A TEACHER©RESEARCHER 
FOCUS FOR IN©SERVICE AWARD COURSESÄ

Ä Paper presented at the AARE Conference, University of
Newcastle, Nov. 1994Ã


Doug Blomberg
National Institute for Christian Education



Teachers©as©researchersÄ

This paper reflects the perspective not of a participant observer
but an "observant participant" (Florio©Ruan and Walsh 1981).  It
is, like the course focus it describes, a reflection on my daily
practice: as a teacher educator, I am researching the practice of
teacher©research in the context of a teacher education program.  

Teacher research may be defined most simply as "systematic and
intentional inquiry carried out by teachers in their own schools
and classrooms" (Lytle and Cochran©Smith 1994, 24).  The notion
of the teacher as researcher is owed largely to Lawrence
Stenhouse.  For Stenhouse (Rudduck and Hopkins 1985, 72©73), the
object of research is the curriculum, "media in which statements
about the nature of knowledge are enacted as learning and
teaching"; the context is the classroom as laboratory, and the
researchers are the teachers and students.  Researchers treat the
curriculum "as problematic and open to question", basically
because knowledge itself, "including knowledge about teaching",
is problematic.  "The medium is the message.  The message is a
question."

Stenhouse (1975) thus regards the curriculum as an hypothesis.  
The notion resonates with Popper's falsificationist epistemology,
according to which knowledge is advanced not by verification but
by refutation of conjectures©©or rather, one might say, the areas
in which one is ignorant are thereby reduced.  Knowledge©seeking
is always a tentative and fallible undertaking: its form is
always "a question".

Since Stenhouse wrote, teachers have been accorded increasing
responsibility for the judgments they make in shaping their
interaction with students.  Teachers must with sensitivity to the
needs of students diagnose difficulties and negotiate and
prescribe appropriate treatments; they must be continually and
actively monitoring what they are doing.  

How then do we shape our teacher education programs, both pre©
and in©service, to nurture teachers who are researchers or
"reflective practitioners" (Schon 1983)?  Wise and discerning
judgements about how to proceed in specific cases are not merely
a matter of applying theory to practice.  Knowing how to proceed
aright is a matter of coalescing ingredients of many different
kinds in a plan for action.  This compound is created in a moment
of disciplined imagination.  All things come together©ªtheoretical and 
practical knowledge, goals, intentions, values, 
economic and political considerations, and 
knowledge of this
person here before me©©in a decision.  In other words,

professional judgement requires the exercise of wisdom (Blomberg
1994).

The traditional model of teacher education assumed that teachers
should first understand the relevant theory, whether of subjectªmatter 
or pedagogy, and then apply it in practice.  Goodlad
(1990) identifies a "lack of program coherence" and the
"separation of theory and practice" as two among a number of
detrimental features of such programs.  But these two features
are not just concomitants: lack of coherence and the 
theory©intoªpractice paradigm are causally related.  The separation of 
theory
and practice is not merely a failure to achieve an ideal, it is
implicit in the traditional way of framing the distinction
between the two as a dichotomy: Connelly and Clandinin (1994)
refer to it as the "sacred story" of Western culture. 

We are now more aware that good practice does not depend on the
application of theory.  Partly as a consequence, teacher research
is now more commonplace in pre© and in©service education (Elliott
1993), but this may mean little if it continues to assume the
truth of the "sacred story".  It will not change the culture of
teaching if it continues to assume the hegemony of university
based expertise, prescribed as the means by which teachers are to
construct their understanding, rather than encouraging them to 

examine their own knowledge and language from multiple
perspectives, draw upon their own resources to pose problems
and generate theories, question the curriculum and its
underlying assumptions, and challenge either the
construction of a generic knowledge base for teaching or the
institutional arrangements and consequences of schooling
(Cochran©Smith 1994, 146).


Course structureÄ

The National Institute for Christian Education offers courses 
atthe (fourth year) Bachelor's level and at Master's level, both in
distance mode.  The epistemological perspective undergirding the
courses assumes that the concrete experience of teachers and
students is the primary site of knowledge.  The pedagogical model
therefore may not be one in which academic experts transmit their
insights to practitioners.  The focus is rather on teachers
constructing their own knowledge, a necessary precursor to which
is learning to formulate their own questions.  The lecturers
design contexts in which students will be confronted with
problematic issues and challenged to articulate their
perplexities.
  
Due to the normal constraints, I will focus on the Bachelor's
level course.  This is comprised of four core units and two
electives.  The latter are being developed at present, and will
allow students to specialise in a particular area of teaching
responsibility (usually a subject area).  The units may be
described as "assessment©driven", in the sense that 
assignments do not test the gaining of 
knowledge imparted elsewhere in the
course but are themselves concerned with the generation of
knowledge by teachers.  They each in their own way are contexts
for teacher research, with the school and the classroom as the
focus, and the associated literature helping to mark out the

field. 

ED400  Biblical foundations ofeducational decision©making

Early in the unit, students submit a research proposal
identifying a school policy issue (10%); interviews with at least
three members of the school community and a review of key school
documents are to assist students in identifying and articulating
the issues.  

A critical review of two books focusing on curriculum,
teaching and learning in the Christian school (40%).  

A policy statement which addresses the major concerns that
face schools in determining a stance on the issue, and which
includes an argument in support of the conclusions and
recommendations that can be justified in reference to the ethos
of Christian schools (50%).  

ED410  School based curriculum development

A description of the conditions for curriculum development
that will meet the expectations of the student's school community
(40%).

A curriculum document designed as a comprehensive guide to
teaching in a specified area, including proposals for evaluation
of the curriculum, together with a description of and critical
reflection on the process that was used in developing the
document (60%).


ED420  Models of teaching

Students implement a model of teaching which was not previously
part of their repertoire and evaluate its effectiveness in terms
of its own goals and the goals of the student.  They submit a
multi©media portfolio (including video or audio©tape) which would
convey to another teacher what the model looks like in practice. 
In addition, they keep a journal in which they include a number
of directed reflections on their teaching style and the
influences on it.  They also read articles which address the
question of what it means to "teach Christianly".

ED430  Teachers as researchers

Students are required to employ either a case study or action
research approach, in which they demonstrate the use of three
distinct research methods (e.g., interview, observation).  They
select their own topic, the only constraint being that it must
deal with the question of the role of the Bible in the Christian
school; readings on this topic are provided, along with materials
detailing research methods.


Course methodologyÄ

Elliott (1993, 68©9) suggests that the kind of reflection in
which teachers need to engage, in contrast to that which is
characteristic of technical, means©end decision©making or 
that which is decreed by the theory into 
practice paradigm, has three

dimensions.  First, it is personal and thus, because
practitioners recognise themselves as being embedded in the
situation they wish to understand.  Second, it is 
problematic,
because of evidence suggesting that their actions are not as
consistent with significant values as originally assumed.  Third,
it is critical, as practitioners reflect on the 
assumptions
underpinning their interpretations of values and their origins in
their own experiences, and then begin to reconstruct these values
and thereby to discover "new understandings of the situation and
new possibilities for intelligent action within it." 

In describing the course methodology as problem©posing and
religio©critical (Fowler and Blomberg 1988; Blomberg 1993), we
have also sought to recognise these three dimensions, but we have
assumed the pervasiveness of the personal.  So first, we turn to
the dimension of problem©posing.

Problem©posing

Gunstone (1992, 290) regards the implementation of the teacher as
researcher role as being as valuable as any form of professional
development.  The structure on which it should be based is that
of "real teacher 'problems', owned by teachers, investigated and
responded to by teachers...."

In much discussion of curriculum and in the organisation of
teacher©training programs (most particularly for secondary
teachers) it has been conventional to regard what is taught and
how it is taught as two readily separable components.  
Certainly, the distinction is valid, but in any concrete act of teaching 
the two must coincide.  The decision to frame a curriculum document
purely in terms of content rather than also in terms of process
betrays a particular understan¬ding of the nature of knowledge and
of how we come to know.  While Barrow insists©©contra Stenhouse©ªthat 
"the medium is NOT the message" (1981, 188©189) and argues
for a restrictive definition of curriculum as "prescribed content", 
his elaboration of this as "a programme of activities"
should alert him to the untenability of a content versus 
process disjunction (Barrow 1984, 11).

Walker (1985, 46©47), in providing guidance for teachers as
researchers, makes the point well.  Methods are not selected on a
purely rational basis, such that one decides what one wants to do
and then determines the best ways of doing it: it may be more
like an "act of faith".  Or the method may be intrinsic to the
prob¬lem, "just as recipes are not simply things that are done to
food, but become concepts within which method and substance are
compounded.... The methods we choose to use are, in this sense,
there to be tested, just as much as the substantive hypotheses." 
And he also notes the tendency of researchers "to favour some
methods rather than others.... [and to] give a lot of time and
thought to the formulation of possible and potential research
problems, looking for those that appear to fit [our] interests
and preferred methods."

We may readily substitute "teachers" for "researchers": how one
choo¬ses to teach, as teacher or teacher educator, may effectively
determine what one chooses to teach.  Even if the latter is
externally decreed, the methodology remains as impor¬tant an
ingredient of the learning process as the prescribed content. 


The courses seek to break with the "sacred story" (Connelly and
Clandinin 1994); they are not designed to lead students to
standard answers prescribed by a putative knowledge base of
teaching.  Rather, they are intended to develop students'
competence in identifying accurately the problems posed by the
school and in working for solutions to these problems.

Though it is common to employ "problems" in teaching, not
everything that texts or teachers may so describe are necessarily
such: often these are artificial intellectual "exer¬cises"
designed to test skills or recall, problematic only within the
rules of the game itself.  As Bigge (1982, 315©18) suggests,
students should be faced not only with a question that is
difficult to answer, but with a problem "so compelling that
students really want to study it...."  Problems must be problems
in a personal sense: "not merely an objective issue to be
resolved...."  The role of the teacher is to induce
dissatisfaction in the minds of students about their present
knowledge, attitudes or values and to structure the curriculum to
challenge students to call into question their present
experience.

A methodology is a "logic of methods", or "theory and analysis of
how research [or teaching] does or should proceed" (Noffke et
al., 1994, 168).  A problem©posing methodology is a frame for
curriculum design, within which various methods can be used.  It
provides an orientation to teaching and learning and not a rigid
prescription for the selection of strategies.  The lecture, for
example, will be a valid method if in the overall flow it
promotes problem©posing or contributes to problem©resolution. 

The everyday locus of human activity and knowing is concrete
experience, the experience of whole things©©inorganic objects,
plants, animals, persons, institutions, acts, events and their
interrelations.  Concrete experience is the realm of human
cultural activity, understood in the broadest sense of giving
shape to (cultivating) the human and natural world.  

Shaping the world requires us to take a stand over against it,
not merely to assimilate our experience but to actively control
and direct it: to stand back from what is, in order to envisage
what ought to be.  This ability to distance ourselves from the
world, to transcend the immediate and the present, is one of the
marks of personhood (Grene 1974).  We are in the main neither
instinctively driven nor environmentally determined: at the
centre of what it means to be human is the freedom to choose
rather than merely to be impelled.  Our active knowing of the
world thus involves taking distance from it©©but only as a
complement to our active immersion in it in concrete experience. 

In this way, we intentionally constitute the situation as
problem. 

We also often confront "arrests" (Oakeshott, 1966) in our
experience, situations in which our accustomed responses are
inappropriate.  We are then challenged to respond normatively,
perhaps in deciding on a course of action in concert with others,
perhaps in realising new aesthetic possibi¬lities, or in
determining how resources may be most equitably distributed. 
Thus, problems are posed to us by our experi¬ence and we are
challenged to find an appropriate response. 


It is these two occasions of distancing©©when we call the world
into question or when it questions us©©that are the source of
learning.  Learning occurs by the assumption of a distantial
attitude toward reality, at least momenta¬rily, and formal
education may be construed as a systematic program of distanceªtaking 
or problem©posing.

Given the primacy of concrete experience, education must not only
begin with everyday knowledge but must see its task as the
deepening of this knowledge.  This is counter to both modernist
and post©modernist models of the curriculum.  The first takes a
basically analytical view of the world as its framework,
conceiving the curriculum as a way in which the student may be
led into theoretical insight by the utilisation of categories
derived from the academic disciplines.  The second locates
normativity within the knowing subject(s) and thus focuses on the
individual or social construction of meaning.   

The pedagogical process should begin with the world in its rich,
coherent concreteness, displaying many aspects and demanding many
sorts of responses©©because the world does in a real sensedemand
certain responses if we may be said to know it.  The teachingªlearning 
situation is not to be conceived firstly as the
opportunity for understanding particular norms, analytically
abstracted and articulated, but as the endeavour to encourage the
student to explore a problem by taking into account the various
norms that are to govern action in this concrete situation.  

To be effective, new learning has to be integra¬ted within the
broader experience of the student.  If this integration is to be
achieved, it will involve a re©interpretation of that experience
and not merely an accretion to it.  An inadequate learning style
allows learners "to maintain existing conceptions while adding
new information...as a veneer of knowledge that they do not
appreciate conflicts with their old beliefs."  This
reinterpretation can only occur if the adequacy of existing
beliefs is called into question; the "learner must be
dissatisfied with his or her existing conceptions..." (Gunstone,
White and Fensham, 522). 

Thus, as Dewey (1966, 154) says, "the most significant question
which can be asked ... about any situation or experience proposed
to induce learning is what quality of problem it involves". 

Religio©critical

We further describe the methodology of our courses as 
religioªcritical, a concept with a number of dimensions.  The first of
these may even be regarded as sociological, in that the Christian
schools which the courses seek primarily to serve, by their very
existence adopt a critical stance towards the mainstream
educational agenda.  In common with critical theorists, they
regard existing social arrangements©©in schooling, but also
beyond©©as not all that they should be.  But rather than trusting
in the more effective working of the democratic process when it
is freed from the constraints under which it presently operates,
they seek the expression of values they see to be embedded in the
vision of the Kingdom of God.   

The supporters of these schools share, to varying degrees, the
conviction that life is comprehensively a life of religion,

understood as an orientation to a source of order and meaning
(Wentz 1987).  They assume that issues of faith are central to
the fulfilment of life's purposes.  "Religion" is not restricted
to the traditional faiths but includes the secular faiths, in
which a life©focus is found within rather than beyond secular
experience, i.e., in commitment to things that are "of this age"
and immanent rather than eternal and transcendent.  Secular
religion is then not merely the denial of the existence of
transcendent deities but the affirmation of the centrality of the
here and now and the seen and heard to coping with, if not
unravelling, life's mysteries.

There is another meaning of "critical" that is of long standing
in Western culture and which is subsumed in the term  
"religioªcritical".  This is the project of identifying the underlying
conditions for human understanding; if one holds that these
conditions are religious in character, the term's meaning becomes
clear.  The critical tradition maintains that such conditions are
implicit in all our acting (including our thinking) and give
shape to it; they need however to be made explicit if our action
is to be evaluated in a thoroughgoing way©©another common meaning
of criticism.  In education, a religio©critical approach will
involve the identification of the religious conditions implicit
in educational theory and practice.  

The courses are thus designed to encourage students to engage in
critical reflection on their own practice and alternatives to it,
in order to determine the extent to which what they do is
consonant with what they intend.  Because an expressed commitment
does not automatically issue in practices that are in accord with
it©©intentions are not always readily translated into actions,
and even in so far as they are, actions often bring with them
unintended consequences©©it is necessary to remain critically
open to all relevant data.

ConstraintsÄ

Before turning to explore some of the course outcomes, we might
first ask how teachers respond to the invitation to take on 
a research role, not merely as students 
in an academic program but
as professionals confronting challenges in their own situations.  
It is true that the connotations of "research" may be inhibiting. 
One student©©quite new to teaching©©included the following
reflections in her journal (1993): 

My initial response to my role as a classroom researcher was
quite narrow.  My immediate thoughts went to testing and how
I sometimes give oral or written tests at the end of
units.... Measurement is a part of the testing as I see what
level the children have reached. 

While these things are a part of research they make up a
small proportion of the research that takes place in my
classroom each day.  Each day is involved with talking to
children.  Sometimes about their work and at other times
about things totally unrelated to school.  These things
could be classified as research.  I'm learning more about
the children; how they think, what they like, ways in which
they learn best, their interests and dislikes.  This is not
methodical research where a hypothesis is being tested,
nevertheless I'm finding out more about the children so that

I can hopefully cater for their needs more appropriately.

For this teacher, a little reflection led her to regard research
as intrinsic to her teaching.  But it remains that in general,
there are a number of constraints in self©definition to be
addressed.  One has to do with the traditional craft culture of
teaching (Elliott 1991), in which collegiality©©a significant
ingredient in the success of teacher research (Little 1981,
Lieberman and Miller 1994) is a relatively foreign notion.  This
is demonstrated by the fact that most students are working alone,
and although there have been group enrolments, even these
students find that institutional expectations, with their
explicit and implicit impact on the teacher's use of time, have
made it difficult for them to arrange to meet or to fulfil
commitments even when arrangements have been made.

Although it is true that many teachers begin to think of
themselves as researchers because of their involvement in
graduate study (Lieberman and Miller 1994), the traditional
expectations associated with formal study can also act as a
constraint on teachers' self©perceptions.  Primary amongst these
is the fact that they are submitting the products of their
research for academic credit and that the lecturers therefore
have the task of grading their efforts.  This maintains a
hierarchy that militates against full collegiality and confuses
extrinsic and intrinsic purposes.

A strategy that has been effective in overcoming this constraint
has been to have students prepare assignments for which the
primary audience is a real rather than an "academic" one.  If
students are required to present their findings to the staff,
school board or a meeting of parents, and then to report on the
outcomes, the artificiality of the exercise is greatly
diminished.  A further benefit is the involvement of the 
audience itself, which can lead to a 
greater communal acceptance of the
value of teacher research and can strengthen the bonds of
collegiality in the school.


Teachers' researchÄ

As a further necessary limitation, my discussion will focus on
research projects undertaken this year in the first core unit of
the course.  I see this as establishing a baseline in relation to
which further learning in the course can be evaluated.

Lytle and Cochran©Smith (1994, 38) suggest that "what is required
in both preservice and in©service teacher education programs are
processes that prompt teachers and teacher educators to construct
their own questions and then begin to develop courses of action
that are valid in their local contexts and communities."  As I
have noted, assignments set within an academic context have a
certain artificiality; the constraint however is minimal if,
rather than calling for students to start with the research
literature and to address a problem identified by the lecturer, a
course invites students to identify their own problem from the
outset and to do no more than to pursue it in a systematic
manner.

Thus, early in the unit, students are asked to formulate a
proposal for research.  They are given little direction

concerning the nature of the topic and no instructions concerning
choice of methodology, beyond the requirement that they interview
at least three people and identify key school documents in the
process of formulating their proposal.  This establishes a focus
in their own experience as they work through the other material
in the course.

A week or so before the proposal is submitted, students
participate in a teleconference, one of the main purposes of
which is to allow them to discuss their proposals with the
lecturer and with each other.  On the three occasions that this
has taken place, few students have found it difficult to identify
an issue that they would like to explore, though some have needed
assistance in clarifying their concern.  The lecturer can help
them to frame or set the problem (Schon) by suggesting
alternative perspectives, but the other students as professional
peers also have a vital role to play.  Discussions have been
lively, with great readiness to ask questions and to offer advice
and suggest sources of information, and also to request copies of
completed projects.  

******

The first project described explores the implications of Federal
legislation on disability discrimination for policy and practice
in Judy's school, in the context of considering the impact on the
whole school community of having students with special needs in
mainstream schooling.  Judy is a remedial support teacher and
Head of the Primary Section.  Her interest arose from a perceived
discrepancy between the school's integration policy (formulated
under an earlier State Act) and the FederalDisability
Discrimination Act, 1992.  Concerned about the effects of current
policy and practice, she thought that the new legislation would
lead to even greater difficulties.  This was thus a "felt
problem", posed to her by both changes and constancies in her
environment, clearly reflecting her professional concerns and a
matter of practical significance.

Judy used questionnaires to gather responses from other teachers
at the school, to ascertain the policies of other schools and as
a basis for a telephone interview with the AISV's Integration
Officer.  Her report begins by surveying the legal situation. 
She outlines the financial constraints and the increased load on
teachers who have special needs students with few if any
additional support systems.  She identifies the stress which some
integrated students place on teachers and other students and,
whilst applauding governments for taking steps to protect
society's weaker members, challenges them to take responsibility
for providing more practical support.  Her own immediate response
is to discuss the situation with the Principal and Bursar, who
encourage her to approach the Board, which makes a small
financial allocation.  Judy resolves to seek a more substantial
annual amount for the future.  In this way, she poses a problem
to her environment and acts to overcome it.

In so far as the religio©critical goals of the unit are
concerned, I note Judy's observation that:
 
legislators often use the "rights" debate... however I
believe that as Christians our basic directive must be
"obedience".  Hence we need to consider how God would have
us view all human creatures, including the ones who have a

disability and how He would have us live and meet each
other's needs in society.  We should also be genuine in our
attempt to break with the idol of individual selfªcenteredness 
[sic]...which is so prevalent in society today.


This may not be a philosophically sophisticated response, but it
demonstrates that Judy does perceive as a fundamental issue the
question of the primary reference point in social decisionªmaking.  In 
accord with this, her policy statement begins with an
articulation of basic beliefs, leading to an acceptance of
communal responsibility for all students by the provision of
extra financial support to fund more classroom assistance.  She
also includes a pastoral care role in the mandate for the School
Integration Committee.  And, while affirming the importance of
Educational Support Groups in which parents or advocates meet
regularly with school staff to set goals, Judy identifies another
significant weakness in practice that needs to be addressed: the
tendency of mothers alone to be involved. 

Lest Judy's comments about "individual self©centredness" be
misconstrued, it should be noted that when she discovers that her
school has a higher proportion of integrated students than the
three other schools surveyed, she suggests that this may be
attributed to structures in the school that allow for student
differences, such that students with disabilities feelaccepted
and supported.  She cites multi©age groupings, cooperative and
contract learning, goal focused reporting and an integral
curriculum centring on practical student involvement, as being
"conducive to meeting individual rather than class average
needs".  

It is not respect for the individual, but individualism or 
the cult of the individual, that Judy repudiates.  She suggests 
thatproper regard for the individual in community can have the
following outcomes:

Students learn to put love and caring into practice in the
classroom.  They can begin to see how God would have us live
in a community which is made up of many individuals with
different strengths and weaknesses.  They can begin to
appreciate and become more tolerant of the difficulties
which others experience and the courage and determination
which is needed by some to do ordinary tasks and they can
develop skills in helping and supporting each other.

******

Richard and Jane were concerned to develop a science policy for
their primary school, largely because they appreciated the
importance of science and suspected that the quality of science
teaching in their school could be improved.  

They began their research by having the eight other members of
their staff complete a questionnaire which included a rating
scale and written responses.  They sought information about the
amount of time given to science teaching, the kinds of materials
and activities employed, teachers' confidence in teaching
science, the range of topics and skills addressed, the role of
Scripture in planning and teaching, relation to other subjects,
the use of problems and the degree of student freedom and teacher
flexibility, the place of technology, attitudes and beliefs,

areas where change is needed, and need for guidance in teaching
controversial issues.  They presented the results both
graphically and by summarising comments; they were aided in this
by computer technology, which places significant resources in the
hands of teacher©researchers, a far cry from the relatively
recent time many of us remember when data was analysed using
punch cards and a computer housed in its own building.

They also designed a questionnaire for school council and
association board members, to which they received ten responses. 
Here they focused on the perception of the importance of science,
its relationship to other subjects, the approach to controversial
issues, the role of Board and Council in developing policy for
teaching science, and involvement in community science projects.

They then developed a set of foundation statements concerning the
nature of science and science teaching, and a series of attitude
outcomes with implications for teaching.  These statements
clearly demonstrate their intention that science teaching 
be framed within a distinctively 
Christian world view, which they
recognise requires coming to grips more with the nature of
science itself and with the needs of children than it does with
extrapolating propositions from the Bible.

Richard and Jane had intended to include skills and content
outcomes, evaluation techniques, reporting procedures, teacher
programming and time allocations, but as with most research
projects bound to external deadlines, they found that time
prevented them from meeting their goals.  They now envisage that
these further elements will be developed through a process of
"collaborative research" on the part of the whole staff.  It is
thus that teacher©research becomes an integral part of a school's
life, and the commitment to this project demonstrates that the
problem has been personally appropriated.

******

Sandra is a junior secondary teacher in a school that has
implemented multi©age grouping throughout the section, after a
number of years of trialing the approach.  It is because she is
"directly affected by these changes" that Sandra is concerned to
explore the issue.  She "researched the benefits and drawbacks of
multi©aging both from an educational and social perspective" and
the background to its introduction in the school, to which she
was a relatively new appointee.  Pervading her discussion is the
recognition that the ways in which students are grouped and
encouraged to interact are not to be taken for granted but
reflect fundamental value positions concerning the purpose of
schooling and indeed of living itself.

Sandra saw the need for a more complete documentation of the
policy for both parents and teachers; this led her to produce an
accessible information booklet, an authentic means of meeting the
researcher's need to publish findings.  Her final concern was
with the impact that multi©aging has had on teaching staff, so
she firstly surveyed them and then held a "Multi©age Summit
Meeting" to discuss practical suggestions for teaching and to
share joys and concerns.  Both activities reflect an orientation
to the important collegial and action dimensions of teacher
research.

******

Jo is a high school teacher who sought to explore the role of the
parent community in promoting the ongoing effectiveness of her
school.  She decided that it would be unwise to limit her
research to the school in which she worked, however, first
because she was on leave for six months and having long been
involved in its "politics and conflicts" needed to distance
herself from it and second because she did not want her
"structured investigations" to be "seen as biased and undermining
to the current principal."  She therefore included primary
schools and other high schools in her research.  This is an
interesting illustration of the politics of research, in terms
both of the way that power relations can help to determine 
the shape of research and of the potential 
that teacher research can have to affect these relations.

Jo used semi©structured interviews with five principals.  These
ranged from one to three hours and she found the principals
"open, honest and very keen to discuss their schools and the
successes and problems with their school communities."  She was
however disappointed with the outcomes in that, having decided
not to tape the interviews her notes were inadequate to support
accurate quotations.  In confronting this problem, Jo has no
doubt learnt something about research methodology that will
inform her later practice.

Jo also sent questionnaires to twenty families randomly selected
from the two primary schools, with one to be completed by the
father, one by the mother and where there were high school
students in the family, an additional questionnaire relating to
the students and their school.  Parents were contacted first by
phone to gain their cooperation and questionnaires were sent and
returned by mail to ensure anonymity.  Only two fathers did not
return their forms.  Interesting©©because of the paradigm of
research that seems to be assumed©©is Jo's observation that "the
results were helpful for general information and a quick overall
view of parental opinion but the small sample used prohibits the
drawing of definite conclusions from them."  Jo supplemented this
data©gathering with a number of informal interviews with people
who had "diverse relationships with Christian schools."

Jo identified a number of issues through her research:
1 Lack of a common vision of Christian schooling.
2 Decreasing involvement of parents with their children's
schooling in high school years, due to an equating of maturity
with independence, the busyness of parents needing two incomes to
pay for schooling, the lack of emphasis on the part of
leadership, an individualistic outlook, the lack of real
opportunities to share in the life of the school except as "slave
labour" and the unwillingness of staff to be truly accountable to
parents.
3 A narrow teacher "professionalism" that isolates teachers
from parents, lack of teachers who own the vision necessary, and
the need for teachers to be seen as valued members of the
community and not just hired help.
4 The gap between theory and reality, when the ideals
expressed in mission statements and policies are not being
realised in the classroom.  "The conscientious parent suggests
'the goods don't match the label', the leadership complain that
the parents don't honour their commitments and the teachers often
just want to get on with the job without 'interference' from

parents."

Each of these issues is fertile ground for further research.  It
is interesting that Jo's personal investment in the school does
not prevent that kind of "objectivity" that allows negatives to
be identified.  It is also evident that she has a value framework
that favours participation and communication, a point to which we
will later return.

******

Jean was familiar with cooperative learning from her teacherªtraining, 
but she wanted to know whether it would fit the ethos
of her school and the needs of her own junior primary students. 
After reviewing relevant literature and investigating the current
use of cooperative learning strategies in the primary section by
means of a questionnaire, she decided to test her query by
implementing a classroom trial.  

Jean attended an in©service day on cooperative learning and then
prepared a series of lesson plans; each had its own set of
objectives, but her overall goals were to test whether teaching
cooperative learning techniques would enhance working
relationships in the class and whether, once taught, these could
be used in a variety of ways.

After teaching the five lessons, Jean noted an obvious
improvement in willingness to work in assigned groups.  Though
concerned at times about whether an activity was working because
of the noise level or general excitement, she was more than once
surprised by the honest, perceptive and mostly positive responses
by children on their evaluation forms©©an interesting
illustration of the importance of including systematic procedures
for eliciting student feedback.  From the children's responses,
Jean compiled lists of suggestions for encouraging participation
that she has made into charts and displayed in the classroom. 
She has identified ways of resolving conflict as an area that
needs to be worked on, and has devised a further lesson to
address this.

In relation to her overall goals, Jean feels that she has
demonstrated that cooperative learning techniques do enhance
working relationships, evidenced in part by a greater willingness
of students to work with people they would not choose themselves.

Having negotiated to trial a number of lessons rather than to
develop a policy statement, Jean nonetheless decided in the end
to devise a statement.  This was an expression of her enthusiasm
for the approach, and her desire to see cooperative learning
implemented more thoroughly throughout the primary school.  Her
statement is actually a list of skills and goals, with an
appendix assigning particular skills to developmental levels.

In conclusion, Jean affirms that cooperative learning strategies
will become a long term focus of her teaching, because these
serve well her values as a Christian teacher and those of a
Christian school.  She anticipates that the school will soon
develop a comprehensive policy on cooperative learning, which she
notes "will require the co©operative input from a wider variety
of sources in order for it to be owned by the community as a
whole", a further indication that she sees cooperation not merely
as an effective teaching strategy but as a fundamental value.


ConclusionsÄ

It is a defining characteristic of research that one does not
know when one starts out where one will end up.  This has been my
experience in preparing this paper, and particularly in coming to
formulate these conclusions.  It is this sense of discovery and
serendipity which provides much of the incentive for research,
for the teacher©researcher as well.  Added to this is the
reflexivity that is involved in teacher research, so that I
cannot help but reflect on the justifiability of my own practices
as much as on the practices of my students.  This has made it
inevitable that I deliberate more than I would originally have
foreseen on my own educational values.

The projects I have described exemplify to varying degrees a
religio©critical, problem©posing approach.  They clarify the
meanings of existing practices and in many cases implement or
point to improvements in these practices.  According to Lieberman
and Miller's criteria (1994, 209), they qualify as "powerful
example[s] of teacher research", because each is a case in which
"a teacher posed a problem, collected and analyzed data,
uncovered new understandings, and applied what she learned to her
home settings."   

But one is struck also by their "commonsensical" nature.  They
address everyday problems; most employ commonplace methods of
social research such as the questionnaire and the interview,
though they impress by their comprehensiveness.  The unit
designers can claim little if any credit for the work that
students have done, beyond providing a context; they certainly
would not claim to have introduced students to sophisticated
research methods.  What is however demonstrated is the capacity
of "ordinary teachers" to conduct effective research, perhaps
because research is not all that different from teaching anyway
(Threatt et al. 1994).  The notion of teacher©as©researcher is
not so much a matter of asking teachers to add a role to their
already multi©roled job description (Boomer 1985) as it is of
asking them to conceive of everything they do as research
(Elliott 1991); the research projects described herein suggest
that this is an achievable goal.

But perhaps at this point we should heed Zeichner's (1994, 66©7)
warning concerning the "[u]ncritical glorification of knowledge
generated through teacher research", which he suggests is
"condescending toward teachers and disrespectful of the genuine
contribution they can make both to the improvement of their own
individual practice and to the greater social good."  He
advocates treating such research "much more seriously" by taking
"a hard look at the purposes toward which it is directed,
including the extent of the connection between the teacher
research movement and the struggle for greater social, economic,
and political justice."

Zeichner (1994, 68) is not suggesting that this struggle is
somehow remote from what goes on in schools.  On the contrary,
"the political and critical are right there in front of us in 
our classrooms...and the choices that we 
make everyday in our own
work settings reveal our moral commitments with regard to social
continuity and change.  We cannot be neutral." 

It is because value©neutrality is impossible that an implicit
theme may be discerned throughout Zeichner's (1994) article. 
This is the relative hollowness of the notions of teacher as
researcher or reflective practitioner.  If we were required to
accept that the application of rationality alone to educational
problems will automatically lead to betterment, these notions
certainly would be merely disguised neo©positivism.  But
rationality is a means in search of an end: the conclusion of an
argument can only spell out what is entailed in its premises.  If
presuppositions and goals are detrimental, if the values which
inform the school and the community are destructive rather than
constructive, then the "greater intentionality and power exerted
by teachers may help...to further solidify and justify practices
that are harmful to students..." (Zeichner 1994, 66).

In the cases I have described, the teachers are not given
questions to answer: they frame their own.  Is this not merely to
throw them back onto their own reflectivity?  Will the world not
just reflect what they impose upon it by their own biases and
prejudices?  No doubt it would, if reflection were to happen in a
vacuum, without connection to larger purposes.  There are a
number of factors affecting why it does not.

First, there is the teachers' own commitment and that of the
community in which they work to the Christian faith, embodying
particular values to which they hold themselves accountable. 
Questions may of course be raised as to the legitimacy of these
values.  But significant is the fact that they are relatively
explicit and externalised©©and thus open to criticism in the way
that prejudices are not©©and are recognised to be always
imperfectly realised.  By reason of the former, individual values
come under the scrutiny of values deemed to have supra©individual
validity and will themselves be problematic; by dint of the
latter, problem©posing will have a reflexive quality, because any
concrete realisation of values is believed to fall short of the
intention.  In neither case will what is be accepted as what
ought to be.  

As to content, these values may be explicated in various forms. 
What is reflected to a greater or lesser extent in each of the
projects is the requirement that all partners in the educational
enterprise be treated with integrity, as members of a community.  
This requirement is underpinned by many biblical imperatives, not
the least of which is the threefold injunction to act justly, to
love mercy and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).  Humility is
not popularly associated with those for whom religion is avowedly
fundamental, but it is surely an attitude that should
characterise the teacher as researcher, for whom "the message is
a question".  It also typifies the biblical understanding of
wisdom, which recognises that uncertainty is to be embraced
(Blomberg 1994; in press).  

The Study Guide gives students a more definitereligio©critical
context by inviting them to explore the implications of a
Christian world view for educational decisions and requiring them
to critically evaluate two texts that discuss the character of
the Christian school.  They are thus not asked merely to think
about educational problems on the basis of their current
understanding, but rather to problematise their own schools by
applying alternative frames and to formulate responses that
reflect an explicit set of values.

All these references to an explicit set of values might well be
construed as inimical to critical thought.  Is this not merely a
recipe for dogmatism?  It is, of course, the contention of those
holding to a critical perspective that all thinking assumes an
ideological framework, and that it is the refusal to acknowledge
this that, inter alia, leads to uncritical thought.  What then is
uncritical is the assumption that there are no underlying
commitments, that one's perception of reality is just the way
things are.  If what one sees is what there is, there is no
possibility of calling into question one's perceptions; but if
one recognises that choices are made to see things as if they
were such and such, then the tentativeness of one's perceptions
must needs be acknowledged.  This is the acceptance that there is
indeed more to reality than meets the eye, an assurance that
there are things not seen.  

Significantly, this assurance rests on a choice.  Where technical
rationality assumes the application of value©neutral universal
principles to a somewhat recalcitrant world, and the
interpretivist mindset gives no grounds for deciding among
alternative values (Tom and Valli 1990), a critical perspective
acknowledges that values must be chosen between if action is 
to be possible and that one has to struggle to see them realised
because the world of experience is indeed obdurate.  Community,
justice, mercy and humility cannot merely be willed into being;
they must be striven for.

It follows from this last point, in further considering the
possibility of dogmatism, that having acknowledged the
inevitability of operating within a worldview framework, one must
also acknowledge that it is not merely a view but a view 
of the world.  An acceptance that world view beliefs are 
fundamental to
human thinking and acting does not commit one to the assumption
that all world views have equal validity.  World views are more
or less open to reality, and more or less committed to the
flourishing of human life.  If an ideology is held without an
openness to correction and perhaps purely on the authority of
others, without the authority of the norms themselves being
experienced, moment by moment, then thinking that is framed by it
will indeed be uncritical.

In repudiating the modernist project and its associated
theory/practice paradigm, the epistemology underlying the course
accepts relativity without embracing relativism.  It operates
within the paradigm of wisdom, in which "the emphasis is on
understanding the generalities of teaching by exploring 
its particulars" (Cochran©Smith 1994, 160).  There is a different
"sacred story", an alternative to those conceptions of reflection
that are based on the model of technical rationality (Tremmell
1993).  The assumption is that the law and subject sides of
reality©©the universal and the individual, the regularities and
the unique events©©are two distinguishable but not separable
sides of experience.  Theory is powerful because it focuses on
the regularities in abstraction, but it is powerless to change
reality (Macmurray 1969); practical wisdom encounters these
regularities embedded and situated in action, where change may be
effected.

There is thus an epistemological and an ontological justification
for valuing teacher research.  It is not that in concrete
experience there is an indubitable access to reality, or that all

interpretations of it are necessarily trustworthy.  Criteria of
truth and validity apply here as elsewhere but, contra the
"sacred story", this experience is not in and of itself
untrustworthy.  Teachers can conduct useful and meaningful
school©based research that generates further insight and promotes
purposeful and normative action because the realm of the concrete
and practical is knowable directly, without the intervention of
theory.


REFERENCESÄ

Barrow, R. (1981). The philosophy of schooling.Brighton, Sussex:
Wheatsheaf Books.

Barrow, R. (1984). Giving teaching back toteachers: a critical
introduction to curriculum theory. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf 
Books/London, Ont: Althouse Press.

Bigge, M.L. (1982). Learning theories for teachers. 4th ed. New
York: Harper and Row.

Blomberg, D.G. (1993). Teacher as researcher, curriculum as
hypothesis: implications for the education of educators. In
P. DeBoer (Ed.), Educating Christian teachers for responsive
discipleship, Lanham, MD: University Press of America,63ª84.

Blomberg, D.G. (1994). Ways of knowing and the task of 
teaching. Unpublished MEdSt project. Melbourne: Monash 
University.

Blomberg, D.G. (In press). Teachers as articulate artisans. 
In D.C. Elliott (Ed.), Nurturing reflective Christians to
teach. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Boomer, G. (1985). A celebration of teaching. The 
Australian teacher, 11, Feb, 13©20.

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

Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, J. (1994). The promise of
collaborative research in the political context. In S.
Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and
educational reform. Ninety©third yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part I, 86©102. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: an introduction to the
philosophy of education. New York: Free Press

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change.
Milton Keynes and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Elliott, J. (Ed.)(1993). Reconstructing teacher education:
teacher development. London/Washington: Falmer Press.

Florio©Ruan, S., & Walsh, M. (1981). The teacher as colleague in
classroom research. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie & K. Au (Eds.),

Culture and the bilingual classroom. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Fowler, S., & Blomberg, D.G. (1988) Course rationale and
methodology. Handbook, 10©11. Melbourne: Institute for
Christian Education.

Goodlad, J. 1990. Teachers for our nation's schools. San
Francisco: Jossey©Bass.

Grene, M. (1974). The knower and the known. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.

Gunstone, R.R., (1992). A tertiary educator's view. In J.R. Baird
and J.R. Northfield (Eds.), Learning from the PEEL
experience, 283©291. Melbourne: Monash University Printing
Services.

Gunstone, R.R., White, R.T., & Fensham, P.J. (1988). Developments
in style and purpose of research on the learning of science.
Jnl Research in Science Teaching, 25(7), 513©529.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1994). Problems and possibilities of
institutionalizing teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth &
H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform.
Ninety©third yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part I, 204©220. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Little, J.W. (1981). School success and staff development: the
role of staff development in urban desegregated schools.
Boulder, CO: Center for Action 
Research.

Lytle, S.L., & Cochran©Smith, M. (1994). Inquiry, knowledge and
practice. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher
research and educational reform. Ninety©third yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, 22ª51. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Macmurray, J. 1969. The self as agent. London: Faber and Faber.

Noffke, S., Mosher, L, & Maricle, C. (1994). Curriculum research
together. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher
research and educational reform. Ninety©third yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I,
166©185. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Oakeshott, M. (1966). Experience and its modes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.) (1985). Research as a basis for
teaching: readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse.
London/Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals
think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and
development. London: Heinemann.

Tom, A.R., and Valli, L. (1990). Professional knowledge for
teachers. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teacher education. New York: Macmillan, 373©392.

Threatt, S., Buchanan, J., Morgan, B., Strieb, L.R., Sugarman,
J., Swenson, J., Teel, K, and Tomlinson, J. (1994).
Teachers' voices in the conversation about teacher research.
In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research
and educational reform. Ninety©third yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, 222ª244. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.

Tremmell, R. (1993). Zen and the art of reflective practice in 
teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 63(4),Winter, 434©458.

Walker, R. (1985). Doing research: a handbook for teachers.
London: Methuen.

Wentz, R.E. (1987) Why do people do bad things in the name of 
religion? Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Zeichner, K. (1994). Personal renewal and social construction
through teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett
(Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform. 
Ninetyªthird yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part I, 66©84. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.