(5)Practitioner Research (Bartlett, Burton, 2006)

This article was downloaded by: [Yeditepe Universitesi]On: 29 September 2012, At: 02:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Practitioner research or descriptionsof classroom practice? A discussion ofteachers investigating their classroomsSteve Bartlett a & Diana Burton ba University of Wolverhampton, UKb Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Version of record first published: 20 Nov 2006.

To cite this article: Steve Bartlett & Diana Burton (2006): Practitioner research or descriptionsof classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms, Educational ActionResearch, 14:3, 395-405

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790600847735

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Educational Action ResearchVol. 14, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 395405

ISSN 0965-0792 (print)/ISSN 1747-5074 (online)/06/03039511 2006 Educational Action ResearchDOI: 10.1080/09650790600847735

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classroomsSteve Bartletta* and Diana BurtonbaUniversity of Wolverhampton, UK; bLiverpool John Moores University, UKTaylor and Francis LtdREAC_A_184706.sgm10.1080/09650790600847735Educational Action Research0965-0792 (print)/1747-5074 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis Ltd143000000September [email protected]

This article outlines how a group of primary school teachers from a cluster of nine schools in anetworked learning community enquired into their classroom teaching. The teachers each identi-fied an area of practice that they were developing in their classroom and wanted to evaluate, suchas the benefits of pupils working in teams, or the creation of role-play areas. They decided whatevidence they needed to collect and how to collect it. They met as a group and also individuallywith a mentor several times to share experiences and to discuss progress. At the end of theirprojects they presented findings and their analysis to each other. Their evidence and conclusionswere also presented to other teachers at their school and sometimes at other schools within thecluster. The article considers whether, in the light of critiques of other similar teacher researcherprojects, these data gathering and analytical activities may be legitimately described as research.The authors conclude by suggesting that the investigative processes carried out by these teachersconstitute an effective form of professional learning. The authors contend that it is the systematiccollection of evidence and the critical examination of the teachers own practice that characterisesuch enquiry as research notwithstanding the emergent, rather than well-developed, use oftraditional research conventions.

Keywords: Communities; Networks; Practitioner Research; Professional

Introduction to teacher research

Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in teachers investigation oftheir own practice and the term practitioner research has secured its place withineducational discourse. Dadds and Hart describe practitioner research as a centralcommitment to the study of ones own professional practice by the researcher himselfor herself, with a view to improving that practice for the benefit of others (2001, p. 7).

*Corresponding author. School of Education, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall Campus,Gorway Road, Walsall WS1 3BD, UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012

396 S. Bartlett and D. Burton

Teachers, in common with similar professional occupations, have a history ofresearching into their own practice. Indeed Campbell and Jacques (2003) suggestthat for decades teachers have engaged in action research, practitioner research,collaborative enquiry, and teacher research in schools and classrooms to improvetheir teaching and learning, to develop and refine their practice, innovate and evaluatetheir teaching (p. 76). Practitioner research has further been promoted in recentyears by various government-funded initiatives such as Best Practice ResearchScholarships (Department for Education and Skills, 2000) and networked learningcommunities (National College for School Leadership, 2003).

However, a number of significant criticisms have been made against the generalquality of practitioner research. In analysing research conducted by teachers as partof an earlier Teacher Training Agency (TTA)-funded initiative, Foster (1999) foundthat the research reports seemed to be personal descriptions of, or justifications for,their own practice; or accounts of their efforts to improve pupil achievement, or oftheir involvement in staff development activities (p. 383) rather than actual research.Foster was particularly concerned with the lack of firm data collected to support anyclaims made and thus the validity of any findings. Gorard (2002) has also suggestedthat much practitioner research funded by the TTA was merely descriptive of currentpractice with conclusions that were mainly repetitions of previously held opinions(p. 382).

Implicit in the above criticisms is a view that, unlike traditional Masters students,many of these teachers now being encouraged to embark on practitioner research arenot equipped with the basic knowledge, skills or understanding of research method-ology in order to conduct research of any value. It is also suggested that schemespromoting practitioner research, such as those sponsored by the TTA and theDepartment for Education and Skills, treat research as a straightforward technicalexercise ignoring the importance of the experience and expertise of the researcher onthe outcomes of the process.

Foster and Gorard appear to criticise practitioner research in terms of a tradi-tional academic model of research. Whilst it may be that the examples of teacherresearch that they considered could, and perhaps should, have taken a more rigor-ous approach to data collection, it needs to be acknowledged that the stepping offpoint for practitioner research arises from professional concerns. It is worth remem-bering, too, that both historical and anthropological research have a long tradition ofworking within an interpretivist paradigm, wherein rich descriptive accountspredominate.

Moreover, Roulston et al. (2005) have shown how the application of a rigidscientific model of research adopted by policy-makers and academics in the UnitedStates has served to both marginalise teachers voices and devalue teachers profes-sional knowledge (p. 173). They suggest that narrow traditional definitions ofresearch specifically discourage collaborative working between teacher researchersand university lecturers and inhibit practitioner involvement in a research processthat does not seem to ask the questions that teachers are most interested in (Roulstonet al., 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? 397

It is therefore perhaps useful to take a wider view of research and its purposes.Clough and Nutbrown (2002) suggest that all social research is persuasive, purposive,positional and political and these are the very reasons why it is conducted. Thuspractitioner researchers will seek to persuade using their research. It is conductedfrom their particular perspective and often aims to change some aspect of pedagogyor policy at their school. It could also be that there are different types of research,conducted for different purposes and audiences. If this is the case then differentresearch designs, strategies and methods of data collection need to be seen as appro-priate. Verma and Mallick (1999), for instance, suggested the categories of pure orbasic research, applied or field research, action research and evaluation research.They posited that there are critical differences between research that is oriented tothe development of theory and that designed to deal with practical problems (p. 11).Hammersley (2002) suggests a distinction between what he terms as scientific andpractical research. The criteria of validity and relevance are important to both typesof research but are given different weight and interpreted differently within each.

It is debatable as to the range of research types that exist, how they overlap and thecommonality that exists between them. However, both Hammersleys and Verma andMallicks typologies highlight the key point that there are different types of researchwith different purposes. Each have particular strengths and weaknesses and, whilstthese types of research are complementary to each other, criticism arises, in part atleast, from the impossibility of satisfying, simultaneously, all the criteria by whichresearch findings can be judged (Hammersley, 2002, p. 124).

Action research and practitioners

There have always been different interpretations of what action research actuallyinvolves (Bryant, 1996) and we will only give the briefest outline here. Actionresearch is seen as an approach to research carried out by professionals. It is rootedin practice and has moved away from the traditional academic approach based uponthe major research paradigms (see the work of Carr & Kemmis, 1986; McNiff, 1988;Elliott, 1991, 2003; McNiff with Whitehead, 2002, for a more thorough discussionof the development of the action research movement in education). Altrichter et al.(1993) suggest that action research starts from practical questions that fit in with theworking conditions of professionals. Methods of data collection are tailored to suitthe circumstances. Each research project is designed for a specific set of circum-stances and so is unique. What is critical for Elliott (2003) is that the action part ofimproving practice is an integral part of professional construction of new knowledgeand understanding of problems.

The nature of this form of research means that it is carried out in the researchersown place of work and so the case study approach is most common. Ideally, aneclectic view of data collection is taken, with the researcher using a variety of meth-ods to examine a particular issue. The process whereby researchers are able to usetheir own understandings to interpret the situations they are investigating is termedreflexivity (Greenbank, 2003). This is an important aspect of action research and it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


is expected that the reflexivity of the researchers will be heightened as they developtheir research skills.

Though it is not possible to generalise from the findings of such small-scaleresearch, its strength, according to Bassey (1990), lies in its relatability to similar situ-ations. Validity is significantly strengthened as communities of researchers in schoolsexamine and discuss each others findings, an activity described by Elliott (1998) asdiscoursive consciousness. This process would involve others and develop a widerunderstanding of the nature of education as part of the social democratic process.Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998) also stress the participatory nature of action research.They see action research itself as a social and educational process that is part of thedevelopment of a professional community. Altrichter (2005) explains how what heterms communities of practice are significant places for professional developmentthat form an important element in the creation and maintenance of teachersidentities. Angelides et al. (2005) show how through such networks teachers can learncollegially as they share their experiences, problems and ways of solving theseproblems with other teachers of the whole network (p. 287).

It is clear that the action research tradition is one type of research. This is now morefashionably termed practitioner research. It begins with initial inquisitiveness leadingto more formal enquiry by practitioners. The research process itself can generategreater professional understanding for those practitioners involved. In order to illus-trate this we wish to analyse the work of a group of teacher researchers over the periodof one academic year. Whilst we accept that there can be criticism of the quality oftheir research when compared to that of university researchers, it needs to be recog-nised that as beginning researchers they have collected and analysed data, sharedexperiences, peer reviewed findings and thus increased their professional knowledgeduring the year.

The research network

The teachers who took part all belonged to a group of nine primary schools (i.e. teach-ing children of ages 511 years) that had formed a networked learning community situ-ated in the north west of England and funded by the government through the NationalCollege for School Leadership (see National College for School Leadership, 2003).These communities are clusters of schools that group together to work collaborativelyto develop particular aspects of the curriculum. The schools in this network wereparticularly focusing on developing pupils learning with an emphasis on them under-standing how they learn. Some funding was set aside to allow one participating teacherfrom each school to evaluate the changes they were introducing into their classroompractice. It was expected that these teachers would feed back their experiences andresearch findings to other staff in their own school and the other schools in the network.

The research group was to meet on four days over the year culminating in a presen-tation day in the summer term. A research mentor from a local higher educationprovider was to work with the teachers at the meetings and with teacher researchersindividually during the year when they requested support.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


The projects

The setting up and planning of the research

The initial research meeting, led by the higher education (HE) mentor, focused onthe meaning of research and evaluation, the stages in conducting a small-scaleresearch project, useful types of data collection and the scale of data collection. It wasstressed to the teachers that their research must be about something they were veryinterested in, they needed to be doing or introducing something that they could prac-tically evaluate; methods of data collection had to be practical and appropriate. Theywere reminded of the data collection and display skills that they already used daily intheir professional work.

The teachers planned their projects individually during the first meeting and thiswas presented to the group before they dispersed at the end of the session. It wasaccepted that the initial plan was formative and could change as the projects evolved.From then on the meetings were used to discuss progress and solutions to issuesrelating to the research and their teaching. The discussion focused on comparingclassroom experiences and thus raised issues of professional interest as well asaddressing the collection and analysing of data.

The project culminated in the presentation day at the end of the year when seventeachers presented their projects to each other. Each was discussed by the wholegroup in turn. One school did not take part at all in the research due to a new headnot nominating a teacher to take part. A teacher from the ninth school came to thefirst meeting but did not attend any others.

The individual projects

The focus for each project was discussed at the initial meeting. Some had chosen theirown focus but for others it had been suggested by their heads and they needed todecide if this was what they really wanted to do or not. This led to some individualsoul searching as to what the purpose of the research was and what their professionalinterests were. In the event, however, a recent in-service training programme onteamworking meant that five of the teachers decided this should be their focus. Theirvarious work settings and interests led to key differences in the emphasis of these fiveinvestigations.

Lindas research was an extension of a project she had done the previous year whenshe had looked at pupils working in teams. Data had been collected in a portfolio thatconsisted of photographs of pupils working, examples of pupil work over the year andher reflective written comments at the end of each unit of work. These findings hadbeen used as part of a school in-service session on teamworking. In this, the secondphase of her research, Linda was now working with other teachers in their classroomson teamwork. She observed teaching, interviewed teachers and pupils and collectedwork to create a whole school portfolio for all to share at the end of the evaluation.

Rachels original research was to be around the use of Blooms Taxonomy withprimary school pupils in classroom learning. However her head had been very

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


impressed when he had seen pupils working in teams in her classroom and suggestedthat she should record this. She had, on reflection, agreed that this would be an inter-esting thing to do that fitted well with her work over the year. She focused particularlyon collecting data from two teams of four pupils in the class for the research. Thisenabled detailed qualitative data to be collected as she charted their developmentthrough the year as two case studies. Her evidence was pupils work, her ongoingnotes and interviews with pupils on their feelings about working in teams.

Julie worked in an infant school that was separate but built alongside the juniorschool. She conducted her research with her junior school partner, Sian. They didnot want to research brain gym as had been suggested by the two heads and afterdiscussing their mutual interests they also decided to look at pupils working in teams.One of the issues for them was the difference in levels of development between chil-dren in the infant and primary classroom and how classroom activities would have tobe conducted accordingly. Their evidence was gathered in their own schools throughobservation notes of lessons, comparing work done by children when working inteams and that done when not working in teams, interviewing children at the end ofthe research period and interviewing other teachers that had used learning teams.They then put the evidence together from their two classrooms and comparedresults.

Paula was also going to look at pupils working in teams but had so far had verydifferent experiences to Rachel with this classroom strategy. Her pupils had foundit difficult to work in teams and some were resistant to the process. The relating ofher experiences led to detailed discussion in the group and an analysis of differentapproaches to working in teams. As a result Paula was now going to use a differentapproach to introducing teamwork and she would monitor the results. Herevidence was to be the work of a number of identified pupils over the period andher observation notes.

Elizabeth was very unsure of what to research at the start. She wanted to do some-thing on thinking skills but she was very unclear of how these could be applied to thevery young children she worked with at KS1 (children aged 5 to 7 years old). In herschool the staff had taken part in in-service training on the use of thinking hats butthere was not a coordinated approach as to what they should do next. She felt thatshe needed to clarify her thoughts on the whole thinking hats procedure. Elizabethspent quite a bit of time reading up on thinking hats and talking to other colleaguesabout how they used it and what they thought of it. She then worked out a strategyof asking particular types of questions that took the young children through the differ-ent modes of analysis within the thinking hats model. She found that this had quitean effect on the pupils ability to reason. She had intended to introduce thinking hatsin year 2 but members of the research group queried whether it needed to be intro-duced at all now that the pupils were used to the different questioning techniques.Elizabeth had collected some examples of classroom practice for discussion and shewas perhaps only now on the threshold of being able to actually conduct what shewould consider research. However, she had been involved in a process of investiga-tion and questioning throughout the year that had developed her understanding of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


pupils learning. Also, perhaps most importantly, she had begun to critically appraiseone aspect of pedagogy that seemed to have been accepted rather unquestioningly inmany primary schools across the Local Education Authority.

Hannah, like Linda, had been involved in a research project in the previous yearwhen she had looked at the effect of role-play areas and story-making tables on pupillearning in a reception class (i.e. starting school). She had looked at how these areascould be constructed and how children used them to develop their ideas. She hadcollected evidence in a portfolio that had pictures of pupils in the areas and examplesof the work they had produceddrawings, etc. Originally she had tried to link this topupil development of language skills though she soon realised the link was impossibleto measure and that the processes involved were inevitably very complex. She had feltthat role-play areas and story tables had made a big difference to the pupils learning,and was able to point in particular to Personal and Social Education developmentsfor pupils. After discussion amongst the school staff of her previous years research,this strategy of using play areas and story-making tables was expanded to other teach-ers classrooms from reception to year two. This development was to be the basis ofher research this year. Again the data included a portfolio of photographs of pupils inthe role-play areas and at the story-making tables with examples of their work. Addedto this were interviews with the other teachers, classroom assistants and pupils, andobservations conducted by Hannah in different classrooms.

Discussion of the research

We noted earlier that three particular characteristics of action research are that itarises from practical questions, it is participatory in nature and its validity is strength-ened through peer examination and discussion. The teacher researchers in thisnetwork had decided upon their individual foci based upon their own professionalcircumstances. They had discussed their research projects with colleagues in theirschools. Thus the research was arising out of practical concerns and interests fromtheir own place of work. It was also highly participatory in nature and involvedextensive peer discussion.

Hannah and Linda had previously conducted research in their own classrooms andwere now involving other teachers within their schools to see the effects of play areasand teamwork respectively. Two teachers from different schools, Julie and Sian,worked together on their research. Through the progress meetings all the teacherresearchers discussed their research together and with the HE mentor and consideredwhat data to collect and how best to collect them.

Discussions took place in these meetings about the research foci, for exampledifferent perceptions were aired concerning the benefits and issues of using team-working with pupils. There was often a wider discussion on pedagogy. For instance,Hannah put forward her views on the significance of play across the curriculum and,with the support of others in the group, also suggested the need for this in the olderage groups. This led to a discussion of constraints on the curriculum and the broaderpurposes of primary education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


The teacher researchers had all been involved in in-service training on pupil teamsand learning strategies and so may have arrived fired up but with rather a partial view,looking for evidence to support their hopes. As noted earlier, this has been identifiedas a potential problem by Gorard (2002) and Foster (1999). However the networkreview meetings with the HE mentor as facilitator highlighted different teacherexperiences, for instance of pupils working in teams. Though the teachers discussedand rationalised the differences in opinion and experiences there was a growingawareness of weaknesses and strengths in teamworking. This was further illustratedin the findings of Julie and Sian, who found teamworking to be useful in some learn-ing situations, such as science, but far less so in others such as literacy where pupilswere in ability groups and the pupil interaction and potential for teamworking weredifferent. Similarly, Linda was very much in favour of teamworking but, after lookingat it in operation in her classroom and those of other teachers in her school, hadadapted it to suit different situations. This was based on her experience of when itworked best and when it was more appropriate to use other teaching and groupingstrategies.

In doing the research and interacting with colleagues in the feedback sessions theteachers became more aware of the complex nature of what is often treated superfi-cially during in-service training sessions. Alternative explanations emerged and therewas also, for some, the introduction to further literature. For instance, the mentorand Linda became involved in a discussion of the constructivist approach to learningand how Vygotskys scaffolding concept explained certain strategies suggested in anactive learning manual. She said that this theoretical explanation had given hergreater insight into the learning process. Elizabeth, being very unsure and ratherconfused by all the different in-service training, had spent much time reading throughthe learning manuals and adapting them to her own strategy. She then discussed thesuitability of this with the research group. This illustrates a point made by Burton andBartlett (2005) that, as teachers become more involved in classroom research, theybegin to seek out the relevant associated literature and thus often become increasinglyinvolved in theory. It could be argued that the research process coupled with thegroup support and discussion had enabled these teachers to be more critical of whatwas presented as an officially sanctioned approach. They were able to evaluatesuggested innovations and as a result to be more confident in how they developedtheir classroom practice.

The discussions in the research group thus show the potential of teacher researchfor developing the professional knowledge and understanding of those involved.Certainly being part of a network is significant if the dialogue that is a vital part of theaction research process is to take place. Here we see evidence of the development ofprofessional communities as discussed by Altrichter (2005).

Differing methods of data collection were used and varying amounts of datacollected. The teachers had been unsure as to how much to collect and the advicehad been to consider their working environment and teaching commitments and, inthe light of these, to be practical. They did consider how data could be useful in theircollection for display and in-service training purposes. Within the group a range of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


data were collected: photographs of pupils in the classroom, examples of pupil work,pupil accounts and interviews, interviews and comments from teacher colleagues,and personal observations of individual or small groups of children. Certainly theteacher researchers had not received any formal training in data collection and criti-cism can be levelled at how systematically they approached it. However, for allbeginning researchers this is part of the learning process. These teacher researchershad not routinely considered the issue of validity of data collection methods. Inconducting their research, though, they had in fact experienced potential for triangu-lation as several sources and data collection methods had usually been adopted. Insome cases the research presentations demonstrated that such techniques may havebeen inadvertently applied rather than being part of a pre-planned strategy.However, in future research projects these teachers would be cognisant of the needto employ such validation techniques having developed an understanding of theirnecessity and application through experience.

It was important that the teacher researchers did not make claims that their datacould not support. One constraint on how they portrayed their data, and an impor-tant characteristic of action research, was that it had to be credible with their fellowprofessionals. There was ongoing discussion within the research group of the meth-odologies used and the data collected in the regular network meetings. Final presen-tations to the research group were largely on PowerPoint and some also involvedportfolios. The teacher researchers explained their findings to the rest of the groupand this generated real interest and questioning about what they did, how theycollected data and how the data could be interpreted. Sian had also presented herfindings to her staff and Linda and Hannah had discussed their research and findingswith other schools staff from the learning community on development days. This laidtheir findings open to further peer scrutiny which facilitated greater validation of theresearch process and refinement of their thinking about the findings. Over time andwith suitable opportunities a number of these practitioners may develop further theirinterest in related literature and research findings, thus adding to their understandingof the breadth of activity that can be called research.

Conclusions

In this article we have outlined the research of a group of teachers into their classroompractice. Important criticisms have been levelled at the investigations of teachers intotheir own classrooms (Foster, 1999; Gorard, 2002) but others (Verma & Mallick,1999; Hammersley, 2002) have suggested that research in education can take avariety of forms. We have seen that for investigation into classroom practice actionresearch provides an appropriate approach. It has thus been taken up in recent yearsunder the heading of practitioner research. The practical importance of the researchto the professionals involved, the participatory nature of the process and the impor-tance of peer review in validation of findings are all key features of the action researchapproach. The work of the practitioner researchers in this study exemplifies thesefeatures very well. It has enabled the development of their research skills and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


establishment of communities of practice to discuss and share their experiences ofteaching. The research is relevant to their professional activity and its validity hasbeen strengthened through peer discussion of the findings. This professional rele-vance is at the very heart of practitioner research and, as such, validates its respect-ability as one form of educational research. Thus whilst at face value it may belegitimate to label practitioner research as descriptions of practice rather than objec-tively designed research studies we have in fact established a false dichotomy throughour title deliberately to reflect the kind of criticism levelled at practitioner research.The dichotomy is false because it is these very descriptions of classroom practicewhich constitute the data source for the research projects. So it is not possible toconduct practitioner research without descriptions of practice. What distinguishesthese descriptions as research, of course, is the critical questioning and appraisal thatthe teacher researchers and their communities of practice bring to bear upon them.This discoursive consciousness (Elliott, 1998) facilitates the teachers constructionof new knowledge and understanding of the classroom issues they encounter.

References

Altrichter, H. (2005) The role of the professional community in action research, EducationalAction Research, 1, 1125.

Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers investigate their work: an introduction to themethods of action research (London, Routledge).

Angelides, P., Evangelou, M. & Leigh, J. (2005) Implementing a collaborative model of actionresearch for teacher development, Educational Action Research, 2, 275290.

Bassey, M. (1990) On the nature of research in education (part 2), Research Intelligence, 37,Summer, 3944.

Bryant, I. (1996) Action research and reflective practice, in: D. Scott & R. Usher (Eds) Under-standing educational research (London, Routledge).

Burton, D. & Bartlett, S. (2005) Practitioner research for teachers (London, Paul Chapman Publishers).Campbell, A. & Jacques, K. (2003) Best practice researched, Teacher Development, 1, 7590.Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research (London,

Falmer Press).Clough, P. & Nutbrown, C. (2002) A students guide to methodology (London, Sage).Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001) Doing practitioner research differently (London, RoutledgeFalmer).Department for Education and Skills (2000) Best Practice Research Scholarships. Guidance notes for

teacher applications (London, DfEE).Elliott, J. (1991) Action research for educational change (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).Elliott, J. (1998) The curriculum experiment: meeting the challenge of social change (Buckingham, Open

University Press).Elliott, J. (2003) Interview with John Elliott, 6th December 2002, Educational Action Research, 2,

169180.Foster, P. (1999) Never mind the quality, feel the impact: a methodological assessment of

teacher research sponsored by the Teacher Training Agency, British Journal of EducationalStudies, 4, 380398.

Gorard, S. (2002) Political control: a way forward for educational research?, British Journal ofEducational Studies, 3, 378389.

Greenbank, P. (2003) The role of values in educational research: the case for reflexivity, BritishEducational Research Journal, 6, 791801.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012


Hammersley, M. (2002) Educational research, policymaking and practice (London, Paul ChapmanPublishing).

Kemmis, S. & Wilkinson, N. (1998) Participatory action research and the study of practice, in: B.Atweh, S. Kemmis & P. Weeks (Eds) Action research in practice (London, Routledge).

McNiff, J. (1988) Action research: principles and practice (London, Macmillan).McNiff, J. with Whitehead, J. (2002) Action research: principles and practice (2nd edn) (London,

RoutledgeFalmer).National College for School Leadership (2003) Nexus, 1, Autumn Term.Roulston, K., Legette, R., Deloach, M. & Buckhalter Pitman, C. (2005) What is research for

teacher-researchers?, Educational Action Research, 2, 160188.Verma, G. & Mallick, K. (1999) Researching education. Perspectives and techniques (London, Falmer

Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Y

edite

pe U

nivers

itesi]

at 02

:59 29

Septe

mber

2012

(5)Practitioner Research (Bartlett, Burton, 2006)

Documents

Transcript of (5)Practitioner Research (Bartlett, Burton, 2006)