"Can I change this?": Transformations in the Making
By
Vicky I. Zygouris-Coe, Ph.D.
University of Central Florida
College of Education
Department of Instructional Programs &
Educational Leadership
P.O. Box 161250
Orlando, FL 32816-1250
(407) 823-0386
Email: coe@mpinet.net
Paper presented at the 2000 Conference on Qualitative Research in Education, January 6-8, 2000, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Abstract
This is a tale of how three preservice research teams' experiences with action research helped them to approach a transformation process in their thinking about their action plan and educational practice. Analysis of observations, reflections on informal discussions with the students, and an analysis of student artifacts (e.g., final action research project, notes, and interim reports) highlight a shift in students' thinking and actions from a ritualistic to an inquiring, reflective, and possibly empowering attitude. Questions are raised about the possibility of preservice teachers experiencing transformation during their education training. Implications for the teaching of action research are discussed.
Introduction
By definition, the word transformation means a major change of some kind, an alteration, a modification, or a metamorphosis (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1982).
The purpose of this paper is to share three cases of preservice teachers' transformations in the making that took place over the period of a semester. These three "telling cases" will "tell" how personal inquiries and changes in education students' thinking helped to approach a transformation process in their plans of action to bring about improvement in educational practice.
Action research has become a required element of teacher education programs in the United States and in other countries. Action research has been multiply defined and used (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; McKernan, 1988; Noffke, 1997). The contexts in which action research is conducted also vary widely. Some teachers conduct research alone, or in connection to a research group that is either located in a school or a university setting, or as part of a whole school faculty (Calhooun, 1993). Some researchers are examining the various outcomes of action research for preservice and inservice education, and for the participating students. Zeichner (1999) suggests that it is important to begin to examine the particular aspects of the action research experience that are associated with different kinds of knowledge and learning.
In order for preservice teachers to be successful, they need to learn that there are no quick fixes or "microwave-type" recipes in teaching and research. They also need to become critical about all the stakeholders involved in the action research process. The benefits and challenges associated with action research have also been widely discussed. Noffke and Zeichner (1987) examined changes in teachers' thinking that have take place as a result of involvement in action research. They reported changes in teachers' definitions of professional roles, in their awareness of classroom life, in their attitudes toward reflection, and in teachers' views on teaching, learning, and research (Noffke & Zeichner, 1987). Teachers who are involved inaction research become active observers of their own experiences, practices, and thinking (Bartell, 1990).
Although the situations in which these three cases took place may be very unique to our university and to the design of our action research course, I propose that these shared experiences may help raise questions about: a) the purposes of action research in teacher education programs, b) whether action research invites students to further problematize classroom practices, c) the conditions that may bring about transformations in students' thinking, and d) the implications of these transformations in the making for developing a critical and reflective stance on educational practices.
The theme of our action research course is the systematic examination of classroom practice. After students "sketch" a research question, they begin to concentrate on methods of classroom inquiry and research and the application of those methods as part of an original project. They then synthesize previous research on their topic, collect data from their research setting and participants, analyze the data, develop and report their research findings and implications for practice and research in a formal written project.
This paper came about through collaboration and numberless dialogues that took place with students enrolled in my action research class in Spring 1999 at a large university in Florida. Although I maintained collaborative relationships with 35 education students who developed and implemented diverse and successful action research projects, the three cases I chose to share with you in this paper make visible the often translucent points at which transformations appear in the action research process. Through these three "telling cases" I will describe when and how students identify the need for a "transformation" in their action research plan, the kind of changes they made in their research design as well as in the way(s) they thought about action research, themselves as teacher researchers, and educational practice.
The three cases that follow will illustrate how: a) a good understanding of the action research process, b) negotiations with partners, participants, and other key stakeholders in the action research process, c) personal reflection, d) ownership of the action research plan, and d) a critical attitude help initiate transformations in students' personal, interpersonal, philosophical, methodological, and practical knowledge.
The first case "tells a tale" of three students' study of a classroom community in a third-grade classroom. The second case describes the effects of exposing first-grade children to poetry. The third case explores the use of an anti-bias curriculum in a kindergarten classroom.
Case 1-Building Community through Classroom Meetings
Anna, John, and Linda (all pseudonyms) worked together in developing and implementing an action research plan about classroom community. All three were very enthusiastic about studying the effects of classroom meetings in a third-grade classroom over a six-week period. During their various teaching experiences, Anna, John, and Linda had observed a range of student-student interactions such as, name-calling, put downs, and disrespect toward peers. In addition, they wanted to investigate how classroom meetings could be used to help create positive classroom interactions among students. They used observations to better understand the social and cultural dynamics of the classroom, interviews with students and teachers about community in the classroom, and a survey to investigate students' feelings towards their classmates. Anna, John, and Linda ". . .wanted to gain a multi-perspective outlook on the class community."
The development of their action research plan was made possible through many negotiations, discussions, and informal meetings with each other, with the cooperating teacher and their action research instructor. They started with a vague idea about how to systematically study classroom community, how and when to collect and analyze data, and by the end of the semester they had acquired a more critical and reflective attitude about themselves as researchers, their research plan, the research process, and classroom community.
Three weeks after Anna, John, and Linda had submitted all forms for Institutional Review Board approval, a number of things began to change in their overall understanding of their proposed research plan and of the action research process. I met repeatedly with them to discuss their questions about their design and/or the ways they were planning to implement classroom meetings. Most of their questions dealt with the implementation of their design (i.e., "How can we best understand how children interact with each other during classroom meetings?; "How can we use classroom meetings to build a classroom community?). They also thought that the title of their project was too general and that they should all take field notes-initially they were thinking about having Anna take field notes because she had completed her graduate internship in this class. Throughout our meetings they kept asking "Can I change this?" and felt very restricted by the design they had outlined in their Institutional Review Board form. Their fear was that if they deviated from the exact wording they had in the form they would not be allowed to complete their project. At the same time, they also felt-especially after being in the classroom-that several adjustments needed to be made in their design.
Two weeks after they had been in the classroom, Anna, John, and Linda discovered that their choice of discussion topics for classroom meetings was not necessarily that of the children's. They went over their filed notes and classroom observations and came to discuss their concerns and "new" decision with me. They shared with me that they had decided to introduce a "suggestion box" where children could submit suggestions for discussion topics. They again asked "Can I change this?" because the presence of the suggestion box was not included in their Institutional Review Board forms. We discussed the progress of their action research plan and decided that involving the participants would actually strengthen their understanding of classroom community and Anna, John, and Linda introduced the "suggestion box" in their classroom.
After analyzing their data, the three partners decided to make yet another change in their study. This change involved their theoretical, and practical perspective toward classroom community. They said that their initial goal was to
Explore the effects of classroom meetings on classroom community. We had observed many negative interactions among children, like name-calling, put downs, and disrespect toward peers. We felt that it was crucial to investigate ways to improve the social dynamics in the classroom. We wanted to see how classroom meetings could be used to diminish the negative interactions between students in the classroom.
Anna, John, and Linda found that classroom meetings helped create opportunities for students to positively interact with others in class and that when children were actively and meaningfully involved in the meetings, they assumed more ownership of the discussion, and felt like they were an important member of that community. Something Anna, John, and Linda had not anticipated was the role gender, cliques, and the teacher played in the overall classroom community. For example, Anna, John, and Linda stated that
During our classroom meetings we found that gender often impacted classroom dynamics . . . . students sat on the floor in same sex groups, and participated in the meetings very differently. Boys were physically rambunctious; they participated with group huddles, jumping up and down, using loud voices, and spreading out over a large area. Boys shaped and reshaped their side of the circle, as they would scoot in and get closer to the center of the circle during the meeting. The boys also became very competitive when we did a game.
Another transformation in the making in Anna's, John's, and Linda's thinking about classroom community was brought about by what they observed about cliques in the classroom. They said
From the beginning of our study we noticed that the same students grouped themselves when it was time to come to the circle and that the same students were isolated within the circle. Some students tried to trade partners during classroom meetings and activities. . . . Some cliques reinforced negative behaviors. For example, when certain students made suggestions, others booed, laughed, and gave them a thumbs-down for their ideas. . . . When we interviewed one child about what s/he had learned from the classroom meetings, this child responded "Yeah, some people like to only be around their friends. . . this isn't always good
. . . I guess it could change if the class tries to be friends with people who are different.
Finally, Anna, John, and Linda observed that other peers in classroom meetings repeatedly isolated certain students. When a student cried in public when another student said that s/he did not want to sit by her, Anna, John, and Linda said that
The dynamics of the classroom changed when students shared personal experiences and some students even said in our interviews with them that they realized that what they do in the classroom affects other classmates. We think that students began to feel less isolated from the class after discussions about how to treat others and acts of kindness took place in class. Also, because students became more aware of their value to the classroom community.
Anna, John, and Linda, also discovered that the teacher and the students play a very crucial role in the classroom community. They suggested that
It is really important to the success of the meetings that teachers realize it takes time to implement meetings effectively. Thus, allowing students ample time to practice routines, learn the rules, and understand the purposes of the meetings is crucial to the effectiveness of class meetings. Teachers should incorporate classroom meetings in their regular curriculum. It is also important for students to be actively involved in the development of their class meetings. For instance, students should be involved in creating rules for the meetings, suggesting topics to discuss, and generating a class name.
Anna's, John's, and Linda's experiences with this third-grade classroom and action research also brought about questions and inquiries about future research in classroom communities. They noted that
As our study progressed, we uncovered numerous questions that we felt could be further researched. If students learn new ways to interact with peers will they apply such "skills" in other settings like the playground? What if classroom meetings were used on an ongoing basis instead of a sporadic one? How can we create a classroom atmosphere where students can feel safe to share personal experiences and feelings?
Anna's, John's, and Linda's inquiries and dissatisfaction with various aspects of their design and the research process indicates that they were actively involved in the action research process throughout the semester. Their transformations in the making are summarized below. They wanted to "go by the book" but they also felt uncomfortable with the restrictions of their own design. They planned to only explore the use of classroom meetings in a classroom, but instead identified a lot more information about what constitutes classroom community.
Personal
- Negotiating personal knowledge and interests
- Seeing oneself as a researcher
- Experiencing collaborative relationships
- Understanding the purposes of the study
- Thinking about the implications of action research in classroom practice
Interpersonal
- Meetings among three partners took place on a scheduled and on-going basis
- Partners met regularly to discuss observations, other data, and compare perspectives
- The students' perspectives were incorporated in the study
- The cooperating teacher was actively involved
- The action research course instructor was actively involved
Methodological
- The emphasis of the study became more specific and focused
- Participants' suggestions were included in the design
- The introduction of a suggestion box
- Interviews were conducted with less students
- The frequency of the classroom meetings increased
- Action research is a cyclical, complex process
- The research design is an emergent one
- Understanding the IRB process
- Knowledge of the action research process is necessary for the implementation of a plan that might bring about educational change
- On-going analysis of data aids in the understanding of the phenomenon under study
- Qualitative research allows one to examine a phenomenon from multiple perspectives
Theoretical
- A classroom community is not developed automatically
- There are different roles assigned or earned to various members of a classroom community
- Classroom meetings alone will not help create a classroom community
- Gender relationships can affect a classroom Community
Practical
- Teachers need to incorporate classroom meetings in the regular curriculum
- It may be beneficial to introduce classroom meetings at the beginning of the school year
- Teachers need to actively participate in classroom meetings
- Students need to understand the purpose of classroom meetings and be active participants
- There is not one way to conduct classroom meetings
- Classroom dynamics are fluid, always changing
- Classroom meetings can be used to discuss current events, building problem-solving skills, and discussing literature
- It takes time to understand the process of action research
- On-going communication and collaboration with partners and key participants is necessary for the successful completion of an action research plan
Case 2-Poetry in a First-Grade Classroom
Rachel, Lorraine, and Heather (all pseudonyms) formed another research team in the same focus semester. They developed an action research plan to explore the effects of poetry on first-grade students' figurative language, vocabulary use and writing. They believed that through daily exposure to the elements of poetry students' vocabulary and writing would improve. Rachel, Lorraine, and Heather exposed children to poetry through daily oral reading, modeling, guided discussions, and journal writing. One member of the research team, Rachel, had completed her graduate internship in this first-grade classroom. They adopted a qualitative research design and their methodology, as was stated in the Institutional Review application form, included field observations and student artifacts (i.e., a poetry journal and portfolio, poetry writing samples) in order to examine students' understanding and use of poetry. The researchers read a poem to the students every day and then discussed with them the different elements of poetry.
Three weeks after Rachel, Lorraine, and Heather had submitted for IRB approval, and as they started to rethink about the details of the implementation of their plan, they began raising questions about various aspects of their plan. They were pleased with the potential analysis of all of the different student artifacts they would be collecting, but they were concerned about: a) how they else they could understand the effects of poetry on students' language and writing, and b) what the teacher had been doing in the classroom in terms to poetry and what s/he thought about their proposed use of poetry as a "vehicle" for language and writing improvement. The challenge was that they had not stated these concerns on their IRB form. Again, the question "Can I change this?" arose. Again, the confining of their original design was felt as they started to closely and systematically think about their own topic and about action research. We met as a group and discussed all of the above stated issues. Rachel, Lorraine, and Heather decided to add a teacher interview and do a K (What I Know)-W (What I Want to Know)-L (What I Learned) activity to assess growth over the course of the study.
After two weeks of being in this first-grade classroom, the three partners approached me again to inform me about the progress of their study and to ask me if they could change yet another aspect of their design. Because of the positive reaction of the students toward poetry, Rachel, Lorraine, and Heather thought that it may be useful to introduce a lot more types of poetry. They observed that every child was responding to poetry; they were "devouring" it. As a result of their observations and experiences, they decided to introduce more examples of poetry (e.g., nonsense poem).
The analysis of their data revealed anticipated and quite a few unanticipated outcomes of poetry. For example, the researchers discovered a change in the students' perceptions and uses of poetry. They explained
After being exposed to poetry, students were becoming more interested in poetry and they started to see themselves as poets. At the beginning of the study, almost all children's pomes resembled the "Roses are red and violets are blue" structure, but by the end of the study no two poems were alike. Students created completely original works.
In addition, after six weeks of listening, reading, and writing poetry, students' vocabulary became more elaborate and complex. They reported that
They started to use words such as monotonous, trifle, and miniature by using contextual clues. Here is how one participant incorporated newly acquired vocabulary into his/her writing (Heather reads a student's poem):
Another interesting and unexpected responses were the students' understanding of technical elements of poetry such as alliteration, verse and non-verse, and the originality in their written poems. The researchers stated that
A Saint Patrick's Day
One day a miniature leprechaum came into my enormous room.
He said, "I am so hungry that I could eat a feast."
I thought he so gorgeous.
Then one day, I asked him
If he wanted to go on a stroll down my street.
I thought he was boring.
Then he found another leprechaun,
And he took me to a pot of gold before he went back to his trifle city.Some participants produced wonderful nonsense poems. Read the following poem [Rachel shares a student's poem]:
Rachel, Lorraine, and Heather talked about another transformation in their thinking. They discovered that poetry could be introduced at an early age and that there were many different ways to teach it. They said
Nonsense Clonsense
I felt a thump, clump, slump on my desk.
It was my Nonsense thum, plum, clum
The teacher said stop being a girl.
The girl said stop being a plump, slump, clump teacher.
Then the girl went home.
Then she went to sleep.
Then her mother kissed her good night.
Isn't it amazing how students were able to comprehend and use key technical aspects of poetry at such a young age? The only similarity we found among students' poems was the inclusion of a title. They understood the use of a title and its placement within the context of poetry.Our experiences with poetry in this classroom made us think of poetry as a vehicle for: a) cross-curricular instruction, b) self-expression, and c) vocabulary development. For example, during our research, we supplemented a math lesson with a poem incorporating math concepts and terminology. As a vehicle for self-expression, poetry takes on a "success for all" approach, regardless of students' abilities. Poetry provides a myriad of teachable moments to increase vocabulary development. Finally, we think that teachers can implement poetry successfully in any classroom setting; poetry is an easily accessible tool for classroom instruction.
Finally, Rachel's, Lorraine's, and Anna's experiences with this first-grade
class and with action research also birthed further questions about future research in the uses of poetry. The three partners wondered how the incorporation of poetry in the curriculum from the onset of the school year would effect students' attitudes, knowledge, and vocabulary development. They also questioned how poetry could be incorporated across the curriculum on a daily basis, and whether all students would benefit from poetry exposure.
Rachel's Lorraine's, and Heather's case reflects some of the personal, interpersonal, methodological, theoretical, and practical changes they applied to their initial action plan, as a result of an improved understanding of their own topic, the action research process, and the settings and its participants. They started this project because they thought poetry would be something fun and easy for most children to do. They completed this project with an expanded knowledge about how: a) young children interacted with poetry, b) their vocabulary and writing improved, c) the participants in a study can shape and re-shape the study, d) the action research process can be restrictive and liberating, and e) action research can bring about change in educational practice. Their transformations in the making are summarized below:
Personal
- Negotiating personal knowledge and interests
- Seeing oneself as a researcher
- Experiencing collaborative relationships
- Understanding the purposes of the study
- Thinking about the implications of action research in classroom practice
- Perceiving challenges in teaching and research as opportunities to learn rather than obstacles in the learning process
Interpersonal
- Meetings among three partners took place on a scheduled and on-going basis
- Partners met regularly to discuss observations, other data, and compare perspectives
- The students' perspectives were incorporated in the study
- The cooperating teacher was actively involved
- The action research course instructor was actively involved
Methodological
- The emphasis of the study became more specific and focused
- Children's writing time increased
- Interviews were conducted with teacher
- Children's exposure to poetry increased
- Action research is a cyclical, complex process
- The research design is an emergent one
- Understanding the IRB process
- Knowledge of the action research process is necessary for the implementation of a plan that might bring about educational change
- On-going analysis of data aids in the understanding of the phenomenon under study
- Qualitative research allows one to examine a phenomenon from multiple perspectives
Theoretical
- Poetry is an easily accessible vehicle
- Students of all abilities can interact and benefit from poetry
- Poetry is useful tool for self-expression
- Poetry can aids in the development of students' figurative language
- Poetry can aid in students' writing development
Practical
- It may be beneficial to expose students to poetry at the beginning of the school year
- Teachers need to incorporate poetry in the regular curriculum
- Students need to understand the purpose of poetry and be active participants
- There is not one way to teach poetry
- It takes time to understand the process of action research
- On-going communication and collaboration with partners and key participants is necessary for the successful completion of an action research plan
Case 3-Anti-Bias Curriculum in a Kindergarten Classroom
Michelle and Jessica (both pseudonyms) formed another action research partnership during the same focus semester. They were both very interested in developing an anti-bias curriculum to be used with a kindergarten class. Michelle had completed her graduate internship in this kindergarten class. They adopted a qualitative study design and used classroom observations in order to see how students would interact during story time, class discussions, and during other class activities. They both kept a journal. They also interviewed a selected sample of students about changes in their attitudes. Finally, Michelle and Jessica collected various students artifacts (e.g., drawings, paintings, collages) and had many informal and formal discussions with the classroom teacher about the students' knowledge of anti-bias issues and any changes observed in the students' attitudes after the implementation of the activities.From implementing an anti-bias curriculum, the students showed an increased awareness of the variety of roles males and females can participate in. It was interesting to find that children were more accepting of women doing nontraditional activities than men were. . . . After examining the students' collages, we felt that we needed to discuss the more nurturing roles males play and used personna dolls to discuss related issues.Also, from implementing anti-bias curriculum, Michelle and Jessica discovered that students showed an increased awareness of people with disabilities. At the beginning, some students had expressed that they would not have someone as a friend if they were on a wheelchair. Michelle and Jessica explained
We introduced a number of activities like Braille and Sign language, a Braille menu from McDonald's and we brought many adaptive equipment in the classroom. We demonstrated how to use the equipment, let the children use the equipment, and decided to take them on a tour of the school pointing the handicapped parking spots, ramps, and railings. The most exciting activity for the children was the guest speaker who was blind, but well-adjusted to his disability. This direct experience with disabled person was very memorable for the students.Finally, Michelle and Jessica discovered that students' perceptions of themselves and others improved over time. By providing skin-tone crayons and paints for the students, Michelle and Jessica were able to observe how students matched their skin tone more accurately in their drawings.
We think that teachers need to have many multicultural materials available in the classroom and children should be able to interact and use with those materials on a dial basis. In the future it will be interesting to see the effects of an anti-bias curriculum with younger and older students. We wonder if any changes would occur in the attitudes and perceptions of older children who have already been exposed to society's labels of race and gender roles.Michelle and Jessica, also reflected on the limitations of their study. They talked about the influence of parents and how an examination of parents' and teachers' attitudes may be useful to our understanding of the students' attitudes toward others. As a result of their experiences, Michelle and Jessica also suggested that teaching students to resist stereotypes and discriminating behavior might be another way to combat biases and prejudicial perceptions of others.
Personal
- Negotiating personal knowledge and interests
- Seeing oneself as a researcher
- Experiencing collaborative relationships
- Understanding the purposes of the study
- Thinking about the implications of action research in classroom practice
Interpersonal
- Meetings between the two partners took place on a scheduled and on-going basis
- Partners met regularly to discuss observations, other data, and compare perspectives
- The students' perspectives were incorporated in the study
- The cooperating teacher was actively involved
- The action research course instructor was actively involved
Methodological
- The emphasis of the study became more specific and focused
- Participants' suggestions were included in the design
- Reduced the number of participants and focused in one class
- Focused on gender, disability, and race/culture
- Increased the number of hands-on activities
- Field notes about classroom interactions became a focal part of the design
- Student-student dialogues were recorded and analyzed
- Spent more time talking with students
- Analyzed students' drawings and collages carefully
- Introduced diverse aspects of gender roles
- Action research is a cyclical, complex process
- The research design is an emergent one
- Understanding the IRB process
- Knowledge of the action research process is necessary for the implementation of a plan that might bring about educational change
- On-going analysis of data aids in the understanding of the phenomenon under study
- Qualitative research allows one to examine a phenomenon from multiple perspectives
Theoretical
- An anti-bias curriculum may help prevent biases and stereotypes in students
- An anti-bias curriculum may also improve students' perceptions of self
- Students' experiences with diverse people may help shape their perceptions of others
- Biases and stereotypes about others begin at a very early age
Practical
- An anti-bias curriculum needs to be part of a regular classroom curriculum
- It may be beneficial to introduce an anti-bias curriculum at the beginning of the school year
- Teachers need to actively participate in and examine students' perceptions of self and others
- Students need to be exposed to a variety of multicultural literature and activities at an early age
- Hands-on activities and guest speakers provide concrete experiences for students
- Teachers should provide a variety of activities and opportunities for students to discuss gender, disability, and race/culture issues
- It takes time to understand the process of action research
- On-going communication and collaboration with partners and key participants is necessary for the successful completion of an action research plan
Conclusion
In this paper, three action research teams examined various aspects of classroom life and practice. They, themselves, went through a series of personal, interpersonal, methodological, philosophical, and practical transformations in the making that were initiated by themselves as they designed and implemented an action research plan, by the action research process, and by the classrooms they visited. Through these experiences, they questioned their ideas, their knowledge of action research and classroom community, what "is allowed and not allowed" in research, and what are the implications of action research for classroom practice. In addition, because of the students' limited knowledge of action research and the rigid structure of the Institutional Review process students felt confined by the requirements to design a specific research design and troubled by the need to make additional changes as they acquired more knowledge and experiences. Thus, they asked "Can I change this?" repeatedly during the first six weeks of the action research course.
Some of their transformations in the making occurred at the beginning of this action research process, some after they were in the field, and others after they had completed the analysis of the data. The complexity of the action research process provides preservice and inservice teachers with many opportunities to develop questions, reflect on these questions, and systematically study them in order to bring about educational [and personal] change (Oja & Smulyan, 1989). These three "telling cases" illustrated how and when a need for a change occurred during the action research process, the steps the student researchers took, and the ways in which they reflected and revisited issues of theory, research, and educational practice.
Although these three cases do not promise or provide evidence of future transformations in the graduating students' thinking or practices, they do show how personal inquiries and changes in their thinking during the action research process helped them to approach a transformation process in their plan of action to bring about improvement in their educational practices. The students' goal was to complete an action research project in order to graduate; instead, they exited the course with a lot more questions than answers about themselves as teachers and researchers, the research process, and classroom practice.
The process of conducting action research created many opportunities for students to reflect and to change. They began to understand the complexity of teaching and research while realizing that the answers to both are not found in textbooks or courses. Knowledge of and experiences with action research and teaching are necessary, but action research challenged them to think about what it means to do action research, what it means to be a teacher, and what it takes to bring about educational change. They learned that knowledge is socially constructed, that a study is co-constructed by all participants, and that action research is an inherently complex process. These cases do not promise "true" transformations; instead, they show possibilities for transformations in preservice teachers' thinking, in the teaching of action research, and in using action research to bring about change in their own classroom practices.
References
Barlett, C. (1990). Action research: cases of effective teaching practices. Teacher
Quarterly, 79-91.
Calhoun,E. (1993). Action research: Three approaches. Educational Leadership,
52(2), 62-65.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Teacher research: The question that persists.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 19-36.
McKernan, J., (1998). The countenance of curriculum action research: Traditional,
collaborative, and emancipatory-critical conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(3), 173-200.
Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In
M. Apple (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 22, 305-343.
Noffke, S., & Zeichner, K. (1987). Action research and teacher thinking: The first phase
of the action research project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington
Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental
approach. London: Falmer Press.
Sykes, J. B., (Ed.) (1982). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (7th ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Zeichner, K. (1999). Teacher research as a professional activity for P-12 educators.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.