Being and becoming: action research as pedagogy.

Abstract

Engaging in teacher action research provides practicing teachers with opportunities for growth as well as a means to contribute to understanding of best practice in the field. This article describes an educator's pedagogical growth through an action research project she conducted in a suburban high school English classroom in a Midwestern state.

Introduction

It all started with a question. I was teaching high school English at a suburban high school, taking a university graduate class on literary theory, and my British Literature students were curious. They knew I had assignments and papers to write; they wanted to know what it was I was studying. One day when I was recovering from the process of completing a paper for class the night before, a student asked "How can you take a whole class on literary theory? What does that mean?" I started in a brief explanation; various students asked more questions and I found myself diagramming different theoretical approaches on the chalkboard in response until the bell signaled the end of class. As they filed out the door, I stood rooted in front of my sketches, struck by the students' curiosity, their interest in the "secrets" of literary interpretation, and how quickly the class period had gone by. It wasn't long before I stepped into the role of teacher-researcher when I decided to capitalize on my students' curiosity. I searched for appropriate teaching materials or guides, but couldn't find any that suited the needs of my students. I began to develop my own methods for using literary theory to organize the way I taught literature.

The Project

My research goals were straightforward: I wanted to see if teaching with theory would serve as a successful reading and interpretative pedagogy, and I wanted to experiment with various methods of presenting theoretical ideas. I wanted to use literary theory to structure units, differentiate instruction and bring intellectually engaging approaches to the high school classroom literary experience. My investigation would center on gathering student responses and transcribing classroom discussion as I methodically introduced various literary theories. Not only did I want to discover how students would respond to theory and whether using theory did encourage metacognitive awareness of how they constructed meaning from text, but also how theory is best introduced as pedagogy in a high school English classroom. Could students successfully learn theoretical approaches in order to articulate a variety of responses to literature and uncover their reading strategies?

Action as Transformation

"First of all I have to act. First of all I have to transform. Secondly I can theorize my actions--but not before" (Freire, 1971, p. 2). Although I had read these words long before I initiated an action research project in nay classroom, I did not fully understand what it meant to 'act first, then theorize.' This is, of course, the essence of praxis: the recursive pattern of action, theorizing, then adapting the action to further refine the theory as part of developing a sound, critical pedagogy. But, in order to fully realize this process, I had first to act; the theorizing did, indeed, come much later. My transformation as an educator was already under way, however, just by considering the educative possibilities of including theory in my high school literature classroom instead of continuing to teach in much the same way I had been taught throughout my high school and college years.

I began to develop and implement specific teaching and research methodologies. The next year I was assigned to teach a new World Literature class being offered by the English Department. The class was a "catch-all" for students who weren't, as one said, "into reading or writing." This meant that I was going to have to meet the needs and reading levels of a very diverse group of learners; some students had previously taken American and British Literature courses, while others had barely completed a basic English class. I had a World Literature textbook, limited set of classroom novels, and "suggested" curricular guidelines from the English Department. I looked over the sets of novels and realized that some students in this class had already read many of them, and some students had never had that opportunity. World Literature, with reading material and thematic units spanning the history of literature itself, was a complicated class to teach anyway. How could I best address the vast topic of World Literature and differentiate instruction to all of these students? How could I encourage them to become engaged, inquisitive readers? I wanted to do more to help the students in this World Literature class to discover meanings for themselves.

Because my goals involved introducing the general frameworks of literary theory to motivate and encourage students to engage in literate behaviors, not necessarily to explore theory itself, I summarized otherwise complex theories of literary meaning to help students begin to understand and apply different perspectives. I considered the materials and research I had conducted for my graduate course on literary theory and decided to focus on several basic approaches: archetypal, structural, sociological (which includes feminist/Marxist approaches), biographical, and philosophical. I wanted to introduce these ideas carefully and methodically so I wouldn't overwhelm students but help them grasp the basics of each approach. I chose to develop first an historic knowledge of a specific theoretical background, then developed heuristics for encouraging student inquiry into meaning-making, and finally activities to encourage critical reading and argument. Deeper study and understanding could come later in the academic career of those students who chose to pursue it. Advanced students could spend additional time with specifics in literary theory and application while I spent additional time with those who struggled. I devised introductory guidelines for each of the approaches I had chosen, outlined the basic premises, listed the works that we would read to practice using the approach and brainstormed activities for application and assessment. I chose the particular theoretical approaches based on the World Literature curriculum I had inherited, not because they were in any way more important or "easier" than any others.

Literary theory is, by nature, recursive, resulting in "a kind of cannibalization going on among Marxism, psychoanalysis, structuralism, poststructuralism, and so on.... The offshoot is a magma of interpretive discourses" (Iser, 2000, p.3). Theories of reading and interpretation tend to incorporate some of the same interpretive positions and processes. With the explosion in literary theory and application in the past years, more schools of thought have sprung up than I could possibly address in one class. I found that students not only appreciated knowing different literary approaches, but became dramatically better readers and interpreters of literature. They enjoyed experimenting with and puzzling through theory, and found themselves discussing literature with an understanding they hadn't experienced before. But most importantly, because theory gave them a clearer sense of purpose in their reading, they found new reasons to look closely at any given work and added incentive to read. And they loved arguing the merits of one approach over the other. For example, when we were studying structural/formalist theory, one student appreciated that it "gets the opinion out of it. It sets down standards that make you draw off only what you see in the text." Another student disagreed, writing "it is hard to figure out the one meaning and that it might not mean what the author intended." During class discussion, yet another student pointed out that we really couldn't use a structural/formalist approach in World Literature at all because we were not evaluating the literature in the native language, so we were actually reading and evaluating an entirely different work than the original. He was correct, and we had to think about that for a minute. But, after much discussion, students decided that we were "just practicing" so translations would have to do.

Because students were becoming more aware of their interpretive processes, they wrote in their own voices and responses became more authentic as students became more engaged with their reading. One of my favorite activities involved presenting students with a short story or poem to read from the theoretical approach they thought best suited for either their own interpretive strategies or the content of the piece itself. They were to write about how the theory helped them construct meaning from the text, and why it was appropriate for the interpretive situation. For example, we read "Why Reeds are Hollow" by Gabriela Mistral (Howes, 1973, p.89-90), I received responses like these:

   "From an archetypal approach, this is a story of death and rebirth.
   In the beginning, everything is alive, but soon things die because
   the reeds are greedy and want to be equally as tall as the trees.
   After six mouths, however, the land is reborn "Nature--generous
   always--repaired the damage in six months." At the time, the new
   order is established by "the River God [who] appeared after a long
   absence and, rejoicing, sang of a new era." The river is an
   archetype because it represents the transitional phases of life
   and the flowing of time into eternity. There was a transitional
   phase of life when things died and came back. Nature is supposed to
   be forever like the irreversible passage of time."

   "when this story was written, in 1914, World War 1 had started. In
   Europe, Germany was trying to grow bigger, change its shape, size
   and purpose. The story shows that everything has its natural shape,
   size and purpose and that it's wrong to try and change that.
   Everything should work together with their (sic) differences and
   there will be harmony. 'Beautiful is the violet for its minuteness,
   and the lemon tree for its gentle shape. Beautiful are all things
   as God made them: the noble oak and the brittle barley.' Knowing
   it was written during World War I makes this more meaningful."
   "[this is] a story in which the higher class is wanting power and
   so the lower class suffers as a result of their greed. So a major
   social revolution takes place among the plants."

I was a participant in my research as well, interacting with students as we learned together to make sense of the literary works and particular theoretical approaches. Being "present" in the research situation and participating in the learning process provided additional insight into how students were engaging in the methods I tested throughout the study. I found that incorporating an inquiry-based, critical approach in the classroom created a "community of learners" atmosphere in which I learned at least as much as I taught. The cooperative groups and discussions made possible by using theory to structure lessons provided opportunities for peer scaffolding. Students learned from and supported one another in the exploration of World Literature and literary theory, and the journey towards meaning became as important as the meaning itself. Instead of giving students an interpretation, or deciding if a student's interpretation is "correct" or valid, I could outline theoretical methods and simply say to students "Let's see if this works." I did not remain one of the "exegetes of the sacred text of literature" (Scholes, 1985, p.16), but instead joined the class discussion. If a student rejected a theoretical base, it was not a rejection of my interpretation or knowledge, but only methods we were currently practicing. Consequently, my personal ideology was less relevant in the interpretive process, discussion or grading and I read with them, not for them. The transaction between students and teacher, reader and text, student and classroom community infused the class with energy.

Genre of Teacher-Research

Perhaps most importantly, this project compelled me to take time for reflection on my pedagogical beliefs, the significance of classroom research and how to define strategies for constructing meaning from text. I began to feel confident enough to take my place in a strong and continuing tradition of reflective practitioners and teacher researchers. Kamil et als.(2001) have identified teacher-research data and reports as a "new genre":

   teacher-researchers are first and foremost teachers ... The insider
   role of teacher researcher brings with it a unique combination: the
   power associated with first-person insight, the limitation of
   participant perspective, and perhaps a bit of tension involved
   with trying to simultaneously teach and study one's teaching
   environment.... teachers are in the best position to explore their
   own practice and make sense of the classroom worlds ... (p. 18).

My research combines elements of literary research in the background and theoretical discussion of criticism and literary theory with methods of teacher research befitting my role as a reflective practitioner. Similar to Patricia Lambert Stock, I was

   conducting research in a genre that allowed me to bring the
   professional tools I had learned in my interdisciplinary education
   to bear on my professional work" (Stock, 2001, p.104).

This unique combination blurred the lines between what Stock calls "the classical distinction between propositional knowledge (knowing-that) and procedural knowledge (knowing-how)" (p. 110). The results of my research into methods of literary theory provide the propositional knowledge and the results of testing the application of those theories in the English classroom provide the procedural knowledge. In both ways, this research provided me with tremendous insight into developing literacy curricula.

The "new genre" of sharing teacher action research is an ideal vehicle for encouraging teachers to develop and share new practices. I have sifted through the data I collected to identify features of the students' experiences that encourage productive discourse in the field of literacy education, but not a specific set of 'rules' or teaching materials designed to replicate exactly the classroom activities that I experienced with my students. My experiences with students in the classroom is unique, as is every teacher's, because the culture of a given classroom is always unique. The social and cultural combination of students will always contribute to an interpretive community that is different from any other. Therefore, I view my research as part of an on-going dialogue within the community of educational researchers and reflective practitioners investigating ways of helping students develop an awareness of and proficiency in multiple literacies. In this way, the research process became the scaffolding for my own transformative reflection.

Reflection: Theorizing and Pedagogy

Putting literary meaning into words is a difficult thing, even for proficient readers and experienced literary theorists. Theory provided a common language for both myself and my students to articulate ideas and, because theory was the scaffolding for response, each student could contribute to the conversation and still recognize his/her own voice in doing so. As students engaged with theory, the specific guidelines I provided for each method enabled them to clarify ideas for an idea or concept and we experienced the thrill of articulating a thoughtful, focused argument. First they could comprehend a specific meaning within a work, but, eventually, they uncovered and discussed dimensions of meaning and real depth emerged in the classroom discussion and writing.

This became more than merely a project to answer the fundamental question of whether general high school students could comprehend theory and use these methods to better understand the process of constructing meaning from text. I learned more about the importance of examining why I taught certain material and concepts, why I used certain methods and practices. I recognized the significance of my pedagogical foundation for choosing teaching methods and subject matter. I was no longer teaching material merely because it was part of an accepted curriculum or because it was expected of me; I learned the value of authentic inquiry, student choice, and my responsibility to design interventions that would scaffold student discovery. I now believe this is only the beginning of the work that can be done to examine the role of literary theory in the high school classroom. My research, growth as an educator, and recognition of personal pedagogy all began with a question; now I have more questions.

Sustained inquiry and learning is the most important aspect of becoming a teacher-researcher. The act of changing instructional methods and gathering data engendered a fundamental transformation for me. Reflecting on and theorizing these actions led to a clarification of my professional and personal pedagogies. I have learned that I can contribute to the larger pedagogical conversation about the ultimate goals of teaching literature. As I contemplate the significance of teacher research, I recognize the truth in Paulo Friere's belief that "the origins of knowledge lie ... in the day-to-day transforming moments of human activity" (as cited in Roberts, 2003, p. 173). Encouraging teachers to participate in action research and share their findings in the genre of teacher research discourse will continue to expand our knowledge of best practice in the field of literacy education.

References

Freire, P. (1971). By learning they can teach. Studies in Adult Education, 2, 1-9. Howes, B. (1973). In the eye of the heart: short stories from latin america. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Iser, W. (2000). The range of interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R., eds. (200l). Methods of literacy research: the methodology chapters from the handbook of reading research, volume 3. Portsmouth, UK: Lea Publishing.

Scholes, R. (1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of english. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stock, P. L. (2001, January). Toward a theory of genre in teacher research: contributions from a reflective practitioner. English Education. 33:2, 100-114.

Schade Eckert, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of English Education at Purdue University.