Hello Dianne and others

Thank you so much for this contribution and apologies that it has taken so
long for me to respond ( I have been in London all day at the Teacher
Learning Academy conference and found my internet connection down when I
got home.)

I can really relate to what you say about your further three questions
coming out after you had some answers to share. When I started out working
with the Research Lesson Study Group back in 2003 we were trying to follow
a process which involved us accessing the existing knowledge base and
forming our research questions before beginning our own research. We
quickly realised that practitioner research in schools (like any true
learning) is a much messier process than this tidy sequence suggests. It
wasn't until we started collecting data that we really began to appreciate
what knowledge we needed and so it was at that stage that we really
connected with relevant research (thanks to the invaluable advice of an
NCSL advisor) and began to use the classifications of pupil talk put
forward by Mercer (1995) to analyse the dialogue in our own classrooms. We
were then in a position (having developed our understanding) to refine our
research question further. 

I was also very interested in your comment about returning to practice and
not being available to support other practitioners in their research. I
don't know if others would agree with me but I feel that in this country
there is a growing feeling that there is a place for both academic
support/coaching and peer-coaching of practitioner researchers. As well as
being supported by their university mentor, the staff who are studying for
their Masters module in my school are also paired with a research 'buddy'
in the school - someone who has already taken part in practitioner
research whilst completing their own Masters degree. We also have a team
of TLA leaders who are trained to support staff completing their stage 1
and stage 2 TLA projects (these are small scale research projects -
details can be seen on the TLA site www.teacherlearningacademy.org.uk).

 I would love to hear of other examples of co-coaching of researchers in
schools and how sucessful such practices have proved to be.

Thanks again for you contribution Dianne!

Corina
   



BERA-MENTORING-COACHING <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>Hi Corina, Sarah and others,
> 
>This report of your study, and the opening questions for us, is
>also timelty for me.  
> 
>As I sat through some research proposal presentations and some conference
>Apaper presentation preparations, last week, and then cogitated about
>whate is being done, and its relevance to teaching practice, I came to
>thet conclusion that I was dissatisfied; that it seemed to me that what
>thee research was about, apparently, from the questions and reports of
>worek in progress, was mere paddling at the edge.
> 
>I remember also, some early discussions with my supervisors who asked me
>t o draft up some questions, and when I did, and presented them, they
>wentd through them and indicated which ones were 'researchable', and
>which  of the other questions drafted (the greater number of them) were
>peirhaps not researchable.
> 
>I didn't share, at the time, a rather long standing intuition that I had,
>Ipartly informed from a science education, that suggested that it is good
>Iquestions that lead to good research; and that if I knew what the
>questioon was, then I would also almost know the answer - ie research
>proctess from that question to the answer would be a rather boring and
>strcaightforward process.  I expect that I thought offering such a remark
>smight be misunderstood, or worse, queried, and in a way that I would not
>sbe able to effectively answer (the intuitive bit being so tenuous, and
>haerd for me to articulate).
> 
>Having come out the other end of a thesis, where the three acceptable
>resenarch questions I drafted were offered, but also complemented by
>anothaer three questions that I really didn't know until I had some
>answeres to share (about my own learning through the process of thesis,
>ies only articulated to be posed during the writing up process), I think
>Ie have to share that being able to pose research questions that are
>reseavrchable and practice relevant, is by no means an easy task.  (I
>mighat also say, that it was from the literature that I was able to
>articu late what you might call my overall guiding principle question for
>awhat my research was about: How do I improve my practice? [Jack
>Whiteheadr, 1989])
> 
>Further, that in the face of the difficulty, I suspect some novice
>researc,hers can be drawn away from practice-relevance, and into things
>thsat academics know how to help another to work at, to get an answer.
> 
>I read with interest Corina's paper, and the backgrounding coming through
>Ithis list, and recognise that what is being described, of UK practice
>witih teachers' PD and practice-based inquiry, is far from Australian
>condhitions and opportunities.  Here, anything that would get to the
>pointi that it could be assessed for Corina's kind of information, has
>beenn developed in a university base.
> 
>When I finished my thesis, which took a lot longer than I expected, the
>theing I wanted to do, as a practitioner, was get back to practice.  That
>tmeant, of course, that I was not likely to be available, had I had the
>coerrect qualifications, in and for the academy to supervise other
>teachert research, to help them stay on track for practice-relevant
>researrch.
> 
>BTW, my exemplar model for practice relevant research still remains
>Kennetyh Kressel's item from the Negotiation Journal 1997.  In that
>model,y it was the working practitioners, engaged in peer professional
>casee study case-conferences, who developed the practice-relevant
>knowledgue.  Kressel's queries about how to strengthen the quality,
>includding the validity and processes of that kind of research still have
>iresonances for me.
> 
> 
> 
>Dianne Allen
>Kiama
> 
>  
>
>Kressel, K. (1997). Practice-Relevant Research in Mediation: Toward a
>Reflsective Research Paradigm. Negotiation Journal, 13(2), 143-160.
>