Teacher education: Research as reflective practice

Teacher d; Tencher Educarion, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 159-167, 1993 Printed m Great Britam

0742-051X/93 56.00 + 0.00 @ 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd

TEACHER EDUCATION: RESEARCH AS REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

SUSAN A. ADLER

University of Missouri&Kansas City, U.S.A.

Abstract-Teacher educators are often torn between their practice of teaching and clinical work, and expectations for conducting research. This article argues that research and practice need not be thought of as separate; rather, teacher educators are asked to consider defining a broader conception of research, one which may be described as disciplined, reflective inquiry into practice. Drawing upon current conceptions and practices in teacher education, the author defines an approach toward research on practice. In her argument, she presents a rationale for reflective inquiry into teacher education, a description of the characteristics of such research and several exemplars.

We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And to know the place for the first time. (T. S. Eliot. “Little Gidding”, Four Quartets)

There has been a growing trend, in recent years, toward the presentation and publication of what I will term the “critical reflections” of teacher educators (see, e.g., Adler, 1991 a; Beyer, 1991; Duckworth, 1987; Elliot, 1990; Gomez & Tabachnick, 1992; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1991’; Wilson, 1990; Wineburg, 1991). I see this trend as a positive one, evidence that we are moving toward a greater acceptance of the notion that there are many ways of knowing, each a valid way to understand the world around us, in this case the world of teacher education.

Teacher educators, like those they educate, are practitioners; their roots and ongoing experiences are in the classroom. As with teachers, it is expected, even assumed, that research will inform the practice of teacher educators. But unlike most classroom teachers, teacher educators are often expected to be researchers as well. In a university setting, research, the production of knowledge, ideally contributes to one’s work as a teacher. Teacher educators, however, often feel as though this is a demand which is in conflict with their field work and their teaching, not a complement to it.

Often socialized into the profession with an understanding of research as experimental and quasi-experimental studies, many teacher educators feel handicapped by a lack of resources, particularly time, which restricts the kinds of research they might devise. Even more importantly, many researchers in teacher education feel restrained by political considerations. One may not receive tenure and promotion if one is not engaged in acceptable research; and acceptable is still often defined, or believed to be defined, as traditional, experimental research. Under such circumstances, research feels less like an endeavor which would enhance teaching and programs, and more like one which would impede this important work, but enable teacher educators to enhance their status within the university. The work cited above, however, suggests that teaching and research need not take practitioners in two different directions. As the ideal suggests, each can, and should, enhance the other. Furthermore, as the teacher education community accepts a broader view of research, it becomes more politically possible to engage in nontraditional forms of research.

In support of this growing possibility, I wish to argue here, that part of the problem, part of the dilemma encountered by many who see themselves as primarily teacher educators, as

159

160 SUSAN A. ADLER

“practitioners”, and not researchers, is an artificial separation of practice from research. We, as teacher educators, would do well to turn to our own experiences as practitioners as the bases from which research may emerge. I do not argue for more studies in which we seek to verify a particular practice using the techniques of experimental research. Rather, I shall argue in support of a broader conception of research, which may be described as disciplined, reflective inquiry into practice or what Blumberg (1990) termed a “scholarship of practice.”

Teacher Educator as Reflective Inquirer

To ask that teacher educators become reflective practitioners is to borrow an idea that has permeated teacher education. While we hope our students will become reflective practitioners, in our own practice, we divorce ourselves as practitioners, seeking to understand and improve upon what we do in the classroom day by day, from ourselves as researchers, seeking to contribute to a general body of knowledge in a publicly accepted form. As teacher educators, we research the various phenomenon associated with our work, but rarely do we look at ourselves, our experiences, and our awareness of those experiences, as a subject for research. How, after all can we objectify our own experience? I argue here that it is possible, even desirable, to study teaching as teachers. As Grumet (1990) writes, teaching is research and research is teaching. Teaching is more than simply the observable behavior; it is thought and action and the interaction of the two. The best teachers are researchers, able to systematically reflect on their own teaching.

Rather than separate the knower and the known, research in teacher education can look to a knowledge base developed from practice, . . “continually being created and interpreted, especially by practitioners.. .” in their particular situations (Diez, 1987). Pinar (1975) writes that to explore and understand educational experiences we must exist in them, rather than removing ourselves from them. The charge to teacher educators, then, is to reflect upon our experiences of practice and our inner worlds of meaning emerging from that practice, in ways that are publicly meaningful. Teacher educa-

tors, in brief, can collaborate in their own enlightenment (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) as they work toward the understanding and improve- ment of practice.

Research in education is no longer restricted, as it once was, to empirical -analytical, or experimental, approaches. Alternative paradigms have opened educational research to the notion that there are multiple ways of knowing and coming to know (Eisner, 1990). Expanded images of and expectations for research have done away with the necessity of a separation between the practitioner, involved in the experience, and the researcher, once thought to stand outside the experience.

We have learned from feminist researchers, for example, to ask about the relationships between personal experience and the research process and not to disguise our relations to the objects of inquiry (Scott, 1985). The researchers’ voice has made its way into research as we recognize our involvement in the world, while seeking to better know that world.

Thus, coming to know can involve the researcher in the exploration of his or her experience as a teacher and as a person. “The act of researching-questioning -theorizing is the intentional act of attaching ourselves to the world to become more fully part of it, or better, to become the world” (van Manen, 1990). Teaching and conducting research should be seen, not as conflicting, or even different, but, in fact, as part of the same whole.

Research should guide our practice as teacher educators. But that need not mean that research should precede practice. The reflective practitioner, the practitioner as researcher, moves from being in the midst of experience to exploring that experience, thus developing a kind of practical wisdom that need not be trivial or, as I shall describe, idiosyncratic. Practical wisdom does not offer the definitive answer; rather, it acknowledges that there probably are no easy or final answers. But practical wisdom does seek meaning and significance, a way of understanding experience in the hope of improving experience. Research as reflection on experience can enable us to become more aware, to see again that which we have come to take for granted, to find the significant in the insignifi- cant (van Manen, 1990). Reflection on experience is, therefore, a valid basis for practical

Teacher Education: Research as Reflective Practice 161

action, a way of informing our practice. It is a way to think seriously, not merely in an abstract realm, but in the realm in which we think, live, and act.

Research into one’s own experience is not intended, however, to take the form that Lincoln and Guba (1985) refer to as “naive inquiry.” Such research must take the researcher beyond “mere” introspection, beyond being “one sidedly subjective” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 103), at the mercy, so to speak, of our immediate feelings and surface impres- sions. It is not merely private experiences which are of worth, but knowing that one’s experiences are possible for others. “It is to the extent that my experiences could be our experiences that the phenomenologist wants to be relatively aware of certain experiential meanings” (van Manen, 1990, p. 57). To be a reflective practitioner is to be a scholar - conscious of and thoughtful about one’s practices, and communicating that awareness and those insights with one’s peers.

Research on one’s own practice, like any research, is meant to be publicly communicated. Research as disciplined inquiry is subject to the scrutiny of others (Shulman, 1988). Indeed, research can have no meaning except in the context of the community of which it is a part. Thus, research on experience must, like other forms of research, be systematic and self-critical. And the researcher must be aware of the dialogic relationship with the reader (van Manen, 1990).

Doing Research

Reflective inquiry and the concept of teacher as reflective practitioner have become popular notions in recent years, so much so that they have taken on the function of slogan in teacher education.* That is, these have become phrases which imply that things are changing and that there is agreement on the nature of those changes. But a review of the literature in the area, in fact yields diverse meanings (Adler, 1991b). My use of the term, and that which is most appropriate to the teacher educator as practitioner researcher, comes closest to that described by Tom (1985)) Zeichner (1983), and others as critical inquiry.

The work of Zeichner (see, e.g., Zeichner & Liston, 1987) and others (see, e.g., Gitlin & Teitlebaum, 1983; Goodman, 1991; O’Loughlin & Campbell, 1988) argue for the need to attend to historical and social, as well as immediate situational, contexts. Such a critical inquiry would involve questioning that which is otherwise taken for granted, looking for unar- ticulated assumptions and seeing from new perspectives. Critical inquiry would involve the constant interplay between objective and subjective understandings; that is, such inquiry would involve the search to understand the situation, the factors which created that situation, and one’s own interpretation of that situation. It involves a concern with making decisions about teaching and learning based upon perceived ethical and political conse- quences and a thoughtful awareness of alternatives. In short, critical inquiry means questioning, deciding, analyzing, and considering alternatives within an ethical, political framework.

Just what might such a critical inquiry look like; how might a practitioner researcher pro- ceed? I suggest here that the critical inquiry shares with traditional approaches some basic assumptions about research, but that it also departs in significant ways. There are four elements which are essential to reflective inquiry as I have described it. Those elements are: awareness of and responsibility to the professional community, attention to the contexts of practice, the search for patterns and anomolies, and the ongoing spiral nature of the research. Understanding each of these elements helps point out the ways in which reflective inquiry differs from traditional research. Each of these elements is described more fully below. Following that are recommendations for strategies to implement reflective inquiry, with illustrations from my own work and that of other teacher educators.

First is the responsibility the practitioner researcher has to the professional community, that is, to teacher educators, researchers, and to education generally. As noted previously, critical inquiry must be more than introspection; rather, it is a way of building on and con- tributing to, the communal understanding and development of teacher education. Meaningful inquiry of any sort must avoid the ahistoricism

162 SUSAN A. ADLER

and decontextualization that plagues much research in teacher education (Lanier & Little, 1986). Research is meant to be communicated to others and to build upon the growing understandings of a community. This means that researchers are informed about the literature and conceptions in their field and directly link their own work to that communal knowledge. While this certainly is not a depar- ture from what is expected in any good research, it is an important reminder as practitioner researcher seek to communicate their experiences within a community context.

Second, critical inquiry must recognize that practice takes place in contexts, and the researcher must make those contexts clear to both him- or herself and to others. Further, that context is influenced by many factors, both historic and social, as well as immediate. This attention to contexts is one of the ways in which reflective inquiry differs from much traditional research. A good experimental design seeks to eliminate confounding context variables. In conducting a critical inquiry into one’s own practice, however, these confounding variables become subjects of great interest. The researcher seeks to understand the ways in which situations and behaviors, as well as the understandings of those situations and behaviors, are shaped by forces beyond the participants and also by the participants themselves. The researcher is both product and producer of the world of practice. Our subjective experience must be informed by an awareness of the social-historical context, by the interplay of inner and outer worlds. The researcher strives to be aware of the experience and the factors, both particular and broad, which have shaped that experience. In addition, the researcher looks to the participants’ conceptions of that experience, both one’s own and that of others in that context.

Third, critical inquiry involves searching out patterns or anomolies, seeking meaning from the experience as it relates to our knowledge of teaching and learning, of schools and institu- tions, and of our society and culture. While the search for patterns is not unlike traditional experimental research, that notion needs to be considered in different ways. One need not be seeking law-like generalizations to note patterns or anomalies. van Manen’s (1990) conception

of phenomenological reflection may be useful here. Reflection, or inquiry, is the attempt to grasp the essential meaning of something and that meaning is multi-dimensional and multi- layered. As one reflects on experience, the researcher seeks out essential themes as foci. Such themes serve as vehicles of simplification, allowing both the researcher and the reader to make sense of the complexity of experience.

Fourth, critical inquiry involves a process Carr and Kemmis (1986) call the self-reflective spiral. A plan, a conception of practice, precedes action. What are the strategies to be implemented, the structures to be changed, the contexts to be considered? Action follows the plan. During action the researcher maintains an attitude of critical awareness, attending to the diverse elements of the situation. Retrospective reflection, making sense of what happened, follows action and is in turn a guide to future action. Thus, the reconstruction of the past links with the future construction of experience and the reflective spiral continues. Experimental approaches also build from plan to action to making sense of the results of that action. It is the grounding in lived experiences which distinguishes reflective inquiry from experimental. The latter is not necessarily more systematic; it is, however, more tightly controlled and therefore, in many ways, further removed from the daily life of practice.

Finally, the researcher returns to the broader community. Critical inquiry must involve a sharing and connecting with the experiences of others. Reflections, reactions, and experiences need to be rendered into forms appropriate for public sharing. Journals and conferences provide the forum, and the papers and articles therein the medium. A thoughtful, well-written critical inquiry into a particular practice or practices of teacher education can inform an audience and spark debate. Indeed, debate and dialogue are crucial to critical inquiry. At the very least, teacher educators may come away with some new ideas to apply to their own practice. More importantly, they may come away with a greater understanding of teacher education, the problems and the possibilities.

van Manen (1990) argues persuasively that writing is crucial to reflective inquiry. It is the writing process itself. he maintains, that mediates retlection and action as well as pro-


vides the vehicle for communicating to others. While we write to make our inquiry public, writing also functions to allow us to subjectively confront our experiences and our consciousness of those experiences. While a good teacher can think on her feet, reflection is retrospective. Writing allows us that necessary distance from immediate involvement. It provides a vehicle for reflection which then allows us to return to practice more thoughtfully, with, we hope, greater wisdom.

Reflective inquiry remains connected to practice, to the pedagogy which is a part of our everyday lives. It demands abstraction and distance from the immediate. But it demands, as well, a return to practice and an ongoing grounding and regrounding in practical experience. Teaching is, after all, both thought and action. The wise teacher is grounded in both and is able to share both the experience and the reflection with a community of others who seek to understand and improve their practice.

Research Strategies

An examination of the strategies recom- mended for stimulating reflective teaching (Adler, 1991b) suggests not only teaching strategies to promote reflection among one’s students, but methods to stimulate reflection for ourselves. Keeping a journal or log of one’s teaching experience, for example, can facilitate reflective inquiry on the part of a researcher. What are the plans, the intentions, for action? What is happening, what sense does the researcher, observing the situation as well as participating in it, make of what happens? Retrospection is both short term and long term, looking back on the immediate experience and on the total experience. Description mixes with reflection as the action unfolds.

To be true to the spirit of critical inquiry, one’s journal should serve as an opportunity to explore taken for granted assumptions, to question one’s own established beliefs and expectations. Considering alternative explana- tions and actions becomes an important com- ponent of one’s journal. It is important to begin to make note of confusing or perplexing events and ideas; these can, in turn, stimulate a rethinking of the previously taken for granted.

A journal might include autobiographical reflections. “Autobiographical writing invites those who would teach to recover the world within which they came to be knowing subjects” (Grumet, 1989, p. 15). Understanding the development of one’s own subjectivity can enable seeing the situations of practice with increased acuity. Sharing autobiographical renderings can enable teacher educators to understand better the practice of teacher education from the multiple perspectives which shape it.

Feedback from fellow participants, students, for example, can provide useful information and be a powerful stimulus to rethinking accustomed beliefs. What is their perception of what is occurring and of what is being learned? Talking with students and asking for written responses to general or specific questions, are two ways to get this sort of feedback. Learning can be measured by student performance, but it may also be useful, even more useful, to ask students what they feel they have learned. Other participants can provide feedback to the researcher’s own perceptions, through conversations, for example, or through responding to drafts of the practitioner researcher’s reflections on the experience.

Models of Inquiry

As noted earlier, examples of critically reflective work have increasingly made their way into journals and conferences. Such pieces can serve as exemplars for this sort of practical inquiry. What follows is a discussion of the ways in which some of those works cited meet the criteria and suggestions I have outlined.

A chapter I wrote (Adler, 1991a), for example, is a reflection on my own teaching of an elementary social studies methods course. In that chapter, I described my students’ experiences as they read Achebe’s Rings Fall Apart (1959) as part of that course. As I often do, I had kept a journal during that semester and had noted the initial discomfort my students felt reading a work of literature, especially one which, although written in English, is written in the style of another culture, the Ibo of Nigeria. The students wondered why they would be reading a novel, particularly one set in turn of

164 SUSAN A. ADLER

the century Nigeria; I wondered why they were not excited about the prospect:

August 29: Some of the students are near to falling apart about having to read Things Fall Apart. They want to know how to teach and they can’t begin to imagine how this book will help them. I would have been delighted to read a work of fiction, in any class. Some of the students are pleased; but the more vocal one’s, at least, don’t want to be bothered. How can 1 wean them from looking for recipes for good teaching?

Later in the semester I made note of the positive responses I began to get from that class and the differences that their thinking about that novel seemed to make in their thinking about teaching:

October 3: The class became very involved today in thinking about how literature, or the arts generally, might enhance learners’ understanding of and involvement in what is typically thought of as social studies content. I began to see a greater understanding of “interdisciplinary” emerging in their comments.

The next semester I noted how students suc- cessfully implemented interdisciplinary teaching and how they were able, in supervisory conferences, to discuss the permeability of disciplinary boundaries.

Few of my entries were “reflective” in and of themselves. Rather, the journal served as a vehicle forcing me to try to describe what was happening in class and to record the questions I had. Most of the reflection was retrospective, as I talked with colleagues and read about the role of imaginative literature in stimulating readers to greater awareness of the social world. Reading and reflecting led me to think more carefully about the rationale for that strategy, and, eventually, to writing the chapter which was eventually published, my link to a more public forum. And, indeed, the spiral process continues. I still teach methods courses and have continued to explore this issue in my teaching, my reading, and in my conversations with colleagues.

Another example from my own work is this article, which grew out of my experience reviewing the literature on social studies teacher education (Adler, 1991~). I was struck by the fact that I found myself reading this literature

from two perspectives. Reading these studies as part of a review of research was disappointing. Claims to validity were weak when measured against the standards of experimental research. Further, the researchers generally did not build upon or make reference to related research; rather, they tended to be ahistorical in their approach. In this research, the voice of the researcher was distant, separated from that which was being studied. The implicit commitment was to unbiased truth and predictable explanation.

Reading these studies as a methods course instructor, however, gave me insights and ideas for my own course. Awareness of the two view- points from which I approached this research review prompted me to step back and consider the assumptions of a duality, a separation, of practice and research reflected in most of the research reviewed. This article is one result of that reflection, and my further reading about research and the contexts in which teacher educators practice and the dilemmas they face.

Other examples of reflective inquiry in teacher education can be found, as well. In a 1990 article, Elliot described and reflected upon his on-going experiences and development in action research projects both as a teacher and later as a facilitator. For Elliot, the very process of writing this article was crucial in helping him improve in his own work as facilitator. Through writing, he was able to return to the “experiential origin” of his ideas (p. 8). The spiral of action, reflection, and writing are, for Elliot, all of a piece and each contributes to the rest.

Elliot’s article gives his readers the necessary contexts to understand both his ideas and his experiences. He reviews for us the curriculum reform movement in Britain which began in the sixties, and articulates the main concepts of the teacher-as-researcher which developed within this reform. In the process he describes his experiences first as a teacher and later as an academician seeking to facilitate reflective thought among teachers.

The premise of Elliot’s article is that while teacher-based action research has become well established in Britain, its practices and assumptions are ever open to inquiry. It is from his experiences as both a teacher researcher and an academician that he saw the ease with which academics could shape the process of teacher


research into a form controlled by the assumptions and expectations of the university. “I have often colluded in acts of academic imperialism” (p. S), he writes.

Calling upon his on-going experience in several projects over a number of years, Elliot used the acts of reflecting and writing to understand the dominant themes of these experiences and to look to ways to improve practice, both his own and that of the teachers with whom he works. As a long time participant in action- research, it is no surprise that Elliot exemplifies the self-reflective spiral described by Carr and Kemmis. In this article, Elliot gives his readers an example of a practitioner who has sought to remain aware of and respondent to the experiential base of his thought and action.

In an approach which is quite similar, Gitlin (1990) wrote of his work with teachers. Gitlin is an academic who, as a teacher educator, is seeking to develop ways to involve teachers in researching their own school experiences. In this article, Gitlin described his experiences in working to create a more collective approach to research. With a class of teachers in a Master’s degree program at his university, Gitlin explored the possibility of a cooperative focus on research, a process he terms ‘ ‘educative discourse. ’ ’

Gitlin provided careful description to the relevant contexts, from the traditional assumptions about research to the university context of his practice. Like Elliot, he is alert to the experiences and perceptions of the teachers in the pro- ject, using that as data for reflection as he worked to develop and refine the experience of the group and his own role as facilitator. And like Elliot, Gitlin had to struggle to move away from his taken for granted role as expert in order to focus on the needs and concerns of the other group members.

For Gitlin, as for Elliot and myself, the very process of writing gave form to the ongoing inquiry which was part of his experience. The task of writing forced him to make sense of the experience and his perceptions of the experiences of others, to find the themes and relevant foci. Through writing, he argues, he has been better able to develop both his ideas about research and his work as a teacher educator.

Other examples of critical inquiry can serve as equally good models. One might look to

Wineburg’s (1991) description of using his own teaching as a “case” in a teacher education course, or Goodman’s (1991) description of his work in teaching a methods class, or to Nofke and Brennan’s (1991) use of action-research with preservice teachers as just a few of the examples of critical inquiry which may be found in the literature.

These authors appear to have much in com- mon. Each is committed to the idea of teacher as researcher. That is, each sees research in education as a collaborative experience, working with those traditionally seen as the objects of research. For them, the boundaries between practitioner and researcher are already blurred. Their commitments to move away from seeing teachers as objects and toward viewing them as collaborators means they have less at stake in the practitioner researcher dichotomy. It is not, then, a far leap for them to look critically at their own experiences, to recognize their own positions as practitioners who work with teachers as well as researchers in teacher education.

Our work, and the work of others who critically examine their own practice, can serve as useful models for other teacher educators. The more conventional form of quasi- experimental research makes little sense as a vehicle either of inquiry into one’s own practice or of communicating that inquiry to others. Indeed, I would argue that doing so, while giving the appearance of academic respec- tability, does little to promote critical reflection and dialogue. Under such constraints, substance can easily give way to form and inquiry may show little connection to actual practice.

Conclusions

.It is important for the teacher education community to recognize the appropriateness and legitimacy of reflective inquiry as a form of research. Politically, it is important as a way of overcoming the obstacles to academic respec- tability which teacher educators face. But important, as well, as a way for teacher educators to improve their own practice and the work of teacher education generally by working as practitioner researchers. In this way we can focus on the contexts in which we work as we

166 SUSAN A. ADLER

share our wisdom of practice with those engaged in similar work.

We ask our students to become reflective practitioners. But in our own practice, we too often divorce ourselves as practitioners, seeking to understand and improve upon what we do in the classroom day by day, from ourselves as researchers, seeking to contribute to a general body of knowledge in a publicly accepted form. An alternative model, that of the practitioner researcher, can bring a valuable perspective to the field. Through the thoughtful description of and reflection upon practice our understanding of the experiences of educating teachers may be broadened and deepened.

tion of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education.

Duckworth, E. (1987). Teaching as research. In M. Okazawa-Rey, J. Anderson. & R. Traver (Eds.). Teachers, teaching and teacher rducution (pp. 261-275). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eisner. E. (1990). The meaning of alternative paradigms for practice. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue (pp. 88- 104). Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.

Elliot, J. (1990). Teachers as researchers: Implications for supervision and for teacher education. Teaching nnd Teacher Education, 6, l-26.

Gitlin, A. D. (1990). Educative research, voice and school change. Harvard Educational Reviebv, 60. 433 -466.

Gitlin, A.. & Teitlebaum, K. (1983). Linkine theorv and practice: The uses of ethnographic methodology by pro- spective teachers. Journul of Education Ior Teaching, 9, 225 234.

Notes

‘This volume contains a variety of essays by different authors; many of them are excellent examples of an approach to research I shall be discussing, namely, that of teacher educators reflecting critically on their practice.

‘See Apple (1986) and Popkewitz (1987) for discussions of the role of slogans in educational reform and research.

Gomez, M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1992. April). Telling teaching stories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Goodman, J. (1991). Using a methods course to promote reflection and inquiry among preservice teachers. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.). Issues and practices in inquiry oriented teacher education (pp. 56-76). London: Falmer Press.

Grumet, M. R. (1989). Generations: Reconceptualist curriculum theory and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educution, 40(l), 13 17.

References

Achebe, C. (1959). Thingsfall upart. New York: Random House.

Adler, S. (1991a). Forming a critical pedagogy in the social studies methods class: The use of-imaginative literature. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry oriented teacher education (pp. 77 -90). London: Falmer Press.

Adler, S. (1991b). The reflective practitioner and the curriculum of teacher education. Journal of Educarion for Teaching, 17, 159- 170.

Grumet. M. R. (1990). On daffodils that come before the swallows dare. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 101- 120). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lanier. J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan.

Lincoln, Y.. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Notke, S. E., & Brennan, M. (1991). Student teachers use

Adler, S. (1991~). The education of social studies teachers. In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 210-221). New York: Macmillan.

Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

action-research: Issues and examples. In B. R. Tabachnick & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and nrac- rices in inquiry oriented teacher education (pp. 186-201). London: Falmer Press.

O’Loughlin, M., & Campbell, M. B. (1988). Teacher preparation, teacher empowerment and reflective inquiry: A critical perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 15(4), 25-53.

Beyer, L. (1991). Moral commitment and the preparation of teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 42. 205-215.

Blumberg, A. (1990). Toward a scholarship of practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5, 236 243.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Pinar, W. (1975). The analysis of educational experience. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum rheoriziny: The recon- ceptualists (pp. 348 -395). CA: McCutchan .Publishing.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1987). Ideology and social formation in teacher education. In T. Popkewitz (Ed.), Critic& studies in teacher education: Its folklore, theory and practice (pp. 2-34). London: Falmer Press.

Diez, M. E. (1987). The knowledge base: Issues for liberal __ _~_ _ _ arts colleges. AILACTE Occasional Paper 7. Associa-

Shulman, L.-S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-23). Washington, DC: American Educational Research . Assoctatton


Scott, S. (1985). Feminist research and qualitative Wilson, S. (1990). The secret garden of teacher education. methods: A discussion of some of the issues. In R. G. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 204-209. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Wineburg, S. S. (1991). A case of pedagogical failure - Qualitative methods (pp. 67 - 85). London: Falmer my own. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), Press. 273 -280.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Issues and Ziechner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher practices in inquiry oriented reacher education. London: education, Journal of Teacher Educ&ion, a(3), 3-9. Falmer Press. Zeichner. K. M.. & Liston. D. P. (1987). Teaching student

Tom, A. (1985). Inquiring into inquiry oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 35-44.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.

teachers to reflect. Harvard iducahonal Revyew, 57, 23-48.

Submitted 29 June 1992 Accepted 9 October 1992

Documents

Teacher education: Research as reflective practice