy in the inquiry process and
their commitment to invest in self-examination and self-improvement:
When they are confronted with experiences in which they are
being controlled or led to a method or a way of thinking without
reference to the needs they have identified for their own learning,
they are not able to commit themselves to those experiences.
(Gallas, 1998b, p. 105)

School-wide Action Research in Georgia and Iowa

The final program in the USA on which there is a significant amount of
evaluation data is the School wide Action Research model that was
originally promoted as a vehicle for school renewal by faculty and staff
associated with the University of Georgia (e.g. Glickman, 1993). From 1990
through 1996, a team of university and school-based members conducted a
study of the nature and impact of the efforts of two groups of schools that
had signed on to the School wide Action Research program. The schools
were either members of Georgia’s League of Professional Schools, which had
100 members in 1996, or one of the 11 schools in Ames, Iowa participating
in the program.
Data for the study of the school-wide action research process included
the schools’ yearly action research plans, reports from annual site visits to
each school, transcripts from interviews with a sample of teachers,
questionnaires completed by school-based facilitators, and reports prepared
by the schools about their progress with action research (Calhoun & Allen,
1996; Joyce, et al, 1996; Allen & Calhoun, 1998).
The process of school-wide action research as it was implemented in
Georgia and Iowa involved five phases of inquiry. First, the faculty selected
an area of interest or a concern, and then they collected, organized and
interpreted on-site data related to this area of interest before taking action
based on this information. The process was a cyclical one and phases
overlapped as researchers retraced their steps and revised earlier plans
while continuing to move forward. The data that were examined during the
research included both data gathered on site and external data from the
research of others. Although there was a leadership or facilitation team in
each school that coordinated the action research process, everyone in the
school was involved in the research. Some amount of technical assistance
was provided to the schools in the program by persons external to the
district. For example, in Ames, 26 days of technical assistance in action
research was provided in the first year of the program and eight days in the
second year.

315
Kenneth Zeichner

According to Calhoun (1994), the purpose of school-wide action

research is school improvement: (a) improvement in the area identified in
the research (e.g. in writing skills), (b) improvement in equity for students
related to the focus of the research, and (c) improvement of the problem-
solving capability of the school.
Analyses of data in Ames and Georgia revealed a variety of effects of
participating in the school-wide action research process. For example, in
Ames, a random sample of 64 teachers was interviewed from the nine
elementary schools involved in the project. One of the areas assessed in the
interviews was teachers’ perceptions of changes in classrooms and effects
on student learning associated with the action research. In response to the
question, ‘what happened in your school as a result of the action research?’
75% of the teachers mentioned better learning opportunities for students
and closer colleagueship with other teachers (Joyce et al, 1996). In response
to the question, ‘what happened in your classroom as a result of action
research?’ 62% of the teachers thought that there had been positive effects
in their classrooms and others felt that there had been no changes or
negative changes. No information is provided in this Ames study about the
specific nature of the changes reported. Although most of the teachers
expressed positive feelings about their participation in the school-wide
action research process and believed that worthwhile changes were taking
place in their schools and classrooms, some teachers had mixed or negative
responses to the program. This kind of negativity is very unusual with
regard to teacher reports of involvement in conducting research and could
either reflect the compulsory nature of the process from the teachers’ point
of view or some unusual feature in the Ames program. Not enough data are
provided to enable readers to understand the reason for the negative teacher
attitudes, which are quite extensive in some areas. For example, nearly half
of the teachers interviewed ‘characterized school wide action research as
manifesting intentions of control by the central office’ (Joyce et al, 1996,
p. 73).
The data from Georgia are somewhat more specific than the Ames
data, enabling one to get a better sense of the specific kinds of changes that
were reported to be associated with school-wide action research. First, there
was an attempt to assess to what extent the action research studies focused
directly on student learning issues, something that had been stressed in the
orientation to the program. In 1993-94, only 24 of the 52 schools studied
were focusing directly on student learning or on changes in curriculum and
instruction. In addition to the lack of focus on student learning in the
research, in many cases individuals and small groups within schools
selected their own foci and there was often a lack of a common school
research focus. Additionally, according to Calhoun & Allen (1996), few of the
schools made changes in curriculum or instruction followed by regular data
collection to track the effects on students, as is hoped for in the model.
Because of this lack of fidelity to the program model of action research in

316
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

many of the schools, Calhoun & Allen (1996) argue that in assessing the
effects of doing action research, one must take into account the extent of
implementation of the model.
Various changes were reported to be associated with the school-wide
action research process in Georgia. In ‘high implementation schools,’
students showed increases in achievement that were attributed in part to
the school-wide action research efforts. Also, teachers who were deeply
involved in the research reported an increase in their sense of efficacy (Allen
& Calhoun, 1998). Calhoun & Allen (1996) spell out a variety of the specific
effects reported on the school learning environment:
Six [schools] reported that students have more opportunities to
read books of their choice during the school day. Four schools
reported that their classrooms and schools operate more as a
community or family, with less segregation by ability level. Three
reported providing more time for students to write during the
school day and more instruction in writing. (p. 158)
Other data is cited that attributes improvements in student achievement
and behavior to the research in 11 of the schools. For example, five of these
schools reported increases in student achievement as indicated by course
grades and/or results on standardized achievement tests. However, the
specific nature of these changes is not indicated. Five of the 11 schools
reported major reductions in student referrals and suspensions. Other
schools reported improvements in student attendance, in student self-
esteem, and improved attitudes toward mathematics. It is hard to interpret
these data, though, because little information is provided about the specific
nature of the research studies or about the effects on schools and students.

Discussion
This discussion of the nature and impact of teacher research based on
studies that have systematically examined teachers’ research experiences
has revealed that under certain conditions, teacher research seems to
promote particular kinds of teacher and student learning that many
teachers find very valuable and transformative, qualities not often linked
with most professional development experiences for teachers. Here we have
seen evidence that the experience of engaging in self-study research helps
teachers to become more confident about their ability to promote student
learning, to become more proactive in dealing with difficult situations that
arise in their teaching, and to acquire habits and skills of inquiry that they
use beyond the research experience to analyze their teaching in an in-depth
manner. Teacher research, under certain conditions, seems to develop or
rekindle an excitement and enthusiasm about teaching and to provide a
validation of the importance of the work that teachers do that seems to be
missing from the lives of many teachers. We have also seen evidence of
direct links between conducting teacher research under particular
conditions and improvements in students’ attitudes, behavior and learning,

317
Kenneth Zeichner

although these improved student outcomes have not always been reported
in sufficient detail.
Because of the limited information that has been provided by teachers
and those who have studied them about the conditions under which teacher
research has been organized and supported, at this point we do not have a
clear view from empirical research of how the contexts that support teacher
research make a difference in terms of teacher and student learning. The
studies reviewed in this article provide us, however, with a set of ‘working
hypotheses’ that can be used as a basis for exploring more deeply into this
matter in the future. Although the particular structures and routines were
different from one another, it appears that their positive effects can be
attributed to several underlying similarities.
From the studies reviewed in this article, it appears that creating a
culture of inquiry that respects the voices of teachers and the knowledge
they bring to the research experience is a key dimension of teacher research
programs that are successful in enabling the kinds of teacher and student
learning discussed here. This respect for teacher knowledge and teacher
voice can be brought about in different ways, but appears to be essential to
a transformational teacher research experience. This does not mean that we
should romanticize the voices of teachers (Hargreaves, 1996) and
uncritically glorify everything that emerges from their research. Teacher
research needs to be taken as seriously as any other kind of inquiry and
evaluated by those who would use it on the basis of both moral and
educational criteria (see Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Gallas’s (1998a)
argument that teacher inquiry communities need to maintain a delicate
balance between honoring teachers’ voices and expertise and asking them to
critique what they know accurately describes the conditions within the
teacher research groups in Wisconsin and Massachusetts (also see Wilson &
Berne, 1999).
One aspect of the investment in the intellectual capital of teachers
shared by all but one of the programs reviewed here is that teacher
researchers were given or took control over most aspects of the research
process, including defining a research focus, data collection and analysis
strategies. This openness to teachers determining the focus and direction of
their own inquiries might not be attractive to those who would like to move
teachers’ practices in particular predetermined directions (e.g. in relation to
standards), but the ownership of the research by teachers seems to be
essential to teacher research which makes a difference for teachers and
their students.
The studies reviewed indicate that the experience of conducting self-
study research under certain conditions seems to move teachers in a
direction of more ‘learner-centered’ instruction where they become more
convinced of the importance of listening to and studying their students and
more willing to use what they learn from this ‘student watching’ to influence
classroom events. They begin to approach teaching more from the

318
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

standpoint of their pupils and to give their pupils more input into classroom
affairs.
One way in which the tension between school and district
improvement priorities and teachers’ own definitions of their individual
development priorities has been dealt with is for a school or school district
to organize teacher research groups around areas of priority and to allow
teachers to develop their own research foci within these broad areas. The
Madison program, for example, has organized several of its research groups
around areas of district priority (e.g. race and gender equity, assessment,
elementary school literacy) and has used funds from different departments
within the district responsible for those areas to fund the groups. This
setting of broad areas for research and then giving volunteer teachers the
autonomy to develop their own research projects within these areas of
priority seems like a reasonable way to tap into the power of teacher inquiry
to promote broad school and school district improvement goals. When
teachers lack the ability to determine their research focus, as appears to
have been the case for some of the teacher researchers in the Ames, Iowa
program, they reacted negatively to what they perceive as an administrative
attempt to increase controls over them. Obviously, within particular school
districts, a balance will need to be achieved between professional
development that focuses on individuals and that which focuses on
organizational features of schools (Guskey, 1995).
Another condition that seems to be important to the success of teacher
research in promoting teacher and student learning is collaboration over a
substantial period of time in a safe and supportive group environment. All of
the programs examined in this article involved teachers working in groups
over a period of at least a year. This experience of working in a group where
all of the members are engaged in self-study seems to help teachers develop
new dispositions and skills to collaborate with their colleagues. When
teachers feel safe and supported in these groups which meet over a long
period of time, communication among group members becomes more
authentic and informative than daily teacher discourse in the staffroom. The
sustained nature of the dialogues in teacher research groups over a long
period of time seems to be uncommon in teachers’ experiences, but
important to the in-depth analysis of teachers’ practices that is often
achieved in teacher research groups.
In addition to the safety and security provided by teacher research
groups, it also appears to be important that the groups provide teachers
with intellectual challenge and stimulation. Teacher researchers in several
of the programs studied valued the difficulty and challenges provided by
group discussions of teachers’ inquiries, contrary to popular images of
teachers as wanting quick fixes and as not interested in or capable of
serious intellectual engagement with ideas. Teachers interviewed in
Madison, for example, frequently compared the ‘deep discussions’ that they
saw themselves engaged in as teacher researchers with the shallowness of

319
Kenneth Zeichner

many of their other professional development experiences. This dual role of

providing safety and security and intellectual challenge is similar to what
Lord (1994) refers to as ‘productive disequilibrium,’ one aspect of his
concept of ‘critical colleagueship’ which he considers to be an important
aspect of good professional development.
Another aspect of the group experience in the programs reviewed has
been the rituals and routines that are established within the groups that
help establish norms that build community (see Hallinger et al, 1996). The
research on the Madison group and Massachusetts groups has provided
important information about the protocols and routines used to introduce
and structure the inquiry and group processes. In addition to the structures
provided in relation to the research process (e.g. share your research
question with three people and ask for a reaction to it before the next
meeting), there are various structures introduced to frame the group
discussions of the research. For example, Marion’s (1998) detailed study of
two Madison, Wisconsin groups describes in some detail the various
structured activities such as check-in and check-out procedures and norms
for discussion (e.g. not attempting to give answers to teachers) that are
regularly employed by group facilitators in the Madison program. The rituals
and routines in the Massachusetts groups are different from those in
Madison, but they also provide a structure for both the inquiries and
discussions in group meetings that are consistent with the conditions
described above: respect for teacher knowledge and voice, a safe and secure
environment for inquiry, sufficient time to inquire in depth, and intellectual
challenge and stimulation. Not enough information is provided to be able to
understand the rituals and routines that might have been introduced in the
other program.
There are many other aspects of the programs reviewed in this article
where we are less clear about their importance to teacher and student
learning; for example, whether or not writing is employed in the process of
formulating and/or representing the research to others, and whether
released time is provided for meeting in research groups, are dimensions on
which the programs vary. Also, there was very little reported in the
discussions of these programs about how the skills needed for doing
research (e.g. data collection and analysis skills) were taught to teachers
and the nature of this instruction. Conducting research was a new
experience for many of the teachers who participated in these programs and
we need to learn more about the process of how they were inducted into the
role of researcher from a methodological perspective.
The kind of professional development described in this article
represents a long-term investment in building the capacity of teachers to
exercise their judgement and leadership abilities to improve learning for
themselves and their students. It is not a form of teacher education that will
produce quick fixes for complex and enduring problems of schooling or
compensate for the unsatisfactory working conditions that teachers are

320
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

often forced to endure. It will also not compensate for the failure of our
society to provide the social preconditions necessary for educational success
for all students: access to decent jobs, housing, food, health care, for all
families. In this era of educational accountability and standards, teacher
research is not a tool that can be used by policy-makers or administrators
to externally impose particular changes on teachers’ practices. When it is
organized and supported, though, according to the kinds of conditions
discussed above, it can become a professional development experience that
has a clear impact on teachers and their students in the ways described. It
can become a transformational professional development experience of great
importance to teachers.
In the end, the quality of learning for students in our schools will
depend to no small extent on the quality of learning and opportunities for
professional development that we provide for our teachers. While it is
appropriate and necessary at times for policy-makers and school
administrators to set directions for reforms and to provide teachers with the
skills and content that they need to carry them out, there must also be a
place in teachers’ lives for the kind of professional development that has
been discussed in this article, which respects and nurtures the intellectual
and leadership capacity of teachers. It is toward this important goal that
John Elliott has contributed so much over his career.

Correspondence
Kenneth Zeichner, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 225 N. Mills Street,
Madison, WI 53706, USA (zeichner@facstaff.wisc.edu).

Notes
[1] This research was supported in part by the US Department of Education and
the Spencer and McArthur Foundations. The opinions expressed do not
reflect the positions of these organizations.
[2] In addition to his great influence on my work throughout the years, I had the
privilege of working with John in Namibia a few years ago.
[3] A few other studies have systematically examined the impact of teacher
research in the United Kingdom (e.g. Dadds, 1995; Burgess-Macey & Rose,
1997).
[4] http://education.ucdavis.edu/cress/projects/teachresearch.html;
http://gse.edu/research/tr
[5] http://madison.k12.wi/us/sod/car

References
Allen, J.B., Shockley, B.B. & Baumann, J.F. (1995) Gathering ‘Round the Kitchen
Table’: teacher inquiry in the NRRC school research consortium, Reading
Teacher, 48, pp. 526-529.

321
Kenneth Zeichner

Allen, L. & Calhoun, E. (1998) Schoolwide Action Research: findings from six
years of study, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, pp. 706-710.
Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994) Studying Your Own School. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1995) Action Research:
inquiry, reflection, and decision-making. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Atwell, N. (1987) Class-based Writing Research: teachers learning from students,
in D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds) Reclaiming the Classroom: teacher research
as an agency for change, pp. 87-94. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Berthoff, A. (1987) The Teacher as Researcher, in D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds)
Reclaiming the Classroom: teacher research as an agency for change,
pp. 28-39. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Boles, K., Kamii, M. & Troen, V. (1999) Transformative Professional Development:
teacher research, inquiry, and the culture of schools, paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (Eds) (1999) How People Learn: brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of
Education Press.
Brodhagen, B., Caro-Bruce, C. & Klais, M. (1999) The Nature and Impact of
Action Research in One Urban School District, paper presented at a Spencer
Foundation sponsored invitational conference on Collaborative Research for
Practice.
Burgess-Macey, C. & Rose, J. (1997) Breaking through the Barriers: professional
development, action research and the early years, Educational Action
Research, 5, pp. 55-70.
Calhoun, E. (1994) How to Use Action Research in a Self-renewing School.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calhoun, E. & Allen, L. (1996) The Action Research Network: action research on
action research, in B. Joyce & E. Calhoun (Eds) Learning Experiences in
School Renewal: an exploration of five successful programs, pp. 136-174.
Eugene: ERIC Center on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Center for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (1998) Changing Teaching
Practice and Improving Student Performance: the role of professional
development. Philadelphia: Center for Policy Research in Education.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993) Inside-outside: teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1998) Teacher Research: the question that
persists, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1, pp. 19-36.
Corcoran, T. (1995) Helping Teachers Develop Well: transforming professional
development. Madison: Center for Policy Research in Education.

322
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Current, L. & Hirabayashi, J. (1989) Teachers as Researchers: papers and

commentary from the 10th annual Northern California conference. Oakland:
Mills College.
Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate Inquiry and School Development. London: Falmer
Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (1996) Policies that Support Professional
Development in an Era of Reform, Phi Delta Kappan, 76, pp. 597-604.
Day, C. (1984) Teachers’ Thinking, Intentions and Practice: an action research
perspective, in R. Halkes & J. Olson (Eds) Teacher Thinking. Lisse: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Elliott, J. (1980) Implications of Classroom Research for Professional
Development, in E. Hoyle & J. Megarry (Eds) Professional Development of
Teachers. London: Kogan Page.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Fishman, S.M. (2000) Charter Conceptions of Teacher Research, in S.M. Fishman
& L. McCarthy Unplayed Tapes: a personal history of collaborative teacher
research, pp. 14-32. New York: Teachers College Press.
Foshay, A. (1994) Action Research: an early history in the US, Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 9, pp. 317-325.
Gallas, K. (1998a) Sometimes I Can Be Anything; power, gender, and identity in a
primary classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallas, K. (1998b) Teacher-initiated Professional Development: the Lawrence
school study groups. Chicago: The Spencer and MacArthur Foundations.
Glickman, C. (1993) Renewing America’s Schools: a guide for school-based action.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guskey, T. (1995) Results Oriented Professional Development: in search of the
right mix of effective practices, in T. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds)
Professional Development in Action: new paradigms and practices,
pp. 114-132. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hallinger, P., Chantarapanya, P., Taraseina, P. & Srliboonma, U. (1996)
Nourishing the Spirit: the role of ritual in building communities of learners,
Journal of Staff Development, 17, pp. 22-26.
Hargreaves, A. (1996) Revisiting Voice, Educational Researcher, 25(1), pp. 12-19.
Himley, M. & Carini, P. (2000) From another Angle: children’s strengths and school
standards: the Prospect Center’s descriptive review of the child. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hodgkinson, H. (1957) Action Research: a critique, Journal of Educational
Sociology, 31(4), pp. 137-153.
Holly, M.L. (1990) Teachers’ Theorizing: research and professional growth, paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston.

323
Kenneth Zeichner

Huberman, M. (1996) Moving Mainstream: taking a closer look at teacher

research, Language Arts, 73, pp. 124-140.
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., Carran, N., Simser, J., Rust, D. & Halliburton, C. (1996)
The University Town Program: exploring governance structures, in B. Joyce &
E. Calhoun (Eds) Learning Experiences in School Renewal: an exploration of
five successful programs, pp. 52-93. Eugene: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn.
Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Lieberman, A. (1996) Practices that Support Teacher Development: transforming
conceptions of professional learning, in M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds)
Teacher Learning: new policies, pp. 185-201. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (Eds) (2001) Teachers Caught in the Action: professional
development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J.W. (1993) Teacher Professional Development in a Climate of Educational
Reform, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, pp. 129-151.
Lord, B. (1994) Teachers’ Professional Development: critical colleagueship and
the role of professional communities, in N. Cobb (Ed.) The Future of
Education: perspectives on national standards in America, pp.175-203. New
York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, P. & Stiles, K. (1998) Designing
Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Marion, R. (1998) Practitioner Research as a Vehicle for Teacher Learning: a case
study of one urban school district, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
McDonald, J.P. (1987) Raising the Teachers’ Voice and the Ironic Role of Theory,
Harvard Educational Review, 56, pp. 355-378.
McTaggart (1997) (Ed.) Participatory Action Research: International contexts and
consequences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Miller, B., Lord, B. & Dorney, J. (1994) Staff Development for Teachers. Newton,
MA: Educational Development Center.
Miller, E. (1995) The Old Model of Staff Development Has Survived in a World
Where Everything Has Changed, Harvard Education Newsletter, 11, pp. 1-3.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (1996) Inservice Education: ten
principles, in R. Small (Ed.) Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of
English Language Arts, pp. 59-62. Urbana: NCTE.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1996) Standards for the
Professional Development of Mathematics, in NCTM (Ed.) Professional
Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston: NCTM.

324
 TEACHER RESEARCH AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

National Staff Development Council (NSDC) (1995) Standards for Staff

Development: elementary, middle school, and high school editions. Oxford, OH:
NSDC.
Noffke, S. (1997) Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action
Research, in M. Apple (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, 22, pp. 305-343.
Oja, S. & Smulyan, L. (1989) Collaborative Action Research: a developmental
approach. London: Falmer Press.
Richardson, V. (1994) Teacher Inquiry as Professional Staff Development, in
S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds) Teacher Research and Educational
Reform, pp. 186-203. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sagor, R. (1992) How to Conduct Collaborative Action Research. Alexandria:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Selener, D. (1997) Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Quito,
Ecuador: Global Action Publications.
Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1999) A National Plan for Improving Professional
Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Troen, V., Kamii, M. & Boles, K. (1997) From Carriers of Culture to Agents of
Change: teacher initiated professional development in the learning/teaching
collaborative inquiry seminars, paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
US Department of Education (1994) National Assessment of Educational Progress:
long-term assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Wilson, S. & Berne, J. (1999) Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of
Professional Knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary
professional development, in A. Iran-Nejad & P. David Pearson (Eds) Review
of Research in Education, vol. 24, pp. 173-209. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Zeichner, K. (1997) Action Research as Professional Development in One Urban
School District, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Zeichner, K. (2001) Educational Action Research, in H. Bradbury & P. Reason
(Eds) Handbook of Action Research, pp. 273-284. Newbury Park: Sage.
Zeichner, K. & Klehr, M. (1999) Teacher Research as Professional Development in
One Urban School District, paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001) Practitioner Research, in V. Richardson (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4th edn, pp. 298-332. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Zeichner, K., Marion, R. & Caro-Bruce, C. (1998) The Nature and Impact of Action
Research in One Urban School District. Chicago: Spencer and MacArthur
Foundations.

325
Kenneth Zeichner

Theory and Practice in Action Research

some international perspectives
Edited by CHRISTOPHER DAY, JOHN ELLIOTT,
BRIDGET SOMEKH & RICHARD WINTER
This book contains 16 articles from across the professions and from different
countries which explore and examine the nature, purposes, processes and
outcomes of action research, its importance to professional growth and the
challenges of collaboration and change. Written by practitioners from schools
and universities, health and social services, it provides a comprehensive yet
focused critical appraisal which we believe is essential reading by all for whom
lifelong learning is a key component of being and sustaining themselves as
professionals.

Part 1. Conceptualisations of Action Research Introduction;

Susan Noffke Action Research: towards the next generation;
Richard Winter Managers, Spectators and Citizens: where does
‘theory’ come from in action research? Colin Biott Latency in Action
Research: changing perspectives on occupational and researcher
identities; Maggie MacLure Postmodernism: a postscript
Part 2. Praxis and Partnership in Action Research Introduction;
Christine O’Hanlon Reflection and Action in Research: is there a
moral responsibility to act? Jean-Claude Couture Dracula as Action
Researcher; Kath Green Defining the Field of Literature in Action
Research: a personal approach; Bridget Somekh Inhabiting Each
Other’s Castles: towards knowledge and mutual growth through
collaboration Part 3. Action Research for Change Introduction;
Melanie Walker Subaltern Professionals: acting in pursuit of social
justice; Victor Valla Popular Education and Knowledge: popular
surveillance of health and education services in Brasilian metropolitan
areas; Peter Posch Changes in the Culture of Teaching and Learning
and Implications for Action Research; Arphorn Chuaprapaisilip Thai
Buddhist Philosophy and the Action Research Process Part 4. Action
Research in Practice Settings Introduction; Belinda Watts & Shirley
Jones Inter-professional Practice and Action Research: commonalties
and parallels; Carol Munn-Giddings ‘A Different Way of Knowing’:
social care values, practitioner research and action research;
Pete Strauss No Easy Answers: the dilemmas and challenges of
teacher research; Angie Titchen & Alison Binnie A Unified Action
Research Strategy in Nursing
2002 paperback 244 pages $38.00 (£24.00) ISBN 1 873927 44 4
SYMPOSIUM BOOKS
PO Box 65, Wallingford, Oxford OX10 0YG, United Kingdom
orders@symposium-books.co.uk www.symposium-books.co.uk

326