Self-study, Teacher-Researcher, and Action Research: Three Sides of a Coin?

Abstract

We began a teacher-researcher action research project expecting it to be complicated and challenging, but inherently useful in its contribution to improving practice and student learning in a secondary school grade 8 science class. To enhance the quality of the research, features of action research recommended in a review of the literature were built into the research plan (Burns, 1994; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Glesne & Peshkin, 1991; Silberberg, 2002; Tobin, 1999; Wood, 1988). We adopted a traditional action research approach and thought it sat unambiguously within a self-study-of-teacher-researcher methodological framework, like a set of Russian dolls. How naive! We deluded ourselves that in teacher research the roles of teacher and researcher were complementary, indeed synergistic, for the research project. The reality was that we learnt at least as much about doing research per se, about ourselves, and about the roles we played in the research as we did about the research topic, writing in science. This chapter focuses on the research process and the match and mismatch among the methodologies employed. It is organized according to the chronology of selected, relevant phases of the research: choosing a research methodology, conducting the research, and reflection on the process. First, we briefly outline why we chose a teacher-researcher action research methodology – notably this was established a priori; second, we explain how we came to consider the research self-study – an emphasis and need that became progressively more explicit. The self-study continued ad hoc, long after the initial research finished with Robyn’s completed thesis, as we met periodically to discuss and reflect on our relationship in the research process. Then, key