Learning
to Teach Through Action Research: Teachers’ Perspectives on Their Experiences
as Preservice Teachers
Deborah Toope, Acadia
University
Author’s Note
Deborah Toope https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0943-7376
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Deborah Toope at deborah.toope@acadiau.ca.
Abstract
This article reports on a qualitative study that
investigated teachers’ perspectives on their experiences designing and
conducting an action research (AR) inquiry as preservice teachers. As part of
their two-year teacher education program, they learned about teacher research
and AR methodology. For this study, they were invited to reflect on their
learning as preservice teachers conducting AR and the impact, if any, this had
on their subsequent practice. Using data generated from semi-structured interviews,
AR proposals, lesson slides, and notes, I demonstrate how, as preservice
teachers, AR provided them with opportunities to transform their relationships
with students, engage in reflective practice, and shape their teacher
identities as they transitioned to becoming teachers.
Keywords: action
research, preservice teachers, teacher education, reflective practice
Learning to Teach Through Action Research:
Teachers’ Perspectives on Their Experiences as Preservice Teachers
More than ever, preservice teachers need to engage in
critical thinking in response to the increasing demands of teaching and
learning. Early career teachers are called upon to take up this challenge as
confident practitioners, knowers, and agents of change. School districts and
departments of education expect teachers to engage in culturally responsive
practices within inclusive learning environments (Government of Nova Scotia,
2024). However, what is less clear is how preservice teachers learn to teach in
ways that enable them to think critically and responsively, in a manner that
can sustain them throughout their careers. How might teacher education programs
prepare preservice teachers to enter the field with confidence, and knowing
that they are capable of generating the knowledge they
need to teach responsively with agency (Cochran-Smith, 2020; Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999a, 2001, 2021; Miller et al., 2012)?
The transformative potential of teacher
research to shape teachers’ identities and professional practice has been well
documented over the past three decades (Black, 2021; Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1991, 1993, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2012, 2017; Derakhshan & Nazari, 2024;
Goodnough, 2010, 2011; Kitchen & Stevens, 2008; Nazari, 2022; Nichols &
Cormack, 2017; Van Katwijk et al., 2021; Zeichner
& Noffke, 2001). When teachers engage in research, they are positioned as
researchers, knowers, and change agents (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a,
1999b; Comber, 2005). Teacher research is defined as a “systematic and
intentional inquiry about teaching, learning, and schooling carried out by
teachers in their schools and classroom settings” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1993, p. 27). Teacher research is historically linked to AR (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999b; Noffke, 1997) and is viewed as a practical methodology for
teacher research (Sachs, 1999). In Canada, AR has had a long and
well-established history as a path for teacher learning and changing practice
(Clausen & Black, 2020). AR is understood as a form of self-inquiry into
one’s practice that can be done in collaboration with others to bring about a
collective desired change or improvement of practice (Brown & Jones, 2001;
Clausen & Black, 2020; Kemmis, 1991; McNiff & Whitehead, 2002; Noffke,
1997; Smith et al., 1997; Somekh, 1995).
In the context of this study, AR was an
integral part of preservice teachers' educational experience in a Bachelor of
Education (BEd) program, which aimed to engage them
in inquiry through reflection on praxis (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
While AR is seen as a way for preservice teachers to take reflective action,
and is included as a component of some preservice teachers’ educational
experiences (Black, 2021; Clausen & Black, 2020; Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Kennedy-Clark et al., 2018; Munthe & Rogne, 2015; Ryan, et al., 2017), few
studies have followed up with former preservice teachers to find out what
impact, if any, AR has had on their current practice. Additionally, there is a
need to unpack further the complexities of preservice teachers’ perspectives,
experiences, and knowledge generated through AR, and how this might inform
teacher educators’ practice in teacher education programs (Black, 2021).
The purpose of this qualitative study was to
investigate the perspectives of teachers who designed and carried out an AR
inquiry project as part of their preservice teacher education program. The
primary objective of this study was to gather teachers’ perspectives on their
experiences with AR and to explore, if any, the effects this had on their
subsequent teaching practice. This research centred around the following three
questions:
1. What are teachers’ perspectives on their experience with
designing and carrying out an AR inquiry in their teacher education program?
2. What impact, if any, does this have on their current
practice?
3. How did learning through AR impact preservice teachers’
identities and relations with knowledge?
In this paper, I will discuss teachers’
perspectives on their experiences with AR and how these experiences inform
their practice. Specifically, I discuss how AR enabled them to become
reflective practitioners, transform their relationships with students, and
shape their teacher identities as confident knowers and change agents. I begin
with a brief description of the study’s context. Then, I will review some
relevant literature and provide an overview of the research design. Next, I
will present some research findings, discuss key themes pertinent to the
research questions, and offer concluding comments.
Background and Context
Teachers who participated in this study were members of
two different cohorts at a university in eastern Canada. There was a combined
enrolment of 22 preservice teachers. Each cohort had completed their education
program between one and two years before the commencement of this research and
had begun their teaching careers. As preservice teachers, they were part of a
two-year BEd program with a certificate in STEM. A
significant component focused on learning through inquiry. A central part of
their learning over the two-year program was teacher research. I was their
instructor for the teacher-research components and supervised their AR
inquiries during their final semester. In the first two semesters, we explored
topics such as engaging in reflective practice, developing an inquiry approach
towards practice, posing research questions and wonderings, documenting
observations during practicums, and using inquiry to inform their teaching. In
the second year, the teacher research component involved preservice teachers
designing an AR inquiry based on their wonderings.
Designing an AR inquiry involved a series of
reflections over several weeks, scaffolded to build toward an AR proposal. Preservice
teachers engaged in weekly discussions and reflections, which included
identifying a research topic, posing problems, writing AR questions, conducting
initial literature reviews, deciding on data collection methods, planning for
data analysis, developing an initial action plan, and addressing required
ethical components, including seeking permission from school administration, discussing
their plans with partner teachers, and writing informed consent letters for
parents. Once I approved their initial research plans, I sought ethics approval
from the faculty’s internal ethics review committee as part of a course
assignment. Following the approval of the internal ethics review committee, I
applied to conduct research with the local school district. Upon district
approval, preservice teachers contacted the school principals and practicum
partner teachers for approval before sending informed consent letters to
parents of students in their classrooms. Preservice teachers had informally
talked about their ideas with their partner teachers before formally requesting
permission. Once signed informed consent letters were received from parents,
preservice teachers began their AR inquiries.
There were a variety of STEM-related topics,
including the use of children’s literature in science, strategies for
developing mathematical vocabulary, and the integration of digital
technologies. While all preservice teachers in both cohorts designed an AR
proposal, some were unable to conduct their research in classrooms for various
reasons (personal circumstances, challenges with COVID-related restrictions,
and scheduling issues). All participants in this study implemented their AR
inquiries in K-6 classrooms.
Literature Review
Inquiring, Learning, and Knowing
Practitioner inquiry, teacher research, and AR are all
terms used in the literature to refer to various forms of teacher research
(Black, 2021; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Goodnough, 2011; Kamler &
Comber, 2008). Miller et al. (2012) question what counts as knowledge in
teacher education and argue for courses in education
that position teachers as “agents of change” (p. 221). Teacher research is
viewed as a means of elevating teachers' professional status by incorporating
teachers' knowledge into the educational knowledge base (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999a, 2021). Teacher research is also viewed as a meaningful path for
learning that is embedded in practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, 1999,
2021; Comber, 2005; Elliott, 1991, 1993; Kemmis, 1991; Noffke, 1997; Zeichner,
2003).
Following a three-year study into
relationships of “inquiry, knowledge and professional practice,” Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (1999a) proposed an “inquiry as stance” approach to teacher learning
(p. 288). Within this conceptualization of teacher learning, teachers
continually investigate and interrogate their theories and practices, as well
as those of others, in response to their experiences with students. Taking an
“inquiry as stance” approach towards practice enables teachers to generate
knowledge for teaching through their interactions with students. What is
significant about this approach to teacher learning is how teachers are
positioned in relation to knowledge. Instead of being passive recipients of
knowledge from someone outside their practice, teachers are actively engaged in
producing knowledge through inquiry within communities of practice (Wenger,
1998). Within this conceptualization of teacher learning, emphasis is placed on
exploring theory-practice relations (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a).
Comber (2005) discusses the potential of
teacher research as a way for teachers to engage in the theoretical work of
teaching. She suggests that “teacher researchers assemble repertoires over
time, layering theories one upon the other,” enabling them to “explain and
envision their work in productive, doable ways” (p. 52). AR is a way for
preservice teachers to engage in systematic research and make connections
between theory and practice (Kennedy-Clark et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2017). An
“inquiry as stance” approach disrupts binaries such as formal-practical
knowledge and theory-practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2021, p. 102).
Rather, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2021) contend that ‘inquiry as stance’
foregrounds “the nature and extent to which those who teach and learn from
teaching by engaging in inquiry interpret and theorize what they are doing” (p.
102). In this paper, I will demonstrate how, through AR, preservice teachers
adopted an ‘inquiry as stance’ approach to their practice, which influenced
their understanding of theory-practice relations by capturing how they worked
to change practice in the interest of social good.
Action Research and Reflective Practice
AR has been an integral part of some preservice teacher
education programs for decades and has shown its benefits for preservice
teachers (Black, 2021; Phillips & Carr, 2009; Ryan, 2013). There is ample
evidence to suggest that AR can shape teacher identities (Derakhshan &
Nazari, 2024; Nazari, 2022; Taylor, 2017) and enable preservice teachers to
“tell their own stories” (Phillips & Carr, 2009, p. 208) about becoming
teachers. Across various teacher education programs, preservice teachers are
positioned to take up different roles, including those of students, teachers,
researchers, learners, guests, and mentees (Phillips & Carr, 2009). They
often negotiate complementary, competing, and contradictory subject positions
as they learn to become teachers. However, the subject positions available to
preservice teachers depend on the program and on the experiences made possible
by their learning.
AR is described as a form of critical
pedagogy (Gore, 1993). Critical research can be viewed as an ongoing process of
reflection and action (Crotty, 1998). Engaging in inquiry from a critical
perspective can be understood as a form of praxis (Crotty, 1998). Praxis
involves a process of reflecting and acting upon the world to bring about
change (Freire, 2002). Schön (1983) described reflective practice as a process
in which practitioners can experience “surprise, puzzlement, or confusion” that
arises from particular situations (p. 68). Reflection
is also seen as a way of thinking and knowing in practice (Dewey, 1933; Schön,
1983). Dewey (1933) recognized the connection between learning and reflective
practice as a means to bring about growth and change.
Reflective practice through systematic
inquiry brings together theory and practice, opening possibilities for
generating new knowledge about practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a). In
this sense, knowledge is produced through and embedded in teachers’
lived experiences (Britzman, 2003). While reflective practice is not new,
designing experiences that enable preservice teachers to engage in reflection
directly connected to action, such as AR, is not always possible. In this
paper, I will highlight how reflective practice within AR was intentional and
connected to change as part of the inquiry process (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009). I will show how engaging in
reflective practice shaped their teacher identities by providing them with “a
means to sort the present and/or present the past in personally meaningful
ways” (Ryan et al., 2017, p. 3) as they learned to teach through AR.
Research Design
For this study, I employed a qualitative research design
to explore preservice teachers’ perspectives on their experiences with AR
within a BEd program. I was guided by critical and
sociocultural perspectives, which enabled me to capture the complexity of participants’ lived experiences and to gain a deeper
understanding of how engaging with AR influenced their emerging teacher
identities, their relations with knowledge, and their classroom practices. A
narrative-informed approach foregrounded participants’ reports, centring their
voices as they reflected on their engagement with AR in both coursework and
subsequent practice (Clandinin, 2006). I wanted to
hear stories about participants’ lived experiences
with AR within their teacher education program (Clandinin,
2006).
Theoretical Perspective
This study was informed by critical pedagogies (Freire,
2002; Giroux, 2022; Lather, 1992) and sociocultural perspectives of learning
(Gee, 1989; Lankshear & Knobel, 2007; Wenger,
1998). Critical pedagogy is defined as “that which attends to practices of
teaching/learning intended to interrupt particular historical, situated systems
of oppression” (Lather, 1992, p. 121). Critical pedagogy draws attention to the
political aspects of pedagogy, which centres on power-knowledge relations and
agency (Giroux, 2022). From a critical perspective, this study was guided by
emancipatory aims to address inequities in educational knowledge. Particularly,
how teachers’ voices are often left out of the knowledge base of education. I
wanted to hear what teachers thought about their experiences with AR as
preservice teachers and any impact this had on their subsequent practice. I aim
to highlight the stories of preservice teachers and their relationships with
knowledge through their experiences with AR during their education program.
Sociocultural approaches recognize that
learning is social and occurs through interactions with others, facilitated by
authentic experiences connected to everyday life within ‘communities of
practice’ (Wenger, 1998). A sociocultural view of learning recognizes the
interconnectedness of individuals as they participate in communities and engage
in practices within situated contexts (Lave & Wenger, 1991). A
sociocultural lens also draws attention to teachers’ relationships with
knowledge and how they come to know through their lived experiences within the
context of their practice (Schön, 1983). This involves recognizing that
individuals shape and are shaped by their lived experiences, including those
within family, societal, and cultural groups (Gee, 1989). In the context of
preservice teacher education, this means considering how preservice teachers
engaged in situated learning as they conducted AR inquiries in K-6 classrooms,
and the impact this had on the formation of their teacher identities (Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Method
I employed qualitative methods to investigate teachers’
perspectives on their experiences with AR during their BEd
program. Qualitative research centres on describing a social phenomenon and
focuses on the meanings participants ascribe to it (Creswell, 1998; Denzin
& Lincoln, 2000; Yin, 1984). Qualitative researchers are concerned with analyzing and interpreting data centred on the meanings
participants bring to their experience of a phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000).
Participants in this study are practising teachers who
carried out AR inquiries as a component of the BEd
program with a certificate in the STEM program. These teachers had completed
their BEd Programs one to two years prior to the
start of this study. As preservice teachers, they were part of two different BEd cohorts. While all preservice teachers in the program
designed an AR project, not all were able to conduct research in classrooms for
various reasons. Out of the ten who were able to conduct AR inquiries, seven
volunteered to participate in this study.
Data Generation
Narrative can be seen as a means of discussing and
organizing experiences into meaningful events (Richardson, 1997). The interview
provided participants with opportunities to reflect on their experiences with
AR, what they learned from those experiences, and to discuss their current
practice. I shared individual transcripts with each of the seven participants
to confirm that they accurately captured their stories and to engage in member
checking to ensure the authenticity of our findings (Creswell, 2009). Other
data included their initial AR proposals, lesson slides and notes.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Data collection consisted of individual, semi-structured,
open-ended interviews with seven participants, conducted and recorded via Zoom.
Each participant took part in a one-on-one interview lasting approximately 60
minutes. The interviews were designed to elicit rich, reflective narratives
about participants’ experiences with AR and to gain insight into teachers'
perspectives on these experiences and the impact, if any, on their current
practice. Sample interview prompts included:
● Could you tell me about how you went about designing and
conducting your inquiry?
● Talk a little about what you learned from your inquiry.
● What do you think about action research being part of a
pre-service teacher education program?
I used follow-up questions to clarify, elaborate on
initial responses, and invite further storytelling.
Initial Action Research Proposals
As a secondary data source, participants’ written AR
proposals provided insight into their early wonderings, understandings,
questions, and research intentions. These documents served as artifacts of
their learning processes and supplemented the triangulation of interview data.
Lesson Slides and Notes
I used my lesson slides and notes as a reference point
for clarification on dates and topics introduced to students, such as being a
reflective practitioner, data collection methods, and ethical considerations.
These served as a reference for the scaffolding of topics in relation to
initial research proposals.
Data Analysis
Data analysis focused on understanding participants’
perspectives by examining transcripts and interpreting their stories.
Initially, I read through each transcript and wrote a summary vignette for each
participant. Next, I reread each transcript to generate preliminary categories
that emerged from the data. I recorded keywords and phrases in the margins to
signal emerging categories (e.g., reflective practice, confidence, and
responding to students). I used these categories to create initial codes and used
these codes to triangulate evidence across participant transcripts (Creswell,
2009). Then, I reread each transcript at least twice, highlighting essential
excerpts related to my research questions, identifying categories, and
recording themes. I set up separate Word documents with labels representing
these themes. I copied specific excerpts related to each theme into those
documents (e.g., learning to teach, reflecting on practice, coming to know).
I also employed tools of critical discourse
analysis to conduct a closer reading of selected excerpts (Fairclough, 2013). I
examined specific linguistic features, including pronoun use, subject position,
and metaphor. This practice enabled me to explore more closely the language
participants used to describe their experiences, paying particular attention to
the words and phrases they used to discuss their practice (Jennings &
Graham, 1996). From a critical perspective, engaging with CDA enabled me to
interrogate the subjectivities and discourses that shape teacher identities and
their relations to knowledge (Britzman, 2003).
Findings
Transforming Relationships
AR has the potential to transform teacher-student
relationships by placing students at the centre of teaching and learning. All
participants in this study highlighted how AR enhanced their relationships with
students. Through AR processes such as inquiry, questioning, observation,
documentation, reflection, and analysis, they transformed their relationships
with students by repositioning them as co-constructors of knowledge. My
analysis sheds light on three ways AR impacted preservice teachers' relationships
with students: personally connecting with students,
utilizing students’ knowledge, and engaging students' voices. In what follows,
I am using pseudonyms for participants instead of their actual names.
In reflecting on their experiences with AR as
preservice teachers, participants highlighted the significance of
relationships. In particular, making personal
connections with students was central to their AR inquiries. In my analysis of
the data, I found that teachers cultivated more reciprocal and democratic
relations with students.
So, it [AR],
it also helps you create relationships with kids, and that is the number one
thing that you need to do in teaching. All of this
stuff in the book, and the curriculum, curriculum guides, are not even close,
it’s not even close to the thing that matters…what matters is how you talk to
them, how they feel, and if they feel loved or safe or not, you know. And I
think this [AR] project gives you opportunities for that, it doesn't just teach
you these ‘skills’ or like a curriculum, you know, it teaches you how to, how
to talk to kids and be able to relate to them. (Karen)
As action researchers, preservice teachers
take an “inquiry as stance” towards their practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
2021). Taking an inquiry approach requires inviting students to share their
thinking and feelings about their learning experiences. Karen noted that
getting to know her students was a higher priority than curriculum documents.
Through AR, she discovered that what matters most in teaching and learning is
relationships.
Maya also highlighted the importance of
cultivating relationships with students as a key takeaway from her AR inquiry.
Here, Maya makes a connection between relationships and learning. Within AR,
teachers and students are co-constructors of knowledge, and learning is a
relational process. It is not just a matter of passing down information; it is
about connecting on a deep emotional level with love and respect.
What I learned
in my action research, and what is my biggest, like, take away from that
experience, is that relationships are key to any learning…You’ve got to
appreciate them for who they are. (Maya)
Another participant, Lucy, shared her
perspectives about how AR enabled her to get to know her students more deeply.
Lucy said, “I think that it just makes me think about, like I said, the way
students, what they like, what they’re good at, what comes naturally to them.”
AR afforded opportunities to engage students’ knowledge, interests, and
strengths and provided teachers with the information they needed to respond to
students within context. Tom also discussed the importance of adapting to
changing situations by being responsive to students.
So, I had to
take a step back and look at where they are and what they already know. You
need to be responsive to where they're at in their learning and to constantly
adapt to the situation. (Tom)
Through AR, Tom used data to draw on
students’ knowledge and inform his practice. Tom learned that the ability to ‘constantly
adapt’ to situations as they arise is a key component of teaching.
Jill highlights how AR helped her learn how
to observe and document learning more closely.
The benefits
are definitely the fact that you, you definitely get to engage more with your students…you just
get to learn how to create and build those relationships and connections. And
to see how kids are innovating, and also how they
interact with other students. (Jill)
As action researchers, learning to observe
and pay attention to what students are doing and saying becomes part of
teaching. Taking time to observe students closely enabled Jill to build
stronger connections with them, and this remains part of her current practice.
As preservice teacher researchers, these
teachers collected data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys,
and focus groups. These data collection methods provided numerous opportunities
to discuss students’ learning experiences and their feelings about learning.
They invited students’ opinions and listened carefully to what they had to say.
More importantly, they used information gained from conversations with students
to inform and make changes to their practice. When teachers engage students’
voices, there is an expectation that they will listen and respond. Maya said,
“You’re listening to your kids, you’re responding to what they need.” What
appears to be significant here is the idea that teaching begins with listening
to students first, followed by the use of curriculum
documents.
Through their AR, preservice teachers were
keenly interested in hearing students’ voices and making use of what they had
to say as part of the teaching and learning process. Karen discussed learning
the importance of giving students a voice and choice in their learning and how
this impacts her current practice. Karen said, “I am more willing to allow kids
to figure things out on their own than I ever would have been if I didn't have
to go through this experience.” Through AR, she came to understand that students
needed opportunities to construct their knowledge, to ‘figure things out.’ She
alludes to the significance of student agency in the next excerpt.
Ahh, I also
give them more freedom in their, in their projects,
and learning… like I have more opportunity to give my students agency in their
own learning. They get to decide a lot of the projects they do, and realizing
that this is inquiry-based, hands-on learning, has such a profound effect. I
wouldn't, I don't think I would have known, no matter how many times that my
teachers, that you guys told us, it doesn’t really hit you until you see it.
(Karen)
Karen’s use of the words ‘freedom’ and ‘agency’
signals a shift in power-knowledge relations. Here, students have a voice and
make decisions about the projects they are interested in doing. Karen said that
it wasn’t until carrying out her own AR inquiry that she understood this, even
though she had heard about it from teachers. Her use of the words ‘it doesn’t
really hit you’ speaks to the impact engaging in AR can have on transforming
relationships between teachers and students.
Reflective Practice
Throughout their two-year BEd
program, preservice teachers engaged in reflective practice in multiple ways as
they documented their experiences during their AR inquiries. All participants
in this study discussed how they learned to reflect and how this impacts their
current practice. As researchers, daily reflection became a regular part of
their teaching, learning, and praxis, enabling them to take
action.
As these preservice teachers carried out
their AR, their reflections were systematic, intentional, and connected to
their ongoing actions. Their reflections involved carefully considering the
effects of their teaching on students, enabling them to pose questions for
further inquiry. Through AR, Lucy reported she learned that reflection is a key
component of effective teaching.
Reflection, if
that makes sense…Ah, I could kind of reflect on, okay, how did that go? How
could I make it better when I go in tomorrow? What will I do differently? Ah,
and I think that's a big part of teaching anyway, is reflection. And how can I
improve? (Lucy)
For Lucy, daily reflection was integral to
AR. Her reflections were deliberate, guided by questions related to her
research topic and teaching practice. Lucy thought carefully about what
happened in class each day and used this to design lessons for the following
day. Her reflections informed her practice and were strongly connected to her
agency.
Emma’s reflections were also intentional and
informed by her observations of students’ learning. Again, reflection was more
than just thinking about what happened; it involved the intentional analysis of
data to generate evidence to bring about a desired change.
I had to go in
and talk to the kids to find out what they knew... Do they know anything? What
can they tell me? What can they not tell me? What am I seeing in the classroom?
What am I not seeing in the classroom? …So, it was kind of like, with my data,
I was able to, almost able to see inside their brains, to see their thinking.
(Emma)
Through reflection, Emma gained insight into
children’s thinking about mathematics. She was specific about the kinds of
questions she raised during her close analysis of the data.
And it was
unreal to look back, because when you're in the classroom, you
kind of, like, have blinders on, focusing on kind of one thing, but when you
have all the data in front of you, you’re just like, whoa! Like you need to
step back, take it bit by bit, and focus on little bits, and then you kind of
get to analyze it. (Emma)
Utilizing the data generated from her inquiry
was an essential part of Emma’s ongoing reflections. Emma’s reflections were
planned, deliberate, and informed her teaching.
In the next excerpt, Maya distinguishes
between being reflective and reflecting in order to take action.
And before
then (AR), I never, like, I did in a sense because I've always been a bit
reflective, but not intentionally... Like I always had feedback, but it
wouldn't be like, oh, they said this so I should change this. It was always
like, oh, okay, I could do it better. But I, I tried to, like, pinpoint things
that they (students) were trying to tell me and fix those specific things.
(Maya)
For Maya, reflection meant more than just
feedback; it was about changing practice. Maya’s word choices signal intention—change,
pinpoint, and fix. These words all emphasize the action. Within AR, reflection
served a purpose and was an integral part of the design. Maya also highlighted
the importance of reflective practice that is connected to action.
And reflective
practice is really the only practice to me. It's, it's, it's not thinking that
you're right, and it's thinking how can I do that better. It's how can I make
it more towards that student? I mean, I look back, and I'm like, ohh, there's so much more, things that I didn't think about
back then, that even now, reflecting on it, I could have changed so much. And
that could have been so much better for some, for certain kids. And I don't
know everything, so that could have easily made it worse for other kids, you
know. Like, but all of that comes from my action
research. (Maya)
For Maya, reflective practice is about
ongoing learning and professional growth. Maya is implying that AR is a way of ‘looking
back’ and moving forward. It is the back-and-forth motion of learning and
changing over time. What stands out here is that reflection did not end when
Maya completed her AR project; it lingered over time and continues to impact
her practice. Maya says, ‘even now,’ that she is a teacher, she continues to
think about how she might have done things differently and how she might do
things differently.
Evidence from my analysis of transcript data
demonstrates how AR provided preservice teachers with opportunities to become
reflective practitioners. Within AR, reflective practice was embedded in
teaching and learning. Their reflections were guided by self-questioning and
close analysis of data generated through their AR inquiries. In AR, reflective
practice is intentional, systematic and directly connected to making changes to
improve practice.
Becoming Confident Teachers
Within the teacher research component of their two-year
program, there was a strong focus on adopting an “inquiry as stance” approach
to practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 119; Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2021). Preservice teachers were encouraged to pose questions and
problems, observe, reflect, investigate, and document their experiences.
Positioning preservice teachers as researchers, knowers, and change agents
influences the kind of teachers they might become, where teachers theorize
practice, utilizing theory to inform their practice, and, in turn, practice
informs and generates grounded theory (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, 2021;
Miller et al., 2012).
AR processes included reflecting on
observations and wonderings from their practicum experiences and selecting a
topic that they wanted to understand more deeply. I identified three ways in
which AR influenced preservice teachers’ identities: positioning them as
learners, helping them see themselves as knowers, and enhancing their
confidence.
Teaching is viewed as a learning profession
(Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999). Through AR, preservice teachers can take
up the subject position of ‘teacher as learner.’ Positioning teachers as
learners means deemphasizing the notion that teachers need to be experts and
embracing the idea that new knowledge is possible through interactions with
students. Teachers shared their perspectives on being open to new learning and
not having to know it all.
Well, like I
said, I think that's one of the most important things, not to go in there and
think you know everything, and there's no room for improvement in yourself.
It's important for you to understand that you have a lot to learn yourself, as
a teacher. And you're always learning. (Tom)
Tom raises a caution about entering a
classroom thinking you know it all. As a learner, Tom is open to learning that
spans over a lifetime. He understands that he does not have to know it all to
teach and that it is critical to be open to the kind of learning that comes
from practice. For Tom, learning through AR meant being able to make
improvements. Willie also referred to learning as ‘not doing things’ as ‘going
through the motions,’ but to learn by doing.
A sociocultural view of learning recognizes
the situated nature of learning within a particular context. This view of
teacher learning is embedded in their interactions with students and affords
new relations with knowledge.
I went into it
thinking that I would teach them everything. Like I, I’ve researched it all,
and I knew what I was teaching… But it was just like, I don't know, eye-opening,
what you can actually do as a teacher! And eye-opening,
what you can do when you reflect on what you can do, if that makes sense…It
made me aware that it wasn’t all, it wasn’t all known, and it doesn't have to
be. And you just got to ‘trust your gut’. (Maya)
Positioning teachers as learners can
transform teacher-student relations in powerful ways. Maya began to think that
she had a solid plan but was surprised by the possibilities of not knowing.
Maya became okay and excited when she trusted herself to be fine, even if she
didn't know why. This highlights the interconnections between knowing and
praxis. Karen’s words speak to the power of generating knowledge of practice
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999a).
You know, if
things are easy, if you just study for a test, where somebody has already given
you the information for it, and you put it back up on a page. But when you have to find the answers without googling them, you know,
you’ve got to see it, and do it, and change your mind, and then change your
mind again. (Karen)
Through Karen’s experiences with AR, she came
to understand the distinction between the knowledge that comes from outside
practice and knowing that comes from practice. Karen alludes to a different
kind of knowing, the kind that knowers see, do, and feel. This is her knowledge
and not someone else’s. Karen’s knowledge comes from her questions and through
inquiry. Here, theory and practice are intertwined in the doing of teaching and
learning.
Participants shared how they gained
confidence in their ability to teach through AR. What seems significant here is
how they talk about their experiences with AR as preparing them to teach.
Yes, I think
it (AR) definitely had an impact on my confidence…
knowing that I could do it even when things get tough, this project really
helped that. (Karen)
Karen learned that she could work it out when ‘things get
tough’ and gained confidence in her ability to solve problems. Below, Maya
explains that through AR, she came to know she could teach.
And then you
know…like this is crazy, like I can’t do this! But then, when I got to do my
action research, and I finished my action research, and I did the video…I was
like ‘Whoa, like, wow!’…It [AR] gave me such confidence, and it gave me time to
practice, and make mistakes, and to figure out what my teaching would be, and
what my classroom would be, what do I want for my students, what kind of
teacher do I want to be?… Honestly, it was one of the main experiences that
really shaped and showed me what I wanted to be, and where I wanted to go with
my kids. Like the things I needed to remember when I’m teaching on my own.
(Maya)
AR enabled Maya to practice, make mistakes,
figure things out, and consider the kind of teacher and learning environment
she wanted for her future students. Maya’s preservice experience with AR shaped
her teacher identity and afforded opportunities to learn more about the kind of
teacher she was becoming and wanted to be. Like Maya, Lucy expresses that she
did not feel like a teacher until doing AR.
I feel
appreciative to have this before I became a teacher…because I have nothing to
compare to, because I wasn't a teacher before I did this (AR). (Lucy)
The phrase ‘wasn’t a teacher before I did
this’ is a powerful statement. Learning to teach through AR afforded Lucy and
other preservice teachers’ opportunities to practice teaching.
Karen offered her thoughts about preservice
teachers doing AR as part of their teacher education program.
I still
remember that [AR] better than any lecture I’ve ever attended, right? So, I
think yeah, that’s how you learn through doing these projects, and you also
learn how to deal with adversity, which we need a lot of… But this action
research project was a little bit like that. It was a little glimpse of what
it's like to be thrown out to sea, you know…There's nobody who has done this
before that can tell you how it goes. So, it was good. It was an experience
that I think you really need. They’re going to have to figure it out in your
first year of teaching, right, or the second, or the third. Somewhere along the
way, you have to face those things. (Karen)
The metaphor ‘thrown out to sea’ evokes the
idea of having to do it on her own. Karen implies that this type of experience
is something every preservice teacher should have, as it reflects the reality
of teaching. In AR, nobody told Karen what to do; she was in charge, she had to
figure it out on her own, which prepared her for the realities of teaching.
Jill expressed a similar perspective when
discussing her current teaching context in a multigrade setting.
Like, I don't
think I’d be able to juggle as many grades and as many things as I do, as I
have been doing now, than if I didn't do it before in
my project. So, it kind of gave me a more open perspective…it (AR) basically
allows you to just step into it, before you step into the actual teaching.
(Jill)
For Jill, AR is a way to ‘just step into’
teaching and to practice and learn. Maya summarized learning to teach through
AR by saying, ‘It’s like, it really helps solidify what you have learned, and gives you the confidence. Yeah, I know what I
am doing! I know how to teach!’ Others noted a similar experience.
In the excerpt below, Emma enthusiastically
responds to an interview question about what she learned from her AR project.
That I can
teach!! I remember I was so nervous. I was talking to my internship teacher,
and she was writing a sub plan. She wasn’t going to be there the next day, and
I said, I don't know if I'd be able to teach…I remember sitting at my own table
with these kids running my own centre, and I was just calling the shots, and I
felt great, and I was like I am a teacher! (Emma)
Emma is expressing the kind of professional
confidence that comes from knowing she is in control and able to make
decisions.
Discussion
The findings of this study highlight the transformative
potential of action research in preservice teacher education. Participants
reported significant growth in three key areas: increased professional
confidence, the development of reflective and action-oriented practices, and a
shift toward more democratic relationships between teachers and students. This
kind of knowledge is significant to teachers’ agency (Miller et al., 2012).
Collectively, these findings suggest that action research can serve as a powerful
pedagogical approach in preparing educators who are more critical, empowered,
and socially responsive. In addition, it can add to the research on how
preservice teachers can be “supported in constructing identities as teacher
researchers” (Taylor, 2017, p. 17).
First, adopting an “inquiry as stance”
approach towards practice afforded opportunities to transform their relations
with students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2021, p. 100). Teachers reported a
difference in their relationships with students. AR required preservice
teachers to observe and listen closely to what students were saying and doing.
This led to more democratic relations as they came to understand their learning
more deeply. They were genuinely interested in hearing their students’
perspectives, understanding them, and involving them in the learning process.
As researchers, they posed questions, sought out students’ opinions, and used
this information to inform their practice. They were open to learning alongside
students, and learning and knowing became embedded in practice. They learned
how to be okay with not knowing and to co-construct knowledge with students.
Second, teachers reported that, through
action research, they became more reflective practitioners, and this was
strongly connected to their agency. They reported becoming more intentional in
their teaching, making decisions based on data they had generated and analyzed. Taking an “inquiry as stance” meant moving
forward and taking action to improve their practice. Engaging in AR as
preservice teachers enabled them to continue to make changes through reflection
and action.
Third, AR provided teachers with
opportunities to practice teaching, which enabled them to become more
confident. They reported that AR gave them more confidence in knowing they
could teach. Through AR, they were positioned as producers of knowledge, empowering
them to use their own knowledge to inform practice. This finding adds to
previous research (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) that underscores the
empowering nature of practitioner inquiry in teacher education.
These findings also carry important
implications for teacher education programs. Embedding action research into
preservice curricula can help bridge the theory-practice gap by positioning
preservice teachers as researchers, inquirers, critical thinkers, knowledge
producers, and agents of change. Also, learning through inquiry and engaging in
AR, can potentially impact teachers’ learning throughout their careers.
Given the small sample size and short
duration of preservice teachers’ action research projects, future research
could explore the sustained impact of action research over time and investigate
how institutional and contextual factors support and limit teacher inquiry. By
fostering confidence, reflection, and action, as well as more democratic
pedagogical relationships, AR holds the potential to cultivate responsive
teaching practices that can sustain teachers throughout their careers. In
teacher education, it is important to consider pedagogy as the process of
knowledge production (Britzman, 2003).
Conclusion
This small-scale research study involving interviews with
seven teachers about their experiences conducting action research as preservice
teachers offers valuable insights but also has some limitations. On the one
hand, the in-depth interviews afford a deeper understanding of how preservice
teachers perceive and engage with action research, providing insights into the
potential impact on their subsequent teaching. These insights can inform
teacher education programs by highlighting the conditions under which school
districts and departments of education can support AR as an investment in
teachers across their careers. I acknowledge that having seven participants
constrains the generalizability of the findings, as this may not be
representative of the broader population of preservice teachers across
different contexts, and that relying on self-reported data introduces potential
bias. However, there is ample evidence across participant accounts to suggest
significant benefits of AR in preservice teacher education, particularly in
learning to teach in ways that promote more democratic relationships between
teachers and students, strengthen connections between reflection and action,
and enhance teacher identities as knowers and change agents.
References
Black, G. L.
(2021). Implementing action research in a teacher preparation program:
Opportunities and limitations. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 21(2),
47-71. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v21i2.480
Britzman, D.
P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev.
ed.). State University of New York Press.
Brown, T.,
& Jones, L. (2001). Action research and postmodernism: Congruence and
critique. Open University Press.
Cochran-Smith,
M. (2020). Teacher education for justice and equity: 40 years of advocacy. Action
in Teacher Education, 42(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1702120
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review
of education research (Vol. 1). (pp. 249-305). American Educational
Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x024001249
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational
Researcher, 28(7), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028007015
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on
practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), The series on school
reform: Vol. 31. Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that
matters (pp. 45-58). Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. L. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left
Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668-697. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.4.56v8881368215714
Cochran-Smith,
M., & Lytle, S. L. (2021). Inquiry in the age of data: A commentary. Teaching
Education, 32(1), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2020.1868142
Clausen, K.,
& Black, G. (Eds.). (2020). The future of action research in education:
A Canadian perspective. McGill-Queen's University Press. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v24i2.720
Clandinin, D. J.
(2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. Research
Studies in Music Education, 27(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X060270010301
Comber, B.
(2005). Making use of theories about literacy and justice: Teachers
re-searching practice. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 4-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790500200276
Creswell, J.
W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.
W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Crotty, M.
(1998). The foundations of social research. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003115700
Dana, N. F.,
& Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective
educator's guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn
through practitioner inquiry (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond,
L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1-2), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024
Darling-Hammond,
L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
John Wiley & Sons.
Darling-Hammond,
L. (2017). Teacher Education around the world: What can we learn from
international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3)
291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
Darling-Hammond,
L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice. Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, N. K.,
& Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Derakhshan,
A., & Nazari, M. (2024). Examining teacher identity construction in action
research: The mediating role of experience. Educational Studies, 50(6),
1280-1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2073177
Dewey, J.
(1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking
to the educative process. D.C. Heath & Co.
Elliott, J.
(1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press.
Elliott, J.
(1993). What have we learned from action research in school-based evaluation? Educational
Action Research, 1(1), 175-186.
Fairclough, N.
(2013). Language and power. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250
Freire, P.
(2002). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Gee, J. P.
(1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of
Education, 171(1), 5-17.
Giroux, H. A.
(2022). Pedagogy of resistance: Against manufactured ignorance.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350269521
Goodnough, K.
(2010). The role of action research in transforming teacher identity: Modes of
belonging and ecological perspectives. Educational Action Research, 18(2),
167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650791003740725
Goodnough, K.
(2011). Examining the long‐term impact of collaborative action research on
teacher identity and practice: the perceptions of K–12 teachers. Educational
Action Research, 19(1), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.547694
Gore, J.
(1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as
regimes of truth. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203060858
Government of
Nova Scotia. (2020). Inclusive education policy. Retrieved from https://www.ednet.ns.ca/inclusive-education
Kemmis, S.
(1991). Improving education through action research. In O. Zuber-Skerritt
(Ed.), Action research for change and development (pp. 57-75). Avebury.
Kennedy-Clark,
S., Eddles-Hirsch, K., Francis, T., Cummins, G.,
Ferantino, L., Tichelaar, M., & Ruz, L. (2018). Developing pre-service
teacher professional capabilities through action research. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 43(9), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n9.3
Kitchen, J.,
& Stevens, D. (2008). Action research in teacher education: Two
teacher-educators practice action research as they introduce action research to
preservice teachers. Action Research, 6(1), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083716
Lankshear, C., &
Knobel, M. (2007). Researching new literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider
perspectives. E-learning and Digital Media, 4(3), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2007.4.3.224
Lather, P.
(1992). Post-critical pedagogies: A feminist reading. In Feminisms and
critical pedagogy (pp. 120-137). Routledge.
Lave, J.,
& Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
McNiff, J.,
& Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practices (2nd
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203199961
Miller, G. R.,
Flessner, R., Patrizio, K. M., & Horwitz, J. R. (2012). What we learned
about agency in teacher education. Agency through teacher education:
Reflection, community, and learning, 171-177. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/830939042
Munthe, E.,
& Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 46, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.006
Nazari, M.
(2022). Plan, act, observe, reflect, identity: Exploring teacher identity
construction across the stages of action research. RELC journal, 53(3),
672-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220972456
Nichols, S.,
& Cormack, P. (2017). Impactful practitioner inquiry: The ripple effect
on classrooms, schools, and teacher professionalism. Teachers College
Press.
Noffke, S. E.
(1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. Review
of Research in Education, 22, 305-343. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167378
Phillips, D.
K., & Carr, K. (2009). Dilemmas of trustworthiness in preservice teacher
action research. Action Research, 7(2), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308097027
Richardson, L.
(1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. Rutgers
University Press.
Ryan, T. G.
(2013). The scholarship of teaching and learning within action research:
Promise and possibilities. Inquiry in education, 4(2), 1-17.
Ryan, T. G.,
Young, D. C., & Kraglund-Gauthier, W. L. (2017). Action research within
pre-service teacher education. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching
& Learning Journal, 10(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.59236/td2017vol10iss3831
Sachs, J.
(1999). Using teacher research as a basis for professional renewal. Journal
of In-service Education, 25(1), 39-53.
Schön, D. A.
(1983). The Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
Basic Books.
Smith, S.,
Willms, D., & Johnson, N. (Eds.). (1997). Nurtured by knowledge:
Learning to do participatory action-research. The Apex Press.
Somekh, B.
(1995). The contribution of action research to development in social
endeavours: A position paper on action research methodology. British
Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 399-355.
Taylor, L. A.
(2017). How teachers become teacher researchers: Narrative as a tool for
teacher identity construction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61,
16-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.09.008
Van Katwijk, L., Jansen, E., & Van Veen, K. (2021).
Pre-service teacher research: A way to future-proof teachers? European
Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 435-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1928070
Wenger, E.
(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Yin, R. K.
(1984). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed., Vol.
5). Sage Publications.
Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as
professional development for P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action
Research, 11(2), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200211
Zeichner, K.
M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330). American
Educational Research Association.