The classroom as laboratory: an exploration of teacher research.

When teachers are confronted with difficult situations in the classroom, where do they turn for information and advice? Current research suggests that many practicing teachers do not use educational research to make decisions in the classroom (Gitlin, Barlow, Burbank, Kauchak, & Stevens, 1999). If teachers do not rely on research to learn about teaching, where else might they turn? Strickland (1988) provided a list of the ways that teachers learn about teaching:

   They learn by reading, by
   observing in their own classrooms
   and in the classrooms of
   others, by reflecting on their
   observations alone and with
   others, and by sharing their
   knowledge and experience.
   They also learn through the systematic
   investigation of problems
   concerning them. (p. 759)

Strickland's (1988) list of sources of knowledge for teachers ends by mentioning that teachers can carry out systematic investigations of their problems. This approach, known as teacher research or action research, has been advocated in the literature since the early 1950s as a method for empowering teachers and addressing the failure of traditional university-based research to translate into a knowledge base for practicing teachers (Lewin, 1948; Corey, 1953).

The purpose of this article is to review the literature regarding teacher research for both researchers and practitioners in the field of gifted education. It provides an overview of the nature of teacher research and describes the possibilities in and issues surrounding teacher research. I hope to make the case that these methods could play a positive role in classes where gifted students learn. It is not my intention to discredit the importance of existing educational research. Instead, I intend to make the case that a disconnection between the world of the researcher and the world of the practitioner exists and results in sub-optimal classroom practices. Ultimately, I hope that teacher research will continue to emerge as one of several methods to address this issue.

Reasons That Teachers Do Not Use Research

A small body of literature exists describing the attitudes of classroom teachers toward educational research. Though the amount and scope of this literature is limited, the findings are remarkably consistent. Teachers unfortunately find much of existing research to be inaccessible, irrelevant to their daily experiences in the classroom, or counterintuitive (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). Johnson (1989) argued that the increased methodological sophistication of educational research has helped researchers forge academic careers but has made research less accessible to the practitioner.

Gitlin et al. (1999) investigated pre-service teachers' attitudes towards research. A consistent theme that emerged from their interviews was that academic research is inaccessible to teachers. Linda, a participant in the study, said, "a lot of what has been presented here at the U. is very hard to read and very hard for us to understand" (Gitlin et al., p. 761). This may be especially tree for quantitative research articles since teacher education programs typically do not train teachers extensively in statistics or experimental design. The National Council for Accreditation of Teachers Education (NCATE; 2004) standards for teacher education programs does not list basic familiarity with statistics or experimental design as a goal for teacher training programs.

Additionally, when teachers can understand research articles, they often find them to be irrelevant to their classroom experiences. Dawn, a preservice teacher, reflected:

   The kind of educational research
   I think that bothers me the most
   are the people that are theorizing
   for the sake of theorizing. That
   is lovely but I am never going to
   read it. If it does have a practical
   application it is a distant one ...
   theory is not relevant to someone
   working in a classroom
   (Gitlin et al., 1999, p. 761).

Debbie, another preservice teacher, reported a similar opinion about the value of educational research:

   A lot of the time I don't see new
   things happening in education.
   They just name and rename
   terms. I mean something that
   was called this so many years
   ago is back and now it is called
   something else with a new buzz
   word. (Gitlin et al., 1999, p. 762)

Perhaps one reason that teachers find research irrelevant is that almost none of the educational research is written by practicing teachers. The teachers are considered as objects of study and as implementers of research results, but the actual concerns, questions, and perspectives of teachers are conspicuously absent (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). Since much educational research is written by and for academic researchers, it is easy to understand why classroom teachers may not find it relevant or accessible.

Furthermore, evidence suggests that classroom teachers see research as a tool for determining effective methods of classroom instruction, and believe that it should be as pragmatic as possible. However, when faced with the task of making decisions in the classroom, teachers rarely turn to research (Gitlin et al., 1999). Instead they rely on intuition or take advice from colleagues. In addition to the aforementioned factors of perceived irrelevance of research and inaccessibility, the exclusion of teachers' voices from the research literature, educational policy decisions, and curriculum decisions, may lead teachers to distrust "outsiders." Gitlin et al. (1999) described this aspect of teacher culture:

   Because teachers are often
   silenced in terms of educational
   policy in much the same way,
   students who become teachers
   often resent and resist the construction
   of expertise as residing
   outside the corridors of
   schools and therefore point to
   experience and fellow teachers
   as primary sources of knowledge.
   (p. 760)

It seems self-evident that teaching practices could be improved if teachers used research results as a guide to decision making in the classroom. It seems that the most pressing cause of this disconnection is that current methods of communicating research results to practitioner audiences have not been especially successful. An effective solution to this problem may lie in improving the communication between the two communities through improvements in the number and relevance of publications designed specifically to communicate research results to teachers in interesting and understandable ways. Another possible solution to the problem of getting teachers to read and use academic research is encouraging teachers to do their own research. Research done by members of a local context to improve that context is called action research. Action research performed by teachers to refine and improve teaching is known as teacher research. It is a powerful way for teachers to become more refined practitioners by helping them to make informed, evidence-based decisions.

A Historical Examination of Teacher Research

Lewin (1948) coined the term "action research" in the 1940s to describe the process of practitioner-done research. He stated that, "Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice" (Lewin, 1948, p. 203). Corey (1953), a pioneer in applying Lewin's concept to educational contexts, concluded that:

   Action research in education is
   research undertaken by people
   who actually teach children,
   supervise teachers, or administer
   school systems in an attempt to
   solve their practical problems by
   methods of science ... in order
   that they may know, on the basis
   of relatively objective evidence,
   whether or not they are accomplishing
   the things they hope to
   accomplish. (p. 141)

Action research is based on the notion that schools should function as centers of inquiry, and on the idea that increasing the openness, curiosity, and willingness to try new approaches on the part of teachers and schools will increase the quality of educational practices (Connelly & Ben-Peretz, 1980).

There are multiple models of action research. The models should not be considered to be formal constructions, loose sets of assumptions of the role of teachers, the role of research, and the efficacy of teachers in performing valid research. The "end-in-view" model is based on the notion that curricular programs should be designed externally by university-and agency-based researchers (Connelly & Ben-Peretz, 1980). However, this model, unlike previous implementation models, does not treat teachers as if they are conduits for external reform efforts. Instead, the model focuses on the important supporting roles that teachers and students play in the implementation of new curriculum and methods. The ultimate goal of this approach is to reduce teacher resistance to new programs. Engaging in action research would allow teachers to unlearn old roles and adapt more readily to new programs (McNamara, 1972).

Another approach conceptualizes teachers as "teacher-experimenters" (Popham & Baker, 1970). In this way, teachers are seen as junior researchers who should conduct small-scale experiments in their own classrooms, based on a careful reading of university-based research reports, in order to improve their professional competence. This view, like the "end-in-view" model, views new developments in educational curriculum and methodology as being generated outside of the classroom. Teachers are again considered primarily as implementers of other people's programs. Presumably, the purpose of this type of teacher research is to allow teachers to discover for themselves the validity and applicability of university-based research, to help teachers maintain openness to new ideas, and to ensure that teachers approach the classroom with an attitude of inquiry (Popham & Baker, 1970). Connelly and Ben-Peretz (1980) pointed out that this type of research is firmly planted in the positivist tradition, that controlled experiments comprise only one type of research, and that this type of research may not be the most useful for practitioners. Furthermore, teachers are still considered primarily as implementers of the ideas of others. With this tool, teachers develop a deeper understanding of and commitment to programs developed outside of schools, thereby increasing the degree to which the programs are adopted in unmodified form (Connelly & Ben-Peretz).

Connelly and Ben-Peretz (1980) argued to a model of action research that is performed by classroom-based teachers and university-based researchers in a collaborative fashion. This approach argues for the importance of teacher inquiry in creating effective classrooms; however, the goals of teachers and researchers are considered to be divergent. The primary purpose of action research under this formulation is to function as a direct aid to classroom decision-making and not as a creator of new knowledge. Furthermore, this approach grants teachers more freedom to adopt a critical attitude toward programs created by outside sources. Action research is a tool that allows teachers to determine the value of research results and includes the possibility of teachers choosing to reject the proposed model. Teachers are granted more authority to choose and evaluate new approaches to teaching.

A final model of action research sought to radically democratize educational research. It is the most drastic of the approaches, because it argues that teachers should be considered the primary center of authority and expertise with respect to education. Lawrence Sten-house, an advocate of this approach, argued "researchers should justify themselves to practitioners, not practitioners to researchers" (Ruddock & Hopkins, 1985, p. 114).

All of these approaches should be considered as implicit critiques of the ability of academic research to effect change in the classroom. They are arranged in ascending order of challenge to the traditional model and of authority granted to teachers. All are based in Dewey's (1904) notion that teachers should both receive and create knowledge about teaching and learning, and should reflect on their day-to-day experiences in the classroom in order to improve the quality of instruction.

The Process of Teacher Research

Nixon (1988) described a set of steps in the teacher research process. The first stage of action research occurs when a teacher experiences a sense of unease or what Okunrotifa (1971) described as a "feeling of dissatisfaction" (p. 155). The teacher is displeased with some aspect of classroom life and recognizes that she needs more information or a better understanding of classroom phenomena in order to address the problem (Nixon, 1988). Elliott (1978) was especially clear on this last point, explicitly stating that the identified problem is one that requires a response.

The second stage of action research involves two sub-stages. The first sub-stage occurs when teachers plan a practical or a strategic response (Cohen & Manion, 1980) to the dissatisfaction. The second sub-stage occurs when teachers plan how to record and analyze the data. A variety of methods can be used for this purpose, including field notes, diaries, portfolios of student work, standardized or teacher-made test scores, questionnaires, interviews, and audio or visual recordings (Nixon, 1988; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982).

The third and fourth stages of the process can be expected to occur simultaneously. The third stage occurs when the teacher implements the strategic plan. The fourth stage involves the collection and analysis of data. Even in research designs that employ pre- and post-testing, some informal evaluation will occur before the post-testing occurs (Nixon, 1988).

The fifth stage involves reflection (Nixon, 1988). Upon completing a research project, teachers have gained practical knowledge to aid in decision-making. They have developed methods and materials to assist in further evaluation. They may have uncovered additional concerns or questions that will motivate them to continue the research process. Finally, they may feel compelled to communicate their findings and new insights to other practitioners (e.g., Hughes, 1999).

These steps or stages should not be understood as occurring in a rigidly stepwise pattern. The process evolves naturally, with the emphasis shifting from one stage to another until the study is complete (Shumsky, 1962).

The results of the research process must inform practice. They must guide future study and lead to revised action plans. At best, the teacher research process is a cyclic process of continually improving one's thinking and practice in the face of new learning (Nixon, 1988).

A Question of Methodology

Teacher researchers may draw from a variety of research methodologies and theoretical perspectives when performing classroom research. These methodologies can generically be classified as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. The nature of the research question should drive the choice of theoretical perspective and methodology (Olson, 1990).

It is important to consider that teachers often are not interested in the construction and refinement of theory; they are interested in clarifying and understanding what is happening in their classrooms. This has major implications for research design. If a quantitative approach is appropriate, it can be vastly simplified. The basics of the scientific method, such as randomly assigning students to treatment groups and control groups, remain intact. However, the analysis stage becomes much easier. This is because the local classroom is in many cases the entire population of interest, and gathering data from the entire class is easy and convenient. For this reason, complex inferential statistics are not needed. Teacher researchers can simply examine group means or correlations without testing for statistical significance.

Qualitative research by nature does not seek to uncover patterns that may be generalized to a larger population, so it is also well-suited to teacher researchers who want to investigate their own classrooms. Many types of data may be used in qualitative studies, including teacher and student reflections, interviews, case studies, notes, and many others (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1989). Student products are another rich source of qualitative data.

Benefits of Teacher Research

There are a number of reasons that teachers can benefit from being actively involved in doing research. Supporters of teacher research claim that it offers a number of benefits to practitioners. First, they claim that teacher research allows practitioners to make better decisions regarding curriculum, instructional techniques, grouping arrangements, and materials. Basing these decisions on classroom research rather than intuition or expert advice increases the likelihood that effective choices will be made (Olson, 1990). Second, the research process forces teachers to be reflective, to ask questions about classroom events, to notice ways that their own behaviors influence the classroom, and to experiment with new approaches to teaching (Olson). Third, teachers who perform their own research are empowered by the process and gain confidence and authority. Furthermore, the professional status of teachers as experts is enhanced by the increases in knowledge, confidence, and authority created by the research experience (Olson).

Teachers who have actually participated in teacher research corroborate these claims and describe more benefits. Ward (1984) described a collaborative research project undertaken by New York City teachers and Teachers College, Columbia University, to examine ways for teachers to deal with distracting students in the classroom. The teachers who participated in this project reported decreased isolation, an increased interest in teaching, and an improvement in the quality of teaching. They described how participating in research helped keep them creative and reduced the experience of burnout (Ward).

Finally, the focus on assessment and accountability in recent educational reform efforts has intensified the need and concern for schools to evaluate the educational programs. Teacher research is an effective means for gathering detailed diagnostic data about the school environment for evaluative purposes (Herrick, 1992). These data may be "richer" than simple standardized test scores and therefore a more effective guide to local decision-making.

Problems for Teacher Researchers

Nixon (1988) pointed out two problems that teacher researchers may face. These problems will be exacerbated by emphasis on teacher evaluation. The nature of teacher research is inherently critical of the teacher because it seeks to uncover the weak points in instruction and to understand how teachers can improve their classroom practices. When teachers feel pressured to look good on evaluations in order to keep their jobs, they are unlikely to invite criticism by pointing out what is not working. Furthermore, teacher researchers, by definition, must take on the roles of both teacher and researcher. This can create internal conflict for the teacher researchers as they struggle to perform both roles. When teacher researchers are exposed to scrutiny, some might claim that the energy and time devoted to classroom research could be better spent if it were devoted to teaching (Hodgekinson, 1957).

Another related concern is that the colleagues of a teacher researcher, if they have not also chosen to take on the additional duties of researcher, may fear being exposed as inept or ignorant by the investigation of a teacher researcher. As Nixon (1988) wrote, why "should teachers expose their own weaknesses, when everyone else seems to be so keen on doing so?" (p. 27).

Herr (1999) discussed another type of issue that teacher researchers may face. She noted that teacher researchers who study sensitive political issues in their own schools are taking substantive professional risks. Herr performed a study of racism within her school, a private school that had made a public commitment to redressing the low minority enrollment in the school and had devoted a significant portion of its substantial financial resources to this goal. The results of Herr's research, however, portrayed a school environment that was not responsive to the concerns of its small Black population. As the research continued, the Black students at the school began to become more aware of issues of racism in their environment and began to adopt the role of activists. The activist group and the research team began to be perceived as threats by the school administration.

Teacher researchers must be aware of the possibility that their research agendas can possibly stir up political turmoil. As Herr (1999) pointed out, data gathering "sometimes tells us stories we do not want to hear" (p. 14). Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (1994) argue that these situations are unavoidable. Teachers must decide how strongly they should challenge the status quo based on the strength of their positions to effect change. If the critical spirit is abandoned, then teacher researchers risk further entrenching or justifying the problem.

Critiques of Teacher Research

The most common criticism of teacher research is that, due to teachers' lack of training in research methods, teacher research is likely to be invalid (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). Indeed, some proponents of teacher research have argued that teacher researchers model their work on traditional social-science research (Myers, 1985). Myers suggested that teachers should use quantitative research methods in classroom research, including significance testing and controlling for nonrelevant variables, should develop expertise with these methods, and should begin by performing small-scale replications of university-based research. It is unclear why teachers would be interested in performing small-scale replications of university research when evidence suggests that they do not read university research in the first place (Gitlin et al., 1999). Also, since significance tests are sensitive to sample size, the results of these small-scale replications are not likely to reach statistical significance unless the effect sizes are large and the research design is sufficiently powerful. Small sample sizes make the likelihood of failing to detect real differences between experimental and control groups very high. This lack of statistical significance could be discouraging to new researchers and might cause them to incorrectly conclude that the university research results are incorrect. As previously stated, if teachers are interested only in their own classrooms and not larger populations of students, significance testing is unneeded.

Another common criticism of teacher research is that it is a generally unworkable approach because teachers already operate under severe time restraints, lack training in research skills, and are not provided with institutional or financial support (Worthen & Sanders, 1987). Because teachers' time is already overburdened, asking them to do research in addition to teaching might actually reduce the instructional quality in schools (Hodgekinson, 1957).

Hodgekinson (1957) criticized teacher research for its lack of generalizability. Even if teacher researchers do not intend to perform studies that attempt to infer the characteristics of a large population from a small sample, this lack of generalizability can be problematic. This is because the composition of the classroom is in constant flux. Therefore, the validity of results from a teacher research project may have a short lifespan. Hodgekinson pointed out that performing the same study year after year would be time consuming and expensive. He believed that teachers would not want to carry out this repetition, and he believed it to be likely that outdated or inappropriate research results would become an erroneous guide to classroom decision making. He wrote:

   It would seem that teachers
   would have a greater cause to
   become stagnant, if they did
   incorporate action research
   findings in their teaching, as
   they could then defend these
   techniques on the grounds of
   scientific objectivity, saying
   that, "this is the best way
   because four years ago we tested
   it through action research. "
   (p. 143)

Another issue is whether or not teachers can generate research that contributes to the production, testing, and refinement of theory due to the comparative methodological weaknesses of teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). Advocates of teacher research consider this issue to be irrelevant because teachers are generally not concerned with answering large theoretical questions and are instead motivated by the desire to hone their classroom practices. Furthermore, critiques of teacher research that come from university-based researchers involve a set of assumptions that cause them to discount the value of teacher research. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) wrote:

   Researchers in the academy
   equate "knowledge about
   teaching" with the high-status
   information attained through
   the traditional modes of
   inquiry. They fault teachers for
   not reading or not implementing
   the findings of such
   research, even though teachers
   often find it irrelevant and
   counterintuitive. Yet teacher
   research, which by definition
   has special potential to address
   issues that teachers themselves
   identify as significant, does not
   have a legitimate place. (p. 4)

Cochran-Smith and Lytle go on to conclude that teacher research should not be compared with university-based research because it will always seem inferior. Instead, teacher research should be considered its own genre of research with its own conventions and its own distinctive features. Another way that advocates of teacher research have addressed these criticisms is by recommending collaboration between teachers and researchers.

It is clear from these criticisms that teacher researchers should receive training in research methods, or collaborate with a university-based researcher who can guide them through the research process. Many of the criticisms of teacher research were written before the popularization of qualitative approaches and only apply if teachers are performing quantitative studies. (1) Teacher researchers could be provided with institutional support in the form of released time or Staff Development Unit (SDU) credits to ensure that their research does not detract from their classroom teaching. Finally, teacher researchers must recognize that the results of research performed in one environment may not apply when that environment changes. They must remain attuned to the sense of unease that will indicate a problem.

This issue of time emerged in the findings of Gitlin et al. (1999). The pre-service teachers who participated in this study reported that the amount of time required for them to adequately prepare for each day precluded the possibility of engaging in teacher research. While it is probably true that all teachers have many competing demands on their time, I believe that it is important to temper these somewhat pessimistic findings by remembering that these are pre-service teachers who are at the very beginnings of their careers. As they gain experience, they will require less preparation time--perhaps allowing opportunities to engage in research if they are motivated to do so.

Collaboration Between Teachers and Researchers

Teacher-researcher collaboration is a possible method for addressing the shortcomings of both university--and practitioner-based research (Beck & Black, 1991; Dyson, 1997; Goodson & Fliesser, 1995; Patterson & Stansell, 1987; Pica, 1998). As mentioned, one shortcoming of teacher research is that teachers are not trained in research methods. By pairing trained researchers with teachers, this shortcoming can be addressed.

From the researchers' perspective, the increased interest in qualitative methodology has led to an enhanced appreciation of the subjective perceptions of teachers and the ways that they construct reality (Goodson & Fleisser, 1995). This in turn has caused the role of teachers in university-based classroom research to transition from a research subject to a co-participant or a partner.

However, this collaboration between teachers and researchers is not without problems. Feldman (1993) pointed out that the collaboration between university-and classroom-based researchers could not be considered to be an equitable collaboration unless both take on equal amounts of responsibility for problem definition, data collection, data analysis, and report writing. They must share a set of goals, and the needs of both parties must be met.

Thiessen (1991) described three types of inequality that can affect the relationship between teacher researchers and university-based researchers: position, social status, and expertise. Goodson and Fleisser (1995) went on to describe other sources of inequality:

   differences between university
   interests and teacher interests,
   associated with different structural
   locations; differences in job
   descriptions; hierarchical and
   bureaucratic relationships; the
   way teacher voices are represented
   in reports where the academic's
   voice drowns out the
   teacher's voice; and, where the
   relationship between school
   teacher and outsider researcher
   has grown into dependency, a
   form of mutual confirmation
   being pursued (often indicated
   through phrases like "am I giving
   you what you want?"). Outside
   researchers may be
   unwilling to give up their power
   base, which is based on the modern
   notion of their having "specialized
   knowledge." (Goodson
   & Fleisser, 1995, p. 6-7)

Despite the difficulties, there are models of successful teacher-researcher collaboration in the literature (Dyson, 1997; Beck & Black, 1991). Dyson studied the process of a successful teacher-researcher collaboration in designing an intervention and concluded that any successful collaboration must ensure that researchers respect the following processes. First, researchers must know the school context and build the intervention program on the teachers' experiences. Second, researchers must generate and make efficient use of resources. Third, efficient communication must be maintained. Fourth, conflict and resolution must be handled professionally, respectfully, and equitably. Finally, the plans for the intervention program must draw on teacher feedback. Although it is true that the intended audience for Dyson's report was university researchers, it is clear that both teachers and researchers are responsible for the quality of the collaboration. Relieving teachers of their responsibilities as a way to ensure a smooth collaboration is inherently unequal. Furthermore, to address Goodson and Fleisser's (1995) commentary on "specialized knowledge," (p. 6-7) it must be noted that both parties in the exchange do in fact possess specialized knowledge, and this fact should be mutually respected by both parties rather than downplayed, ignored, or resented. Both parties must be responsible for working to ensure that the collaboration is successful.

Teacher Research in Gifted Education

There have only been a few studies describing the use of teacher research by teachers of gifted students. Probably the best example of what the teacher research process might look like within gifted education was reported in Hughes (1999). The author of this study was a fourth-grade teacher in a regular education classroom. Her students represented a wide range of ability levels, from academically gifted to special needs. The special education students received daily support from a specialist within the classroom; the gifted students received no outside enrichment or support. The problem of how to best meet these bright students' needs within the classroom was the focus of the research. Many types of data were gathered, including teacher-constructed surveys of the students in the class, student portfolios, classroom observations by other teachers, parent interviews, and daily journal reflections.

This research is interesting for several reasons. First, at the beginning of the research study, the teacher researcher conducted a brief literature review related to grouping, differentiated instruction, acceleration, and enrichment. Though this step is not strictly necessary for teacher research, I believe that any interaction of teachers with research findings can only be beneficial. Second, the findings that emerged through this process of local inquiry (i.e., balancing enrichment with acceleration, using flexible grouping, and allowing students some autonomy in academic decision making) mirrored the findings generated by university-based researchers. It represents the convergence of research performed from two distinctly different levels of analysis onto a common set of findings, establishing a system of reciprocal validation whereby the findings of both types of research confirm and strengthen one another. Third, the experience will continue to impact the quality of teaching in the author's classroom because she described plans to use the surveys she developed for this project regularly to aid in self-evaluation. Fourth, her findings will impact an audience beyond her local context. She presented her findings to larger audiences through presentations to her colleagues within the school, to the district-level gifted education committee, and via publication. Fifth, the author described how this project has motivated her to continue reading relevant research literature in order to stay abreast of current developments that could improve her classroom teaching. Finally, the experience of conducting this project motivated the author to carry out more classroom research. She concluded her report by writing, "I find each question answered brings yet another question in my quest to provide my high-ability students with the most effective education experience" (Hughes, 1999, p. 296).

Two studies by Kitano and Pederson (2002a, 2002b) illustrate collaboration between a university researcher and a classroom-based practitioner. Both studies deal with multicultural issues in gifted education. The first (Kitano & Pederson, 2002a) deals with effective multicultural education practices, while the second (Kitano & Pederson, 2002b) is concerned with instruction practices for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. Both are based on the belief that "a great deal of knowledge about best practices in educating gifted students resides in the minds of master teachers" (Kitano & Pederson, 2002a, p. 270). Though the studies utilized differing research methods, both successfully synthesized theoretical literature with practical practitioner expertise. Both studies gave teachers "in the trenches" voices in the research literature, helping to fill the void described by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990). It is hoped that more research similar to the studies described above will be published in gifted education journals.

Teacher research could be very useful in addressing issues of program evaluation. Gifted education programs are difficult to evaluate by their very nature. Herrick (1992) presented ways that teacher researchers can collaborate with university-based researchers to effectively evaluate various aspects of district programming. A short example is given describing how this collaborative model was used to evaluate a gifted program and create action plans for its improvement.

In this time of budget cuts, one may wonder where this necessary institutional support will come from. Many teachers are encouraged by their administrative superiors to complete graduate degrees in order to increase their expertise in content and pedagogy and often this education is paid for by the school district. If school administrators could be convinced of the power of teacher research as way of improving the skill and knowledge of their teachers, perhaps some of this funding could be allocated for research purposes. Furthermore, these graduate programs often include optional training in action research. The Hughes (1999) study described above was conducted as part of such an assignment. In her case, several teachers from her elementary school were taking this class simultaneously and supported one another through the research process.

Conclusion

Teacher research should be considered an alternative type of research tailored to the needs and demands of teachers. It is a powerful tool for teachers who want to "do more" and improve their own teaching. The proper role of teacher research is not to test and contribute to theory, nor should it attempt to generalize beyond the local context. Instead, teacher research should answer the questions that teachers themselves have concerning their daily classroom practice. The quality of teacher research can only be enhanced when teachers and researchers collaborate. Collaboration is highly recommended for teachers who want to investigate theoretical issues or make large generalizations to ensure that proper research methods, data analyses, and standards of methodology are met.

The teacher research model of Connelly and Ben-Peretz (1980) that envisioned it as an empirical tool for informing classroom decision-making is perhaps the most useful way of thinking about teacher research. Under this conception, academy research retains its utility as creator and refiner of knowledge and theory. Teacher researchers are teachers who have become empowered to seek answers to the questions they have about practice and to adopt critical attitudes toward programs imposed upon them by outsiders. I want to re-emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest that all educational research should have immediate classroom application. Instead, I am arguing that both types of research are necessary and that they complement and reinforce one another.

When teachers substitute their own research experiences and those of others for opinion, rumor, marketing, or political agenda, the quality of teaching can be improved for all students, including the gifted. Classrooms that become laboratories are better classrooms.

(1) Though the validity of data gathered by both qualitative and quantitative approaches relies on adhering to accepted methodology, I have been unable to locate any critiques of qualitative teacher research.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A, (1994). Studying your own school: An educator's guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.

Beck. D.,. & Black, K. (1991). Redefining research relationships: Two heads are better than one. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37(2), 133-140.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle. S. L (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-10.

Cohen, L., & Manion, M. (1980). Research methods in education. London: Croom Helm.

Connelly, F. M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teachers' roles in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 12(2), 95-107.

Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to (practice in education. The third NSSE yearbook (part 1) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dyson, L. (1997). Toward successful researcher-teacher collaboration: Processes and benefits involved in developing a special education project. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43(4) 207-221.

Elliott, J. (1978). What is action research? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(4), 355-357.

Feldman, A. (1993), Promoting equitable collaboration between university researchers and school teachers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 6(4), 341-357.

Gitlin, A., Barlow, L., Burbank, M. D., Kauchak, D., & Stevens, T. (1999). Preservice teachers' thinking on research: Implications for inquiry-oriented teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7), 753-769.

Goodson, I., & Fliesser. C. (1995). Negotiating fair trade: Towards collaborative relationships between researchers and teachers in college settings. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(3), 5-17.

Herr, K. (1999). Unearthing the unspeakable: When teacher-research and political agendas collide. Language Arts, 77(1), 10-15.

Herrick, M. J. (1992). Research by the teacher and for the teacher: An action research model linking schools and universities. Action in Teacher Education, 14(3), 47-54.

Hitchcock, G. & Hughes. D. (1989). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research. New York: Routledge.

Hodgekinson, H. L. (1957). Action research--A critique. Journal of Educational Sociology, 31(4). 137-153.

Hughes, L. (1999). Action research and practical inquiry: How can I meet the needs of the high-ability student within my regular education classroom? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(3), 282-297.

Johnson, W. K. (1989). Teachers and teacher training in the twentieth century. In D. Warren (Ed.), American teachers: Histories of a profession at work (pp. 237-256). New York: MacMillan.

Kemmis. S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Kitano, M. K., & Pedersen, K. S. (2002a). Action research and practical inquiry: Multicultural content integration on gifted education: Lessons from the field. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 25(3), 269-289.

Kitano. M. K., & Pedersen. K. S. (2002b). Action research and practical inquiry: Teaching gifted English learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(2). 132-147.

Lewin. K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.

McNamara, J. F. (1972). Teachers and students combine efforts in action research. Clearing House, 47(4). 242-248.

Myers, M. (1985). The teacher-researcher: How to study writing in the classroom. Urbana. IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Nixon, J. (1988). The teacher as researcher: Contradictions and continuities. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 20-31.

Okunrotifa, P. (1971). Curriculum improvement through action research. Teacher Education in New Countries, 12(2), 153-160.

Olson, M. W. (1990) Teachers who question are teachers who learn. Reading Psychology, 11(3), 277-282.

Patterson, L., & Stansell, J. C. (1987). Teachers and researchers: A new mutualism. Language Arts, 64(7), 717-721.

Pica, T. (1998). The teacher-researcher relationship: Multiple perspectives and possibilities. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 14(1), 1-23

Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1971)). Systematic instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2004). Professional standards tar the accreditation of schools, departments, and colleges of education. Retrieved February 22, 2004 from http://www.ncate.org/2004)/unit_stnds_2002.pdf

Ruddock, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings, from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Shumsky, A. (1962). In search of teaching style. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Strickland, D. S. (1988). The teacher as researcher: Toward the extended professional. Language Arts, 65(8), 754-764.

Thiessen. D. (1991) Living collaboratively in action research. In I. Goodson & S. M. Mangan (Eds.), Qualitative education research studies: Methodologies in transition (pp. 171-184). London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.

Ward, B. (1984). Do yon think of yourself as a teacher researcher? You should! American Educator, 8(3), 38-41.

Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.

Matthew McBee is a doctoral student in gifted and creative education at the University of Georgia. His research interests include underachievement, intelligence, creative cognition, social and emotional issues in the lives of gifted children, and the application of educational research to classroom settings. E-mail: [e-mail]