This article was downloaded by: [Yeditepe Universitesi] On: 29 September 2012, At: 02:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms
Steve Bartlett & Diana Burton
a b a b

University of Wolverhampton, UK 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 descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms, Educational Action Research, 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-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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 representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Educational Action Research Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 395405

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms
Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

Steve Bartletta* and Diana Burtonb

aUniversity
SteveBartlett 0 3 s.bartlett@wlv.ac.uk 00000September 2006 Educational 10.1080/09650790600847735 REAC_A_184706.sgm 0965-0792 Original Taylor 2006 14 and & Article Francis (print)/1747-5074 Francis Action Ltd Ltd Research (online)

of Wolverhampton, UK;

bLiverpool

John Moores University, UK

This article outlines how a group of primary school teachers from a cluster of nine schools in a networked learning community enquired into their classroom teaching. The teachers each identified an area of practice that they were developing in their classroom and wanted to evaluate, such as the benefits of pupils working in teams, or the creation of role-play areas. They decided what evidence they needed to collect and how to collect it. They met as a group and also individually with a mentor several times to share experiences and to discuss progress. At the end of their projects they presented findings and their analysis to each other. Their evidence and conclusions were also presented to other teachers at their school and sometimes at other schools within the cluster. The article considers whether, in the light of critiques of other similar teacher researcher projects, 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 teachers constitute an effective form of professional learning. The authors contend that it is the systematic collection of evidence and the critical examination of the teachers own practice that characterise such enquiry as research notwithstanding the emergent, rather than well-developed, use of traditional research conventions.

Keywords: Communities; Networks; Practitioner Research; Professional Introduction to teacher research Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in teachers investigation of their own practice and the term practitioner research has secured its place within educational discourse. Dadds and Hart describe practitioner research as a central commitment to the study of ones own professional practice by the researcher himself or 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: s.bartlett@wlv.ac.uk ISSN 0965-0792 (print)/ISSN 1747-5074 (online)/06/03039511 2006 Educational Action Research DOI: 10.1080/09650790600847735

396 S. Bartlett and D. Burton Teachers, in common with similar professional occupations, have a history of researching into their own practice. Indeed Campbell and Jacques (2003) suggest that for decades teachers have engaged in action research, practitioner research, collaborative enquiry, and teacher research in schools and classrooms to improve their teaching and learning, to develop and refine their practice, innovate and evaluate their teaching (p. 76). Practitioner research has further been promoted in recent years by various government-funded initiatives such as Best Practice Research Scholarships (Department for Education and Skills, 2000) and networked learning communities (National College for School Leadership, 2003). However, a number of significant criticisms have been made against the general quality of practitioner research. In analysing research conducted by teachers as part of an earlier Teacher Training Agency (TTA)-funded initiative, Foster (1999) found that 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 of their involvement in staff development activities (p. 383) rather than actual research. Foster was particularly concerned with the lack of firm data collected to support any claims made and thus the validity of any findings. Gorard (2002) has also suggested that much practitioner research funded by the TTA was merely descriptive of current practice 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 are not equipped with the basic knowledge, skills or understanding of research methodology in order to conduct research of any value. It is also suggested that schemes promoting practitioner research, such as those sponsored by the TTA and the Department for Education and Skills, treat research as a straightforward technical exercise ignoring the importance of the experience and expertise of the researcher on the outcomes of the process. Foster and Gorard appear to criticise practitioner research in terms of a traditional academic model of research. Whilst it may be that the examples of teacher research that they considered could, and perhaps should, have taken a more rigorous approach to data collection, it needs to be acknowledged that the stepping off point for practitioner research arises from professional concerns. It is worth remembering, too, that both historical and anthropological research have a long tradition of working within an interpretivist paradigm, wherein rich descriptive accounts predominate. Moreover, Roulston et al. (2005) have shown how the application of a rigid scientific model of research adopted by policy-makers and academics in the United States has served to both marginalise teachers voices and devalue teachers professional knowledge (p. 173). They suggest that narrow traditional definitions of research specifically discourage collaborative working between teacher researchers and university lecturers and inhibit practitioner involvement in a research process that does not seem to ask the questions that teachers are most interested in (Roulston et al., 2005).

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 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. Thus practitioner researchers will seek to persuade using their research. It is conducted from their particular perspective and often aims to change some aspect of pedagogy or 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 different research designs, strategies and methods of data collection need to be seen as appropriate. Verma and Mallick (1999), for instance, suggested the categories of pure or basic research, applied or field research, action research and evaluation research. They posited that there are critical differences between research that is oriented to the development of theory and that designed to deal with practical problems (p. 11). Hammersley (2002) suggests a distinction between what he terms as scientific and practical research. The criteria of validity and relevance are important to both types of 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 the commonality that exists between them. However, both Hammersleys and Verma and Mallicks typologies highlight the key point that there are different types of research with different purposes. Each have particular strengths and weaknesses and, whilst these types of research are complementary to each other, criticism arises, in part at least, from the impossibility of satisfying, simultaneously, all the criteria by which research findings can be judged (Hammersley, 2002, p. 124). Action research and practitioners There have always been different interpretations of what action research actually involves (Bryant, 1996) and we will only give the briefest outline here. Action research is seen as an approach to research carried out by professionals. It is rooted in practice and has moved away from the traditional academic approach based upon the major research paradigms (see the work of Carr & Kemmis, 1986; McNiff, 1988; Elliott, 1991, 2003; McNiff with Whitehead, 2002, for a more thorough discussion of 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 the working conditions of professionals. Methods of data collection are tailored to suit the circumstances. Each research project is designed for a specific set of circumstances and so is unique. What is critical for Elliott (2003) is that the action part of improving practice is an integral part of professional construction of new knowledge and understanding of problems. The nature of this form of research means that it is carried out in the researchers own place of work and so the case study approach is most common. Ideally, an eclectic view of data collection is taken, with the researcher using a variety of methods to examine a particular issue. The process whereby researchers are able to use their own understandings to interpret the situations they are investigating is termed reflexivity (Greenbank, 2003). This is an important aspect of action research and it

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

398 S. Bartlett and D. Burton is expected that the reflexivity of the researchers will be heightened as they develop their research skills. Though it is not possible to generalise from the findings of such small-scale research, its strength, according to Bassey (1990), lies in its relatability to similar situations. Validity is significantly strengthened as communities of researchers in schools examine and discuss each others findings, an activity described by Elliott (1998) as discoursive consciousness. This process would involve others and develop a wider understanding 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 the development of a professional community. Altrichter (2005) explains how what he terms communities of practice are significant places for professional development that form an important element in the creation and maintenance of teachers identities. Angelides et al. (2005) show how through such networks teachers can learn collegially as they share their experiences, problems and ways of solving these problems 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 more fashionably termed practitioner research. It begins with initial inquisitiveness leading to more formal enquiry by practitioners. The research process itself can generate greater professional understanding for those practitioners involved. In order to illustrate this we wish to analyse the work of a group of teacher researchers over the period of one academic year. Whilst we accept that there can be criticism of the quality of their research when compared to that of university researchers, it needs to be recognised that as beginning researchers they have collected and analysed data, shared experiences, peer reviewed findings and thus increased their professional knowledge during the year. The research network The teachers who took part all belonged to a group of nine primary schools (i.e. teaching children of ages 511 years) that had formed a networked learning community situated in the north west of England and funded by the government through the National College for School Leadership (see National College for School Leadership, 2003). These communities are clusters of schools that group together to work collaboratively to develop particular aspects of the curriculum. The schools in this network were particularly focusing on developing pupils learning with an emphasis on them understanding how they learn. Some funding was set aside to allow one participating teacher from each school to evaluate the changes they were introducing into their classroom practice. It was expected that these teachers would feed back their experiences and research 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 presentation day in the summer term. A research mentor from a local higher education provider was to work with the teachers at the meetings and with teacher researchers individually during the year when they requested support.

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? 399 The projects The setting up and planning of the research The initial research meeting, led by the higher education (HE) mentor, focused on the meaning of research and evaluation, the stages in conducting a small-scale research project, useful types of data collection and the scale of data collection. It was stressed to the teachers that their research must be about something they were very interested in, they needed to be doing or introducing something that they could practically evaluate; methods of data collection had to be practical and appropriate. They were reminded of the data collection and display skills that they already used daily in their professional work. The teachers planned their projects individually during the first meeting and this was presented to the group before they dispersed at the end of the session. It was accepted 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 issues relating to the research and their teaching. The discussion focused on comparing classroom experiences and thus raised issues of professional interest as well as addressing the collection and analysing of data. The project culminated in the presentation day at the end of the year when seven teachers presented their projects to each other. Each was discussed by the whole group in turn. One school did not take part at all in the research due to a new head not nominating a teacher to take part. A teacher from the ninth school came to the first meeting but did not attend any others. The individual projects The focus for each project was discussed at the initial meeting. Some had chosen their own focus but for others it had been suggested by their heads and they needed to decide if this was what they really wanted to do or not. This led to some individual soul searching as to what the purpose of the research was and what their professional interests were. In the event, however, a recent in-service training programme on teamworking meant that five of the teachers decided this should be their focus. Their various work settings and interests led to key differences in the emphasis of these five investigations. Lindas research was an extension of a project she had done the previous year when she had looked at pupils working in teams. Data had been collected in a portfolio that consisted of photographs of pupils working, examples of pupil work over the year and her reflective written comments at the end of each unit of work. These findings had been used as part of a school in-service session on teamworking. In this, the second phase of her research, Linda was now working with other teachers in their classrooms on teamwork. She observed teaching, interviewed teachers and pupils and collected work 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 with primary school pupils in classroom learning. However her head had been very

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

400 S. Bartlett and D. Burton impressed when he had seen pupils working in teams in her classroom and suggested that she should record this. She had, on reflection, agreed that this would be an interesting thing to do that fitted well with her work over the year. She focused particularly on collecting data from two teams of four pupils in the class for the research. This enabled detailed qualitative data to be collected as she charted their development through the year as two case studies. Her evidence was pupils work, her ongoing notes and interviews with pupils on their feelings about working in teams. Julie worked in an infant school that was separate but built alongside the junior school. She conducted her research with her junior school partner, Sian. They did not want to research brain gym as had been suggested by the two heads and after discussing 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 children in the infant and primary classroom and how classroom activities would have to be conducted accordingly. Their evidence was gathered in their own schools through observation notes of lessons, comparing work done by children when working in teams and that done when not working in teams, interviewing children at the end of the research period and interviewing other teachers that had used learning teams. They then put the evidence together from their two classrooms and compared results. Paula was also going to look at pupils working in teams but had so far had very different experiences to Rachel with this classroom strategy. Her pupils had found it difficult to work in teams and some were resistant to the process. The relating of her experiences led to detailed discussion in the group and an analysis of different approaches to working in teams. As a result Paula was now going to use a different approach to introducing teamwork and she would monitor the results. Her evidence was to be the work of a number of identified pupils over the period and her observation notes. Elizabeth was very unsure of what to research at the start. She wanted to do something on thinking skills but she was very unclear of how these could be applied to the very young children she worked with at KS1 (children aged 5 to 7 years old). In her school the staff had taken part in in-service training on the use of thinking hats but there was not a coordinated approach as to what they should do next. She felt that she needed to clarify her thoughts on the whole thinking hats procedure. Elizabeth spent quite a bit of time reading up on thinking hats and talking to other colleagues about how they used it and what they thought of it. She then worked out a strategy of asking particular types of questions that took the young children through the different modes of analysis within the thinking hats model. She found that this had quite an effect on the pupils ability to reason. She had intended to introduce thinking hats in year 2 but members of the research group queried whether it needed to be introduced at all now that the pupils were used to the different questioning techniques. Elizabeth had collected some examples of classroom practice for discussion and she was perhaps only now on the threshold of being able to actually conduct what she would consider research. However, she had been involved in a process of investigation and questioning throughout the year that had developed her understanding of

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? 401 pupils learning. Also, perhaps most importantly, she had begun to critically appraise one aspect of pedagogy that seemed to have been accepted rather unquestioningly in many primary schools across the Local Education Authority. Hannah, like Linda, had been involved in a research project in the previous year when she had looked at the effect of role-play areas and story-making tables on pupil learning in a reception class (i.e. starting school). She had looked at how these areas could be constructed and how children used them to develop their ideas. She had collected evidence in a portfolio that had pictures of pupils in the areas and examples of the work they had produceddrawings, etc. Originally she had tried to link this to pupil development of language skills though she soon realised the link was impossible to measure and that the processes involved were inevitably very complex. She had felt that 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 developments for 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 teachers classrooms from reception to year two. This development was to be the basis of her research this year. Again the data included a portfolio of photographs of pupils in the role-play areas and at the story-making tables with examples of their work. Added to this were interviews with the other teachers, classroom assistants and pupils, and observations conducted by Hannah in different classrooms. Discussion of the research We noted earlier that three particular characteristics of action research are that it arises from practical questions, it is participatory in nature and its validity is strengthened through peer examination and discussion. The teacher researchers in this network had decided upon their individual foci based upon their own professional circumstances. They had discussed their research projects with colleagues in their schools. Thus the research was arising out of practical concerns and interests from their own place of work. It was also highly participatory in nature and involved extensive peer discussion. Hannah and Linda had previously conducted research in their own classrooms and were now involving other teachers within their schools to see the effects of play areas and teamwork respectively. Two teachers from different schools, Julie and Sian, worked together on their research. Through the progress meetings all the teacher researchers discussed their research together and with the HE mentor and considered what data to collect and how best to collect them. Discussions took place in these meetings about the research foci, for example different perceptions were aired concerning the benefits and issues of using teamworking 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 older age groups. This led to a discussion of constraints on the curriculum and the broader purposes of primary education.

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

402 S. Bartlett and D. Burton The teacher researchers had all been involved in in-service training on pupil teams and 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 identified as a potential problem by Gorard (2002) and Foster (1999). However the network review meetings with the HE mentor as facilitator highlighted different teacher experiences, for instance of pupils working in teams. Though the teachers discussed and rationalised the differences in opinion and experiences there was a growing awareness of weaknesses and strengths in teamworking. This was further illustrated in the findings of Julie and Sian, who found teamworking to be useful in some learning situations, such as science, but far less so in others such as literacy where pupils were in ability groups and the pupil interaction and potential for teamworking were different. Similarly, Linda was very much in favour of teamworking but, after looking at it in operation in her classroom and those of other teachers in her school, had adapted it to suit different situations. This was based on her experience of when it worked best and when it was more appropriate to use other teaching and grouping strategies. In doing the research and interacting with colleagues in the feedback sessions the teachers became more aware of the complex nature of what is often treated superficially during in-service training sessions. Alternative explanations emerged and there was also, for some, the introduction to further literature. For instance, the mentor and Linda became involved in a discussion of the constructivist approach to learning and how Vygotskys scaffolding concept explained certain strategies suggested in an active learning manual. She said that this theoretical explanation had given her greater insight into the learning process. Elizabeth, being very unsure and rather confused by all the different in-service training, had spent much time reading through the learning manuals and adapting them to her own strategy. She then discussed the suitability of this with the research group. This illustrates a point made by Burton and Bartlett (2005) that, as teachers become more involved in classroom research, they begin to seek out the relevant associated literature and thus often become increasingly involved in theory. It could be argued that the research process coupled with the group support and discussion had enabled these teachers to be more critical of what was presented as an officially sanctioned approach. They were able to evaluate suggested innovations and as a result to be more confident in how they developed their classroom practice. The discussions in the research group thus show the potential of teacher research for 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 the action research process is to take place. Here we see evidence of the development of professional communities as discussed by Altrichter (2005). Differing methods of data collection were used and varying amounts of data collected. The teachers had been unsure as to how much to collect and the advice had been to consider their working environment and teaching commitments and, in the light of these, to be practical. They did consider how data could be useful in their collection for display and in-service training purposes. Within the group a range of

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? 403 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 the teacher researchers had not received any formal training in data collection and criticism can be levelled at how systematically they approached it. However, for all beginning researchers this is part of the learning process. These teacher researchers had not routinely considered the issue of validity of data collection methods. In conducting their research, though, they had in fact experienced potential for triangulation as several sources and data collection methods had usually been adopted. In some cases the research presentations demonstrated that such techniques may have been inadvertently applied rather than being part of a pre-planned strategy. However, in future research projects these teachers would be cognisant of the need to employ such validation techniques having developed an understanding of their necessity and application through experience. It was important that the teacher researchers did not make claims that their data could not support. One constraint on how they portrayed their data, and an important characteristic of action research, was that it had to be credible with their fellow professionals. There was ongoing discussion within the research group of the methodologies used and the data collected in the regular network meetings. Final presentations to the research group were largely on PowerPoint and some also involved portfolios. The teacher researchers explained their findings to the rest of the group and this generated real interest and questioning about what they did, how they collected data and how the data could be interpreted. Sian had also presented her findings to her staff and Linda and Hannah had discussed their research and findings with other schools staff from the learning community on development days. This laid their findings open to further peer scrutiny which facilitated greater validation of the research process and refinement of their thinking about the findings. Over time and with suitable opportunities a number of these practitioners may develop further their interest in related literature and research findings, thus adding to their understanding of 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 classroom practice. Important criticisms have been levelled at the investigations of teachers into their own classrooms (Foster, 1999; Gorard, 2002) but others (Verma & Mallick, 1999; Hammersley, 2002) have suggested that research in education can take a variety of forms. We have seen that for investigation into classroom practice action research provides an appropriate approach. It has thus been taken up in recent years under the heading of practitioner research. The practical importance of the research to the professionals involved, the participatory nature of the process and the importance of peer review in validation of findings are all key features of the action research approach. The work of the practitioner researchers in this study exemplifies these features very well. It has enabled the development of their research skills and the

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

404 S. Bartlett and D. Burton establishment of communities of practice to discuss and share their experiences of teaching. The research is relevant to their professional activity and its validity has been strengthened through peer discussion of the findings. This professional relevance is at the very heart of practitioner research and, as such, validates its respectability as one form of educational research. Thus whilst at face value it may be legitimate to label practitioner research as descriptions of practice rather than objectively designed research studies we have in fact established a false dichotomy through our title deliberately to reflect the kind of criticism levelled at practitioner research. The dichotomy is false because it is these very descriptions of classroom practice which constitute the data source for the research projects. So it is not possible to conduct practitioner research without descriptions of practice. What distinguishes these descriptions as research, of course, is the critical questioning and appraisal that the teacher researchers and their communities of practice bring to bear upon them. This discoursive consciousness (Elliott, 1998) facilitates the teachers construction of new knowledge and understanding of the classroom issues they encounter.

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012

References
Altrichter, H. (2005) The role of the professional community in action research, Educational Action Research, 1, 1125. Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers investigate their work: an introduction to the methods of action research (London, Routledge). Angelides, P., Evangelou, M. & Leigh, J. (2005) Implementing a collaborative model of action research 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) Understanding 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 Educational Studies, 4, 380398. Gorard, S. (2002) Political control: a way forward for educational research?, British Journal of Educational Studies, 3, 378389. Greenbank, P. (2003) The role of values in educational research: the case for reflexivity, British Educational Research Journal, 6, 791801.

Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? 405

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

Downloaded by [Yeditepe Universitesi] at 02:59 29 September 2012