Skip to main content
Log in

Facilitating critical reflection on practice through collaborative research

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper emanates from a study that analysed the critical reflection of teacher researchers as they talked about their investigations of the home cultures and literacies of a small group of children from socioculturally diverse family contexts. The collaborative research enterprise was undertaken by university and teacher researchers. The important role that collaborative teacher research and social interaction played in the critical reflection and co-construction of professional understandings in the project is the focus of this paper. The teacher researchers’ theorising about the complexity of their work as a result of the collaborative enterprise is discussed. Through the voiced research and critical reflection of the teachers, it has become obvious that their life’s experiences and resources are powerful in their pedagogical theorising. Teachers comment on the way in which they are positioned by ‘the system’ as technicians and how they experience tension between their own professional and primary discourses and that of the system. It is suggested that teachers be given opportunity within their work sites to enter the conversations about curriculum, pedagogy and change in knowledgeable and meaningful ways that are grounded in collaborative reflection and research. This paper explores the critical reflection and the social construction of new understandings about the complexity of teachers’ work that occurred in a collaborative research project carried out by a university-based researcher and four school-based early years teacher researchers. It will show how the collaborative research process facilitated critical reflection on previously unquestioned or unconsidered issues about the teachers’ work. The paper has been written by the university researcher under the watchful eye of the teacher researchers who want to remain anonymous. Their pseudonyms have been used. When the terms of this project were negotiated among the group, it was agreed that the voices of the teachers would always be reported authentically and anonymously. It was also agreed that any theorising, integrated language analysis (Freeman, 1996) or reporting that might be carried out, would be done by the university researcher That is not to say that the teacher researchers have not spoken about their involvement in the project to colleagues in professional development forums and conferences. Nor is to say that the teachers were not privy to the analysis process. It is to say that written reports for publication are to be done by the university researcher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Au, K.H. 1993,Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M.M. 1981, ‘Discourse in the novel’, inThe Dialogic Imagination: Four essays by M. Bakhtin, C. Emerson & M. Holquist (eds.) University of Texas Press, Austin Tx., pp. 259–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. 1993,Inside/Outside Teacher Research and Knowledge, Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) 1994,Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Department of South Australia 1992, Writing, Reading, Assessment Program (WRAP),Findings and Issues Arising. Final Report, vol. 1, Adelaide, South Australia.

  • Fine, M. & Weis, L. 1998, ‘Writing the ‘wrongs’ of field work: Confronting our own research/writing dilemmas in urban ethnographies’, inBeing Reflexive in Critical Education and Social Research, G. Schacklock & J. Smyth (eds.) Falmer Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freebody, P., Ludwig, C., Gunn, S., Dwyer, S.et al. 1995,Everyday Literacy Practices In and Out of Schools in Low Socio-economic Urban Communities: Executive Summary Department of Education, Employment and Training and Curriculum Corporation, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, D. 1996, ‘To take them at their word: Language data in the study of teachers’ knowledge’,Harvard Educational Review, vol. 66, no. 4, Winter 1996, pp.732–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, D. (ed.) 1997,Teacher Source. A professional resource and teacher education series. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Vermont, U.S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. 1990Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ldeology in Discourse, Falmer Press, Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, F. 1989, ‘Managerialism and morality: The corporate and republican school’, inQuality in Teaching: Arguments For a Reflective Profession. W. Carr, (ed.) Falmer, Lewes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., Foster, E. & Eddy, M. 1997, ‘Creating a space where teachers can locate their voices and develop their pedagogical awareness’,Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 863–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankshear, C. 1991, ‘Getting it right is hard: Redressing the politics of literacy in the 1990’s’, inLiteracy: Making It Explicit, Making It Possible, P. Cormack, (ded.) selected papers from the 16th. Australian Reading Association Conference, Adelaide, pp. 209–228.

  • Le Compte, M. & Preissle, J. 1993, 2nd edn.Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y.S. 1995, Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research, paper presented at the convention of the April American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

  • Moje, E. & Wade, S. 1997, ‘What case discussions reveal about teacher thinking’,Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 13, no. 7, pp.691–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moll, L. 1992, ‘Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach’, inMulti Disciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research, R Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil & T. Shanahan (eds.) NCTE & NCRE, Urbana, Illionois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (eds.) 1984,Everyday Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. 1990,Apprenticeships in Thinking, Oxford University Press, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, J. 1991, ‘Revealing the mysteries of teacher-written cases: Opening the black box’,Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 42, pp. 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. 1998, Researching the cultural politics of teachers’ learning, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide, November-December, 1998.

  • Strauss, A. 1987,Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, M.A. USA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. 1996, ‘The tape-recorder as a mediating factor in research’,Australian Educational Researcher, vol.23, no. 3, December, 1996.

  • Vygotsky, L.S. 1962,Thought and Language, Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Potter, G. Facilitating critical reflection on practice through collaborative research. Aust. Educ. Res. 28, 117–139 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219763

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219763

Keywords

Navigation