Susan Groundwater-Smith, University of Sydney

Practitioner research in the Australian educational context is one which has been explicitly concerned with both constructing professional understanding and engaging in educational reform.

Since the mid nineteen-seventies many individual practitioners have conducted action research projects, generally within the structure of a higher degrees framework. While such projects led to a degree of self understanding they generally were not directed to overall change in the school, but rather change in individual classroom practice. This tradition continues (although higher degree enrolments are falling in the face of changing fee structures) and has extended to pre-service teacher education, with many programs now having internships, within which students are required to conduct modest action research enquiries, as much to learn the skills as to address the problematics of practice.

A more collegial form of action enquiry emerged during the halcyon days of the Disadvantaged Schools Program, when schools identified features of teaching and learning which were of concern and designed projects to address them. During the nineties we saw exciting developments in practitioner enquiry through two related national programs. The National Schools Network (NSN) and the Innovative Links between Schools and Universities for Teacher Professional Development Program (Innovative Links) were both developed as explicit programs of school reform led by systematic enquiry (Groundwater-Smith, 1998).

In the case of the NSN schools addressed a common question, "What is it about the ways in which teachers' work is organised that get in the way of student learning?" In the case of Innovative Links, schools identified their own questions and worked with university partners to investigate their issues. They also formed roundtables where they worked with several other schools, finding common ground in the research and reform process. Many projects arising from these programs have been reported at AARE over the past decade.

In both of these programs practitioners worked in teams to create professional knowledge about practice and to use that knowledge to improve, and even redesign practice. The tradition was a Stenhousian and Deweyan one. In the first case because research was seen as systematic enquiry made public and in the second case because the practitioners were seen as learners in a community of practice with a responsibility to work through the interaction between theory and practice. In effect, the practitioners became critical readers of the text of practice.

Collecting and analysing data has been seen as a central problematic in practitioner enquiry; so too is collecting and analysing theory. It is not seen as sufficient to give an account of a phenomenon, but to construct an accounting for the phenomenon, as a preliminary to engaging in action and reform.

A state wide development, growing out of the NSN and Innovative Links programs has been the South Australian School Based Research and Reform Project (Johnson, Johnson, LeCornu, Mader & Peters, 1998). Here teachers were engaged in broad based school reform which was informed by teacher research. Two specific features of the project are noteworthy; one was the highly proactive role played by the project manager who assisted in real links being maintained between the project schools and the SA Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The second feature was the role played by the university advisers who acted as critical, but non-intervening friends to the project; thus respecting the professionalism and autonomy of the school based practitioners. The School-based Research and Reform Project had, at its core, a concern for that which is educational. It was designed to improve practice, not prove best practice. The problem to be investigated, the means of collecting, interpreting and acting upon evidence was based upon a model of facilitated practitioner research (Groundwater-Smith, 1998) which is both reflective and reflexive.

Now, at the beginning of a new millennium, another form of practitioner enquiry is emerging in school education. This is what may be described as evidence based practice where individual schools identify and work on the identification, collection and interpretation of evidence as the basis for improving teaching and learning for both students and their teachers across the school community. In these cases practitioner enquiry forms the foundation for ongoing teacher professional development and school improvement within the overall school culture.

As indicated earlier this year (Goodwin & Groundwater-Smith, 2000):

How then do we best understand the notion of evidence based practice and the ways in which it contributes to the knowledge building school?

Davies (1999) suggests that evidence based practice in education operates at two levels. The first is to utilise evidence from world wide research and literature on education; the second is to establish sound evidence, by systematically collecting information about particular phenomena. A school which wishes to use evidence in order to improve practice needs to do both.

A further issue raised by Davies is to query not only what counts as evidence, but also to consider the question evidence about 'what'? One might be interested, for example, in considering the consequences which result from changing a specific assessment practice. Or, a school might want to investigate the kinds of meanings students and their teachers attach to the concept of independent learning. In either case they will need to ask themselves 'what counts as valid evidence in relation to the question being posed?'. I would argue that the evidence must be commensurable with the question being posed?

In line with this thinking, Hargreaves (1999a) has suggested that evidence based practice is an important term for us to consider when wishing to move towards school improvement and teachers developing a soundly informed knowledge base. Indeed, he goes further, in a second article (1999b) to propose that schools should be knowledge creating organisations.

The knowledge creating school, according to Hargreaves, is likely to be one in which the following factors and conditions, inter-alia, prevail:

Hargreaves has not been without his critics. Elliot (1999a) believes that the knowledge formation of which Hargreaves writes is founded on a positivistic view of evidence in that his accounts of useful and worthwhile educational research are based upon a quasi-causal mechanism (p. 7). Elliot goes on to argue that Hargreaves has given a questionable status to what may be called indubitable knowledge. Nonetheless he concedes that the concept of evidence as the basis for practice is a worthwhile ambition, if the effect is seen as producing evidence that is actionable by teachers.

As we shall see later in this paper the concept of acting upon evidence has been central to the research endeavour of the school whose case is discussed here. Indeed, the paper which follows, "Yes we are Listening!" extends and illuminates the example.

Nonetheless, Elliot's very real concerns (1999b) regarding the directions which evidence based practice may take is based upon his questioning of a medical model where evidence is narrowly constituted and positivistically derived. He reminds us that we need to be guarded in adopting a model where the question of 'what makes research educational ?' may not be addressed.

My claim that the case presented here is one of a knowledge creating school rests upon the policies of the schools with whom I have been involved as a Researcher in Residence. It was the school's experiences in taking part in a national study (Cuttance, 1999) and subsequently perceiving the value of building a research based culture that motivated the senior executive of the school to develop, with myself, the notion of embedded systematic enquiry.

It is clear that the work joins together the skills and perspectives of inside and outside researchers. There is an explicit recognition of a value placed upon a model of collaborative enquiry informed by an ongoing critical and reciprocal dialogue as argued for by Noffke and Stevenson (1995). It is also enquiry which is made public, not only through papers such as these, but also through a reporting strategy which disseminates findings in ways which permit public scrutiny. It is enquiry which meets the Stenhousian definition of systematic enquiry made public (Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985).

The case raises questions about the ways in which professional knowledge is constructed and understood in schools. As Fishman & McCarthy (2000) observe Stenhouse believed that teachers need to become "outsiders to their own research" (p.16). They need not only to collect data but also to interpret it critically.

I would argue that caution needs to be exercised when engaged in practitioner enquiry that the celebratory does not transcend the critical. While it is quite defensible to celebrate achievements, this should not be at the expense of developing critical, even emancipatory insights. A knowledge creating school will not only be developing knowledge about sound and justifiable practices, but will have to confront and deal with some which are contentious and problematic. It is risky business.

Independent Girls School 1(IGS) is a large denominational comprehensive girls' school (K-12) situated in metropolitan Sydney. IGS has been established in its current site for over one hundred years. It is well respected in the Sydney community for its progressive orientation, particularly with regard to technology innovation. During 1997- 1998 the school took part in the Innovation and Best Practice Project (Cuttance, 1999). In response to a public advertisement it undertook to evaluate aspects of its technology innovation and provide a report which would later be available for analysis and synthesis by the overall project.

During the conduct of its evaluation the school engaged the assistance of myself as an academic associate who would advise on: research methods; design; and implementation strategies. The association was seen by the school's Principal and the Director of Teaching and Learning to have sufficient merit to establish a longer term affiliation in the agreed form of a Researcher in Residence whose initial term in office was to be three years. Clearly, then, the appointment was designed to embed school based enquiry into the norms and values of the school and the professional development of its teachers.

The school based research, led by the Researcher in Residence was to be advised by a committee comprising: the school Principal, the Chaplain (who had a particular responsibility to oversee ethics considerations), two Parents (one from the junior school and one from the senior school); six Students (all of whom should be members of the SRC and should write expressions of interest to join the committee) ; the Director Teaching and Learning, The Curriculum Director and the Researcher in Residence herself. It is important to note that this structural support was designed after many discussions regarding the range and purpose of the practitioner research with which the school would engage.

During the past two years a number of projects have been undertaken, including ongoing professional development to support teachers as school based researchers. I shall concentrate here upon one aspect of the ongoing inquiry focus for 1999, The Educational Impact Study (EIS), before proceeding to enumerate studies for the year 2000.

The aim of the EIS for 1999 was to investigate student learning and how it might be best assessed and reported. To this end for the first half of the year the study sought to identify the perceptions held by the key stakeholders, the students, their parents and their teachers, regarding 'good learning', those things which can assist and impede good learning and the relationship of these conditions to assessment and reporting practices. The EIS team comprised five members of the teaching staff, covering both Arts and Science faculties, the Director of Teaching and Learning and the Researcher in Residence.

The purpose for an impact assessment, be it environmental or educational was seen to be to estimate the costs and benefits before a major change occurs. Such an estimate is best based upon soundly collected data, which is gathered following consultation with those most directly involved. In other words, prior to changing assessment and reporting regimes it was seen as necessary to understand the existing pedagogical environment. It would be a truism to say that all major educational changes are planned with improvement in mind. However, an investigation of their impact upon those participating in the change needs to take account, not only of the potential for beneficial outcomes, but also the possibility of unwanted problems. An educational impact study is fundamental to identifying these.

The first step, then, in the EIS was to investigate the current beliefs, attitudes and dispositions held towards learning by the key stakeholders. With respect to teachers Schwarzer (1999) indicates:

Equally it is important to uncover the ways in which students and their parents also conceptualise the teaching and learning processes. To these ends the following questions were identified by the EIS team as key questions to be addressed using a range of qualitative and survey strategies::

Results were published in an interim report and presented to the Research Advisory Committee in July, 1999. As a result of the advisory committee discussion and the active critique mounted by the student members of the committee it was decided to focus during the latter part of the year specifically upon what is understood by students when the phrase 'independent learning' is used (Groundwater-Smith, 1999). In effect it was seen that a lack of consensus regarding what constitutes 'independent learning' and the ways in which it can be managed was an unintended barrier to making changes to assessment and reporting.

Finally, at the close of the year an exit poll was conducted with all Year 12 students.

As a result of the activities of 1999, practitioner research in the Year 2000 has burgeoned. Commissions of Enquiry have been established, student voice has been enhanced and research has been seen as a vital tool in formative evaluation of fragile innovations in music education and middle schooling. Each of these is briefly addressed below:

The Commissions of Enquiry at Independent Girls School 1 are teams of teachers and their leaders with specific briefs. In the main, teams range across school sectors: junior, middle and senior years; and subject departments. All members of the teaching staff are involved. The eight commissions are:

Each commission draws upon both the professional literature in the field and the team's own research to examine the given perspective on transforming learning at the school.

All but the last two commissions have arisen as a direct result of the earlier studies undertaken in the school. As to numbers 7 and 8, they are in response to what Hargreaves (1999b) referred to as a "strong awareness of the external environment" (p.126), in that New South Wales is currently restructuring its exit credential, the Higher School Certificate (HSC), with a greater emphasis being given to standards referenced outcomes. The school is concerned to evaluate the new credential against the claims made for the International Baccalaureate (IB) which is now being favoured by a number of Independent Schools.

The formation of the commissions has been challenging. Not all staff had hitherto been involved in research projects in the school. Consequently a discussion paper was prepared which drew upon that literature which focuses upon the development and management of learning teams. As well, those leading the change have been encouraged to form collegial pairs with dedicated time to puzzle over emerging issues and examine ways in which challenges and problems might be addressed.

Student voice in research has been greatly enhanced by student participation in the research advisory committee. Because there is a nexus between the committee and the SRC, students perceive that they have a mechanism to influence the research activity. They can consult with their own constituency and be quite proactive in generating research ideas. It was suggested by students that they would welcome a means to indicate to their teachers their concerns with teaching and learning in the school.

While it is not possible to fully document the richness of the student voice project here it is interesting to examine its design and purpose. Year 9 (13 - 14 year old students) was selected as the focus of the study, with English and Maths classes being the designated curriculum areas. From each class five students were randomly selected to engage in focus groups. These were led by teachers, English teachers met the maths groups, while Maths teachers met the English groups. Questions addressed: teaching, learning, assessment, homework and classroom interaction. Key statements made by students were recorded and assembled.

The Maths and English faculties then met to consider the range of statements made by their students and consider the implications for the ways in which practice might be improved.

Clearly, the Commissions of Enquiry and Student Voice Projects are driven by in-house teams of practitioner researchers. The third initiative reported here is of a different order. Music education at IGS is perceived as of considerable strength and distinctiveness. Performance lies at the core of the program. Ensembles, encompassing chamber orchestras, choirs, bands and jazz groups have a high public profile.

The major innovative change to elective music education has been the development of a differentiated curriculum based upon principles of authentic learning, that is learning arising from engaging in substantial and "real" music tasks, rather than fragmented and isolated music exercises.

The program is based upon assumptions that as an elective subject the students:

It is also believed that the students learn well by working:

These assumptions and beliefs are seen as implicit in a pedagogy of independent learning.

Students are assigned their work by the term. Taking account of the four domains (performance, composition, aural and musicology) and the individual student's participation in one or more elements of ensembles (orchestra, chamber music, choir etc.) topics are developed for independent study and report. Ensemble rehearsals replace class lessons. As well, there are two compulsory basic skills courses which the student undertakes with an assigned tutor who discusses with the student learning processes and progress. Technological support is provided through "Trackit" self pacing, self correcting and recording software, and the provision of notation and composition software.

The major emphasis, then, is upon "authentic learning" based upon performance and composition. Years 8, 9 and 10 share two common periods per week. Year 12 (and its preliminary Year 11) has a greater emphasis upon process outcomes than content outcomes than is the case with many other HSC subjects. Students are able to choose their major core and those elements surrounding it.

So why evaluate the music program at IGS? A number of concerns had been raised by the Music Department, the Director of Teaching and Learning and the School Principal. Each understood that the innovation was in an early and fragile state and that any evaluation should be of a formative kind which could assist in the ongoing development of the program. It was seen as appropriate that the Researcher in Residence should conduct the evaluation as an iterative process, providing ongoing feedback as the study emerged.

Arising from discussions which have been held with the music staff it was decided to hold focus group discussions with all elective classes All members of the full time music staff were interviewed as well as a small sample from part time staff.

Over the past three years IGS has been engaged in forming a Middle School, Years 6 - 8. Initially the concentration was upon Year 7 with the development of a team approach to planning and curriculum integration. Since there was a policy of beginning the academic year in the fourth term at IGS, it was possible for the Year 7 team to be relieved of teaching in order to undertake the development of learning themes, which would be implemented the following year. Unlike most other initiatives designed to address the middle years of schooling, the IGS concern was to deliver integration through subject specialisation, rather than have teachers integrate and teach a range of subjects themselves.

In 1999 planning commenced for the assimilation of Year 6 into the Middle School. The Year 6 curriculum was to remain one where students continued to be taught by a class teacher, with a home room. The benefit to the students was seen to be that they would have access to the specialist facilities of the main campus, such as science laboratories, sports facilities and the Independent Learning Centre (ILC). It was also argued that they were closer in maturity to students in Years 7 and 8 than those in the preceding years in the junior school. As well, they would become more familiar with the culture of the main campus, embracing as it does students whose age range extends to eighteen years.

While recognising the students on the main campus would include those from Years 6 - 12, it was desired that a specific identity would evolve for the Middle School. Year 8 students were to be drawn into the formation of the sub-school through a pastoral initiative whereby they would be "buddies" to the incoming younger students.

This study has involved the Researcher-in- Residence, members of the EIS team and a consultant researcher who had also previously undertaken studies in the school (Groundwater-Smith & Hunter, 2000). It is still underway.

Research Methods:

School based enquiry, then, at IGS is manifest in a number and variety of ways. Increasingly studies are being conducted by teams of practitioner researchers from within the school. At the same time, provision is made for the Researcher in Residence to act as a critical friend, and on occasion as external evaluator. The research has been particulary sensitive to the issue of allowing the 'insiders' to retain ownership of the various projects being undertaken, bearing in mind the issue Sachs draws our attention to : "whose questions get asked in school-based research? " (1999,p.45).

In order for studies to be carried out successfully in the school it has been important to develop methodologies which were appropriate to those questions being addressed. Bearing in mind Davies' (1999) strictures, discussed earlier in this paper we were concerned to gather evidence which would make sense to the school and its decision making needs. The knowledge which was to be generated would be professional knowledge which would meet the conditions set out by Hargreaves (1999b).

Throughout the studies I, as the Researcher in Residence, brought to the attention of the school based practitioners alternative and valid means for collecting data. In some instances, the processes were unfamiliar. For example a short discussion paper was prepared which was designed to clarify the place and purpose of focus groups and was added to the repertoire of research tools available to the participating teachers.

As the school progresses beyond the Year 2000 with all teachers participating in a form of research it has been essential to provide them with resources which will assist them in selecting and using appropriate methodologies to the questions being asked. Consequently, each of the Commissions of Enquiry has been provided with a set of materials developed in Western Australia, Self Directed Collegial Ongoing Personal Professional Effectiveness (SCOPE, 1996). Thus teacher professional development at IGS not only has focused upon matters to be investigated; but also upon the means for investigation.

School-wide improvement, founded upon carefully collected, analysed and debated evidence is both challenging and uncomfortable. IGS is building a considerable knowledge base about its practices and their consequences for student learning and teacher professional learning. It is my belief that this work is contributing to a new methodology of practice whereby systematic research on practice will no longer be seen as the province of the few, but a responsibility for all.