Allan Feldman

Validity and Quality in Self-Study:

In this response to Bullough and Pinnegar’s “Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical Forms of Self-Study,” the author argues that in addition to criteria for the quality of research, researchers need to have ways to demonstrate its validity because of the moral and political aspects of educational research. The argument is based in part on the existential nature of self-study. The article concludes with some suggestions for increasing the validity of self-study.

Decision making in the practical domain : A model of practical conceptual change

The work of science teachers can be viewed from a variety of perspectives. In this article, teaching is seen as an activity in which teachers deliberate in the practical domain to decide on actions and goals. In the first part of the article, it is argued that, because practical reasoning is similar to scientific reasoning, a model of practical concep- tual change can be developed that is analogous to the conceptual change model. The following conditions for the modification of a practical theory or paradigm are described: Teachers must be discontent with a current practical theory. They must find that the new one makes sense and that it is beneficial to their practice. Finally, teachers must see that the understanding of their practice that arises from acceptance of the new practical theory is illuminating or enlightening. In the second part of the article, two case studies of teachers are examined using the model of practical conceptual change. One is a case of a novice teacher whose grading policy is based on highly resilient practical theories. The other is a cross-case analysis of two experienced science teachers, one of whom accepted a radi- cally new curriculum and another who rejected it. The article concludes with implications for the use of the model. � 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:606- 623, 2000.

The role of conversation in collaborative action research

Abstract The article examines the role of conversation in collaborative action research to understand how conversations among teachers can serve as a research methodology in which the sharing of knowledge and the growth of understanding occurs through meaning making processes. It begins with a review of three collaborative action research groups that use conversation as research. The article then turns to an examination of the three types of conversations used by the teachers in those groups: oral inquiry processes, collaborative conversations, and long and serious conversations. A look at some of the implications that conversation as a research methodology has for the establishment and sustenance of collaborative action research groups concludes the article.

Validity and Quality in Action Research.

This article began as a response to the article ‘Action research as narrative: five principles for validation’ by Heikkinen, Huttunen and Syrjala, which appears in this issue of Educational Action Research. In so doing it addresses the question ‘How can we tell whether an action research study is good?’ by arguing that validity is a construct that can be used to evaluate the quality of qualitative research studies, including action research, and that, because of the moral and political aspects of action research, we are compelled to ask whether the results of our inquiries are valid. The paper also argues that we can continue to use validity in this way if we reject the extreme views of naïve realism and radical constructivism. This argument and its conclusions are then used to critique the principles that Heikkinen et al. suggest for quality in narrative forms of action research. The paper ends with additional suggestions for increasing the validity of action research studies.

Orientations, purposes and reflection: a framework for understanding action research

Abstract Interest in action research has grown exponentially during the last twenty years. Each year, more and more educators are becoming involved in action research through a variety of activities, such as credit-bearing courses, school restructuring efforts, and professional development. Because of the different roles and perspectives of participants in these activities (teachers, teacher educators, school administrators, parents), multiple models of action research have evolved. In this paper we present a framework for the comparison and evaluation of action research that transcends differences among existing models. Our framework or schema has as its dimensions theoretical orientation [Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: products or praxis. Falmer: New York] purposes [Noffke, S. (1997). Review of Research in Education , 22 , 305–343] and types of reflection [Rearick, M. (1998). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 229]. We tested our framework by using it to analyze several recent books on action research written by teacher educators. When applied to those current studies, our framework served to clarify the different approaches employed: what orientations were served (technical, practical, emancipatory), what purposes of action research were emphasized (personal, professional, or political), and what types of reflective processes were used (autobiographical, collaborative, or communal). The schema that we offer here can help future action researchers find the model most suited to their objectives and interests.

Self-Study Through Action Research

This chapter discusses the ways in which action research is and is not related to self-study. The many approaches to action research are outlined through comparing and contrasting the nature of action research with that of self-study of teacher education practices. The authors argue that what distinguishes self-study from action research is its methodology rather than the methods used. They suggest three methodological features that would be present in self-studies: 1) A self-study would bring to the forefront the importance of self; 2) it would make the experience of teacher educators a resource for research; and 3) it would urge those who engage in self-study to be critical of themselves and their roles as researchers and teacher educators. The authors explore these features through an analysis of the stories of their own journey to self-study and an analysis of three self-study reports.

Promoting equitable collaboration between university researchers and school teachers

This paper questions whether relationships between teachers and researchers can in fact be called collaborative. It is asserted that they are collaborative in only the generic sense of the term and do not meet the specifications denoted in the paper for equitable collaborations. Examples of innovative types of relationships in which university researchers and school teachers work together are examined to see whether they fit within the bounds of equitable collaboration. The paper concludes with a description of a research relationship that closely approximates equitable collaboration through a separation of the work of university researchers and teachers.

Promoting quality for teacher action research: lessons learned from science teachers’ action research

In this article we explore the concept of quality in teacher action research by re‐examining our participation with science teachers in several different collaborative action research projects. We conducted second‐order action research and generated a series reflexive conditions for promoting and ensuring quality action research. We assert that a collaborative action research group must function as both a community of practice and an epistemic community if both practice is to be improved and knowledge and understanding is to be generated. In addition, teacher researchers must have a thorough grounding of the nature of action research and knowledge of appropriate research methods. The framework we have outlined only goes as far as suggesting a possible set of guidelines or conditions, and is not intended to be prescriptive. For others researchers, teacher educators and practitioners, this framework may serve as a starting point to draw from when establishing and facilitating their own action research projects.

Understanding change in teachers’ ways of being through collaborative action research: a cultural–historical activity theory analysis

Despite major efforts to change teachers’ practice through professional development activities, much remains as it always was. Our claim is that this rarely happens because significant change in how one teaches can only come about as a result of some realization about oneself as a teacher, and the resulting changes in identity. In recent years we have been studying the ways in which participation in collaborative action research (CAR) can result in changes in teachers’ ways of being. In this paper we report on a study of teachers engaged in CAR to improve their implementation of digital photography in their teaching. The whole group (n = 28) completed one cycle of action research as part of the evaluation of the program using empowerment evaluation methods. A subset (n = 5) chose to continue doing CAR. We used ethnographic methods including participant observation, interviews, and document analysis. In this paper we use cultural–historical activity theory to understand why our data suggest that there was little change in the teachers’ identity by the end of the first cycle of action research, while those who participated in both the initial action research and the CAR group had a change in their identities.

Repositioning Teacher Action Research in Science Teacher Education

For more than 50 years action research has been promoted as a way for teachers to engage in inquiry into their educational situations to improve their practice, their students’ learning, and to add to the knowledge base on teaching and learning (e.g., Corey 1953; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993; Zeichner and Noffke 2001; Altrichter et al. 2007). Teachers engage in action research as individuals or in groups, alone or in partnership with university researchers. They identify areas for improvement, if not transformation, in their practice and address them through the practices of inquiry, action, reflection, and learning shared by individuals and groups creating change for students, teachers, administrators, policy makers, and other major stakeholders in the field of education. Science educators have been part of this movement by studying and facilitating science teachers’ action research (e.g., Baird and Mitchell 1987; Feldman 1996; Capobianco 2007; Hodson and Bencze 1998; McDonald et al. 1997; Tabachnick and Zeichner 1999; van Zee 2006). In science education, action research has been conducted at both preservice and inservice teacher levels for the primary purpose of advancing knowledge about how science teachers teach and what students learn in science. That said, the positioning (i.e., specific image) of action research as quality, legitimate research in science teacher education has become almost illusive, if not, invisible, in the past few years. To what can this invisibility be attributed? The most common critiques of teacher action research revolve around issues related to epistemology, methodology, and