Struggling With Change: Understanding Collaborative Teacher Research Through the Experiences

of Three French Teachers

Sally Hood CisarIndiana University,

Bloomington

(aka Akiko Hagiwara & Daniel Craig)

TOC

Table of Contents

• Introduction• Theoretical Rationale• Literature Review• Methods• Planning & Facilitating CTR• Cross-Case Analysis• Limitations• Future Research

TOC

Introduction

• Statement of the problem

• Issues on past professional development

• Audience

• Theoretical Rationalo History of action researcho Definition of and Features of CTRo Significance of the study

TOC

Theoretical Rationale

• History of action research

- the late 1800’s

- 1920’s: Dewey

- 1940’s: Lewin

- 1950’s: Corey, Stenhouse, and Freire

TOC

Theoretical Rationale

• Definitions of CTR– Collaborative Teacher Research (CTR)o What is CTR?o What the investigation reveals?o What is the goal of action research?

– Other features of CTR in the literatures

• Significance of the study

TOC

Literature Review-1

• Efficacy of Action Research Programs– Larger-Scale and Longer-Term Action

Research Projects: • Australia (Burns & Hood, 1995)

• Boston (Evans, 1991)

• Brazil (Allwright & Lenzuen, 1997)

TOC

Larger-Scale and Longer-Term Action Research Projects Participants /

SettingsPurposes Methods Results Other

features

Burns and Hood (1995), Australia

Teachers in an English program for adults migrants with low English proficiency

a) understanding of curriculum changesb) implementing the changes and the new demands in classrooms

InterviewsDiscussionsJournal entries

a) supported to sustain curriculum changesb) ideological crashesc) collaboration benefit to find solutions

Evans (1991), Boston

Volunteered teachers

To support teachers’ network to gain understandings of themselves, students, and work

Biweekly meeting for designing and carrying out investigations in their classrooms

Provided support network for teachers to design their classroom research

Facilitators did not assume teachers’ changes or improvements

Allwright and Lenzuen (1997), Brazil

Second language teachers

To promote sustainable classroom-based research

Discussions Creation of a research newsletter

Exploratory practice: different from action research

TOC

Literature Review-2

• Processes of Professional Development– State-Wide Professional Development

Programs: • Nebraska (Trayer, 1997)• Texas (Southwest Educational Development• Laboratory, 1998)• Wyoming (Spinelli, 1998)

• Deficiencies in past literatures in CTR

TOC

State-Wide Professional Development Programs-1:

Nebraska (Trayer, 1997)

• Phase One– developing and writing standards

• Phase Two– writing teacher preparation guidelines

• Phase Three– implementing the models

• The Pilot Schools Program• Two Summer Institutes

TOC

State-Wide Professional Development Programs-2:Texas (Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory, 1998)

• Phase One writing the state curriculum guides

• Phase Two: developing model programs1) training workshops: two models2) leadership documents: three models3) related bibliographies

TOC

State-Wide Professional Development Programs-2:

Wyoming (Spinelli, 1998)

• The first year: – workshops – video conferences– summer workshops

• The second year:– face-to-face observations and conferences – reunion– video-conference– immersion experience

TOC

Methods• Rationale of Qualitative Research• Research Design

– Case Study Approach– Two frameworks

• Data Collection Procedure– Participants– Data collection

• Data Analysis– Validity– Reliability

TOC

ParticipantsParticipants Location Number of foreign

language teachers & types of languages

taught

Size Characteristics

Marie Northeast, small urban community near larger urban community

Four foreign language teachers: French, Latin, Spanish

School district is one of the largest in the state, 768 students in the high school.

Blue collar area

Sabrina Central, rural Two foreign language teachers:French & Spanish

Small school district, 569 students in the high school.

Farming area

Vincent Southwest, urban, mid-size city

Five foreign language teachers: French, German, Spanish

Large school district, 1550 students in the high school.

Blue collar area

TOC

Workshops 1 & 2Event/process Timeframe Purpose Elicitation

Techniques

Workshop 1 1 day *Introduce project *Discussion about standards- based instruction*Preliminary selection of research inquiries

*Semi-structured questionnaire*Brainstorming potential inquiries*Workshop evaluations

Teachers ConductResearch

3 weeks *Reflecting on current teaching practices*Experimenting with data collection*Clarifying research inquiry*Reading Freeman

*Journal writing*E-mail correspondence*Telephone calls*Classroom observations

Workshop 2 1 day *Discussion about current teaching practices and assumptions about learning a foreign language*Refining research inquiries*Discussion & presentation of first 4 chapters of Freeman*Planning research

*Reflection writing*Partial transcripts from 1st workshop*Research plan*Workshop evaluations

Teachers ConductResearch

4 weeks *Reflecting on teaching practices related to research inquiry*Intervening & collecting data*Reading Freeman & articles related to research inquiry

*Journal writing*E-mail correspondence*Telephone calls

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRDevelopment of a Partnership

• Partnership between the Department of Language Education at Indiana University, the Indiana Department of Education and Indiana teachers

• Proposed a three-stage project to the state Foreign Language Education Consultant

• Stage 1 - asked 10 Foreign Language teachers how they viewed the importance and purpose of the Indiana Foreign Language Proficiency Guide

– Findings indicated that there is a need to make the IFLPG a more practical and useful instructional tool for teachers.

– • Stage 2 - sought to add an instructional component to the IFLPG which

would include several learning scenarios and learning snapshots developed by experienced teachers.

– In a series of 6 collaborative workshops, 60 scenarios and snapshots were created with 33 of these being published in the revised state 2000 curriculum guide.

• Stage 3 - became the Collaborative Teacher Research (CTR), which is the focus of the current study.

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRState Funding

• Reimbursement for schools to bring in substitute teachers.

• Reimbursement for the three teachers and myself for:– mileage to and from five workshops– a per diem for each workshop– lodging the night before each workshop.

• Payment of a per hourly wage for time spent preparing for each workshop (i.e., payment for their research and materials development).

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRChain of Command

When doing work of the nature required in this project we had to gothrough the proper chain of command for permissions and administrative buy-in.

• I asked that all of the teachers get permission from their principals • Kristin then sent official letters to each of the teachers’ principals,

superintendents, and curriculum coordinators (for Vincent and Marie) pointing out:– the project’s affiliation with the Department of Education– the connection to the state standards– the partnership with Indiana University– the necessity for professional leave for five workshops, and the creation

of products for future state foreign language teacher training.• Problems resulting from lack of administrator communication/buy-in

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops - Planning

• Careful analysis of notes.

• Each workshop started with reflective writing and followed with discussions based on the writings

• Process of reflection and discussion in encouraging self-reflection.

• Presentations were intertwined with hands-on activities that included Freeman’s “investigations” (1998):1. Activities that engaged the teachers in relating topics and the research

phases to their own teaching context and in reflective thinking2. Development of the respective phases of the teachers’ research3. Reading of previous workshops’ transcripts, analyses of data gathered

from the teachers’ classrooms4. Planning a conference presentation and development of state materials

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops - Facilitating

Kristin’s and my roles:• Provided constant support to the teachers

including:– consistent encouragement– boosting confidence– exuding enthusiasm– treating the teachers as professionals and colleagues

whose knowledge and experiences we deemed invaluable.

• Guided the teacher-participants to research that was systematic and structured.

• Encouraged dialogue

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops - Overview

Date Place & Time Planned Activities (activities that are checked were accomplished)

09/15/00FirstWorkshop

Northeast 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

1) Reflection writing: Beliefs, current practices, language learning experiences, teacher training, & standards-based instruction 2) Discussion 3) Background, goals, purposes of CTR project 4) Overview of CTR project 5) Process & methods of teacher research 6) Lunch 7) Roles & responsibilities of each group member8) Characteristics of standards-based teaching and Communicative Language Teaching9) Drafting of preliminary research plans10) Focusing on the next few weeks 11) Workshop evaluations

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Overview 2

10/06/00SecondWorkshop

Bloomington8:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

1) Clarification of the CTR project: Roles, responsibilities, steps 2) Stream of consciousness writing: Recent teaching practices, beliefs, obstacles to achieving goals 3) Discussion 4) Characteristics of standards-based teaching 5) Presentation & discussion: First four chapters of Freeman (31/2 chapters covered)6) Developing research plans (two phases completed)7) Discussion of possible research inquiries 8) Focusing on the next few weeks 9) Workshop evaluations

Date Place & Time Planned Activities (activities that are checked were accomplished)

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Overview 3

11/02/00ThirdWorkshop

Indianapolis8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

1) Project motto 2) Reflection writing: Expanding your inquiry 3) Discussion 4) Presentation & discussion: Review of first three chapters & in-depth coverage of chapters four & five of Freeman (review & chapter four covered)5) Developing research plans 6) Envisioning the state documents7) Focusing on the next few weeks 8) Workshop evaluations

Date Place & Time Planned Activities (activities that are checked were accomplished)

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Overview 4

12/09/00FourthWorkshop

Indianapolis8:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

1) Project motto 2) Reflection writing: Analyzing & refocusing your research 3) Discussion 4) Revisiting the last workshop: A role play 5) Reframing research questions 6) Reviewing & replanning the research plan 7) Presentation & discussion: Chapter five of Freeman (partially covered)8) Preliminary data analysis 9) Focusing on the next few weeks 10) Workshop evaluations

Date Place & Time Planned Activities (activities that are checked were accomplished)

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Overview 5

02/02/01FifthWorkshop

Indianapolis8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

1) Project motto & listening to a portion of our previous workshop 2) Reflection writing: Data collection & analysis 3) Discussion 4) Presentation & discussion: Review & completion of chapter five & partial coverage of chapter six of Freeman 5) Analyzing your data 6) Drafting of state documents7) Planning the conference presentation8) Publishing a research report 9) Focusing on the next few weeks 10) Workshop evaluations

Date Place & Time Planned Activities (activities that are checked were accomplished)

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Overview 6

02/26/01 &02/27/01SixthWorkshop

North central3:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

1) Goals & reviewing of last workshop 2) Reflection writing: Their research & their instruction 3) Discussion 4) Analyzing data 5) Drafting of state documents 6) Planning our conference presentation 7) Publishing research reports 8) Focusing on the next few months 9) Workshop evaluations

Date Place & Time Planned Activities (activities that are checked were accomplished)

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Between Workshops

The communicative nature of the workshops

did not cease in between the workshops.

• We communicated primarily via e-mail

• These communications consisted of: – Encouragement– Questions & answers– Reflective journal prompts for the participants

to write/think about.

TOC

Planning & Facilitating CTRCollaborative Workshops – Observations

1. The teachers’ research required substantially more time than was projected at the beginning of this process.

2. The steps of the teachers’ research between the workshops happened much more slowly than I anticipated.

TOC

Cross-Case AnalysisOverview

• Embedded Case Study (Yin, 1994)– Single Case Study (Collaborative Teacher Researcher (CTR) Group)– Subunits (French Teachers)

• Subunits “add significant opportunities for extensive analysis” (p. 44).

• Cross-Case Analysis leads to “generalizations” (Merriam, 1988, p. 154) about the case.

– Analysis across the three subunits in order to reach conclusions about the case

• An Assertion in qualitative studies is a “single-sentence distillation of an important research finding” (Mabry, 1998: p. 65).

• The cross-case analysis is divided into four parts, representing the five research questions

• Each of the four assertions are accompanied by:– A summary of the findings across the three teachers– A discussion of the findings in relation to current literature and research– Implications for the foreign and second language teacher education field.

TOC

Cross-Case Analysis Assertion #1

Question 1: How do three secondary French teachers view and carry out collaborative teacher research based on implementation of Indiana foreign language standards?

Assertion #1: During the collaborative teacher research project, the three French teachers struggled as they carried out the processes and phases of their research that served to challenge, and incrementally change their beliefs and practices regarding the Indiana foreign language standards.

TOC

Cross-Case Analysis Assertion #2

Question 2: How do three French teachers individually and collaboratively interpret and implement foreign language standards while participating in CTR?

Assertion #2: While participating in the collaborative teacher research project, the three French teachers learned about the foreign language standards by collaborating with their students.

TOC

Cross-Case AnalysisAssertion #3

Question 3: What role do the three French teachers’ learning biographies play in their interpretation and implementation of foreign language standards?

Assertion #3: During the collaborative teacher research project, the three French teachers’ language learning apprenticeships played strong roles in their interpretations and implementation of standards and for two of the French teachers elements of these apprenticeships were counteracted by the research processes.

TOC

Cross-Case AnalysisAssertion #4

Question 4: How does CTR contribute to the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base and serve as a professional development model? (questions 4 and 5 combined)

Assertion #4: Collaborative teacher research contributed to the three French teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base and served as a professional development model through the cooperation between the CTR group members and experimentation in the classroom that resulted in curriculum and materials development.

TOC

Limitations• Payment - It is questionable whether the teachers would have put in the amount of

time their research required to be successful if they had not been paid, and it is not known how much the money served as a motivating factor in their research.

• Block Scheduling – This hindered Marie’s research in that she had limited time with her participants at any one time; this made her research more complex.

• Observation Time - I spent minimal time in the teachers’ classrooms; it was not enough time to make generalizations about their teaching style and its effectiveness in terms of student learning.

• Technology - We relied on technology as a vehicle for communication between the workshops; this was not effective with Marie, as she was not comfortable with, nor did she have easy access to computers, thus communication with her between workshops was difficult and at times nonexistent.

• Teacher Bias - The teachers may have demonstrated bias toward students, because they knew them well; this may have made it difficult for the teachers to remain objective when they were analyzing data.

TOC

Future ResearchAdditional research would extend the findings of this study:1. Longitudinal study to examine the extent and ways in which these teachers’

research impacted their teaching practices a year or two years after the completion of this project.

2. Study that investigates the relationship between the way teachers carry out collaborative research and the stage of their teacher career cycle.

3. Study focusing on how pre-service teachers carry out and view collaborative teacher research as a central component of a university course.

4. Study designed to explore how teachers carry out and view collaborative teacher research when it is built in as a part of their teaching schedule and career cycle.

5. Study focusing on the students’ views, reactions, learning, and interactions as participants in the teachers’ research.

6. Study that compares two collaborative teacher research groups: the teachers of whom in one group are paid for their time and research, and the teachers of the other group who are not paid for their time and research.