Judging Research in Teacher Education

In the first issue of Volume 63, we focused our editorial on the need to improve research in teacher education by increasing the rigor and relevance of studies in the field. We referred to individual studies as in a structure that would serve as a knowledge base for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers (Knight, Lloyd, Arbaugh, Edmondson, Nolan, & Whitney, 2012). As researchers, we need to attend to both the quality of individual bricks and the positioning of those bricks within the framework. In other words, by situating our findings within the theoretical frameworks and prior research that undergird the knowledge base, we can advance the field. Research submitted to Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) is steadily improving. Although much of our own evidence as editors of JTE is anecdotal, coming from the hundreds of articles we encounter each year, evidence for improvement is emerging from other sources as well. Our acceptance rate has steadily increased while we have maintained the same high standards for publication. Although not the sole indicator of quality, the change in the impact of the journal may also signal a perceived increase in quality by readers of the journal. In a previous editorial (JTE 63:1), we cited our rank of 18 out of 177 education and education research journals and an impact factor of 1.891 as evidence of our standing in the field. Since that time, thanks to the efforts of previous editors and what we see as the improvement of research in teacher education leading to more citations, JTE has moved to number 10 of 203 journals and has increased the impact factor to 2.292 (Thompson Reuters, 2012). Nevertheless, we still have more to do. As editors, we spend a great deal of time articulating what makes some manuscripts publishable and others not. Manuscripts are often subjected to editorial team review prior to being sent out for peer scrutiny and always before their final acceptance. As we discuss the characteristics of various manuscripts, the complexity of defining research quality in a field with such diverse methods and topics becomes apparent. Others have explored the topic for education research in general (see, for example, National Research Council, 2002). However, as we continue this discussion, we find we are slowly acquiring a set of criteria which can be applied to diverse studies specifically in teacher education. Although these criteria are still emerging, we would like to expand the discussion to the JTE readership by sharing our thoughts on some of the criteria we have formulated to date. Criteria for Quality In judging manuscripts, we consider a number of questions related to criteria for quality. Some questions are dictated by criteria for appropriateness for JTE, but others revolve around more generic issues of quality. As editors of a journal with such a diverse readership, we find that to make the range of studies and topics accessible to proponents of different philosophies, research paradigms, and interests, authors need to be very explicit in their rationale and report of the research and how they have incorporated the criteria for quality in their studies. The following questions may help guide authors in this process. Appropriateness for JTE The first question we ask of any manuscript that comes across our desk is whether the study actually focuses on teacher education, and if so, would it be of interest to readers of the journal. Is the manuscript appropriate for JTE? Two types of manuscripts typically receive a negative response to this question. Studies that focus on teaching or teachers or students in elementary and secondary schools, without making an explicit connection to teacher education, constitute the first category. Merely mentioning the applicability of the findings for teacher education in the implications is not enough. The connection to teacher education should appear in the theoretical framework and the rationale for the study, as well as in the discussion and implications. …

Contents: L.A. Shepard, Preface. J.L. Green, G. Camilli, P.B. Elmore, Introduction to the Handbook: What's Complementary About Complementary Methods. A. Skukauskaite, E. Grace, On Reading and Using the Volume: Notes to Students. Part I: Foundations. E. Bredo, Philosophies of Educational Research. G.J. Kelly, Epistemology and Educational Research. K.A. Strike, The Ethics of Educational Research. Part II: Introduction to Design & Analysis. C. Bazerman, Analyzing the Multidimensionality of Texts in Education. T. Barone, Arts-Based Educational Research. R.K. Yin, Case Study Methods. K.M. Borman, C. Clarke, B. Cotner, R. Lee, Cross-Case Analysis. A.C. Porter, Curriculum Assessment. K.H. Kim, P.M. Bentler, Data Modeling: Structural Equation Modeling. F. Erickson, Definition and Analysis of Data From Videotape: Some Research Procedures and Their Rationales. A.H. Schoenfeld, Design Experiments. H-Z. Ho, S.L. O'Farrell, S. Hong, S. You, Developmental Research: Theory, Method, Design, and Statistical Analysis. D. Bloome, C. Clark, Discourse-In-Use. H. Braun, Empirical Bayes. J.P. Shaffer, Estimation. K.M. Anderson-Levitt, Ethnography. J. Nespor, Finding Patters With Field Notes. R.J. Shavelson, N.M. Webb, Generalizability Theory. J.L. Rury, Historical Research in Education. A. Henry, Historical Studies: Groups/Institutions. M.E. Brenner, Interviewing in Educational Research. L. Crocker, Introduction to Measurement Theory. S. Embretson, X. Yang, Item Response Theory. D.M. Harrison, S.W. Raudenbush, Linear Regression and Hierarchical Linear Models. G.V. Glass, Meta-Analysis: The Quantitative Synthesis of Research Findings. C.A. Chinn, The Microgenetic Method: Current Work and Extensions to Classroom Research. M.L. Smith, Multiple Methodology in Education Research. F.M. Connelly, D.J. Clandinin, Narrative Inquiry. N.C. Burbules, B.R. Warnick, Philosophical Inquiry. M. Cochran-Smith, K. Donnell, Practitioner Inquiry: Blurring the Boundaries of Research and Practice. J.R. Levin, Probability and Hypothesis Testing. W.R. Shadish, J.K. Luellen, Quasi-Experimental Design. T.D. Cook, V. Sinha, Randomized Experiments in Educational Research. M. Eisenhart, Representing Qualitative Data. B. Thompson, Research Synthesis: Effect Sizes. H. Wainer, P.F. Velleman, Statistical Graphics: A Guidepost for Scientific Discovery. M. Berends, Survey Methods in Educational Research. J. Chromy, Survey Sampling. Part III: Programs of Research. C. Genishi, T. Glupczynski, Language and Literacy Research: Multiple Methods and Perspectives. L.M. McNeil, E.M. Coppola, Official and Unofficial Stories: Getting at the Impact of Policy on Educational Practice. M.E. Goertz, Policy Analysis: Studying Policy Implementation. S. Kushner, C. Adelman, Program Evaluation: A Democratic Practice. L.A. Rex, S.C. Steadman, M.K. Graciano, Researching the Complexity of Classroom Interaction. J.A. Banks, Researching Race, Culture, and Difference: Epistemological Challenges and Possibilities. J.G. Greeno, Theoretical and Practical Advances Through Research on Learning. S. Noffke, K. Zeichner, Programs of Research in Teacher Education.

Educators, scholars, and policy makers agree that quality research is needed to improve teaching and teacher education (Boote & Beile, 2005; Grossman, 2008; Levine, 2007; Young, 2008). This is especially true in the current climate of increasing pressures to produce research that can guide policy making in an age of standards-based reform and teacher accountability. As pressures to enhance student achievement and teaching practice mount, so too does the demand for better and more rigorous empirical educational research that can inform policies and practice. Critical to this improvement is the preparation and training of educational researchers in doctoral programs. It is often presumed that teacher educators who have completed doctoral programs possess the knowledge and skills to conduct research that can contribute to the knowledge base of teaching and teacher education. It is also expected that the academic work produced by these teacher educators be useful in informing teaching practice, teacher education, and policies. However, much has been written about the lack of rigor and weaknesses in work produced by educational researchers in general and teacher educators in particular. Questions about the value of some contributions to the collective knowledge about teaching and teacher education have been raised (Grossman, 2004, 2008; Lagemann, 2000; Levine, 2007; Lin, Wang, Klecka, Odell, & Spalding, 2010; Mitchell & Haro, 1999; Wilson, 2006; Wilson & Tamir, 2008; Zeichner, 2005). Differences in traditions, purposes, design, and foci among different doctoral programs engendered, in part, by the lack of consensus about standards of good research and complicated by the multiple disciplinary traditions within the field of educational research (Levine, 2007; Metz, 2001) as well as the lack of distinction between PhD and EdD degrees (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006) have not helped matters. Although recently some discourse has occurred around improving the preparation of educational researchers in doctoral programs (Labaree, 2003; Levine, 2007; Neumann, Pallas, & Peterson, 2008; Pallas, 2001, Schoenfeld, 1999; Wilson, 2006; Young, 2001; Zeichner, 2005), research about teacher educators and their research preparation in doctoral programs is understudied and in its infancy. (1) Much is still unknown about the links between teacher education programs and subsequent teacher performance and student achievement. A similar gap exists between researcher preparation and the subsequent quality of educational researchers. There is much to be learned about how best to prepare teacher educators in the midst of enduring charges of low-quality research and increasing demands for research that can inform policy and practice. The principal aim of this editorial is to provoke thought and dialogue about how to prepare better teacher educator-researchers in research-focused doctoral programs and propose possible research areas that may be useful to strengthening or rethinking their preparation. Although we recognize that being prepared to be a good teacher educator-researcher in academe encompasses more than simply being prepared to conduct high-quality educational research, such as learning to be a strong teacher and mentor (Chauvot, 2009), we focus our discussion on the research preparation component in doctoral programs to stimulate deeper thought about better practices for preparing and training teacher educator-researchers. We frame our discussion around three questions: What should be learned about research? How should candidates learn to do research? How can learning about and doing research be sustained beyond doctoral programs? What Should Be Learned About Research? Learning about research encompasses many aspects. It is expected generally that in doctoral programs, aspiring educational researchers learn to understand the complexity of research issues from multiple disciplinary traditions of theory and method and situate their work so that it contributes to the collective understanding of the field (Boote & Beile, 2005; Metz, 2001; Golde, 2007; Shulman, 2003; Towne, Wise & Winters, 2005). …

Abstract. In this commentary, I seek to join the ongoing conversation about evidence-informed educational practice that has been threaded through this special issue. I do so by drawing on related insights from the fields of teachers' beliefs and epistemic cognition and considering the roles of teacher education and educational research in improving (preservice) teachers' use of educational research. In particular, I focus on the merits of explicit research-based practice in teacher educators' teaching and ways that they can encourage preservice teachers' interactions with educational research in class, and methods of changing the beliefs that may underlie (preservice) teachers' engagement with educational research evidence, and finally, the need for clearly communicated research, including details of implementation.

This paper examines the attitudes of student teachers in social studies towards an educational research assignment, undertaken in an educational research methods course given at the Fatih Faculty of Education at Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey. A questionnaire containing open-ended questions and an interview were used in the data-collection process of this research. 74 student teachers answered the questionnaire; 20 of these teachers were selected for interview through a random sampling method, and they then participated in a semi-structured interview. In the light of the data, it can be said that the majority of student teachers gained basic educational research skills as a result of the course, and specifically learned how to conduct a small-scale research project. By conducting a small-scale education research project and writing a report on it, student teachers learned important educational research skills, such as how to detect problems, construct hypotheses, review literature, select a suitable research methodology, choose data-collecting instruments, gather and analyse data, cite references and write up an educational research project.

1 Literature reviewOne of the important areas of study in second language teacher education (SLTE) research is the exploration of cognitions1 or mental lives (Borg, 2003) which has generated a great deal of interest since the 1970s. Throughout recent decades the cognitive dimension of teaching has been emphasized. The emphasis is mainly given to thinking and cognitions underlying their classroom instructional practices (Borg, 2006; Zheng, 2009). In fact, teacher education research has made significant contributions to the study of beliefs by examining the complex interactive relationship between teacher beliefs and classroom instructional practices so as to improve language teacher education (Borg, 2003; Gabillon, 2005; Phipps and Borg, 2007; Richards, 2008; Zheng, 2009; Wright, 2010; Busch, 2010; Phipps, 2010; Kuzborska, 2011; Borg, 2011; Inozu, 2011; Kelly, 2011). In this respect, an increasing amount of research has examined how beliefs are somehow reflected in classroom practices and how these cognitions influence and/or guide both pedagogical decisions and actions in classrooms (see, for example, Borg, 2003, 2006). Rather, teachers do in classrooms is in some way influenced by they actually think about L2 learning and teaching (Borg, 2009). Teachers' cognitions seem to have an influential effect on the way they teach, or rather, beliefs guide their classroom practices, as McDonough (1995: 9) suggested what we believe we are doing, we pay attention to, we think is important, how we choose to behave, how we prefer to solve problems, form the basis for our personal decisions as to how to proceed. However, beliefs are not always necessarily reflected in classroom practices (Phipps and Borg, 2007; Borg, 2009), that is, instructional practices may not sometimes be consistent with their own beliefs. In short, beliefs are viewed as a key aspect in SLTE and have recently become an important research area. Undoubtedly, this research has generated significant pedagogical implications for both pre-service and in-service teacher education. What is generally accepted so far in the research literature about the relationship between teacher cognitions and classroom instructional practices is summarized as follows (Borg, 2009: 3):- teachers' cognitions can be powerfully influenced by their own experiences as learners;- these cognitions influence and how teachers learn during teacher education;- they act as a filter through which teachers interpret new information and experience;- they may outweigh the effects of teacher education in influencing teachers do in the classroom;- they can be deep-rooted and resistant to change;- they can exert a persistent long-term influence on instructional practices;- they are, at the same time, not always reflected in teachers do in the classroom;- they interact bi-directionally with experience (i.e. beliefs influence practices but practices can also lead to changes in beliefs).Research on learning to teach which involves a complex developmental process has mainly focused on beliefs and perceptions (Johnson, 1994; Raths and McAninch, 2003), previous learning experiences within formal language classrooms (Velez-Rendon, 2006) and challenges of initial instructional practices during the practicum (Hudson et al, 2008), among other issues.Where do beliefs come from? The overall conclusion that can be drawn from the current SLTE research literature is that beliefs generally derive from their own learning experiences as language learners within formal classrooms (Pajares, 1992; Velez-Rendon, 2006; Ellis, 2006) - through apprenticeship of observation (Borg, 2004)-, early teaching experiences and teacher training courses (Popko, 2005) which significantly influence the way they view and approach teaching (Woods, 1996), even though other sources or factors that also contribute to the formation of cognitions are as follows: teaching experiences of works best in the classes (Mattheoudakis, 2007), principles derived from an approach or method (Richards and Lockhart, 1994) and knowledge sharing with colleagues (Sengupta and Xiao, 2002). …

This review critically evaluates the conceptualisation and operationalisation of action research within education, emphasising notable gaps and inconsistencies in existing literature regarding the definition, processes, research methodology including theoretical underpinning and research design, and the end goal of undertaking action research. A narrative literature review was performed, in which scholarly sources about action research in teacher education were thoroughly examined and analysed. The findings revealed that significant inconsistencies remain in defining and applying action research concepts, especially in teacher education contexts. To bridge this gap by addressing conceptualisation and operationalisation inconsistencies, I proposed a comprehensive definition of action research: action research is an iterative, reflective process in which practitioners investigate their actions and underlying practices to identify and understand the root causes of educational challenges. To address these inconsistencies and gaps in existing frameworks, I propose a synthesis of action research steps into two distinct categories for future applications.

Qualitative teacher education research is concerned with understanding the processes and outcomes of teacher preparation in ways that are useful for practitioners, policymakers, and the teaching profession. Complexity theory has its origin in the biological and physical sciences, where it applies to phenomena that are more than the sum of their parts—where the “higher order” form cannot be created by just putting together the pieces that it is made from. Complexity theory has moved to social science, and to education, because many social phenomena also seem to have this property. These phenomena are termed “complex systems.” Complexity theory is also a theory of learning and change, so it is concerned with how complex systems are learning and changing. This means that methods to investigate complex systems must be able to identify changes in the system, termed “emergence,” and must also account for change over time and the history of the complex system. Longitudinal designs that involve the collection of rich data from multiple sources can support understanding of how a complex system, such as teacher education, is learning and changing. Comparative analysis, narrative analysis, extended case studies, mapping of networks and interactions, and practitioner research studies have all been used to try to bring complexity theory to empirical work in teacher education. Adopting a complexity theory approach to research in teacher education is difficult because it calls into question many taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of research and what is possible to find. Linear, process-product thinking cannot be sustained in a complexity framework, and ideas like “cause,” “outcome,” “change,” and “intervention” all have to be re-thought. A growing body of work uses complexity thinking to inform research in teacher education.

School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature

This study aims to identify emerging trends in immersive learning research in teacher education in order to provide researchers with insights into research themes and issues for further exploration. Specifically, the researchers scrutinised the research methods, research outcomes, and technologies employed in immersive learning research in teacher education from 2017 to 2023. For this purpose, 192 studies were detected by searching Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar indexes, and Springer links. This systematic review ultimately included 34 peer-reviewed, open-access articles. The study identified emerging trends in the current literature and analysed them as sub-dimensions; furthermore, it explored the potential outcomes drawn from immersive learning technologies in the teacher education context. This systematic review builds on previous ones by adding knowledge about the use of state-of-the-art immersive learning technology in teacher education.

Against the backdrop of a pull toward external standards and accountability, this collection of chapters re-grounds us in the importance of bringing the 'self' to the foreground of the discourse of teaching, teacher education and practitioner research.

A Cultural Analysis of Trends and Directivity of U.S. Teacher Education and Educational Research : What Can We Learn from There?(International Symposium 2)

In their evocatively titled book Haunting the Knowledge Economy, Kenway et al. (2006) ask: How we can learn to live with the ghosts of our past, to think about them, even find ways to ‘converse’ with them and, in doing so, understand where we are and how the future is shaped? Kenway and her colleagues use Dickens to conjure a powerful image, but does that image provide an appropriate metaphor with which to begin a discussion of the contemporary position of the disciplines of education in 2010? In the UK, have they fallen into desuetude, so much so that they are now no more than ghosts? Has the policy context of the last 20 years, that has increasingly come to influence our teaching and the funding of our research with its pressure on the production of knowledge which stresses use value, has this external force squeezed out the power of disciplinary contributions to the study of education? Do the remnants of the past now only live on in the routines of method, not in the analytical strength of disciplines? Does the absence of reference back in much that is published, the absence of conceptual communities or disciplinary-based theorization, do these now mean that the (disciplinary) past is another country? That ‘other country’ we are referring to here is the period of the 1960s to the 1980s which came about as a result of the Robbins Report (1963). The Robbins Report, probably the UK’s last full expression of liberal higher education, saw university education in more than just instrumental terms; knowledge was an end in itself. The subsequent ‘search for degree worthiness’ in teacher-education courses meant that the ‘foundation’ disciplines of philosophy, sociology, psychology and history of education came to the fore,dominating both teacher education and educational research in the UK and much of the English-speaking world. This was the period, albeit relatively short-lived, when, as Bridges (2006) reminds us, the foundation disciplines appeared to offer a secure way forward for education. They offered:a differentiation between different kinds of enquiry [R.S. Peters had recently complained of the current condition of educational theory as ‘undifferentiated mush’]; coherence in terms of internal consistency of any one of these forms and the ‘systematic’ or rigor of enquiry which raised such enquiry above the level of popular or received opinion – the discipline of the discipline.

PurposeThis conceptual paper, framed as a letter to educators, explores what the theory of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) offers us as we reimagine our approaches to teaching and learning amidst a pandemic and during a time of physical distancing.Design/methodology/approachTo make my argument that CRP is a frame for teaching that is based in a particular set of beliefs and ideologies, I draw on my experience as a K-12 educator, teacher educator, and education researcher. In addition, I ground my argument in the extant research on the intimate interrelationship between teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, themselves, and their students and the actions they take in the classroom.FindingsIn my discussion, I invite teachers to examine their beliefs, with the end goal of aligning these beliefs with those shared across the extensive scholarship on CRP. I argue that once educators have examined their beliefs with regard to teaching, learning and their students and aligned them with those presented in the literature on CRP, they will be in a better position to engage in online teaching that works toward achieving the seemingly elusive goal of educational equity. Furthermore, I make the argument that if we do not engage in this belief work prior to our transition to online instruction, we risk falling into online assimilationist practices that we know do not work and that reinscribe inequitable schooling experiences for our most marginalized students.Originality/valueThis paper will be useful for teachers and teacher educators who are committed to engaging in teaching (virtual, in-person, hybrid) during a time of collective crisis that is committed to bringing about educational equity. I present a new way of thinking about CRP as a set of beliefs and guiding questions to help educators align their beliefs with those presented in the literature on CRP.

Context: Geographies of exclusion (e.g., segregated special education classrooms, school district zoning) are constituted through intersecting oppressive ideologies (e.g., ableism, racism, classism) that co-naturalize notions of “normalcy” and deviance and yield harmful consequences for disabled children of Color. Geographies of exclusion dynamically contribute to and constitute teacher candidates’ feelings about themselves and their social worlds. White teacher candidates’ investment in dominant racial ideologies is well-documented, and recent scholarship has interrogated the role of white emotionality in these processes. However, the extent to which white teacher candidates emotionally ascribe to oppressive constructions of ability have been underexamined. Focus of Study: We sought to uncover how white teacher candidates (TCs) used emotional practices to position themselves in relation to ability within geographies of exclusion as they narrated their educational journeys. Such an examination is necessary to upend ongoing constructions of racial-ability hierarchies in and through teacher education. Using disability critical race theory and emotional geographies, our study was guided by the following question: How do white, nondisabled TCs engage in emotional practices in relation to geographies of exclusion? Research Design: This critical narrative study took place in two teacher education programs in the Pacific Northwest with 42 white, nondisabled teacher candidates. We drew on qualitative mapping as a method for participants to tell stories about themselves and their relationships to places and people over time. All participants generated narratives through written reflections after creating their maps, clarifying aspects of their maps and providing details not captured in their visual representations. Data sources included 42 written narratives and 36 qualitative maps. We analyzed emotional dimensions of TCs’ written narratives and qualitative maps through multiple rounds of both deductive and inductive coding. Conclusions/Recommendations: Our analysis revealed ways white TCs weaponized emotionality to uphold racial-ability hierarchies through emotional geographies of gratitude, ambivalence, and claims to care. By sentimentalizing multiply-marginalized children’s suffering, TCs preserved a façade of being committed to educational justice. We conclude with suggestions for educational researchers, emphasizing that research with white teachers cannot ignore emotional practices that perpetuate harm for multiply-marginalized children. Instead, researchers must surface these engagements head-on, using DisCrit as a driver in teacher education research toward intersectional justice.