Wong Article

8/6/2019 Wong Article

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wong-article 1/8

American Educational Research Association

Challenges Confronting the Researcher/Teacher: Conflicts of Purpose and ConductAuthor(s): E. David WongSource: Educational Researcher, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Apr., 1995), pp. 22-28Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176021

Accessed: 17/03/2009 17:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Educational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176021?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176021?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Challenges Confronting t h e Researcher/Teache

C o n f l i c t s o f P u r p o s e a n d C o n d u c t

E. DAVIDWONG

An increasingnumberof university acultyappreciatehattheroleof classroom eacheroffersa valuableresearchperspective(Richardson, 994). However, triving to be botha researcherand a teacherpresentsuniqueand seriouschallenges. refer othe Aristoteliandistinctionbetween hetheoretical ndpractical"sciences"o characterizehenatureoftheconflicts experiencedas a researcher/teacher.go on to describehow it becameneces-

sarytorenegotiateraditional lassroom aluesandexpectationsso that theactivity of researchmightbecome moreproductivepart of the instructionalexperience. suggestthat similarkinds

oftensions

maybe inherent o

any responsible,nquiry-orientedteachingand that thesechallenges reateopportunitieso con-

template mportantssuesabout he natureofresearch,eaching,andcurriculum.

EducationalResearcher,Vol.24, No. 3, pp. 22-28

heprimary urposeofresearchs to learn hroughn-

vestigation. The researcher'seffortsarecharacterized

by observation, analysis, and reflection.The primarypurpose of teaching is to bring others to understand. In ad-

dition, the teacher strives to make something good hap-pen, to facilitate a continuity of ideas and action, tomaintain harmony in the classroom. Given that teachingand research hold different goals, does it follow that the

subsequent action-the manner by which the goals arereached-should also be different? More importantly,might these actions not only differ in nature,but also con-flict as well? Although teaching in a public school and con-

ducting educational researchare both certainlychallengingin their own right, this articleexamines the ethical (what isthe right thing to do?) and logistical (how do I do it?) ten-sions that may arise when trying to do both simultane-

ously.

What Is a Researcher/Teacher?

The definition of researcher/teachers broad and diverse.

Therefore,I shall first describe the specific nature of mywork and how it relates and contrasts to other notions of

researcher/teacher.Although both university faculty andclassroom teachers can adopt the researcher/teacher role,my focus in this article is on university faculty who spendconsiderable lengths of time as regularclassroomteachers.In addition, I was attempting to conduct what Richardson(1994) calls "formal research" aimed primarily to con-tribute to a knowledge base as opposed to "practical n-

quiry" aimed primarily at understanding and improvingone's own practice.

The researcher/teacher has typically used his or her

unique perspective to describe various aspects of teachingsuch as the knowledge required,its challenges and dilem-

mas, or the experience of insight and growth (forother ex-

amples of the researcher/teacher in science, refer to thework of D. Eichenger, D. Hammer, or C. Anderson; inmath, M. Lampert,D. Ball,or D. Chazan;in social studies:S. Wilson or K. Roth). By contrast, my goal as a re-searcher/teacher was to understand student learning bet-ter,ratherthan my own teaching. Specifically, my research

attempted to understand the degree to which middleschool students' explanations of natural phenomena are"scientific"in substance and in development. I highlightthese differences

because I suspect that the issues I shall ex-plore in this article become more salient in light of my ef-forts to understand student learning rather than issues of

pedagogy.Inquiryinto student learning is typically the purview of

educational psychology where the researcher'srole is fre-

quently that of an outsider. Traditional investigations ofstudents' knowledge and reasoning might rely on either:(a) "laboratory" ettings where students performtasks out-side of their class, or (b) in-class situations where the re-searcher observes students as they are taught by the

regular teacher. From the "insider" role as the teacher, Iwas able to make the inquiry sensitive and responsive tosubtle details or unanticipated events. Almost immedi-

ately, however, I was confronted with the challenge ofbeing both a researcherand a teacher.

What follows is a short vignette based on my classroom

experience as a regular science teacher in an inner-citymiddle school. After the anecdote, I apply the Aristoteliandistinctionbetween the theoreticaland practicalsciences to

analyze the ethical and logistical elements of my conflict.

Although some readers may find this distinction betweenresearchand teaching to be overdrawn or artificial, t givesform to and promotes analysis of some real issues of class-room-based research. I go on to describe how it became

necessary for me to renegotiate traditional classroom

norms, roles, values, and expectations for myself and for

my students so thatmy researchagenda became a more in-

tegral part of the instructional experience. I conclude bysuggesting that similar kinds of tensions may be inherentto the complex work of any responsible, inquiry-oriented

E.DAVIDWONG s an AssistantProfessorn theDepartmentsfTeacher ducation ndEducationalPsychology t theCollegeofEducationat Michigan State University,East Lansing,MI48824.His areasofresearch rethenatureof scientific hinkingandpractice, nalogical easoning, ndreformn scienceeduca-tion.

22 EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER



teacher.Although the challenges may be unavoidable, theycreate a unique opportunity to consider important issues

about the nature of research,teaching, and curriculum.

A Case of Conflict

"I know! I know!" Toni exclaimed. I had just asked mymiddle-school class to explain why they thought the litcandle in the beaker went out when vinegar and bakingsoda were added. Tonispoke with excitement and pride asshe shared her ideas about this puzzling phenomenon.

Unfortunately, when Toni finally finished her explana-tion, I had absolutely no idea what she had meant. I smiled

weakly and looked her in the eyes. Toni was sitting there,in the front of the classroom, upright and proud. Not

knowing quite what to say, I slowly lifted my gaze to therest of the class. Sixteen pairs of eyes, in varying states of

alertness, were aimed in my direction. They were silentand expectant. They were waiting for me, their teacher.

"Okaaaay,Toni," I acknowledged hesitantly. Immedi-

ately, three or four students began to shout their own ex-

planations about why the candle flame went out. Theirhands were raised, of course.

"Wait, wait," I said. "I want to hear more about whatToni has to say." Her explanation had been so unusual. I

sensed something interesting was close at hand. Recently,Ihad been doing quite a bit of thinking and writing abouthow students' explanations for natural phenomenon wereor were not scientific. Toni's confused account presented awonderful opportunity to understand this issue more fullyand perhaps to inform future instruction.

"Toni,could you repeatyour explanation again for me?"I thought that a second pass might enable me to under-stand enough to ask her more specific questions. I was

being deliberately careful not to obscure her original ideas

by putting my words to her explanation. If I wanted to un-derstand and eventually write about students' naive waysof explaining, I had to let Toni relate her view as much asshe could on her own.

After Toni's long recounting, I was able to ask a follow-

up question. She sighed quietly.I reassured her that I knewthat this was difficult,but to try her best.

Toni'seyes quickly glanced backwards to the rest of theclass. I noticed that other students were still trying to offertheir own accounts, although there were now fewer thanbefore. Johnny,in the back, began pounding out a rhythmwith his palms and knuckles on the desk top.

I began to feel uneasy about continuing my line of ques-tions with Toni. The rest of the class was clearly losing in-

terest and I was running the risk of losing the focus of the

lesson. However, this opportunity to understand Toni's ex-

planation of this phenomenon might never present itself

again. Wehad just scratchedthe surface and we were mak-ing interesting progress.

"Toni,"I asked, "Canyou say more about exactly how

you thought the fizzing put the candle flame out?" As Iasked this question, I was moving toward the center of theclassroomwith one hand raised.With the other hand, I putmy finger to my lips. Three simultaneous nonverbal sig-nals requesting the other students to listen.

Toni sighed again, this time in loud exasperation. "I al-

ready told you!"Just as I had suspected! Toni was beginning to provide

a wonderful illustration of how students often confuse de-

scription with explanation. She had described the vinegarand baking soda fizzing which, she explained, was the rea-son the flame went out. By scientific standards, the expla-nation was still missing fromher account. This unexpectedexchange clearly had the potential to reveal interestingdif-ferences between scientific and nonscientific criteria forwhat "counts" as a good explanation.

Excited, I tried to think of a way to carefully move Toni

along. Standing prominently in the center of the room-

my right hand raised, my left finger to my lips, my eyes

comforting Toni-I attempted to phrase my next question.A few moments passed. I couldn't think of what to ask.

I couldn't concentrate. Frustrated and tense, I lookedaround the room. Jerryrocked back in his chair;Jeromewas making fun of Marc's haircut;Ted and Tanika hadtheir heads on the desk. I could hear Sam and James,whohad been eager to share their ideas, grumbling angrilyabout how I never called on them. Johnny,with a farawaylook in his eyes, continued to pound an incessant rhythmon the desk.

Contrasting Research and Teaching:An Aristotelian Perspective

Some readers maysuggest

that I have defined the roles ofresearcherand teacher too narrowly.Forexample, I would

agree that good researchand good teaching areboth char-acterized by inquiry and reflection. I maintain, however,that although the nature of researchand teaching are simi-

lar, there are distinct differences in priorities. In brief, the

primary goal of research s to understand;the primary goalof teaching is to help students learn.

The argument that research and teaching differ in im-

portantways is not a new one. In his political treatiseNico-macheanEthics, Aristotle makes a distinction betweentheoreticaland practical "sciences." For Aristotle, any de-

partment of human activity-conduct, production, specu-lation-may be called a "science," nsofaras it is alive withtrue

thinking.The two

categorieswere

distinguished bydifferent modes of exercise, and different areas of experi-ence addressed. In his analysis and commentary on TheNicomacheanEthics,H. H. Joachim (1951) contrasts Aris-

totle's theoreticaland practicalsciences:

The[theoretical] scientificman"... is entirelyconcernedwith knowing or understanding.He plays the partof a

spectatorof what is-and is independentlyof him. Heneitherdesires,noris able,to alter he truthof things.His

object s to conformhis notions to the truth of things:notto bring them, the things, into harmonywith his no-tions. . . .When the objectsof his study are subjecttochange-when, for example,he is investigatingnaturalphenomena-he tries to watch the process;not to modifyit,exceptso far as experimentalmodificationhelpshimtounderstand. p.2)

In these [practical]"sciences"man is concernedwith thesphereof processor change...He is concernedonly withthevariable,with that which could be otherthan it is, and

primarilyso far as he is able to initiate and control itsvariations.The source of the changeor process n the ob-jects,so far as they come under practicaland productive"sciences,"s not in them but in the man. Thus it is the

will, the deliberate decision or purpose, of the agentwhich producesthe action-which initiates that changeoutside the man called an act. The sourceof change ies inthe "scientificman"-in thecraftsmanorthe agent.(p.3)

APRIL 1995 23



Distinctions between the theoretical and practical sci-

ences can be usefully examined in terms of the goals, the

nature of the activity,and the subjectof interest (see Figure1). The goal of theoretical sciences is to understand;the ac-

tivity is careful observation and inquiry. In the practicalsciences, by contrast,the goal and activity are one and thesame: to "live well"-to conduct oneself as a good citi-zen-is both a means and an end in itself. It is interestingto note thatAristotlealso distinguished a third "science"--the production sciences where the maker's will, motives,and method of operation are of importance only insofar as

they affect the characterof the product. With craftsmenor

artisans, for example, judgment is based on the products,not the process that produced them. Although only the

theoreticaland practicalsciences will be examined in this

discussion, the contrast between the practicaland the pro-ductive sciences helps to illustrate the central rolethatcon-duct-the means to the end-occupies in the practicalsciences.

It is important to emphasize that the central argumentbeing presented is not that researchersare reflective andteachers are only concerned with action. Instead,responsi-ble researchand teaching are both fundamentally thought-ful activities. The

thinkingand reflectionthatcharacterizes

teaching produces a decision to act, rather than a war-

ranted conclusion supported by evidence (Schwab, 1969).The inquiry that characterizesgood teaching is instrumen-tal for betterpractice,ratherthan an end in itself. Also, the

Aristotelian distinctions might best be construed as a

Deweyian dialectic: positions established to promote dis-cussion and thought. Because the forms of teaching and re-search are varied, identifying universal distinctions

between them would be an unwarranted assertion.

Teaching as a Practical Science

Parallelscan readily be drawn between the theoretical sci-ences and classroom research, and between the practical

sciences and teaching. In a critique of current educationalresearchpractices, Carrand Kemmis (1986)highlight dif-ferences between teaching and research similar to thosemade by Aristotle:

Theoretical

Research

Practical

Teaching

Primary goal

Primary activity

Primary outcome

Primary subject of

interest

to know, to understand

observing carefully,

reflecting, inquiring

theory: timeless and

universal; warranted

conclusions

the unalterable(nature),the

constant, the laws and

features of nature

action, to do the rightthing,

to do what is worthdoing

choosing, taking action

practice: urgent and

particular; justifiable

decisions

the alterable (human

characterand those things

that can be changed, action

that is deliberate and

purposeful

FIGURE1. Contrastingheoretical ndpracticaldisciplines

Practice s particular ndurgent; t is whatteachersdo in

meetingthe tasks and demandsconfrontinghem in their

everydaywork.Theory, n sharpcontrast, s timeless anduniversal; it is something produced by researchers

throughthe carefulprocessof enquiry. p. 2)

Alan Tom's (1984) characterization of teaching as a"moral craft" reinforces the notion that teaching is, in

essence, an effort to "do good" (for examples of other au-thors writing in the same vein, see Goodlad, Soder, &

Sirotnik, 1990; Clark, 1991; Noddings, 1988; & Sockett,1989). My own experiences working with other teachersalso tend to support this image of teaching. Teachersoftenseem to resonate to discussions dealing with issues about"What to do?" In their evaluation of their own teaching,teachers often have a tendency to focus on conduct: that is,how students and teacher interacted during class. Simi-

larly, students tend to remember and appreciate thoseteachers who act responsibly and with compassion and re-

spect. The questions teachers ask and the means by which

they evaluate their practicereveals a strong focus on con-duct and action-the essence of a practicalscience.

Although researchactivities(particularly ocialsciencere-

search) strive to treat participants fairly and humanely,

moral action is not raison d'etreas in the practicalsciences.This is not to suggest that issues of conduct or value are ofno relevance to the field of research.An unmistakablemoraltheme characterizes scientific and public debate about

atomic energy,medical treatments,or animal research.Thebusiness of research s generatingknowledge in an ethical,

timely manner. In teaching, moral imperatives are morethan a code of ethics thatregulatethe activityof instruction.To act morally-to treat the students with compassion, to

provide them with experiences that areof value-is at thecore of what teachingis. "To ducateis to lead responsibly-to influence students'knowledge, skills, and dispositions ina way that will serve them and their society well and to doso in a morallydefensibleway" (Clark,1990,p. 252).

The Action Research Movement:The Teacher as Researcher

The philosophical underpinnings of certain forms of actionresearch have a direct relationshipwith Aristotle's attemptto contrast the distinctive features of researchwith "practi-cal"activities such as teaching (Carr&Kemmis,1986). Ac-tion research groups were formed in England as schoolteachers and university faculty alike were compelled bythe need to identify research methods better suited in sub-stance and form to the practiceof teachers.Earlyforms of

action researchwere typicallyeffortsby small groups of in-dividuals to apply the generalitiesof theory to the specifics

of their particularsite and practice(cf. Corey,1953; Lewin,1948; Wallace, 1987). The findings of scientific research

were seen as useful and only in need of "fine tuning" bythose who would apply them. Later,practitioner-basedre-

searchwas arguedas crucial for the generation,not just the

application, of instructional theory.Some proponents of action researchmake the strong as-

sertion that the epistemology, goals, and methods of tradi-

tional scientific research are in principle unsuited to

understanding the practical activities such as teaching.Specifically,the practiceof teaching cannot be usefully de-scribed by abstractprinciples derived from the social sci-




ences because the activity of teaching is so imbued withhuman intention and inextricably embedded in the

specifics of each situation. It follows, then, that teachingcannot be understood fully from the perspective of an out-sider. The inextricablerelationshipbetween action and un-

derstanding is central. Only by doing, by trying to teachanother person, can the practiceof teaching be understood

(Atkin, 1989;Carr,1983;Carr&Kemmis, 1986;Elliott,1987,1990). The action research movement and other relatedteacher-centered research projects have made efforts to

eliminate the distinction between the researcher and theteacher. This change is most evident in how teachers as-sume the primary responsibility for identifying the re-search issues, collecting data, and analyzing and

interpretingthatdata. University faculty or otheroutsidersto the school community typically adopt the role of facili-

tator, observer,or equal participant.

A Conflict of Purpose:To Observe or Change the Students?

Even though the teacheris the researcherand even thoughthe definitions of researchmay have changed, it does not

necessarily follow that teaching and research are identicalactivities. I think the Aristotelian distinction between the

goals and activities of research (to understand by system-atic observation) and teaching (to affect a change) still ap-plies. In my case, I felt a distinct tension between trying tobe systematic and thorough and trying to be responsiveand compassionate.

Returning to the example: As a researcher,I was reluc-tant to assist Toni,for fear that I would alter the "phenom-enon," that is, her interesting ideas about the scientific

phenomenon. As a researcher,I was greatly interested in

students' conceptions of the natural world and their waysof interpreting and explaining them. I felt that any assis-tance from me would adversely influence the expression oftheir tenuous understanding. On the other hand, as a

teacher,I feltobligated

to instruct,tochange

Toni's notionsor her way of thinking. She was obviously struggling and

expecting my assistance. It was clear to both of us that her

explanation was confused and inaccurate.My sense of re-

sponsibility as a teacher urged me to help her move be-

yond her initial understanding.In this example, the exigencies of teaching created a ten-

sion with the practiceof research.Otherordinaryaspects of

teaching such as class size, the bell schedule, and time

obligations also make it increasingly difficult to maintaintwo basic requirementsof research of any kind: careful de-

sign and systematic procedures. Some may argue that ex-

pecting students' understandingto "staystill"long enoughto be carefully "examined"may be naive, especially in the

context of school where change in understanding throughinstruction is modus operandi. The solution, some would

suggest, is to rework the focus or design of the research.The

"phenomenon"being studied could have been redefined asthe change in the students' original understanding as a re-sult of my intervention. Or, perhaps, the phenomenoncould have been construed even more broadly to include

my actions,therebyfocusing on the interactionbetween meand my students. Or, I might have concentratedprimarilyon teaching during class and then later reflected back onclass as a researcher. n all cases, the research would neces-

sarily inform a differentquestion or issue.

Alternative Strategies for Addressing My Challenge

These types of "constraints"forced me to make difficultchoices. Whether these new questions are of more or lessvalue than the original question becomes important. Be-cause gaining an understanding of students' conceptionswithout the influence of teacher instruction was, in fact,

important to my research,I was faced with three options:one unsatisfactory,one unpleasant, and one difficult.

The first option was to do as suggested previously: take

a more active instructional role by helping and correctingthe student's understanding. This intervention fulfills thetraditional responsibilities of teaching, but compromisesthe original researchdesign: Only sketchy inferences canbe made about what the students' conceptions might havebeen before the influence of instruction. In addition, mov-

ing to a new set of researchquestions would not necessar-

ily eliminate the conflicts of conducting research and

teaching. New conflicts would surely emerge.The second option was to continue asking the student

extended, probing questions. As described in the vignetteat the beginning of this article, I sensed fairly early in myexchange with Toni that a "traditional" teacher would

probably have intervened and helped at that point. Soon

after I chose to continue "to observe" rather than "toteach," I realized that whether I chose to act as a "tradi-tional" teacher or not, I could not neglect the responsibili-ties of the teacher. The dilemma about how to act,therefore, represented more than a logistical conflict of

purpose (to research or to teach). Because this choice oc-curred in the context of a classroom, moral issues of con-duct (how to treat others humanely and responsibly)become centrally involved.

A Conflict of Conduct:When Research Seems Like the "Wrong"Thing to Do

Any viable option must begin with the assumption thatmost actions in classroom

settingswill have moral

impli-cations, whether these actions are primarily research or

teaching in purpose. Before the specifics of the third optioncan be discussed, the nature of the moral imperatives un-

derlying research and teaching will be examined. In the

following sections, an apparentconflictbetween the moraldimensions of research and teaching exemplified in the vi-

gnette is elaborated.Then, the issue of how to address thisconflict is discussed.

Whatwere the moral dimensions of my particularclass-room situation? As I attempted to draw more thoughtsfrom Toni, she was clearly becoming uncomfortable withthe situation. She seemed confused with my requests forher to explain again. She may have thought that she had

just provided an explanation...why did I want her to ex-plain again?Also, she may have been expecting me, as theteacher,to respond to her initial answer with some sort ofevaluative response and then to move on to another stu-dent.1 She may have been surprised to find herself an-

swering more questions-questions that were ambiguous,questions that she had not volunteered to answer. Hersideward glances to the rest of the class, her furrowed

brow, her plaintive sighs all suggested that I was treatingher in a way that was, somehow, not quite right.

Not only did this course of action seem to place Toni inan uncomfortable position, but by granting extended at-

APRIL 1995 25



tention to a single student, I sensed I was also being unfair

to the rest of the class. Several other students had raised

their hands in eager anticipationof their turn to answer the

question. After they had been made to wait considerably

longer than they were accustomed, they began to demon-

strate their dissatisfaction. Some students who continued

to have their hands raised sighed loudly; others explicitly

complained about how it was unfair that I was not callingon them; and more than a few students gave up and dis-

engaged fromthe lesson by turning away from the front of

the class, talking to their friends, or putting their heads onthe desk.2

From a researchperspective, my persistent questioningseemed like a methodologically sound approach. To gaina rich understanding of an individual's knowledge typi-cally requires a series of extended, probing questions. In

the context of the this classroom, however, my actions

seemed unfair, inconsiderate, or irresponsible. My efforts

to be thorough and systematic-to exercise "control" n a

research sense-in learning about Toni's explanation si-

multaneously led to a loss of "control" n teaching sense.

My actions as a researcher compromised my role as ateacher.

The Third Choice:Renegotiate the Culture of the Classroom

Lampert(1985)has argued convincingly thatgood teachingis inherently fraughtwith these kinds of tensions. In these

dilemmas, the teacheris typically confronted with a situa-

tion where all alternatives for action areequally unsatisfac-

tory.According to Lampert,these dilemmas illustrate how

teaching is more than the simple application of technical

strategiesto problem situations. Instead of "solving"these

dilemmas, the teacher can only strive to manage or negoti-ate the tension and act with compassion and integrity.

How did I manage the tension resulting from my effortsto be both a researcherand a teacher?My extended ques-tioning of Toni had clearlyviolated several established ex-

pectations concerning the interaction of teacher andstudents. First, teachers usually expect and get brief stu-dent responses to their questions. (Dillon, 1985; Wong,1991).Second, teachersusually acknowledge students who

wish to respond to the question. By the existing system of

rules and values of my class, my actions were interpretedas unfairby the students. Several students complained ex-

plicitly that I was ignoring their requests to participate,whereas others tended to "disengage"as a form of passiveresistanceto my method of teaching.

Thesuggestion that my actions violated students' expec-tationsprompted me to reflect on the concept of "fairness."Fairness implies a following of a standard of what is

proper and is characterized by the expectations, actions,rules, and rewards in a situation. What is significantto thisanalysis is that standards of fairness are,in many cases, dy-namic and specific to the situation and can vary from classto class. The teacherhas the capacityto establish and, more

importantly, change standards of fairness. Therefore, f theundesirable consequences of a dilemma can be construedas encroachments on what is considered fair, then oppor-tunities for negotiating the situation emerge with fewer

compromises to personal or professional integrity. Di-lemmas need not necessarily be intractable "no-win"situations.

It became clear to me that a nontraditional classroom

culture would have to be established where the roles,

rules, expectations, and conceptions of fairnesswere rene-

gotiated so that extended teacher-student interactionswere perceived as a normal,valuable partof the classroom

experience (see Figure 2). For example, the purpose of

teacherquestions would change. Instead of representinga

tool for evaluation, monitoring, and controlling students,teacher questions would be associated with a genuine in-

terest and valuing of the students' knowledge. In such a

context, students might be more likely to want to answerquestions and give more elaborated, courageous re-

sponses. Furthermore,effortsneed to be taken to reinforce

the belief that this type of extended discussion does not

suggest that the student must be wrong or confused. In

fact, exactly the opposite would be implied. Continued

conversationwith a particularstudent would indicate that

his or her ideas areinsightful and important.Finally,when

the teacher does not immediately call on other students in

the class who wish to participate,these occasions must be

made to represent opportunities for the students to learnfrom their peers. The work of Eleanor Duckworth (1987,1991)stands out as an example of how research on student

learning might be productively integrated with classroom

teaching.Accomplishing this change in the context of learning is

not likely to be simple for several reasons. First, the con-

ception of the teacher as the principle source of knowledgein the classroom and of teaching as didactic is deeply em-

bedded in the students' prior and, most likely, current ex-

periences in school. Students will likely come to class

expecting this kind of interaction and may resist efforts to

change them. However, in any school system there are usu-

ally a small minority of teachers who take seriously andvalue the ideas of their students. Learning is seen as aworthwhile struggle to be engaged in by individuals and

groups, rather than as an exercise of understanding and re-

Specificactivities of

teaching andresearch

The teacher asks

questions of the

students

A single student

engages in an

extended discussion

with the teacher

Most of the classwaits while the

teacher spends a lotof time talking to

another student

Interpretation ofactivities (initialcontext)

Questions implyevaluation,

monitoring,and efforts to

control students

Suggests that the student

must be not understandor

have the wrongidea

This kind of treatment sunfair o the rest of the

students

Interpretation ofactivities

(intended context)

Questions seek clarification

and elaborationof students'

ideas

Suggests that the student has

something uniquelyvaluable

to share

This kindof situation is an

opportunityfor other

students to listen and learn

from someone other than the

teacher; is a part of the

process of the social

construction of scientific

explanations

FIGURE2. Changing he classroomontext osupport esearchand teaching




membering the words of texts and teachers. The existenceof these kinds of classrooms demonstrates that this kind ofinteraction is possible and responsible.

Second, changes in the culture of the classroom are not

simply mandated and enacted by the teacher.Instead, thenature and intensity of engagement between the studentsand the teacherand among the students themselves is nec-

essarily negotiated. Powell, Farrar,and Cohen (1985) de-scribe these classroom "treaties" as agreements, almost

always implicit, between teacher and students concerningwhat it means to learn. In changing standards of fairness,both the teacher and the students are moral agents with a

right to say what should happen in classrooms.

Finally, changes in classroom conduct, although sup-portive of research activity, must always benefit student

learning. In the case of Toni, for example, how could our

protracted discussion about her incomplete, scientificallyinaccurateexplanationbe of educational value to the otherstudents? This kind of interaction may have done little toadvance the class's collective conceptual understanding.However, current science reform movements (e.g., Project2061) emphasize portraying scientific knowledge as tenta-tive and dynamic, involving students in authentic taskssuch as the constructionof

explanations,and

fosteringstu-

dents' belief in the power and value of their own ideas.Within the context of these curriculargoals, Toni's tenta-tive efforts to explain her ideas and my interest and appre-ciation for her thoughtfulness are an instantiation of whatit means to engage in science. As students attend to her

ideas, they may be inspired with ideas and courage to de-

velop their own explanations or to elaborate, concur, or

disagree with what has alreadybeen said. Within this kindof classroom culture,my research and teaching might pro-

ductively coexist. Again, this kind of perspective, expecta-tions, and interactions would have to be negotiated and

valued by both teacherand students.

What Can Be Learned From the Struggle to Be a

Researcher/Teacher?

In this article,I have presented a specific example frommyexperiences to illustrate the kinds of issues that challengethe researcher/teacher.Although the particularfeatures of

my conflict may not apply to others, particularly thosewho are doing researchon their own teaching rather than

on student learning, I suspect that the difficulty associated

with functioning in multiple roles in an effective and re-

sponsible manner is familiar to both university or school

people. The goals of researchand teaching can lead to lo-

gistical problems when planning exactly how one goesabout doing both at the same time. In addition, the moral

obligations and professional responsibilities of being the

teacher are immediate and unavoidable. Although the ten-sion between the methods of responsible teaching andsound research can seem particularly intractable,castingthese dilemmas as issues of "fairness"highlights the so-

cially constructed and, therefore,alterablenature of class-room culture. In some cases, the norms for classroom

interaction and learning can be renegotiated by teacherand students in such a way that the goals and activities ofresearchand teaching might productively coexist.

Finally, tensions of this nature are an inherent part of

complex teaching rather than "problems"that we wouldbe better off without. Professionalgrowth is prompted and

guided by an examinationof one's purpose, action, and ef-fect in the classroom. I was surprised by how my struggleto be an effective researcher/teacher led me to frequentlyand seriously consider general questions about teaching,curriculum,and research.

Whatdoes it mean to teach?Those who adopt the role ofthe researcher/teacher (or inquiring teacher, action re-

searcher)frequently are employing innovative curriculumand teaching methods. In doing so, they will likely findthemselves working against established conceptions of

how teachers and students, or students and students,

ought to behave in a classroomsetting. Conceptions of fair-ness and, more importantly, the underlying implicit and

explicit culture of behavior in schools reflect deeply in-

grained assumptions about education held by the teacher,the students, the school, and the community.Changing theculture of the classroom to accommodate differentpatternsof interaction and new perspectives on what it means tolearn and understand is likely to require a great deal of

thought, energy, and time. The researcher/teacherwill be

required, therefore,to consider basic curricularquestionssuch as "Whatare the goals of instruction,how will learn-

ing occur, and what are the roles of the teacher and stu-dents?" In addition, the differences between theseintended curriculargoals and assumptions will have to be

compared and contrasted with those goals and assump-tions implicit in existing practice.Forexample, in my own

experience, I had to puzzle over why many studentsseemed to prefer to do tedious seatwork activities (e.g.worksheets) instead of engaging in what would seem to bemore interesting, thought-provoking discussions.

What s worthteaching? n addition to questions of rightor wrong conduct, questions about the nature of desirableends for instruction also demand consideration in school

settings (Tom,1984).These curricularimperatives are cap-tured by normative questions such as what really mattersor to what end does one pursue a particularactivity?(Shul-

man &Tamir,1973).The researcher/teacher,therefore,alsohas a moral responsibility to make classroom experiencesvaluable for the students. Because this type of researchconsumes a considerable amount of in-school time and be-cause that time is designated for instruction, the issue ofwhether the students are learning anything of worth be-comes critical.In my situation, I had to seriously considerhow and whether an extended discussion with Toniwouldbenefit the class as a whole. How was my encouraging herto elaboratea confused, scientificallyincorrectexplanationresponsible science teaching? The rhetoric that typicallyunderlies this kind of teaching highlights the importanceof allowing students to have and elaborate their own ideas.

Valuing students' ideas ostensibly "empowers" them and

enables them to feel more ownership of science. Whetherthis kind of teaching does accomplish these goals andwhether students learna significantamount of science con-tent is an empirical question, and teachers and researchersshould proceed accordingly.

In general, researcher/teachers and good teachers alikeare constantly asking themselves whether what actuallyhappens in the class is worthwhile teachingand whether itis better than the existing curriculum. New ideas are often

disruptive and frequently discontinuous with pre-existingscience teaching. What are the consequences of failure? Ifthe curriculum or the teaching fails to lead to valuable

APRIL1995 27



changes in the students' understanding, the implicationsextend far beyond an experimental failure to "rejectthe

null hypothesis."Whatdoes t mean odo research? he perspective of the re-

searcher/teacher affords the potential for rich descriptionand useful insight into the experience of teaching. How-

ever, certain features inherent in the researcher/teacherrole might be perceived as constraints to researchas it is

typically conceived. To briefly summarize from my own

experience:First,I devoted an unexpectedly large amount

of time and energy establishing and maintaining a class-room culture that supported the type of innovative teach-

ing that researcher/teachers and good teachers typicallyintend to do. Consequently, the effort and experiences as-

sociated with trying to get students to act and think in a

differentmanner often provided the most vivid and inter-

esting "data,"regardless of the original focus of my re-

search. Second, the environment of the classroom and of

schools, in general, is extremely complex and unpre-dictable.My best-laid plans were often at the mercy of stu-

dent absences, district testing, field trips in other classes,and special assemblies. These conditions forced me to re-

think and relinquish traditional concepts of "control"-a

fundamental element in the design, procedure,and analy-

sis of research. Similarly,Atkin (1991) describes anotherinfringement on conventional research control: The re-

searcher/teachers themselves change during the research

progressesas a result of events and actions. Finally,as a re-

searcher/teacher, although my role as researcherwas op-tional, my role as teacher was not. At all times, I had a

moral and legal responsibility to treat students with com-

passion and create experiences that were educationallyvaluable. Given these responsibilities, the quality of the

teaching necessarily takes priority over the quality of the

research.Therefore, n addition to changing classroom ex-

pectations and culturein ways that support researchactiv-

ities, researcher/teachersmust also consider seriously how

researchactivities might be recastto be commensurate,in-

tegral,and importantto the contextsand goals of teaching.

Notes

The author thanks the Dow Corning Corporation for its generous

support of this research. Also, the author acknowledges Gary Litchen-

stein, Aaron Pallas, and Dan Chazan for their thoughtful comments in

response to early drafts of this article.

'Sociolinguists have identified several enduring, conventional pat-terns of talk between teachers and students. Lemke (1990) refers to

these patterns as activity structures, while Cazden (1986) calls them

participation structures. In addition to providing a predictable, or-

derly means of interaction, these patterns maintain and reflect other

implicit elements of classroom culture such as the nature of authorityand the nature of

learning.

1996 Call for ProposalsBecause of the timing of this year's Annual

Meeting, the May issue of Educational

Researcherwith the 1996 Call for Proposalswill be mailed in the middle of the month

rather than at the beginning.

2Although control is typically associated with the role of the teacher,

students also exert a majorinfluence on the expectations and practicesof the classroom. Lemke (1990) describes actions such as "sidetalk"

and not paying attention as tactics by which students protest or dis-

play discontent for established patterns of classroom interaction.

References

Aristotle. (1951). The Nicomacheanethics (H. H. Joachim, Trans.). Ox-

ford: Clarendon Press.

Atkin, J.M. (1989).Can educational research keep up with educationalreform? Phi Delta Kappan,November,200-205.

Atkin, J. M. (1991, April). Teachingas research.Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Chicago.Carr,W. (1983). Can educational research be scientific? Journalof Phi-

losophy n Education,17, 35-43.

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

Cazden, C. B. (1986).Classroom discourse. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand-

bookof research n teaching(pp. 432-463). New York:Macmillan.

Clark, C. M. (1991, May). Educatingthegood teacher.Keynote address

presented to the Norwegian National Council on TeacherEducation

Conference, Tjome, Norway.Clark, C. M. (1990). The teacher and the taught. In J. I. Goodlad, R.

Soder, & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.), Themoral dimensionsof teaching (pp.251-265). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Corey, S. (1953). Action research o improveschoolpractices.New York:University of Columbia, Teachers College.

Dillon, J.T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Journalof Teach-

ing and TeacherEducation,1, 109-121.

Duckworth, E. (1987). "Thehaving ofwonderful deas"and otheressayson

teachingand learning.New York: Teachers College Press.

Duckworth, E. (1991).Twenty-four, forty-two, and I love you: Keepingit complex. Harvard EducationalReview,61(1), 1-24.

Elliott, J. (1987). Educational theory, practical philosophy, and actionresearch. BritishJournalof EducationalStudies,35, 149-169.

Elliott, J. (1990). Teachers as researchers: Implications for supervisionand for teacher education. Teaching nd TeacherEducation,6, 1-26.

Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). Themoral dimensions

of teaching.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectiveson problems in practice. HarvardEducationalReview, 55, 178.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking cience:Language, earning,and values. Nor-

wood, NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.Lewin, K. (1948). Resolvingsocial conflicts.New York:Harper & Row.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for in-

structional arrangements. AmericanJournalof Education,96, 215-231.

Powell, A. G., Farrar,E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). Theshoppingmall highschool.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Richardson, V.(1994).Conducting research on practice. EducationalRe-

searcher, 3(5), 5-10.

Schwab, J. (1969).The practical: A language for curriculum. SchoolRe-

view, 78, 1-23.

Shulman, L. S., & Tamir,P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural

sciences. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Handbookof researchon teaching

(pp. 1098-1148). Chicago: Rand McNally.Socket, H. (1989). A moral epistemology of practice? Cambridgeournal

of Education,19, 33-39.

Tom, A. (1984). Teaching s a moralcraft.New York:Longman.Wallace, M. (1987). A historical review of action research:Some impli-

cations for the education of teachers in their managerial role. Jour-nal of Educationfor Teaching,13, 97-115.

Wong, E. D. (1991). Beyond the question/nonquestion alternative in

classroom discussion. Journalof EducationalPsychology,83, 159-162.

Received July 25, 1994Revision received January19, 1994

Accepted January19, 1994


Wong Article

Documents

Transcript of Wong Article