Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

The action research process as a means of helping

student teachers understand and fulfil the
complex role of the teacher

Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

To cite this article: Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck (2000) The action research process as a means of
helping student teachers understand and fulfil the complex role of the teacher, Educational Action
Research, 8:1, 115-136, DOI: 10.1080/09650790000200107

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200107

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6092

View related articles

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research, Volume 8, Number 1, 2000

The Action Research Process

as a Means of Helping Student
Teachers Understand and Fulfil
the Complex Role of the Teacher

CLARE KOSNIK & CLIVE BECK

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT The Mid-Town elementary preservice cohort programme at OISE/UT

has, for several years, had action research by student teachers as a major
component. In this article, the authors outline the view of action research held
by the faculty team and explain why they turned to action research as a
strategy in teacher education. They detail how the action research requirement
is implemented in the programme, and describe the effects of the action
research process on the understandings, skills and behaviour of the preservice
teachers. The findings suggest this is potentially a very valuable approach to
teacher education, provided certain other conditions are fulfilled.

Action research by student teachers has often been advocated as a

component in preservice teacher education. Dorene Ross in a key article on
this topic in 1987 noted that ‘the idea of using action research in a
preservice teacher education programme is not new. Introduced in the
1950’s ... there is now renewed interest in action research for preservice
teachers’ (Ross, 1987, p. 132). The interest noted by Ross has been reflected
in teacher education practice. We know of many preservice programmes
that include action research by student teachers (for example, at Queen’s
University and OISE/UT in Canada; Teachers College, Bank Street College,
and the University of Wisconsin in the USA; Kingston University in the
United Kingdom; and Deakin University and the University of Sydney in
Australia). Somewhat surprisingly, however, not a great deal has appeared
on the subject in the research literature over the past decade. In the latest
edition of the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (Sikula, 1996)
only two of the 48 articles mention action research and neither of these in
the context of preservice teacher education.

115
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

We are involved in an elementary preservice programme at OISE/UT

(the Mid-Town Option), which in recent years has had action research by
student teachers as a central component. Since introducing the action
research we in turn have done research on its impact on the students, the
faculty, and the programme. In this paper, which presents conclusions from
the 1995–96 and 1996–97 academic years, our focus is on ways in which
action research helps student teachers acquire the understandings and
skills needed to fulfil the complex role of the teacher. We will set the context
with discussions of why we turned to action research as a strategy in
preservice education; the form the action research process has taken in our
teacher education programme; and the nature of our research study.

Why Action Research in Preservice Teacher Education?

There is considerable disagreement about the precise meaning of the term
action research. As Wilfred Carr has said: ‘Action research now means
different things to different people and, as a result, the action research
movement often appears to be held together by little more than a common
contempt for academic theorising and a general disenchantment with
“mainstream” research’ (Carr, 1995, p. 102). For example, there are different
views on how explicit and systematic action research must be, how much
emphasis should be placed on collaboration, whether or not public sharing
of one’s research is essential, and the extent to which action research must
have a ‘critical’ and ‘emancipatory’ orientation (Carr & Kemmis, 1986;
McKernan, 1988; Carr, 1995; McNiff et al, 1996; Elliott, 1997; Noffke,
1997).
Despite the disagreements, however, we have drawn on the literature
and our own experience, and arrived at an approach to classroom research
which, in our view, can appropriately be described as action research.
Briefly, the elements of the approach are as follows:
teachers engage in critical reflection on specific aspects of their
curriculum and pedagogy;
they get to know their students well, interact with them, observe them
and gather ‘data’;
they engage critically with the research literature relevant to their
research;
they collaborate with their peers;
they modify curriculum and pedagogy in ways that empower their
students and meet a wide range of their needs, including academic ones;
they assess the programme modifications and begin another cycle of
modification and assessment;
they present and discuss their research publicly.
Our reasons for embracing action research, in this form, include the
following: to a greater or lesser extent, ‘ordinary’ teachers can do important
research through observation and programme modification in their own

116
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

schools and classrooms (Elliott, 1991; Carr, 1995; Zeichner, 1995). Such
research is necessary because university-based research is often too
abstract and static to provide an adequate basis for practice. What and how
to teach emerges through an iterative process in the context of practice
(Dewey, 1938; Corey, 1953; Schön, 1983). If it is to be ultimately valuable,
however, such research must be democratic, interactive, collaborative, and
responsive to the needs and opinions of students. It must in an important
sense be ‘critical’ or ‘emancipatory’, with a commitment to such values as
critique of practices, genuine dialogue, and empowerment (Elliott, 1991,
pp. 51–52; Zeichner, 1993; Carr, 1995, pp. 122–127; McNiff et al, 1996,
pp. 8–12). Not all teachers will do action research in the fullest sense, with
explicit, systematic data collection and analysis and public presentation of
findings, but if they are to teach well, teachers should have many elements
of an action research approach to knowledge, practice and the teacher-
student relationship.
Assuming the soundness of this action research perspective, it follows
that teacher educators should foster the development of such an approach
in preservice teachers. In the past, this has not always been done. Often a
transmission approach to teaching has been reinforced through curriculum
and instruction courses that focus mainly on unit and lesson planning and
techniques to ‘motivate’ children to learn a preset curriculum. In other
cases, potentially transformative content has been delivered in teacher
education programmes, but in a manner that models a transmission mode
(Short, 1993); we hear of 90-minute lectures on the importance of student-
centred, dialogical teaching! Furthermore, because campus courses are
typically rather separate from practice teaching, practicum experiences
often reinforce a split between theory and practice. As Ross has said:
[W]hile their attitudes may become more progressive as they take
coursework in education ... their experiences in public schools
during their internships encourage them to focus on learning ‘what
works’ with little consideration of broader educational objectives
and principles ... By the time most students complete their final
field experiences they have become ‘passive technicians who
merely learn to execute pre-packaged instructional programmes’
(Goodman, 1986, p. 112). (Ross, 1987, p. 131)
By contrast, having action research as a major component in a teacher
education programme helps student teachers adopt this approach to
teaching; it is a more effective way of fostering the approach than merely
talking about it (Mayer-Smith & Mitchell, 1997). Through first-hand
experience, student teachers learn the methodology of action research, and
see its challenges, advantages and rewards. They acquire a radically
different set of understandings and skills within the relatively safe and
supportive environment of the teacher education programme. They see
graphically the extent to which programme modification and a different
teacher–student relationship are possible within existing structures and

117
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

curriculum guidelines, while also recognising ways in which these

structures and guidelines need to be changed. In many ways, the added
responsibility and opportunity for initiative that action research provides
bring the experience of being a ‘real’ teacher forward into the preservice
year, but in a context such that they feel free to take risks.
Initiating preservice teachers into an action research approach is not
just important from a purist theoretical point of view, it is also an effective
way to prepare them for the complex role they will face in today’s world. In
fact, when we later present the findings of our present empirical study we
cast them in these terms. Teachers today are increasingly expected to:
care for the whole child, foster affective as well as academic learning;
make the curriculum relevant and integrated;
teach heterogeneous, inclusive classes;
foster group work;
build a class community;
assess and report on student progress in great detail;
engage in research;
explain their approach to teaching to parents and an often hostile public;
continually develop professionally (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Noddings,
1992).
An action research approach is well designed to give beginning teachers
many of the skills they need to fulfil this demanding role.
Having a major action research component in a teacher education
programme is an effective way of linking theory and practice, both within
the programme and in the minds of the student teachers. As the faculty
supervisors visit the student teachers the action research work is a constant
topic of discussion, thus connecting the campus programme with the
practicum. As the students come back to the campus, there is further
discussion of the action research in that setting, thus bringing the
practicum experiences forcibly into the campus programme. Students also
see that what we are talking about on campus is of vital concern to their
learning to teach effectively. Much of our theory revolves around an action
research approach to teaching, which they are currently implementing;
theory and practice are not two separate worlds. This presupposes, of
course, that implementing an action research approach is feasible and a
positive experience for the student teachers. The teacher education faculty
have to ensure this by, among other things, careful selection of schools and
associate teachers, frequent school visits, and thorough introduction of the
student teachers to the theory and practice of action research. Without
support of this kind an action research component in a teacher education
programme is unlikely to be successful.
In order not to create false expectations, we wish to note that none of
this guarantees that the graduates of these programmes will continue to do
action research in a full sense after they become regular teachers. As Ross
says, with special reference to her own programme:

118
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

The demands of first-year teaching and the structural constraints

of most teaching contexts make it highly unlikely that PROTEACH
graduates, or any novice teachers, will conduct formal action
research projects during their beginning years of teaching. The
goal of an action research course is not to make researchers of
preservice teachers, but rather to help them view teaching as
integrally related to research and as a process that involves
inquiry and experimentation. (Ross, 1987, p. 147)
In our own follow-up studies of graduates who are now teaching we have
not so far seen much evidence of formal action research, but we have found
a powerful and continuing influence on the graduates’ approach to teaching
(Kosnik, 1999a, forthcoming).
As noted, there are differing views of the nature of action research;
equally, there are different ways of integrating it into a teacher education
programme. In order to understand and assess the present study, it is
important to know just how we have implemented action research in our
programme. Accordingly, we will now outline relevant aspects of our
programme, beginning with a brief description of teacher education in
Ontario and at OISE/UT.

Our Programme and its Action Research Focus

In Ontario, most of the larger preservice programmes take one of two forms.
On the one hand, there are ‘consecutive’ programmes, where a 4-year BA or
BSc degree is followed (often several years later) by a 1-year BEd
programme. On the other hand, there are ‘concurrent’ programmes, where a
first undergraduate year in liberal arts or science is followed immediately by
4 years in which BEd work is combined with completion of the BA or BSc
degree. The consecutive programme has the advantage that the student
teachers typically are older, have had more life experience (often in the field
of education) and are surer about their decision to be a teacher. The
concurrent programme has the advantage that students begin to think
systematically about education at an earlier stage in their life and university
career, and are able to spend a somewhat higher proportion of the 5 years
in education courses and practice teaching. Whichever of the two patterns is
followed, however, these Ontario programmes face the problem that the
amount of time available for education coursework and practicum
experiences is limited. It is less than in the 2-year BEd programmes offered
in some other parts of Canada and less than in many preservice and
graduate teacher education programmes in the USA.
At OISE/UT, the BEd programme takes the consecutive form and has
the traditional pattern of campus courses in ‘foundations’ and ‘curriculum
and instruction’ interspersed with practice teaching blocks. However, there
are two general innovations at the elementary level that are worth noting.
First, the in-school experience is extended by placing the students in their
practicum classes for 1 or 2 days a week throughout the year in what is

119
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

called ‘STEP’ – the Student Teacher Experience Programme. This is

important for the action research work since it means the student teachers
are in touch at least weekly with one class for 5 months, and so have the
opportunity to identify needs in that class, implement programme
modifications, assess their effects and make further changes. A second
innovation is that the 450 student teachers in the elementary stream are
placed in cohort programmes or ‘options’, so called because applicants
choose their programme based on information provided prior to registration.
Each option has about 60 student teachers and a faculty team that does
most of the course instruction for the cohort and all the practicum
supervision. This cohort and faculty-team arrangement lends itself to the
development of a distinctive approach within a given option, and once again
facilitates the action research work (Bullough & Gitlin, 1995).
Our particular cohort programme is called the Mid-Town Option,
reflecting the location of our practice teaching schools within the highly
multiracial, multicultural urban area of Toronto. Our 60 students are
preparing to teach either primary/junior (Grades K-6) or
junior/intermediate (Grades 4–10). The faculty team has two full-time and
six part-time members. The Mid-Town Option is distinctive (but not
necessarily unique) in its emphasis on:
community building in the cohort;
a close-knit faculty team;
an explicit philosophy of teaching, learning and teacher education;
integration among its campus courses;
integration of theory and practice;
integration of the campus programme and the practicum;
clustering of student teachers in a small number of carefully chosen
partner schools;
frequent visits by all members of the faculty team to the partner schools
for which they are responsible;
a substantial action research component in the programme.
With respect to the action research, we require that it be done on some
aspect of language arts. We do this for a number of reasons. First, since
language arts is the predominant teaching area at the elementary level,
doing action research in this area ensures that the student teachers have
plenty of opportunity to observe and carry out programme modifications.
Furthermore, it means their action research is central to their practice
teaching so they acquire a whole approach to teaching, rather than just a
specific set of insights and skills. Again, because all the students teach in
language arts it is easier to ensure dialogue on the action research work in
the campus courses and mutual help in the action research groups. Finally,
all faculty are able to help with the action research to a degree that might
not be possible in a more specialised field. In some teacher education
programmes, action research is done in the context of social studies on the
ground that this provides a more suitable setting for inquiry into ‘critical’ or

120
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

‘emancipatory’ themes. However, we believe a critical approach can be

achieved in the context of language arts education, and in this way (for the
reasons given above) is more likely to become the basic pattern of
interaction and behaviour in the classroom and throughout the teacher
education programme.
We begin talking with the students about the action research
requirement and an inquiry approach to teaching quite early in the year.
This results in a degree of stress because they do not yet know in practice
what it means, most have a negative reaction to the term ‘research’ (in the
sense of field rather than library research) and it is not what they had
expected from their teacher education programme. However, given the
shortness of the programme, we see no alternative but to begin early (we are
working on ways to try to reduce the stress). In the foundations course, we
discuss the complex role of the teacher in today’s world, the need to be
‘thoughtful practitioners’ and aspects of a child-centred, ‘inclusive’ approach
to schooling. In the language arts course we address issues of student
motivation and the need for a contexualised, flexible pedagogy. In the child
development course, approaches to observing children are considered and
first-hand experience is gained through a ‘shadow study’ assignment. We
are able to provide a grounding for the action research in this way because
of other aspects of the programme, notably the close-knit faculty team,
detailed programme philosophy and integrated courses.
The student teachers start their action research work on their first day
in the school and classroom where they will do the longer of their two
practicum placements. The initial action research assignment – Observe and
Identify an Area of Concern – is due within 3 weeks of their first STEP day.
At this stage we strongly emphasise observation and getting to know their
class; we try to keep them from moving too quickly to a research question
and proposed programme modification, stressing that action research must
arise from a problem in their class. We give them a checklist for observing
their class and discuss emerging issues with them during school visits and
informally at the university. In campus classes we intensify treatment of the
theory and practice of action research. A second assignment – Develop a Set
of Interview Questions – is due 2 weeks after the first. The interview
questions are to help them gather information in greater depth from a sub-
group of their students about matters related to their area of concern.
During these first few weeks of action research the student teachers
work mainly on their own and the first two assignments are graded
individually. However, in the second assignment they must already show
evidence of having met with other student teachers and consulted with their
associate teacher. By the time they do their third assignment – Formulate a
Research Question and Write a Research Paper on Your Topic – they have
formed into action research groups. The groupings are based on their area
of concern, cutting across division levels and practicum placements. The
third assignment is a mixture of individual and group work; they begin to

121
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

sense what it is like to be graded for something done collaboratively. They

work in these groups on the days they come back from their practice
teaching, aided by a set of discussion questions. Once again, the success of
these groups depends on other aspects of the programme, notably the close
cohort community and frequent use of collaborative methods. Their
willingness to help each other with difficulties is remarkable; in fact, we
sometimes have to intervene to focus on students whose work is going more
smoothly. The fourth assignment – Develop a Research Plan – is done as an
in-class assignment with individual and group components.
The final assignment – Action Research Final Report – includes a
group part done in class in point form and an individual reflection paper on
the action research process. Outlines are provided to indicate the necessary
components in the final report. The next major requirement is to prepare for
the end-of-year action research conference, where the groups report on their
projects in concurrent sessions. While this is not strictly an ‘assignment’,
the pressure to perform well at the conference means they put a great deal
of work into the preparation and it constitutes an intense learning
experience. We provide class time for preparation, and faculty continue to
work closely with their respective groups. The action research conference,
attended by fellow preservice students, associate teachers, graduate
students, interested faculty and other educators is a key component in the
whole process. It motivates them, brings their collaboration to a high point,
affirms their talents and achievements, and introduces them to the public
sharing of research.
To conclude this section, in order to illustrate more concretely the
nature of the student teachers’ action research, we present here brief
descriptions of three of the studies:
Antoinette, working in a Grade 5 class, observed students had
significant problems writing on self-selected topics. She felt the
writing was poor and a great deal of time was wasted. She
assumed that the students were unmotivated; however, once she
interviewed them and did a survey she discovered that most
disliked writing because they did not know how to find a topic.
She introduced three pre-writing strategies: as a class
brainstorming a list of topics; conferencing with a friend before
writing; and pre-planning a writing topic. Each week she
introduced a different modification. Afterwards she concluded that
the quality of writing improved and the tone of the class was
calmer and more productive. Her follow-up research revealed a
change in attitude towards writing and that some strategies
worked better than others.

In a Grade 7 class, Tim found that students had limited editing

skills. They expected him to correct all their work. He assumed
they had little interest; however, through his research he learned

122
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

that they did not really understand the editing process. He

introduced them to peer editing. He taught responding to others’
work, editing (focusing only on a few aspects), and changing work
from Draft 1 to Draft 2. He incorporated the peer editing process
into a poetry unit. With his students he celebrated both the poems
and the peer editing. Tim discovered that as the students
developed ownership of their work their attitude changed
significantly.

Monique’s experience in a Grade 4 class was highly rewarding for

her and her students. She noticed that students rarely did silent
reading and when they did, it was chaotic. She assumed the
students were not interested in reading. Through her research she
found that most students did not know how to choose a book and
hence spent most of the time getting organised. Her modifications
included: having multiple copies of the same book, a longer silent
reading period, a regular period, recording the amount of reading
done and an in-class library. The silent reading period changed
dramatically over the two months as she worked on her
modifications.

Our Research Study

The present study of the effects on student teachers of participation in
action research was conducted with just the primary/junior students in our
1995–96 and 1996–97 cohorts (approximately 30 students each year). Our
research methods were ‘qualitative’, for example, we had a relatively small
sample, we were participant observers, our interview and observation
sessions were relatively open-ended, and our theory emerged as we went
along (Punch, 1998). However, following Hammersley (1992), we did not
draw a sharp distinction between qualitative and quantitative research.
Wherever possible we noted percentages of responses and whether all, most,
some or merely a few held a particular view or exhibited a particular
behaviour. The precise significance of such differences of quantity was not
always clear, but they influenced our conclusions in a way that we believed
was appropriate even in a qualitative study (Hammersley, 1992, pp. 161–
163). We also gave some attention to issues of sampling and generalisability.
For example, we recognised that, given the highly competitive admission
situation, our sample were a relatively highly educated and motivated group
and that we had so far involved only two small cohorts of student teachers
in the process. We acknowledged that further study would be needed of
groups such as ours, and groups with different characteristics and in
different settings, and that follow-up would be important to assess the
extent to which the effects we observed continued beyond the preservice
year.

123
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

In each of the 1995–96 and 1996–97 academic years, formal interviews

were conducted with the student teachers in early October and late
February of their preservice year. Individual interviews and interviews in
small groups (often pairs) and large groups (about eight to a dozen) were
used; the interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. The students
also completed written questionnaires. Some faculty members involved in
the programme were interviewed as were some associate teachers. Students
were required to keep a journal and a record of activities, and these were
submitted for review in December and March. One of the principal
investigators kept a detailed journal. Information was gathered from the
students’ assignments, especially the research paper and the reflection
paper on the action research process. The students were observed
informally in their preservice classes, in their practice teaching placements
and at the final action research conference.
In the first year the questions in the interviews and questionnaires
were rather general, having to do with the student teachers’ views of
teaching, teacher education and the action research process. In the second
year, we asked these questions again, but focused more specifically on their
view of the role of the teacher, how (if at all) that view had changed in the
course of the year and how (if at all) involvement in action research had
affected their conception of the role of the teacher.
As reported here, the present study appears as a fairly straightforward
assessment of the impact on student teachers of doing action research in
their preservice year. It should be noted, however, that the study falls within
a larger programme of research in which we are engaged which is itself a
form of action research (McKernan, 1988; Elliott, 1991, 1997; Noffke, 1997).
Its purpose is to increase our understanding of our practice and improve
our practice (Corey, 1953; Wells, 1994). As with the student teachers’
research, our research moves in a ‘spiral’ (Elliott, 1991; Wells, 1994) of
observation, programme modification, assessment of effects and further
modification. From the first to the second year of the study we made
changes in our approach to action research. For example, we increased the
explicit treatment of action research theory in the campus courses and did
more to prepare the student teachers to observe in their classrooms during
the STEP days. Since completion of the study, we have made further
modifications; for example, we now involve all our student teachers – both
primary/junior and junior/intermediate – in the action research, and
integrate more of the programme around action research. In a sense, our
programme is an ongoing ‘experiment’. As Elliott says, in action research
‘practices (take) on the status of hypotheses to be tested’ (Elliott, 1991, p. 8).
However, in keeping with the action research approach, our practices or
‘hypotheses’ emerge largely from our practice and keep changing: they are
‘not derived from ... theories generated and tested independently of that
practice’ (Elliott, 1991, p. 8). Also, because we are practitioners as well as
researchers, there are professional constraints on the ‘experiments’ we can

124
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

conduct. For example, when the action research process worked well for the
primary/junior students, we felt compelled to extend it to the
junior/intermediates (for 1997–98 and subsequently), rather than keeping
the latter as a kind of ‘control’ group. In general, our programming decisions
must be of a kind a teacher can legitimately make as part of the normal
activity of attempting to improve one’s practice.

Effects on the Student Teachers

of Participation in Action Research
As noted earlier, the action research process appears well suited to
preparing teachers for the complex demands placed on them in today’s
world. Many of the activities and skills now required in regular teaching are
ones that are inherent in an action research approach. Accordingly, in
reporting here on the effects of the action research process on our preservice
students, we have chosen to do so in terms of that sub-set of effects which
have to do with fulfilling the complex teacher role.
Our general conclusion, on the basis of observations in 1995–97, is
that involvement in action research can significantly increase acquisition of
the understandings and skills beginning teachers need to fulfil the complex
role of the teacher. As we will discuss later, however, it is difficult to
separate entirely the effects of the action research process from the effects of
other features of the preservice programme. Also, more research is needed
to determine the impact of the process on different types of students in
different settings, and how durable the impact is over time and under what
conditions.
It is impossible to report all the findings of a study such as this and
any organisation of findings must be somewhat arbitrary. For clarity and
convenience we have chosen nine headings, each of which corresponds to
what is in our view an aspect of the role of the teacher in contemporary
society. Our more specific conclusion, then, is that, as a consequence of
their involvement in action research, student teachers acquired the
understandings, propensities and skills needed to fulfil the following aspects
of the role of the teacher.

Developing and Modifying Curriculum and Pedagogy

Analysis of the interviews and reflection papers showed, almost without
exception, that the students ceased to view the role of the teacher as one of
transmitting preset curriculum in an established way. Rather, they saw the
necessity of constructing curriculum to meet the particular needs of
students in their class, and to adapt pedagogy both to the students’ needs
and to their own distinctive teaching style. They said that whereas they had
previously envisaged teachers having a full-year plan laid out for them, they
now thought in terms of a constantly developing process, open-ended and
flexible.

125
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

The action research projects required the students to choose a

problem and solve it in their own way. This meant it was their task from
start to finish: they had a strong sense of ownership. They contrasted
performing the associate teacher’s assigned tasks with conducting their
action research. With assigned tasks they looked to the associate teacher for
approval and feared stepping on her or his toes, with action research they
evaluated themselves. With assigned tasks they succeeded or failed
depending on the external judgment of the associate teacher, with action
research even if it ‘does not turn out the way you want you learn so much’
(as Michelle said). With assigned tasks they often did not understand what
was going on, with action research they grasped the whole picture and
understood the processes of learning, rather than just the finished product.
Anita commented that ‘when I was following my associate teacher’s plans, I
didn’t know what I was talking about’. Elena observed: ‘The associate
teachers think we are so new. They want to give us everything, which is
nice; but with action research I really blew my associate teacher away.’
Through action research the students learned that ‘the teacher can
make decisions’. They said that they learned to prioritise their activities,
rather than trying to cover everything. They realised that it is legitimate to
skip certain things, either because they are not necessary or because they
just can’t be fitted in. As Angeline said:
Through action research I learned that flexibility is more important
than I realised; observation, for example, is so important that we
must make time for it; if this means we must leave out something
else, that is no big deal so long as the students are learning.
In the interviews and reflection papers there was broad agreement that
action research led to a much more reflective, questioning approach to
teaching. Patricia commented that by the time she entered her third
practice teaching placement she was questioning everything: ‘It is almost a
curse, because you are stuck in this mind-set!’ Geoff said that ‘once you
have done action research, you can’t see yourself not looking for an area to
improve’. There was a sense that this critical outlook, combined with the
skills gained through action research, left one well equipped to improve
practice. Michelle said that action research ‘gives you direction, teaches you
how to examine a problem and how to record information’; and Angie added
that it teaches you ‘where to look for resources’. Finally, many noted that
action research increases one’s enthusiasm for teaching. Amy commented:
‘When everything is prescribed, you lack motivation’.

Being a Teacher–researcher, Teacher–scholar

Through their involvement in action research, the student teachers became
enthusiastic about their role as teacher–researchers. In an anonymous
survey, all of the 1995–96 students recommended that action research be
continued in the preservice programme. Transmitting preset curriculum

126
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

requires only that the teacher be a technician. Through action research the
student teachers came to view their role as involving reflection on and
improvement of practice; they saw the necessity to be researchers and
scholars. This included seeing the link between theory and practice and
being able to bridge the two. Geoff felt that through action research he was
‘learning academia, the theory behind what you are doing; e.g., I saw the
link between reading and writing – there is only so much you can learn from
reading theory’.
Initially they tended to see teacher education as divided into two
distinct parts: university-based theoretical lectures and practical school
experiences. By requiring them to do a major research paper in the same
general area as their action research we gave them an opportunity to link
the two. In a journal entry for December 1995 Clare noted:
... completing the research essays was a huge breakthrough.
Students found them very challenging to do and I think this was
because they were not just restating a theory or analyzing a topic
in the abstract. They were looking at the material with a more
critical eye. Everyone had thought about his/her topic, had talked
to others and had done some reading. When they came to the
essay they wanted answers and they knew some of the
possibilities. They also knew some of the constraints of the regular
class setting. As a result, the essay was more than they had ever
had to do before. The response was unanimous that the essay
helped them make sense of action research.
Writing the research paper gave an academic grounding, which resulted in a
better understanding of the topic and a focus for programme modification.
However, this only happened because the paper was written in the context
of doing action research: academic essays in our programme in the past
have not usually had this effect. It was interesting that 70% of the 1995–96
students referred back to their essay later during the implementation phase
of their action research and 55%, on their own initiative, read professional
literature related to their project during this time.
Studying the academic literature helped the students evaluate their
practice, but equally their action research made them more critical and
confident with respect to the literature. When Loretta decided to set up a
reading centre in her kindergarten class, in keeping with the literature on
emerging literacy, she was faced with the practical problem that the
children did not go to the centre. The literature did not tell her what to do
next. She quickly devised the next steps for her project, but the experience
taught her that she must often modify or supplement the ideas and
practices presented in the literature. In ways such as this, most of the
students came to see themselves as both theoreticians and planners. This
was especially apparent at the action research conference at the end of the
year. Despite the presence of academics and experienced school teachers in
the concurrent sessions, the student teachers spoke with great confidence,

127
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

using the academic literature, criticising it and going beyond it where

necessary.

Observing Students Closely

Inherent in action research is the idea that observation of students is
important, that one cannot work out what and how to teach simply from
theoretical principles or by consulting a syllabus. Analysis of the final
reports showed that all the student teachers included detailed observation
of one or more students in their project research. Michelle said that action
research ‘encourages you to focus and observe’. The students quickly saw
how observation is a crucial basis for programme modification and for
helping particular students, and through their research they acquired the
skills and habits of observing students.
Through the action research the students shifted focus from the formal
curriculum to the children. Andrew noted: ‘Without action research I would
have just focused on the curriculum; action research was a way to get to
know the children’. Angeline commented, ‘I got to know the children better
and faster so this opened up whole areas to me’. Teresa stated that
‘students can’t be banging their heads against the wall all year, we need to
be conscious of the child’s needs’. All the students in both years came to see
teaching as an interactive process with the students, stressing how much
we can learn from the students both about teaching and about their
individual needs.
The degree to which one should be child-centred was a topic of
disagreement and debate among the students. In a lengthy group interview
with 12 of the 1996–97 class, a few expressed concern that an overly
interactive approach might undermine academic learning. One student gave
the example of a Grade 3 class in which the students were frequently
observed and consulted – and were quite happy – but were not learning very
much. Most, however, saw this as a false opposition and that, other things
being equal, the more the teacher observed and interacted with the students
the more they would learn. Even those expressing the concern about taking
student-centredness too far agreed that student observation was important.

Caring for the Whole Child

Action research required the student teachers to work toward educational
improvement. They quickly saw that this means going beyond curricular
concerns, that fostering learning involves taking account of a wide range of
student needs. As Patricia said, ‘When something is prescribed you only see
one thing; with action research you see the whole picture – that’s important
to me’. Simply exposing students to curriculum does not necessarily result
in learning. We need to get to know ‘the emotional part’ of children, what
interests them, what upsets them. Angie commented that a Grade 1 student

128
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

who goes to special education may actually feel special, whereas in her
Grade 6/7 class ‘going to special education has a stigma.’
Seventy per cent of the 1995–96 group conducted interest surveys,
and all interviewed children either individually or in small groups and used
these data as a resource. For example, the action research group which
looked at English as a Second Language (ESL) students in their classes
found that it was ‘important to determine the ESL students’ reading fluency
in their native tongue and consider the ESL students’ cultural background
and the implications it had for learning in their host community’. Caitlin
noticed that five reluctant readers in her class were missing out on the
kudos associated with being asked to read to the whole class. She worked
with them, finding ways to encourage them to read and saw their comfort
level in the class setting rise significantly, not to mention their reading
skills.

Being a Positive Role Model

By moving beyond curriculum delivery to interactive involvement with the
children, the student teachers came to see that they affect the students on
many different levels. Amy observed that ‘if you are enthusiastic then the
students are enthusiastic’. Elena commented: ‘The involvement of the
teacher is important; for example, in introducing the class to new writing
genres such as postcards, when I got involved the students really became
involved – I gave a student my address and she mailed me one’. Elena
contrasted this with her own schooling: ‘When I was growing up one of the
teachers had a boyfriend. When we asked her about her boyfriend she got
angry – she was angry that the students knew she had a boyfriend!’ Geoff
also sensed that personal influence is an essential part of teaching; when
his associate teacher was away one day and he was in charge he suddenly
realised: ‘The students look to me, you’re the one they’re looking up to; you
are a role model as a teacher.’
Nick in the 1995–96 year struggled with this influence. At first, he saw
it as too direct and as too much responsibility. However, then he came to
accept it as an inevitable part of the job and another way to have a positive
impact. When the father of one of the students in his Grade 2 class
commented that his son, who had earlier been having many difficulties, was
now very happy at school because of Nick’s presence, Nick was forced to
acknowledge that his personal influence could be very beneficial. In a
conversation a year later Nick, after 6 months of teaching Grade 2,
reaffirmed this point of view: ‘Yes, in a way the curriculum is secondary at
that age level; in a sense you teach yourself’. And this is a person who
believes strongly in the importance of academic learning.

129
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

Empowering Students
The action research literature often does not speak sufficiently of extending
to school students the empowerment the researcher role brings to teachers.
Many of our students, however, quickly saw that the action research
philosophy must be passed on to their students. Having interviewed their
students, they could see how much they had to offer; and also, having
experienced the autonomy and confidence arising from the action research
process, they felt their students in turn should have similar opportunities.
Amy said: ‘When we had to teach something that was prescribed we saw the
situation from the students’ perspective, for example, when we tell them to
write on a specific topic. When we let them choose their own topics they are
more interested.’
Geoff spoke forcefully on this issue. He said that the role of the teacher
is to ‘empower students’, to ‘foster learning from themselves’. The teacher is
there to ‘facilitate curriculum engagement, to help students get involved:
teaching is not preaching, not transmission – students don’t like school
when someone preaches at them’. He continued: ‘The role of the teacher is
to be a counsellor, to have a relationship with the students. The more you
think, the more you realise how difficult it is to be a teacher, how much is
involved’. For Geoff, the preservice programme had ‘affirmed’ or given
‘credence’ to the belief he already had in ‘the importance of students having
a say in their own learning, an ownership. In grade school we had to write
on prescribed topics, in university we had a choice. I always thought: why
not let primary students choose?’

Modelling and Fostering Collaboration and Cooperative Learning

The 1995–96 group especially became aware of the advantages of
collaboration in learning. Initially, like most students who have succeeded
in the system as ‘rugged individuals’, they were suspicious of the group
assignments in action research and the final requirement of presenting as a
group at the action research conference. However, over the year, they were
surprised to discover how enjoyable it could be to work in a group and how
much they learned from each other. Their successful teamwork had its
culmination in the couple of weeks leading up to the conference. The effort
to understand each other’s research in order to integrate it for a joint
presentation resulted in one of the most intense and fruitful learning
experiences of their lives.
Beyond the action research teams, many of the students worked with
their associate teacher on aspects of their action research. Over 90%
discussed their project regularly with their associate teacher and almost
80% received some form of help from their associate teacher. Many said
they were ‘team teaching’, ‘co-teaching’ or ‘collaborating’ with their associate
teacher. A notable example was Margaret, whose action research project
began with motivating reluctant writers and led to her, her associate teacher

130
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

and the curriculum consultant reworking the whole language arts

programme. In a way, Margaret was the catalyst for change and eventually
saw herself as a vital part of the team. This sort of thing also happens, of
course, in traditional teacher education programmes, but the incidence of it
was considerably increased by the action research process. This made a
strong statement (both to the associate teachers and to the students
themselves) that the student teachers were already professionals with a
capacity for inquiry and much to contribute.

Student Assessment and Reporting

An important aspect of the role of the teacher today is assessing student
progress and reporting on it in a sophisticated, intelligible way. This is what
parents, government authorities and the general public are increasingly
expecting. Through action research our student teachers are on the way to
being able to fulfil this role. The activities they undertook of observing
students, assessing their needs, devising ways to meet their needs, and
reporting on the results are a model of the kind of detailed assessment and
reporting that is needed. Angie noted that action research ‘helps with
diagnosis and remediation’, and Patricia remarked that ‘by looking closely at
one skill you learn a lot about the child’. Others said that as they proceeded
with their action research they felt a strong need to speak with the parents
about the progress of their children. Geoff said that he is ‘not sure (he)
could write a report card yet, but (he) could write about progressing from A
to B to C’. Once again, the understandings and capacities in this area were
especially evident at the action research conference. Here, they described
clearly and with theoretical depth the initial situation they found, the steps
they took, and the progress made or not made.

Continued Professional Development

Just as action research helped the student teachers see school learning as
an open-ended process, so they recognised that their own professional
development must be on-going. They acquired many of the skills and habits
– reading and applying research literature, observing students, collaborating
with colleagues, and participating professionally – that would ensure their
continued growth as teachers.
Having the tools and the permission to reflect on practice, the students
made a startling discovery: they saw a lot of practice that was less than
ideal and were shocked to find that many teachers did not take courses,
attend conferences, or read professional literature. Without our having to
give formal talks on the need to be life-long learners, they witnessed what
happens when people do not continue their professional development.
Bruno blurted out one day: ‘Doesn’t the profession demand that teachers
continue to learn?’ The limited opportunities for professional development
prompted some student teachers to set in motion ways to continue learning

131
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

after their preservice year. Some took out subscriptions to professional

journals, others became members of professional organisations, many
signed up for Additional Qualifications courses. One student on her own
initiative wrote a paper for a journal on action research, two students took
part in a panel at a national conference and several applied for master’s
degree work in education. This kind of interest and involvement had been
almost entirely lacking in previous years.

Discussion and Implications

It seems clear from our observations that action research within a
preservice programme can help prepare student teachers for the complex
role which they must play in schools today. To review our conclusions, the
action research process helped initiate preservice teachers into the tasks of:
developing and modifying curriculum and pedagogy;
being a teacher-researcher, teacher-scholar;
observing students closely;
caring for the whole child;
being a positive role model;
empowering students;
modelling and fostering collaboration and cooperative learning;
assessing and reporting on student progress;
continuing their own professional development.
While strongly recommending the inclusion of action research as a
component in preservice education, however, we wish to add the following
observations. First, our case for the use of action research in teacher
education assumes that the role of the teacher should, indeed, be complex
in the ways outlined. Further investigation is needed into whether or not
some aspects of the role could be avoided and, insofar as they could,
whether they should nevertheless be adopted. This leads to questions about
the purposes of schooling, and current and likely future demands on the
school. We have discussed these issues elsewhere (Beck, 1990; Beck &
Kosnik, 1996; Kosnik, 1999b).
Secondly, while the introduction of an action research component can
improve preservice education significantly, an 8-month programme is, of
necessity, inadequate. What we have described here is a process that will
move preservice teachers in a worthwhile direction, but it will not take them
as far as is needed. Of course, teacher education is always ongoing, as our
students recognised, but given the extensive ‘apprenticeship-of-observation’
(Lortie, 1975) we have all received in traditional education, a longer
programme is needed if we are to see the discontinuity with the past that
Lortie believed to be essential.
Thirdly, as noted earlier it is difficult to disentangle the impact of
action research from the influence of other features of our programme. As
Celine commented, her action research ‘spread through the whole day’ and,

132
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

equally, other things spread into action research. For example, it is difficult
to tell the extent to which the student teachers’ shift toward child-
centredness arose out of the action research process, and to what extent it
was due to the caring, interactive approach advocated and modelled
throughout the programme. We are sure the action research contributed,
but to what degree? In a way, this does not matter: what is being
implemented and assessed is a total philosophy and approach. However, it
is important to recognise that the introduction of action research by itself
(whatever that would mean) may not have much positive impact on a
teacher education programme: a total restructuring and reorientation may
be necessary.
A fourth point – in part the same point – is that it was not so much
that action research was introduced as how it was introduced that made the
difference. Some essential aspects of the ‘how’ that we have identified are
the following:
The action research was in a central curriculum area, so it could not be
relegated to the edges of the students’ attention. (The questionnaires
showed that almost 80% of the students did something to do with their
action research either every day or every second day during practice
teaching.)
The action research work was integrated with the coursework, thus
enabling them to spend sufficient time on it and also make sense of the
coursework.
The faculty emphasised that action research is real research, capable of
making an important contribution to knowledge; so the students did not
see it as ‘Mickey Mouse’, a mere exercise.
The faculty treated the students as equals, clearly respecting what they
were discovering and unashamedly learning from them (we were
constantly amazed at their insights, a sad commentary on our previous
expectations of student teachers).
The faculty modelled a deeply reflective, critical approach to educational
thought and practice.
The faculty modelled and fostered in the cohort a caring, personal,
communal approach, an essential basis for the collaboration and sharing
involved in action research.
The faculty made sure the student teachers and associate teachers were
as far as possible clustered together – four to six to a school – and then
visited them often, thus showing that we cared about them, respected
what they were doing and felt we could learn from them. (Note that we do
not ‘evaluate’ the students’ teaching, that is up to the associate teachers;
rather we give support to the students, the associates, the school, and
the total practicum experience and, to a degree, enter the school as fellow
learners.)
As noted earlier, the final action research conference was a key to the
whole process. It gave an endpoint to the action research, kept the

133
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck

students on their toes, gave added seriousness and status to their

research, forced them to work together in groups, helped them see that
they could contribute to knowledge in a fundamental way, and provided a
public celebration of their talents and achievements. Opportunities such
as this are essential if action research is to have the impact hoped for on
preservice (and in-service) teacher development.
Fifthly, as mentioned before, we need follow-up research on these beginning
teachers to see the extent to which and the conditions under which the
valuable effects of action research are maintained and extended. It is well
known that the influence of preservice teacher education is often quickly
washed out in the trauma of trying to survive the ‘real world’ of teaching. We
believe the action research process is such that its effects are likely to be
more durable, because it makes the preservice experience more like ‘real
teaching’, but this needs to be assessed.
Finally, an important next step in our innovation and research
programme is to work more closely with the associate teachers, and other
teachers and administrators in the associated schools, supporting action
research by the staff in these schools and helping to create a climate which
honours action research and the complex role of the teacher. We need to
place yet more student teachers and associate teachers in fewer schools. We
need to collaborate in the on-going ‘renewal’ of these schools, resulting in
the emergence of broadly innovative ‘partner schools’ (Goodlad, 1994,
pp. 114–118), which are a strong force for both pre- and in-service teacher
development. As John Goodlad has said:
We are not likely to have good schools without a continuing supply
of excellent teachers. Nor are we likely to have excellent teachers
unless they are immersed in exemplary schools for significant
portions of their induction into teaching.

... Herein lies the dilemma. What comes first, good schools or good
teacher education programmes? The answer is that both must
come together. (Goodlad, 1994, p. 1)
The present study suggests that the action research process is a powerful
tool in developing better new teachers. It can also, we believe, provide
direction for the development of schools in which these and other teachers
can experience fulfilment, continue to grow professionally and increasingly
meet the varied needs of their students.

Correspondence
Clare Kosnik, Department of Theory and Policy Studies, Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6
Canada (clare_kosnik@tednet.oise.utoronto.ca).

134
 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX ROLE OF TEACHERS

References
Beck, C. (1990) Better Schools: a values perspective. London: Falmer Press.
Beck, C. & Kosnik, C. (1996) Care of the Soul in a Preservice Teacher Education
Programme, Holistic Education Review, 9(3), pp. 9–13.
Bullough, R. & Gitlin, A. (1995) Becoming a Student of Teaching: methodologies for
exploring self and school context. New York: Garland.
Carr, W. (1995) For Education: towards critical educational inquiry. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge, and action
research. London: Falmer Press.
Corey, S. (1953) Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: Columbia
University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997) The Right to Learn: a blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Elliott, J. (1997) School-based Curriculum Development and Action Research in the
United Kingdom, in S. Hollingsworth (Ed.) International Action Research. London:
Falmer Press.
Goodlad, J. (1994) Educational Renewal: better teachers, better schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological
Explorations. London: Routledge.
Kosnik, C. (1999a). The Transformative Power of the Action Research Process: effects
of an inquiry approach to preservice teacher education. Networks: an online
journal for teacher research, Spring, pp. 1–22.
Kosnik, C. (1999b) Primary Education: goals, processes, and practices. Ottawa: Legas
Press.
Kosnik, C. (forthcoming) Looking Back: six teachers reflect on the action research
experience in their teacher education programme, Action in Teacher Education.
Lortie, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mayer-Smith, J. & Mitchell, I. (1997) Teaching about Constructivism: using
approaches informed by constructivism, in V. Richardson (Ed.) Constructivist
Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press.
McKernan, J. (1988) The Countenance of Curriculum Action Research: traditional,
collaborative, and emancipatory-critical conceptions, Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 3, pp. 173–200.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project.
London: Routledge.
Noddings, N. (1992) The Challenge to Care in Schools. New York: Teachers College
Press.

135
Clare Kosnik & Clive Beck
Noffke, S. (1997) Themes and Tensions in USA Action Research: towards historical
analysis, in S. Hollingsworth (Ed.) International Action Research. London: Falmer
Press.
Punch, K. (1998) Introduction to Social Research: quantitative and qualitative
approaches. London: Sage.
Ross, D. (1987) Action Research for Preservice Teachers: a description of why and
how, Peabody Journal of Education, 64, pp. 131–150.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Short, K. (1993) Teacher Research for Teacher Educators, in L. Patterson, C. Minnick,
K. Short & K. Smith (Eds) Teachers are Researchers: reflection and action.
Newark: International Reading Association.
Sikula, J. (Ed.) (1996) The Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York:
Macmillan.
Wells, G. (1994) Changing Schools from Within: creating communities of inquiry.
Toronto: OISE Press/Heinemann.
Zeichner, K. (1993) Action Research: personal renewal and social reconstruction,
Educational Action Research, 1, pp. 199–218.
Zeichner, K. (1995) Beyond the Divide of Teacher Research and Academic Research,
Teachers and Teaching, 1, pp. 153–172.

136