the promise of action research for critically reflective teacher education

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Pittsburgh]On: 12 November 2014, At: 13:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

The promise of actionresearch for criticallyreflective teacher educationTodd Dinkelman aa Curriculum and Instruction , University ofWisconsin ,Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Todd Dinkelman (1997) The promise of action research forcritically reflective teacher education, The Teacher Educator, 32:4, 250-274, DOI:10.1080/08878739709555151

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555151

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE PROMISE OF ACTION RESEARCH FORCRITICALLY REFLECTIVE TEACHER EDUCATION

Todd DinkelmanCurriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin

AbstractThis paper is an analysis of the potential that action research theory

and practice hold for educating preservice teachers to become more criti-cally reflective. First, action research theory, especially as it informscurrent notions of educational research and practice, is reviewed. Thencritically reflective teaching is described by grounding the term in criticalsocial science views supportive of the social reconstructionist reform tradi-tion in teacher education. Special attention is given in this review to theclaims made by action research advocates regarding the power of actionresearch to promote critically reflective teaching. Finally, to examine theempirical basis for these claims, a brief survey is made of several reportsof the use of action research by teacher educators. The analysis revealscautious optimism for the promise action research holds for criticallyreflective teacher education.

If there is any term whose meaning in teacher education reformdiscourse is less fixed than "action research," that term must be"reflective teaching." At first glance, there appears a certain irony intwo such imprecise, fluid ideas serving as focal points in talk aboutreshaping the practice of preparing teachers. On the other hand,perhaps the very reason for their widespread appeal is the fact thattheir meanings can be so readily adapted to views representing nearlyevery side in the debate over how business in teacher educationshould be conducted. Whether or not this explanation is adequate,these terms are gaining widespread currency in the field, especiallyamong those teacher educators engaged in projects loosely situatedaround notions of democratic teacher education (e.g., McEwan,1994; Watts, 1994). These educators are concerned with thedevelopment of critically reflective teachers, and their concern has, atleast in part, led to a renewal of interest in the use of action researchin teacher education.

The focus of this paper is the extent to which action researchtheory and practice hold promise for educating preservice teachers to

become more critically reflective. The first step in this analysis will bea review of action research theory, especially as it informs currentnotions of educational research and practice. Then variousconceptions of reflective teaching will be reviewed, with specialattention given to notions of critically reflective teaching rooted incritical social science views supportive of the social reconstructionistreform tradition in teacher education. This review will emphasizeclaims made by advocates regarding the power of action research toshape preservice teacher thinking and practice toward criticallyreflective ends. To examine the empirical basis for these claims,several reports of how action research has been used by teacher edu-cators in practice will then be surveyed.

Action Research

Action research is not a new idea. Action research, a concept thatcan be traced to the work of John Dewey (NofTke, 1994), was devel-oped through the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin in the1930s and 1940s (Adelman, 1993), applied to education by StephenCorey in the early 1950s (Corey, 1953), flourished shortly thereafter,and declined in popularity as the structure of the disciplines curric-ulum reform, movement became dominant in the 1960s (Oja andSmulyan, 1989). As an instrument of educational reform, actionresearch has generated renewed interest in the United States over thelast decade or so, judging by the burgeoning literature on the topicduring this period (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993; Elliot, 1991;Kelly, 1985; McKernan, 1987). In this brief history, differentinterpretations of its epistemology, purpose, defining features,connection to the development of academic theory, and relationshipto various levels of social transformation emerged. On a general level,though, action research is defined as intentional, systematic inquiryby practitioners into their own practice usually proceeding by way ofa spiraling, recursive series of at least these four steps—plan, act,observe, and reflect (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1982).

On the surface, it is little wonder that action research defined inthis way is so widely embraced by educators. What reasonable personwould oppose the intentional and systematic inquiry into the workthey do by those involved in education? There can be little questionthat schooling is better off when conducted by practitioners who aremindful of what they are doing; and in one sense, all teachersapproach their work as defined here with an eye toward an aim, car-rying out a plan of action, then observing and thinking about the

results. Then why is so much attention being given to something thatteachers already do anyway? It is not necessary to look far below thesurface before an answer to this question begins to take shape.

For one, action research is done more systematically and withgreater intentionality than the usual reflection done by educators intheir daily practice. Also, in contrast to the picture of most teachersworking as isolated individuals in their own classrooms, actionresearch is often done in collaboration with others, in researchcommunities usually consisting of other practitioners. In fact, somehave included collaboration as a necessary part of action research'sdefinition (e.g., Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Tabachnik and Zeichner,1994).

In spite of its intuitive appeal, in reality action research is farfrom a common occurrence in most educational settings. There areprobably numerous forces at work that explain the absence of anactivity that seems so sensible (McKernan, 1989). These forces arelocated in the immediate workplace contexts where teaching takesplace and are no doubt shaped by those larger social, historical, andpolitical factors responsible for the present set of conditionsmediating contemporary school practice. One such factor is themanner in which the enterprise of generating legitimate knowledgeabout teaching has been construed. Action research is attractive tosome because of the changes it stands to bring about in fundamentalassumptions endemic to long-standing, dominant views ofeducational theory and practice regarding the generation of teachingknowledge (Elliot, 1991).

Prevailing views of the epistcmology of knowledge aboutteaching and learning have been fixed this century in a pragmatic andpositivist orientation (Beyer, 1988). Under these views, the methodsof social science turned to problems of the classroom are seen as theprimary source of "valid" knowledge about what works in schooling.Practitioners engaged in the actual work of teaching had a role toplay in the process of finding the laws, principles, and generalizationsgoverning effective teaching, but theirs was a subsidiary role.Educational practitioners were the objects of the researcher's gaze, tobe studied, then left to carry on with their work as the scientistsretreated back to the university to make sense of the teachers' world.As Nias (1988) stated, ". . . researchers implicitly deny teachers'ability to generate knowledge, since by definition knowledge is thatwhich academics produce" (p. 22). Perhaps there is nothing moretelling regarding the technical rationale underlying traditional formu-

lations of how legitimate educational knowledge is produced than thepicture of these same researchers, who relied upon teachers' class-rooms for data, returning to the school to "inscrvice" their originalhosts in how to best conduct their work.

Action research challenges this view of knowledge production.Schon's (1983, 1987) ideas about "knowlcdge-in-action" have beeninstrumental in attempts to articulate an alternative to the traditionalideology governing how knowledge, and which kinds of knowledge,become a part of the knowledge base on teaching. Schon assertedthat professionals rely more on knowledge generated in the process oftheir work, in meeting the complexity of the particular situations inwhich their work takes place, than on theories and formulasgenerated by external research communities. Technical rationality,with its separation of practitioner from knowledge production, hasthus neglected a vast and rich vein of expertise in its search for therules of effective practice. However, the idea of knowledge-in-actionimplies more than a missed opportunity for academicians; it points tothe need for practitioners to have direct involvement in making senseof their own practice because those engaged in situ have a perspectiveon practice that affords insights unavailable to external researchers.

Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) pointed to a number of differ-ences between the conceptions of traditional educational researchers,whether they use quantitative or qualitative methods, and actionresearchers. These differences are illustrative of the vast reconceptual-ization action research represents to established modes of inquiry ineducational research. Whereas "research on teaching" is conducted byprofessional researchers and supported by structures encouraging theresearch activity and dissemination of findings, action research isdone by practitioners impeded by a lack of institutional, professional,and cultural support structures, as well as very limited avenues forsharing results (King and Lonnquist, 1994). Also, while traditionalresearchers locate research problems from surveying empirical andtheoretical literature, action researchers look to the immediate prob-lems of their own practice in formulating research questions that are"reflexive and referenced to the immediate context" (Cochran-Smithand Lytle, 1993, p. 12). Finally, traditional researchers look totheories from social science disciplines for the theoretical frameworksemployed in their work, tend to employ quantitative analyses,encourage professional detachment, and seek to generate knowledgeapplicable outside the context of the situation under study. Actionresearchers, on the other hand, look to the practical theories they

bring to their practice as basic theoretical frameworks, tend to usemore interpretivist forms of inquiry, welcome deep personal attach-ment to the research process (by definition), and seek to produceknowledge useful in their own contexts, although that same knowl-edge may be useful to others as well (Cochran-Smith and Lytle,1993).

In challenging notions of how legitimate knowledge aboutteaching is produced, action research has thus brought into sharprelief controversies regarding the very nature of educational research.Action research takes the primary characteristics of historically dom-inant forms of educational inquiry and turns them on their heads.That is, traditional research has developed certain characteristicsprecisely in order to avoid many of the weaknesses advocates ofaction research view as strengths. Trained researchers, so theargument goes, are capable of designing studies with the technicalrigor needed to insure valid results, and most teachers, who arebelieved to lack the requisite training in research methods, are lesscapable.

As King (1992) pointed out, action researchers have respondedto such criticisms with different arguments. One response is tosimply ignore the criticism by forwarding the solution of local prob-lems as the aim of action research, not the generation of knowledgeothers can use. If action research leads to solutions, why worryabout meeting the strictures of traditional science? Another responseargues that action research has validity, but of a different sort. Forexample House, Mathison, and McTaggart (1989) demonstratedhow notions of validity are based on theories of causation, and thecausation theory that best fits with how teachers practice their craftis different from the theories that inform traditional views ofvalidity. "Thus, [they] advocate an expanded and pluralistic concep-tion of validity" (p. 15). While this view is not a blanketendorsement of all practitioners' inferences, it docs point to theunsettled nature of validity.

Personal Renewal, Improved Practice, and Social Change

To many action research proponents, the debate over validitymisses the point. For them, the promise of action research torefashion educational theory is not its only appeal. The influenceaction research might have on how educational research is conceivedis an interesting question, but another allure of action researchderives from what can happen when it is carried out. Here, potential

benefits are claimed in terms of what individuals stand to gain whenconducting action research, the ways it can improve practice, and thelatent emancipatory effects action research holds for those who wouldwork for social change.

Action research is touted as a tool that can lead to increased indi-vidual development, both personal and professional (Zeichner,1993b). As might be expected, systematic intentional inquiry shouldlead to a greater understanding of the particular issue under study,and, more broadly, to a greater understanding of the complexitiesinherent in the task of teaching as well. Collaborative action researchopens up lines of communication between practitioners that, if donein a spirit of collegiality and responsibility, provide teachers with newperspectives on their work. "Teachers who participate in actionresearch projects become more flexible in their thinking, more recep-tive to new ideas, and more able to solve problems as they arise" (Ojaand Smulyan, 1989, p. 15). Also, teachers who participated in anaction research group studied by Oja and Smulyan reported that theyexperienced personal and professional growth as a result of takingpart in the process of action research, and they believed ". . . theirunderstanding of the process was ultimately a more valuable outcomethan the research project itself" (p. 207). It makes sense to believethat practitioners would develop a more genuine interest inresearching problems they themselves framed. Zeichner (1994) toldof his own encounters with such interest, "In facilitating teacherresearch, I have often been overwhelmed by the responses of teachersand teacher educators to the opportunity to have their own issuesdrive their professional development" (p. 74).

Presumably, all the ways in which practitioners experiencepersonal and professional development through action research bodewell for the prospect of improved practice. After all, action research isnearly always directed at an immediate problem of practice, and it isreasonable to believe that understandings gained from action researchcould only stand to improve the quality of future decisions aboutpractice. The argument for improved practice further draws on twoassumptions stemming from educators working on their ownproblems (King and Lonnquist, 1994). First, the direct involvementof practitioners in planning and implementing change would suggesta higher level of commitment to the success of the project. Also, anyproposed change in practice would seem to be custom-tailored to theparticular features of the situation being reformed. Of course, there isreal difficulty in assessing the extent to which action research leads to

improved practice because of the deep disagreements over thedistinction between better and worse practice that spring fromfundamentally distinct educational reform traditions. Also, VanManen (1990, 1995) called for greater critical attention to severalassumptions behind the idea of action research, assumptions havingto do with conceptions of knowledge, reflection, and educationalchange. Claims regarding the promise of action research to improveeducational practice require scrutiny if predicated upon questionableassumptions.

Along with notions of individual development and improvedpractice comes the idea that action research is an instrument forsocial change. This idea is particularly attractive to those who situatetheir educational perspectives in the traditions of critical theory andsocial reconstructionism. From its early roots, collaborative actionresearch was promoted by some as an educational reform toolfounded upon democratic values such as participation, individualempowerment, and local control (Corey, 1953; Taba and Noel,1957). There is a vein of contemporary discourse about actionresearch that calls for utilizing the democratic features of actionresearch to assist in the process of reconstructing schools along linesthat would fulfill their democratic promise. For example, Zeichner(1994) pointed to the moral obligation educators have to work sothat their students can participate fully in a democratic society. Thereis much work to be done on this count, as evidenced by theinequities and discrimination in the distribution of quality educationso characteristic of our current system of schooling. He argued thateducators involved in action research ". . . should consider at somepoint along the way the social and political implications of theirpractices and act on them" (p. 79).

Carr and Kemmis (1986) argued that collaborative actionresearch is an initial step in the creation of a more just social orderbased on democratic decision-making structures because actionresearch offers participants a model, on some micro-level, of justsuch an order. A similar argument has been advanced by Kincheloe(1991). Through participation in action research, participants receivea firsthand education in many democratic features—critical applica-tion of rationality to taken-for-granted educational assumptions,distribution of decision-making power to those who are affected bythose decisions, and the process of working with others in support ofa common goal of social transformation along lines respectful of eachparticipants contribution to the group. "Action research as an organi-

zation for the self-education of those involved in the action researchprocess thus suggests direction for the transformation of educationgenerally" (Carr and Kemmis, 1986, p. 200). Taking the argumentone step further and basing it on the proposition that education playsa part in shaping society, such a transformation in education has asubsequent role to play in transforming the social order.

Critical Reflection and Teacher Education

Claims regarding the power of action research to reformeducation are often based on action research theory and practice asthey apply to teachers already working in schools (Carr and Kemmis,1986; McKernan, 1991), but the qualities action research seems topromote in teachers are much the same as those critically orientedteacher educators wish to encourage in the beginning teachers withwhom they work. For many of the same reasons action research istouted for use in education in general, action research could be usedin teacher education as well. When critical reflection is an aim ofteacher education, action research is potentially useful to teacher edu-cation in two ways—as a method prcservice teachers can use to helpdevelop their emerging views about teaching and as a tool teachereducators can use to better understand their own practice. Beforeaddressing how action research stands to improve critically reflectiveteacher education, the term "critical reflection" requires elaboration.

Reflective teaching is an aim of teacher education that in the lastdecade or so has acquired a nearly universal appeal. Yet teachereducators have had great difficulty in agreeing upon a precise notionof what reflection is or might be in teacher development (Calder-head, 1989; Valli, 1993). This lack of agreement is especially true ofcritical forms of reflection (Hatton and Smith, 1994). In large part,the lack of agreement reflects different assumptions and ideas teachereducators hold about what constitutes valuable teaching. Onemethod for sorting out these different views is to look at the fourreform traditions in teacher education that have given shape to prac-tice in the field this century: the academic, social-efficiency, dcvclop-mentalist, and social reconstructionist (Klicbard, 1987; Liston andZeichner, 1991). In describing current interpretations of reflectiveteaching, Zeichner and Liston (in press) used these four reform tradi-tions, along with a fifth tradition, "the generic tradition," ascategories to separate various meanings ascribed to reflective teaching.

According to Zeichner and Liston (in press), the academic tradi-tion puts forward a view of reflective teaching that emphasizes

teachers' " . . reflection upon subject matter and the representationand translation of diat subject matter to promote studentunderstanding" (pp. 97-98). Under the social efficiency view,teachers are to reflect mainly on the knowledge of effective practicesupplied by those who have conducted research on teaching. Thedevelopmentalist version of reflective teaching stresses teaching that isbased on thinking about student interest, cognition, anddevelopment. Social reconstructionists argue for reflective teachingthat takes into consideration " . . . the social and political contexts ofschooling and the assessment of classroom actions for their ability toenhance equity, justice, and more humane conditions in our schoolsand existing society" (p. 99). Finally, as a fifth category, the generictradition does not point to any particular area of emphasis uponwhich teachers should direct their reflection, stressing instead thatteachers simply think about whatever it is they are doing.

When reflective teaching is viewed in the above terms, what sep-arates critical reflection from other types of teacher reflection is easierto understand. In the literature on reflective teaching, critical, as amodifier of reflection, draws its meaning mainly from critical socialscience theories consistent with a social reconstructionist orientation(except when used in the sense of "important" or "vital"). The aim ofcritical reflection means that preservice teachers come into the habitof thinking about a broader range of moral and ethical concerns inmaking decisions about practice than do the other traditions. Ateacher education program centered around the notion of promotingcritical reflection would have teachers of teachers move beyondteacher training that is primarily concerned with the how-to s of prac-tice and toward an education for professional practice thatencourages preservice teachers to begin asking the why's of teaching.

In becoming critically reflective, preservice teachers reflect on themoral implications of their work, situated as it is in a context that hassocial and political dimensions. As Beyer (1988) put the matter,

. . . prospective teachers must see work in classrooms and issues of socialjustice as part of the same phenomena. Since school practice cannot beseparated from larger social, political, and ideological realities, they mustbe reflective about the full range of consequences of their actions, (p. 185)

Critically reflective teachers view their work as having an impactbeyond the four walls of their individual classrooms. In order to gen-erate their own understanding of what it means to teach in ways thathonor democratic values, preservice teachers need to be taught theimportance of questioning the taken-for-granted assumptions under-

lying much of the activity of schooling. Of course, critically reflectiveteachers do not just think about matters of social justice and nothingelse; they are also concerned about teaching subject matter well andthe development of children. Good teachers will reflect upon theissues raised by each tradition (Zcichncr and Liston, in press).However, because of its strong ties to the social reconstructionisttradition, the conception of critical reflection advanced here makesexplicit the need for preservice teachers to consider the moral aspectsof education.

To believe the research on the activity of teacher education andits effects, producing teachers who are critically reflective in the sensedescribed here would suggest a significant departure from currentmethods used to educate preservice teachers for professional practice.Only a small proportion of the preservice teacher education programsin the country feature critical reflection as a key aim (Edmundsen,1990; Goodlad, 1990; Liston and Zeichner, 1991); and among theseprograms, critically reflective teaching has remained elusive(Cochran-Smith, 1991). Whether a desired program aim or not,Zeichner and Gore (1990) noted that those who have examined theeffect of education coursework and field experiences on preserviceteachers generally describe this effect as minimal and ambiguous. Astudy of social studies teacher educators (Raths and Katz, 1982) indi-cated that the predominant methods used in their programs were"replicative" of the very school teaching practices that have comeunder such sharp criticism from those who favor more reflectiveteaching, of the critical orientation or of any other variety.

Even aspects of the hidden curriculum of teacher education tendto impress on preservice teachers the idea that reflective teaching islargely a technical enterprise and is not based on questioning thepolitical and social aspects of schooling (Ginsburg and Clift, 1990;Giroux and McLaren, 1987). For example, in many preserviceprograms, a view shared by students and faculty alike is thatquestions of the political and moral dimensions of teaching aremostly reserved for a separate course or two in "foundations" of edu-cation and are certainly not the concern of the rest of the teacherpreparation curriculum (Sirotnik, 1990). Also, preservice teachersoften find themselves in semester-length methods classes that attemptto "cover" an extensive range of teaching concerns and in field-experi-ence placements that are divested of opportunities, either in terms oftime or personal contact with supervisors or other preservice teachers,to reflect on the broader implications of their emerging practice.

These components of a beginning teachers preservice experience arelikely to send a strong message about the unimportance of criticalreflection.

Another interpretation views the apparent failure of teacher edu-cation to promote critically reflective teaching as less a problem ofprograms and institutional context and more a problem of preserviceteacher readiness. As might be expected, primary concerns ofbeginning teachers tend to center on technical and practical issues,such as how to manage a classroom and how to plan lessons. Survivalis the first order of business in their minds, not the moral andpolitical dimensions of teaching. The work of some researchers whohave examined the developmental stages beginning teachers passthrough suggests that attempts to encourage critical reflection duringthe preservice years are misguided (Berliner, 1988; Kagan, 1992).Critics of this view ask—if not now, when? They see the urgency ofraising critical reflection as an issue in preservice teacher educationbecause, given the social conditions of schooling, it is unlikely thatcritical dispositions will develop during inservice years (Valli, 1993).And Zeichner and Teitelbaum (1982) cautioned against accepting asa given the development of preservice teachers under present teachereducation conditions, for this pattern of development says nothingabout what might occur under different conditions.

Action Research and Critically Reflective Teacher Education

How It Can Be UsedCan action research be used to refashion teacher education along

lines more consistent with the aim of critical reflection? By its verynature, action research rejects the technical view of schooling thatassigns to teachers the role of managing knowledge and pedagogicaltechniques determined by others. The constructivist epistemology ofteacher knowledge central to the action research project demandsthat preservice teachers question their own educational theories andpractices in order to advance their expertise about the profession.When this questioning includes considerations of the relationshipbetween teaching and democratic society, such inquiry is a sine quanon of critical reflection. Cochran-Smith (1994) suggested,

" . . . teacher research is a vehicle for helping student teachers constructreconstructionist pedagogy, that is, pedagogy intended to help children of allages understand and then prepare to take social action against the socialand institutional inequities that are embedded in our society" (p. 156,emphasis in the original).

If her claim is correct, then action research is a perfect fit withteacher education whose aim is critical reflection.

The most immediately evident way that action research can beused by teacher educators is to have their students conduct actionresearch studies. Because action research is a study of practice, themost likely place for action research to take place is during thoseperiods of the preservice program when students are actuallyteaching—early field experiences and student teaching. Rather thansimply reading or being told about reflective teaching, the process ofaction research would seem to give preservice teachers firsthand expe-rience in the actual experience of reflection. To make this reflectioncritical, preservice teachers could focus their research on problemsdirectly related to issues of equity and social justice in school practice.They also could be encouraged to look for the less obvious ways inwhich teaching problems that, on the surface, seem merely technicalor practical in nature, may have critical (i.e., ethical and political)dimensions as well. For example, critical examinations of how racismand sexism influence opportunities for school success and in manycases the life chances of large segments of the school population maylead to the development of preservice teachers' understandings thatcould inform future practice in ways that hearing a lecture on thesetopics may not.

Furthermore, collaborative forms of action research could initiateand enhance lines of dialogue between preservice teachers and otherparticipants in the teacher preparation process, such as teacher educa-tors, school personnel, and other preservice teachers. This expandeddialogue would serve the aim of critical reflection in several differentways. By opening up the conversation about teaching, preserviceteachers should have a wider range of viewpoints upon which toreflect. Diverse views have the potential to improve the quality ofpreservice teachers' thinking. Also, preservice teachers would be givenan opportunity, through collaboration, to understand how othersreason about problems of practice. New insights could result. Andfinally, beyond the potential for exposure to new ideas and ways ofthinking about problems, the intentional and systematic require-ments of collaborative action research mean that reflection proceedsdeliberately and out in the open, thus ofFering at least the minimalprotection of checks-and-balances against participants drawingconclusions too hastily.

The appeal of action research conducted by preservice teachers isfairly obvious. Not as obvious, but perhaps as appealing for what it

might mean for furthering reflective teaching, is the use of actionresearch by teacher educators on their own practice. Despite all theresearch conducted on preservice teacher education programs, littlehas been learned about the impact these programs have on shapingdie professional views of those trained in them (Zeichner and Gore,1990). This lack of understanding is even more pronounced for thoseteacher education programs adopting a critical version of reflectiveinquiry as a program goal (Goodman, 1984; Ross and Hannay,1986). The mystery of teacher education should be expected, for aswith teaching in general, the nature of teacher education makes it dif-ficult for a definitive knowledge base on the field to emerge. Becauseof the inside perspective participants bring to action research, it couldbecome a powerful method for unraveling part of this mystery.

Teacher education is situated practice; it takes place in situationsdetermined by the enormously complex intermingling of a vast arrayof contextual factors (e.g., political, historical, social). While correla-tional, process-product research can provide some insight into themanner in which these contextual factors facilitate or work againstdie effectiveness of teacher education programs, qualitative researchdesigns, such as case studies, seem better suited for this purpose(Stanley, 1991). Most action research is a sort of case study, an in-depth analysis of a limited number of subjects that taken together indieir natural setting (Stake, 1995) comprise the case in question, andare favorable to qualitative research methods. Also, most actionresearch has the added benefit of being conducted by those mostaware of the situations under study, because action researchers areprinciple participants in those settings. Clearly action research onteacher education, conducted by teacher educators immersed in thework of helping preservice educators become critically reflective,could yield a wealth of information about the extent to which teachereducation can promote critical reflection and how this process works.This information obviously would be useful to the one conductingthe study that produced the knowledge, and other teacher educatorsmay also benefit as they adapt findings to their own situations.

In addition to what might be learned regarding how teacher edu-cation works to enhance critically reflective teaching, there are otherpossible advantages to action research conducted by teachereducators. By taking on critical action research projects, teacher edu-cators are modeling to their students the very dispositions andpractices they are trying to teach (Zcichncr, 1993a). Teachereducators are sending messages that they care about their teaching,

approach their work with inquiring minds, are willing to subject theirteaching to critical analysis, and view the continual development oftheir practice as a career-long aim. Furthermore, action research onteacher education will often involve preservice teachers. The collabo-ration preservice teachers provide to teacher educators in the processof completing their action research creates another context, inaddition to the usual teacher education settings, in which the charac-teristics of critically reflective teachers might be learned (Clift, Veal,Johnson, and Holland, 1990). For these reasons, the idea of teachereducators engaging in action research has garnered support (Arnold1992; Liston and Zeichner, 1991).

The Realities of Implementation

To this point, this description of action research's promise toeducate preservice teachers to become critically reflective has beenpositive, for the prospects of using action research in teachereducation appear worth noting. However, there are considerationsthat suggest a limit to what action research might accomplish in thereform of teacher education. It is not enough to hold up actionresearch for discussion of its potential benefits apart from the contextin which it is used. The dominant culture of teacher education andthe manner in which teacher preparation has been conceived in thepast are not entirely compatible with either action research or criticalreflection. The fact that very few teacher training institutions advancecritical reflection as a core aim of their preservice programs and thataction research represents a significant challenge to traditional formsof educational inquiry attest to the extent of this incompatibility.Emphases on the moral aspects of education and the democraticfunction of schooling are not prominent features of teacher education(Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik, 1990).

There are a host of programmatic, psychological, historical, andpolitical factors surrounding teacher education that may inhibit theuse of action research to promote critical reflection. Just a few exam-ples include the unpoliticized idea of schooling most preserviceteachers hold, field placements with cooperating teachers who do notvalue systematic inquiry into teaching, and the technical rationalityand instrumentalist thinking surrounding educational research ingeneral (Gore and Zeichner, 1991). Another problem is lack of time.For instance, action research does not lend itself well to the one-semester time frame in which most student teaching placements arecompleted. In addition, the power relationships inherent in teacher

educator and preservice teacher relationships are influenced by thespecter of evaluation, which can jeopardize the likelihood of sincereand open communication. Unfortunately, these examples are only apartial list of the difficulties teacher educators may face in makingaction research a part of their programs. There are well-entrenchedcontextual features of teacher education that militate against thesuccess of critical teacher education projects in general and againstthe successful use of action research in particular. Unless such obsta-cles are carefully considered, the effect of action research is likely tobe minimal.

Besides structural constraints, a caution of another sort shouldbe noted. Action research is capable of encouraging reflection, butthere is nothing about the process of action research that guaranteesthat the conclusions drawn from such inquiry will be good ones.Action research does not realize its potential in teacher educationfrom the mere idea of an action research spiral or from theoriesexplaining its' power to improve teaching. Rather, its potential is real-ized through the substance action research takes on in practice—theissues participants choose as topics for study, the inferences theymake in sorting through evidence, and the actual changes in teachingpractice brought about as a result. Action research is just a tool. Assuch, it can be used for different ends, ends that promote a bettereducation for all students as well as ends that ". . . solidify and justifypractices that are harmful to students" (Zeichner, 1993b, p. 200).There is no escaping the fact that the task of judging the quality andmerit of action research projects is inextricably tied to complexnormative questions regarding what constitutes a worthwhile educa-tion. For advocates of critically reflective teacher education, thesequestions often turn attention toward some set of democratic valuesas the ultimate standard by which educational practice is judged. Thisstandard does not mean that teacher educators are the final, authori-tarian arbiters of what is worthwhile action research and what is not.It does mean that teacher educators who use action research in theservice of promoting critically reflective teaching should do soresponsibly, with a healthy skepticism, and should be careful not toextol uncritically whatever comes of action research projects. At thesame time, teacher educators, as responsible educators, should bewilling to enter into an open-minded, extended dialogue with theirstudents, a dialogue that puts the demands of their students'education and development as teachers first.

Evidence From the Field

Student Teachers and Action Research

After evaluating the promise action research theory and practicehold for enhancing critically reflective teaching among preserviceteachers, the question can now be asked—is there an empirical basissupporting this promise? Answering this question is difficult becausethe nature of action research throws into question just exactly whatwould count as evidence and how such evidence could be under-stood. As King and Lonnquist (1994) put the matter,

. . . the outcomes of action research are frequently localized—action andunderstanding in a given context that may or may not make sense tosomeone somewhere else. Subjective experience in creating, reflecting on,and 'using' action research is critical to its process (pp. 2-3).

There are reports of the "outcomes" of action research in teachereducation, but drawing generalizations and making interpretationsfor the practice of training teachers based on these outcomes is acomplicated affair. Making thorough sense of findings would call forcomplete familiarity with the situations described in action researchreports, something that is difficult to achieve.

Other problems also make identifying empirical supportdifficult. First, research methods used in action research studies varywidely, running the broad range from quasi-experimental to narrativeinquiry, making aggregation of reports challenging to say the least.Second, the lack of a widely agreed upon conceptualization of reflec-tion, and of course critical reflection, throws uncertainty into thebusiness of reading across reports. The reader is often left to infer,based on authors' varying degrees of explanations, which particularsense of the term "reflection" was employed in each study. Then,comprehensive or systematic evidence in support of action research'scontribution to furthering critically reflective teacher education israrely reported, perhaps because there is little agreement on how tomeasure a construct such as critically reflective teaching. Instead,anecdotal out-takes from students' written evaluations of actionresearch, surveys, and limited vignettes are common. "This area ofinquiry clearly needs to move beyond self reports and isolated exam-ples of success if it is to gain legitimacy within the teacher educationcommunity" (Zeichner, 1987, p. 573). Finally, it is necessary to con-sider stories of action research's contribution to the development ofteachers, as with that of any other method, in context. Actionresearch is never the whole of preservice education, but always one

among many parts. In even the most sophisticated studies, separatingthe relative contribution of each of these parts is a tentative afFair.

Yet reports of teacher education action research can be useful.Reading accounts of others who have used action research mayinspire teacher educators on many counts. For example, actionresearch reports could alert others to potential pitfalls in the processof working action research into certain parts of other teachereducation programs. From an account of how preservice teachersreacted to action research assignments in one situation, teachereducators may gain insights into how action research might beassigned to their own students. While the evidence provided byaccounts of teacher educators' experiences may not amount toconclusive proof of action research's promise to promote criticalreflection, it does help us to understand a little bit more of the"mystery" of teacher education.

One of the most written-about attempts to use action research toadvance critically reflective teaching among preservice teachers is theelementary education program at the University of Wisconsin (seeGore and Zeichner, 1991; NofTke and Brennan, 1991; and Zeichnerand Liston, 1987). These accounts are especially relevant becausethey not only explain how action research is used to promotereflective teaching, but also because they give fairly detailed accountsof the meaning critical reflection has in the Wisconsin program.Social reconstructionism provides the historical roots for theprogram; and the "central axis" around which the programs activitiesrevolve, including work with action research, is a commitment tosocial justice (Gore and Zeichner, 1991, p. 121). Students in thisprogram complete action research projects during their studentteaching semesters. Based on an analysis of eighteen written reportssubmitted by students in one semester, Gore and Zeichner (1991)found limited evidence that these action research assignmentsfacilitated critical reflection. Only a small group of projects met thecriteria of dealing substantially with critical issues, and more thanhalf"... revealed no explicit concern for moral and political issues atall" (p. 129). While they found more examples of what theyconsidered "reflective teaching" practices in these reports, few of theseaddressed the broader social context and issues of social justiceneeded to qualify as critical. They ofFcrcd a number of explanationsfor the lack of critical reflection and conclude with possible ideas forsubsequent program alteration.

Hatton and Smith (1994) discussed a study of written reports ofAustralian preservice students engaged in a combination of an actionresearch project and a structured curriculum task. They analyzedthese reports using a protocol designed to identify four types ofwritten reflection, including critical reflection. Though their findingsindicated evidence of teacher reflection in the final year of this partic-ular program, evidence of critical reflection in these written reportswas limited. In addition, they reported that "examples of criticalreflection were often brief and rather superficial" (pp. 44-45). Intheir discussion and conclusion, the researchers acknowledged thedifficulties associated with fostering critical forms of reflection, butrecommended that teacher educators address this challenge from thebeginning of their programs.

Preservice teachers used action research projects to facilitate a"preservice-teacher-as-researchcr" commitment shared by twodifferent teacher education programs (Fucyo and Neves, 1995). Inthe first, practicum students learned ethnographic methods inresearching classroom life. In the second, student teachers utilized afive-step "self-analytic" approach to study problems identified from" . . . a socio-political analysis of schools and learning environments"(p. 44). Fueyo and Neves claimed that these preservice teachers" . . . learned to change their own practices to meet the needs of thechildren" (p. 46). Fueyo and Neves also provided numerous excerptsfrom four action-research project reports in which beginning teachersexpress changed views toward teaching and a sense of empowermentas change agents in the classroom. Consistent with Gore andZeichner's (1991) findings, although some of these excerpts providedevidence that preservice teachers saw the worth in researching theirpractice, only one excerpt exhibited analysis of issues of a criticalnature (i.e., beyond technical and practical concerns).

Another prominent example of preservice teachers using actionresearch is from the PROTEACH program at the University ofFlorida. Ross (1987) described this programs rationale and structureas based on a central commitment to produce reflective teachers.However, the view of reflective teaching described here appears tech-nically oriented, stressing the steps of the action research spiral, withlittle regard shown for the content of that reflection. Acknowledgingthe lack of time given by the student teaching semester, preserviceeducators conduct their action research projects after studentteaching in the fifth year of the program. Ross made many claimsabout what action research was meant to accomplish in encouraging

reflective teaching among preservice teachers but largely ignored thequestion of whether these claims were realized. The only empiricalsupport indicating effectiveness was a single reference to a studentwho made a comment that suggested an understanding of theprograms purpose (p. 147).

Several other descriptions of preservice teachers using actionresearch exist in recent teacher education literature, lendingadditional, though minimal, empirical evidence of action research'spower to encourage critically reflective teaching. Glascow (1994)described the case of one elementary education student who engagedin action research in conjunction with an early field experience thatafforded her the opportunity to become immersed in Amish culture.Through action research, Glascow stated, this preservice teacher". . . developed positive, culturally sensitive images and attitudes"(p. 41). Without providing other examples, Glascow claimed thisstudent's experience is typical of the changes most preservice teachersexperience through action research. Farnam and Fearn (1992)reported the results of three action research studies conducted bytheir students in an integrated reading/language arts/social studieselementary methods course. Farnam and Fearn suggested thatstudents developed an appreciation of educational research methodsand asked ". . . critical questions about the nature of teaching andlearning" (p. 53). As used here, "critical" did not appear to meanlooking at the broader moral and political aspects of teaching.

Lamson (1995) offered data on topics chosen by student teachersfor action research projects completed during their student teachingexperiences. The program accepts the "philosophical premise" thatteachers should "demonstrate reflective teaching strategies" (p. 1).The data in this report are open to interpretation, but the topic head-ings do not give any immediate basis for concluding that criticalreflection concerns are apparent. For example, judging by Lamson'sreported categories, only 2 of the 515 action research projects dealtwith gender bias while ten times as many (20) dealt with "Effect ofCandy on Completion of Assignment."

In other reports of preservice teachers using action research, nodiscernible evidence of critical reflection is apparent. Hanna (1986)simply asserted that action research projects conducted by studentteachers can be used to help them more effectively analyze theirinstruction. Lind (1984) noted the enthusiasm action researchbrought about in preservice teachers as they worked together instudent teaching seminars. Winograd and Evans (1995) reported on a

study of preservice elementary teachers perceptions of, and reactionsto, an action research assignment. These reports offer liitle insightinto whether or how critical reflection was advanced.

Teacher Educators and Action Research

Though the empirical evidence supporting the use of actionresearch by preservice students to help them become critically reflec-tive may be limited, literature on the use of action research by teachereducators for the same purpose is virtually nonexistent. Noffke andBrennan (1991) referred to their own action research on theirstudents' action research projects in the Wisconsin elementaryprogram. Noffke and Brennan's inquiry, conducted as supervisorsleading seminar groups of student teachers, gave them anopportunity to give and receive feedback about the seminar. It alsoencouraged discussion about the ways in which action researchhelped their students to situate their own views of teaching within alarger socio-political and historical framework. Presumably, theiraction research assisted them in assessing the successes and failures oftheir attempts to promote critically reflective teaching.

Stanley (1995) explained how her action research helped herbetter prepare preservice physical educators to employ culturally rele-vant teaching practices. Action research on her own practice led toprogram modifications, including earlier field placements, morethoughtful matching of student teachers to school sites, and attemptsto find cooperating teachers who valued multicultural teaching prac-tices. According to Stanley, repeating the steps of action researchyielded a greater understanding of the program's effectiveness andrepresented a form of continued education in her work as a teachereducator. While the article did not specifically detail how this actionresearch project advanced critically rcflcctiveteaching among preser-vice teachers, the issue understudy, multicultural education, and theresulting program changes are suggestive on this point.

Other reports of teacher educators using action research to bettertheir practice exist, but these were not explicitly focused onenhancing critically reflective teaching in preservice teachers. Oneteacher educator (Lehman, 1991) reported personal and professionalgrowth resulting from using action research to get at two problemsthat plague teacher educators: credibility (not teaching in the realworld) and congruence (all theory, no practice). Schiller andStreitmatter (1994) used action research to assess the effects of usingan interactive journal process in their classes. Fogarty and Yarrow

(1994) attempted to deal with the problem of student teacher stressby utilizing an eight-step action research process. Stanulis (1995)used action research, conducted with a mentor teacher and an "exem-plary" student teacher, that led to an enriched understanding of thebenefits of creating collaborative contexts during student teachingexperiences. And Oja (1990) reported numerous positive outcomesof action research conducted in a collaborative supervision settingconsisting of administrators, teacher educators, and cooperatingteachers. In each of these cases, action research produced benefits forteacher educators, but how these benefits served the goal of criticallyreflective teaching is not apparent.

Taken all together, there docs not appear to be an abundance ofempirical evidence supporting claims of action research's promise topromote critically reflective teaching in prcscrvicc teacher education.Except for the work done on the Wisconsin elementary program, fewreports of action research in teacher education deal with the develop-ment of critically-oriented notions of reflective teaching, and of thosethat do, the track record is not all that encouraging. The dearth ofreports dealing with critical reflection suggests that critically reflectiveteaching is not a central aim of most teacher education programs.Many reports describe action research used in elementary teacherpreparation as contributing little to the knowledge of how actionresearch can be used with those preparing to teach at the secondarylevel or in specific subject areas. Anecdotal evidence from student-written action research reports typify much of what is used todemonstrate action research's effectiveness, leaving unexploredwhether what is written in these reports is corroborated by practice.

Even if there were more reports of action research leading begin-ning teachers to critically reflective teaching practices, for reasons dis-cussed earlier, important questions would likely remain unansweredfor most teacher educators. How would the action research describedwork in my program? How do we know the extent that actionresearch, as opposed to any other factors, would bring about gains inreflection? On what basis can something such as critical reflectioneven be made operational? Given a working conception of criticallyreflective teaching, what difficulties are involved in identifying andreporting its presence? Given the same teacher education setting, arethere other methods besides action research that might have met withgreater success?

What is known about action research in teacher education iswhat might have been evident from the start. There is nothing about

the process of action research to guarantee that preservice teacherswill become more critically reflective about their teaching. Actionresearch will only live up to its promise to the extent that it is usedintelligently by teacher educators. Contextual and programmatic fea-tures unique to any given situation—such as the amount of time thatcan be afforded the action research process, students' expectationsregarding what teacher education should do for them, and aprograms overall mission and coherence—must be taken intoaccount by those teacher educators who would use action research.Again, action research is always only a part of the teacher educationprogram, and it is important to consider the success or failure ofaction research in relation to the overall preservice teacherpreparation experience.

Summary

There is not a single best answer to the question of how actionresearch should be used in teacher education. The reality may be thatthere are as many best answers as there are teacher educationsituations. Yet, the difficulty in making the empirical case in supportof action research should not deter future efforts to add to that case,nor should the absence of "proof" about action research's promisekeep teachers from exploring the potential of what could be apowerful force in reforming teacher education practice in wayssupportive of critically reflective teaching. The need for teachers whoare able and disposed to make sense of the ethical and politicaldimensions of practice makes continued investigation of this matter apriority for future teacher education research.

References

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. EducationalAction Research, 1(1), 7-24.

Arnold, G. H. (1993). Strengthening student teachers' reflective/critical thinkingskills through collaborative research. Teacher Education Quarterly 20(4), 97-105.

Berliner, D. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Washington, DC:AACTE Publications.

Beyer, L. E. (1988). Knowing and acting: Inquiry, ideology, and educational studies.London: Falmer Press.

Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching andTeacher Education, 5(1), 43-51.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research.Victoria, Australia: Dcakin University Press.

Clift, R., Veal, M. I., Johnson, M., & Holland, P. (1990). Restructuring teachereducation through collaborative action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2),52-62.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. HarvardEducational Review, 61(3), 279-310.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). The power of teacher research in teacher education. InS. Hollingsworth and H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 142-165).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research andknowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: TeachersCollege, Columbia University.

Edmundsen, P. J. (1990). A normative look at the curriculum in teacher education.Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9), 717-722.

Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.

Farnam, N., & Fearn, L (1992). A teacher researcher model in pre-service educa-tion. Action in Teacher Education, 14(2), 50-54.

Fogarty, M., & Yarrow, A. (1994, July). Pre-service teacher stress and the practicum:An action research project. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the AustralianTeacher Education Association, Brisbane, Australia.

Fueyo, V., & Neves, A. (1995). Pre-service teacher as researcher: A research contextfor change in the heterogeneous classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 16(4), 39-49.

Ginsburg, M. B., & Clift, R. T. (1990). The hidden curriculum of pre-serviceteacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education(pp. 450-465). New York: Macmillan.

Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1987). Teacher education as a counter publicsphere: Notes toward a redefinition. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), Critical studies in teachereducation. London: Falmer Press.

Glascow, J. N. (1994). Action research changes cultural attitudes. TeachingEducation, 6(2), 41-47.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Studying the education of educators: From conception tofindings. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9), 690-701.

Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.). (1990). Places where teachers aretaught. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Goodman, J. (1984). Reflection and teacher education: A case study and theoreticalanalysis. Interchange, 15(3), 9-26.

Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching inpre-service teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 7(2), 119-136.

Hanna, B. (1986). Improving student teaching effectiveness through action researchprojects. Action in Teacher Education, 8(3), 51-56.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1994). Reflection in teacher education: Toward defini-tion and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.

House, E. A., Mathison, S., & McTaggart, R. (1989). Validity and teacherinference. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 11-15, 26.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

Kelly, A. (1985). Action research: What is it and what can it do? In R. Burgess(Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Victoria,Australia: Deakin University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path toempowerment. London: Falmer Press.

King, J. A. (1992). A review of writing on action research (1944-present).Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement,University of Minnesota.

King, J. A., & Lonnquist, M. P. (1994). The future of collaborative action research:Promises, problems, and prospects. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research andEducational Improvement, University of Minnesota.

Kliebard, H. M. (1987). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958. NewYork: Routledge and Kcgan Paul.

Lamson, S. L. (1995, February). Action research: Reflective thinking model appliedduring student teaching. A paper presented at the Association of Teacher EducatorsAnnual Conference, Detroit, MI.

Lehman, B. A. (1991). Practicing what we preach: A personal perspective on"knowing and doing" in university teacher education classes. Action in Teacher Education,13(1), 22-27.

Lind, K. K. (1984). Action research: Helping student teachers understand and solveclassroom problems. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, LA.

Liston, D. P., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Teacher education and the social conditionsof schooling. New York: Routledge.

McEwan, B. (1994). Deliberately developing democratic teachers in a year. In J. M.Novak (Ed.), Democratic teacher education: Programs, processes, problems, and prospects (pp.103-123). Albany: State University of New York Press.

McKernan, J. (1987). Action research and.curriculum development. PeabodyJournal of Education, 64(2), 6-20.

McKernan, J. (1989, Match). Varieties of curriculum action research: Constraints andtypologies in Anglo-Irish and American projects. A paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods andresources for the reflective practitioner. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Nias, J. (1988). How practitioners are silenced, how practitioners are empowered.In J. Nias and S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), The inquiring teacher: Supporting andsustaining teacher research (pp. 19-36). London: Palmer Press.

Noffke, S. (1994). Action research: Toward the next generation. Educational ActionResearch, 2(1), 9-22.

Noffke, S. E., & Brennan, M. (1991). Student teachers use action research: Issuesand examples. In B. R. Tabachnick and K. Zeichner (Eds.). Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 186-201). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Oja, S. N. (1990). The dynamics of collaboration: A collaborative approach tosupervision in a five-year teacher education program. Action in Teacher Education, 7(4),11-20.

Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmentalapproach. London: Falmer Press.

Raths, J., & Katz, L. (1982). The best of intentions for the education of teachers.The Journal of Education for Teaching, 8(3), 275-283.

Ross, D. (1987). Action research for pre-service teachers: A description of why andhow. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 131-150.

Ross, E. W., & Hannay, L. M. (1986). Toward a critical theory of reflectiveinquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 9-15.

Schiller, M., & Streitmatter, J. (1994, April). A self-study of teaching practices: Are wepracticing what we preach? A paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner How professionals think in action. NewYork: Basic Books.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). On the eroding foundations of teacher education. Phi Delta

Kappan, 71(9), 710-716.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stanley, L S. (1995). Multicultural questions, action research answers. Quest, 47,

19-33.Stanley, W. B. (1991). Teacher competence for social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.),

Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 249-262). New York:Macmillan.

Stanulis, R. N. (1995). Action research as a way of learning about teaching in amentor/student teacher relationship. Action in Teacher Education, 16(4), 14-24.

Taba, H., & Noel, E. (1957). Action research: A case study. Washington, DC:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (NEA).

Tabachnik, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1994, April). Ideas and action: Actionresearch and the development of conceptual change science education. A pper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.

Valli, L. (1993). Reconsidering technical and reflective concepts in teacher educa-tion. Action in Teacher Education, 15(2), 35-44.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Beyond assumptions: Shifting the limits of action research.Theory into Practice, 29(3), 152-157.

Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers andTeaching, 1(1), 33-50.

Watts, H. (1994). Only by living them. In J. M. Novak (Ed.), Democratic teachereducation: Programs, processes, problems, and prospects (pp. 145-161). Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Winograd, K., & Evans, T. (1995). Preservice elementary teachers' perceptions ofan action research assignment. Action in Teacher Education, 17(3), 13-22.

Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructionalstrategies which have been employed in preservice teacher education. InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 11(5), 565-576.

Zeichner, K. M. (1993a). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflectivepractice in teaching and teacher education. Keynote address presented at the SixthInternational Conference of the International Study Association on Teacher Thinking,Goteborg, Sweden.

Zeichner, K. M. (1993b). Action research: Personal renewal and social reconstruc-tion. Educational Action Research, 1(2), 199-219.

Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Personal renewal and social construction through teacherresearch. In S. Hollingsworth and H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educationalreform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I(pp. 66-84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (in press). Reflective teaching: An introductoryvolume. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Teitelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized and inquiry-orientedteacher education: An analysis of two approaches to the development of curriculum forfield-based experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8(2), 96-116.

the promise of action research for critically reflective teacher education

Documents

i-it-we · reflective use of self. task-based group...

thinking strategically & critically - dysart &...

the getting of wisdom: what critically reflective …...

stephen brookfield distinguished university professor...

an occupationally just society: improving global...

classroom incidents and the critically reflective pre...

crossing the threshold: reflective practice in information...

master of science in curriculum and instruction student...

critically reflective reflective practitioner self...

biiab unit pack biiab level 3 certificate in learning and...

critical reflective action learning report - skills for ·...

home | university of technology sydney writing.pdf ·...

reflective session - critical reflection · 2019-09-17 ·...

becoming a critically reflective teacher · pdf filebecoming...

8 reflective practice. what is reflective practice? an...

classroom incidents and the critically reflective pre ......

using online technology to assist isolated social work...

reflective practice - home - applied science university ·...

the reflective teacher - ucl institute of...

“we do not promise, we deliver” - gulf minetech ·...