Being a Teacher | Researcher

Bold Visions in Educational Research

Volume 50

Series Editors:

Kenneth Tobin, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA
Carolyne Ali-Khan, College of Education & Human Services, University of North Florida, USA

Co-founding Editor:

Joe Kincheloe (with Kenneth Tobin)

Editorial Board:

Barry Down, School of Education, Murdoch University, Australia

Daniel L. Dinsmore, University of North Florida, USA
Gene Fellner, College of Staten Island, City University of New York, USA
L. Earle Reybold, College of Education and Human Development,
George Mason University, USA
Stephen Ritchie, School of Education, Murdoch University, Australia

Scope:
Bold Visions in Educational Research is international in scope and includes books from two
areas: teaching and learning to teach and research methods in education. Each area contains
multi-authored handbooks of approximately 200,000 words and monographs (authored and
edited collections) of approximately 130,000 words. All books are scholarly, written to engage
specified readers and catalyze changes in policies and practices. Defining characteristics of books
in the series are their explicit uses of theory and associated methodologies to address important
problems. We invite books from across a theoretical and methodological spectrum from scholars
employing quantitative, statistical, experimental, ethnographic, semiotic, hermeneutic, historical,
ethnomethodological, phenomenological, case studies, action, cultural studies, content analysis,
rhetorical, deconstructive, critical, literary, aesthetic and other research methods.

Books on teaching and learning to teach focus on any of the curriculum areas (e.g., literacy, science,
mathematics, social science), in and out of school settings, and points along the age continuum (pre
K to adult). The purpose of books on research methods in education is not to present generalized
and abstract procedures but to show how research is undertaken, highlighting the particulars that
pertain to a study. Each book brings to the foreground those details that must be considered at every
step on the way to doing a good study. The goal is not to show how generalizable methods are but to
present rich descriptions to show how research is enacted. The books focus on methodology, within
a context of substantive results so that methods, theory, and the processes leading to empirical
analyses and outcomes are juxtaposed. In this way method is not reified, but is explored within
well-described contexts and the emergent research outcomes. Three illustrative examples of books
are those that allow proponents of particular perspectives to interact and debate, comprehensive
handbooks where leading scholars explore particular genres of inquiry in detail, and introductory
texts to particular educational research methods/issues of interest to novice researchers.
Being a Teacher | Researcher
A Primer on Doing Authentic Inquiry Research on Teaching and Learning

Konstantinos Alexakos
Brooklyn College, City University of New York, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6300-293-6 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6300-294-3 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-295-0 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2015 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 To Dina
Whose unwavering love and support have been the source of my strength.
 Table of Contents

Foreword: Authentic Inquiry: A Bold Vision for the Learning Sciences xi

Kenneth Tobin

Foreword: Getting the Most from Difference xv

Mitch Bleier

Prefacexvii

Acknowledgementsxix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Teacher Voices in Generating Theory 1

The “Objectivity” of Research, Knowledge and Knowing 3
Why Authentic Inquiry? 4
Authentic Inquiry as a Construct for Sociocultural Research 5
Reflexive Axiologies and Epistemologies 6
Using This Primer 7

Chapter 2: Sociocultural Theory and Teaching and Learning 11

What is Knowledge? 12
Sociocultural Framework 14
Social Interactions 16
Sociocultural Research in Teacher Education 20

Chapter 3: Teachers and Research on Teaching 23

Classroom Research 25
Teacher Knowledge through Systematic Research 28

Chapter 4: Elements of a Sociocultural Research Framework 31

Hermeneutic Phenomenology 32
Epistemologies and Ontologies 33
Axiology34
Criticality34
Bricolage35
Methodologies and Methods 36

vii
Table of Contents

Chapter 5: Authentic Inquiry Research 41

Heuristics42
Authentic Inquiry Research Framework 44
The Authentic Inquiry Heuristic 47

Chapter 6: Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts, and Vulnerabilities 49

The Belmont Report 51

Possible Tensions 53

Chapter 7: Research for Public Dissemination and the IRB 61

Recruiting Our Students as Participants 62

Benefits Versus Harm 63
Consent Forms 64
Some Additional Thoughts on IRBS 66

Chapter 8: Doing a Research Project 69

Deciding and Selecting Participants 70

Multi-Level Methods and Data Resources 70
Choosing Research Questions 73
A Framework for the Research 73
Event-Oriented Inquiry 74
Findings75
Generalizability 76
Writing up an Informed Proposal for Your Research 77
Doing Authentic Inquiry and Creating Interventions 79

Chapter 9: Writing up and Presenting Your Research 81

Literature Review 81
Manuscript or Thesis Component Descriptions 83
Flow Chart 88
Presentations89
Some Additional Suggestions 91

Chapter 10: My Beginnings as a Teacher | Researcher: The Spring 2007

Research93

The 2007 Physics Class 94

Chapter 11: Spring 2012 Study (The “BC Study”) 99

Challenges in Being Both the Principal Investigator and the

Course Instructor 100

viii
 Table of Contents

Chapter 12: Final Remarks 103

Research as Transformative 103

The Teaching | Learning | Researching Dialectic 103
Practice | Theory Dialectic in Writing This Book 105
Transformations105

Appendix107

References115

Index119

ix
 Kenneth Tobin

Foreword
Authentic Inquiry: A Bold Vision for the Learning Sciences

Research in education has become increasingly irrelevant mainly because of

entrenched methods that privilege systems of logic associated with a “scientific
method” that is consistent with crypto-positivism (Kincheloe & Tobin, 2009).
Unsatisfactory outcomes of this situation have been pervasive acceptance of
oversimplified approaches to teaching and learning about research (e.g., retention
of a bankrupt system of classifying research courses as quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed method), research designs that align with oversimplified models of social
life, acceptance of reductionism (i.e., focus only on a small number of variables),
and the assumption that research participants are a sample of objects from a
population of interchangeable objects (i.e., statistical generalizability). It would be
bad enough if this system of logics was one of many. However, the mainstream
regards its methodology and associated methods as the only game in town. For
decades crypto-positivism has provided a foundation for mainstream scholars, and
literate citizens accept its tenets as common sense. Continued adherence to this
traditional, mainstream approach contributes to the emergence of serious questions
about the survival of education. Increasingly, education lacks social relevance and
is impotent to address grand challenges that face humanity and more broadly, the
planet (e.g., climate change, health, sustainability). Konstantinos Alexakos seeks to
disrupt mainstream trends using authentic inquiry research as part of a multilogical
approach to research and education. Although this Primer will necessarily compete
in a social system that is dominated by a one-size-fits-all model for research in the
social sciences, I am optimistic that enough scholars will learn about and employ
authentic inquiry research in a multilogical methodology that can contribute to a
growing and persuasive body of scholarship to inform and improve the quality of
social science research in educational settings.
An example of the marginal status of alternative approaches being emphasized
by tacit adherence to crypto-positivism is that many researchers do not regard
authentic inquiry research as a viable approach that yields trusted outcomes. In large
part I think this is because authentic inquiry research does not embrace random
sampling of subjects from a population and statistical analyses of data that enable
research outcomes to be generalized to a population. That is, skepticism, and

xi
Foreword

sometimes antagonism are grounded in what our research is considered not to do.
Critics adopt deficit perspectives that identify fatal flaws, as they perceive them in a
study, and judge accordingly. Judgments are warranted in the context of their value
system, which is saturated with crypto-positivism. Critics expect “good” research
to include, among other things, fixed and enduring research questions as starting
points, research hypotheses framed in terms of operationally defined variables, and
empirical analyses and interpretations that interconnect variables and sample, all
resulting in findings that can be generalized to a population, and contribute to a peer-
reviewed and accepted knowledge base.
In his Primer, Konstantinos goes against the grain. He presents his own biography
as a teacher | researcher and in so doing shows a journey that eschews crypto-
positivism and raises questions about the purposes of research, using constructs
that include collaboration, difference, epistemology, ontology, and axiology.
Furthermore, Konstantinos highlights the importance of listening to and learning
from all participants in a study – especially those who are different. In his valuing of
authentic inquiry and his explication of its theoretical underpinnings and associated
methods he maintains a bold vision that offers the hope that research with teachers
and learners will be transformative.
A second example of marginal status of authentic inquiry research is the important
idea that research should benefit all participants. Design and enactment should
afford all participants changing their ontologies while learning from and about
others’ perspectives in ways that show value for and respect of different standpoints
and practices. Ethical conduct and respect are themes that permeate the chapters of
this book. Konstantinos provides concrete examples of how to do authentic inquiry
ethically, protecting all individuals from harm, ensuring that all benefit from being
involved in the research, and allowing everybody to transform both the design and
enactment of research. The approach stands in contrast to mainstream approaches
that embrace crypto-positivism and invoke statistical generalizability.
Konstantinos emphasizes that authentic inquiry research does more than pay
attention to ethics and beneficence. As well, the use of authentic inquiry contributes
to knowledge by producing theory and practices that can be used to improve the
quality of teaching and learning. A consistent feature is Konstantinos’s respect for
others, including those who constitute the IRB. The Primer provides examples of
how authentic inquiry research can be presented to the IRB in ways that maximize
the chances of approval. In similar fashion Konstantinos provides concrete advice on
how to write and publish authentic inquiry.
A different perspective offered by authentic inquiry and its potential to move
the field of education away from the mainstream is that most examples provided
by Konstantinos are associated with college classes. This is a departure from the
mainstream, which tends to emphasize pre-K-12 education. However, it is clear
that authentic inquiry research on teaching | learning can be situated in virtually
any context. Once again, this is a bold vision. Konstantinos broadens the focus on
learning content to include, as central, emotions and wellness. He even addresses

xii
 Foreword

affordances of non-Western knowledge systems, such as Jin Shin Jyutsu. As a step

in the progression of becoming aware of frameworks used by teacher | researchers,
valuing difference, beneficence, and polysemia, it is liberating for social science
researchers to shift their gaze to everyday life and the conduct of authentic inquiry
in the myriad places where teaching | learning are continuously enacted. By laying
out the affordances of authentic inquiry, Konstantinos provides a bridge for all
researchers in the social sciences to cross toward new horizons and embrace a
vista of expanded possibilities. In an era characterized by grand challenges, it is
refreshing to have the bold vision of authentic inquiry research presented in such a
clear, coherent, and appealing fashion. My hope is that the researchers | scholars |
teachers will embrace and further elaborate the vision.

Reference
Kincheloe, J. L., & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of positivism. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 4, 513–528. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9178-5

xiii
 Mitch Bleier

FOREWORD
Getting the Most from Difference

Research that is polysemic and polyphonic, like the work described in this volume,
can, should and often does encompass and reflect many more voices and viewpoints
than those of the teacher | researchers and co-researcher/participants involved in the
day-to-day experiences in the classroom or other research environment.
As part of a university research squad, which includes Konstantinos, I was
peripherally involved in the research projects described in Chapter 11. Our research
squad is composed of a somewhat fluid group of professors, doctoral students, other
graduate and undergraduate students, visiting scholars, friends and associates of the
projects and scholars at our large, urban, public institution.
The research squad is both a plastic and malleable entity that can be, and is shaped
to the continually changing needs of its participants. One of its weekly sessions
might consist of a participant bringing video data to the group for a structured session
designed to help make sense of puzzling events in a college classroom; the next week
might see a researcher sharing a draft of an article in-progress for feedback before
publication; another session might have visitors from a university in Brazil or New
Zealand presenting their own work that has parallels, similarities, and contradictions
with the work going on in the squad; yet another session may be devoted to giving
time for several squad members to “test drive” their dissertation defenses. Members
of the squad also meet and work together in many and various combinations.
During the study discussed in Chapter 11, I had the opportunity to be part of long
discussions about various aspects of the research and the experiences upon which it
was based. It was remarkable how different the stories of different participants were
in describing and reflecting upon the same events, even in the presence of videotape
and other data. At times it was as if the participants were describing completely
different events from each other as they depicted their shared experiences. Of course,
there were points of resonance and agreement, but the dissonances, contradictions,
conflicts and complete non-intersections often produced the richest knowledge and
understandings. The comings together and meaning-making resulted from many
different factors including cogenerative dialogues, squad discussions, and in my
case, the inclusion of peripheral and “outsider” voices and viewpoints. This all is
made possible because of the culture of respect and acceptance of differing voices
and viewpoints that characterizes our research squad.

xv
Foreword

My own current research is not closely related to Konstantinos’s work, but our
interactions in and outside of squad meetings and our discussion of each other’s
and fellow squad members’ professional work, have moved my research forward,
and, in several cases, changed its direction completely. Research that is a thriving
multi-headed beast with a life of its own, provides views of a world that is rich,
varied, and complex in ways that the lone researcher or the traditional, positivistic
social science research paradigm with its a priori questions and limited scope cannot
begin to address. Polysemia and polyphonia in the context of authentic inquiry
research, which forms the core/focus of this book, produce a picture of the messy
world of lived experience in ways that emulate that lived experience. Because of
its connections to lived experience, the knowledge produced may be more useful to
research, researcher, researched, and the world(s) which all of us jointly construct,
reconstruct and inhabit.

xvi
 PREFACE

Using a sociocultural approach to critical action research, this book is meant as a

primer for educators in doing reflexive, authentic inquiry research in teaching and
learning as teacher | researchers. Rather than the artificial dichotomy between theory
and practice, teacher and researcher are instead seen in a dialectic relationship in
which each informs and mediates the other (hence the use of the |) in the process
of revising and generating new knowledge that is of benefit to those being
researched. In addition to providing a theoretical foundation, this book provides a
detailed framework with ideas and strategies that interested educators can apply in
exploring teaching and learning in formal and informal settings. It discusses and
provides examples of how to plan and carry out authentic inquiry studies, including
methodologies, methods of data collection and analysis, working with human
participants, authenticity criteria and characteristics, challenges and conflicts for
teacher | researchers.
Like good hermeneutic inquiry, the focus of this book on authentic inquiry was a
bit unexpected to me. It emerged as I was writing it. The intent from the beginning
was to write a primer for teachers interested in researching their own practices and
doing research in their own classroom. Authentic inquiry organically emerged as the
way to do it.
Through my collaboration with Ken Tobin these past few years, my classrooms
have been the center of much ongoing research, by myself, my graduate and doctoral
students, as well as many other participant researchers. It was in negotiating through
some of the conflicts and contradictions I faced as a classroom teacher as a researcher
and as an educator for new teachers and researchers, that I began to use and focus
on his authenticity criteria, and examine sociocultural theory and hermeneutic
phenomenology more deeply.
This book went through two or three stages of writing. From the beginning,
my intent was to write a book for teachers as professionals, not for teachers as
technicians, generating their own knowledge as they critically and systematically
investigate teaching and learning theories and practices. I started by writing up
what I thought any good research book for teachers should include – not just the
mechanics on how to do such research and anecdotes from my own work, but also
the theory behind it. Then as I realized that the book should be about doing authentic
inquiry research. This led to the development and inclusion of the authentic inquiry
heuristic and necessitated the rewriting of the rest.
Lastly, the manuscript was then sent to some very critical though kind reviewers
who pointed out areas that were not clear or that needed further development. These
last revisions alone took me over a hundred drafts to get through. I am very proud of
the final product. I hope you, the reader, find the product relevant and useful in your
own research and teaching.

xvii
 Acknowledgements

This project would have been inconceivable had I not had the good fortune and
privilege of working closely with Ken Tobin for the past few years. Working
alongside him helped me develop as a teacher | researcher and as a person. He has
been a great friend and mentor.
In writing this book, the person who helped me shape it more than anyone else
was Malka Perelman Akerman. Especially with the early drafts, her unrelenting
“Make it personal!” and “Who is your audience?” helped me find my stride and
gave this book its personality.
I am also very grateful to members of our research squad(s) for their very helpful
comments and criticisms: Leah Pride, Shequana Wright, Corinna Zapata, and Mitch
Bleier.
Finally, I wish to thank my family for their support and understanding, my wife
Dina in particular. Her unwavering love and support have been the source of my
strength and fortitude.

xix
 Chapter 1

Introduction

The longer I am in this profession, the more mindful I become of the complexity
of teaching and learning, our practices, our emotions, how we communicate across
boundaries, and how we change and are transformed in the process. Perhaps the
greatest influence in reshaping how I think of teaching and learning and what
constitutes knowledge has been the research I have done in my own classroom.
Researching our own practices as teachers contributes to our learning, understanding,
and the growth of ourselves and our students. Beyond these obvious benefits, what
I have found very empowering and emancipatory is that we as teacher | researchers
become the creators of new knowledge and theories from which we, as well as other
teachers, can share and benefit.
Throughout this book, authentic inquiry is developed as a research framework.
It is based on collaborative research and used to improve practice. Rather than
privileging one type of knowledge over another, or one worldview over another,
authentic inquiry emphasizes polysemia and polyphonia. It is holistic and recursive.
The researched are invited to be co-researchers. Our inquiry changes as we learn
from the research, as we too become transformed by the experience. We do not
wait for the research to be concluded to suggest changes; instead, interventions are
implemented and refined while the research is ongoing and become part of that
research. Rather than separating “theory” from “practice” and “research” from
“findings,” each of these exist in a dialectic entanglement with the other in its pair.
I use the phrase “teacher | researcher” to express the dialectical relationship, the
mutually contingent and emergent characteristics of the two that mediate and are
mediated by the other (Alexakos, forthcoming). Teaching, learning, and research are
interrelated and dialectically entangled processes.
Teachers generally are not encouraged or taught how to research how they
teach, how they learn, how their students learn, what constitutes knowledge, or
how to analyze classroom interactions. This book aims to fill the need for a primer
for educators interested in using authentic inquiry to conduct such research, and
provides the theoretical background, methodologies, and methods to get started.

Teacher voices in generating theory

Teacher inquiry into one’s own practices may be of limited scope such as self-
improvement, part of a wider, more formal and complex research project with the
goals of public dissemination, or something in-between. As professionals, we as

1
Chapter 1

teachers often ask, “How am I doing” “Is this the best way to teach?” How do my
students learn?” “Is this working?” “What can I do differently?” “How can my class
become more enjoyable?” Perhaps we even push beyond questions of “practicality”
in the classroom and explore emotional climate, race, gender, class, culture, equity,
and inclusiveness. All are important elements of inquiry in teaching and learning, as
are societal structures such as schools and schooling, educational policies, teacher
assessments, official and unofficial curricula, and questions of what constitutes
“knowing,” “knowledge,” “teaching,” and “learning.” While undertaking such
inquiry into teaching and learning, we may notice that how we stand in front of the
classroom or how we talk to our students may change how students respond to us.
We may find that we actively encourage some, while inadvertently marginalizing
others. This may be because of their gender, their race or just that they are somehow
different in the way they dress or the way they walk or talk. It is possible that until
we began our inquiry, we were not aware of our own reactions. Similarly, we may
not have thought much about what is communicated through our voice or facial
expressions or how our interactions with students and colleagues can affect how we
feel or what actions we take. Our value systems and those of others, which up to now
seemed “okay,” all of a sudden may take on different meanings and values.
For those of us who are passionate about being teachers, teaching and learning
are incredible joys! Like a life-long friend, the pursuit of teaching and learning,
contributing to the betterment of society and hopefully the world, is emotionally very
rewarding and exhilarating. Many of us set out to become teachers for these reasons.
Despite the attacks on teaching so in vogue these days, we remain in the profession
because we continue to enjoy being teachers and we believe in teaching, even if the
professional rewards have diminished or perhaps never materialized. Unfortunately
the current political paradigm favouring policies aimed to privatize, dismantle, or
re-segregate public education has deliberately attacked and marginalized teachers’
voices. Teachers are told that their classroom knowledge does not count in generating
educational theory and educational policy. We are told teachers’ knowledge is
too subjective, too idiosyncratic, too localized. How do we as teachers respond
to these pressures and added stress? Do we go home and cry at night, or become
sick? Researching our and our students’ emotions and wellness, becoming aware of
expressed emotions and physiological responses, and creating interventions to help
alleviate or minimize the negative impact on our health these stressors may have,
may make the difference between us (we and our students) persevering or instead
becoming depressed, sick and burning out.
The teacher research that is officially encouraged and valued by mainstream
educational policies is not the kind that is interested in teacher or student empowerment,
or that explores inequity in schools or social justice. Instead, mainstream research
is limited to investigating “why your students did not do so well on their last state
exam,” or “why they are not learning this topic.” The stated, or unstated, intent is not
to investigate the issues of why schooling has failed and continues to fail the students,
the teachers, and our society, but to shift the blame to the teacher as if teaching is

2
 Introduction

merely about teaching the content. While we understand that part of teaching is about
the content, there are so many other things that influence learning and teaching.
So how do we improve learning and teaching? If teacher knowledge really does
matter, how should we go about investigating such knowledge and how do we further
develop it? The answer is, in part, through inquiry as teacher | researchers. In working
with preservice and inservice teachers, I have found that they must be convinced that
their knowledge is real and meaningful – that, as teachers, their knowledge as it
emerges out of their everyday experience does matter. While traditional “objectivist”
research may not value research done by teachers, there is a long tradition of teacher
research within other theoretical frameworks, like hermeneutic phenomenology and
various forms of critical ethnography.
Undoubtedly some readers will come to this book already convinced that
“objectivity” based on outside, impartial authority is an excuse used to empower one
type or another of knowing and knowledge for the benefit of the status quo. Many
may even believe that this “objectivity” in teacher research is a construct used to
disenfranchise and marginalize teachers and their students, especially those that have
been historically disadvantaged by the system. Present examples of teacher, student,
and school assessment that are based primarily on political and economic agendas
abound. That such “objectivist” research is privileged over teachers doing their own
research is not surprising, as it is they who benefit from the exclusion and belittling
of teachers that decide what is privileged. In contrast, authentic inquiry research is
a useful tool and methodology towards teacher empowerment and professionalism.

The “Objectivity” of Research, Knowledge and Knowing

But does research done by the teachers themselves “count?” Is it not too “subjective?”
As classroom teachers, don’t we need outside researchers setting up and guiding the
work so that we may have “objectivity” in the research? That teachers conducting
research in their own practices are subjective is irrelevant to whether such research
is “valid,” as all research that requires human interpretation and value judgments
is subjective. What is important is that teachers conducting such inquiry do so
systematically and rigorously, are open to difference, and include the participants’
voices and interpretations in what is being learned, are honest in their stances, and
disclose and are overt in every aspect of their research. Arguments about objectivity
are just smokescreens for disempowering us as teachers and privileging and making
“valid” those in the assessment business who can somehow magically transform
themselves into uninvolved and neutral outside observers despite their personal
prejudices, biases and economic and political interests.
The popular conception of research as a set of procedures, “the scientific method,”
taken at face value makes research seem above and separate from the persons that
practice it. From such a perspective, research that follows this set of procedures is
considered “scientific” or “objective” and thus can claim to be free of politics and
personal and cultural biases. But as Steven J. Gould argues (Gould, 1994), science

3
Chapter 1

itself can be fully objective is not only a myth that serves to cover up its human
face, but that this pseudo objectivity is also harmful in that it is the creativeness
of individuals that drives scientific progress. Biases and interests in research, as
in science, can either impede understanding or lead to innovative thought and
revolutionary breakthroughs.
I agree with Joe Kincheloe’s (2011c) argument that, rather than being limited to
a set of skills, teacher knowledge is epistemological. Thus, research into what is
“knowledge” is complex, situational, multidimensional, with multiple interpretations
and “truths,” and encompasses questions of power and ideology. Because teaching
and learning are re/produced and re/developed in ever-changing relationships and
contexts that encompass conflicts and different perspectives, what constitutes
teacher knowledge is complex and dialectical rather than linear. Researching
questions of morals, values and power goes beyond “subject matter” and skills, but
these questions are necessary in formulating critical professional practices.

Why Authentic Inquiry?

Why call this type of research authentic inquiry? Authentic inquiry research does
not refer to some hypothetical “true” form of inquiry but instead is a framework
for doing research (Tobin, 2014). Authentic inquiry is framed by hermeneutic
phenomenology. It is interpretive, participant-centered, emergent from the research
as the research happens, and contingent on what is being learned. It is dialectical,
since it attempts to draw connections and interrelatedness, arrive at multiple views,
and explore contradictions. It is authentic, for it embraces a set of values, criteria and
characteristics proposed by Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln (1989) and adapted by
Ken Tobin (2006) that address concerns of justice, power, and benefits in research.
Authentic inquiry criteria include that the researchers are not privileged over
the researched. In the case of teachers doing research in their classrooms, authentic
inquiry means that the positioning of the teacher as the researcher and their
students as the participants does not privilege the teachers’ views, interests, and
interpretations over their students’. The participants are not treated as “subjects” but
as co-researchers, and multiple voices (polyphonia) and perspectives (polysemia)
are included in the research and its interpretations.
Both researchers and researched are expected to become more aware and mindful
and to learn and change as a result of such work. Thus the research will benefit those
being researched. It does not privilege research generating theory over practices
(Arendt, 1988), but values doing research to improve practices, and practice to
improve theory. It includes a reflexive social inquiry component (Bourdieu, 2003)
that obliges us to examine and reflect on our practices, our epistemological stances,
our own relation to the past, present, and future within and outside of the controls
of consciousness. These may include our social origins, embodied dispositions,
situatedness, positionality, and trajectory, as well as habits of thought, shared beliefs,
rituals, and values as researchers, as practitioners, and as participants.

4
 Introduction

Authentic Inquiry as a Construct for Sociocultural Research

Understanding its sociocultural foundations is critical to doing authentic inquiry

research. Unlike traditional academic types of research where culture, individual
identity, goals, and values (of the researcher and the researched) are mostly made
invisible, in sociocultural research these are part of the underlying questions to be
researched and interpreted.
Framed by hermeneutic phenomenology (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) as applied to
educational research (Tobin & Ritchie, 2012), and learning from Ann Brown’s design
studies research (1992), authentic inquiry research is dialectic, fluid, and organic. It
is emergent and contingent and, thus, continually changing. The research analysis
starts as soon as the study begins, it is ongoing, and includes multiple perspectives,
voices, and interpretations. While we may start with a focus of inquiry, researcher
and participant feedback, interests, and interpretations of what is learned constantly
are used to re-evaluate and rethink our inquiry and interventions, examine underlying
assumptions, and create new understandings and knowledge. As new questions,
practices, and interventions emerge from the ongoing research, our inquiry shifts. It
is transformative to itself, the researchers, and the participants.
This holistic approach is exhilarating in its commitment to transformation,
justice, and beneficence, liberating us from the stagnation and hegemonic values
and agendas that are part of the fictional objectiveness of the “traditional” crypto-
positivistic research designs and methodologies. Questions dealing with problems
of practice are investigated, as are actions and interventions meant to address them.
This approach includes exploration and discovery, but also tries new practices and
solutions to address emergent issues. These new practices and interventions also
become part of the “findings.” That is, research is part of, and an outcome of, itself.
Our identities undergo a continual shift because of this work. We change as we
interact with ourselves, with others, and with our environment. The experiences we
have change us as we, too, change our experiences. What is and how we experience
an event or an interaction is refracted through who we are, our emotions, and how we
think. Dewey and Vygotsky viewed the process of experience as ongoing, where the
individuals mutually mediate one another (Roth & Jornet, 2014). Vygotsky used the
Russian term “perezhevania” to describe the emotional and cognitive experiences
we have and how we in turn process, interpret, and respond to them because of these
experiences (Vygotsky, Veer, & Valsiner, 1994).
Unlike manuals on doing educational research that focus on either “qualitative” or
“quantitative” methods as their primary and most important characteristic, this book
addresses issues of authenticity criteria, reflexivity, context, values, interactions,
“making meaning,” and analysis. Instead of the artificial quantitative and qualitative
dichotomy by which mainstream research is bounded, authentic inquiry research
may include both qualitative and quantitative data. The type of data collected and
analyzed is framed by the authenticity criteria and depend on our research interests
and goals, the resources available, what emerges while we are conducting this

5
Chapter 1

research, what we decide to utilize to collect the data (methods and tools), and how
we collect it.
In the traditional view of teaching and learning, the teacher stands up and delivers
while the students, sponge-like, absorb this transmitted knowledge. Investigating
the science of teaching and learning opens up a lot of possibilities beyond this very
simplified and likely harmful view of learning. Such inquiry may be initiated at any
site where learning and teaching take place, such as traditional schools, museums,
parks, or even at home. Laughter, anger, prosody, facial expressions, and wellness
are all important topics of research inquiry. Our study could involve our own
emotions, thinking, and practices, as well as those of our students. What our topic
is and how deeply and for how long we explore it will depend on us, the teacher |
researchers doing the inquiry – our values and goals, the context of our study, the
student participants if they are part of the study, and the resources available. Newly
discovered possibilities and understandings have their own theoretical and classroom
implications. We may try different approaches and experiment with different ways
of thinking about teaching. Sometimes these new strategies or approaches will work,
sometimes they will not, and sometimes we will just become more baffled by what
we learn.
As multiple and diverse voices are empowered, reflexivity, learning from the
other and from difference, become central. In becoming reflexive, the norms,
morals, and values of all concerned (researchers and participants) become part of
what may be investigated. Participants (other teachers, administrators, our students)
are not “subjects,” but co-researchers. Their voices, interests, values, analysis,
interpretations, and feedback become part of the research and the research findings,
helping define emergent understandings, theories, and practices.

Reflexive Axiologies and Epistemologies

As I began writing this book on teachers researching their own practices, I

realized that this could not be done without developing and discussing my own
epistemological philosophy that frames such a research choice, especially as my
philosophy contrasts with positivistic research. Questions of epistemology, what
constitutes research, knowledge, and learning, emerged as central and essential. As
such, I hope that the readers find the discussions on these topics salient and applicable
to their own work and understandings as teacher | researchers. One element whose
significance cannot be over-emphasized (though it is often forgotten in “normal”
mainstream research”) is our axiology: the morals and values that we hold, and how
important these are, for they frame and guide who we are and what we do, including
our teaching, research, and decisions. Unlike positivistic research, where axiologies
are hidden or made invisible, as researchers doing authentic inquiry into our own
teaching and learning practices, we need to be aware of what our values and our
moral are, and their strength. For many of us, these values, such as contributing to
society, righting injustice, providing hope, or just plain love for what we do, may be

6
 Introduction

the main reason(s) why we teach and why we may undertake research into our own
practices. Our axiologies and those of the participants, instead of being unimportant,
are a major component of our research and could very well be the focus of our
studies. These axiologies should be made explicit and be out in the open for anyone
interested in our work.

Using This Primer

Different readers may use this book in different ways. Classroom teachers may focus
more on the methods and methodology sections. Students in education programs
may want to focus more on the organization of the research for a required thesis,
while academic researchers may focus more on the foundational theory. Some may
be interested more in teacher research while others more on doing authentic inquiry.
The research could be in collaboration with others or alone. It is all good. What I
would emphasize is that the different components of being a teacher | researcher,
like the different sections and chapters of this book, are interrelated. Theory is
not disconnected from practice, or disconnected from the way we view, theorize,
and generalize about knowledge and learning. Each of these includes the others.
Sometimes we might only be interested in the findings, while at other times the
process of learning and growing may be as important, if not more so. When we focus
on one element, we must not forget its interconnectedness and interrelatedness to
the others.
This primer can be divided into 4 sections. The first section, Chapters 1–5,
makes up the theoretical foundations and framework for authentic inquiry. The
second section, Chapters 6–9, can be viewed as more of the operational side of
doing research, a guide to how to go about it. The third section, Chapters 10 and
11, is two narratives from my own experience as a teacher | researcher. Chapter 12,
meanwhile, is more a reflective/reflexive piece about the making of this book since,
after all, writing a book is also a learning experience. It certainly transformed me in
the process of this project! While Chapter 12 was the chapter written last, it brought
big changes to many of the earlier chapters, especially Chapters 1 and 2.
The theoretical framework for authentic inquiry is not linear and therefore
this book should not be thought of linearly. While the chapters are ordered in a
numerical sequence, it is not necessary to read them in one. I definitely did not
develop as a teacher | researcher in that order, nor were the chapters written in
that order. With the exception of the final chapter (Chapter 12), Chapter 5 was
the last major chapter to be written. Creating the heuristic for authentic inquiry
changed the entire focus of this book. It was then that I realized that this primer
was really about doing authentic inquiry research, and I went back and rewrote the
first four chapters and many of the other ones. Like hermeneutic research, readers
may chose to focus on one chapter more than others, or go back and forth to the
chapters that capture their attention based on what they find the most important
and useful at the moment.

7
Chapter 1

Without a doubt, the first four chapters, especially Chapters 1 and 2, are very
dense and may take a long time to read. Even now, it takes me a day just to read
these chapters. Of all the chapters, Chapter 1 was the most difficult to write, while
Chapter 2 was almost as tough. Theoretically, they represent a lot of learning for me
and were very transformative to my thinking. My hope is that, as teacher | researchers
become more and more familiar and experienced with research and develop their
own theories of knowledge, teaching, and learning, they will find these chapters
even more helpful.
The discussions in Chapters 2 and 3 are meant to be theoretical and historical
resources for teacher | researchers who are interested in developing their own
theories and practices within a sociocultural framework. Perhaps nowhere else
in this book is the artificial linearity of the chapters more obvious than with these
two chapters. The order of these two chapters could easily have been reversed.
As I developed as a teacher | researcher | educator, I had to search for theoretical
frameworks that were in harmony with my practices, my morals, my values,
and my thinking. In the process, as I began to be drawn more and more into a
dialectical, Vygotskyian, hermeneutic theoretical framework, these new theories,
in turn, began to transform my practices and my thinking (my epistemologies, my
ontologies and my axiologies, discussed later in Chapters 4 and 5). Readers can
decide which of these two chapters would be best for them to read first, or may
choose to leave both for later.
Chapter 2 provides a background on the sociocultural theory in which authentic
inquiry is rooted. It includes a discussion of Lev Vygotsky’s theories on the social
and cultural context of knowledge and knowledge creation (Vygotsky, Cole,
John-Steiner, Scribner, & Souberman, 1978). Since much of authentic inquiry is about
interactions and emotions, Mikhail Bakhtin’s work (1994) on dialogic discourse,
polyphonia and polysemia is discussed, as is the work of Randall Collins (2004) on
rituals, Jonathan Turner’s on interpersonal interactions (2002), and William Sewell’s
(2005) on symbols, meanings, and practices.
In Chapter 3, I discuss salient theory on research done on teachers, teaching, and
learning, either by teachers in collaboration with outside researchers, or teachers
reflecting on or doing research on their own practice. This includes Dewey’s
writings on reflective practices (Dewey, 1910, 1929), Marilyn Cochran-Smith and
Susan Lytle’s (1993) work on practitioner research and the difference between
teachers doing the research and doing research on teachers, Joe Kincheloe’s (2003)
writings on teachers as critical researchers, and Lawrence Stenhouse’s classic
work (1985) on teachers researching their own practice through systematic and
sustainable inquiry.
In Chapter 4, I discuss the methodologies teachers can use in doing sociocultural
research in general and authentic inquiry research in particular, including
generalizability, cogenerative dialogues, ethnography, hermeneutic phenomenology
and design studies research, as well as many of the concepts, and methods used to
frame this research. Also discussed are various “-ologies”: ontology, epistemology,

8
 Introduction

axiology, and methodology (and how methodologies are different from methods).
Key to these discussions will be some of the work by Tobin as well as by Guba and
Lincoln on methods and methodologies.
Chapter 5 focuses specifically on authentic inquiry research. Included is a heuristic
(Alexakos & Tobin, 2015) that discusses many of the characteristics that can be used
to frame, develop, and analyze authentic inquiry research, including using research
as transformative, participatory research, inclusion of difference, participant input,
authenticity criteria, and reflexivity.
Chapter 6 discusses the ethics, benefits, tensions, and potential issues that may
arise as part of doing research as a teacher. Before starting any type of inquiry, it
is important that teacher | researchers consider the ethics, vulnerabilities, and any
issues that may arise in the process or as a consequence of the research. This is
especially so, given the dual role teacher | researchers have in their classrooms as
teachers and researchers: their responsibilities to their students in terms of required
subject matter and grades being assigned versus the kind of knowledge production
and data gathering needed, available time, potential conflicts, and potential student
or teacher discomforts or vulnerabilities.
For those researchers who want to carry their research beyond just improving
their own practice, Chapter 7 includes a discussion on the difference between doing
research for publication or solely to improve our own practices, as well as doing
research with human participants, Institutional Review Boards (IRB), human subject
research approvals, and samples of consent forms.
Chapter 8 focuses on designing, planning, and doing a research project, using
methodologies and multi-methods (such as video recordings), and creating
interventions as part of a dynamic, reflexive process. It includes discussions on
choosing research questions, frameworks, event-oriented inquiry, findings, and
generalizability.
Chapter 9 discusses the various components in writing up the research, with
descriptions of the various elements, such as finding and including a review of
literature, issues of language, and use of references. It ends with a discussion on
presenting the research. Within the hermeneutic framework of this book, the write-up
and presentation plans are more organic than in mainstream-type research. Possible
components are listed as guides.
Chapters 10 and 11 consider and reflect upon examples of two different types
of research I did as a teacher | researcher. Chapter 10 discusses my research with
high school students taking a College Now-type of physics class. This was the
first time I, as a teacher, undertook formal classroom research and I had to learn
much about doing such research on my own. The classroom research discussed in
Chapter 11, on the other hand, was part of a much larger collaborative project that
included a second primary investigator, Ken Tobin, and a research squad of about
a dozen graduate and Ph.D. students. This study also involved learning many new
practices, though as part of a collective that presents teacher | researchers with
unique benefits and challenges.

9
Chapter 1

The closing remarks in Chapter 12 wrap up this work with a discussion on research
reshaping teaching and teaching reshaping research, as theory reshapes practice and
practice reshapes theory.
Readers of the prepublication manuscript of this book had their own favorite
chapters (and more or less did not agree). Some preferred the narratives in
Chapters 10 and 11, others focused more on the “doing the research” part, especially
Chapter 6, while yet others liked the theoretical discussions. This primer is meant to
be read and used heuristically—that is, different chapters will emerge more useful
and germane depending on the reader’s interests, intent, and needs. Their meanings,
too, will be different for different teacher | researchers—and as the teacher | researcher
changes, these meanings too will change.

10
 Chapter 2

Sociocultural Theory and Teaching

and Learning

… human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its

reality is the ensemble of social relations. (Marx & Engels, 1968, p. 29)
What are the theoretical foundations in doing sociocultural research? Teaching and
learning embody dialectical relationships that frame and mediate interactions. As
teachers, we contribute to how knowledge is created, recreated, and understood. In
the process we ourselves are changed continuously and often unexpectedly. Teaching
is not about the “transmission” of knowledge, but about the very complex process
of learning through social interactions that include emotions, gestures, expressions,
prosody, values, ethics, and many other biological and cultural relationships and
symbols. Within the sociocultural framework presented here, what constitutes
knowledge and knowledge production is viewed as problematic, provisional,
speculative, and very political. In this chapter, I draw on some likely and perhaps
some unlikely, sources in laying out such a framework.
The social theories discussed in this chapter are powerful but often difficult to
grasp. Some readers may decide to skip this chapter altogether and go straight to
Chapter 3 or 4. That is fine. Each reader has her or his own interests, goals, and
needs. At the same time, it is my opinion, and this is why this chapter is so important,
that teacher | researchers need to have a deep theoretical foundation as professionals
and as scholars. After Chapter 1, Chapter 2 was probably the toughest to write.
It meant my going back to many of the original works discussed here, not just to
understand them but also to adapt them to theorizing and creating a foundation for
authentic inquiry, specifically for teacher | researchers. In some ways, writing this
chapter is compatible to the experience a lot of us have going into teaching. While
we may be familiar with the content, teaching it and making it meaningful to our
students is a very different experience and requires different forms of knowledge
and understanding. The theoretical works discussed here and in Chapter 3 are by no
means comprehensive in authors or their theories and philosophies. They represent
only a glimpse. Initially as a teacher, I was more interested in skills, how to teach,
how to create an exam. But as I developed, I found that I also had to understand these
various knowledge systems. Hence, the discussion in this chapter represents a goal
very much in line with authentic inquiry, that research is of benefit to the teacher,
and the teacher too becomes a creator and contributor of theory and knowledge that

11
Chapter 2

can be of benefit to society and those whom she or he teaches, not just a simple
technician who perpetuates various forms of inequity and disenfranchisement.

What Is Knowledge?

Perhaps one of the most vexing questions in doing educational research is, “What
constitutes knowledge?” This question is not often acknowledged in research, as
it is assumed that there can exist only one type of knowledge, one that is neutral
and derived through scientific processes and without any personal biases. It is thus
that claims can then made as to the objectivity, validity, and generalizability of
the research findings that generated it. For those of us who do research through a
critical sociocultural lens though, this aforementioned ideology and way of seeing
knowledge and values is quickly revealed as reflecting dominant thinking, values,
and power structures that are hostile to the inclusion of other voices – that, as the
quote by Marx above alludes to, knowledge and values are not objective but arise
out of the social relationships that gave birth to them. Unfortunately, claims about
“objectivity” pervades almost areas of research. What constitutes knowledge or
fairness for each of us, may be, and likely is, different for a child living in poverty,
or to a laborer, a policeman, or a Goldman Sachs executive. In dominant research,
a lot of assumptions and simplifications are made about “truths” that hide not just
oppressive power relationships, but also the intricacies and interrelatedness of what
is studied. Authority acts to impose coherence and uniformity across culturally
contested terrain. Sociocultural practices that do not adhere to mainstream practices
can be excluded and marginalized. In contrast to “objectivist” research, authentic
inquiry (and the sociocultural framework on which authentic inquiry is based)
encompasses, and welcomes as resources, multiple and different ways of seeing
and interpreting questions of knowledge, learning, and of doing research. Critical
sociocultural investigations explore what may normally be taken for granted or
hidden, especially questions of hegemony and power, and encourages inclusive,
critical, reflective, and interpretive practices.

“Objective” or Positivistic Knowledge

That knowledge can be separated from the knower, “objectivity,” is one of the
major tenets found within the philosophy known as positivism. Knowledge,
as traditionally conceived from a positivistic perspective, is essentially static,
independent of the individual, and free from personal, cultural and historical
biases (Kincheloe & Tobin, 2009). Research pretends to be detached from
what is studies, conducting inquiry from a neutral, objective stance. To appear
“objective,” it generally employs quantitative measures using instruments that
focus on randomness and sampling to “discover” “truths” or “ideals” under very
controlled conditions. Though many judgments and personal values frame the

12
 Sociocultural Theory and Teaching and Learning

conception, design, research, interpretations, and claims, the cover of “objectivist”

methodology hides such value systems. Traditional schooling, too, has been set
up within such a paradigm, where teachers are responsible for “transmitting”
“objective” knowledge to their students and using “objective” methods to measure
their “progress.” Similarly too, teachers themselves are now held accountable
through various value-added schemes, bringing into mind Guba and Lincoln’s
critiques of such assessments (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), as nothing other than tools
used to further the agendas of those who are funding them.
Science, arguably the most “objective” of all human endeavors, is fraught with
subjectivity and preconceived assumptions in “neutral” decisions, like how to do an
experiment but also (because of special interests the researcher or the funder may
have) what to report and how to report it. We do not even need to go back to past
and not so distant past pseudo-scientific arguments on eugenics or race superiority
as current scientific understandings on energy, drugs, food production, and health
and wellness are fraught with underlying cultural, economic, political, and often
religious assumptions.
Descriptions and assumptions of “normal” research are stereotypical of that
objectification of very subjective meaning – producing often befuddling and highly
subjective findings. Once in a while, even in science, we see something or hear a
story that sheds these covers to pretentious objectivity of knowledge. One of my
favorite anecdotes of the complexities of doing research in science is from an article
I read several years ago in the journal of Natural History. Steven Austad (2002),
was investigating how lab mice, bred for generations to be used in labs, may have
changed over time as compared to their wild relatives. In one such experiment, he
tied a string across two vertical supports and counted how long lab mice could hang
onto the line by their front paws. The lab mice would last a few seconds, after which
they would let go and drop down. Austad then caught a house mouse and tried the
same test to see what would happen. To his surprise, the house mouse pulled him
(or her)-self up on the string and scurried off. I love this story and often share it with
my students as a way of illustrating how real-life research, unlike a hypothetical
lab-controlled experiment, is an idiosyncratic process with many variables, and with
often unexpected and unintended findings. What is claimed to be objective (or an
independent variable), as the story above illustrates about the use of lab mice versus
their wild relatives, is only so because its subjective aspects are not investigated or
nuanced thoroughly enough. As an addendum to this story about mice, what has been
making the news lately concerning the behavior and stress levels of lab mice is that
the mice respond differently (Sorge et al., 2014) depending on whether the person
handling them is male or female. The argument made throughout this book is that
all human knowledge is by nature of its human origins subjective and historically,
culturally, and socially constructed. Not that subjectivity necessarily plays a negative
role. One can argue that if it wasn’t for difference, many extreme leaps in human
thought, creativity, knowledge, and technology may never have occurred.

13
Chapter 2

Sociocultural Framework

Authentic inquiry uses a sociocultural framework. Sociocultural research focuses

on the political, social, cultural, and historically mediated and developed aspects of
life. As such, it is a very useful theoretical framework for investigating classroom
interactions, including tools and symbols used, and otherwise hidden or concealed
characteristics of knowledge. It is holistic (Wertsch, 1985) and interpretation plays
a central role (Cole, 1996). Participants are active agents in their own development
(independent of whether they have control or choice).
The sociocultural framework is generally associated with the work of Lev
Vygotsky. As the quote at the beginning of this chapter illustrates, its roots are in
Marxist philosophy in that it views human consciousness as social in origin and
framed by competing forces and interests (Thorne, 2005). As a methodology, it is
founded on the biological sciences, sociology, and the humanities. Social practices
are viewed as culturally mediated, contingent, emergent and fluid. It is deeply
dialectical and rejects cause and effect.
According to Cole (1996), sociocultural theory has several elements. Practices are
seen as culturally mediated. Through the use of tools such as language, participants
themselves are changed. New knowledge is socially and historically constructed,
as we learn from our own and others’ experiences (participants do not exist in a
vacuum). New knowledge production is therefore grounded in participants’ everyday
experience. By participating in interactions, individuals are not only guided by culture
and prior knowledge but also shape, mediate, and transform culture, knowledge, and
what is considered knowledge.
For Vygotsky (1981), the individual emerges from the collective life. Humans
transform their existence through making meaning. Social interactions provide
meaning and generate new cultural forms. Rather than language being seen as
objective, it too is seen as one of the cultural tools used in making and creating
meaning. Following Vygotsky, Bruner argues that symbols are culturally embodied
products of social interactions. Rather than having a universal validity, knowledge
becomes problematic, contextualized, constructed, and interpretive, with situated
meaning and meaning-making (Bruner, 1997).
Rather than static, “being” exists only as part of the process of becoming – that
is, we change as we interact with the world, as does the world around us. In contrast,
conventional positivistic educational theories assume that teaching and learning are
independent or distinct from context, culture and environment (J. S. Brown, Collins,
& Duguid, 1989). Vygotskian sociocultural theories of learning and knowledge
(such as by J. S. Brown et al., 1989; Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999; Lave
& Wenger, 1991) argue instead that our cognitive and emotional past and present
experiences (perezhevania) not only mediate how we experience life, but also
what we choose to experience and what we focus on, that the social is dialectically
interconnected with the individual, that the “I,” while separate, is also part of the

14
 Sociocultural Theory and Teaching and Learning

“other” (living and inanimate) and the two contextually and culturally situate and
mediate each other.
Much of this has its roots in Vygotsky’s work, Marxist philosophy, especially
Marx and Engels’s Thesis on Feuerbach (Engels, Marx, & Plekhanov, 1976), and in
V. I. Lenin’s thoughts on knowledge and materialist dialectics. The following quote
by Lenin, for example, is quite illuminating on the I | other dialectic:
The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every
individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a
fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only
approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters
incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by
thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena,
processes) etc. (Lenin, 1976, p. 359)
The multi-ontology (multiple perspectives of what reality may be) suggested in the
above passage is a very powerful construct. Lenin posits that an individual cannot
exist outside of the universal, and the universal cannot exist separate from the
individual. Furthermore, he is also arguing against the view that there is no reality
or that there is only one truth or reality, that while there may be a “reality,” what we
see as ours is a reality from our own very limited perspective. Such reality is not a
complete reality or the only way “reality” can be seen or interpreted.

Dialectics, Knowledge, and Learning

What are dialectics? Dialectics are the living, organic, multi-sided knowledge that
presupposes infinite approaches and approximations to reality. Nothing is absolute
except the transitory character of being and the continuous process of becoming and
passing away (Engels et al., 1976). In dialectics, a whole is composed of mutually
exclusive, contradictory and opposite parts. These opposites are not absolute and
independent, but conditional and relative. This is referred to as the identity or unity of
opposites. Similar to yin and yang, each contains the other and cannot exist separately.
The individual and the universal are two such opposites. Development of knowledge
is contingent on these opposing tendencies. Thus, all knowledge is relative, even
as it includes the absolute. The difference between the two, relative and absolute,
is itself relative and conditional. In its development, such knowledge resembles
more of an endless spiral, rather than independent straight knowledge (Lenin, 1976).
Within such dialectical processes, seeming contradictions or opposites, such as being
while simultaneously becoming, sustaining and transforming, empowering and
constraining (Sewell, 1992) are understood as mediating and shaping one another.
Unfortunately, mainstream knowledge, beyond some quantitative developments, is
often represented not only as objective, but also as permanent and absolute. What is
missing is that the processes that drive our understandings and that connect the often

15
Chapter 2

seemingly contradictory parts to a greater whole are in constant change and that their
interpretations, as products of the human mind, are themselves socially constructed.
Within a sociocultural framework, learning and teaching take on meanings
different from the traditional understanding of what it means to be, know, and learn.
Applying dialectics to research, teaching and learning would then mean that there are
no dichotomies among what constitutes knowledge, teaching, learning, and research,
i.e., knowledge | teaching | learning | research. Learning is something individuals do
in the process of interacting with others (and thus shaped by these interactions) and
as part of self-reflection. Hence, learning is subjective and social, challenging the
mainstream dichotomy between the individual and her or his teaching and learning
experience (Roth & Jornet, 2014).

Social Interactions

Within sociocultural theory, far from being independent, meaning and knowledge
creation become inseparable from the individual and the context (historical,
social, cultural, political), as well as from the practices and the intersections and
interactions, verbal and non-verbal, between the individual and the collective
“other.” Bakhtin (1994), in making sense of social interactions, argues that meaning
and values are dialogic, as are the words used in an interaction. Meaning is created
and understood within the process of the interaction (an event), and constantly
re-evaluated within an active and changing context, interlinking past utterances
to future responses framed by emotions, intentions, and ideology. What we say
to someone is mediated by how we expect the other person to respond. Meaning
resides in the in-between between participants in the interaction. Thus, as dialogic
discourse is multilogical, it is inclusive of a plurality of worldviews and truths, and
antagonistic to a single (monological) “objective” truth or reality. Dialogic discourse
incorporates heteroglossia (diverse social voices, even by the same person in different
situations or occasions) as opposed to the absolutism of a single, dominant language
or perspective (monoglossia). The discourse site then, is where these conflicting
understandings and ideologies meet, take place and are re|created.
These multiple languages and voices can vary across social groupings,
generations, and professional associations, in our case, between students, between
teachers, and between teachers and students. As such, words themselves are not
neutral in meaning (ideological, emotional, contextual, historical, political, social,
etc.) or used in isolation. When such discourse between multiple interacting voices
and perspectives takes place, but on equal terms and with equal validity, where no
one voice is privileged above the others, Bakhtin refers to it as polyphonia.
Understanding, too, is dialogic as we interpret the words, emotions, expressions,
and intonations as we perceive them, into our own words and translate them into
our minds within the context that they are being exchanged, not only with meaning
but also with values. As such, Bakhtin writes that “meaning is realized only in the

16
 Sociocultural Theory and Teaching and Learning

process of active, responsive understanding” (Bakhtin et al., 1994, p. 35). This is so

with outer speech as well as with inner speech.

Social Interactions and Emotions

Interpersonal interactions are heavily invested with emotions. According to Turner

(2002), emotions drive our interactions while at the same time experienced or
expected emotions drive our reactions. These interactions are dialogic. We look at the
feedback from others to monitor our own emotions and roles. Our past experiences
(perezhevania) and expectations meditate how we behave towards one another and
how we recognize and interpret clues and meanings in ritual displays, language,
and gestures. Expectations successfully met though confirmation and verification of
self, role, status, etc., result in positive emotional energy and social bonding. Failure
in interactions results in disruptive, or negative, emotions and encounters. Though
emotions are part of the new neural underpinnings of the process we call reasoning
(Damasio, 2005), they have generally been neglected in modern theories of human
cognition (Damasio, 2005) and in education (Schutz & Zembylas, 2009).
Emotions vary in strength as well as importance (what Turner (2002, p. 100)
called “core self feelings”) to us. The more interactions involve the core emotional
elements (like self- respect or honesty) the more they matter to us and the more
intense our emotional reactions are when they meet or fail to meet our goals or
expectations. Individuals may feel more exposed when dealing with elements of
their core self, because any failure in these would produce many more negative
emotions with stronger intensities.
Beginning with the work of Durkheim and Goffman, Randall Collins (2004)
further builds on the sociology of interactions and emotions. The interaction ritual
(IR) is a mechanism for mutual focus and emotional entrainment within a group that
forms the basis for solidarity among the participants. Such interactions generate,
produce, and reproduce symbols infused with emotional energy. Intense emotions
may be carried across situations into other fields, (especially if we think of these
fields as having no boundaries (Tobin & Ritchie, 2012)), setting up interaction ritual
chains. Since the individual is made up of past, present and future interactions,
emotions, and rituals are the organic component of interaction ritual chains. These
conversational rituals can include salutations like, “Hi, how are you?” or “I hope
you are feeling better.” When used as expected, they can help create successful
interactions. If they are omitted when they are expected, it may result in social
disharmony or scorn. As interactions are not predetermined, interaction rituals are
situational and emergent.
Successful participation in rituals reinforces self as well as group identity and
group membership. Similar to being at a concert of our favorite music or in a
stadium with other supporters of our favorite team, the high degree of mutual
focus of attention and the intense moments of interaction rituals result in emotional

17
Chapter 2

entrainment. This experience includes bodily synchronization and a high degree

of emotional arousal as part of joining in a collective, highly emotional activity.
Because of their emergent nature, interaction rituals generate emotional energies
that can be transformative for the individuals and the group as well as for the
ritual.

Critical View of Culture in Our Classrooms

Applying sociocultural theory to inquiry into teaching and learning, affords us a

critical view of the classroom. According to Sewell (1999), there exists a dialectic
between systems of symbols, meanings, and practices in that one frames and changes
the other. While there may be shared understanding of the meanings of symbols
within a culture, what Tobin (2009b, p. 163) calls “family resemblance,” these
meanings themselves are contested and ever changing, not just across participants
but also within each participant. These shared understandings frame the emotional
weight or personal value placed on these symbols and meanings.
Cultural practices, therefore, do not possess uniform meaning across time or
across participants (what Sewell refers to as “thin coherence” (Sewell, 1999, p. 49)).
This is especially so across different social, economic, gender, racial and/or cultural
groups. In a classroom where teachers may try to impose uniformity, students that
do not adhere to the teacher’s cultural norms, values, and practices, like dress codes,
language, and sense of propriety, may be penalized for being different, excluded,
and/or marginalized. Schooling, too, may try to impose its own coherence and
homogeneity, including what is valued as knowledge and knowing, what is valued
in teaching and learning, gender roles, and mores concerning sexuality. These
impositions create further incongruence and conflict. Because they are common, we
may become desensitized to these impositions and thus they become hidden from
or missed by everyday introspection. Because such culturally contested terrains and
practices are so embedded in everyday life, they are usually taken as the norm in
“objectivist” type of research.
Similarly, what is “safe” and “caring” do not have universal applicability nor are
they neutral. Instead they are entangled with politics, power, culture, and privilege
and shaped by dominant ideologies and hegemonic structures. Thus, because power
relationships in the classroom are unavoidable, it is important to become aware of
them and what they are (Zembylas, 2014), for they shape and magnify emotions,
like apathy, remorse, resentment, shame and guilt. As teacher | researchers, we not
only need to explore these power relationships but also need to create and develop
interventions for more successful, equitable, and socially just interactions.

Creating Meaning

While our emotions, thoughts, and interpretations are, at some level, biological, they
are also socially constructed. Thus, what we claim to be our realities or “truths”

18
 Sociocultural Theory and Teaching and Learning

are also socially constructed. This is illustrated not only by the examples of the
arguments on climate change and evolution, but also by how we construe the purpose
of schools, and what constitutes good teaching and learning. Meaning resides in
our interactions with others and our environment, as such interactions encompass
multiple social realities, emotions, and interpretations. What we think and what we
are cognizant of are framed and mediated by our values, contextual and historical
positionality, and interests. Natural laws, which we use in science to provide us
with predictability, are also framed by this subjective “objectiveness” as they are
mediated by our epistemologies and ontologies. Sometimes, as in the science world,
there may exist some “thin coherence” across epistemologies, while at other times
there may not.
What constitutes science is an evolving process and what we consider natural
laws changes. Kuhn (1996) argued that scientific progress is framed and bound by
existing sociocultural paradigms and thus can never reach some “objective” truth.
Whether these laws exist because a “truth” truly exists independent of human
interpretation or not is irrelevant, as we so far remain the only known interpreters
and users of these laws. Even in the “hard sciences,” quantum physics teaches us that
it is impossible to separate the inquirer from the inquiry and its findings.

Bourdieu on Reflexivity and Habitus

Another critical component of authentic inquiry is reflexivity. Pierre Bourdieu

(2003) argued that as researchers we cannot ignore the influence we have on the
work we do, that our research is not value-neutral so it is therefore important for
us to be self-reflexive and become aware of the values, rituals and professional
and personal interests and biases that frame our research and make these public.
Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) contended that social action should be
held accountable, that the research and the researcher should be held to the same
critical analysis as the “object” of the research. Potential biases may arise due to
the social origins of the researchers, their social positions (as academics, teachers,
etc.) and from their personal intellectual biases, conscious and unconscious.
Having a critical theoretical framework of doing social inquiry and being critical
of what is imbedded in the research is thus necessary. Such critical analysis leads
to transformative practices and becomes an integral component of the research
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).
Habitus (Bourdieu, 2014) are systems of dispositions (such as values, attitudes,
emotions) that are at once framed and mediated by the social and cultural worlds
and, at the same time frame and mediate generated practices. These dispositions are
embodied and formed implicitly, without explicit rules, through prior experiences,
perceptions and dispositions (Roth, Lawless, & Tobin, 2000), like speaking a
language without necessarily being aware of its rules. Because we often remain
unaware of these dispositions, descriptions of teaching are often out of sync with
actual practices (Roth et al., 2000).

19
Chapter 2

Sociocultural Research in Teacher Education

The nature of knowledge construction is thought of as reflective of the axiology and

ideology of the researchers (Kincheloe & Tobin, 2009). As such, research into the
nature of the knowledge needs to be interrogated, described, and become unhidden.
Positivistic research, on the other hand, is only interested in answering a priori
questions and thus may miss other emerging questions or what may be important
to the participants. Discovery for positivism is separate from inquiry, and claims a
pseudo separation between the theoretical and the observational data, between the
research and the researcher and what data was collected and meanings found (Guba
& Lincoln, 1989).
Though they may appear as similar cultural beliefs, symbols and practices are
understood differently across different sociocultural theories. Bringing many of the
above theories together, Tobin applied them to research in education and further
developed them (see for example (Tobin, 2014) and (Tobin, 2012b)). Tobin, too,
views teaching, learning and research as culturally enacted and socially situated in a
dialectical interplay between the I and the other (Tobin, 2014). Because of Sewel’s
“thin coherence” of cultural practices, fields are seen at once as boundaryless, relative,
and constantly shifting. Identities, in particular, so often treated as a constant, can
be thought of instead as social constructs that are contingent and fluid (Stetsenko,
2007). Thus, concepts like “becoming” or “identity’ are highly dialectical, as they
are contingent on the social interaction. The implication may be that identity is not
only fluid across context, but identity may not even be the property of the individual
(Tobin, 2014) – that it is continually being invented within the context of the
interaction and cannot be separated from the collective.
It is from Tobin’s work on doing educational research that I borrow the theoretical
framework for authentic inquiry, and of event-oriented research that is emergent
and contingent. Unlike positivistic research, where inquiry is predetermined and
deterministic, within hermeneutics, authentic inquiry and discovery are dialectically
dependent and feed off each other as the two intertwine and co-develop, intentionally
and contingently. Thus, the question of transformation, as well as the process itself,
are dependent on what we focus on in our views of knowledge and knowledge making,
and all become interesting questions of study. Polysemia, polyphonia, authentic
inquiry, habitus, and reflexivity become central. Hermeneutic phenomenology
emphasizes exploring lived experience through the interpretation and understanding
of the participants. The research in turn is then refined and changed as new ideas
emerge. Outcomes are not oversimplified but are nuanced and viewed as contingent.
While exploring the dialectical nature of knowledge and learning as a researcher
and as a teacher, the adaptation of Tobin’s sociocultural framework for doing
research has helped me frame the questions and issues I choose to focus on,
what I think is important, and how to go about it. Rather than making positivistic
assumptions such as – identity, equity and safe spaces are constants and independent
of context, I also view these as culturally mediated and evolving. In addition to

20
 Sociocultural Theory and Teaching and Learning

agreeing that interactions take place over contested grounds, I argue that knowledge,
ways of knowing, habitus, and the values and emotions of those involved are often
misunderstood as being similar to our own or are missed because of historical or
cultural biases. These can then become fertile areas for critical investigation.
Teaching and learning practices and assumptions provide ample opportunities for
teachers to do research. We may think that our students are like us, though they may
or may not be. The students themselves may each have different axiologies and ideas
of what is “normal” and “proper.” Many of these differences and ways of knowing
and thinking may not be apparent to the teacher | researcher until he or she looks
for them and learns about them from his or her students. Their contributions as co-
researchers are essential in creating a multi-ontological, multi-epistemological view
of knowledge and of teaching and learning. At the same time, much of what happens
in teaching, learning and research is not explicit. “Norms” become generative of their
own culture, expectations, attitudes, emotions, and dispositions. In doing reflexive
social inquiry we (researchers, students, teachers) critically question representations
within teaching and learning, in the research and in research findings, recursively
becoming aware of the unaware, such as the power dynamics in the classroom
between the teachers and their students. Through such reflexivity, we create the
framework to transform ourselves and to bring about positive change.
Doing sociocultural research does not mean searching for absolute truths or
absolute recipes, but does require us to conduct such work through systematic,
mindful, and kind inquiry. Self-study research has often been criticized (Zeichner,
2007) for not going beyond the self and because it needs to include a synthesis
incorporating both theoretical understanding and improvement in teaching practice.
If not systematic, the best intentions may result, not in quality research, but in
shallow babble that masquerades as research. It is essential that research in teaching
be theoretically rich, but also that it go beyond just advancing “theory” to also
advance teacher practices and create and sustain high quality teaching environments
(Tobin, 2015).
Authentic inquiry research is multi-ontological (inclusive of a plurality of truths
and realities) and emphasizes the importance of our learning from difference. It
is collaborative inquiry that embraces difference in worldviews, understandings
(polysemia), and multiple voices and interpretations (polyphonia) as key resources
in investigating the complexities of emotions and the meanings found in interactions
between ourselves and others. It is expected that such research will lead to
improvement of practice and be transformative for all of those involved. Sometimes
we may purposefully explore a question in our teaching. Often, though, unplanned
and unexpected events draw our attention because of their incongruence or their high
emotional content. The latter is but an everyday phenomenon when we are dealing
with teaching a classroom full of students who are similar, yet not, to us and to each
other. Such inquiry into a question or an event may last a lifetime, or it may take no
longer than a quick reflection on some event in a classroom. As teacher | researchers,
we have the unique opportunity to look deeper, beyond the seemingly neutral

21
Chapter 2

treatment of knowledge, and to explore its often hidden biases and implications in
teaching, learning, for our students and ourselves. Authentic social life interactions
involve multiple voices and perspectives. Our research should consider and explore,
as well as reflect, these complexities and nuances.
As teachers, we would like to see our students succeed. Even when we spend all
of our time planning and teaching “the perfect lesson,” we don’t see that success.
These kind of experiences can be very discouraging. Authentic inquiry research
allows us to examine what these issues may be and how to best respond, manage,
and, possibly, resolve them, whether they are in the teaching content, interactions
with the students, the emotional climate of the class, or systemic issues that have
remained unacknowledged or hidden.

22
 Chapter 3

Teachers and Research on Teaching

One thing I have learned that is critical to all researchers, but is no surprise
to practicing teachers, is that the view from the position of teaching is much
different than the view from the side. Much of what I would offer as suggestions
for improvement from the side just does not work at all when I try to enact it as
a teacher. I will not assert that research undertaken from the side has no value.
However, I do challenge those who do research in this way to include at least a
component that is participatory in the sense that the researcher also undertakes
a significant proportion of the teaching. (Tobin, 1999, p. 2)
Is research done by teachers real research? Isn’t it too subjective? What good is
it if the findings change with every classroom or every teacher? Aren’t teachers
there just to teach the content? These are not uncommon questions that traditional
researchers, policy makers, preservice and inservice teachers themselves raise.
These views of teacher research done by teachers are quite pervasive since current
educational policies do not place much validity in teachers researching schooling
beyond technical questions, like how to teach a topic or improve test scores.
The first time I met Ken Tobin, he was an invited speaker at a doctoral class I
was taking. In his talk, he discussed the research work he was doing at the time in
Philadelphia’s inner city public schools with his graduate students. I was surprised
to hear how he was humbled by the experience of teaching in such challenging
circumstances, that, as stated in the quote that opens this chapter, at some point
he realized that too often the suggestions he was giving his student teachers to try
in their classes did not quite work. To resolve these contradictions, he went into
their classrooms to try to implement these ideas himself; he was still unsuccessful.
These experiences, to him, underscored the importance of educational theories being
grounded in real life teaching and learning. Thus, he encouraged us that night to
reconsider the positioning of ourselves as researchers, that rather than being on
the outside, that we be part of or within what is being researched, and further, that
teachers and students be included as co-researchers and collaborators in any such
social inquiry in the classroom.
At the time I was a new and, like so many others in similar positions, a
struggling public school teacher in New York City. Not much different from today,
curriculum developers and policy makers with very little, if any, experience as
teachers themselves were prescribing to teachers what to teach and how. Tobin’s

23
Chapter 3

talk offered me a rare confirmation that our job as teachers was indeed difficult and
challenging and that educational theories created in the abstract and removed from
classroom realities were not always realistic or useful. In addition, his comments
reaffirmed to me that we as classroom teachers were not to blame for the ultimate
failure such reforms were bound to suffer. In my time as a high school teacher and
as a college educator since, I have witnessed a whole parade of “reforms” being
promised as the “ultimate breakthrough” in education only to be unceremoniously
and quietly dumped three or four years later, in favor of the next “big” reform,
which, just as predictably, would suffer a similar fate, leaving a slew of teacher
and student burnout, apathy, and victimization in its wake, as well as massive
amounts of public money misappropriated to make individuals and companies
more wealthy.
By their historical, emotional, and physical positionality and proximity, teachers
experience what happens in the classroom very differently than anyone visiting from
the outside. These outsiders, especially if they, like so many academic “objectivist”
researchers, have not made themselves part of the life of the class, are more like
tourists taking in the scene, taking photos in instances of time, their awareness and
attention drawn to one or another scene without the relatedness, interactions and
interconnections between what has come before, the now, and what will come after.
Nor have they experienced the challenges and difficulties, the exhilarations, the
bonds, and the emotional up and downs that are so much part of teaching. How could
anyone write about such things or know what they are if they have not experienced
or felt them? This kind of questions reminds me of a paper I read as part of one of
my college courses on techniques of class management. The author had never taught
before. Unfortunately, rather than being rare, teacher professional development
workshops are filled with such outside armchair “experts.”
The disempowerment of teachers and the attempt to turn them into technicians
rather than rigorous scholars is a major component of the attacks on public education
in the drive for mass ignorance, profit making, and unquestioning conformity. But
we, as teachers, need to be rigorous scholars and researchers who carry out systematic
and informed inquiry into teaching and learning. From personal experience and in
my experience of working with teachers doing research in their own classrooms,
doing such inquiry helps keep us interested, engaged, and helps us grow and develop
professionally. In addition, by keeping our minds active and challenged, we may
find additional rewards such as pride and intellectual fulfillment, as well as growth
in our self-efficacy and self-worth.
Discussed in this chapter are several works and authors on teacher research
that I believe are essential in framing the criticality of teachers as researchers and
teachers undertaking inquiry into their own practices. Rather than the dichotomy
between theory generation and practice, theory and resulting practice need to be
grounded in practice as practice too should be grounded in theory. Teaching and
learning are not mutually exclusive but rather one informs the other as do teaching
and research.

24
 Teachers and Research on Teaching

Classroom Research

In the United States, teachers have been disenfranchised when it comes to determining
curriculum and generalized knowledge and how the knowledge is thought of and
applied. According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), in the 1980s there was a shift
in the research paradigm in education research. Before then, classroom research was
overwhelmingly college researchers doing research on teachers. These researchers
generally took on the role of “objective” observers with very little interaction with
the teachers.
With the eighties shift, the generation of theory became more grounded in practice
and in collaboration with teachers. Teachers were seen as the experts offering insider
views and understandings of teaching and learning. This kind of teacher research
rejected the positivistic frameworks and advocated social action and social change.
Rooted in ethnographic tradition, it was used to gain a critical, social, and political
understanding of knowledge and the generation of knowledge. Though today
academic research continues to be privileged over teacher research, these shifts to
theory grounded in practice have challenged the traditional hegemony of university-
based research on teachers and offered alternatives to those interested in authentic
social inquiry into teaching and learning.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle suggest that the different ways of labeling teacher
research exemplify and reflect different and often opposing epistemological ways
of defining what research is. This includes ideological and conceptual differences,
conflicts, hegemonic presumptions, and reconstructions of knowledge. Teachers are
positioned differently in these different research frameworks. Cochran-Smith and
Lytle define research on teaching as linear, relying mainly on outsiders to generate
knowledge about teaching or teachers. It generally looks at (a) actions by the teacher
and by the students rather than participant knowledge and input, or (b) interpretive
research of the multiple meanings, often with teacher input, although it focuses on
outward behaviors and actions rather than internal views, values, or judgments.
“Objectivity,” and professional detachment of the research from the participants are
emphasized. While research on teaching may include teachers, the teachers’ roles are
minimized, especially their interpretive voices and understandings. The teacher is
viewed as a participant, not as a co-researcher with the same power over the research
as the outside researcher. The research findings, too, are generally not intended for
teachers but to be shared with other academics.
In contrast to research on teachers, Cochran-Smith and Lytle propose teacher
research by teachers not only as the generators of theory but also as its users.
They define teacher research as teachers investigating their own practices through
“systematic and intentional inquiry” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 7). In such
studies, the teacher is the primary source of knowledge about teaching. Teacher
research by teachers is primarily intended to fill the needs of teachers or their
students, not someone from outside. The main audience for teacher research is other
teachers or individuals interested in teaching and learning practices. Because teacher

25
Chapter 3

research is framed by practice and context, it can go in any number of directions. As

practitioners, teacher | researchers have inside understandings of their own personal
and professional values, thoughts, judgments and emotions, their classrooms, and
their students. The research questions or research foci can be discrepancies, either
intentionally or unintentionally occurring, problems of practice, conflicts, or points
of interest.
Whereas research on teaching poses as objective and has a professional detachment,
teacher research is subjective and personally involved, as human interactions cannot
be value-free. Cochran-Smith and Lytle argue that formulating general laws in the
scientific sense of generalizability is not very real or a very useful construct. Rather,
its generalizability resides more within its practice and its utility in altering practice.
Teacher research empowers teachers by their becoming generators of knowledge
about their own practice. It draws on teachers’ own personal experience, reflections
and knowledge, what matters to them, what it is that they value and what is worth
knowing.

Stenhouse: Champion of Teachers Researching their Own Practice

From a sociocultural perspective, some of the most profound of the early theoretical
contributions on teachers as researchers come from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse
(Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985). A strong advocate of teachers researching their own
practice, Stenhouse viewed teachers becoming researchers in their own practice as
empowering and emancipatory, since the creation of such knowledge would serve
teachers, not rule them. As discussed earlier in this book, what constitutes knowledge
and learning is not neutral or independent of social interactions and relations. Who
defines knowledge and who controls it are important. Stenhouse advocated that,
for their own benefit, teachers ought to do their own research as a basis for their
teaching and thinking, and to use such knowledge to drive curriculum and teaching
theory, rather than being told what to do or waiting for the answers to be given to
them.
Stenhouse defined research by teachers on their own practice as a systematic,
planned, and sustained inquiry, leading to generation of theory and improvement of
practice. Going beyond many other common definitions of action research, he also
wrote that such research has to be self-critical, self-monitoring, and based in action
rather than passive. Furthermore, he argued that data other than empirical (such as
illustrations and critical discourse) could also be used as research evidence. In that,
he advocates that teachers become agentic as to what constitutes knowledge, who
knowledge is for, and how knowledge may be used.

Dewey and Teachers as Professionals

Over the course of his writings, John Dewey repeatedly addressed what today we
consider to be part of the science of teaching and learning. Dewey (1910) encouraged

26
 Teachers and Research on Teaching

teachers to actively and systematically investigate and examine the basis and
consequences of their own beliefs and use their findings for their own further growth
and development as professionals: Active, persistent and careful consideration of
any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support
it, and the further conclusions to which it tends [Italics in original], constitutes
reflective thought (Dewey, 1910, p. 6).
Because we need to conscientiously inquire and analyze our actions, thoughts,
and beliefs, he anticipated that such reflective thinking could be troublesome.
Reflective thinking requires a state of doubt and not accepting things at face value,
as well as the suspension of one’s own conclusions or beliefs as we investigate
why we think the way we think and why we teach the way we teach. Freed from
tradition and unchained from automatically accepting “common sense” biases as
the norm, inquiring into our practice through reflective thought, though possibly
discomforting, becomes an enriching and profound experience.
For Dewey, fieldwork, practice, and research have to be connected and recursive.
He argued against the separation of theory and practice – what he terms “arm-chair
science” (Dewey, 1929, p. 43). According to him, no matter how correct the scientific
procedure, it is not science if theory does not yield rules of practice. The data may
create theories, but the theories must be tested in practice. Systematic inquiry leads
to deeper understanding of classroom interactions and teaching and learning that
may otherwise remain hidden or ignored. What is learned from research can then be
used to catalyze improvements.
The need to be systematic in our research as teachers did not mean, for Dewey,
that teachers ought to adopt the positivistic research frameworks common in
educational research. For him, the science of teaching and learning must include
not only a scientific process of understanding and investigating education, but also
an artistic side that allows for creativity and social interactions that are by definition
dynamic, interconnected, and ever-changing. Thus, in regard to what constitutes
good educational practices, he argued against the tendency to equate good teaching
with set procedures: “So conceived, science is antagonistic to education as an art”
(Dewey, 1929, pp. 15–16). We can draw parallel conclusions when it comes to doing
research. Set procedures do not make good research, since research, like education
is both a science and an art. In science, we can reduce measurements to fundamental
units like grams and meters. In education, on the other hand, we cannot reduce
mental or social phenomena to such fundamental, non-agentic, static quantities.
Since classroom phenomena are always changing, educational research should not
simply borrow techniques from science to measure and test teaching and learning.
Techniques and procedures do not equal learning but are merely recipes (Dewey,
1929). Authentic inquiry research, like good teaching, is both a science and an art, as
it is organic, fluid, emergent and contingent on what is being learned, and changes as
the interests of the participants (i.e., researchers, teachers, students, administrators,
etc.) change. For Dewey, at that time, the teacher as investigator was “an almost
unworked mine” (Dewey, 1929, p. 46). Unfortunately, almost a century later, such

27
Chapter 3

a gold mine of knowledge and thought continues to be neglected and is actively

marginalized.

Kincheloe: Teachers’ Research as a Critical Political Perspective

The radical hermeneut Joe Kincheloe (2003) had a critical, political perspective
on teachers researching their own practice. As a critical and radical educator, he
often wrote against the hidden economic, ideological, and cultural forces and raised
questions pertaining to power, intent purpose, and justice. He argued strongly against
positivism, as positivism validated and gave legitimacy to dominant worldviews and
practices. Especially as pertaining to educational research, Kincheloe questioned
the traditional view of knowledge production and ways of understanding. Whereas
“positivism” assumes meaning resides in the information itself and is independent
of the researcher and the researched, Kincheloe viewed knowledge as more complex
and contextualized, in and by the interactions between self and the other.
Kincheloe (2003) regarded present day anti-teacher culture as anti-intellectual
and degrading, not just for teachers but for schooling in general, especially for poor
and minority students. To him, these reforms were of ideological nature, used for the
purposes of indoctrination, disempowerment, and ethnocentrism, as these reforms
further privilege those already empowered and further consolidate their dominance
of knowledge and learning. He viewed teaching practices as domains of struggle and
teachers as critical researchers who need to study, analyze, and expose hidden and
oppressive forces and processes. He argued that teacher research is needed to counter
the attacks on education and the authoritarian academic “experts” that control what is
researched and who conducts the research. While rigorous, such inquiry should not
be done in the traditional pseudo-scientific method (fixed, predetermined steps). He
thus encouraged teachers to be reflective and ethical practitioners and look beyond
focusing only on short-term survival skills, like increasing standardized test scores.
Instead, teacher | researchers, by assuming liberatory roles, need to focus on teacher
empowerment through investigating and reflecting on the educational process,
and engage in critical work that exposes oppressive assumptions and practices. As
knowledge is power, by being researchers in their own classrooms teachers become
more self-directed and sophisticated leaders in their field.

Teacher Knowledge Through Systematic Research

Knowledge is power. The role of teachers and students as generators of theory

grounded in practice and practice emerging from theory, creating knowledge by and
for their use, is central to authentic inquiry research. Such social inquiry is both a
science and an art.
Authentic inquiry is a process that is framed by the experience, the interactions,
interpretations, interests, and the curiosity of those involved. It is not linear, but
socially constructed, hermeneutic, emergent and contingent on expected and

28
 Teachers and Research on Teaching

unexpected events, interactions, and contradictions. At the same time, while

much of the authentic inquiry research may remain emergent and contingent, the
research must be theoretically rich, systematic, intentional, and do what it claims
to do. The framework and criteria used must be internally coherent and remain
consistent throughout the study. That is, if we approach our research claiming to
have a sociocultural perspective, then the research we do should use sociocultural
methodologies and methods. If we argue that it is participatory, then the voices and
views of the participants should be a central part of the research. If we claim that
our research follows certain authenticity criteria, then it should. Lastly, as in science,
findings in teacher research should be linked into coherent, interrelated systems
that give each other added meaning and can inform inquiry in different fields and
settings.
Researching and reflecting on one’s own practices are essential components of
teaching and of learning. Current educational policies do not encourage teachers
to go beyond practical issues and questions. But teaching practices are domains of
struggle, and as Kincheloe (2003) advocates, teachers as critical researchers need to
study, analyze, and expose hidden forces and processes. To address this research-to-
practice gap, it is essential for teachers to become researchers in their own classrooms
and generate theory based on classroom practices as well as generate practices based
on emergent theory. Teacher research can lead to studies of ideas and concepts as
well as theoretical reflections. Unlike many pseudo-scientific studies conducted by
professional researchers on teachers and their classrooms with little knowledge of
these classrooms and their stakeholders, teachers collaborating and co-researching
with their students can draw on their personal experiences and reflections from the
perspective of what matters and what is of value to them, thus constructing theory
and knowledge that is worth knowing.
Research done by teachers does not minimize the contributions of professional
researchers. Professional researchers often have the theoretical foundations, time,
and resources to carry out complex and long-term studies to wrest out theoretical
models and ideas that classroom teachers, overburdened as they are with day-to-day
teaching, cannot. Working side by side, therefore, can be a rich, mutually beneficial
experience for all involved.

29
 Chapter 4

Elements of a Sociocultural
Research Framework

In studying any new area, it is necessary to begin by seeking and developing

a method. In the form of a general position, we might say that every basically
new approach to scientific problems leads inevitably to new methods and ways
of research. The material and method of research are closely related. For this
reason, research acquires a completely different form and course when it is
linked to finding a new method suitable to the new problem; in that case, it
differs radically from those forms in which the study simply applies developed
and established scientific methods to new areas. (Vygotsky, 1931)
When worldviews are very far apart, words themselves have different meanings.
Then “thin coherence” becomes more like “thick incoherence,” as there may be very
little mutually-shared common meaning and understanding. Thus, the meanings of
terms used in authentic research take on very different interpretations and values
than when used in traditional positivistic research. In this chapter, I discuss some
of the terms and labels found in doing sociocultural research, and authentic inquiry
in particular: epistemology, ontology, axiology, bricolage, criticality, and types of
methods and methodologies. What brings these together, under this chapter, is that
authentic inquiry includes and utilizes these strategies and concepts as part of its
framework for research and research analysis. Authentic inquiry and reflexivity are
discussed more in-depth as part of the authentic inquiry heuristic in the next chapter,
while generalizability is discussed as part of analyzing research in Chapter 8.
Initially, I was averse to using labels, as labels often are overused and lose meaning
and precision. However, through experience, I have come to see them as heuristics
(reflexive tools that, among other qualities, help us become aware of that of which
we were unaware). I have found such labels very helpful in that students, researchers,
and participants use them as a context for understanding and creating meaning. At
the same time, without a past or a future and without a contextual meaning, labels
become constraining and often misleading. It is important, therefore, to view labels
as transitory processes, illuminating parts of a greater whole, rather than static,
permanent, and complete.

31
Chapter 4

Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Hermeneutic phenomenology is the research framework used for authentic inquiry.

It embraces a bricolage of many methods and methodologies of doing inquiry
and is used to explore lived experience as it is historically situated within social
context and interactions. It is participant-centered and (jointly) interpretive (Guba
& Lincoln, 1989). The research spirals in and out, depending on the interests of
participants and what is learned. As new questions and interpretations emerge, new
knowledge and insights are gained that in turn generate new interpretations and
further questions, changing the research in the process. Research participants and
researchers together examine reflexively what is going on and what it means, and
reach shared understandings of what is happening. This does not imply that they
necessarily agree on what is happening, only that they are aware of and share some
understanding of others’ perspectives.
Research and interpretation contain concealed social relations of power and
conflict, intentions, motives, and desires. Realities, as perceived through our
senses, are assumed to be socially constructed and interpreted. The connection
between the research and the researcher is dialectical and cannot be separated. Thus,
interpretations are evolving processes, relational, and reflexive, not just because
they happen while the research is going on, but also because their meanings are
embedded in, as well as mediated by, the research.
In traditional positivistic studies, research is done to answer a priori questions.
By being so structured and predetermined, positivistic research often misses what
may be important to the participants, what may emerge outside the narrow scope of
the research questions, or any conflicts or contradictions that may arise. Generally,
this type of “objective” research is done on teachers rather than with or by teachers.
Positivism includes a lot of hegemonic presumptions as to who the researcher
(objective, scientific authority) and the researched (illustrated by the frequently used
label of “subjects”) are, and emphasizes what is observed and/or measured from only
the perspective of the outside researcher. The voices of the researched are silenced,
especially with regard to the final findings and implications. Because of this process-
product emphasis, this type of research is very hierarchical and detached, since
outside researchers need to take very little responsibility for implementing any of
their findings (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). Such research is likely unreliable
and useless, as there is no feedback between the research and actual teaching and
learning practices.
Authentic inquiry, on the other hand, with its foundations in hermeneutic
phenomenology and sociocultural theory, approaches social inquiry as work in
progress that is emergent and contingent. This applies to what is being researched
as well as how the research is done. Rather than privileging one methodology, the
authentic inquiry framework includes a bricolage of methodologies, methods and
analyses and is multilevel, interpretive, authentic, and reflexive. As we read in
the quote by Vygotsky at the beginning of this chapter, there is nothing sacrosanct

32
 Elements of a Sociocultural Research Framework

about the methods we use. Because the work is organic, the practices, methods and
methodologies used are situational and temporary. While our inquiry is ongoing,
methods and methodologies (like the ones discussed later in this chapter) are
developed as necessary to address new and changing meanings, questions, and
interests. Chapters 10 and 11 include examples from my own work, being a teacher
| researcher with no outside researchers, as well as being part of a larger, multi-
researcher collaborative project.

Epistemologies and Ontologies

Epistemology refers to theories of what constitutes knowledge and knowledge

systems, and their origins, relationships, and limits. According to Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (1993), different epistemological stances represent not just difference, but
also conflicting conceptions and assumptions about knowledge and knowing. These
stances are framed and mediated by personal, contextual and historical experiences
and paradigms. Such an epistemological framework, then, makes particular kinds
of knowledge systems and ontologies either more or less acceptable or welcomed.
Positivistic epistemologies generally view knowledge as universal or common sense,
and knowledge as neutral. In contrast, in authentic inquiry there is no one “truth”
or “reality” research and knowledge are regarded as historically, contextually, and
socially constructed.
Ontology refers to the nature of reality. There are multiple ways of answering what
is real since it, like epistemology, emerges from one’s own personal belief systems.
In positivistic research, ontology is generally thought of as a single, objective reality,
independent of the observer or context. Sociocultural research, however, allows for
and often encourages the inclusion of multiple, socially constructed realities.
Slavery, for example, had its own theory of knowledge systems and ontologies.
These knowledge systems, whether they were derived from the religious or economic
foundations of slavery, justified the views and assumptions that other beings be
considered and treated as not entirely or fully human, based on some formula of
what constitutes race. Similarly, growing up in a nationalistic culture, those of the
dominant ethnic group may see their values and morals as natural, while those who
may be disenfranchised may view the same as oppressive. How each one of us views
school security guards or the police is an example of whether we think they are there
to protect us or abuse us. This may explain why some may believe that positivistic
research is natural, while others view it as biased, hegemonic, and oppressive.
Epistemology, ontology, and research findings are intertwined and dialectically
interdependent with each other, as well as with our morals and values (discussed
below). Our personal ways of thinking about knowledge and knowledge production,
and the ways we think of the world and what is just and relevant, all frame and
mediate how research is organized, how data are collected, and how findings are
interpreted, as well as what is valued and accepted as research. Some, especially
those who operate within a positivistic theoretical framework, may consider good

33
Chapter 4

scholarship research to be research that diligently follows the “scientific method.”

Others, who are interested in authentic inquiry and in exploring the nuances of social
issues, may be more attracted to interpretative and reflexive research that addresses
issues of social justice and difference, and in which the researchers’ and participants’
own beliefs and biases are questioned and made explicit.

Axiology

Axiology refers to what we value and the degree to which we value it. It can be ideas,
morals, values themselves, principles, etc. We may think that inequity in education
or racial segregation is wrong, but how much do we care? In our classrooms, we may
value test scores, but we may value caring for our students more. How much we value
something may change depending on the interaction and context, and how much it
will benefit or cost us. Climate change and the environment may be important to us
at some level, but individuals (as well as societal structures) have different interests
and will value and interpret this differently, possibly with divergent conclusions and
implications.
A framework that values polyphonia (a plurality of voices where one is not valued
or privileged over the others) and polysemia (inclusive of multiple perspectives and
worldviews), axiological transparency and critical reflexivity is central to the framing
of authentic inquiry research. It is essential that we, as teacher | researchers doing
authentic inquiry, be and become more aware of our values and goals. This also
applies to the participants involved in our research and the readers of our work. How
values and goals frame our research and teaching needs to be clear, transparent, and
overt. Sandra Harding (1993) argues that, by being deeply reflexive and including
the subjective in discussing our work, our research gains “strong objectivity” as
values, politics, and special interests that are normally hidden are laid bare.

Criticality

Critical research investigates, reexamines and challenges what is acceptable

and what may be considered the norm, and seeks ways of reconceptualizing and
addressing these cultural assumptions. Foci of critical inquiry include actions, values
and morals, belief systems, and relationships of power, especially as they are being
used to discriminate against, disenfranchise, or control others. Such work challenges
sociocultural belief systems, decisions, and interactions. As a methodology,
critical research views society and its structures as not neutral. It questions power,
not only in what is being investigated but also in assigning meaning and making
value judgments and decisions in the research itself. Such a structure thus affords a
reflexive approach to research work and its potential biases and tensions. Kincheloe
(2003) outlined five elements necessary for teacher critical action research:

34
 Elements of a Sociocultural Research Framework

1. Rejecting positivism and the reduction of questions to technicalities by ignoring

the political and ethical aspects of schooling.
2. Awareness of the role personal values have on practice and the need for teacher |
researchers to be cognizant of their own values.
3. Awareness of personal values in research interpretations.
4. Awareness of the role dominant forces play in the researchers’ decisions and
practices.
5. Awareness of obstacles posed by social structures and how to overcome them.

Bricolage

In doing research in teaching and learning, the old dichotomies between different
methodologies and methods, such as ethnography and action research, or between
quantitative and qualitative, become a hindrance to our investigations. Kincheloe
(2011b) writes that while, as researchers, we need to be familiar with and
experts in particular ways of doing research, the methods and methodologies we
employ in any given study should depend on our needs and goals and what we
have that we can use, rather than being locked into one a priori. Borrowing from
Lévi-Strauss (Lévi-Strauss, 1966) and Denzin and Lincoln (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005), Kincheloe uses the label of bricolage to describe the interdisciplinary,
emergent and contingent nature of such a combination of multiple research
frameworks, tools and techniques.
The research methods I have found most applicable to these kinds of teacher |
researcher studies (which are discussed further below) are action research, design
studies, case studies, ethnographic research, diaries and journals, and cogenerative
dialogues. Depending on what kind of research teachers wish to carry out, one or
more (a bricolage) of these research methodologies or some of their methods may
be used.
As Denzin and Lincoln (2005) write, interpretive bricolage is framed by the
understanding that knowledge is situational, contextual, and personal, that there
exist different and multi-representations of reality, and that each type of narrative
or “story” represents a different paradigm. Tobin and Steve Ritchie (2012) suggest
a methodological bricolage that is interpretive, reflexive, multi-level and authentic.
By combining multiple methodologies as necessary and as needed, we avoid mono
views and the limitations of isolated research and methodologies, and thus gain more
complex and sophisticated insights and knowledge (Kincheloe, 2011a). Multi-level,
multi-method research affords multiple perspectives and multiple data resources for
authentic inquiry.

35
Chapter 4

Methodologies and Methods

Across research, the labels of “method” and “methodology” often are used
interchangeably, reflecting different epistemologies and ontologies (or possibly
shallow theories). Making understanding even more difficult, meanings for each
may vary across disciplines and even among authors using similar frameworks.
As used in this book, methodology is not limited to only selecting the methods
of research (i.e., quantitative versus qualitative). It also includes the overall research
framework, including research purposes, goals, judgments, values, and worldviews.
Often, contrasting epistemologies suggest different methodologies. Methodologies
in positivistic research claim to be independent of context. Hermeneutic
phenomenology, on the other hand, embraces a bricolage of multiple methodologies
including ethnographic, cogenerative dialogues (cogen), and methods, like
quantitative and qualitative. They are contingent on specific goals and needs and
may change as the study progresses and new and unexpected knowledge or events
emerge.
Methods are research tools to be used. Their selection and use depend on the
needs of the research and on the data we are interested in collecting. As Vygotsky
so succinctly wrote, “the method is simultaneously prerequisite and product, the
tool and the result of this study” (Vygotsky et al., 1978, p. 65). Methods flow from
methodology but may not be bound by any particular methodology. These tools can
be quantitative and/or qualitative, and can include video analysis, prosodic analysis
and others. Methods used for one study, therefore, may be similar to those of other
studies with quite different goals and theoretical frameworks. Statistical analysis is
an example of such a tool. Its meaning and purpose will likely be different when
used in studies strictly for statistical evaluations in the positivistic sense than when
employed as one among many multi-method data resources used in authentic inquiry
to investigate an event that emerges in the classroom.
Because some may have specific purposes and values associated with their
use, these may be better understood as both methods and methodologies. With
cogen (Tobin & Roth, 2005), for example, it is expected that the participants and
researchers involved share an understanding that all voices in the study are valued,
that learning from the other is central, and that findings will encompass polysemia
and polyphonia, not one “objective” truth. Cogen is a way of formalizing particular
etiquette for group discussions so that everyone may co-participate under more
equitable conditions. Even though cogen can be and often is used as a data resource
and as an intervention, it is also a methodology, as it has framed by clearly defined
values and characteristics.

Action Research

Teachers investigating their own practice benefit from using theory to improve
knowledge of their own practice as well as by applying what is learned through

36
 Elements of a Sociocultural Research Framework

investigating their own practice to add to theory. The work often credited with first
using the term action research (though not in education) is Kurt Lewin’s (1946)
Action Research and Minority Problems. In this work, he proposed several elements
of and purposes for action research. Action research is both research on social actions
and research leading to social action. It is done by the practitioner researching her
or his own work. Learning happens through reflexive engagement and participation.
It is an exploration of social life, but also an exploration of the efficacy of a social
actions or practices.
Action research is helpful, not only in researching and changing teaching and
learning practices, but also in that it allows us to better understand “others,” the
challenges they may face, and how to manage or resolve these challenges. In
education, action research has come to mean many different things depending on
the epistemological context in which it is used. For example, it has become very
prominent in the current school “reform” movement. The Danielson rubric (Danielson,
2013) used for evaluation of classroom teachers in many school districts is such an
example. Component 4e, Growing and Developing Professionally, specifically lists
conducting action research as part of the “highly effective” rating. The new Education
Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) used for teacher certification in many
states also requires candidates to include components on reflecting on teaching and
student learning, and incorporates research in their portfolio responses (http://edtpa.
aacte.org/). As has been advocated throughout this book, though, teachers need to
go beyond the narrowness of being technicians. Rather than superficial studies of
teaching skills and test results, critical action research can be an important part of
day-to-day reflective and reflexive practices into social interactions, issues of power,
and disenfranchisement, and issues of social justice and equity in teacher and student
assessments and in teaching and learning.

Design Studies

Design studies (A. L. Brown, 1992; A. Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004) are
research projects meant to make formative assessments of research theory and
interventions in educational practices and real-life environments such as classrooms.
They evolved to fill the needs of systematic research outside of the controlled
environments where experimental studies normally take place. Design studies
address theoretical questions, practices, and interventions based on ongoing research
and findings. Analysis is continuous and begins as soon as the research starts. Based
on what is being learned in doing the research, design theories and analyses are
constantly reevaluated and rethought. Through interventions, they seek to create
transformative experiences for those involved, while evaluating and rethinking the
design and benefit of the interventions. Reflective practices are encouraged, as are
multiple perspectives from a variety of participants in the analysis and interpretations.
The new knowledge generated is then used to rethink underlying theory and create
new constructs, theory and practices.

37
Chapter 4

Similar to hermeneutics, design studies plan, test, assess, and adapt in an ongoing,
non-linear cycle, as interventions are planned, implemented, and refined. What is
going on, the findings, and theory have a recursive and interactive relationships
with each other. Design studies are not tied to any particular methodologies and
may include a variety of designs and data collection methods. Because of that, and
because they also take place in natural settings (like real world classrooms) where
there is little or no control over what is happening and why, such studies can be very
“messy.” The goal of design studies is to understand what is happening by providing
rich descriptions from multiple data sources, which may also include quantitative
sources. The design of the research and interventions are refined as the research
progresses. At the same time, they seek to generate new theory and disseminate
findings.

Ethnography

According to Atkinson and Hammersley (1994), modern ethnography emerged from

social and cultural anthropology with many variations and definitions in existence.
It may be used as a philosophical approach to how we frame our methodology or
simply as an approach or a method we employ as appropriate in our work. Features
include inquiry and exploration of social questions and phenomena in real life, rather
than in testing. Data, mostly in the form of field notes and narratives, is unconstructed
(it is not collected to fit some prior categories). Its main forms of data and analysis
are descriptions and interpretations. Ethnographic studies can be used to contribute
to knowledge and advocate for those being studied, but not necessarily to carry out
interventions or provide answers.
Ethnographic studies can be quite suitable in exploring issues such as race,
gender, class, sexuality, political questions, and differences in teaching and learning.
The data include participant observations, by the teacher | researcher or student
participants, on interesting “happenings” that occur or emerge in the classroom.

Case Study

Often, as teacher | researchers we may want to focus our research on one particular
aspect, event or entity. This could be one student, one class or a single teaching
strategy. In such situations, we could engage in case study research. Beyond this
singular focus, case study research can be used within many different frameworks
and epistemologies. As such, a case study is not a methodology, per se, but more of a
method or a strategy (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010). Because its applications can
be multipurposed and used across many different epistemologies, its definitions also
vary. Within case studies, we inquire into what relationships and interconnections
exist between and across an event, person, or entities, analyze these relationships,
and use what is learned to make sense, and generate new theories and knowledge
(Mills et al., 2010).

38
 Elements of a Sociocultural Research Framework

Case study research can consist of descriptions of everyday activities found in

teaching. Descriptions might include who did what and when, though not necessarily
why. A researcher might test interventions or choose not to. Therefore, case studies
can be part of different types of research such as ethnographic research, research
where the researcher is an active participant, or action research. Description of the
event, persons or entity could include what is important for the reader to know in
order to have a meaningful knowledge base of what is being researched. If the focus
of the case study is a class, then what kind of a class is it? What are some important
characteristics of the students (demographics, interests, majors, etc.)? Are there any
unusual aspects the reader should be aware of, such as the ages of the students,
special circumstances, such as are they all jocks, musicians, repeaters etc.? If the
focus is about a school, is the school open enrollment, zoned, public or private, etc.?
If the focus is an event, what made the event special? Does what is being studied
encompass contradictions, breaks with normality, or is it emotionally charged?
What are some different views of what is described (other teachers, researchers,
participants, main characters)? How did these participants make sense of what
happened, their interpretations and conclusions reached? How does this study
contribute to new knowledge or theory? What was done with what was learned?
How did the participants involved change as a result?

Diaries and Journals

Despite science’s infatuation with experimental data, some of the most famous work
in science has been done using diaries and journals for field observations. Darwin,
for example, used the notes he took on his travels aboard The Beagle as a foundation
for his theory of evolution through natural selection. A diary is more regular (daily,
weekly) while journal entries are entered as needed or as they emerge. Diaries
and journals focus on what is going on, and include the writer’s own perceptions,
particular emphasis, and focus.
Diaries and journals can be of great use in doing teacher research. Entries
could include emotional responses to a given question like how you feel about the
lesson, working in groups, some event that took place or a question that emerged.
As teacher | researchers, we may jot down our thoughts about a particular topic
during our teaching (though this may take a lot of practice and effort to get used
to), after class, or after school. Participants can be given time to write at the
beginning or end of class or after school. This might take the form of a free writing
assignment with one or two prompts to help focus participants’ thoughts, or they
can write about what they feel is important. Diaries and journals can provide rich
descriptions of daily life, often missed or neglected by questionnaires, surveys,
or interviews and can help participants develop reflexivity. We will not only get
others’ views of what they find important, but also an emic perspective of how
they feel and think.

39
Chapter 4

Cogenerative Dialogue

Cogenerative dialogue, or cogen, is a strategy developed by Wolff-Michael Roth

and Tobin (Tobin & Roth, 2005) to bring about more equitable interactions among
participants. Cogen can be used in authentic inquiry to explore issues of power,
conflict, and contradiction in the interactions between and among stakeholders from
multiple perspectives, and voices. It allows participants to engage as collaborators
and co-researchers, which encourages polysemia and polyphonia, and addresses
inequities. As such, cogen also can be thought of as an intervention for transformation
through learning from the “other.” Cogen characteristics include valuing and striving
to make sense of what others are saying, getting others to contribute to what is
being discussed, taking turns listening and speaking, attention to synchrony and
asynchrony, building on and learning from others. Because of these qualities, cogen
can be used both as a methodology and as a method (a data resource).
As issues of power are often at the forefront in interactions between teacher and
students, as well as among students, encouraging those who may have the least or
who may be the most powerless is important. For example, when discussing touchy
or thorny issues, cogen helps bring about clarity and understanding of each other and
each other’s views, which helps to decrease highly charged emotional responses that
often result from misunderstanding or not valuing and respecting the other.
A cogen can be as small as the teacher | researcher with only one of the participants,
or with a group of students, or sometimes, the entire class. Participants in a cogen
choose a particular event or vignette either from the cogen or from an audio or
video recording from the research and comment on it (Tobin, 2012a). Cogen thus
is a holistic method of obtaining multiple perspectives on what is happening and
including participants as co-researchers. These narratives themselves become data
resources that can lead to further exploration and discussion. The cogen can also be
video-recorded and analyzed for emotions, synchrony, and shared understandings or
differences.
Especially at the very beginning, it is advisable to start very small, and with
students who generally want to and are interested in spending extra time after class
and during lunch. The use of cogen is meant to benefit not only the research but also
the participants. By participating in cogenerative dialogues, sharing their ideas and
co-generating plans and activities to address their concerns and issues, participants
can help transform themselves as well as the research.

40
 Chapter 5

Authentic Inquiry Research

Researching our practice is an opportunity to learn. Unlike positivistic-type research

that is done to prove or disprove a hypothesis, authentic inquiry is about learning,
changing, developing, and implementing practices that contribute to learning and
teaching of the researcher and all others involved. Teacher | researchers approach
such inquiry as learners willing to be transformed by the experience, perhaps not
even knowing what questions they will investigate until sometime after the research
commences. Being personally involved and being responsible for findings grounded
in actual teaching practice makes the research more authentic, as well as more useful
and rewarding. Such research alters teaching and learning practices, but is also
framed and mediated by these practices.
Authentic inquiry, like design studies, action research and ethnographic studies,
situates the researcher inside the research, not outside. Action researchers (especially
those doing critical action research) also focus on real-life issues in their place of
practice. They often have an orientation toward doing meaningful and socially
responsible research by positioning themselves as part of the research rather than
being removed from it. They are committed to social change through the use of
inquiry to transform social practices (praxis). Building on design studies theory,
researchers work with participants to define and cogenerate research questions,
findings, and interpretations and to fashion strategies and interventions. These
aspects are incorporated into authentic inquiry.
As a research framework, authentic inquiry is dynamic, dialectic, recursive,
reflexive, and continuous. Authentic inquiry infuses systematic, purposeful, empirical
studies with an active commitment to authenticity criteria and interventions to
improve the lives of all stakeholders. It includes a hermeneutic approach to research,
attention to difference, an emphasis on reflexivity and on becoming aware of the
unaware. Authentic inquiry unites the essence of seeming opposites, like theory
and practice, teaching and doing research, and teaching and learning. Because of its
dynamic nature, some may find authentic inquiry to be more complex and thus more
difficult than conventional methodologies. At the same time, because it is so fluid
and changes as our needs and interests change, doing this type of inquiry feels more
organic and adapts more easily to researching the dynamic interrelationships and
interactions that take place in teaching and learning.
In our research squad’s work, heuristics became reflexive tool kits designed as
interventions to raise awareness to a particular set of characteristics (Powietrzynska,

41
Chapter 5

Tobin, & Alexakos, 2015). It only makes sense, then, to produce a heuristic for
authentic inquiry research. Though by no means a final draft (neither the criteria
for heuristic nor authentic inquiry allow for such a “finality”), this heuristic can be
adapted as a reflexive instrument for doing teacher research with the expectation that
the heuristic too will change as new knowledge emerges in the process of using it,
and underlying theories are redefined or rethought.
Unfortunately, whether because teachers are thought of as technicians who just
need to do what they are told by their “betters,” or because of flaws in teacher
education programs, not many teachers have had the necessary preparation to
conduct research on their own practices. To address this need, this chapter examines
features and characteristics that could be part of authentic inquiry research and the
authenticity criteria in particular, as well as heuristics and their role in authentic
inquiry. This chapter concludes with a heuristic we (Alexakos & Tobin, 2015) have
developed for doing authentic inquiry that interested researchers can adapt for their
own work.
If interested teachers hold mainstream beliefs, it is not a problem. To some extent,
we all do. In my experience good teachers become teachers because they care about
their students and value learning. The heuristic addresses such interests and values,
and provides a framework and the means for inquiry and change. Interested teacher
| researchers can take what they like and what they are interested in and adapt it to
their own work. The uses of the heuristic shift as the inquiry shifts and as the teacher
| researcher transforms and is transformed by her or his inquiry.

Heuristics

Heuristics are tools that help us explore, focus, and raise awareness. They are
reflexive in that, through doing them, we become aware of the unaware. They can
be used in teacher research to afford participants’ awareness of characteristics that
we as teacher | researchers are interested in investigating, or that we would like our
students to reflect on as important in their learning.
While a heuristic may look like a survey, it takes on very different roles. Unlike a
“positivistic” survey, a heuristic can be used in sociocultural research, both as a tool
for investigation and as an intervention. As a tool for investigation, it can be used to
explore what the landscape is with respect to questions of interest and how strongly
participants feel about them, quantitatively and qualitatively document any claims
of changes (pre and post) in the participants that may result from participating in our
inquiry, as well as to solicit further explanations.
As an intervention, a heuristic can be used as a reflexive tool for becoming
aware of the unaware, and can provide ideas on how to change when and as
change becomes desirable. This aspect is probably the hardest for those new to
heuristics to wrap their heads around. Too often, we are unaware not only of our
environment and of others, but of ourselves – how we feel, how we express our

42
 Authentic Inquiry Research

emotions, the tone of our voices, our physical stances, and generally how we “are”
while interacting with others. Even when we are aware, we may not know how
to change or manage emotions or expressions we may wish to change. Heuristics
address these challenges hermeneutically, as the interpretations, meanings and take-
away messages of the characteristics they contain are left for the users to decide,
and, if interested, to act upon. Simply by reading through a heuristic, participants
may become aware of matters or emotions of which they were previously unaware,
thus becoming transformed even if they do not choose to actively pursue this new
awareness or understanding further at the moment. It is not unusual, for example, for
a participant to return to class or to a research squad meeting a week or more after
using a heuristic and relate how an event made her or him rethink one characteristic
or another addressed by the heuristic, after initially having expressed no interest
concerning that same characteristic.
Heuristics can be adapted for use in different situations by choosing particular
characteristics (possibly modified) for specific purposes and events. Which
characteristics are used is fluid. The meanings of the characteristics, too, are redefined
as the participants begin to view them differently. These characteristics change the
research and the outcomes as participants begin to use them more reflexively. As
the participants are transformed, how they use the heuristics also changes. As such,
heuristics are shape shifters, not only in that they are meant to transform, but also
because they too can be adapted and changed. For example, participants who use
a heuristic become more aware and reflexive, and change their awareness; the use
of the heuristic changes as a result. As our awareness changes, the heuristic can
be used to shift emphasis to previously-less-attended-to characteristics or to new
characteristics created in response to emergent theories and knowledge.
Heuristic-generated interventions can be low- or high-grade, depending on how
they are used, how often, level of importance to the participant, and the intensity
of application. For example, if a heuristic is discussed and used continuously in
class as a framework and as a rubric to guide students’ presentations, then it can
be considered high-grade. In other cases, the heuristic may be used only once or
twice during a semester, without much attention drawn to it, in which case it may be
considered low grade.
In designing and developing heuristics in our own work (Powietrzynska,
forthcoming), we found that it was best to create characteristics that focused on
the constructive rather than the negative and use a rating scale that started with the
positive, i.e., 5: Always/Very often; 4: Often; 3: Sometimes; 2: Seldom; 1: Never/
rarely; 0: Not observed, or, not applicable. In addition, a heuristic should not be
created in the abstract, but be cogenerated with the intended audience for purpose,
content, and clarity. Students in a class, for example, can be divided into small
groups, with each group responsible for discussing a subgroup of characteristics.
Then the whole class can come together and have a discussion on what is important
to them, how they view these characteristics and what they may mean. For those

43
Chapter 5

interested in a much more detailed discussion on heuristics as created and developed

by our research squad, see Malgorzata Powietrzynska’s (forthcoming) chapter on
heuristics.

Authentic Inquiry Research Framework

Authentic inquiry research embraces hermeneutic phenomenology and design

studies by situating research in the world of lived experience. Research questions
may involve problems of practice, context, discrepancies, and interactions, as well
as conceptual and theoretical questions, such as what is of value to the teacher |
researcher, to the students, what is of interest, what is worth knowing and what is
worth inquiring into.
Authentic inquiry research is interpretive and reflexive and addresses authenticity
criteria using multi-method, multi-level resources (Tobin & Ritchie, 2012). It is
transformative, not only for the researchers and the researched, but the research itself
is also transformed in the process. It starts off with a broad focus that includes the
emic views of the participants. Participant interpretations and meanings are valued
as just as real and just as important as those of the researchers. The research is
participatory, reflexive, jointly constructed, hermeneutic, and collaborative, blurring
the line between participant knowledge and expert knowledge.
Our values, morals and emotions, our past experiences, our wants and our fears,
whatever they may be, are imbedded in and mediate who we are, how we feel, what
we sense, what we do, how we interpret what we see, and the judgments we make
as individuals, as teachers, and as researchers. Research, research findings, and the
personal are dialectically entangled and mutually constituted.
Reflexivity is becoming aware of the unaware through critical reflective
examination, not only of those being researched but also of the researchers and
their research practices, their biases and prejudices, stances and preconceptions.
Such critical self-reflexivity is part of becoming accountable and must be subject to
transformative practices and to change.
Since authentic inquiry is hermeneutic, the research organically changes because
of itself. Ongoing and continuous analysis begins as the research begins. Not just what
is researched, but the research design and theoretical framework itself are subject to
revision and change. The process is cyclical and reciprocal, moving backwards and
forwards, with researchers and co researchers identifying events and participants,
renegotiating and developing joint constructions, re-evaluating and revisiting prior
constructions, negotiating resolutions and unresolved items. Underlying theory is
constantly re-evaluated and transformed as new knowledge emerges.
Teacher | researchers may choose to focus on a specific event or focus on a
semester-long question. As we identify participants and renegotiate and reinterpret
what we are seeing, we re-evaluate prior constructions and revisit our understandings.
This process is repeated as necessary. “Finalizing” our constructions includes cycles
of negotiating resolved and unresolved items. Rather than permanent or eternal,

44
 Authentic Inquiry Research

our findings are understood to be contextual, provisional and tentative, mediated

by our theoretical framework, our research, our co-researcher/participants, and our
resources at that specific time.
It is not easy to decide when we need to finalize our inquiry. A final product is
produced not because we have arrived at some final grand truth, but because our
time may be up or we need to switch our attention to something else. It is more
akin to finishing a chapter than finishing a complete book. Much of when we stop
will depend on our goals, how much data we have collected, and how much data
we need to accomplish these goals. If we are able to analyze our data while we are
collecting it, we are in a good place. Often, though, the data are overwhelming and
this provides us with a good place to at least pause and catch up, even if we choose
to continue our inquiry further. Sometimes we decide when enough is enough based
on our experience; other times we arrive at that conclusion by talking or consulting
with others.

Table 5.1. Authentic inquiry versus conventional research

Conventional “objectivist” research Authentic Inquiry

Ontology Single objective reality, independent Multiple, socially constructed

of the observer. One truth.
Epistemology It is possible for the researcher to
remain detached from what or whom
is being studied. “Subject-object”
dualism and dichotomies.
Methodology Independent of contexts
Methods Generally statistical, perhaps with
also small groups.
Axiology Sanitized and neutral.
Beneficence The researcher and the sponsors
of the research.
realities.
Research findings and inquiry
are dialectically interdependent:
epistemology | ontology. Blur
between participant knowledge
and expert knowledge.
Joint constructions, participant
centered.
Emergent and contingent based
on what is available and our
goals. No dichotomies between
quantitative and qualitative.
Values and goals are clear,
transparent, overt, and subject to
further investigation.
All involved. The researcher, but
in particular participants. Catalytic.

The Four Authenticity Criteria

An authentic inquiry framework explicitly incorporates and values multi-

representation, multiple voices (polyphonia), and multiple realities (polysemia), is
holistic, encourages inclusivity and embraces otherness. Tobin (2006) describes his

45
Chapter 5

adaptation of Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) authenticity criteria to educational research

as authentic inquiry. Building on Tobin’s work on cogenerative dialogues, and
research on emotions and mindfulness in the classroom, authentic inquiry becomes
a potent framework for systematic and sustainable research for teachers researching
their own practices and education researchers in general.
Teaching and research are not always in sync or harmony with each other
(discussed more in the next chapter). Doing one may create tensions for the other.
To help me through these disharmonies and conflicts, I use Tobin’s four authenticity
criteria (outlined below) as my framework for both teaching and doing research.
This framework provides for learning from difference and seeing difference as a
resource rather than something to be fixed or changed, beneficence for all involved,
equity in voice and decision making, and justice for all participants.
The first criterion is ontological authenticity: being open to change through
participating in the research. Ontological authenticity means the participants –
teachers, researchers, students, etc. (all of whom are part of the research), are open
to change based on what they learn, and enact necessary cultural practices to make
and sustain such changes. This means that participants approach such inquiry not
simply as an opportunity to learn, teach and conduct research, but they expect they
themselves will change their perspectives (their ontologies) as a result of taking part
in the research. Not only should teaching and research be viewed as intertwined, but
so too should teaching, research, learning and becoming transformed in the process
and because of each other.
The second of the criteria is educative authenticity: learning from the other and
learning from difference; difference as a resource. Participants, including the teacher
| researcher, are encouraged to understand their own views and the standpoints of
“others.” In our work, radical listening exemplified and structured this principle.
Based on the work of Joe Kincheloe (Tobin, 2009a), radical listening calls on
participants not only to be open to the ideas of others and to withhold final judgment
until having taken the time to understand and discuss these ideas, but also to welcome
and learn from them, while at the same time helping the “other” develop along their
own path, not the trajectory we would wish them to take. The “others” (all, not just
those holding the power) are encouraged to voice their views and their views are
respected and valued. Thus, teacher | researchers, as part of doing authentic inquiry,
open up to the possibility of other ideas and suggestions such as teaching, classroom
rules, and expectations.
The third of the criteria is catalytic authenticity: that the research becomes a catalyst
for changes and improvements. Participants not only change their perspectives
and value and understand the voices and worldviews of others, but also become
responsible for enacting positive changes for improvement. The improvements can
address issues such as biases, power, policies, and procedures in the class, school-
wide and beyond.

46
 Authentic Inquiry Research

The fourth criterion is tactical authenticity: The research is of potential

beneficence to all participants. Teacher | researchers have an obligation to address any
disadvantages that emerge in their inquiry, particularity for those who may not have
the power to address them or who, because of their disadvantaged situation, may not
be able to benefit from the work. This might include students or other stakeholders
who, because of their race, gender, sexual preferences, or other characteristics, may
be victimized by the administration, teachers, or other students but who may be too
intimidated, frightened, or powerless to bring about corrective action on their own.

The Authentic Inquiry Heuristic

The heuristic below can be adapted to meet the needs of an inquiry into teaching
and learning by the teacher | researcher. Some or all of the characteristics may be
used or adapted to meet particular needs and goals. As new knowledge emerges, or
as the research is changed, new characteristics may be added. A 5-point Likert scale
(5: Always/Very often; 4: Often; 3: Sometimes; 2: Seldom; 1: Never/rarely and if
necessary 0: not applicable or not observed) may be used (or not). Participants could
be asked to illustrate, nuance, or provide examples in their responses.

47
Chapter 5

When using authentic inquiry as my framework of doing research:

1. I value doing research to improve both practice and theory
2. I try to include participants as co-researchers.
3. Inquiry and discovery in my research are recursive, mutually contingent, and
emergent.
4. Theory and practice inform and mediate one another in my work.
5. My work seeks to empower all participants.
6. To make sense of my research, I incorporate what participants have said.
7. I test the potential of participants’ contributions.
8. I try not to judge the quality of participants’ contributions until I understand
them.
9. I try to arrive at a consensus (though not necessarily agreement) between my
understandings and others’ understandings.
10. I value and welcome different perspectives.
11. My findings are inclusive of difference.
12. My research is participant-centered and jointly constructed.
13. Participants are encouraged to understand others’ views and standpoints.
14. Participants and I are aware of each other’s goals.
15. The axiologies that frame my research are clear, transparent, and overt.
16. Participants and I are aware of each other’s axiologies (i.e., our values and their
relative strengths)
17. I am open to change, based on what is learned.
18. I enact necessary cultural practices to make and sustain changes based on what
is learned.
19. What I and other participants learn from research is used to catalyze
improvements.
20. I address any disadvantages to participants that are identified in my research,
especially for those who may not have the power to benefit from what is
learned.
21. Fairness to all participants is a priority.
22. The benefits of participating in research are related to the goals of all
participants.
23. I reflect theoretically upon my own practice.
24. My practices are consistent with my theories.
25. I use research to reflect on own epistemological stances.
26. I interrogate what constitutes my own knowledge and knowing.
27. I critically question representations within my research and research findings.
28. I reflexively consider my own relationship to the past, present and future (such
as social origins, position and trajectory, habits of thought, shared beliefs rituals
and values).
29. I contemplate on my practices and beliefs and identify those that reflect
uncontested mainstream biases.
30. I become more aware of beliefs, habits, and values I was not aware I had.
Cite as: Alexakos K. and Tobin, K. (2015). Authentic Inquiry Heuristic. New York:
The City University of New York.

Figure 5.1. The authentic inquiry heuristic

48
 Chapter 6

Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts,

and Vulnerabilities

This book is about teachers critically inquiring into the rituals, values, emotions,
joys and challenges that are part of teaching and learning. Doing such research on
one's own interactions and practices can be invigorating and beautiful as we begin
to discover layers of complexities and emotions that can keep us interested for a
lifetime of inquiry. Our finds are intertwined with who we are, our emotions, and
what we want to accomplish, as are our actions and interventions. Since we are part
of this inquiry, though, what we do with what we find may affect us and our students
intensely and personally (as discussed in Chapter 2). Rather than disinterested,
disengaged outsiders, we are personally and deeply invested in what we do.
Undertaking such work carries its unique professional and emotional benefits
and risks because the findings, especially as pertaining to us, may or may not be
glorious or even as expected. Many times, especially when I first started reviewing
the videos of myself teaching, I found myself looking at and seeing someone very
different from the reflective, deliberate educator I imagined myself to be. How does
such inquiry into our own practices and emotions change our awareness? And as our
awareness of ourselves changes through such inquiry, do we change what we do?
If so how? And what about what we learn of our students? How does what we find
contribute to educational theory and practice? How can this emergent knowledge be
applied to other fields of our work or of our lives? How can others make use of and
learn from our findings?
Because our work as teachers in general is so intensely emotionally valanced to
start with, doing such inquiry and peeling back some of those layers can be taxing,
not just intellectually, but also ethically and emotionally, especially when critically
examining ourselves and our own teaching practice. How do we successfully (or
unsuccessfully) address, uncover, or bring to the forefront issues of injustice or
inequity? How do we calm ourselves in moments of extreme negative emotion?
What do we do that helps create a more mindful and healthy practice? How are we
or others changed through inquiry? How do our lives and the lives of our students
change or benefit? How will our work be different in the future as a result of our
study?
Our inquiry gets even trickier when dealing with thorny issues in education,
like class, race, gender, and sexuality. Education is saturated with hidden political
and social presumptions, dispositions, and agendas, whether about knowledge

49
Chapter 6

itself, or who gets what kind of education. Because many of these presumptions
and dispositions are so pervasive and so deeply embedded in the prevailing
educational culture, they are taken to be the “norm” and often exist outside our
immediate awareness. For example, students sitting behind desks, the teacher doing
the teaching, exams at the end of the unit, grades, uniformity of curriculum and
behavior, silence, tracking, and students being on “task,” are all generally expected
and seen as obvious elements of “normality” in schools. As Zembylas (2014) argues,
though, classrooms are hierarchical structures with assumptions based on dominant
culture and expressions of power and privilege. Thorny topics like race, gender, and
sexuality are highly emotionally charged and often contentious, with the potential
for a lot of hurt and pain, even when the discussions are done “well.” So how do we
go about exploring these and, caringly and mindfully, bring about positive change?
Axiology involves our values, how strongly we believe in them, and how
valuable they are to us. As discussed earlier in this book (Chapters 4 and 5), our
axiology is reflected in our work, whether we are aware of this or not. Axiology cuts
across interactions and context of research and social life, framing and mediating
participation, assumptions, power structures, ethical decisions, theoretical stances,
experienced realities, how we view and interpret what is happening, our awareness
and receptivity, the rituals we enact, and what we consider worthwhile.
Authentic inquiry research is framed by the authenticity criteria discussed in the
previous chapter: difference as a resource, beneficence, equity, and justice for all
participants, a commitment to personal and social change, as well as an activist
agenda to make change possible, whether through interventions during our inquiry
or advocacy following or in response to it. As my own teaching and research selves
became more closely aligned, I began thinking of these authenticity criteria as
framing not only my research, but my teaching. Especially when immersed in both,
the criteria provide me with a checklist that I can use to evaluate my work, and myself
and to fall back to if I need to quickly respond to potentially explosive questions
concerning what I am doing. But what are the wider legal and ethical implications
of doing classroom research? What is the difference between researching our
own practices for professional improvement and doing research for publication?
The discussion below of the Belmont Report is meant to address such questions,
concerns, and situations, as well as when we may need institutional permissions, and
what such permissions may entail.
Again, being a teacher | researcher can be very rewarding, educative, and
empowering. Through such praxes (critical, reflective actions) we can continue
to develop and grow as teachers, as scholars and as human beings. Our students
also benefit from the more positive learning environments such practices can bring
about. By reducing negative tensions and emotions, our health and the health of our
students will also improve, so there are many benefits to being a teacher | researcher.
At the same time we cannot ignore the potential pitfalls and risks. The authenticity
criteria and the conduct and principles outlined by the Belmont Report are very
useful guides for ethical research. Adopting and embracing them reduces many of

50
 Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts, and Vulnerabilities

the potential tensions that may arise in doing research in our own classrooms. But
such research has its own peculiarities, intricacies, and challenges. In this chapter,
therefore, besides highlighting some of the more applicable elements of the Belmont
Report, I also address some of the other potential conflicts teacher | researchers may
encounter.

The Belmont Report

The Belmont Report, published by The National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979), outlines the ethical
conduct for researchers working with human subjects and includes guidelines and
principles for doing such research. It distinguishes between “research” for public
dissemination and “research” of one’s own “routine practices.”
As long as the inquiry is on already accepted teaching and learning practices
with the goal of improving our practices (and not for public use or dissemination)
it is not considered formal research and is normally exempt from requirements like
formal permissions (discussed below and in the next chapter). An example of this
could be our recording part or all of our classes and we or our students using that
video to reflect on teaching and learning in order to improve them or ourselves, or
for them to view what they missed if they were absent. The course syllabus would
include disclosure that the class may be video-recorded, along with its purpose as a
teaching and learning tool, and the procedure and conditions for how the students can
access the recordings. At the same time, there should be an understanding among all
involved that video recordings will not be shared online or made available without
permission, nor can they be used for any purpose other than study by students
enrolled in the class.
Below is a statement I generally include in my syllabus to alert my students of
the video recording and give them an opportunity to discuss it with me and/or opt
out. This statement includes language both for using video to improve teaching
practices and for formal institutionally approved research. If teacher | researchers
plan on using video, my suggestion is that they establish a history of it being used as
such, including adapting similar text for their particular purpose in their syllabi. This
last suggestion may be more pertinent to those doing research in higher education,
though all, especially those teaching in K-12 (or earlier) should check with their
supervisors and possibly their institutions before making any such decisions.
It is my intention to document the unfolding of the course in part by video
recording each course session. This will serve both as a vehicle for improving
my practice as an educator, and as a research tool. The video recordings will
be available to all participants in the class and to those who have formal
permission to access the video for learning and research. We will use the
video and cogenerative dialogue sessions for the purposes of instructional
improvement throughout the course. Accordingly, all of our work in the

51
Chapter 6

course, including watching video from the class and analyzing parts of it, will
address course goals and will be focused on improving our learning, whereas
the research done beyond the purposes of this class will be for publication and
wider dissemination. We will introduce the use of a pulse oximeter to monitor
the physiology of emotions in the classroom. Our goal is for coteachers to
use the pulse oximeter readings as an intervention tool to become more aware
of their emotions and physiological responses while they coteach. Coteachers
will have the opportunity to make adjustments if needed, to improve the
overall interaction and well-being of the class. You will receive a separate,
more detailed announcement further describing the research work, as well as a
consent form to sign if you decide to participate in the broader research.
If we decide to carry out a more formal research project, beyond improving our
own classroom knowledge and practice, that will be used for public dissemination
such as publication, then we must follow the additional procedures below pertaining
to human subject research, as per the Belmont Report, as well as the researchers’
respective institution’s requirements.
Whether for investigating routine practices for one’s personal knowledge or
conducting more formal research, the Ethical Principles the Belmont Report
outlines are helpful, even if not always necessary. The discussion here is necessarily
a condensed view and teacher | researchers are encouraged to avail themselves of a
more thorough reading of the complete text (available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html).
The Belmont Report’s Ethical Principles include:
1. Respect of persons. Participants should be able to exercise their agency and
participation should be voluntary. Participants should be informed and provided
with adequate and appropriate information about what the research involves.
Participants should be protected from any harm due to the research. This is
especially so for those participants who may have the least power, such as minors,
prisoners or individuals who may face bias or harm if their identities are revealed
to others. Students, for example, should not feel threatened if they do not want
to participate in a research study. This is probably one of the toughest issues
to negotiate, as our students may not be willing or may be afraid to say so. I
find that the building of trust between me, as the teacher | researcher, and the
student participants is necessary before I become confident that my students are
participating willingly and not feeling coerced.
2. Beneficence. The investigator has an obligation to maximize possible benefits
for participants and minimize any potential harm as a result of any such
investigations. The research, whether for publication or self-improvement should
be of use and benefit in teaching and learning. Beneficence should be the focus
of our work as teacher | researchers, especially if using authentic inquiry as a
research framework.

52
 Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts, and Vulnerabilities

3. Justice and Fairness. Studies should not exploit or take advantage of participants.
As a public school teacher, there were several occasions where my students
would share with me that a teacher had asked them pretty invasive questions
about their personal lives under the cover of required course work. Doing
research must not be used as another tool for gossip or personal curiosity into
students’ personal lives and intimate relationships. This raises a number of
questions that must be addressed: What is the level of confidentiality involved?
Will private information be shared individually or in group discussion? Is what
is shared by one participant meant to be shared with others? How does one deal
with situations that may embarrass one or more of the participants? If there is
a chance of adverse consequences, my suggestion would be to discuss these
concerns with the affected participants first. While some juicy bits may appear
perfect for discussion or dissemination, if this knowledge causes harm or if the
individual(s) do not want them shared with others, I believe that we as researchers
are ethically bound to honor these requests. I generally include this in the consent
forms (Chapter 7) so that participants are informed from the beginning about their
options in participating. By being up front with it, I have found students become
more trusting that the research will not hurt them and they are more willing to
participate.

Possible Tensions

Tensions are part of any research into one’s own practices. The authenticity criteria
have helped me navigate such often-turbulent experiences and difficult decisions. By
making fairness and beneficence to the students and research participants a priority
above all others, including any research benefits for myself, I have become more
confident in the actions I take to resolve tensions as they arise. For example, the
balance between time spent on research and teaching is a major consideration and
tension, especially if our research includes giving and getting feedback to and from
the participants. How much class time do we use for that? Is there another time when
this can be done instead, like before or after class? How much is shared? Sharing is
easier if the whole class is part of the research, but what if only a few students have
an interest in it? Will the time needed for the research conflict with preparing for the
teaching? How much time should be spent on each and when is there a good balance
between the time spent on the research and on teaching? How much time and when
a teacher | researchers spend during class expanding and sharing their research will
depend a lot on the purpose and goals of their research and on the individual teacher
| researcher. New teacher | researchers in particular may find it very difficult to strike
a balance between the time teaching and researching, in which case less research
may be best until that balance is found.
In any intense classroom research, especially with research intended to be made
public, or in cases in which outside researchers may also be involved with us in the

53
Chapter 6

classroom, participant buy-in is essential. Yet, because of the additional demands

that research makes on students, how they view the research begins to diverge from
how they see their class otherwise. This makes participation a bit more complex.
This may be because of time, or just because they may not understand the study and/
or do not want to bother. If researchers other than the teacher also are present, or if
they are being video-recorded with the possibility that others may see it, students
may become more shy, perhaps not as willing to participate. The more participants
see the research as a benefit and in-line with their own goals and their own interests,
the more likely their participation.

Participant Buy-In
I have found it helpful to talk with students well in advance of the start of the
research in the classroom about the upcoming work: its purpose and its potential
benefits. When it is time for the research, they are then comfortable with, and often
excited about the idea. For those situations where the students are not known before
the beginning of the research, asking them to become participants may feel awkward
for them and for the researcher. Such a request can be done in the first meeting or
later, once the teacher | researcher and the students are better acquainted. I have
done both with mixed success in getting full participation. Some of that may be due
to the design of the research and how invasive the procedures and questions may
be. I prefer getting to know potential participants a little first and them getting to
know and trust me before asking them. If the research does not raise any sensitive
questions, or does not require much extra effort from the students, participation will
likely not be an issue or challenge, but the more intimate the method (like wearing
an oximeter or allowing for facial expression analysis), the more trust becomes an
issue.

Video Recording

Sometimes, as teacher | researchers we may want to video record a class. According

to the Belmont Report, if the study is for the improvement of practice, no special
permissions are usually necessary (though making our supervisors aware that we
are doing so is usually a good practice, as each institution may have its own specific
policies). If the study is for publication, then the institution’s research protocols
must be followed. For either purpose, some of the students may not like to be video
recorded at all, or perhaps just do not want to have their image shown or played. If
they do not like being recorded at all, the placement of the camera may be adjusted
or the seating of the class can be arranged so that these students sit separately as a
group so as to better manage who appears in the video. They should not be penalized
and moved to the back. If they only have an issue with their image being shown,
then we either must not record them, delete their image from our research clips

54
 Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts, and Vulnerabilities

or, if we do need to use a clip with them in it, blur their image so that they are not
distinguishable. Their voice should not be as much of an issue as the instances their
voices are distinct from those of other students are finite and easily omitted.
Video recordings can become a lot less contentious if students themselves have
access to them for their own use. For example, when they are out they can watch the
videos to catch up on missed work, or if they are doing a presentation they can use the
video for self-analysis. As a policy, videos should be accessible by all participants,
as long as it is agreed that they will not be used or shared inappropriately. Institutions
generally have their own policies on the use of recording devices in the classroom
and it is important for all teachers to be aware of them and make their students
aware of these policies as well. In addition, for added protection, in my own syllabi I
generally include statements like “The recording may not be reproduced or uploaded
to publicly accessible web environments,” and “Recordings, course materials, and
lecture notes may not be exchanged or distributed for any other purpose other than
study by students enrolled in the class.”
Some students may be afraid that if they are truthful in video interviews, it may
hurt their grades. What I have done, when a question or issue they feel hesitant
about concerns me, is to have either another researcher or another participant do the
recording with the understanding that I will not access this recording or know the
contents until after grades have been submitted.

Working with Physiological Data

In my work, participants may be asked if it is okay to use facial recognition analysis

on their expressions, or asked to wear an oximeter. While some may be able to
control and mask their external emotions well, it is much more difficult to do so
in the fractions of a second it takes for facial recognition analysis (by software or
trained researchers) to occur. Oximeters, too, provide multiple readings per second
as to a person’s heart rate and oxygenation level. When participants are stressed,
their oxygenation levels may rapidly decrease because they are not breathing
properly, or their heart rate may skyrocket. Because both of these methods may be
considered invasive, both by the participants and by the institution’s IRB (so the
teacher | researcher may be required to include specific language in the protocols
if done for research), some participants may feel they would be too exposed and
not want to be studied and analyzed this minutely. However, using the oximeters
as mindfulness interventions that students can use to become aware of their
own emotions and physiological responses, changes how oximeters are viewed.
While the students know that data is being collected on them for research, they
themselves find the oximeters very useful, and ask on their own to use them. It is
not unusual for other teachers to borrow some to use as they teach. In some cases,
teachers have bought their own so that they can use them to regularly monitor
themselves in class.

55
Chapter 6

Tensions and Allowing to be Vulnerable

Although researching while teaching is highly beneficial, time often becomes a

scarce and emotionally imbued resource for both the students and the teacher, within
the confines and impositions of outside assessments and teacher and curriculum
expectations. Other tensions that emerge because we are doing research may be
even more personal.
The dual role of teacher as researcher increases the likelihood and potential of
having our roles, our values, our identities questioned, opens us up to criticism,
and can leave us with negative emotions and feelings of vulnerability, such as the
ones discussed here. Participants may voice criticism over our teaching, our actions,
or those of their classmates. For example, if we are investigating our teaching,
we may find that we may not be as perfect as we may have thought. Questions of
fairness, respect and biases may also emerge. For example, in inquiring into our own
teaching, we may find that we may “talk the talk” but our actions in the class may
not always follow what we claim to believe or value. If I am teaching my students
radical listening, am I being a radical listener? Am I following my own authenticity
criteria? Am I responsive to the emotional climate in the classroom? Do I show
compassion for my students? Am I aware of my emotions or do I yell at them?
Several years ago, for example, after an emotionally challenging day dealing with a
problematic student in my program, I remember feeling emotionally worn out as I
began to teach my evening class. As the class started, one of my students raised her
hand and asked me why I was angry at them. Until she pointed this out, I had not
been aware of the tone of my voice. I smiled and apologized for bringing outside
negative emotions into their class. This and other such cases of either my students
making me aware of my emotions or my seeing and listening to video recordings
and, often to my utter surprise, seeing emotions I was unaware I was expressing, led
me to focus even more on emotions and mindfulness, as a teacher, as a researcher,
and in my own personal life.
Another example was from my spring 2008 research with a different class of
physics students. I was teaching the topic of momentum. As had been my habit
with teaching physics, rather than just accept the answers the students were giving
me, as to what momentum is mathematically, I continued to press them to give a
description of it that did not include mathematics. The students were confused and
stopped responding to my questioning after a while. Until a few weeks later when
I happened to review the video of that class, I thought the lack of response was my
students’ fault. Watching the video of my teaching, though, left me horrified and
shocked at how I heard myself talk. Though I had not been aware of it while I was
doing it, when I listened to the video, I heard my voice sound very angry. I had
thought of myself as a great teacher, yet in the video I was anything but. I was very
ashamed of myself for how I treated my students. I could not wait to see them the
next time so I could apologize. This event too had me reflect back to how, though
I was not aware of it, this might not have been the only class in which this had

56
 Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts, and Vulnerabilities

happened. It was likely the first time that I remember reflecting as a researcher on
negative emotions in my classroom: how we as teachers may be unaware of them,
and how they may affect teaching and learning. The event occurred a few days after
returning from a national conference. I was exhausted and feeling sick. On top of
that, the date was close to April 15th, so the same weekend I returned, I also had to
do my taxes, which further stressed me and put me in a more negative mood. As a
result of this experience, I have tried to become more mindful of my voice and my
emotions, how I might be expressing them in my face and tone of voice (sometimes
without being aware), both in teaching and other parts of my life.), so that I can stop
before they escalate.
By also becoming aware of what stresses me, I try not to have to deal with
too many such stressors at the same time, such as doing my taxes much earlier
than the April 15 deadline. When returning from conferences, when tired, or when
feeling sick, I know to check on myself more often, as it seems that is when my
energy is diminished, and my emotional regulation may be less than optimal and
I may not be as mindful. This profound awareness was ultimately what led me to
investigate emotions and mindfulness in teaching and learning as part of the spring
2012 study.
Because it was so intense and included a large research squad, our spring 2012
research (discussed more in depth in Chapter 11), also included a lot of tense
moments. The focus of the class was on the history of and issues in science and
science education. Since the course dealt with some emotionally challenging
sociocultural topics, including gender, race and evolution, many of the students at
times felt uncomfortable, either in participating or with what was being said. There
were many moments, especially with the topic of evolution, when we had to deal
with whether my claims of building a classroom environment safe for discussing
difficult questions were really that. That question, “What does it mean to be “safe”
in discussing difficult questions?” is something I still wrestle with to this day.
Most recently, in our research in the same course this past spring (2015), similar
questions emerged during our class discussions on gender and sexuality, and then
on race. Both of the presentations were very emotional and very personal as the
students related how they or people they know, have experienced prejudice and been
wronged because of others’ attitudes toward their gender, sexuality, or race. What
should the response of the audience (other students, participants, co-researchers)
then be? How do we acknowledge their hurt or pain without being overly solicitous?
Do we give a hug or not? As part of the discussion, opinions that may be considered
as insensitive or offensive may also be shared. When does discussing difficult issues
become part of learning from the other and allowing for opposing voices to be heard,
and when do these discussions go too far or become too much? These are questions
we are currently exploring as teachers and as researchers. They are not easy. The
authenticity criteria help frame our responses and actions in such emotionally intense
moments as also being mindful and considerate. In the next section, I discuss some
of the other type of tensions.

57
Chapter 6

Conflicts Between Teaching the Class and Researching the Class

Until the spring of 2012, I had not encountered any conflicts between my research
and teaching “identities.” In the courses that I taught up to that time, doing research
meant taking ethnographic notes during class on interesting happenings and events,
recording and reviewing the video, and meeting with students after class in cogen to
discuss these or anything else of interest to them.
With the spring 2012 study, though, Ken Tobin and I made the decision that,
because this was a course for inservice and preservice science teachers, making the
research a part of the class (sharing with the students during class time what we were
investigating, what we were learning, and asking them to contribute to the research
process, and be part of the decision making), would benefit these future teachers and
better prepare them for doing research in their own classrooms.
From the responses of many of the participants, the research was indeed successful
in this regard. The research was open to students participating as co-researchers with
the result that many learned firsthand how to conduct research in their classrooms,
with some even doing their master’s theses on it. In addition, students shared with
us that this experience was transformative for them; not only as teachers, but also in
that the study helped them become more aware and mindful of their own emotions
and those of others. Consequently, by becoming more aware of their physiological
responses to stress, some went as far as to make life-changing decisions concerning
their health and wellness (like quitting smoking, eating better, and doing breathing
meditation as part of their daily routines).
These positive results were not achieved without some tense or difficult moments
during this research. In week six, for example, a complaint was voiced by a student
participant (who interestingly enough was encouraged to voice it by a member of the
research squad), that we should be focusing more on the content of the class rather
than spending time sharing the research work with them. For me, as the instructor as
well as the program head, learning about and doing research was a big component
of these students’ education and part of the program’s “unofficial curriculum.” At
the same time, this student’s concern was just as real, especially since the reason
she raised it was because she very much wanted to get on with the topic that night,
which was a discussion on race. While I (along with Tobin) was one of the lead
researchers, my first and foremost concern was my students and how they thought
of it. In response to this concern, from then on we kept discussion about the research
towards the end of the class, after the night’s topic had been covered.
This was an important educational experience for me (I come back to this again
in Chapter 11), as I learned to be more aware of things that could bring my students
to the edge. Rather than holding them at such an edge, I learned not to postpone
resolving any such issues and instead to deal with them first thing. Rather than
giving a quiz or having students do their presentations at the end of a class (which I
used to do), I now have them do so at the beginning, so that tensions and anxieties
are reduced rather than have them build up and remain high for too long.

58
 Tensions, Ethics, Conflicts, and Vulnerabilities

Tensions in Being a Teacher | Researcher

Another question that arose during the spring 2012 research is who has ultimate veto
power regarding what can be researched in a class with multiple researchers. For
the research to remain authentic, and to maintain the trust of the teacher, the answer
must always be that the teacher has the final say in how much research gets done, for
how long, and how far to push. If the teacher feels uncomfortable and objects to a
particular aspect of the research, then either that teacher should be convinced of the
benefits or that objectionable research should not be done.
Lastly, there are some questions for the teacher | researcher to consider. Is your
research fair to the participants and to your students? Is it of benefit? How can it
be improved so that the benefits increase? Is research more of a priority than the
teaching? Is the research done in ways that are in harmony with what is being taught
and how it is being taught? Reviewing the Belmont Report and the authenticity
criteria discussed in the previous chapter will be very helpful in reflecting on our
work, how we go about it, and what we seek to gain and learn from it.
Inviting participants to become co-researchers, and contribute to the research
design, guide and modify the research, and participate in cogen, not only gains
the research respect and authenticity among the participants since they too feel
ownership and responsibility towards it, but it also provides multiple views and
multiple perspectives. Just as important for teachers doing research in their own
classrooms, having such inside views of what is happening with the students is
tremendously helpful in avoiding possible minefields of which we may not be aware.
Even if something negative does erupt, student co-researchers can help diffuse it
before it builds up any further. The teacher | researcher has to be open to working
with others, sharing the power not only as a researcher but also as a teacher since
such arrangements cannot be isolated only to the research. These things are not at all
easy to do for many of us.

59
 Chapter 7

Research for public dissemination

and the IRB

What is the purpose of teachers doing inquiry in their classrooms? Unless there is
something unusual about the research, it involves teachers inquiring into improving
teaching and learning, their own and that of their students. Doing classroom inquiry
may include investigating interactions, emotions, biases, rituals, inequities, and what
constitutes knowledge.
The Belmont Report (1979) identifies the ethical principles and guidelines for
conducting research with human subjects in the United States. According to this
report, as long as such inquiry is not done for public dissemination, such as for
example by classroom teachers who conduct inquiry intended only to improve their
own “routine” practices, the research is exempt and does not generally come under
the report’s requirements for working with human subjects. If, on the other hand,
the research is meant to contribute to generalized public knowledge (i.e., is meant
for publication), formal protocols, objectives and procedures are required to be
followed. Whether the research is exempted, or intended for public dissemination
and publication, the report’s principles and guidelines, along with the authenticity
criteria described earlier (Chapter 5), provide a very useful framework for doing
responsible and ethical research. When doing research for public dissemination, the
researcher is expected both to be certified to work with human subjects and to have
permission to conduct the research from their internal Institutional Review Board
(IRB). Institutions may also have additional requirements for doing responsible
research. While the training may take a lot of time to complete, I highly recommend
all researchers go through it, whether this training is required or not. See the Stanford
Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/), for an example of how a research
study can go very wrong very quickly despite one’s best intentions.
The Belmont Report puts forth three ethical principles for conducting research
with human subjects: “respect of persons, beneficence and justice” (Belmont
Report, 1979, p. 4). These principles generally include a description of the process
of selecting participants, the requirement that participants are informed and provide
voluntarily consent, and the requirement that there is a risk and benefit assessment
of the proposed study. Below I discuss these principles as they pertain to doing
authentic inquiry as a teacher | researcher.

61
Chapter 7

Recruiting Our Students as Participants

Who is being selected? How will they be recruited? The research should be open
to all students that meet the research requirements for participation. Along the way,
we may decide who is of more interest to us or more salient to what we are doing
(see next chapter) and possibly who we may not want or who we may want to have
discontinue their participation. Also, if there are benefits as a result of the research
(and there always should be), students not participating should also have access to
them so that they may benefit as well.
Especially if we are doing research in our own classrooms, the above questions
may draw additional IRB attention. The mechanisms for implementing our
recruitment intentions should be reflected in our IRB protocols. If our research does
not go beyond what would be considered normal, everyday practices, it is important
to keep restating and emphasizing to the applicable boards and committees that the
aim of our research is to improve teaching and learning practices in our classrooms.
Some institutions may outright prohibit conducting any research in one’s own
classroom with the teacher | researcher’s own students. In such cases, research may
still be allowed by teaming up with an outside researcher – either one from the same
institution or a university researcher. Other institutions may require that the teacher
| researcher does not learn which of their students volunteered as participants and
which did not (so that there is no resulting bias) until after the final grades for the
course have been submitted. This can be a very problematic obstacle as we cannot
know who to video or who to ask to participate in cogenerative dialogues and other
such discussions. My experience has been that, once I start working with students
and they become more comfortable with the research, they sign up even if they had
not done so earlier. Another option is to ask students whom we know are interested
in the research to recruit their classmates (This would need to be mentioned in the
protocols).
Even when the IRB allows us open recruitment of our students for our research, the
IRB may still ask for certain safeguards, such as that we emphasize that participation
is completely voluntary and that non-volunteering students will not be penalized
in any way. The IRB board may also require that we create a protocol for how to
address some of the possible tensions discussed in Chapter 7. For my research, for
example, they require that I am not the one collecting the consent forms from my
students – that either another student or another researcher does so.
What do you say to the students you would like to recruit? It is important to
have an oral script for yourself (Some institutions may also require this.). The
script should include the main points, benefits, and risks from the consent form,
in a conversational style. Being too academic or using language that is too formal
could easily scare off the participants. By including an invitation to the participants
to join as co-researchers, the script makes the research that much more authentic and
respected in the eyes of the students and makes it more likely they will participate.

62
 Research for Public Dissemination and the IRB

Benefits Versus Harm

When doing research, potential benefits must outweigh any potential risks for the
participants. First among the benefits of teacher research is an improvement of
teaching and learning—that, as a result of being in the research and collaborating
as co-researchers, the students will improve their understanding of research and
develop additional skills. By working with the teacher | researcher, the students gain
invaluable knowledge and experience about teaching practices. Depending on the
focus of the study, the participants increase their knowledge and understanding of it,
which further contributes to their learning. In my work, for example, I argue that by
becoming aware of negative emotions, and by using mindfulness interventions and
heuristics to ameliorate them, participants’ health will also improve. Benefits could
also include participants’ access to the video for personal reasons and for their own
self-improvement. This can be very beneficial in college education classes where
students can use the video to evaluate their own teaching. Finally, by the teacher |
researchers improving their knowledge, they can also improve their practices and
thus better educate their students.
However, there is always the potential for some harm, whether the research is
conducted as part of routine classroom practice or for public knowledge. Video
recording in the class may make some students very nervous and upset. They may
not initially want to bring this issue up so they do not appear contentious. Before a
teacher | researcher starts with any recording, it is prudent to first talk to the students
and find out if there are any such concerns. If there are, what can be done to ease the
situation? Changing the seating arrangements may be a solution. Another solution
may be incorporating some of the students as co-researchers; if they have a say how
the video is used in research, they may feel more comfortable being part of it. In
extreme cases we may need to work with a different class.
If the research includes student group discussions or cogenerative dialogues, it is
possible that emotions such as embarrassment may emerge from looking at a video
segment of an activity. The protocols should include text that allows for participants
to keep something they don’t want circulating or become known out of the research
or not have it discussed. It is also possible that hidden emotions may be expressed
as part of the research. Something painful may have happened to a student in the
past that has now emerged. Suppose it is an illegal activity or an issue of abuse.
How will the researcher respond? The IRB is there to answer such questions. When
formulating the research for the IRB, that the researcher would contact the IRB for
advice when such difficult questions or issues arise, can and should be included in
the protocols.
The appendix of this book includes a short version of my application form to
do research in my physics classes in 2007 and 2008. A lot has changed since (for
example the addition of a risk section), but it still contains many of the main
elements.

63
Chapter 7

Consent forms

Once research is planned for public dissemination, IRB protocols at the teacher |
researcher’s institution will need to be followed and met. The IRB is the body that
will decide what level of scrutiny the research will need to meet. Generally, for
non-exempt studies, we as researchers are required to obtain informed consent from
individuals we would like to have participate in our research. The Belmont Report
refers to three elements that generally need to be addressed: that participation is
voluntary, that the form includes a description of the research that is appropriately
written for the participants we are seeking to recruit, and that the contents of form
are comprehensible to them.
Minors are children who have not attained legal age in the jurisdiction in which
the research takes place. In the state of New York, for example, the current minimum
legal age is generally age 18, although this could vary depending on whether the
individual is married, has children, etc. Legally, minors’ consent forms must be
signed by a parent or legal guardian. In addition, minors sign a second required form
(an assent form) that may be in simpler language, depending on, and appropriate for
their age. The appendix includes a copy of an earlier consent form I used when doing
research in my physics classes.
Check with your institution first for their particular requirements. What follows
below are some general guidelines from the Belmont Report and my own research
experience.
• Voluntary participation. Participation is entirely voluntary and students may
withdraw their participation at any time without penalty. A participant can opt out
at any time, during a particular component of the research or the entire research
and there will not be any penalties or punishment for not participating or for
opting out. Participants should have a clear understanding of what being part of
the research will entail, especially any additional commitments, such as time,
meeting place, whether the meetings will be recorded, what data will be collected,
how the data may be analyzed and used and for how long.
• Options to the level of participation. If there are different aspects of the research,
I have found it both necessary and helpful to ask participants to check off each
one at a time, so that not only are they clear as to what is being collected and
have a choice in it, but the options also allows them choices about how much
to participate. If the only options are all or nothing, some may decide not to
participate; if there are multiple options they can choose among those options
rather than outright decline all participation. In working with research data,
it is especially important to check off who has consented because if a student
declines, additional precautions need to be taken so they are removed from any
video clips or their images are blurred. Such editing takes a lot of time that the
teacher | researcher could be using to do other things. It is very helpful therefore,

64
 Research for Public Dissemination and the IRB

to have all of the students okay the video recording, even if many do not want to
participate in the research beyond being in the class. Below, I provide an example
(taken from one of my recent consent forms) that gives participants a choice as to
what data may be collected from them;
I consent to taking part in this Learning and Instruction in Science and
Education study (initials) Yes _____ No_____. I also consent to being
video and/or audio-recorded (initials) Yes _____ No_____ and consent to
participating in online surveys as pertaining to this research (initials) Yes
_____ No_____. Furthermore, I give permission to allow facial expression
analysis of images of me (initials) Yes _____ No_____)
• Participant privacy. Will participation be anonymous, meaning that their names
will not be attached or connected to any of the data, or confidential, meaning that
their identity will be connected to the data, but an attempt will be made to blur the
identity of specific participants?
• Language used in consent forms. Do the participants have an adequate
understanding of the research from reading the text in the consent form? Is the
language written at their level?
• Answering participants’ questions and concerns. All of the participants’ questions
must be answered to their satisfaction prior to consenting.
• How to withdraw participation (partial or total). The procedure to use if they wish
to withdraw should be stated openly and clearly. There are always possible risks or
circumstances where participants may feel discomfort: What are the participants’
options in those situations and how does the researcher plan to deal with them?
It is important (for the research and the students involved) that participants are
given options of degrees of withdrawal from participation. Some students may be
okay with being part of a study but not with discussing a particular issue openly
with their classmates.
• What are the benefits of the research? What do the participants get out of the
research besides being in a study? Do they become more aware of their emotions
and emotional responses in how they think, how they learn? Does their health
improve? How do they contact the researcher? Is there a phone number or e-mail?
How much of their time will the research take? Will there be weekly meetings?
Interviews? Surveys? Online discussions or interactions or surveys? (Some
institutions treat surveys differently if they are in person versus online.)
• What kind of data will be collected (audio, video, surveys)? How will it be
analyzed and how deeply? For instance, will facial recognition software be used?
What will the data be used for? How will the data be stored and protected so that
unauthorized individuals may not access it? How long will this data be kept? Will
this data be used for any other purposes other than research, such as presentations,
books, in classrooms?

65
Chapter 7

Some Additional Thoughts on IRBS

The primary concern for many IRBs is the fulfillment of the Belmont Report
principles and requirements: the protection of the human participants in the study, that
the research meets ethical standards and principles, and that it is beneficial (potential
benefits greatly outweigh any potential harms). The protocols and conditions they
require and follow-up revisions that your IRB may ask reflect that concern. Other
IRBs, though, may go beyond the Belmont Report principles and guidelines, and try
to impose an additional ideological framework on the research being done requiring
that the researcher follow the IRB’s own positivistic methodologies and methods.
The teacher | researcher has to decide on the reasoning behind their institution’s
IRB requirements, whether their requirements represent necessary conditions that
will benefit the work and better protect the participants, or if instead they represent
someone else’s myopic beliefs of what constitutes “good research,” that will instead
negatively impact the study.
Even though they have been crafted with the best intentions, sometimes these
requirements seem petty, or even useless. I have been very lucky with my own
institution as they have been very supportive and in accord with the Belmont Report,
but even with them, some of their conditions have at times bewildered me. As I
learn more and more about conducting research in my own classroom, though, I
have come to better understand the purpose of some of these requirements, even if
I don’t always see the need for some of the additional changes to my protocols that
they have asked me to make. Interested readers may want to find out more about the
Stanford Prison Experiment mentioned earlier as well as others, like the Tuskegee
research, Henrietta Lacks, and the Army LSD experiments.
As the research develops and changes with new knowledge gained, and as
participants’ and researchers’ interests change, it is important and likely even a
requirement that this be reflected in IRB research protocols. Having institutional
permission not only helps set up boundaries as to what can and what cannot be done
as part of our study and ensures that we are following ethical research principals and
guidelines, but it also protects us in case any questions are raised as to the legality of
our research (as long as our research is institutionally authorized).
Both the certification to do research with human subjects and the IRB protocols
may need to be renewed periodically. Depending on the institution and on what is
in the authorized research protocols, we may continue our research and work with
our data for a number of years, as long as these are being renewed. The teacher |
researcher ought to consider the length of time she or he may want to use and analyze
the data and possible other applications so that these are part of the protocols. Once a
protocol has expired, data cannot be analyzed without renewed permissions.
Advice that I have treasured in my time as a teacher | researcher is to not allow a
protocol to expire, but to continually renew it. The renewal process is generally less

66
 Research for Public Dissemination and the IRB

onerous than creating a new IRB protocol. By renewing it, a researcher not only can
continue processing the data, but also can publish the research since many journals
require an active IRB as a condition for publication.

67
 Chapter 8

Doing a Research Project

Authentic inquiry is framed by the authenticity criteria (Tobin, 2006), and its
foundations in hermeneutic phenomenology (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) and design
studies (A. L. Brown, 1992). As a framework for doing classroom research,
authentic inquiry may include multiple theoretical constructs, multiple researchers,
cogenerative dialogues, ethnography, interpretive research, and event-oriented
analysis (Tobin, 2014). It is inclusive of multiple voices and interpretations. Multiple
realities are assumed within a temporal and contextual setting. The research is
adaptable to emergent questions and new understandings and findings become a
framework for subsequent research. The research is transformative to those involved,
just as the research itself is transformed in the process.
The process is nonlinear, multi-method, and multi-ontological. Researchers
approach the work as learners. They may begin the research without predetermined
questions. Collection and analysis of data proceed simultaneously. Research
questions may change as new knowledge emerges, and as interests change. Methods
used depend on the goals and interests of the researcher(s). That such interests may
be subjective or biased is irrelevant, as everything that requires a value judgment is
subjective.
In positivist studies, the researcher is seen as neutral and detached, while the study
is generally about discovering “truths” or ideals in laboratory-type settings. While
this laboratory setting may satisfy internal validity, externally this validity can only
be applied to another lab. Even in these very limited cases, such generalizations have
often superficial meaning as even the labs and the scientists are unique and different.
Though positivistic studies claim to be value-free and objective, such research is
developed and carried out (as well as paid for) by individuals or groups for particular
reasons and with particular agendas. The researcher is hands-off with respect to those
researched – an outsider, not interested in new outcomes or directions. Deviations
are seen as errors. There can be no interventions during the process. Positivistic
research does not take a critical view of what it considers to be the norm, and
generally is resistant and hostile to alternative or divergent interpretations, voices,
and worldviews.
In contrast to positivistic research, authentic inquiry is informed, grounded, and
limited by actual classroom practices that the teacher may or may not have any control
over. Authentic inquiry thus often explores emergent, contingent, and unexpected
events and phenomena. This chapter discusses some of the main components of

69
Chapter 8

doing such a study. Much of these components have their foundation in the work
of Lincoln and Guba (1985) on doing naturalistic inquiry, Tobin’s authentic inquiry
framework (Tobin, 2012a, 2014) and Erickson’s (1986) work on qualitative methods
in educational research.

Deciding and Selecting Participants

As opposed to the statistical randomness or representative sampling found in

mainstream research, authentic inquiry is interested in a maximum variation among
participants. It is important to have the broadest possible scope of voices and views.
The sampling is purposeful, as we are interested in extreme as well as typical cases
and variations. Participants are selected serially. Once we learn all we can learn
from the first, then we move on the next. These additional participants should differ
as much as possible from the initial participants. They are chosen because they
are salient, articulate, or have insights to events of interest, and serve the needs of
the research as they arise. As new information or questions emerge, participants
are re-approached. Who participates may be revisited, depending on changes in
the research focus and emergent findings. Thus, participants are selected not only
purposefully and serially, but also contingently. What is typical or common may be
not as important as the uncommon or the unusual.
The teacher | researcher can choose who to start with by what they can offer
and contribute to the research. Depending on what is being investigated and what
we want to learn from them, if more participants become necessary, then more are
sought out. To widen the spectrum of voices or just to get participants who may have
more to contribute on the new emerging knowledge or questions, the process of
selecting participants may also change. Because different researchers, participants
and other stakeholders bring different values and different interests to the research,
the research focus itself is emergent and contingent. These values should be reflected
in the research and its findings.

Multi-Level Methods and Data Resources

Methods are tools used to collect data for our inquiry. Quantitative methods such
as the use of surveys, questionnaires, and oximeters are not excluded. Instead, our
methods emerge from our needs and interests. Since the researcher is also the teacher,
the dual role places limitations on what may be explored, collected, and analyzed.
The volume of data collected cannot be so large that it overwhelms the teaching and
the research. The necessities of what needs to be taught, and when, place limits on
the amount of data and when it is collected. These methods and procedures, should
all be mentioned in the IRB protocols (if used).
Within the limitations of what teachers may be able to collect, data may consist of
field notes, interviews, narratives, student work, test scores, lesson plans, journals,

70
 Doing a Research Project

heuristics, surveys, video and audio recordings, small and large group discussions,
and cogenerative dialogues. Multi-level methods and data resources provide us with
different types of data. Most applicable is data collected through the senses, not
necessarily because such data is qualitative, but because it is grounded in participants'
emic perspectives. Such data brings to the forefront not only what is consciously
known and can be told by the participants (propositional knowledge) but also their
tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is what we know but cannot (or do not) describe.
Such knowledge includes understandings, values, and judgments.
In addition tothe unaided senses, video is a very useful tool that can be used
to investigate events in real time as well as frame-by-frame. Oximeters, by taking
readings of a person’s heart rate and percentage of oxygenation levels, allow us a
window into a participant’s internal response to an event that may not be externally
visible. Audience response devices such as clickers can be used for participants to
express how they are feeling in a given moment or measure the emotional climate
of a class. For video and audio analysis, there exist both free and very expensive
software. For example, there is StudioCode Software which is a (very expensive)
professional video tool more commonly used in sport game analysis. For audio, the
free software, Praat (http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/) can provide the researcher
with excellent prosody analysis options. Facial recognition training (see for example
http://www.paulekman.com/micro-expressions/) can also provide us with an
awareness of and an insight into our own and other participants’ micro-expressions
and possible emotions.

Using Video Recorders

Before we begin an investigation, we should consider the tools we will need. Will
we be using videos, ethnographic notes, and/or audio transcriptions? If using video,
how many hours of continuous video will we need? Video recorders either come
with built-in memory or, like cameras, they may use external memory cards. What
recording quality are we planning and what is the maximum storage space? Many
recording devices can handle one hour of class video at high definition easily.
However, if we are recording two to three hour classes, we need to make sure the
device we use can handle it. This is just as true if we use an iPad or a cell phone.
While the video recording technological differences among camcorders, tablets,
and phones are shrinking, they can still make a difference if the research we are
doing involves using “thick” descriptors such as voice analysis (prosody), facial
expression analysis, or if the size of the space in which we record is large and we
need to use external microphones.
My own personal preference is to use camcorders when I want good sound and
video for microanalysis. Otherwise, if the recording is just for ethnographic purposes,
or to record a presentation that I do not plan to analyze, a regular digital camera
or even a tablet may be sufficient. Some of my students, when video recording

71
Chapter 8

themselves, may just use the webcam on their laptop computer. This is excellent for
recording themselves while sitting down during a lesson. The benefit of having an
external microphone is that the recording device can be at the back of the room while
the microphone is at the front. Using devices with external memory is particularly
helpful when we do not have the time to download what has been recorded; we can
just replace the memory card with a spare one. In addition to traditional recording
methods, there are new gadgets available that can track a person of interest, which
can be worn with eyeglasses or helmets or, like the Google glasses, can be the glasses
themselves.
A common question when recording is where to place the camera. When it is just
me in my class, I generally leave the camera at the back of the room and let it record.
If a student does not want to be recorded, we can adjust the position of the camera
and the student can sit outside of the camera view. If students are doing presentation
or coteaching, then the video can be shared with them so they can review it and
see how they did. The one concern is that such videos can be (without permission)
posted on publicly accessible websites like YouTube. However, since cell phones are
so advanced and so common, it is almost inevitable that it can happen without the
knowledge and permission of the researcher.
We are normally not aware of much of what goes on internally with our students,
just as we may also be unaware of facial expressions and emotions, both ours and
theirs. Video is one way to become aware, but again it is limited by what we pick up.
This is where cogen becomes very important. In the physics class example discussed
in Chapter 10, there was a lot going on between the students that I could not see, even
when I watched the video clips repeatedly. When I worked with the participants, the
meaning of these video clips changed. Participants shared their views of what was
happening, as well as how they felt emotionally and physiologically.
For my research in 2007 (see Chapter 10), the class met three times a week for
a total of seven hours a week; the recordings piled up very quickly. Since this was
before many of the advancements in video recordings, not only was copying video
cassettes from the recorder to a computer very time consuming, but it also filled
my computer storage very quickly. Today, I still record many of my classes, but
having larger digital devices, faster computers and replaceable memory cards has
made working with video almost painless. One still has to decide whether s/he needs
high definition video or a smaller format. If one is not looking at something like
facial expressions that requires a lot of pixels and a large format, a smaller format is
all that is needed.
Transfer and storage for the video data may become an issue. Always have several
memory cards for the camera you are using handy, so that you do not miss the
recording of a session if you forget to transfer the data out. Especially for high speed
photos and video, use cards with high speed class specification, like Class 6 and
above. For myself, I generally try to use Class 10 just to be certain. In addition to

72
 Doing a Research Project

having spare camera cards, you will also need to frequently store your data. If you
are planning on collecting more than hours of video, you will need large storage
for it. As is discussed in the next chapter, internal or external hard drives may be
used, as well as cloud services (i.e., Dropbox or Google Drive). If the video data is
very important to your work (if you are planning to use it for your dissertation, for
example), keep at least a copy at another location. Best place would be with a cloud
service so as to avoid any unexpected disasters of irreplaceable data loss. I personally
recommend using cloud services. Their prices vary, but education institutions are
now beginning to offer some, like Google Drive, for free. Whatever forms of storage
are used, care has to be taken that the data is safely stored and secured, and others
outside of the research cannot access it.

Choosing Research Questions

Authentic inquiry may begin with a research question, but it is not necessary.
Initially, questions may be broad, exploring over arching phenomenological (what
is happening) and hermeneutic (what it may mean, how it may be interpreted)
topics. As the research progresses, specific methods and procedures are developed
to answer more specific questions. These specific questions reflect the researchers’
main interests and intentions, but are also driven by the continuous and ongoing
interpretations of data. Different data resources are accessed continuously, and as
needed. Questions are emergent and contingent, depending on what is learned.
Priorities and goals may change as a result. These changes are not random,
but systematic and purposeful, in order to make sense of social practices being
investigated.

A Framework for the Research

It is worthwhile to have an overall plan prior to beginning any data collection. Below
is a suggested plan adapted from Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Tobin (2006, 2012a).
While these suggestions are anticipatory and may change as your research proceeds,
it is advisable to have considered them beforehand.
1. What do you anticipate to be the focus of your research? Authentic inquiry starts
with a broad questions and focuses on emerging issues. Topics could include
tensions, habitus, issues of power, identity, race, gender, schools, parents, students,
teachers, community(ies), special education/disabilities, stereotypes, ecologies of
knowledge, emotions/emotional climate, mindfulness, learning from difference,
coteaching, radical listening, interventions and heuristics, third spaces, sense of
place in one’s own class and in informal and non-traditional educational settings,
and research methods and methodologies themselves.
2. What resources are available?

73
Chapter 8

a. Time. Is this something that can be done along with the teaching, or is it going
to take extra time for preparation, data collection, and analysis?
b. Participants. Will your data involve only taking ethnographic notes, or will you
be asking students for their feedback before or after class? If the study involves
others, how much of their time will be needed? What else will you need from
them? How will you decide who to approach?
c. Prior research work in the area of interest. What work have others done in this
area? What literature exists that can inform both your knowledge of the topic
and your study?
d. Co-researchers. Will you be working with other teachers or outside researchers?
Even if you meet only occasionally, it helps to have someone to bounce ideas
off, and for support and advice.
3. What framework(s) will you be using? Will you be using a bricolage of
frameworks? If authentic inquiry, how do you plan to address the authenticity
criteria?
4. What methods, procedures, and tools will you use to collect data? What kinds
of data are you interested in collecting? How will such data help you in your
investigation?
5. How do you plan to analyze collected data? Will you have time and other
resources to do so? How much data do you plan to collect? Too much data can
be distracting.
6. What issues, problems, or difficulties could arise during and as a result of your
research? How do you anticipate dealing with them if they do?
If doing research with human subjects for publication (as discussed in
Chapter 7), your institution’s internal Institutional Review Board (IRB) will very
likely require that your protocols address the above items as well as other questions
before permission to begin any form of research is given.
Discussions and questions become more focused and structured as the research
progresses. The cycle composed of planning, reflecting, questioning, investigating,
analyzing, implementing, feedback, refining, and reconstructing becomes more
of a spiral as these elements dialectically mediate and redefine each other. As we
proceed through respondents, we can return to the initial participants to give and
receive feedback on what has emerged and has been learned since the last contact
with them. Data from interviews, observations, and cogens feed off and build on one
another, dialectically incorporating both emic (from the participants) and etic (from
the researchers) constructions. All constructions are continuously open to critique
and changed as result.

Event-Oriented Inquiry

A phrase that is prominent in this book that I have picked up from the different
works of Ken Tobin (see for example (Tobin, 2014)) is the dialectic of “emergent

74
 Doing a Research Project

and contingent.” As teachers conducting research in our own practices, some of the
questions we investigate can be planned before we start. However, especially because
authentic inquiry is highly participant-focused, diverse voices, interpretations, and
values emerge, guide, and transform the study. Issues and questions we may not
have initially considered (or even been aware of) begin to emerge, or something
unexpected takes place. Event-oriented social inquiry (Tobin, 2014) can be used to
explore such startling and unexpected events. In our spring 2012 research (discussed
in Chapter 12 of this book), several such events that struck us as unexpected and
important emerged in almost every class meeting. Thoughts shared by the teacher or
the students often led to unexpected responses and discussions. It may have been a
student’s emotional comments about her grandmother or another’s about being gay.
None of these were planned, but happened within and as a result of the often very
emotional dialectic, and dialogic interactions. These interactions were framed by the
discourse while also framing and mediating the discourse.
Tobin (2014) adopts Sewell’s (2005) theoretical conceptualization of events as
transformative. As recognized by participants, events are ruptures and contradictions
that have the potential of bringing about profound changes and understandings,
“…dislocations and transformative rearticulations of structures” and “cultural
transformations” (Sewell, 2005, p. 245). Both temporal and spatial, these events can
be especially saturated by emotions. Such events may be fractal, but may also be
overlapping and interpenetrating, and become catalysts for future events.
It is suggested (Tobin, 2012a), that when selecting events, the video vignettes
should not be more than 2 to 3 minutes long. We look especially for those moments
of strong contradiction and use thick descriptors (see discussion on generalizability
below) of why they were chosen and what happened. As part of a multimethod
perspective, these same vignettes can also be sped up or slowed down for a different
view. Incorporating phenomenology and hermeneutics, participants too can add
short narratives from their perspectives, describing their views of what they saw
and what happened. Our analysis and interpretations incorporate and maintain these
different voices and perspectives.

Findings

Once our study begins, the direction of the research is dialogically framed and
mediated by the research itself as it unfolds. The inquiry is dialectically dependent
on which emerging elements are deemed more salient, what participants think of
them, and which are of more value or interest to the researchers, participants, and
other stakeholders. The research design becomes more refined and focused, more
directed, and more definitive as the study unfolds. As findings emerge, successive
participants contribute and comment on them. Emerging constructs become more
sophisticated as the research progresses.
Joint constructs are created and a consensus of understanding emerges. The
consensus does not necessarily imply like thinking, but rather agreement in the

75
Chapter 8

understanding and inclusion of the different perspectives. Participants begin to

change their views and values as new joint constructs arise. Such an interactive
and collaborative process serves to empower participants, as well as respect their
views. The findings are joint constructions and include emergent theory and
judgments. The emergent findings become sources of investigation and subsequent
work. Discovery and verification are intertwined and inseparable from one another.
These constructions provide understandings that are credible to the researchers and
to the participants, and that are relevant and open to revision. Further negotiation
and investigation may change these as well. This process may need to go through
multiple cycles. Final conclusions are neither true nor false, just joint constructions
of multiple voices and multiple realities that include participants’ diverse underlying
motives, beliefs, and emotions.
Research and findings are complementary and intertwined. As the circle of
responses is completed, the process is repeated by going back to initial responders
to get feedback on new and emerging themes. The cogenerative dialogues, the
observations, and other data feed on one another dialectically and the circle is thus
transformed into a spiral. These new constructions include emic constructions by
the participants as well as etic constructions by the researchers. All constructions
remain open to critique by the participants. Discovery and verification dialectically
frame one other and are part of the inquiry. All interpretations are grounded in actual
teaching and learning practices and knowledge.

Generalizability

Credibility, viability, applicability, and repetition are all contextually and temporarily
constituted. In statistical research, a sample from a positivistic perspective
represents, and is reflective of, the whole population. Yet, as every teacher knows,
one classroom is not like another. Individuals and individual classrooms change
from one day or one semester to the next. The only constant is that of change. Tobin
(2009b) argues that generalizability, as presently practiced in mainstream social
science, implies that individuals, contexts, and events can be identical. As such,
this kind of generalizability is not very helpful. Instead, he suggests repetition and
viability are much more useful constructs. Viability is not generalization of sameness
or deterministic (no choice, that something must happen), but repetition. Repetition
tests whether or not things are viable. What he refers to as “family resemblance”
implies reproduction rather that substitution. That is, congruent findings are tested
against what is found in other contexts or fields and then critically reflected upon.
Research findings from one field are put to the test in other fields and their salient
claims are thus evaluated. As such, learning from the other and from difference are
essential. The research itself has to be systematic and reliable, not in a statistical
sense, but in what it sets out to accomplish, and in that other teacher | researchers
will view its findings as applicable and usable in their own work. Through applying

76
 Doing a Research Project

our research and findings to their own inquiries, others can decide as to the viability
and applicability of our work to theirs.
Generalization of research is most frequently thought of as in statistics within
“quantitative” research: probabilistic and making general claims from a sample.
However, Eisenhart, in her review of generalizability (2008), states that there
are many different ways to view or define generalizability. While participants
in positivistic studies may have been picked at random, their characteristics and
interactions are complex and interdependent with their environment and with others.
She argues that, as generalizability is context-dependent, it may be applicable to
other similar contexts, based on similarities and variations found in these research
sites.
Similarly, Lincoln and Guba put forward the idea of transferability from one
context to another, based on how similar the context is and what is being investigated,
the “degree of congruence” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 124). Because of the different
realities and variation of local contexts, such transferability may or may not be
applicable. This is common, especially in education research, where no two classes
can be exactly the same but may share similarities. Once sufficient detail of the first
site is provided, a researcher with intimate knowledge of another site would then
be able to judge whether findings from the first site are pertinent to this other site.
Lincoln and Guba term such details “thick descriptions” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
p. 359). These thick descriptors include the researchers’ predispositions, assumptions
and intentions, the research methods, biases, the research site and participants, and
measures taken to increase the trustworthiness of the study. By providing thorough
descriptions, the research would satisfy the requirements for generalizability as others
would then be able to judge its applicability and transferability to their own fields.
Tobin adds that the purpose of this kind of generalizability is to benefit social life. In
contrast to the kind of crypto-positivistic research that teachers often find irrelevant
to their work, once the focus shifts from generalizability to benefits by addressing
authenticity, ripple effects, and repetition in other fields, such work becomes more
useful and germane to researching teaching and learning (Tobin, 2009b).

Writing Up an Informed Proposal for Your Research

An important part of any study is, before we initiate our research, to draft a proposal
(think of it as an informed proposal) for such a study. Drafting a proposal will help
us frame our overall research, educate us as to what is known, identify areas that
still need to be explored, methodologies and methods to use, what data we will need
to collect and analyze, and how to analyze it. As part of this process, we may look
for studies we can adapt for doing our own work, or interesting ways of writing
and presenting what we are researching. This initial proposal is where we also
contemplate the framework for our research and what methods we will be using.
The initial literature review will be helpful in deciding this, as will our own interests,

77
Chapter 8

beliefs, and values, and the resources (such as time, video cameras, participants, etc.)
available to us.
Start with the description of your research. What is the research about? Why is it
necessary and what does it contribute to teaching and learning? Discuss why we are
doing this. Our own concerns, biases, and interests need to be made clear. Are there
particular questions we are exploring? What do we hope to accomplish and how are
we going to go about this research? How will our work be of benefit to those being
researched? Include these discussions in your draft introduction.
Who is our intended audience? If it is other teachers, then we may include more
description of practice, and the language we use may be more familiar. The focus
may be issues of teaching and learning, rather than theory. If the study is for a
research journal, then the language itself may need to be more formal, the sections
of the paper may need to follow a standard format, and the focus may be more
theoretical, instead of descriptions of practice.
What prior studies have been done on the topic you want to investigate? What
have these other researchers found? Begin your review of literature with 4–5
research articles in the area of interest. What are some key words they use? What are
the repeatedly emerging themes that you notice? Is there some prior research that
these articles refer to that emerge as must-reads? The next chapter, Chapter 9, has a
lot more in-depth discussion on how to do a literature review. The discussion here is
just an introduction to get you thinking about prior published work as a resource that
informs our own investigations and helps us formulate our own questions.
When I think of literature review, I think of the shape of a funnel. We start with
a broad search and begin to narrow it to our topic as we become more and more
familiar with the literature. Sometimes, if our topic is new, we may only have
available literature that is not specific to our topic. We can still use such literature to
frame our work. For example, if we are researching how laughter affects learning in
a science classroom, we may want to start with the various ways laughter has been
theorized in education. Our search may cross disciplines and include psychology,
sociology, neuroscience, and even anthropology. Different kinds, meanings, and
purposes of laughter may emerge. If the available literature becomes more specific,
such as its roles in education, we can pursue it further in that direction. What roles do
these different forms of laughter have in the classroom? But it may also be that there
is not much literature written about laughter and teaching and learning, specifically
in science classrooms. Up to a couple of years ago, there was none. If there is none,
then we need to say so and use what we have already found as the basis for our
research.
When doing research and teaching, it is easy to get overwhelmed with the
work (or to just procrastinate or tire out, since both tasks require a lot of time and
energy). It is useful to create a schedule (timeline) for ourselves. This can include
dates for conducting and completing the research and writing it up. For a semester-
long project, for example, plan on spending a few weeks researching published
literature, perhaps a month or two doing research and analysis, another couple of

78
 Doing a Research Project

weeks thinking about and fine tuning your findings, and perhaps several weeks or
a month doing the final write-up. The final write up can be organized around times
of the year where our teaching load may not be as overwhelming, such as holidays
or other school breaks. When grades are due, for example, is a terrible time to focus
on writing up the research! Out of the “norm” situations (fire drills, state exams,
school trips, sick days, bad weather, marriages, breakups, etc.) are a constant in
both teaching and in doing research. As we become more adept at being teacher |
researchers (as in teaching) our timing becomes more accurate and our expectations
become more realistic.

Doing Authentic Inquiry and Creating Interventions

With hermeneutic phenomenology, the focus and boundaries of a study can, and
likely will, change. Having an initial draft with a framework and a timeline, as
described above, is critical. As the study progresses and as new theories, knowledge
and understandings emerge, the research methods and procedures may also change.
Who and how many participants take part in the study are also fluid and may change
as well. A suggestion made to me by Ken Tobin is to start with the minimum possible
participants, one or two, and expand as necessary. It is not uncommon for new and not-
so-new researchers to gather so much data that they spend all of their research time
processing this data (i.e., recording, organizing, managing), rather than analyzing
it. This is similar to new teachers who, after assigning large amounts of paperwork
to their students, have to then spend countless hours after school grading it, rather
than better preparing their next lessons or taking better care of themselves. I have
found that getting data is generally not too difficult, as there are always interesting
things happening in teaching, either with me or my students. Finding the time to
both work and think about the data, and striking a balance between collecting data
and analyzing it, have been my toughest challenges. Therefore, we should not have
many initial respondents.
Especially due to today’s political obsession with high stakes testing and
evaluations, my own work has focused on creating interventions to improve the
emotional climate of the classroom, creating toolkits for teachers and their students
to use to change their own emotions as necessary, and to lead healthier lives. These
have included tools for becoming aware of our emotional and physical responses
through the creation of heuristics (see Chapter 4); for becoming aware of changes
to our own facial expressions, tone, frequency, and pitch of voice, and other
physiological responses, like heart rate and breathing when strong negative emotions
like anger or stress are present; using breathing meditation to calm ourselves down,
and using the Japanese healing art of touch, Jin Shin Jyutsu, to improve our emotions
and our health.
Some final suggestions on planning your research: When thinking of authorship,
as part of doing authentic inquiry research, co-authorship and co-presenting with
participants is strongly encouraged. We may not know who these collaborators

79
Chapter 8

will be, but if we let it be known that we are interested in participants becoming
co-researchers from the very beginning, it is more likely to happen as participants
become more interested in our work. Lastly, we need to keep in mind any potential
IRB requirements (see Chapter 7), especially if we intend to do research for
publication. Some of these requirements may emerge as we write our initial research
proposal protocols for IRB approval, while others will result from the IRB review.

80
 Chapter 9

Writing Up and Presenting

Your Research

Now you are ready to share your research with others, either by publishing it or
by presenting it. Since it is both theory grounded in practice and practice framed
by theory, it can be an important contribution to the teaching profession. The
publication can be a thesis or a journal article. The presentation can be at your
department meeting to colleagues or proceedings at a national conference. Rather
than full of jargon, your work needs to be fresh and exciting, with an emphasis
on what you did, what you found, and what you learned. Discuss how these
findings build on theory and contribute to knowledge on the topic on which you
focused. One trap I often see, for both new and experienced researchers, is that
they spend most of their time emphasizing the research of others. While describing
and learning from prior knowledge is necessary and important, your work is what
attracted the reader or listener. Rather than feeling intimidated, be proud of your
work and present it as such to the world. In the previous chapter, it was strongly
suggested that before we even begin our research we have a written proposal with
an overall plan for our research. This is not only a good idea, but also necessary and
required if our research project needs Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
This chapter expands on the writing up of our research and offers suggestions on
doing presentations.

Literature Review

Whether as a separate section or woven through the paper, provide the reader with
an overview of what is known so far regarding the topic on which you are focused.
Including a literature review in your paper is an opportunity to show what you have
learned from others, as well as that you are familiar with research that has been done.
The literature review should cite related research articles and studies, and identify
major findings, conclusions and points of dispute. Begin your search through the
literature with an open mind and see where it takes you. What you eventually include
in your research will be contingent on what you learn from this literature review and
from your own work. Such a review will provide you with questions you may want
to focus on in your own work as well as methods and techniques to use that you may

81
Chapter 9

not have previously considered. Rather than using long chains of citations to justify
a point you are making (such as using 5 citations for the same thought,) you should
try to limit your citation use to one at a time and describe through your writing what
each contributes to our knowledge, and why it was important that you include it.
Later in your paper, you will be describing how your work adds to and builds on this
knowledge and theory. The references should be taken from a wide variety of recent
sources as well as those that have had an impact in the field (have a high number
of citations by other authors). For references, stay with refereed journals, books, or
book chapters published within the past ten years (unless, like Dewey, Vygotsky, or
the Magna Carta, past or historical references are appropriate).
Whether using APA, MLA, or any other style of citation, your in-text
citations need to follow their rules consistently throughout the text and in
the reference section of the paper. For writing resources, such how to cite
references using APA and MLA styles, there are plenty of online resources.
One of my favorites is The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/.
A suggestion before you begin, is that if you plan on doing a lot of research
writing, consider using a bibliographic software to manage your references and
citations. Many academic institutions provide these to their faculty and students
free of charge, but if not, after using one for the past 10 years for my own work,
I find that they are worth paying for. Two of the most common citation managers
are Refworks and Endnote; Zotero, and Mendeley are free. Any time invested in
learning the software will be gained back a hundred-fold when writing. While these
software are very useful, always do double check the reference list they create, as
they are not always perfect.

Locating Relevant Literature

Relevant literature databases can be accessed through many different sources. If

you are a member of a particular professional organization, they often include
their journal(s) as part of their membership package. Local libraries, too, may have
branches dedicated to research. As part of library membership, members may also
have access to digital databases, online or digital journals, and e-books. College
libraries also normally dedicate a large chunk of their budgets to subscriptions
to digital databases and other such services. In many cases, they can even order
for you, free of charge, copies of articles that other libraries may have that they
do not.
1. Go to your library web pages.
2. Click on “Databases” or similar designation. A very useful database to start with
is Scopus. This database will tell you how often a work is cited as well as provide
a list of the references cited in an article. Another database that readers may be

82
 Writing Up and Presenting Your Research

more familiar with is Google Scholar. It lists relevant article references, many
with direct access to the full text. A journal you will find useful for research
on sociocultural topics is Cultural Studies of Science Education. You can find it
using the E-Journals Finder or through the Springer Database.
3. If you are working from home, you will be asked to log in, so you need to have
access before you begin.
4. Once your database opens, click on “advanced search” and enter some key words
you want to search. You may need to do this several times, as you learn to fine-
tune your search.
5. Decide what literature is appropriate for you, especially those that you can access
electronically.
6. Read briefly through a few articles that are relevant to your topic.
7. Once you find literature that is pertinent to your search, you can use it to go
forward and backward in your literature search. See which references they use.
Some of them may be more relevant or more important than others. If you notice
that a reference is cited often in the articles you locate, make sure to at least give
it a cursory look; often, such a paper is a “must read.” Look it up. In addition to
the references cited in a particular paper, see who cites that same paper. This back
and forth will give you a good picture of the past knowledge on the subject as well
as the most recent work being done on it.
8. While you are collecting articles and other useful references, this is a good time
to begin your list of references and citations. Many of the databases will list the
references in the style of your choice (i.e., APA, MLA), as well as allow you to
export them directly to your citation manager software. Do not leave this for later
as it could easily become an unmanageable nightmare.

Manuscript or Thesis Component Descriptions

As discussed in earlier chapters, the format you follow for your paper will depend
on what choices you make, including the journal to which you are interested in
submitting your manuscript. If you follow a traditional style, it will look very
different than if you weave your citations in with your narrative. Two papers that I
encourage my students to look at and that I have used as models are Stacy Olitsky’s
(2007) for the former and David Long’s (2010) for the latter. What follows are some
general suggestions:
• Titles of sections and sub sections: Your titles should represent your content. Give
descriptive titles for all sections and subsections.
• Abstract: The abstract should be self-contained and powerful. It includes the
scope and purpose of the study, research methodology, results observed, findings
and conclusions. Word limit is dependent on the publication, usually between 150
and 200 words

83
Chapter 9

• Keywords: Usually a set of keywords follows the abstract in a manuscript. These

are words or short phrases (“descriptors”) you used in your search to locate
relevant studies or published literature. These would also be the search terms
others would use to locate your own work.
• Introduction: The introduction grabs the interest of the reader; states background
information, controversial question(s), topic, thesis, and all subtopics. What is
your paper about? Why are you doing this research? What is the main idea? Why
should anyone read this? Why is your work important? Introduce your argument,
including a discussion of the questions you will be pursuing.
• Methodology (conceptual framework) and methods (how you collected and
worked with the data). This component would include your specific goals, your
research questions, and your methods (including how data is to be collected and
analyzed) and should be clearly spelled out and fully explained.
• Conclusions, reflections, and implications: Bring your results back to your
original goals and research questions; come back to your literature review.
Discuss the ways in which your research builds on prior theory and knowledge.
Reflect on your research and discuss issues you may have encountered, how you
would proceed in the future, etc.
• Recheck your grammar, punctuation, spelling, mechanics, and the structure of
your sentences, paragraphs, and sections. For some journals, it is fine to use “I”
but not with others. Avoid idioms and colloquialisms.
• Language: Be aware that language itself is a tool that can have multiple and
sometimes hidden meanings that readers may find offensive and hurtful. Some
words like the “n…” word may be so offensive that they should not be written
out. Other words, like the use of “queer,” for example, can be offensive to some
while accepted by others. George Orwell’s (1946) writing, Politics and the English
Language, is a powerful if somewhat dated discussion on the use and abuse of
language usage.
• References: While sometimes, two citations for a point may be appropriate, try to
limit your citations in the text to one at a time. Do not list multiple references for
a single item. Specify what you are getting out of each one. Give the reader a clear
idea of what each reference contributes. Include critical evidence (references)
from a wide variety of up-to-date sources. Properly cite all.
• Quotes: Students and beginning (and not-so-beginning) researchers love to use
quotes. Some publications may even encourage it. Quotes, especially of other
peoples’ research findings, should only be used in moderation or should be
avoided unless absolutely necessary. Say what you want to say about the literature
you have read in your own words. Excessive use of quotes of others’ work may be

84
 Writing Up and Presenting Your Research

viewed as symbolic of laziness and/or inexperience. Since the article or book you
are citing was written with a different focus and in a different context than yours,
give your own interpretation of how the literature you are citing applies to your
particular work. Outright copying of other people’s ideas and/or work, without
properly identifying it as such, is not only bad, but will taint and undermine
your work. If used, quotes from other sources should not be long and all must
be properly referenced. Direct quotes may be formatted differently, depending
on their length. Check with the appropriate citation style guide for specific
requirements.
• Recheck the mechanics and structure of your sentences, paragraphs, and
sections.
• Include critical evidence (references) from a wide variety of up-to-date sources
that are all properly cited.
• Use appropriate style (APA, MLA, etc.) for the headers, sections and references.
• Do not use generic titles (unless required by targeted journal!) Give descriptive
titles for all sections and subsections.
• Format your paper as a manuscript, not a laundry list. Do not use bullet lists.
• Decide which, if any, of the material belongs in the appendix. This may be a place
for any questionnaires or heuristics you may have developed or used.
• Find a writing buddy or several. Work with another colleague, researcher, or as
part of a research squad. Ideas develop by talking through questions and findings,
and learning from and building on each other.
• Have someone with academic writing (or, at least reading) experience critically
read your manuscript at different stages.
Some additional comments on quotes. I personally like using historical quotes
or quotes of great significance as prompts, as I did at the beginning of many of
the earlier chapters in this book. Another time I would use them is if the phrase
itself is a concept, like Sewell’s “thin coherence” (1999, p. 49). On the other hand,
quotes from our own research, i.e., from cogen, interviews, or questionnaires are
different. They are part of the story we are telling and the data we are presenting.
It is important, in all these situations to remember that the quotes were from a very
specific context and time. As such quotes, when used, should be used with that
understanding in mind—that they are not independent of the interaction, place,
participants, or time. Especially when we include quotes from our research, these
quotes as well the event they took place in, need to be described, analyzed and
discussed for the reader.
Below is a table with more specific descriptions of the manuscript components:

85
Chapter 9

Table 9.1. Descriptions of the manuscript components

Cover page (for thesis) and title Title (concise statement of main topic), your name,
affiliation, and contact information (email).
Titles generally should be no more than 12 words in
length.

Abstract The abstract is self-contained, concise, and powerful;

it includes the scope, purpose, and content of your
study, research methodology, results observed,
findings, and conclusions. Limit to between 120 and
150 words.

Keywords After the abstract, supply up to five keywords or brief

phrases (including main words from your title and
abstract). These words should also appear in your
abstract and may be in parts of your title.

Intro The introduction grabs the interest of the reader

and states background information, controversial
question(s), topic, thesis, and all subtopics.

The Plan The plan uses appropriate analysis techniques for the
type(s) of data collected and the nature of the research
questions and will enable the researcher to answer the
research questions.

Thesis The thesis is original, develops fresh insight that

challenges the reader’s thinking, approaches the topic
from relevant discipline areas, and the questions and
framework are appropriate for assignment. Research
questions are clear, arguable, well developed, and are
appropriate for the topic. Thesis and purpose are clear
to the reader.

Research Questions Research questions are clear, arguable, and well

developed, and are appropriate for the topic.

Methodology Philosophical underpinnings (personal and from

literature and other research), specific goals, and
research questions are clear and fully explained.

Procedure The procedure is described in enough detail that it is

clear what will be done and when. Participants are
adequately described.
The plan uses appropriate data collection techniques
for the type and nature of the research questions and
will enable the researcher to answer the research
questions.
(Continued)

86
 Writing Up and Presenting Your Research

Table 9.1. (Continued)

Analysis Analysis is critical and relevant to what is being

investigated. Consistent connections are made
between arguments and evidence.

Conclusions, reflections, and Conclusions, reflections, and implications: Your

implications original goals, research questions, and literature
reviews are revisited and reflections are made; new
ideas are synthesized as a result of the research that
have an impact on reader. Bring your results back to
your original goals and research questions; come back
to your literature review. Discuss how your research
builds on prior theory and knowledge. Reflect on
your research and discuss issues you may have
encountered, how you would proceed in the future,
etc.

References/Literature Review Adequate, appropriate, and detailed format; always

used in alphabetical order, with all sources shown
and includes a wide variety of appropriate sources.
Critical and sufficient evidence from a wide variety of
up-to-date sources is presented in the proper format.

Organization/Development of There is a clear, logical, mature, appropriate, and

Ideas and Completeness thorough development of main thesis. The paper is
organized, shows awareness of the potential audience,
anticipates readers’ questions, and is complete.

Language Conventions Paper is very concise, clear, with consistently proper

grammar, punctuation, spelling and paragraphing.
Language is appropriate for journal and audience and
avoids idioms and colloquialisms.

Length of paper Length is appropriate and meets the requirements for

targeted journal.

Mechanics of paper Paper is formatted as a manuscript, not a laundry list.

No bullet lists are used.
Quotes from others’ papers/research are used only
rarely (unless extremely exceptional).
Sources are referenced properly at all times.
Content is written in essay form, not in bullet lists.
All required sections, with appropriate subsections,
are included; all are appropriately titled (not with the
generic titles) and formatted.
Lines, paragraphs, sections, and subsections are
properly formatted, styled and spaced, with no
unnecessary spaces.

87
Chapter 9

Below is another table with the list of possible report or paper components:

Table 9.2. Component checklist

a. Title/cover page

b. Abstract

c. Keywords (4–5)

d. Introduction (including a general discussion of purpose, questions, goals)

e. Literature review (APA, MPA, or other style): Research relating to your topic and
background resources

f. Conceptual framework/methodology

i. Philosophical underpinnings (personal and from literature and other research)

ii. Specific goals

iii. Specific research questions investigated

g. Methods (including how data was collected and analyzed)

h. Study

i. Set up

ii. Data

iii. Analysis

iv. Synthesis

i. Conclusions, reflections, and implications: Bring back your results to your original
goals and research questions, come back to your literature review, discuss how you
would proceed in the future, issues, etc…

j. References (APA, MLA or other style; primary sources)

k. Appendix (including pilot study, questionnaires, heuristics, etc.)

Flow Chart

When writing a paper or manuscript, it is important that the write-up not only reflects
the systematic, authentic, and honest work that went into doing research, but that the
write-up actually succeeds in doing what it sets out to do.
Flow charts are useful in research, as they allow the researcher to double check
that they have included all of the necessary components in writing up the study,
especially if the manuscript is written in a non-traditional style. While flow charts

88
 Writing Up and Presenting Your Research

are generally used to show the sequential steps in a task or process, sociocultural
research may be a lot messier than that, especially if we are using hermeneutic
phenomenology. That said, a flow chart can be a powerful tool in planning and
illustrating our thought processes, and in supplying evidence that our inquiry was
purposeful and systematic.
This technique can be applied to our work, or used to check the fidelity of others.
In my research classes, for example, I ask students to analyze several different
articles for inner consistency. Are the frameworks, methods, and strategies that
were used outlined and appropriate? Are the investigated questions stated clearly?
Were the methods used appropriate for what the research sought to investigate? Did
the paper stay within the parameters of what was investigated? Are the questions
answered satisfactorily? Did the research remain focused and maintain continuity on
its stated purposes(s) and frameworks? Are the findings credible and consistent with
the framework and methods used? By using flow charts to investigate for continuity
and discrepancies in our own work as well as the work of others, we become more
critical readers, learners, and researchers. The appendix contains an outline (see
“Flow Chart Design”) that interested readers can use for such a flow chart analysis.

Presentations

Manuscripts are but one way of letting others know of our work. Below are some
essentials elements that should be included when presenting it. Practice your
presentation before hand. Time yourself. It usually takes longer when we are in front
of a live audience, though some presenters do have a tendency to zip through their
presentations when they are nervous. My suggestion is to practice your breathing.
Avoid breathing using your chest. Breathe through your belly using your abdomen.
Hold your thumb on the palm of your hand and listen to your heart beat. Use these
methods as ways to bring your heart rate down and relax your body, as well as to
time yourself.

Presentation Outline

Below is an outline for preparing a presentation. In addition, a good suggestion

made to me and I make to others is, before presenting, to run through the slides (with
sound) on the equipment/set up that will be used during the presentation.
• What is our topic?
• Why did we choose this? (include your personal views)
• What is known? (research literature)
• What did we do?
• What did we find?
• What did we learn?
• How will our study change as a result?

89
Chapter 9

• How does this work contribute to teaching and learning? “What’s the point?” or,
“So what?”
• What ideas and questions do we want the audience to discuss and reflect on,
including perhaps some questions we may still have.

Table 9.3. Presentation list

Content • The content of the research project is succinct and clear

• The essence of the research has been clearly communicated
• There is a substantial amount of info/research
• The content is informative and useful

Slides • Run through your slides before your presentation. Make sure the
equipment is working and the colors are clear.
• Slides are aesthetically and visually appealing (neither too busy or
messy)
• The structure is well organized and laid out
• There is clarity of text (color, density). Using yellow text on black
background is usually a bad idea.
• The overall presentation is coherent, “whole”
• Use of pictures, photos, charts, illustrations, special effects and
videos is effective
• URLslinks are active (open before the start of the presentation)
• Transition effects from one slide to the next do not “get in the
way”
• Special effects are not overwhelming
• Not too much text is on each slide. Minimum font should be no
less than #18, though no less than #24 size is preferred.
• There are an appropriate number of slides. Less is usually better.
• If you have time left, use it to interact with the audience. Have
some prompts ready.
• Do NOT spend your presentation reading your slides! They
are just organizers for your thoughts. They should not be a
replacement for your interaction with the audience.

Overall • Provide good sound quality, good voice projection

Presentation • All members should participate (if it’s a team project)
• Keep good eye contact with the audience
• Be enthusiastic
• Act professional in conducting the presentation
• Exhibit confidence in managing the presentation
• Responded knowledgeably to questions, comments
• Stay within the time limit
• Make sure presentation is coherent
• Involve the whole audience in the discussion. We are not just
talking “at” the audience.

90
 Writing Up and Presenting Your Research

Excellent resources and suggestions for PowerPoint and Prezi presentations are
available on many college websites (e.g., http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/
making-better-powerpoint-presentations/) and other sources such as the Chronicle
of Higher Education (e.g., http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/improving-
powerpoint-style-presentations/32126?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
and http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/challenging-the-presentation-paradigm-
prezi/22646).

Some Additional Suggestions

Remember to emphasize and include key concepts from history, pedagogy,

epistemology, methodology, and policy in your work, whether it is a paper or a
presentation. Provide your audience a clear understanding of your views, focus on
what you are contributing and what you have learned, rather than on what others
say. If it is a paper, write in the present or past tense, as appropriate, and use your
own voice. The paper should be proofed and carefully edited before submission.
Practice your presentation before delivering it. Make sure the equipment you are
using (especially the sound) works, and that you meet the time requirements. If it
is too short, add questions for discussion at the end. If too long, then remove slides.
And never ever read your slides! Your presentation should be more of a conversation
with your audience.

Free Writing

Meditate for a few minutes (the time depends on your prior experience) then just
take out a notebook and free write non-stop. Target a particular length of time, 10,
20 minutes or even an hour. Do not stop until that time is up. Use a stop watch if
necessary. Just write without worrying. Let the thoughts flow. At the beginning,
doing this felt a little weird, but once I got used to it, it became my favorite way of
writing. After a while, you will not need to time yourself; it will just flow.
Within our research squad and with our classes, we (Ken Tobin and I) have been
using this method of free writing with our graduate and Ph.D. students. With many
math or science majors, writing is generally not their favorite activity or forte. Doing
free writing helped many students (as well as me – I used it frequently in writing this
book) get through initial mental blocks and hesitations.

Keeping Track of Research and Thoughts

Some suggestions for keeping track of your research and thoughts

• Keep a notebook that is only used for research notes. It can be a particular color,
say yellow so you can recognize it. Make notes of what you read. Use a new page
for each reference. Use your own words; if not, make sure you use quotes, and
include page numbers from the reference.
91
Chapter 9

• Use free writing to write research thoughts and reflections. Try to write a couple
of pages at a time, including detailed anecdotes. Do the same if you are reviewing
videos or doing analysis of any data.
• If something interesting happens during class, pause and write a quick note.
• Including students as co-researchers makes the research richer and gives it greater
breadth and depth. Not only will there be more views of what is happening,
but students may also be able to take notes while you are too busy teaching.
In addition, by involving the students, it may cut down on the tension of doing
research in the class you are teaching.
• Always write down your ideas. Even if you don’t have the time to write more
detail immediately, you can always come back to them or use them as a prompt at
a later time. Always have your notebook nearby, as ideas can emerge out of any
experience, even if not related directly to research or teaching.
• If I am working on a manuscript, I find that time alone to think and focus is
very helpful. It is also very helpful to discuss what I am writing with a group
of colleagues or students. In my experience, this discourse with others has been
an important breeding ground of ideas. Lastly, attend research meetings, even
if not exactly pertaining to your topic. Simply being around such discussions
helps me consider other ways of seeing what I am writing about. Conferences and
professional development talks are good for writing, too, especially if you are not
particularly interested in the talk but have to remain seated for a long time. Free
writing makes productive use of such times.
• Never use a flash drive or a thumb drive to store your work. Sooner or later, they
do go bad or get lost. Better alternatives include emailing every draft to yourself,
or my own personal preference, use a service like Dropbox or Google Drive.

92
 Chapter 10

My Beginnings as a Teacher | Researcher

The Spring 2007 Research

Being a new teacher, whether in K-12 or at the college level, is not easy. Learning
to teach on our own, putting together course work, advising and mentoring students,
grading papers, working with colleagues while keeping it all together, can be very
challenging, even if we are fortunate enough to have had a good teacher education
foundation. Researching our own practices is a good way to figure out what works
and what does not, as well as to address challenges and questions that emerge. Doing
such work keeps us sharp and motivated, and can be emotionally and professionally
rewarding. Especially for those in tenure track-type positions, who are required to
do research and are expected to somehow do everything simultaneously (often with
little support or proper mentorship,) combining research with our teaching is not
only convenient but also worthy, constructive, and satisfying.
One of my first published articles was a manuscript I wrote as a beginning high
school teacher (Alexakos & Antoine, 2003), before I had completed my Ph.D. studies.
I had been teaching physics for a few years when my assistant principal asked me
to put together an Advanced Placement (AP) physics course, offered as a second
year course to students who had already successfully completed a year of New York
State Regents physics (a statewide standardized course). I expected that, in a school
where more than 70 percent of the students were female, this demographic would be
reflected in the students that decided to take my course. To my (ignorant) surprise,
this was not the case. My first AP class cohort ended up being mostly male, probably
one of only a handful of classes (if any) in the school where that was the case. I
was shocked, since I thought I had been supportive and encouraging to the female
students in my classes!
I started inquiring into the reasons why this happened and what I could do next
time to change this male to female imbalance. I talked with the students and I also
talked with their parents. Female students, whom I had considered to be at that top
of the Regents class, were surprised when asked about taking the AP course, to
be told that they were good candidates for it. When their parents came in for our
parent-teacher conference and I mentioned the possibility of their daughters taking
AP physics, they, too, were surprised. In both cases, these students and their parents
were pleased that they were considered. The following year, the ratio of female
students to male students greatly increased, with the female students becoming the
majority.

93
Chapter 10

New researchers, students, and instructors are surprised by how many things can
go wrong when doing their own research. For example, the video may not be working,
the camera may be pointed away from the speakers, or the sound may be unclear.
Somehow, trouble seems to happen just when something amazing or awesome things
are going on. These woes are a normal part of doing research and happen even after
checking and rechecking and after years of practice. Nonetheless, while sometimes
frustrating and often challenging, doing research in my own classroom has been
an overall very positive experience for me. What follows, in this and next chapter,
are some narratives from my own experiences as a teacher | researcher. I hope you
find these examples beneficial and encouraging as you undertake your own research
agenda. Remember to believe in yourself and to be kind and compassionate to those
you research, including yourself.

The 2007 Physics Class

While as a high school science teacher I tried to be reflective in my work, but it

was not until I started teaching at the college level that I officially began to research
teaching and learning in my own classroom. This research began with a college
physics class I was teaching that was geared toward high school students doing
a “College Now” type of program. These students, from two local inner city
schools, were taking college courses at my campus. All were non-white, with a high
male to female ratio, and included both seniors and juniors (Alexakos, Jones, &
Rodriguez, 2011).
In addition to video recording each class meeting, I tried writing research notes
during each lesson. Since being a teacher itself is very demanding, I was not
always successful in keeping up with the notes as much as I would have liked.
What I eventually settled on doing was that if something of interest or something
extraordinary happened, I tried to make a note of it. The video recordings were
useful in seeing things I missed or did not have time to focus on during class.
Unfortunately, a teacher | researcher alone often does not have enough hours in
the week to both teach and review all of the video. The notes, even when sparse,
became invaluable, as I would use them to home in to a particular event or time.
I made it a point to even stop what I was doing and write down some quick notes
in the middle of teaching, since later it would be too late to remember or to
recall fully.
After-class meetings were instrumental not just in this particular inquiry but
also in my becoming aware of the different realities, challenges and voices in
the classroom. The discussions were free-flowing, sometimes continuing from
something that happened in class that day, such as the issue of not doing homework
and coming to class unprepared, the reasons for being late or absent, students’ lives
at their school, how they studied, or where they liked to hang out. What helped a

94
 My Beginnings as a Teacher | Researcher

lot was that there was a core group of friends who were very welcoming of me and
interested in participating in the research and who enjoyed having these cogens.
While at the time I did not call such meetings cogen, they included many of the
characteristics of cogenerative dialogues.
Participants in each study are unique and we may not always be successful in having
them join us as co-researchers. Still, as the examples below show, collaboration with
participants and inclusion of their voices, insights, and interpretations in our work are
invaluable and make our research and interventions that much better. By becoming
aware, we can also address issues that may have arisen during our teaching, that
we, whether due to our inexperience or just being overwhelmed with our work, may
not even have been aware of, may have misunderstood, or perhaps may have even
caused, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Use of Language

In the beginning, I thought my research would be about teaching and learning physics
but as the semester progressed, I became aware of several underlying practices
mediating learning. One was the use of language. As part of my introduction on
the first day of class, I told them that the college had a high failure rate in physics,
but that would not happen in my class because I cared. I said this with the best of
intentions. I felt that, by saying this, I was being motivational and encouraging.
Instead, what I was told later in the semester after I got to know the students better
and they got to know me, was that what they heard was that almost all would fail,
including they themselves. This was brought up by one of the male students who
regularly stayed for the after-class discussions (and who later became one of the
co-authors of the article I wrote about my experience in this class) as well as one of
the female students from the other school.
Another surprise was how the participants interpreted the way I asked questions. I
would ask, “does anyone know?” To some of them, this implied that I did not expect
them to know. I had not realized they held these beliefs until a few weeks later,
through several after-class cogenerative dialogues with some of the participants.
If we had not had these cogens, I would have never guessed or known. These
experiences prompted me to read more of the work on stereotype threat by Claude
M. Steele (2010) and since then I have begun using different language in my own
classrooms. For example, instead of asking, “Does anyone know this?” I began to
ask, “Who knows this?” and, “Who will tell us?” By phrasing my questions like
that, the expectation became that they did know. Also, I now begin the semester by
telling students that they will do well in the course, rather than how difficult it will
be. Since I also work with preservice and inservice teachers, I have also incorporated
these learnings into my own teaching and I make them aware of their language use
and how it may be perceived.

95
Chapter 10

Fictive Kinships, Seating Arrangements, and Learning

Because of what I was learning during the class and the after-class cogen, I slowly
reoriented my work from doing ethnographic research to doing hermeneutic inquiry,
from going into research to investigate a particular question in a particular way, to
doing more event-oriented study based on what emerged from not only my own
interests and values but from those of the participants. Slowly I became more and
more fascinated with learning as a sociocultural phenomenon. For example, in my
February 14 notes, I noted that many of the students had a hard time even beginning
to solve physics problems in class and gave up too quickly on homework problems.
When I asked them why, they could not explain it. I therefore began to focus on
strategies to motivate them and to help create routines and habits that would help
them get started and overcome any initial fears. Rather than have students work
through problems on their own before discussing them, we would take the time to
talk through together how we would begin solving these problems. Giving them
time to work through physics problems in class by collaborating within and across
groups and with me became the norm. These groups emerged not only as groups that
encouraged learning, but also as support groups and being role models for each other
(Alexakos et al., 2011).
Their seating arrangements became a question of interest to me. I wanted to
both keep friends together and at the same time mix up who was in what group so
that they would benefit from learning from one another. I started to keep track of
who was sitting next to whom in the group, the layout of the tables (they were on
wheels so they were easy to rearrange), and the physical proximity between students
across groups. Even after weeks of trying different table configurations and seating
arrangements, neither I nor many of the students were satisfied with the results.
Many preferred sitting and learning with their friends and did not like to be asked
to sit with others. As the instructor, though, I did not want to have students sitting
solely with their friends and not interacting with the rest of their classmates. While
eventually I did have some success (by arranging so that friends were still in close
physical proximity to each other even when seated with other groups) it was not
enough for everyone (the students or me, as a teacher) to be very happy.
What struck me the most in the discussions about seating arrangements was the
role of friendships and how important they were in the learning and the perseverance,
since several of these groups were composed of very closely knit friends. I, along
with two of these friends who had emerged as co-researchers, eventually teased out
the question further, and collaborated on co-authoring an article on the role of fictive
kinship (close friendships that have family-like qualities, i.e., thinking of a close
friend as a brother) in learning (Alexakos et al., 2011).

96
 My Beginnings as a Teacher | Researcher

This research was the first time that I began thinking of the theoretical implications
of learning as social. It was this experience of investigating learning, teaching, and
interventions through cogenerative dialogues and working with the participants as
co-researchers that became the underpinnings of my embracing and doing authentic
inquiry as a teacher | researcher.

97
 Chapter 11

Spring 2012 Study (The “BC Study”)

In the spring semester of 2012, in collaboration with Kenneth Tobin and a research
squad composed of about a dozen Ph.D. and master’s level students, we investigated
in-the-moment emotions and mindfulness in a graduate science education class I
was teaching. The class was a course for science education teacher candidates and
inservice teachers that focused on the history of and issues in science and science
education.
Years before, as I was developing a new master’s program in adolescent
science education, I had created this course because I felt there was a need for a
place to discuss “difficult” sociocultural issues in science teaching and learning.
Because these topics ranged from race, class, gender, and sexuality, to evolution
and eugenics, they often held very personal meaning for the students. As difference
was not only allowed but also encouraged, many of these presentations (all of these
topics were cotaught by the students) and follow-up class discussions were very
emotional. In addition, one of the course requirements was for groups of students
themselves to coteach the weekly topics, hence providing further opportunities to
investigate mindfulness and radical listening (learning from the other and learning
from difference, as we learn from ourselves) in teaching and learning. This course,
therefore, was just right for our planned research on emotions and mindfulness.
The methodology of our study was multi-method, sociocultural, hermeneutic
phenomenology that was participatory, reflexive, and interpretive (Tobin & Ritchie,
2012). As the research began, so did the analysis and interpretations. Reflexive social
inquiry (Tobin, 2013) and event-oriented social inquiry (Tobin & Ritchie, 2012)
were used to decide which emergent aspects and events were important or of interest
for further investigation. The research was guided by the researchers’ commitment
to the educational authenticity criteria of doing morally responsible work (Tobin,
2006), where participants themselves become stakeholders and co-researchers and
have a voice in deciding what is researched and how.
Our multi-faceted goals included investigating emotions and physiological
responses and implementing interventions so that participants could affect their
own wellness and learning and teaching when feeling stressed or having unwanted
emotional responses. Methods of data collection included video recording,
cogenerative dialogues, and audience response clickers (for the students to self-report
their emotional climate). We also used oximeters to collect real-time physiological
measures (heart rate, heart strength, and blood oxygenation levels) of the students

99
Chapter 11

as they cotaught. Some techniques, like the coteaching and mindfulness heuristics,
played the double role of both collecting evidence and of being interventions unto
themselves, while others, such as breathing mediation, were more direct interventions
targeted primarily at effecting change. Oximeters were used not only to collect data
but also for the wearers to become more aware of their physiological responses.
Because this research was emergent and contingent, and thus continually adjusting
and changing, the research was very fluid and challenging. In addition, many of
the methods and the interventions we created, such the use of oximeters and the
mindfulness heuristics, were new and different from anything seen or done before
in teacher research. A review of research literature on teacher resiliency (Beltman,
Mansfield, & Price, 2011) for example, found no study that introduced intervention
strategies to preservice or early career teachers had systematically evaluated the
intervention’s impact on the participants.

challenges in Being Both the Principal Investigator

and the Course Instructor

Our research was an attempt to bridge the gap between teacher research theory and
classroom praxis by doing relevant research in real classrooms. There were great
challenges to me as both a teacher and a researcher: helping lead the research,
assisting and guiding M.A. and Ph.D. student researchers (the vast majority doing
field research for the first time), paying attention to what data was being collected,
ensuring that video cameras and other resources such as clickers and oximeters were
properly set up and collecting data, preparing for each week’s discussion, mentoring
the students, and working with the students in the class each week on preparing their
presentations.
My own personal challenge was not only to carry out such already complex
research, but also do so in ways that were in line with my responsibilities as
the course instructor, of benefit to my students, and in harmony with the course
objectives. For me, not only as the course instructor but also as the adolescence
science program coordinator and their advisor, introducing students in the program
to research methods and interventions they could adopt in their own classrooms was
very important. As part of our authentic inquiry approach, participants (all students
had agreed to be part of the research at some level) were invited to be co-researchers.
Not only did several students use the research as the basis for their masters’ theses,
but the first article published from that research was coauthored by one of the
participants and me (Alexakos & Pierwola, 2012).
From past experience in teaching this course, I knew and expected many of the
weekly discussion topics to be infused with raw emotions. Further, adding to the
mix of potential challenges and points of research and interventions, the act of
teaching itself could be very emotional and stressful, especially since for many of
the participants this was their first public teaching experience (and was to be video
recorded and analyzed on top of that). For the students to benefit from the class as

100
 Spring 2012 Study (The “BC Study”)

well as to participate in the research, I felt it was necessary that they be comfortable
and open to investigating their own beliefs and motives, but they also needed to
be respectful, and value listening and learning from their peers. Thus, one of my
first and foremost challenges was creating a classroom environment that was non-
threatening, participatory, and a safe space for discussing difficult issues. In addition,
since every minute of the class was to be video recorded and potentially analyzed at
the micro level (such as facial expressions and prosody), I had to have their trust that
the research would be done in a respectful way and that the benefits would greatly
outweigh any possible drawbacks and embarrassing moments, for the students as
well as myself (as I, too, as the instructor of the course, was under the lens, and my
face, my emotions, and my actions were continually scrutinized and analyzed). This
was especially so since the research included micro analysis of facial expressions,
such as disgust towards others, expressions we might not always be aware we display
and reveal, though they may be visible in frame by frame video event analysis. At
this, I was principally prepared through my own past work with science learning and
safe spaces and personal friendship bonds (Alexakos et al., 2011), and the work of
Joe Kincheloe and Ken Tobin (Tobin, 2010) on radical listening. Since, for many of
this cohort of students, this was their second semester, they had already experienced
and practiced radical listening, which in itself helped further strengthen the bonds
among them and their sense of community.
Another challenge was that of conflicts in axiology, the values I as the instructor
felt should be emphasized in the class versus what some of the students felt was more
important. (I do not remember using the term “axiology” before this class, but have
become quite familiar with it starting then.) This conflict is not unlike the one we
are witnessing today in national discourse on education, of content-learning versus
learning-for-life. I truly believed that the ongoing research was of beneficence to
the participants, to their learning and to their emotional wellbeing as teachers (and
their retention in the profession). In contrast, some of the students felt that I was
doing these things, including talking about the research and introducing mindfulness
interventions, only for the sake of the research.
A powerful example for me, the one already discussed in Chapter 6, occurred
when, six weeks into the semester, one of the students who was very anxious to get
the discussion on the topic of race going, openly objected to our taking the time to
discuss our ongoing research and findings, rather than starting with the presentation.
Her comment had a dampening effect not only on the research squad but also on
the emotional climate of the class discussion that night. While the comment was
probably made at an inopportune moment, I did not blame her at all. Instead, I
thought she was right to make such a demand, and that I should not have kept them
waiting. Because of this event, I decided to put off any discussion on the research
until the very end of class, which we did from then on. For me, my first and primary
concern was my students’ well-being and welfare, not the research. Ultimately, I
believe decisions like this one helped me become not only a better teacher, but also
a better and more mindful researcher.

101
Chapter 11

How to divide my time during the class between being a teacher and being a
researcher, and how class time would be allocated between the two, was the other
major concern with which I had to struggle. It included questions of how much
class time to spend on our interventions like breathing meditation and the heuristics,
and when to do them. The research team, for example, decided to do the breathing
mediation before class and during class breaks rather than use up class time. In
another example, early in the semester I had to decide that making sure the research
equipment was set up and working properly was only secondary to greeting my
students as they were coming into the room and chatting with them about their day
and any concerns they had. It also meant that after class I would often talk with the
following week’s presenters to help them prepare for their presentations rather than
participate in the cogenerative dialogues that normally took place at that same time.
On the other hand, many of the same students who had been skeptical of the
research became its strongest supporters, some even coming to research meetings
and becoming co-researchers themselves. For example, beginning with week 2, we
began to use the clickers to measure the emotional climate as clicked by each student
participant at five-minute intervals. While clicking was initially viewed by many
as disruptive (we used a bell as a signal to click), when we asked the students a
few weeks later if they wanted to stop, they were against discontinuing their use.
As the course topics got more emotional and their understanding of the benefits of
the research to them as teachers increased, clicking was transformed for them into
something that they felt empowered them to express their emotions, and it made
them more aware of their and the class’ emotional climate. Many of the participants
began using breathing meditation personally, while many inservice teachers began
introducing it to their students and their classes. Also of note is that in the time since
this research was done, the participant who had made the comment above about
resenting the use of so much of the class time for research has not only implemented
breathing in the classes she teaches, but has also joined our doctoral program and is
part of our current research squad.
What was of great help to me in managing and resolving the concerns and
challenges above, was the insistence by my collaborator in this project, Ken Tobin,
that I as the course instructor had the final say in matters pertaining to what research
could be done with my class and my students. It was not often that we failed to
reach consensus within the research squad about how to proceed, but when we did
(such as how much time to use at the beginning of class to fill out the mindfulness
heuristics,) it was very helpful to me, as the course instructor, to know that I had
the final say on how much class time we could use for research activities, and what
activities we would do during class. Because I viewed my own work as a teacher
and a researcher as guided and framed by the authenticity criteria (Chapter 5) and
my first and foremost priority and concern was the welfare and betterment of my
students, I felt comfortable in saying either yes or no and being both a teacher and
a researcher.

102
 Chapter 12

Final Remarks
Research as Transformative

Over a century ago, John Dewey (1910) challenged educators, as professionals

entrusted with our youth, to continue to improve their craft and to be more reflective
in their practices. How do we do this? My attempt with this book has been to provide
a foundation and a framework that teachers and other educators can use to investigate
knowledge, teaching and learning on their own. Authentic inquiry research is
reflexive social inquiry where theory and practice, teaching, learning, and research
dialectically inform, and mediate one another. Thus grounded, each becomes more
congruent, relevant, and salient to the others, and generated theory more relevant and
useful to teachers. I therefore use the construct of “teacher | researcher” here rather
than the more limited, though more common, “teacher-researcher” to highlight and
emphasize these important relationships and interconnections between teaching,
learning, theory and research.

The Teaching | Learning | Researching Dialectic

Authentic inquiry is collaborative, reflexive, and interpretive. Our inquiry is

emergent and contingent on the interests of the researchers and the participants,
unexpected events and contradictions that arise, and on what we are learning and
new theories and knowledge generated as a result. Participants are invited to become
collaborators, and their interests, voices, and interpretations become part of and help
frame the direction of the research. Throughout this process, our habits, biases,
and interests remain explicit and may become part of what we research. Analysis
proceeds alongside and throughout our inquiry and it too helps frame our research
directions and findings. All along, such inquiry is guided by the authenticity criteria
that provide a framework for enacting socially conscious research methodologies
and practices. These criteria embody the idea that, as teachers and researchers, we
ought to continue being learners and that we ought to learn from others, especially
those who are different from us, that our research ought to be of benefit not only to
us as teacher | researchers, but of benefit to our students and of benefit to the greater
society.
Today one can often read pieces from neuroscientists lamenting our limited and
very biased understanding of our brains (Gorman, 2014). I remember a conference
presentation by one such scientist, telling the audience (as she laughed about it)

103
Chapter 12

that even the images scientists have for the brain are interpretations of statistical
programs that could be written and interpreted in many different ways. Such very
important nuances are often glossed over in science texts, as well as in research.
Difference or outliers from the norm are generally ignored. Prevailing political and
economic hierarchies, values, beliefs, prejudices, and norms are reinforced.
While doing research to improve our students test grades is fine, there are other
more exciting questions into which we can inquire. We may be so accustomed to the
culture of the classroom that we may not think of difference as marginalizing and
alienating, especially if our own culture is the dominant culture. From my time in
the classroom, I have come to realize that, while some of our teaching needs to be
on the content, and we need to be knowledgeable and proficient with it, other issues
like gender, race, sexuality, equity, and justice, are often more critical to teaching and
learning, as are questions about such areas as sustainability and wellness: our own,
our students’ and those around us, and that of our planet. How can students focus on
learning, for example, if they are stressed, hungry, have poor nutrition, are unwell or
in pain, live in high crime areas and breathe in polluted air? How can teachers teach
if they are overstretched, pressured, harassed, overwhelmed, and work in unsafe and
unwelcoming atmospheres that make them sick? How can teaching and learning take
place in dilapidated buildings, lacking not only in necessary resources and enriching
activities like sports, music and art, but also fresh air, sunshine, and green spaces?
Using methodologies and methods based on goals and needs rather than
presupposed truths (like the false dichotomy of “quantitative” and “qualitative”
research), authentic inquiry research reveals the possibilities of learning, learning
from difference, exposing inequities, and using research for the beneficence and
well-being of all the stakeholders. By generating and contributing to educational
knowledge and theory, and best learning and teaching practices as teacher |
researchers, we not only grow as teachers but also as professionals and scholars.
These practices become self-affirming and liberating. They also allows us, as
teachers, to challenge the anti-education status quo and its army of paid academic
and professional apologists and enforcers for whom education is but a scheme for
profit-making and disenfranchisement of those not like them. As mentioned often in
this book, rather than being ruled by others’ knowledge, our knowledge, teaching and
learning, become our tools, our guides and our creations. We transform knowledge
as it transforms us.
Unfortunately, education students (both teacher candidates and inservice teachers)
have very limited or even no prior exposure to authentic inquiry research. It takes
these students, particularly those who, like myself, have been trained in science
or mathematics, a while to begin to see just how much more rewarding, useful,
natural and organic a sociocultural approach to doing research is. But once they do,
authentic inquiry becomes empowering, as they now begin to inquire into what is
taken as knowledge and learning.

104
 Final Remarks

Practice | Theory Dialectic in Writing This Book

This book is not how I had envisioned it to be when I started writing about being
a teacher | researcher. Initially, I thought it would cover the operational or practical
components of doing research in our own classrooms. As I began to write, though, I
had to consider the theoretical framework for such practice. In the past few years, my
research practices have been heavily influenced by Ken Tobin’s (2006) authenticity
criteria (see Chapter 5), as well as by doing research side-by-side with him, or, as
he has often said in our work, learning to research by co-researching. While Tobin
has written extensively on a framework for doing authentic inquiry research (Tobin,
2014), there is no written guide in existence for how to do it. This book is meant to
fill the need for a primer on doing authentic inquiry.
I had already written most of the chapters before I came to realize that this is
what I was attempting to do. Once I recognized this, I shifted my emphasis to
articulating, nuancing, and expanding on authentic inquiry theories and practices.
That is, in the process of writing about the practice of authentic inquiry research,
I also had to expand on the theory supporting it, which in turn helped clarify and
expand on the practice. This is exemplified by the creation of the authentic inquiry
heuristic included in Chapter 5. Once I started framing research within the authentic
inquiry framework, I began to reflect on what such characteristics would look like
and shared them with Ken for feedback.
The authentic inquiry heuristic and its characteristics, like so much else in
this book, is meant to be a shape shifter. We may use what and as many of the
characteristics as we want, depending on our goals and our needs. The same holds
for the methodologies and the authenticity criteria. We may not always be able to
satisfy all of the authenticity criteria all of the time or to the degree that we would
like to. Still, this book aims to provide a guide that interested students, teachers and
other educators can use, adapt, and apply to their own practices as they see suitable
and appropriate. As is the theme running through this book, theory should be at
once framed and changed by practice, be of use to teachers and students, mediate
practices, and generate new ones.

Transformations

Being a teacher | researcher has been transformative for me as a teacher, a researcher,

and as an individual. To Angela Calabrese Barton, my dissertation advisor, I owe
learning to express my voice as part of my research, my first foray into non-positivistic
type of inquiry. Despite my lifelong love of numbers, critical sociocultural research
embraces social aspects like equity and justice that I value and enjoy inquiring into
even more. Angie also introduced me to my good friend, mentor, and collaborator,
Ken Tobin, with whom my education and learning has continued. Ken’s sense of

105
Chapter 12

polysemia, polyphonia, authenticity criteria, and genuine desire for the well-being
of others, have changed me as a teacher | researcher. My personal and professional
beliefs and practices, as well as my health and wellness, have been reshaped and
often completely transformed. In the process, I have become more comfortable
being a researcher and a teacher, more confident in my teaching and learning new
things and improving my practices. As such, I feel I am in a very happy place. If only
all in academia could be this good!

106
 Appendix

IRB application sample

[Consult your own institution’s requirements first]

1.  Purpose of this Research
The goal of this research is to improve science education in my own Brooklyn
College classrooms by employing video analysis of my teaching practices
coupled with cogenerative dialogues with the students in my classes to aid me
in finding ways to improve student learning. The findings from this research
into my own teaching would enhance student experiences in my classroom,
as well as provide a model for action research for teacher candidates of how
to assess and improve their own teaching in their classrooms. In addition,
this research could help other Brooklyn College faculty reconsider the ways in
which they evaluate their own teaching in order to improve the quality of their
classroom learning environments.
This research is being proposed to address the instruction of physics to
inner city high school students. Such students come from diverse racial and
cultural populations, are from circumstances not generally addressed by
current teaching methods, have diverse learning needs, and are generally
underrepresented in the sciences. Through identifying promising physics
teaching practices and adopting them to be part of the education of science
teachers, this project is designed to enhance the teaching, and recruitment
to science of such students, as well as the teaching, mentoring and retention
of early career science teachers, career changers from related science fields,
and pre-service science teachers. The goals of this research are (a) to improve
the science teaching and learning of students of disadvantaged economic
backgrounds and circumstances, especially as related to issues within specific
K-12 science curriculum areas, and (b) the preparation of urban science
teachers through improving their preparation.
The research done in this project involves using ethnography, life history, and
a compilation of dialogues and discussions (cogenerative dialogues) with
these students on best learning and instructional practices. It will explore
areas of difficulty within science teaching and physics content, and develops
instructional methods to better address the needs of urban science teachers
and their students. Discussions of what happened in class, the roles of teachers
and students and how broader issues in society affect what goes on in the
classroom, set a context for curriculum reform, making changes based on

107
Appendix

evidence identified by the researcher and participants. This study will endeavor
to identify issues in science instruction to ensure that urban science teachers
are prepared to succeed in their teaching.
As a member of the Science Education faculty, I recognize the need to learn
more about the teaching and learning that goes on in my courses so that I can
better serve the needs of my students. Ethnography, tape (video and/or audio)
and image analysis, and cogenerative dialogues are powerful tools that I can
use to learn more about how I teach and how my students learn. Cogenerative
dialogues would be held several times a semester with students who volunteer.
In these cogenerative dialogues, my students and I would analyze and discuss
video vignettes selected from our own classroom. These conversations would
help inform my teaching practices and their learning practices, as we would
work to cogenerate solutions for changes that could improve our learning
environment. These dialogues with the students will constitute a context of
understanding for what seems to work and what does not, especially in this
case with a group of inner city youth.
2.  Source of Subjects and Selection Criteria
For this project, all students enrolled in my physics classes in the spring of 2007
through and including the spring of 2008 semesters are eligible to participate.
The students enrolled in these classes are expected to be high school juniors
and seniors taking it as a college course. Therefore, these students may be
younger than 18 years old, but no younger than 15 years old. All eligible
students enrolled in my courses will be invited to participate in all aspects of
the research. Students will be informed that participation is on voluntary basis
only and will not affect their grade in the course in any way.
3.  Project Procedures
Each of my classes will meet several times per week for 15 weeks per semester.
Video will be captured from different classroom sessions during the semester
and during cogenerative dialogues. Video recordings will be used to capture
classroom interactions and to generate transcripts for analysis during
cogenerative dialogues. I will preview the tapes each week and select vignettes
to create clips of (1-3 minutes long) that will be used for analysis in cogenerative
dialogues. On occasion, the clips will be shown during whole class sessions
in which all students will be asked to analyze teaching and learning practices
and provide feedback for how to improve instruction. Students will also be
given an opportunity to volunteer outside of class to analyze vignettes and
participate in cogenerative dialogues. As part of discussing student beliefs
they may also be asked how they arrived at such beliefs, which may include

108
 Appendix

the student’s own life story and background as pertaining to the development
of those beliefs. Copies of assignments of participating students may also be
made and kept for this research and be discussed with their authors as they
relate to the research themes. At the end of the semester, student volunteers will
be asked to participate in a cogenerative dialogue to discuss their experience
with this research as well as their physics class.
4.  Potential Harms or Benefits in Participating in this Study.
There are no potentially harmful risks related to participating in this study
beyond those expected in a regular classroom
[Author note: There are always some risks; see discussion in Chapter 6]
As a result of participation in this study, subject’s awareness about teaching
and learning may be increased, particularly in science. The study will provide
students with valuable insights into different approaches and practices to
researching teaching and learning in the classroom. In addition, participation
in this study may increase student participation and interest in/with science
and technology.
5.  Specific methods to protect confidentiality and anonymity.
All videotapes, audiotapes, images, and copies of student assignments will
be stored in locked cabinets in my office. Transcripts will be generated for
interesting events, but all personal identifiers will be removed and pseudonyms
will be employed for all participants. Only I will have access to personal
identifiable data collected. As part of the consent agreement, volunteer
students (or their parents/legal guardians if under 18) will also be informed
that by agreeing to participate they also allowing short segments of written,
video, and/or audio taped materials from this study to be used for educational
purposes.
6.  1.  Debriefing procedures where deception has occurred.
  Not applicable.
   2.  Actions to be taken for potentially troubling medical condition.
  Not applicable.
7.  Informed consent.
The informed consent form for students and parents/legal guardians was
created to comply with instructions.
If a student does not wish to participate in the study, the student and I will work
to arrange the classroom seating appropriately, so that he/she is not recorded.
The camera will be positioned so that the student’s image will not be captured.

109
Appendix

Consent and assent forms

Parental Permission for Participation in a Research Project

(For participants younger than 18 years of age)

Project Title: Learning and Instruction in Physics Education (Spring 2008)
Project Director/Investigator: Dr. Konstantinos Alexakos
You are being asked to participate in a research project conducted in this
class. The purpose of this research is to provide me with a means of evaluating
educational practices in this physics course in an effort to better understand
the teaching and learning of science. If you decide to participate, please sign
the last page of this form. You must be 18 years of age or have written parental
consent. Participation is completely voluntary.
For this study, our classes may be photographed, video and/or audio recorded.
Written material such as reports, copies of exams and other work may also be
collected. Primarily, such records will focus on your science learning and my
teaching. However, as a participant in the course, you may be also be included
as part of our student-teacher interactions, and may be asked to take part
in conversations outside of class in which we view and discuss portions of
these records, teaching practices, and your experiences as science students. In
addition, the conversation may be expanded, with your agreement, to include
members of your family, friends, and acquaintances as pertaining to these
experiences. All of these research discussions are voluntary in nature, and may
also be recorded. I will schedule times to meet with you in small groups or
individually, if there is interest in doing so.
Your own awareness and learning about school and science may be increased
because of your participation. The knowledge and skills gained from evaluating
the learning environment may improve your experiences as a student in this
course as I adapt my teaching practices to better support your learning. There
are no known risks associated with your participation in this research beyond
those of everyday life, and no costs or reimbursements.
The results of this study may be used as part of research on physics teaching
and learning, and may be presented at conferences, be published in journals,
and/or used for other such educational purposes. Short segments of written,
video, and/or audio recorded materials from this study may also be included.
Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision to participate or not will
not affect your standing in this course in any way. You can choose to terminate
your involvement with the study at any time without penalty and may do so by
informing the researcher. If it is determined by the investigator that the project

110
 Appendix

should be terminated, participants will be notified and the investigation will

cease. In addition, the researcher may withdraw participants from the research
at his professional discretion.
If you choose not to participate, you can choose seating arrangements in the
classroom that will not enable the camera to capture your image. No references
to you will be made in the reporting of this research. However, participants who
choose not to be taped in class may still choose to participate in the voluntary
discussions outside of class in which we review the videos.
All information collected in this study will be kept private and confidential.
No participant will be identified by name in the reporting of this study. The
recordings will be kept by the researcher in a locked storage cabinet or in
the case of digital files, in secure, password-protected storage. The written,
video, and/or audio taped materials will be accessed only by the principal
investigator and members of the research team. The researcher alone will have
access to the personal identifiable information.
If you have questions about the conduct of this study, please contact
Konstantinos Alexakos at Brooklyn College, CUNY, by phone 917-592-1008
or by e-mail AlexakosK@brooklyn.cuny.edu. If you have questions about your
rights as a volunteer, please contact David Balk, Chair, Brooklyn College IRB,
at (718) 951-5026. Upon signing below, you will receive a copy of the consent
form.
STUDENT: I have read and understood the information above. The researcher
has answered any questions I had to my satisfaction. By signing this form,
I assent to take part in the Learning and Instruction in Physics Education
study. I also assent to being video and/or audio recorded (initials): Yes _____
No_____. Furthermore, I also give permission to the use of short segments
of written, video and/or audio recorded material for educational purposes,
such as at meetings of researcher, research publications, and professional
development activities to let others know of what has been learned from this
research (initials): Yes _____ No_____. I give further permission for the
researcher to contact members of my family, friends, and acquaintances as
pertaining to questions raised in this research. I understand that this will be
done only with individuals I have agreed to (initials): Yes _____ No_____.
________________________ ____________________ ____________

Name of Student Participant Signature of Student Participant Date

PARENT: By signing this form, I give permission for my child to participate.
I also consent to allowing my child to be videotaped and/or audio recorded
(initials): Yes _____ No_____. Furthermore, I also give permission to
the use of short segments of written, video and/or audio recorded material

111
Appendix

for educational purposes, such as at meetings of researcher, research

publications, and professional development activities to let others know of
what has been learned from this research (initials): Yes _____ No_____. I give
further permission for the researcher to contact members of my child’s family,
friends, and acquaintances as pertaining to questions raised in this research. I
understand that this will be done only with individuals my child has agreed to
(initials): Yes _____ No_____.
__________________________ _________________ _______________
Name of Parent or Legal Guardian Signature of Parent or Legal Guardian Date

Konstantinos Alexakos _________________________ ________________

Name of Investigator Signature of Investigator  Date

[Author note: For participants considered to be of legal age rather than having the
two statements, the consent and the assent, only one consent statement is needed]
“Consent to Serve as a Participant”:
I have read and understood the information above. The researcher has
answered any questions I had to my satisfaction. By signing this form, I consent
to take part in the Learning and Instruction in Physics Education study. I also
consent to being video and/or audio recorded (initials): Yes _____ No_____.
Furthermore, I also give permission to the use of short segments of written,
video and/or audio recorded material for educational purposes, such as at
meetings of researcher, research publications, and professional development
activities to let others know of what has been learned from this research
(initials): Yes _____ No_____. I give further permission for the researcher
to contact members of my family, friends, and acquaintances as pertaining to
questions raised in this research. I understand that this will be done only with
individuals I have agreed to (initials): Yes _____ No_____.

[Author note: If you think you may in the future want to use the data from this study
for similar research you may want to include a statement like “Data collected in this
research may be used in similar future studies in education”]

112
 Appendix

Flow Chart DESIGN

Flow charts are useful in research as they allow the researcher to double check that
she/he has included all of the necessary components in writing up a study, especially
if the write-up is done in a non-traditional style. While flow charts are generally used
to show the sequential steps in a task or process and sociocultural research may be
a lot messier than that, especially if we are using hermeneutic phenomenology, they
can be a powerful tool in illustrating our thought process and in providing evidence
that our inquiry was purposeful and systematic.
Create a flow chart that includes the components below. In Microsoft PowerPoint
or Word, one can use SmartArt graphics to do this. Provide evidence for each.
1. Start with a brief, 60–100 word summary intro.
2. Is there a theoretical rationale (methodology), model, or logical framework that
guides the research? Is it clear?
3. What is the research question(s), objective(s), or stated goals?
a. State specific research question(s).
4. What is the quantity and quality of the literature survey? Is it complete and up-
to-date sufficiently comprehensive, accurate?
5. Research methods
a. Are the participants, corpus of material to be analyzed, and sources of data
made clear?
b. How were the participants chosen?
c. What is the research methodology?
d. How appropriate was the quality and quantity of data collected?
e. Are the data collected well synthesized?
6. Results
a. How adequate is the report of results?
b. What were the claims made? Did the claims correspond to what was
researched and how?
c. How well supported are the claims relative to the criteria presented in
above?
d. Do you return to your original questions? How well did you answer them?
7. Quality of the discussion
a. Is there adequate critical analysis of the methods and results and are the
interpretations within the framework of the methodology?
b. To what extend did you relate their work to that of others?
c. Are the interpretations and relationships claimed justifiable and written in
a scholarly way?
8. Summary of your review/reflections
a. What did you learn?
b. What would you do different next time?
c. How does your inquiry build on prior knowledge?
d. What suggestions would you make to other teacher | researchers?

113
Appendix

Basic Research Poster Design

Typical size: 36” x 48” trifold or poster

As a template, use a PowerPoint slide that fits the size of your poster
A good research poster includes generally includes the following sections (in APA
style formatting, no smaller than #16 font):
• Title
• School affiliation
• Author/Co-author’s names and contact information
• Abstract
• Introduction
○ A synopsis of the scope and importance of your topic
○ Research question(s)
• Context
○ Describe your school and demographics (grade(s), ethnicity, SES status and
any other details important to your study)
• Methods/methodologies
○ What framework(s) and methods did you use?
○ What data did you collect and analyze?
○ How did you analyze it?
• Assertions
○ What are the key claims you are making from your data?
• Discussion/Implications
○ What are the implications for your practice as an educator?
○ What did your study contribute to the field of education?
○ What did you learn?
• Selected references
○ Not more than 5 of your most important references; those that influenced your
thinking about your research.
• Graphics/visuals
○ Photographs
○ Scans/photographs of student work
○ Graphs/tables

Suggestions

• Think about what you would want your poster to say if you were not there to
explain
• Keep it simple
• Do not repeat information
• Use the poster space wisely; avoid cluttering

114
 References

Alexakos, K. (2015). Becoming a science educator | researcher: A personal narrative from a

sociocultural perspective. In C. Milne, K. Tobin, & D. DeGennaro (Eds.), Sociocultural studies and
implications for science education (Vol. 12, pp. 197–209). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4240-6_10
Alexakos, K., & Antoine, W. (2003). The gender gap in science education. The Science Teacher, 70(3),
30–33.
Alexakos, K., & Pierwola, A. (2012). Learning at the “boundaries”: Radical listening, creationism, and
learning from the “other”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(1), 39–49. doi:10.1007/s11422-
012-9470-7
Alexakos, K., & Tobin, K. (2015). Authentic inquiry heuristic (white paper). New York, NY: The City
University of New York.
Alexakos, K., Jones, J., & Rodriguez, V. (2011). Fictive kinship as it mediates learning, resiliency,
perseverance, and social learning of inner-city high school students of color in a college physics class.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(4), 847–870. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9317-7
Arendt, H. (1988). The human condition (M. Canovan, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 1, pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Austad, S. N. (2002). A mouse’s tale. Natural History, 111(3), 64.
Bakhtin, M. M., Voloshinov, V. N., Medvedev, P. N., & Morris, P. (1994). The Bakhtin reader: Selected
writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, and Voloshinov. London, England; New York, NY: E. Arnold.
Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.
Washington, DC: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research. Retrieved June 4, 2015, from http://archive.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/
guidance/belmont.htm
Beltman, S., Mansfield, C., & Price, A. (2011). Thriving not just surviving: A review of research on
teacher resilience. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 185–207. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.001
Bourdieu, P. (2003). Participant objectivation. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9(2),
281–294. doi:10.1111/1467-9655.00150
Bourdieu, P. (2014). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
doi:10.2307/1466837
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032
Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 40(2), 63–73.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that
divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X019002002
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational
Researcher, 28(7), 15–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X028007015
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology : A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. doi:10.2307/1466931

115
References

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Damasio, A. R. (2005). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Avon
Books.
Danielson, C. (2013). Danielson 2013 Rubric—Adapted to New York department of education framework
for teaching components. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/275A9799-3EFA-
447C-8BC9-1CF66FA483CA/0/Domain3OverviewFfT.pdf
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. doi:10.1037/10903-000
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: H. Liveright.
Eisenhart, M. (2008). Generalization from qualitative inquiry. In K. Ercikan & W.-M. Roth (Eds.),
Generalizing from educational research: Beyond Qualitative and quantitative polarization
(pp. 51–66). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Engels, F., Marx, K., & Plekhanov, G. V. (1976). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German
philosophy (1st ed.). Peking, China: Foreign Languages Press.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge,
England; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511812774
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock & American
Educational Research Association (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Gorman, J. (2014, November 11). Learning how little we know. The New York Times, p. D1(L). Retrieved
from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA389564511&v=2.1&u=nysl_me_gradctr&it=r
&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=7c60ed741226317018e6077ab3d9f5f2
Gould, S. J. (1994). In the mind of the beholder. Natural History, 103(2), 14–23.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is―Strong objectivity? In L. Alcoff &
E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2011a). Critical ontology. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Key
works in critical pedagogy (Vol. 32, pp. 201–217). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_17
Kincheloe, J. L. (2011b). Describing the bricolage. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Key
works in critical pedagogy (Vol. 32, pp. 177–189). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_15
Kincheloe, J. L. (2011c). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex
epistemology In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg & K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy:
Joe L. Kincheloe (pp. 227–243). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of positivism. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 4(3), 513–528. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9178-5
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. doi:9780226458106.001.0001
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lenin, V. I. (1976). On the question of dialectics in collected works (Vol. 38, pp. 357–361). Moscow,
Russia: Progress Publishers.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (La pensée sauvage). London, England: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

116
 References

Long, D. E. (2010). Scientists at play in a field of the lord. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(1),
213–235. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9249-7
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1968). Karl Marx and Frederick Engels; Selected works in one volume. New
York, NY: International Publishers.
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications. doi:9781412957397
Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a
community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 33–56. doi:10.1002/tea.20128
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. In G. Orwell (Ed.), The Orwell reader
(pp. 355–366). NewYork, NY: Harcourt and Brace.
Powietrzynska, M. (2015). Heuristics for mindfulness in education and beyond. In C. Milne, K. Tobin,
& D. DeGennaro (Eds.), Sociocultural studies and implications for science education (Vol. 12,
pp. 59–80). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4240-6_3
Powietrzynska, M., Tobin, K., & Alexakos, K. (2015). Facing the grand challenges through heuristics and
mindfulness. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(1), 65–81. doi:10.1007/s11422-014-9588-x
Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (2014). Toward a theory of experience. Science Education, 98(1), 106–126.
doi:10.1002/sce.21085
Roth, W.-M., Lawless, D., & Tobin, K. (2000). Towards a praxeology of teaching. Canadian Journal of
Education, 25(1), 1–15. doi:10.2307/1585864
Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of
Lawrence Stenhouse. London, England; Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Schutz, P. A., & Zembylas, M. (Eds.). (2009). Advances in teacher emotion research. New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of
Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. doi:10.1086/229967
Sewell, W. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell, L. A. Hunt, & R. Biernacki (Eds.),
Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (pp. xi, 350). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Sewell, W. H. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press. doi:9780226749198.001.0001
Sorge, R. E., Martin, L. J., Isbester, K. A., Sotocinal, S. G., Rosen, S., Tuttle, A. H., . . . Mogil, J. S. (2014).
Olfactory exposure to males, including men, causes stress and related analgesia in rodents. Nature
Methods, 11(6), 629–632. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2935
Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New York, NY:
WW Norton.
Stetsenko, A. (2007). Being-through-doing: Bakhtin and Vygotsky in dialogue. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 2, 746–758.
Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language
Journal, 89(3), 393–409. doi:10.2307/3588666
Tobin, K. (1999). Teachers as researchers and researchers as teachers. Research in Science Education,
29(1), 1–3. doi:10.1007/BF02461177
Tobin, K. (2006). Qualitative research in classrooms: Pushing the boundaries of theory and methodology.
In K. Tobin & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing educational research – A handbook (pp. 15–58). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Tobin, K. (2009a). Repetition, difference, and rising up with research in education. In K. Ercikan &
W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from educational research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative
polarization (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tobin, K. (2009b). Tuning into others’ voices: Radical listening, learning from difference, and escaping
oppression. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 505–511. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9218-1
Tobin, K. (2010). Tuning in to others’ voices: Beyond the hegemony of mono-logical narratives.
In W. -M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education (pp. 13–29). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:978-90-481-3996-5_2

117
References

Tobin, K. (2012a). Interpretive approaches to multi-level, multi-method, multitheoretic reserch. In

S. R. Steinberg & G. S. Cannella (Eds.), Critical qualitative research reader (pp. 116–128).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Tobin, K. (2012b). Sociocultural perspectives on science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, &
C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 3–17).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:978-1-4020-9041-7_1
Tobin, K. (2013). A sociocultural approach to science education. MAGIS: Revista Internacional de
Investigacion en Educacion, 6, 19–35.
Tobin, K. (2014). Using collaborative inquiry to better understand teaching and learning. In L. Bencze
& S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (Vol. 9, pp. 127–147). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4360-1_8
Tobin, K. (2015). Teacher research. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education
(pp. 1029–1032). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:978-94-007-2150-0_266
Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Multi-method, multi-theoretical, research in the learning sciences
multi-level. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 117–129.
Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in urban science
education. School Science & Mathematics, 105(6), 313–322. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18132.x
Turner, J. H. (2002). Face to face: Toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931). Research method. The history of the development of the higher mental functions.
Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/research-method.htm
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of
activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (Eds.). (1978). Mind in society:
The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. Oxford, England; Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 58(1), 36–46. doi:10.1177/0022487106296219
Zembylas, M. (2014). Making sense of the complex entanglement between emotion and pedagogy:
Contributions of the affective turn. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s11422-
014-9623-y

118
 INDEX
A Collins, Randall, 8, 14, 17, 37
action research, xvii, 26, 34–37, 39,
41, 107
assent, 64, 110–112
authentic inquiry heuristic, xvii, 31, 47,
48, 105
authenticity criteria, xvii, 5, 9, 29, 41,
42, 44–46, 50, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 69,
74, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106
authorship, 79
axiology, xii, 6–9, 20, 21, 31, 34, 45,
48, 50, 101
B cultural practices, 18, 20, 46, 48
Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 8, 16, 17
Barton, Angela Calabrese, 105
Belmont Report, 50–52, 54, 59, 61, 64, 66
beneficence, xii, xiii, 5, 45–47, 50, 52,
53, 61, 101, 104
Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 8, 16, 17
BC study, 2012, 57–59, 75, 99
Bourdieu, Pierre, 4, 19
breathing meditation, 55, 58, 79, 89,
100, 102
bricolage, 31, 32, 35, 36, 74
Bruner, Jerome, 14
C dichotomy, xvii, 5, 16, 24, 35, 45, 104
case study, 38, 39
catalytic authenticity, 45, 46
challenges, xi, xiii, xvii, 9, 24, 34, 37,
43, 49, 51, 79, 86, 93, 94, 100–102
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, 8, 25, 26, 32, 33
cogenerative dialogues, xv, 8, 35, 36,
40, 46, 58, 59, 62, 63, 69, 71, 72, 74,
76, 85, 95–97, 99, 102, 107, 108
Cole, Michael, 8, 14
collaborative research, 1
119
conceptual framework, 84, 88
conclusion, 45
conflicts, xv, xvii, 4, 9, 25, 26, 32, 46,
49, 51, 58, 101
consent, 9, 52, 53, 61, 62, 64, 65,
109–112
co-researchers, 1, 4, 6, 21, 23, 40, 48,
57–59, 62, 63, 80, 74, 92, 95–97, 99,
100, 102
critical action research, xvii, 34, 37, 41
critical research, 34
criticality, 24, 31, 34
D
Danielson rubric, 37
Darwin, Charles, 38
data collection, xvii, 38, 73, 74, 86, 99
data resources, 35, 36, 40, 70, 71, 73
design studies, 5, 8, 35, 37, 38, 41,
44, 69
Dewey, John, 5, 8, 26, 27, 82, 103
dialectic, xvii, 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14–16, 18,
20, 32, 41, 74, 75, 103, 105
dialogic discourse, 8, 16
diaries, 35, 39
dominant research, 12, 16, 18, 28, 33,
35, 50, 104
dual role of teacher, 9, 56, 70
E
edTPA, 37
educative authenticity, 46
emergent and contingent, 1, 4–6, 14, 15,
17, 18, 20, 27–29, 32, 35, 36, 43, 45,
48, 69, 70, 73–76, 81, 99, 100, 103
INDEX
emotional climate, 2, 22, 56, 71, 73, 79,
99, 101, 102
Engels, Friedrich, 11, 15
entrainment, 17, 18
epistemology, xii, 4, 6, 8, 19, 31, 33, 36,
38, 45, 48, 91
ethics, xii, 9, 11, 28, 35, 49–52, 61, 66
ethnography, 3, 8, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39,
41, 58, 71, 74, 96, 107, 108
event-oriented, 9, 20, 69, 74, 75, 96, 99
F interaction, 5, 16–18, 20, 25, 34, 52,
facial recognition, 55, 65, 71
fairness, 12, 48, 53, 56
family resemblance, 18, 76
fictive kinship, 96
findings, xii, 1, 5–7, 9, 12, 13, 19, 21,
23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36–38, 41,
44, 45, 48, 49, 69, 70, 75–77, 79,
81, 83–85, 89, 86, 101, 103, 107
flow chart, 88, 89, 113
formal research, 51, 52
free writing, 39, 91, 92
G 29, 34, 35, 46, 101
gender, 2, 18, 38, 47, 49, 50, 57, 73,
99, 104
generalizability, 76, 77
Gould, Stephen Jay, 3
Guba, Egon G., 4, 5, 9, 13, 20, 32, 46,
69, 70, 73, 77
H Kuhn, Thomas S., 19
habitus, 19–21, 73
heart rate, 55, 71, 79, 89, 99
hermeneutic, xvii, 3–5, 7–9, 20, 28, 32,
36, 41, 44, 69, 73, 79, 89, 96, 99, 113
hermeneutic phenomenology, xvii, 3–5,
8, 20, 32, 36, 44, 69, 79, 89, 99, 113
heteroglossia, 16
heuristic, xvii, 7, 9, 31, 41–44, 47, 48,
63, 71, 73, 79, 85, 88, 100, 102, 105
120
I
I | other dialectic, xix, xi, xii, xv, xvii,
1–4, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 19–21,
23–27, 29, 31–33, 35, 36, 40, 43,
46–58, 61–66, 70–79, 74, 81–85, 89,
91, 92, 86, 88, 93–97, 99–114
identity, 5, 15, 17, 20, 52, 56, 58, 65, 73
institutional review board (IRB), xii,
9, 55, 61–64, 66, 67, 70, 74, 80, 81,
107, 111
interaction ritual, 17
85, 90
interpretative, 34
intervention, 36, 40, 42, 52, 100
IRB application, 107
IRB protocols, 62, 64, 66, 70
J
journal, 13, 39, 78, 81–83, 85, 87
K
keyword, 84, 86, 88
Kincheloe, Joe L., xi, 4, 8, 12, 20, 28,
knowledge, xii, xiii, xv–xvii, 1–9,
11–16, 18, 20–22, 25–29, 32, 33,
35–39, 42–45, 47–49, 52, 53, 61, 63,
66, 69–73, 76, 77, 79, 74, 81–84, 87,
103, 104, 110, 113
knowledge production, 9, 11, 14, 28, 33
knowledge system, xii, 11, 33
L
language, 9, 14, 16–19, 51, 55, 62, 64,
65, 78, 84, 87, 95
Lenin, Vladimir I., 15
Lincoln, Yvonna S., 4, 5, 9, 13, 20, 32,
35, 46, 69, 70, 73, 77
literature, 9, 74, 77, 78, 81–89,
100, 113

literature review, 77, 78, 81, 84,
87, 88
Lytle, Susan L., 8, 25, 26, 32, 33
M 36, 40, 45, 106
mainstream, xi, xii, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15,
16, 42, 48, 70, 76
manuscript, xvii, 10, 83–85, 88, 92, 86,
87, 93
Marx, Karl, 11, 12, 14, 15
meaning, xv, 5, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 28,
29, 31, 34, 36, 65, 69, 72, 99
meditation/meditate, 17, 58, 79, 91,
102
method, xi, xii, xvii, 1, 3, 5–9, 13, 28,
29, 31–36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 54, 55, 66,
69–74, 77, 79, 81, 84, 88, 89, 91, 99,
100, 104, 107, 109, 113, 114
methodology, xi, xvii, 1, 3, 5, 7–9, 13,
14, 29, 31–36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 66, 73,
77, 83, 84, 86, 88, 91, 99, 103–105,
113, 114
monoglossia, 16
monological, 16
morals, 4, 6, 8, 33, 34, 44
multi-level methods, 70, 71
multilogic, xi, 16
multi-ontological, 21, 69
O 45, 48, 76, 84
objectivity, 3–5, 12–16, 18, 19,
24–26, 32–34, 36, 45, 69, 113
ontological authenticity, 46
ontology, xii, 8, 15, 19, 31, 33, 36,
45, 46
oximeters, 55, 70, 71, 99, 100
P
participant buy-in, 54
perezhevania, 5, 14, 17
phenomenology, xvii, 3–5, 8, 20, 32,
36, 44, 69, 73, 75, 79, 89, 99, 113
INDEX
physics class (2007), 93
physics class (2008), 56
physiological data, 55
polyphonia, xvi, 1, 4, 8, 16, 20, 21, 34,
polysemia, xiii, xvi, 1, 4, 8, 20, 21, 34,
36, 40, 45, 106
positivism, xi, xii, xvi, 5, 6, 12, 14, 20,
25, 27, 28, 31–33, 35, 36, 41, 42, 66,
69, 76, 77, 105
poster, 114
presentation, 9, 43, 55, 57, 58, 65, 71,
72, 81, 89–91, 99–103
procedure, 3, 27, 46, 51, 52, 54, 61, 65,
70, 73, 74, 79, 86, 108, 109
proposal, 77, 80, 81
protocols, 54, 55, 61–64, 66, 70, 74, 80
Q
quote, 12, 14, 15, 23, 32, 84, 85, 87, 91,
R
race, 2, 13, 33, 38, 47, 49, 50, 57, 58,
73, 99, 101, 104
reference, xiii, 9, 82–85, 87, 88, 91,
111, 114
reflexivity, xvii, 4, 5–7, 9, 19–21, 31,
32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41–44, 99, 103
research findings, 6, 12, 21, 25, 33, 44,
research for public dissemination, 61
research framework, 1, 31, 32, 36, 41,
44, 52
research question, xii, 9, 26, 32, 41, 44,
69, 73, 84, 86–88, 113, 114
ritual, 4, 8, 17–19, 48–50, 61
Roth, Wolff-Michael, 5, 16, 19, 36, 40
S
safe, 18, 20, 57, 101
scientific method, xi, 3, 28, 34
Sewell, William H., 8, 15, 18, 75, 85
121
INDEX
sexuality, 18, 38, 49, 50, 57, 99, 104
slides, 89–91
social interactions, 11, 14, 16, 17, 26,
27, 37
sociocultural, xvii, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16,
18–21, 26, 29, 31–34, 42, 57, 83, 89,
96, 99, 104, 105, 113
sociocultural framework, 8, 11, 12, 14,
16, 20
sociocultural research, 5, 8, 11, 14, 20,
21, 31, 33, 42, 89, 105, 113
Steele, Claude M., 95
Stenhouse, Lawrence, 8, 26
stereotype threat, 95
students as participants, 62
symbols, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20
T vulnerability, 9, 49, 56
tactical authenticity, 47
tensions, 9, 34, 46, 49–51, 53, 56–59,
62, 73
theoretical framework, 7, 8, 14, 19, 20,
33, 44, 45, 105
122
thesis, 7, 15, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87
Thesis on Feuerbach, 15
thin coherence, 18–20, 31, 85
Tobin, Kenneth, xix, xi, xvii, 4, 5, 9, 12,
17–21, 23, 35, 36, 40, 42, 44–46, 48,
58, 69, 70, 73–77, 79, 91, 99, 101,
102, 105
transformation, xii, 5, 8, 9, 18–21, 37,
40, 44, 58, 69, 75, 77, 103, 105
Turner, Jonathan H., 8, 17
V
values, 2, 4–6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21,
25, 26, 31, 33–36, 42, 44, 45, 48–50,
56, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 96, 101, 104
video recording, 9, 40, 51, 54–56, 71,
72, 63, 65, 94, 99, 108
Vygotsky, Lev S., 5, 8, 14, 15, 31, 32,
36, 82
Z
Zembylas, Michalinos, 17, 18, 50