Complexities of Practitioner Research: Seeking Hallmarks of Quality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2022.256Keywords:
practitioner research, methods, quality, graduate educationAbstract
The emphasis in Ed.D. programs on professional knowledge and practical research means methodological training in these programs must prepare their candidates for the career demands graduates will likely encounter; practitioner research is well-suited to this task. Yet, the lower status traditionally accorded to practitioner research, along with an absence of clear guidelines for its methodology and quality, challenge its acceptance as a form of knowledge production. The current study analyzes 74 accounts of practitioner research in literacy for evidence of methodological quality. Findings reveal ways practitioner researchers systematically conduct and report their inquiries as well as areas for improvement. The hallmarks of quality identified in this study can be used by research educators to advance practitioner research as a methodology and knowledge generating endeavor.
References
Anderson, G. L. (2002). Reflecting on research for doctoral students in education. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 22–25.
Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028005012
Blakely, E., & Hemphill, D. (2021). Opening third spaces for research in education: Challenging the limits of technocratic methods. Myers Education Press.
Brett, A. T. (2016). Seeking a balance: Discussion strategies that foster reading with authorial empathy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.567
Broderick, D. (2014). Collaborative design: Participatory culture meets multiliteracies in a high school literary arts community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL
Bullough, R. V, & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003013
Buss, R. R. (2018). Using Action Research as a signature pedagogy to develop EdD students’ inquiry as practice abilities. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.46
Cease, B., & Wilmarth, M. (2016). Blogging about books: How choice in modality influences upper elementary students’ responses to reading. Talking Points, 28(1), 3–9.
Chanski, S., & Ellis, L. (2017). Which helps writers more, receiving peer feedback or giving it? The English Journal, 6(106), 54–60.
Check, J. W., & Schutt, R. K. (2011). Research methods in education. SAGE Publications.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of research and practice. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaite, & E. Grace (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (Vol. 2, pp. 503–515). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019002002
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028007015
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (pp. 601–649). Springer.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morris, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019005002
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Crowell, C. G. (2015). What is DIBELS? Talking Points, 26(2), 2–9.
Currin, E. (2019). From rigor to vigor: The past, present, and potential of inquiry as stance. Journal of Practitioner Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1091
Dana, N. F. (2016). The relevancy and importance of practitioner research in contemporary times. Journal of Practitioner Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.1.1.1034
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2020). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V, & Schneider, B. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X035006033
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publishing.
Finch, M.A. (2021). Making sense of methods: What does systematic and intentional practitioner research look like? Journal of Practitioner Research, 6(2), 3.
Flessner, R., & Klehr, M. (2016). Lessons from the teaching of teacher research. The Educational Forum, 80(4), 479–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2016.1208024
Gatto, L. (2013). “Lunch Is gross”: Gaining access to powerful literacies. Language Arts, 90(4), 241–252.
Gericke, N. J., & Salmon, L. G. (2013). Digging deeper into the culture of writing: Do mentor texts inspire male students to write? Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1058
Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated reading as a method to improve reading fluency for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.395
Heffernan, L., & Lewison, M. (2009). Keep your eyes on the prize: Critical stance in the middle school classroom. Voices from the Middle, 17(2), 19–27.
Heikkinen, H. L. T., de Jong, F. P. C. M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). What is (good) practitioner research? Vocations and Learning, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9153-8
Heikkinen, H. L. T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790601150709
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031005003
Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning & Changing, 44(3/4), 181–195.
Hochbein, C., & Smeaton, K. S. (2018). An exploratory analysis of the prevalence of quantitative research concepts in journal articles. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2018v13n11a765
Hoffman, J. V., Wilson, M. B., Martinez, R. A., & Sailors, M. (2011). Content analysis: The past, present, and future. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content anaylsis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Huberman, M. (1996). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73(2), 124–140.
Juana, M. B., & Palak, D. (2011). Podcasting as a means of improving Spanish speaking skills in the foreign language classroom: An action research study. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1088
Knieling, M. (2016). “An offense to their human rights”: Connecting Bud, not Buddy to the Flint water crisis with middle school ELA students. Voices from the Middle, 24(1), 31–35.
Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2017). Symbiotic space: Exploring the nexus of rigor, problems of practice and implementation. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 2(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2017.25
Lafferty, K. E., Summers, A., Tanaka, S., & Cavanagh, J. (2016). Evaluating multiple perspectives: Approaching the synthesis task through assessing credibility. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(5), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.475
Levin, M. (2012). Academic integrity in action research. Action Research, 10(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750312445034
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), New directions for program evaluation (pp. 73–84). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
Lobron, A., & Selman, R. (2007). The interdependence of social awareness and literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.6.3
McGee, A. R. (2011). Climbing walls: Attempting critical pedagogy as a 21st-century preservice teacher. Language Arts, 88(4), 270–277.
Mertler, C. A. (2016). Introduction to educational research. SAGE Publications.
Miller, M., & Shinas, V. H. (2019). Inquiring about inquiry: A research journey. Journal of Practitioner Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1093
Mills, G. E. (2018). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). Pearson.
Moratelli, K., & Dejarnette, N. K. (2014). Clickers to the rescue: Technology integration helps boost literacy scores. Reading Teacher, 67(8), 586–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1261
Nichols, S., & Cormack, P. (2017). Impactful practitioner inquiry: The ripple effect on classooms, schools, and teacher professionalism. Teachers College Press.
Nixon, R. L. (2012). Treating praxis as stance for teacher researchers in grade six science. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 14(2).
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., van der Steen, J., & Nijveldt, M. (2014). A study of the quality of practitioner research in secondary education: impact on teacher and school development. Educational Action Research, 22(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.854175
Ortiz, A., Ferrell, D., Anderson, J., Cain, L., Fluty, N., Sturzenbecker, S., & Matlock, T. (2014). Teacher research on boys’ literacy in one elementary school. Voices of Practitioners, 9(1), 1–19.
Pankratz, L. M. (2015). Building with blocks: Incorporating picture books to motiate and guide block play in kindergarten. Voices of Practitioners, 10(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Parsons, S. A., Gallagher, M. A., Ainger, J., Bartolini, M. C., Bruyning, A. K., Clark, E., Crain, S., Daoud, N., Doheney, K. S., Duff, S., Groundwater, S. V., Heller, J., Jensen, A., King, L. A., Lindenauer, J., Newton, J., Parsons, A. W., Ramirez, E. M., Sherman, J., & Smith, P. (2016). A content analysis of nine literacy journals, 2009-2014. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(4), 476–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16680053
Petrich, N. (2015). Book clubs: Conversations inspiring community. ie: inquiry in education, 7(1).
Ragland, J., & Palace, C. (2017). Literature circles for adolescent developmental readers. The English Journal, 106(6), 35–40.
Rust, F., & Meyers, E. (2006). The bright side: Teacher research in the context of educational reform and policy-making. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500365452
Schaenen, I., Kohnen, A., Flinn, P., Saul, W., & Zeni, J. (2012). “I” is for “insider”: Practitioner research in schools. International Journal of Action Research, 8(1), 68–101. https://doi.org/10.1688/1861-9916_IJAR_2012_01_Schaenen
Schroeder, S. (2020). Bad inquiry: How accountability, power, and deficit thinking hinder pre-service practitioner inquiry. Journal of Practitioner Research, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.5.1.1122
Stieglitz, A. (2021, June 7). Rethinking rigor in action research, with Dr. Alfredo Ortiz Aragón (No. 20) [Audio podcast episode]. The Action Research Podcast. https://the-action-research-pod.captivate.fm/episode/episode-20-rethinking-rigor-in-action-research-with-dr-alfredo-ortiz-aragon
Stremmel, A. J. (2007). The value of teacher research: Nuturing professional and personal growth through inquiry. Voices of Practitioners, 2(3), 1–9.
The CPED Framework. (2021). Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework
Tomczak, K. G. (2014). How does talk around reading influence comprehension in third grade? Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 16(2), 456–456. https://doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1039
Toth, A. (2013). Not just for after lunch: Accelerating vocabulary growth during read-aloud. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 203–207.
Whitecotton, E. (2013). Readers coaching readers?: A teacher’s reflection on discursive positioning in an elementary classroom. Talking Points, 25(1), 12–19.
Witte, P. G. (2016). Teaching first graders to comprehend complex texts through read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1467
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). American Educational Research Association.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Fletcher, M. (2007). The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880710829983
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Maida Finch
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.
