Inquiry on Inquiry: Practitioner Research and Students Learning Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Joan Barnatt, Audrey Friedman, and Gerald

Pine Boston College February 2009 Will appear in a special issue on Research on Teacher Reflectivity: The Impact on Teaching and Learning Ed Pultorak, Editor Action in Teacher Education Fall 2009

Contact information: Marilyn Cochran-Smith Lynch School of Education Boston College 140 Commonwealth Avenue Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 cochrans@bc.edu

ABSTRACT In many teacher education programs, some form of inquiry or practitioner research is now included in the preservice teacher education curriculum. The intention is to help teacher candidates become professionals who are life-long learners who raise questions and research their practice across the professional career. At the same time, teacher education evaluation has shifted from primary emphasis on resources and curriculum to an emphasis on K-12 student learning outcomes. This article speaks to both the outcomes focus of teacher education policy and practice and the agenda to prepare professional teachers who know how to learn from and about teaching in an ongoing way. The article describes an inquiry project carried out by a group of teacher education practitioners/researchers in order to examine how and what teacher candidates learned when they were required to conduct classroom inquiry focused on students learning outcomes. The purpose of the study was to explore the processes and results of this new focus and to determine whether the strengths of a long-standing emphasis on inquiry as a way of knowing about teaching could be retained when the emphasis was shifted from teacher candidates own learning to the learning of their students. Based on in-depth content analysis of purposively selected inquiries, the article demonstrates that the quality of candidates inquiries generally depended on the questions posed, the ways candidates conceptualized and assessed learning, and their understanding of the recursive nature of the inquiry process. However the article also identifies a number of problems that were created with the new emphasis.

In many teacher education programs nationwide and internationally, it is now common for some form of inquiry to be included in preservice preparation. Whether labeled teacher research, action research, self-study, or practitioner inquiry, the inclusion of inquiry in the preservice curriculum is generally intended to help teacher candidates become life-long learners who raise questions and continuously learn how to teach by researching and reflecting on practice across the professional life-span. This goal is consistent with the current professionalization agenda, which, since the 1980s, has called for the reform of teacher preparation policy and practice to ensure that all students in all classrooms in Americas schools have fully certified and fully prepared professional teachers. A hallmark of the professional teacher is that he or she is knowledgeable about not only content and pedagogy, but also how to learn from teaching in an ongoing way, how to pose and address new problems and challenges that do not have existing answers (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), and how to integrate and link different kinds of knowledge to the complex problems of schools and classrooms (Hammerness, 2006) . Over the last decade, however, many questions have been raised about the professional agenda in teacher education, and in particular, critics have suggested that teacher education has not been properly accountable for the learning outcomes of K-12 students (Crowe, 2008; Kanstoroom & Finn, 1999). Partly in response to critics, but also as part of changing notions of educational accountability (Cuban, 2004) and changing standards of accreditation, the emphasis of many preparation programs has shifted from inputs only (e.g., institutional commitment, faculty qualifications, fieldwork, conceptual frameworks, and the alignment of these with professional knowledge and standards) to outcomes (e.g., candidates demonstrated knowledge, skill, and dispositions as well as K-12 students test scores and other school results). Although there have been many critiques of the outcomes emphasis as well as differences in 2

viewpoints about which outcomes are most important and how they should be measured (e.g., Fallon, 2006; Zeichner, 2005), it is now widely accepted that the effectiveness of preparation programs and pathways ought to be assessed, at least in part, in terms of outcomes and results rather than simply in terms of curricula, faculty, or resources. This is reflected in current standards for teacher certification and program accreditation in place in most states (Darling-Hammond, 2000b) and in current calls for new teacher education research and assessments (e.g., Allen, 2003; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Walsh & Hale, 2004). This article speaks to both the outcomes focus of teacher education policy and practice, on one hand, and the current professionalization agenda, on the other. The article begins by briefly clarifying the concept of practitioner inquiry in teacher education and considering related literature. Next the article describes a study of inquiry in one teacher education program as a way to assess the impact of teacher education and examine the process of learning to teach. The inquiry project was carried out by a group of teacher education practitioner-researchers in order to examine how and what teacher candidates learned when they were required to conduct classroom inquiry focused on students learning outcomes. The purpose of the study was to explore the processes and results of this new focus and to determine whether the strengths of a long-standing emphasis on inquiry as a way of knowing about teaching could be retained when the emphasis was shifted from candidates own learning to the learning of their students. Specifically the study examined what happened when candidates were required to conduct classroom inquiry that focused on students learning and what the implications were for the local program as well as teacher education more generally. We demonstrate that the quality of candidates inquiries generally depended on the questions posed, the ways candidates conceptualized and assessed learning, and their 3

understanding of the recursive nature of the inquiry process. We conclude, however, that although helping teacher candidates focus on students learning is important, a number of new problems and issues were created. Framing the Study As the title of this article suggests, the study described here can be thought of as inquiry on inquiry. In other words, as members of the teacher education research group who are the authors of this paper, we engaged with our colleagues in systematic inquiry about the processes and outcomes of our candidates inquiries. This double-layered aspect of inquiry on inquiry sharpened the questions we asked and prompted us to turn on ourselves the same expectations for learning from reflection and analysis of the data of practice that we held for the teacher candidates we taught. Theoretical Framework The conceptual umbrella of practitioner inquiry, or practitioner research, refers to a variety of educational research modes, forms, genres, and purposes (Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen, 1994, 2007; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004, 2009; Zeichner and Noffke, 2001), including action research, teacher research, self study, narrative inquiry, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and the use of teaching as a context for research. Although these stem from different historical and epistemological traditions, they also share several common features that link them and also distinguish practitioner inquiry from more traditional forms and paradigms of education research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004, 2009). With practitioner inquiry, the practitioner (e.g., teacher, teacher educator, school administrator, adult literacy educator) simultaneously takes on the role of researcher, which contrasts with conventional research on K-12 teaching and teacher education. In many versions of practitioner inquiry, as is the case with this study, collaboration, in the 4

form of joint discussions of methods, data analysis, and writing, is a prominent feature. A key assumption is that those who work in particular contexts have significant knowledge about both what the problems and questions are and, through systematic data collection and analysis, how to solve those problems within that particular context. As this study illustrates, the boundaries between inquiry and practice blur when the practitioner is a researcher and when the professional context is a site for the study of practice. Practitioner inquiry uses intentional and systematic ways of gathering and recording information and documenting experiences such that inquiry is planned and deliberate, rather than spontaneous (Stenhouse, 1985). With practitioner inquiry, the systematic examination and analysis of students learning (and/or other educational outcomes and issues) is often interwoven with examination of practitioners own intentions, reactions, decisions, and interpretations. This makes it possible for practitioner researchers to produce richly detailed and unusually insightful analyses of teaching and learning from the inside. Practitioner inquiry makes the work of teaching and learning public and open to the critique of a larger community. Inquiry and Teacher Education: Related Literature There is a rich and growing body of research that describes and theorizes the use of inquiry, teacher research, or action research as a way to enhance the learning of teacher candidates and their students. Over the last 25 years or so, a number of preparation programs in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and many other places have used inquiry to encourage teacher candidates to engage in critical reflection, develop a questioning stance, understand school culture, construct new curriculum and pedagogy, modify instruction to meet students needs, and become socialized into teaching by participating in learning communities. This work in

teacher education is generally consistent with the larger theoretical framework for practitioner inquiry outlined above. Efforts to make inquiry the centerpiece of teacher education assume that teachers learning is a process that occurs over time rather than at certain points in time. From this perspective, how teachers become socialized into teaching and learning is assumed to have a critical influence on their emerging interpretations and practices, their sense of responsibility as educators, and their students learning. With practitioner inquiry, the larger project is about generating deeper understandings of how students learn and enhancing educators sense of social responsibility in the service of a democratic society. In teacher education, practitioner inquiry is sometimes, but not always, explicitly linked to larger social justice and social equity agendas. Although there are a number of articles that conceptualize or describe inquiry and teacher learning at the preservice level, the empirical research on its outcomes is much thinner (Grossman, 2005). However, the empirical literature on the promises and problems of inquiry in teacher education appears to be growing. Some key examples include: Oylers (2006) volume, Learning to Teach Inclusively: Student Teachers Classroom Inquiries, written with her preservice inclusion study group; Cochran-Smiths (1991, 1995, 1999) program of research on inquiry as a way to help student teachers address issues of diversity and social justice in order to teach against the grain; Valli and Prices analyses of the intended and unintended consequences of encouraging preservice teachers to engage in action research (Price, 2001; Price & Valli, 2005; Valli, 1999; Valli & Price, 2000); and Boston College efforts to construct inquiry as both process and legitimate outcome of teacher education (Barnatt, 2008; Barnatt, Cochran-Smith, Friedman, Pine, & Baroz, 2007; Cochran-Smith, 2003). In addition, there are a number of studies of the role of inquiry in the development of preservice teachers ideas and beliefs 6

about teaching, learning and diversity (e.g. Hyland & Noffke, 2005; Levin & Rock, 2003; Rock & Levin, 2002) and about the relationships between inquiry and/or reflection and identity and learning in various settings, including professional development schools (e.g. Crocco, M., Bayard, F., Schwartz, S., 2003; Freese, 2006; Mule, 2006; Schultz & Mandzuk, 2005). The literature on inquiry in preservice teacher education clearly points to its benefits, but also alludes to some of its costs, including time investment, difficulties with sustainability, continual need to nurture partnerships with schools, and added demands to an already-crowded curriculum. However there continues to be little research on the consequences of inquiry, particularly its connections to students learning. The project described in this article addresses this need. Inquiry on Inquiry The inquiry reported here is one of six studies that make up an evidence portfolio created by the Evidence Team of the Boston College (BC)i Teachers for a New Era (TNE) initiative.ii The portfolio includes both qualitative and quantitative studies, designed to complement one another and provide a rich picture of what it means to examine the effectiveness of teacher education and the process of learning to teach. Research Site For more than 15 years, teacher education programs at BC have used inquiry as a way to encourage teacher candidates reflection, rethinking of beliefs and assumptions, and decision-making based on analysis of classroom data. The culminating project is a classroom-based inquiry conducted in the student teaching classroom. Prior to changes described here, the project required candidates to pose a question, collect multiple sources, and reflect on and analyze the data to guide instruction and future practice.

As in many other programs where inquiry is a central activity, although the faculty had long assumed that inquiry contributed to the learning of teacher candidates and indirectly to the learning of their students--we had not examined this assumption empirically. That is, we assumed that inquiry encouraged teacher candidates to reflect on their emerging practice as professional teachers, raise questions about common school arrangements and practices, rethink curriculum and instruction, and begin the life-long process of learning to teach by treating practice as a site for inquiry. However we had not empirically documented teacher candidates learning or tied this to the learning of their students. In addition, an informal review of candidates past inquiries indicated that many focused on reflections about one child, aspects of school culture, or a particular teaching unit without focusing directly on students learning. As we made changes to the inquiry project, we wanted to stay true to our theoretical framework for inquiry and to its bottom line goalteachers deeper understandings of their own and their students learning, students enhanced learning and life chances, and educators stronger sense of teaching for social justice. In doing this study, one of our underlying concerns was whether the strengths of practitioner inquiry as a way of knowing about teaching could be retained when the emphasis was shifted to the collection of multiple data sources to document students learning. Research Questions and Design The study asked these questions: (1) When happens when teacher candidates are required to engage in inquiry focused on students learning? (2) What kinds of research questions do candidates pose about teaching and learning and how do they connect these to theory, pedagogy and practice?

(f) How do candidates use the inquiry process to guide curriculum and instruction in the short and long terms? To address these questions, the study used a mixed methods research design, with three separate but related analyses, one quantitative and two qualitative. The first was a quantitative analysis of 46 inquiries randomly selected from a pool of 110 inquiries conducted by teacher candidates and scored using a 100-point rubric with four categories: Teacher as Researcher, Content and Pedagogy, Pupils Learning, and Learning to Teach for Social Justice. The rubric was developed over time by the faculty with training to establish inter-rater reliability. This analysis examined the range of rubric scores for teacher candidates as well as differences/similarities among cohorts of students in various subject areas, school levels, and rubric categories. The second analysis was a qualitative content analysis of the research questions in the 46 inquiry projects, which identified five major themes that captured the essence of the questions and their relationship to learning issues. The third analysis was a qualitative, in-depth content analysis of 12 inquiry projects purposively selected from the sample of 46 used in the first and second analyses. Given the space limitations here, this article concentrates only on the third analysis.iii Content Analysis of Inquiry Papers The point of close analysis of 12 inquiry papers was to use in-depth qualitative content analysis to explore how candidates posed questions, reflected on and analyzed classroom data, and fostered students learning in their classrooms. To insure a range of quality in the inquiry papers, two from each ten point spread on the scoring rubric from the first analysis were selected across elementary and secondary levels and including teacher candidates in special education. Based on multiple readings by a team of researchers, these 12 papers were coded according to the following categories: Inquiry Question, Conceptual and Theoretical Framework, School/Classroom Context, 9

Participants, Intervention(s), Data Sources, Student Learning, Social Justice, Findings, Modifying Curriculum and Practice, and Implications. Then matrices were constructed to identify major elements and types of evidence, and key excerpts were highlighted. Pairs of researchers then worked from the matrices to analyze each paper in detail with ongoing review by the team to refine and establish uniformity across researchers. Preliminary analyses of individual papers were constructed through a multi-step process: individual papers were reviewed using the eleven categories listed above, followed by team discussion of each paper in light of emergent themes in the group of papers. Simultaneously, emergent themes in the group of papers were considered and revised in light of preliminary analysis of each individual paper. Through this iterative process, the team identified larger themes, which were reviewed and modified based on a systematic search across the papers for confirming/disconfirming evidence. An overall analysis was done to develop a deeper sense of how teacher candidates inquiries varied and to identify key aspects that discriminated stronger from weaker papers. Teacher Candidates Engaged in Inquiry Collectively, the 12 inquiry papers amounted to more than 400 pages of narrative and appended information (e.g., lesson plans, students work samples, classroom assessments). We were particularly interested in how candidates framed questions, how they documented and made sense of students learning, whether and how they used evidence to make immediate decisions about teaching, and how they connected these to larger issues related to diversity and social justice, which are major themes of teacher education programs at BC. We found that there were three major cross-cutting aspects that discriminated stronger from weaker papers: questions posed and how/whether these were embedded within larger theoretical frameworks related to teaching and learning; what data sources teacher candidates used and what they counted as evidence of students 10

learning; and, how they understood the research process itself in relation to short and long term decisions and interpretations of teaching and learning. In the pages that follow, we explore each of these and provide exemplars of stronger and weaker inquiries. Framing the Questions: The Need for a Theoretical Vision. There was considerable variation in how teacher candidates posed and framed research questions and where those questions came from. Some questions were prompted by individual interactions with problematic students. Others emerged from themes in candidates own journal reflections, while still others were prompted by cooperating teachers comments about students needs or curricular preferences. A few were guided by research studies that had had an impact on candidates. Some of these issues and ideas were transformed into productive inquiries that were highly rated on the scoring rubric; others were not. Our analysis revealed that stronger inquiry papers posed questions that began with classroom tensions, but also thoughtfully integrated experience, beliefs, and theories/research into a conceptual framework, rather than simply raising questions about the impact of a particular technique. Zumwalt (1989) and Darling-Hammond, et. al. (2005) have argued that what Zumwalt called a curricular vision of teaching is essential if beginning teachers are to function as professional decision makers. Without it, as Zumwalt suggests, they tend simply to pursue what works rather than what could be: If prospective teachers do not understand that questions of what and why are as central to teaching as the understandably pressing questions of how, not only is the range and quality of their decision-making drastically limited, but teaching can easily drift into a meaningless activity, for students as well as for teachers. (p. 174)

11

The strong inquiry papers transformed candidates reflections and perceived classroom tensions into questions embedded within something akin to Zumwalts curricular visiona kind of theoretical vision that linked particular teaching methods or classroom interventions with larger understandings of students as learners, classrooms as cultures, and the possible worlds open to students. For example, one candidate posed the question, What happens to student attitudes toward mathematics and student learning when I differentiate instruction in my fifth grade math class? In framing this question, the candidate described an initially chaotic classroom situation, wherein the advanced students refused to go unnoticed...they were loud, disruptive, and changed the course of instruction. Because math instruction incorporated a whole-class model, the candidate frequently felt forced to speed up lessons because a select, vocal group of students typically picked up concepts immediately even though these advanced students constantly cut off other students in order to state the correct answer. This prevented the candidate from teaching effectively, causing other students in the class to refrain from answering questions and increasing the pace of the class, leaving some students clearly behind. To develop her question, this candidate first gathered more evidence, monitoring in particular the behavior of one student who always waved his hand vigorously, stood up, and made noises and declared the situation bootleg when he realized he could do nothing to get himself called on. Although this frustrated the candidate, she also figured out the essence of the dilemma, noting that a child who had the potential to be a tremendous resource had become the bane of the teachers existence because he was totally bored and fed up with the lesson. To a lesser extent, this applied to others as well. To articulate a clear, researchable question that accounted for the diverse learners in her classroom, this candidate drew from current literature and visited a classroom 12

known for its differentiated math instruction. As she developed the question, she used the research to identify elements of instruction that could be differentiated, articulated a schedule for frequent assessment, and modified instruction based on assessment data. She also collected data about students attitudes toward math, developed a skills pretest to better group students, and integrated homework results into her plan. She also developed learning stations through which students rotated as their performance improved, creating a learning environment that was flexible and met the needs of diverse learners. This candidates research question helped her crystallize the connection between experience (including her visit to an exemplary classroom), beliefs, observations, and development of a theoretical perspective about learning. The theoretical vision here was clear, as was the candidates emerging understanding of the relationship between students classroom (mis)behaviors and their opportunities to learn. The candidate did not blame students for disrupting the class. She identified their assets as learners and deliberately restructured the classroom routine to provide for them and othersrich learning opportunities. In contrast, a paper from among the lowest scores, posed this question: What happens when I teach my students grammar using their own writing? This question emerged from the candidates beliefs and experience and from comments by the cooperating teacher about the students lack of writing skills, as the candidate indicated: I believe that many students have difficulty learning grammar. I have observed that often when grammar is taught out of a textbook with no reference to actual class writing assignments, such as essays and short paragraphs, students have trouble translating concepts they learn from grammar lessons into improvement in their own writing. I myself find that examples given in grammar reference books or textbooks usually cannot help me with the difficulty I am having in constructing a given sentence. 13

Here the candidate seemed to equate good writing with accurate grammar, focusing on mechanics and punctuation. Although her effort to connect grammar instruction to authentic writing is important and was informed by research, she did not link this to her own classroom observations or to examples of students work. Neither her question nor her instruction addressed the complexities of developing effective writing or writing pedagogy. In the inquiry paper, this candidate reported that she had conducted minilessons on selected grammar errors, but she did not indicate how or why she selected the errors. She then instructed students to find and fix errors. Unlike the question in the math example above, this grammar question was rather nebulous and did not connect experience, beliefs, observations of students, and research in ways that were guided by a more general theoretical vision. Of course there were also some inquiry projects that fell into the middle of the range between the strongest and weakest papers. In general, though we found that a major distinction between strong and weak papers was how and whether the question was connected to a larger theoretical or conceptual vision about teaching and learning. Teacher Learning/Student Learning: What Counts? Because encouraging teacher candidates to focus on students learning was a major part of our rationale for altering inquiry requirements, we examined how they conceptualized and assessed learning and what they counted as evidence of students learning. Not surprisingly, we found that academic learning was the focus of most inquiry papers, including content knowledge in various areas, comprehension and communication skills, and literacy or math skills. However, many papers also considered social and emotional learning goals, such as decision making, social interaction and participation, understanding a diversity of perspectives, and respect for others.

14

Interestingly, we discovered that in a number of cases, how candidates conceptualized student learning was more contingent on how learning was measured within pre-existing curricular packages in use in their student teaching classrooms than on what candidates had learned about how people learn in their preservice program. We found that candidates used a wide range of data sources, including informal and formative assessments, such as observations, checklists, and instruments constructed by candidates themselves, as well as highly structured formal assessments, such as standardized unit tests and assessments that were part of curriculum packages. Informal data sources included students writing samples, comments and questions during discussions, homework assignments, grades, observations, journal reflections, teachermade surveys, quizzes and tests, student and staff interviews, and socio-grams. As noted above, the distinction between stronger and weaker inquiry papers depended on attention to multiple forms of academic and non-academic learning, teaching strategies that were appropriate and flexible enough to encompass multiple levels of learning, and reflections focusing on candidates learning as a result of inquiry. To illustrate, we provide two figures that highlight the learning goals and activities for two inquiry papers, one scored substantially higher than the other. In both figures, the wording in the columns under each heading is taken directly from the candidates own writing. The stronger paper (Figure 1) described the candidates use of non text-based primary sources to increase students content learning in the humanities and to develop critical and historical thinking skills. This candidate conceptualized learning as doing history, which involved analysis of primary and other documents along with discussion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

To document students learning, the candidate represented in Figure 1 used a variety of data sources: a pre-post survey, analysis of the level of historical thinking of class questions and comments, student work samples, classroom observations, and journal entries. The candidate also analyzed classroom observations and students work to assess key elements of doing history, including corroboration, observation, attending to context, sourcing, inferring, question posing, and providing evidence. This candidates methods for assessing students learning were closely tied to the way she conceptualized learning in the first place: The history classroom has been an excellent place for me to connect to students experience and knowledge, and sadly I dont think that that is utilized as often as it should. I found that doing history in my classroom benefited all my students. I also found a correlation between the use of non-text base primary sources in my class and the quality of historical thinking, analyzing, writing, and discussion. The implementation of nontext base primary sources increased this classs level of engagement, content learning, and vital skills.From this study I learned many things about myself as a teacher and about my students as learners. She also linked her enhanced understandings of how people learn and the relationships of teaching and learning to students performance. In contrast, the weaker inquiry paper (Figure 2) described a candidates efforts to improve the multiplication skills of fourth graders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This candidate used a narrower range of activities and assessments to document students learning. For example, in her pre-post survey, all but one of the eight questions were 16

about students feelings (e.g., Do you like math? Does math make you nervous?). Only one question assessed students understandings (i.e., When I multiply, I know what is going on: most of the time, some of the time, never), and none asked students about when, why, or how they understood. This candidate used three similar drills for increasing knowledge of multiplication facts. Although most students improved over time, there was almost nothing in the data sources that got at what, how or why students were or were not learning. When we looked closely at the work samples the candidate included with the inquiry paper, we noted that students had had the option of skipping math facts they could not remember, thus gaining speed with familiar items without necessarily learning new facts. However, the candidate seemed unaware of this, and it did not appear she had gained insight about learning by engaging in inquiry: One of my methods was simply prompting a student with a flash card and moving on to the next. I allowed them to talk during this time with each other because I felt that it was important to have a context when trying to memorize so having laughter and joking present amongst peers is helpful. Consistently, what distinguished stronger from weaker inquiry papers was capturing complexity in student learning, matching teaching strategies and measures to broad learning goals, and using the inquiry experience as a springboard for further learning about learning. Learning from Classroom Research: Recursivity or Rigidity? As we have made clear above, we were interested in whether, what and how teacher candidates learned from the classroom research they did, especially since the overall goal was for candidates to develop inquiry as a way of knowing that would guide them over time. Not surprisingly, close analysis of the 12 papers revealed a range of responses along these lines. Some papers contained rich and insightful analyses of 17

classroom data, revealing the way teachers learned from practice and how they used their evolving understandings of students learning to guide their own thoughts and actions in an ongoing way. Other papers were disappointing to us as teacher educators, with little evidence that candidates had learned from their inquiries about students perspectives or strategies they might use to support them, and there was little discussion of the implications of their inquiries beyond completing the inquiry as a program requirement. In an address to educators, Ann Berthoff (1986) once railed against the privileging in government funding initiatives of basic scientific research and the exclusion of studies focused on practical classroom application or studies of curriculum, course design, or sequences of assignments. She adamantly declared, We do not need new information. We need to think about the information we have. We need to interpret what goes on when students respond to one kind of assignment and not to another, or when some respond to an assignment and others do not (p. 30). Berthoff championed the importance of research by teachers, highlighting especially the recursive nature of classroom inquiry, which she referred to as REsearch: REsearch, like REcognition, is a REflexive act. It means lookingand looking again (p. 30, punctuation in original). Berthoffs point helped us understand some of the differences between stronger and weaker inquiry projects. We found that underlying differences in what and how candidates learned from classroom research were differing ideas about research and inquiry themselves. Some candidates had rich and recursive notions of the inquiry process, understanding research as looking and looking again. Others had a more linear view of classroom research as a scientific process, unconnected to their ongoing choices about what to do and how to work with students. This applied across elementary and secondary levels, across content areas, and across general and special education.

18

For example, one elementary candidate introduced strategies based on accountable talk (Dudley-Marling & Michaels, 2005) into a first grade literacy program over a period of four weeks. She focused on how students responded to texts with the goal of enhancing their capacity to be accountable in the sense of making cogent arguments based on textual evidence and logical reasoning. She used a close, careful analysis of the students talk and her role to guide her own teaching on a day-by-day basis. Based on transcriptions of the groups talk, she looked for evidence that students were using higher-level thinking skills to make claims about texts and whether her own talk was scaffolding their skills. Referring to one transcription, she wrote: It is clear that my role as a teacher in the first few turns of the discussion was critical. Not only did I inadvertently lead students to only one interpretation of the question, but I failed to clarify the meaning of Jennas contribution What I could have done instead, is ask Jenna to re-voice her contribution, so that I might better understand her thinking. I could also ask questions for clarification (e.g. What do you mean by ___? Can you explain ____?), thus making Jennas reasoning not only more accessible to me, but to the other students as well. This candidate used inquiry to understand the meaning students were making of text. In doing so, she demonstrated her understanding that inquiry is recursivethat is, it involves a repeated, almost unending process of asking questions, looking carefully at the data of practice, altering practice based on new insights and ideas, asking new questions, and so on. We found evidence in some of the inquiry papers that candidates insights based on recursively asking questions and modifying practice sometimes became guiding principles or large interpretive frameworks. The teacher candidate above, for example, used what she was learning about facilitating discussions to rethink her practices on a 19

daily and more long-term basis. In another example in a completely different context, a special education candidate wanted to increase the expressive communication of an autistic child who was fully included in a preschool setting. Based on daily analysis of behavioral interventions and a tally of the childs responses, the candidate worked with colleagues to adjust the interventions until the child had achieved a very good rate of participation in the social greeting segment of the morning routine. Although this highly behaviorist intervention is very different from examples where candidates are trying to understand students understandings, the special education candidate had a similar recursive understanding of classroom inquiry as did the candidate doing accountable talk. Both understood teaching as inquiry and inquiry as recursivethat is, they understood that teaching is a process driven by questions and continuously responsive to the data of practice. Some of the candidates among the 12 we concentrated on did not seem to work from these ideas about inquiry. In fact, a few had what might even be called rigid conceptions of inquiry and research, which prompted them to make what we perceived as odd or inappropriate decisions. As mentioned, one secondary teacher candidate, for example, launched an initiative to improve students writing by having them correct grammar errors on worksheets and then in their own writing. The data she was collecting, however, indicated that her students could not locate errors in their own writing, as instructed, even if they were able to do so on worksheets. However, the candidate was seemingly oblivious to her own data showing that students made little to no improvement with the approach she was using. Instead of altering daily practice in response to this, she persisted in the grammar lessons and concluded her inquiry in exactly the same place she started: I continue to believe that the basic model with which I began this study may

20

prove an effective teaching technique. I intend to try something similar to these interventions in my own classroom. Along somewhat similar lines, an elementary candidate introduced a routine wherein following initial instruction, students had quizzes every day. Prompted by the notion that she could not tamper with her research design by re-teaching the processes, the teacher persisted in this activity even when it was clear that some students needed and wanted more instruction, including one child who explained exactly what he did not know how to do. She wrote, I made a conscientious decision to prohibit explanations beyond simple statementsThe only other suggestion I had for these students was to ask a classmate or someone from another class during their free time. This kind of response was exactly the opposite from that which we, as teacher educators, hoped to find and expected of a teacher who was able to learn from continuous reflections on the data of practice. Here the candidates strong residual ideas that research and science were about experiments that could not be interfered with once begun, seemed to trump the idea, which was emphasized in the program, that inquiry is an integral and ongoing part of decision making in teaching. Across school levels and subject areas, we found that what distinguished stronger from weaker inquiry papers was the development of a conception of inquiry as an ongoing and integral part of everyday teaching as well as a way to support longer-term reflection on many issues related teaching, learning, and schooling. Conclusion: Tensions and Tradeoffs As noted in the introduction, the analysis offered here is part of an inquiry on inquiry in the sense that it represents the efforts of a group of teacher educators who engaged in inquiry about the outcomes of a newly-focused inquiry project completed by the teacher candidates who were their students. As we suggested, this nesting of teacher 21

candidates inquiries within our own inquiry about the processes and outcomes of the new project sharpened our questions and obligated us to turn on ourselves the same expectations we had for our teacher candidates. We wanted them to develop an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999b, 2009) on the everyday realities of classroom life and about the complex processes of working with a diverse group of students. We wanted them to have inquiry as a way of knowing about teaching, learning and schooling over the course of the professional lifespan. We wanted them to pay close attention to the data of practice, interpreting it in rich ways that would enhance their students learning and life chances and inform their own practice, both in the short and the long term. Of course, then, we had to turn the tables on ourselves by asking what we, as teacher educators, had learned from our inquiry. In this conclusion we focus on improving local practiceour own teacher education programas well as what we learned about teacher candidates and their learning and about inquiry as the centerpiece of teacher education that may be of interest more broadly. Developing an Inquiry Stance CochranSmith and Lytle (1999b, 2009) suggest that the notion of inquiry as stance is distinct from the more common notion of inquiry as project, which treats inquiry as a time-bounded project or activity within a teacher education course or professional development workshop. In contrast, inquiry as stance refers to a long-term and consistent positioning or way of seeing, rather than a single point in time or activity. This concept is intended to capture the lenses teachers see through and how they generate knowledge that guides practice. Developing and sustaining an inquiry stance is a intended to be a life-long and constant pursuit for new teachers, experienced teachers, and teacher educators alike. The analyses presented in this article coupled with other analyses we have reported elsewhere, led us to realizealbeit reluctantlythat by requiring a major 22

inquiry paper focused on students learning during the student teaching period, even though inquiry was supposedly a major theme of the overall program, we were bolstering the notion of inquiry as project rather than inquiry as stance. The idea of teaching to the test is useful here. When teachers teach to the test, they concentrate on transmitting to students the knowledge and skills covered by a high stakes assessment rather than building an array of knowledge and skills within a larger conceptual framework without a necessarily immediately instrumental value. Through our close content analysis of a range of inquiry projects, we discovered that many teacher candidates were inquiring to the rubric and the requirements. In other words, they were engaging in those aspects of inquiry that were spelled out on, and required by, the rubric and program requirements rather than making inquiry an integral part of teaching itself and understanding that inquiry does not necessarily have an immediate instrumental purpose. This was evident especially in weaker inquiry projects that sutured together multiple points and pieces that did not fit together conceptually and/or that disregarded what the data were actually revealing about students learning. This was also evident in the relatively small number of projects that revealed a rich sense of understanding and knowing ones students. This is directly related to our second lesson, joining inquiry and accountability. Joining Inquiry and Accountability To a certain extent, our move to require teacher candidates to concentrate on students learning was an attempt to marry inquiry and accountability. It was our hope that candidates would use data to improve students achievement at the same time that they reflected deeply on the nature of learners and learning and the school and classroom conditions that support learning. Some did just that, and these are the positive examples we use throughout this paper. But for other candidates, this was not the case.

23

Some candidates experienced significant angst as they struggled to negotiate the messiness of learning to teach while attempting to inquire into practice in a systematic and effective way. Often they did not see the natural connections between teaching and inquiry, and regarded these as two disparate entities. Those who were most successful had real ownership of their questions and developed a rationale that drew on knowledge acquired in coursework and research and connected these to classroom practice. While some cooperating teachers actively supported and participated in the inquiries, others were uninterested. On the other hand, because the inquiry paper was a required part of the student teaching experience, every candidate had the opportunity for some independent experience in the classroom that required construction and modification of practice, and reflection on students and self learning. Our analysis suggests that requiring candidates to focus on students learning did not guarantee deep reflection and appropriate modification in practice. Similarly, requiring candidates to make classroom decisions informed by evidence did not guarantee change in candidates beliefs and practices. Although some candidates made great strides, others seemed to continue to teach the way they were taught. The content analysis revealed that using a scoring rubric that in some ways disconnected teaching from learning distracted some teacher candidates from focusing on the power of ongoing inquiry and instead encouraged a procedural understanding of inquiry. Inquiry and Social Justice Changing the requirements of the inquiry project was part of the process of shifting it from an almost exclusive focus on teacher candidates learning toward more of a focus on candidates and K-12 students learning. As mentioned but not elaborated in the beginning of this article, the rubric we created for scoring the inquiry projects had four categories, one of which addressed students learning specifically and one focused 24

on social justice specifically. When we closely examined the purposively selected inquiry papers, we found that in our efforts to be explicit about students learning, we had created an artificial division between social justice and learning. Although the program defines teaching for social justice in part as a bottom-line commitment to enhancing students learning and life chances, we separated social justice from learning on the scoring rubric, and we could see differences in scores. It was not until we completed the in-depth qualitative analysis of stronger and weaker inquiry papers, however, that we discovered that low scores on the category of social justice were actually an artifact of the rubric itself rather than a thoughtful representation of teacher candidates work in classrooms. In order to develop the rubric, we had identified and artificially separated key elements of what social justice teaching is, rather than accounting for the factexplicit in our own conception of teaching for social justicethat this is inextricably part of content, pedagogy, learning opportunities, and classroom environment. Post Script As we complete this article, our teacher education faculty is in the process of using the results of this in-depth analysis along with the results of candidates responses to survey items regarding inquiry and case study data about the role of inquiry during the early years of teaching to completely rethink and redesign the inquiry component of the curriculum. The analysis described in this article, along with other kinds of evidence from our portfolio of studies, have led us to more nuanced understandings of what kinds of learning opportunitiesand limitationsour current inquiry requirements create for teacher candidates. Our goal now is to revise the inquiry aspects of the curriculum so that inquiry is genuinely promoted as a stance or way of knowing about teaching and learning that is integrated into all courses and all fieldwork experiences, rather than a procedural activity carried out at the programs completion. 25

REFERENCES Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver: Education Commission of the States. Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (2004, 2007). Studying your own school: An educator's guide to qualitative practitioner research (2nd. Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Barnatt, J. (2008). But Are They Learning? Teachers Candidates Use of Inquiry Focused on Student Outcomes. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, March, 2008, New York City. Barnatt, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Friedman, A., Pine, G., & Baroz, R. (2007, April). Inquiry on inquiry: practitioner research and pupils learning. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, April, 2007, Chicago. Berthoff, A. (1987). The teacher as researcher. In D. Goswami & P. R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 2848). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 51(3), 279-310. Cochran-Smith, M. (1995a). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493-522. Cochran-Smith, M. (1999). Learning to teach for social justice. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 114-144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Inquiry and outcomes: Learning to teach in an age of accountability. Teacher Education and Practice, 15(4), 12-34. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999a). Relationship of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & C. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249-306). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999b). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of research of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 601649). Amsterdam: Kluwer. 26

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crocco, M., Bayard, F., Schwartz, S., (2003). Inquiring minds want to know: Action research at a New York City professional development school. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 19-30. Crowe, E. (2008). Teaching as a profession: A bridge too far? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman Nemser, J. McIntyre & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cuban, L. (2004). Looking through the rearview mirror at school accountability. In K. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable (pp. 18-34). New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Banks, J., Zumwalt, K., Gomez, L., Sherin, M., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L. (2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 169-200.. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. Report of the committee on teacher education of the national academy of education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Dudley-Marling, C. & Michaels, S. (2005). Making children smart: Shared inquiry and accountable talk in 4th grade English language arts. Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco. Fallon, D. (2006). The buffalo upon the chimneypiece: The value of evidence. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 139-155. Freese, A. (2006). Reframing one's teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflection and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 100-119. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. CochranSmith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hammerness, K. (2006). Seeing through teachers' eyes: Professional ideals and classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Hyland, N., & Noffke, S. (2005). Understanding diversity through social and community inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 367-381. Kanstoroom, M., & Finn, C. (Eds.). (1999). Better teachers, better schools. Washington, DC: 27

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Levin, B. & Rock, C. (2003). The effects of collaborative action research on pre-service and experienced teacher partners in professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 135-150. Mule, L., (2006). Preservice teachers inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 205-218. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Oyler, C. (2006). Learning to teach inclusively: Student teachers classroom inquiries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Price, J. (2001). Action research, pedagogy, and change: The transformative potential of action research in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 43-74. Price, J. N. & Valli, L. (2005). Preservice teachers becoming agents of change: Pedagogical implications for action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 57-72. Schultz, R., & Mandzuk, D. (2005). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A three-year study of teacher candidates' experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 315-331. Stenhouse, L. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching. London: Heinemann. Valli, L. (1999). Connecting teacher development and school improvement: Ironic consequences of a pre-service action research course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 715-730. Valli, L., & Price, J.N. (2000). Deepening our understanding of praxis: Teacher educators' reflections on action research. Teaching Education, 11(3), 267-278. Walsh, K., & Hale, C. (2004). Increasing the odds: How good policies can yield better teachers. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Research on teacher education programs. In M. CochranSmith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645-736). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zeichner, K., & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. 28

Zumwalt, K. (1989). Beginning professional teachers: The need for a curricular vision of teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 173-184). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

29

Figure 1: Students Learning in a Secondary Humanities Class Academic Learning Goals -Building literacy skills -Building writing skills -Learning through discovery -Conducting research -Using primary sources -Becoming strategic researchers -Support beliefs -Speak intelligently -Use facts and arguments -Make mistakes and learn from them -Know the best way of learning for the individual Sourcing -Provide evidence -Taking notes -Thinking historically -Set own purposes for learning -Engagement -Academic enjoyment -Questioning -Compare and contrast -Chronology -Higher order assumptions Thinking critically -Summarizing, Contextualizing -Inferring -Monitoring -Corroborating -Analysis -Consider multiple perspectives -Construct meaning -Critically examining -Interpret -Draw conclusions -Come up with own ideas -Understand relativity of history -Consider context -Observation -Generalizing -Make Guesses -Higher level thinking Social/Emotional Learning Goals -Talking to people -Listening -Disagreeing -Discussing -Demonstrating respect -Student participation -Learn from peers -Cooperation -Be respectful -Being empathetic -Academic risk taking -Personal connection to learning -Emotionally engaged -Self confidence Activities Addressing Learning Goals -pre-and post surveys of pupil efficacy in doing history and learning styles -Analyze pupil responses during discussion in four categories of responses -Analyze classroom observations when using primary sources, using primary source categories -Analysis of student work samples for doing history categories -teacher candidate and observer field notes -candidate journal entries

30

Figure 2: Students Mathematics Learning in a Fourth Grade Classroom Academic Learning Goals -Mastery of multiplication facts -Instant recall of math facts -Efficiently handle increasing complexity -Apply multiplication facts within word problems -Develop mnemonic devices Social/Emotional Learning Goals -Small group work -Reverse any [math]anxiety -Attitude changes regarding the learning of multiplication and math in general Activities Addressing Learning Goals -Pre-post survey of pupils feelings (anxiety, like/dislike) about math and flashcard games. -Worksheets testing speed of math skills -Five minute math assessment;120 multiplication problems to be done in 5 minutes -Blank multiplication table to fill in 5 minutes

A Jesuit university, BC serves some 15,000 undergraduate and graduate students with the Lynch School of Education preparing approximately 270 undergraduate and graduate teacher candidates per year. In addition to methods courses and practica, candidates at the 31

masters level, on which this study draws, take foundations courses in the social contexts of education, teaching students with diverse and special needs, and human learning, as well as an inquiry seminar focused on classroom research. Students also take courses in teaching bilingual students and language acquisition models; the Donovan Scholars program focuses explicitly on teaching in urban schools. All courses, field experiences, and inquiries have a social justice emphasis. TNE is an initiative funded primarily by the Carnegie Corporation of New York to change how teacher education is enacted at eleven selected institutions across the nation. The TNE initiative is driven by three design principles: respect for evidence, deep participation by arts and sciences faculty in the education of teachers, and teaching as a clinically taught practice profession, including residency and induction programs. Charged with developing evidence and assessing teacher education, BCs TNE multidisciplinary Evidence Team developed an evidence portfolio with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies designed to examine impacts and relationships among teaching, learning, learning to teach, and social justice. The project reported in this article is part of that portfolio. The Evidence Team includes Boston College faculty members and administrators: Marilyn Cochran-Smith (Chair), Sarah Enterline, Alan Kafka, Fran Loftus, Larry Ludlow, Patrick McQuillan, Joseph Pedulla, and Gerald Pine; TNE Administrators, Jane Carter and Jeff Gilligan; and doctoral students, Joan Barnatt, Robert Baroz, Matt Cannady, Stephanie Chappe, Lisa DSouza, Ann Marie Gleeson, Jiefang Hu, Cindy Jong, Kara Mitchell, Emilie Mitescu, Aubrey Scheopner, Karen Shakman, Yves Fernandez Solomon, and Diana Terrell. For more information about the TNE project and the work of the Evidence Team, see the TNE website (http://tne.bc.edu/).
iii ii

The first and second analyses, including information about how the rubric was constructed and used to evaluate inquiry projects, see Barnatt (2008) and Barnatt, Friedman, Pine, Baroz and Cochran-Smith (2007), located at the BC TNE website: http://tne.bc.edu. The full rubric with categories, sub-categories and indicators is available as Appendix A at: http://tne.bc.edu/?tpl=papers&nodeID=207#Inquiry08

32