ColleenMConway 2014 Chapter11Practitioner TheOxfordHandbookOfQu

Chapter
11
Practitione r I nqu i ry
janet robbins
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
11.1 Defining Qualities of
Practitioner Inquiry
As more teachers become researchers in their schools and classrooms,

they explore innovative forms and formats for documenting classroom
activities, interrogating conventional assumptions about the research
itself, and questioning relationships between researchers and the
researched.
(Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993, 40)
Teachers who are researching their own practice are part of a “wonderful new breed
of artists-in-residence” who are using their classrooms as settings for studying teach-
ing and learning (Hubbard and Power 2003, xiii). They are practicing a form of educa-
tional research known as practitioner inquiry that involves systematic and intentional
inquiry of their own practice and their students’ learning. Teacher research and action
research are two of the more widely known approaches of practitioner inquiry, but the
current landscape is now occupied by many versions and variants, such as participa-
tory action research, self-study, and the scholarship of teaching (Cochran-Smith and
Donnell 2006; Zeichner and Noffke 2002). This chapter will take an expanded view of
practitioner inquiry to include multiple traditions being conducted by P–12 teachers,
in-service teachers, teacher candidates, and teacher educators.
Given the many genres of practitioner inquiry, it is not surprising that the answer to
the question, “What is practitioner inquiry?” is complicated. The terminology alone can
lead to boundary blurring: “terms like action research and teacher research have been
Copyright 2014. Oxford University Press.
widely appropriated and have come to mean many things as they are attached to vari-
ous teacher learning initiatives and various educational purposes” (Cochran-Smith and
Lytle 1999a, 282). Despite the differences in the various genres of practitioner inquiry,
there are several defining qualities that connect and cut across the multiple traditions.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/25/2022 12:33 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AN: 779701 ; Colleen M. Conway.; The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education
Account: s8491974.main.ehost
Practitioner Inquiry 187
At the heart of all the intellectual traditions of practitioner inquiry is the assump-
tion that teachers’ intimate knowledge of teaching provides an important “insider” per-
spective on teaching and learning. Researching teachers are in a sense negotiating the
borders between research and practice in ways that raise questions about “what can be
known about teaching, who can know it, how it can be known, and how that knowledge
can be used” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 40). When teachers’ classrooms become
inquiry sites for intentional and systematic inquiry of their own teaching and students’
learning, they become knowers and producers of knowledge rather than consumers of
knowledge being worked out somewhere else by someone else.
The dialogic relationship of inquiry and practice is another defining quality of prac-
titioner inquiry. Teaching stimulates questions that prompt inquiry, working dialecti-
cally like “twins” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle). Research questions driving practitioner
inquiry come from teachers’ observations and real-world dilemmas and often start with
a feeling of tension or curiosity about students’ points of view (Hubbard and Power
2003). Odell (1987) suggests that a “sense of dissonance or conflict or uncertainty” is
often the impetus for research questions (128). Most important, the research questions
must come from teachers themselves and emanate from critical reflection on the inter-
sections of theory and practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993).
Ann Berthoff ’s idea of re-searching practice involves looking and looking again at
what happens in the classroom. “We do not need new information; we need to think
about the information we have. . . . to interpret what goes on . . . and interpret our inter-
pretations” (1987, 30). Classrooms and rehearsals serve as laboratories for inquiry when
teachers become students of teaching (Bullough and Gitlin 1995) who are open to new
approaches, curious about students’ learning, and intent on understanding “both the
impact and the limitation of what they are doing” (Perl and Wilson 1988, 252).
Some practitioner research may look “remarkably similar to traditional forms of
empirical or interpretative research,” while others may apply new and innovative data
collection techniques (Noffke 2009, 7). Multiple “tools” are often used in some com-
bination. Teacher and student journals, observational notes, anecdotal records, inter-
views, surveys, audio and video recordings, photographs, students’ work, and classroom
artifacts are all of part of the “artist’s toolbox” that Hubbard and Power discuss in their
chapter on strategies for data collection (2003). They borrow architectural images from
Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier when discussing research design, encouraging
consideration of similar principles of “form and function” that are “flexible and imagi-
native.” If research and teaching are indeed inextricably linked, then it is essential to
consider what kinds of ingenious designs allow data collection and analysis to fit as nat-
urally and organically as possible into teachers’ schedules and daily rhythms.
Although there are many methodological choices, the research design involves
deliberate rather than spontaneous action occurring within a cycle of problem-posing,
application, and recasting practice. Data collection and analysis may vary according to
theoretical frameworks but are closely tied to specific needs of students and core theo-
ries of teaching. “Teacher research doesn’t have to involve hundreds of students, estab-
lish control groups and perform complex statistical analyses; nor does it start with a
EBSCOhost - printed on 1/25/2022 12:33 PM via LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
188 janet robbins
hypothesis to test; instead teacher researchers begin with wonderings to pursue (Bissex
1987, 3). In the simplest sense, every lesson can be a form of inquiry, some further dis-
covery, a “quiet form of research” (Britton 1987, 15).
Practitioner inquiry is a collaborative enterprise aimed at social change. Knowledge
about teaching and learning is constructed collaboratively by school-based teach-
ers, administrators, university researchers, or parents and community activists
(Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006) working in the same school, across sites, in learn-
ing communities, and through networks of teachers. Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1993)
work with school-university partnerships is an exemplar based on reciprocity and
shared decision-making in which school- and university-based teachers move back and
forth equitably within each other’s worlds, listening and learning from each other.
Finally, practitioner inquiry can be a “path to empowerment” (Kinchloe 1991) when
participants are mindful of the personal, professional, and political dimensions and pur-
poses of practitioner inquiry (Noffke 2009). Such purposes reach beyond a “close-up”
view of teaching in ways that challenge the status quo and taken-for-granted assump-
tions about forms of knowledge (Zeichner and Noffe 2002). Practitioner inquiry is
aimed at “breaking the silence” and raising the voices of teachers and students at all lev-
els in ways that are emancipatory and transformative (McDonald 1986).
11.2 Connecting to the Roots of

Practitioner Inquiry
A paradigm shift in the 1980s supported a different view of teacher—as knower, thinker,
and re-searcher (Berthoff 1987) who did not necessarily need more findings about best
practice produced by university-based researchers, but instead found greater relevance
in dialogue with other teachers who would generate theories about teaching grounded
in practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999). A number of intellectual traditions
and educational projects sparked renewed interest in action research and the emer-
gence of the North American teacher research movement (Zeichner and Noffke 2002;
Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999).
Eleanor Duckworth’s (1987) notion of teaching as research opened the door for teach-
ers to document their students’ work through observation and inquiry, which posi-
tioned them as expert knowers on their own students and classrooms (Cochran-Smith
and Lytle 1992, 16). Shulman’s work with the Carnegie Foundation was another initiative
that supported teachers-as-knowers and as “authorities in their own right” (Leglar and
Collay 2002, 856). To engage in excellent teaching, Shulman argued, was indeed a schol-
arly act (Shulman 2011, 3). Schön was another who changed the conversation in teacher
education by extending Dewey’s notion of teachers as reflective practitioners (Leglar and
Collay 2002, 859–60). The increased inclusion of inquiry-centered approaches in uni-
versity methods courses as well as a growing acceptance of graduate-level research that
used teacher research and action research methodologies provided momentum for the
practitioner inquiry movement.
All of these efforts to professionalize the teaching force emphasized teachers’ critical
role in school change and educational reform. At the center of the reform are the var-
ied traditions of the practitioner inquiry movement. Despite the different histories and
purposes of these traditions, it is useful to note that action research, teacher research,
self-study, and communities of practice all remain “grounded in a respect for the intel-
lectual work of teaching, and all are concerned about the way professional and cultural
discourses can distort teachers’ thinking and practice” (Rosiek and Atkinson 2005, 422).
11.2.1 Action Research
Action research is an international movement with a long history and a host of prede-
cessors (Noffke 1994). Many attribute the term “action research” to Kurt Lewin, a social
psychologist who viewed action research as a way to “counteract racial prejudice, to
reform agricultural practices, and to promote more democratic forms of leadership in
the workplace (Zeichner and Noffke 301). Lewin was interested in improving the work
of “ordinary people,” and his work at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT
in the 1940s represented a “radical new direction for research in psychology” (Somekh
and Zeichner 2009, 8). Adelman’s (1993) discussion of the origin of action research is
useful in linking Lewinian traditions of “action science” grounded in social psychology
with concepts of educational action research (13).
Corey was one of the first to use action research in education. He and colleagues at
the Horace-Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation at Columbia University
worked cooperatively with teachers and administrators in school districts across the
United States in the late 1940s and 1950s (Zeichner and Noffke 2001, 301), advocating for
teachers to conduct research on their own practices as one way to address the gap that
existed between research and practice.
A resurgence of action research in the 1970s and 1980s can be seen in the
“teacher-as-research” movement spearheaded by Stenhouse and Elliott in the United
Kingdom. The transformative intentions and a commitment to curriculum innova-
tion and reform characterized the movement, and Stenhouse’s “democratizing research
as a way to emancipate practitioners and genuinely improve practice” became a
widely accepted premise of action research (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 16). Like
Stenhouse, Elliott (2006) recognized the democratic nature of action research, promot-
ing research in education shaped by practitioner’s practical theory and knowledge as
opposed to research on education influenced by “spectator” theory (7).
Participatory action research was another variant emerging in Australia as part of a
“broad ranging movement toward collaborative curriculum planning” (Noffke 1994).
The critical theory framework of participatory action research (Carr and Kemmis
1986) was reflective of Lewin’s emancipatory vision to improve students’ education and
resist oppressive conditions in schools (Somekh and Zeichner 2009, 8).
190 janet robbins
Despite variations in methodologies across the various iterations of action research,

several common characteristics exist. Most notable is its cyclical design. Lewin’s early
model of action research consisted of “moments of action” that proceeded in a spiral
of steps: planning, action, observation, and reflection or evaluation of the result of the
action (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988, 8). Elliott argued that action research was not a
“unique research paradigm in terms of data collection methods” (Zeichner and Noffke
2001, 302) but rather a process of phases or cycles. Teachers would first identify a peda-
gogical aim or ideal; following that, they would gather and interpret evidence to exam-
ine the ways their practice was or was not consistent with realizing that aim; finally they
would reflect on, develop, and test possible strategies and solutions (Elliott 2006). The
overlapping of action and reflection were necessary for a flexible and responsive design
aimed at studying change and the “intended and unintended consequences” of innova-
tions and interventions teachers plan and carry out (Cain 2008, 284).
11.2.2 Teacher Research
Tracing the roots of the teacher research movement, one finds a discourse domi-
nated by “dissatisfaction with business as usual” and tensions related to the way
university-generated research was assumed to encompass everything one needed to
know about teaching (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2010). Reclaiming the Classroom (1987)
by Goswami and Stillman and Seeing for Ourselves (1987) by Bissex and Bullock are two
early publications that raised awareness of the ways teachers were posing and research-
ing questions of practice and challenging the status quo.
Many factors led to the emergence of the North American Teacher Research
Movement in the 1980s (Zeichner and Noffke 2002, 303). Among those were the pio-
neering work of writing teacher Nancie Atwell (1989), who developed case studies on
the teaching of writing with the Breadloaf Project and Patricia Carini’s documentary
review process of children’s learning at the Prospect School and Center in Vermont
(Carini 1986).
Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s 1993 landmark book, Inside-Outside: Teacher Research
and Knowledge, provides a comprehensive view of the history and scope of teacher
research traditions. Of particular interest is their working typology of teacher research
that acknowledges varied genres and provides a broader view of the range of work tak-
ing place. Their analytical framework recognizes both classroom studies (empirical
research) and teachers’ essays on school life (conceptual research) that are more theo-
retical and philosophical in nature. Vivian Paley’s The Girl with the Brown Crayon (1997)
and Sylvia Ashton-Warner’s Teacher (1963) are examples of well-known, first-hand
accounts of teachers’ struggles and solutions written by teachers.
Teacher research is most often associated with classroom studies characterized by sys-
tematic and intentional inquiry. Intentionality “signals teachers’ deliberate and planned
(rather than spontaneous) inquiry” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 23–24) that embodies
a recursive process. Although not as cyclical in design as action research, Cochran-Smith
and Lytle suggest that teacher research emerged from Lewin’s action research principles
as well as Dewey’s vision of teachers as students of learning (9). Like its qualitative ances-
tor ethnography, data in teacher research come from multiple sources, including teacher
journals, student logs, videotaped lessons, simple surveys, and interviews.
Studies are often conducted by school-based teachers in collaboration with
university-based colleagues and are shaped by teachers in ways that give the work a
“distinctly grassroots character” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 16). The University of
Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia area schools have a long-standing tradition of col-
laboration. Many of the teachers present their research at the Teacher Research Day that
was established in 1986 as part of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annual Ethnography
and Education Forum.
11.2.3 Self-Study
Self-study is a form of practitioner inquiry conducted by teacher educators who, like
classroom teacher researchers, question their teaching and critically reflect on their
practice. The reflective practitioner movement prompted teacher educators to con-
sciously engage in the study of their practice and their students’ learning in order to
make sense of their teaching. Self-study is a “means and ends tool for promoting reflec-
tive teaching” that draws upon Dewey’s concept of reflection; it should be purposeful,
seek to solve a problem, and lead to a deeper understanding of students and practices,
resulting in a view of new possibilities (Dinkleman 2003, 7).
Two developments that influenced the emergence of self-study were the acceptance
of qualitative research methods in education and new notions about the relationship
between research and practice prompted by the action research movement (Bullough
and Pinnegar 2001, 13). Many self-study researchers “moved into the area of self-study
through [their] involvement in action research” (Samaras and Freese 2009, 5) and began
doing research rather than simply teaching students to engage in research.
Self-study emerged in the 1990s and gained momentum through a special interest
group that formed within the American Educational Research Association in 1993. “The
establishment of S-STEP [Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices] proved to be a sig-
nificant turning point in creating a community of self-study researchers (Samaras and
Freese 2009, 6). In 1996, the first Castle Conference in Castle, England, drew researchers
together from around the world; it continues to be a valuable forum for exploring phi-
losophy, methodologies, and self-study practices.
Self-study “operates from the post-modern assumption that it is never possi-
ble to divorce the self from either the research process or from educational practice”
(Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006, 506). Knowledge production begins with thought-
ful reflection on one’s own practice and questions that “arise from concerns about and
interest in the self-as-teacher education in context, over time” (Bullough and Pinnegar
2001,15). The focus is not on the self per se, but on the “space between self and the prac-
tice engaged in” (Bullough and Pinnegar 2001, 15).
192 janet robbins
Research tipping too far toward self and confessional reporting has little chance of
generating conversations about broader issues or affecting change. Samaras and Freese
(2009) posit that what distinguishes self-study from action research is a focus on who
the researcher is more than what the researcher does with a focus on “reframing and
reconceptualizing the role of the teacher” (5).
Self-study can incorporate a number of qualitative research approaches such as
biography, personal history, memory work, reflective portfolios, and narrative inquiry
(Samaras and Freese 2009). Narrative accounts resembling essays found in the North
American Teacher Research movement as well as the use of story and metaphor are
sometimes used to “bring the discipline of teaching to life” (Loughran and Russell 2007,
225). The multiple methodologies and emphases within self-study research make it
difficult to pin down a definition, although some argue that it is not possible or even
desirable, since self-study’s inclusive nature is an important characteristic (Samaras and
Freese 11; Bullough and Pinnegar 2001).
11.2.4 Communities of Practice
An outlier among the previously discussed traditions of practitioner inquiry is a
movement that involves teachers working in communities of practice. Rather than
being characterized by a distinct research methodology, communities of prac-
tice draw from multiple approaches and radiate from a collective core. Wenger,
McDermott, and Snyder (2002) define communities of practice as “groups of people
who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion for a topic, and who deepen
their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis”
(Gruenhagen 2009, 145).
Often tied to professional development, teacher inquiry groups are sometimes orga-
nized and led by P–12 teachers; in other instances they are initiated by administrators,
university professors, or external facilitators. Whether the conversations spring up
naturally within groups of teachers who share similar backgrounds and experiences or
are guided by an external facilitator all teachers must function as “fellow learners rather
than experts” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999a, 278). When professional development
promotes inquiry and collaborative study of teaching and learning, it has the potential
to foster “local teaching movements” that position teachers as leaders in their schools
and communities, as well as change agents in the profession.
Oral inquiry becomes a way for teachers to study their practice as they engage in
conversations about teaching strategies, students’ work, or curriculum materials.
Collaborative work goes beyond simply sharing stories when teachers shift from conge-
nial but superficial conversations to dialogue that entails risk-taking and trust (Nelson
et al. 2010). Teacher leaders can facilitate this shift by encouraging honest discussion
about the complexities of teaching. “Even the act of struggling together at the same
time in the same ways can help teachers master new practice” (Lieberman and Mace
2010, 78).
11.3 A View of Practitioner Inquiry in

Music Education
Looking back at the literature in music education one finds several “early soundings” that
signaled an interest in practitioner inquiry in music education. Pernecky’s article in a 1963
publication of the Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education may have been
one of the first in a music education journal to raise consciousness about action research.
His instructional piece describes how to conduct action research and outlines issues
drawn from the work of action research pioneers Steven Corey and Abraham Schumsky.
Another early voice was Paul Haack’s (1968). More than thirty years ago he warned of the
wide gulf between research and practice and argued that teaching and research have a
significant relationship; both involve problem-posing, formulation of a hypothesis, and a
search for solutions. His ideas about the reciprocal nature of research and practice reflect
a vision of practitioner inquiry that had yet to emerge in music education.
Fast-forward to the first Qualitative Research Methodologies Conference held at the
University of Illinois in 1994 for a glimpse of the conversations and presentations about
action research and teacher research that were taking place. A subsequent BCRME pub-
lication featuring roundtable papers (Hookey, Miller, Robbins, Wiggins 1994/1995) and
several keynote addresses by Liora Bresler and Fred Erickson provide further evidence
that the qualitative umbrella was opening up to include teacher research and action
research alongside phenomenology and ethnography (Bresler 1994/1995). The time had
come to create “new structures” that would bridge the gap between research and prac-
tice (Reimer 1992).
Today the view of practitioner inquiry in music education looks a bit like a crazy quilt
with multiple layers and levels of inquiry taking place. Although the methodological
boundaries between action research and teacher research are somewhat unclear, the
personal and professional dimensions of practitioner inquiry are evident and many iter-
ations of collaboration exist in practitioner inquiry in music education. Some studies
are reminiscent of Britton’s “quiet form of research,” with teaching and inquiry living
side by side; others are more complex and larger in scope.
11.3.1 Focusing Questions

By looking at the focusing questions of studies in music education one begins to gain
a sense of “where the action is” (Erikson 1994/1995) and the ways teachers’ inquiry is
situated at the intersection of theory and practice. When a teacher asks, “What will hap-
pen if I use journals in my middle school instrumental class?” she might also be asking,
“What will writing about music reveal about students’ musical knowledge and develop-
ment?” The following questions and topics are used to frame a view of selected studies in
music education.
194 janet robbins
Learning from students’ points of view. Several studies used writing to look at student
learning in the general music class, tapping into the legacy of so many writing teachers
who recognize that writing is a way for students to express ideas and feelings and gener-
ate meaning (Berthoff 1987). An investigation by Eichenlaub (1996) involved integrat-
ing dialogue journals at the end of music classes with her fourth-grade students over a
six-month period. Her analysis of students’ writing revealed what students were learn-
ing and struggling with and gave her an up-close view of how children articulate mul-
tiple ways of knowing in music. The journals were not only a tool for assessment but also
a window on students’ interests that allowed her to see them as individuals. After thirty
years of teaching, she found herself assuming a new role as learner in her classroom.
Itinerant teacher Heidi Dunkle designed a similar study of fourth-grade students’
writing (Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle 2006). The primary purpose was to investigate
what students were learning and what was important to them; Dunkle was curious about
what she would learn from one-on-one communication with students through journal
exchanges. Borrowing from Thompson’s “Letters to a Math Teacher” (1990), she invited
students to write letters about each music class over a six-week period. Her researcher
journal and videotaped lessons provided additional data. The recursive nature of the
inquiry was evident as she adjusted writing prompts in response to students’ questions
and moved conversations about music and music-making to the center of her teaching.
“I learned not only about how my students learn, but also about how I teach and how
I influence them in ways I had never imagined” (2006, 65).
Reflective writing was the focus of “teacher inquiry” with middle school instru-
mental students (Reynolds and Beitler 2007). Beitler’s interests in reflective practice
became the “cornerstone” of her professional development plan and partnership grant
that supported writing across the curriculum. Beitler initiated a two-phase project: the
first phase involved integrating reflective writing into her middle school instrumental
classes following weekly group lessons. The second phase was dedicated to data analysis
and reflecting on the research process through journal writing and conversations with
her university-based collaborator. Although it was time-consuming for Beitler to read
and reflect on so many students’ reflective responses, she found journaling to be a “fair
trade” for what she was learning about students’ needs. Students’ reflections “spurred
decisions to review or re-teach” portions of her lessons and reexamine her assump-
tions about students (62). Unexpected benefits of her study included the collaborative
exchange of ideas, which in turn led to reinterpreting and reframing practice.
What do students value about participation in music class? Because music is often an
elective course, recruiting and retaining students in classes and ensembles is part of the
music teacher’s job. It is not surprising that research questions grow out of a curiosity
about why students participate and what students might say “in their own words” about
their “lived” experience. A study that looked at participation in choir (Conway and Borst
2001) was sparked by the teacher’s (Borst) puzzlement about attrition when choristers
from his middle school did not return for choir in 10th grade. This tension led to an
investigation of the factors and influences motivating students’ decisions to enroll. Six
students and their parents elected to participate in a series of face-to-face and/or phone
interviews in this collaborative action research study. Seven categories related to stu-
dents’ perspectives on and reasons for participation in choir emerged, the most promi-
nent being “social aspects,” “personal gain,” and “entertainment.” Borst’s discussion of
future plans to implement more opportunities for students to socialize in music class
reflects a cyclical action research process of planning, action, and recasting practice.
Understanding the phenomenon of social belonging was the focus of Parker’s study
with her high school choirs (2010). She wanted to learn more about the factors that com-
prise students’ approach to ensemble music-making and membership and reflect on
her role in supporting students’ sense of belonging at school. Parker used a “purposive”
sampling method to select 26 students in her high school choral program for the study,
encouraging participation from students who had already manifested a strong sense
of belonging during informal conversations. Data included her researcher journal and
seven small-group interviews that took place during student lunch periods in the cho-
rus room. Her systematic and intentional design included triangulation and member
checking. Excerpts from interviews with students were used to illuminate five themes of
social belonging that emerged.
“What if ” questions of practice. Several studies emerged from “what if ” questions that
prompted teachers to study student engagement and response to specific instructional
strategies and curriculum innovation. Hookey’s research is an extension of Bresler’s
(1993) ethnographic study of non-specialists’ use of music in the elementary school. The
central question of Hookey’s research (1994/1995) was: “What would it mean to have
a music specialist work in a consultative manner with classroom teachers?” (39). She
describes her shift in role from music teacher to consultant who worked with two gen-
eralist teachers to plan and implement music in their classrooms. Together they met
for pre-observation planning sessions and follow-up conferencing to reflect upon and
analyze videotaped teaching episodes. What stand out in her report are the collabora-
tive process and the storied approach to curriculum planning that unfolded when she
(as music specialist) was “linked” to classroom teachers to bring music into the general
classroom.
Several studies by Miller (2003, 1996, 1994/1995) explored what a collaborative cur-
riculum might look like when music is integrated into whole language classrooms.
Miller was curious about the possibilities for “authentic intersections” between music
and core curriculum, student learning in music and across disciplines, student enthusi-
asm and engagement, and the influence of integrated pedagogies on classroom teachers’
perceptions of music. Her willingness to press herself beyond what she already knew
and engage in systematic inquiry about what she did not know is reflective of an inquiry
stance (Ashburn 1995, 84). All of Miller’s studies used qualitative methods of observa-
tions, journaling by collaborating teachers, and videotaping to collect data. Her use of
a “critical friend” (Costa and Kallick 1993) points to the important role of collaboration
when teachers plan, implement, and research curriculum together.
Another focus of several studies involved children’s compositional thinking and the
teacher’s role in facilitating composing in the classroom (Wiggins 1999/2000; Wiggins
1995; Wiggins 1994/1995; Wiggins 1994). Wiggins’s dissertation research (1993) was one
196 janet robbins
of the first, if not the first, teacher-research dissertations in the United States. Wiggins
studied the processes her fifth-grade students used when working together to solve com-
positional problems. Data were drawn from videotapes of class sessions, as well as audio
data from two targeted children who wore lapel microphones and small tape recorders.
Additional data included interviews with target children and their parents, researcher
field notes, and artifacts from lessons. Wiggins’ close-up view of her students’ compo-
sitional decision-making transformed her teaching and thinking about the important
role of shared musical understanding in empowering students’ independent musical
thinking.
Miller’s (2004) study grew out of her interest in discovering ways to incorporate com-
position into her weekly 30-minute music classes. Questions of implementation were
studied with multiple data that included her teacher-research journal of observations,
videotaping of the composing process and performances, “member checking” that
included student feedback on “critique papers” (self, group, and project) as well as vid-
eotaped verbal critique. The research informed her thinking about the possibilities for
constructing curriculum that incorporates improvisational and compositional tasks
that are developmental, spiral, and individualized in nature.
Strand (2003; 2005) was interested in studying how children transfer conceptual
learning in music to composing tasks. Her action research involved designing and
field-testing a curriculum with eight students, ages 9–12, during a four-week sum-
mer enrichment program. Data included written lesson plans, video recordings of
lessons, researcher field notes, audio recordings, and students’ composition artifacts.
Her discussion of the ways the reflective spiral design involved generating, model-
ing, and mediating ideas in her teaching illuminates the recursive nature of action
research. Strand (2009) also published a narrative analysis and critique of a wide
range of action research studies on teaching composition that were taking place
internationally.
On becoming reflective practitioners. The idea that “reflection is central to the concept
of teacher as inquirer” (Leglar and Collay 2002, 860) has prompted a variety of reflective
practices in music teacher education. Journals and autobiographical essays are being
implemented to jog students’ memories about beliefs about “good” teaching that were
formed during their “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975). Students work col-
laboratively to plan, teach, and reflect on practice in ways that promote the construction
of knowledge about teaching. With inquiry approaches moving to the center of methods
courses and teaching internships, one finds studies of the ways preservice music teach-
ers are beginning to act and think like researching teachers.
Preparing preservice teachers to conduct research was the focus of two studies.
Conway (2000) was one of the first to document the application of action research
in preservice music teacher preparation. Her recognition of the usefulness of action
research in general classrooms prompted her to introduce several action research
“lessons” in a three-credit methods course that was required for music education stu-
dents. Four examples of students’ mock action research studies are discussed. Strand
(2006) introduced students to action research methods in a two-semester sequence that
involved introduction to action research during a general methods course, followed by

implementation of projects with cooperating teachers in a subsequent semester. Most
of the novice teacher-researchers focused their inquiry on cooperating teachers’ strat-
egies; only one examined the efficacy of an instructional strategy she wanted to try.
Strand’s discussion of students’ “fledging attempts” provides insight into the rewards
and challenges.
Walls and Samuels (2011) used a collaborative action research design to study the use
a strategy involving students as collaborators in designing observation instruments
to assess teaching. Data included analysis of students’ course assignments, instructor
journals, and interviews with students. Through individual and collaborative reflection,
both researchers found that students took ownership of and greater interest in obser-
vation and recognized important connections between observation instruments and
improving practice. Students were empowered “to think as innovators and leaders” as
they shifted from “student-type thinking to teacher-type teaching” (33).
11.3.2 Self-Study in Music Teacher Education

Although the term “self-study” is rarely used in music education, it is worth noting that
some research in music teacher education is moving in the direction of self-study. In the
past two decades, scholarship undertaken by music teacher educators has been fueled by
the revitalization of the Society for Music Teacher Education and its biennial symposia
and accompanying strategic “action groups” (ASPAs). The Instrumental Music Teacher
Educators (IMTE) Colloquium and the Mountain Lake Colloquium are two other
forums that have prompted conversations and scholarship on music teaching and learn-
ing. Five volumes of The Mountain Lake Reader (1997–2010) feature music teacher edu-
cation scholarship in the form of essays that embody some of the qualities of self-study.
A general methods course was the setting for an examination of general music meth-
ods students’ “in-flight” decision-making (Robbins 1999). Robbins’s essay opens with
her deliberating over course content and requirements in search of ways to help students
become more competent in their weekly teaching practicum.
The recognition that I had, to a great degree, ignored the thousands of interactive
decisions that my preservice teachers were making and missing led to a minor yet
significant adjustment in my own plan (26).
A small change of plan to encourage “in-flight” decision-making led to new insights

about students’ fear of “letting go” of their plans and losing control of the lesson. Analysis
of students’ reflective writing led to a discovery of students’ tensions between planning
and teaching and Robbins’ own growing awareness of the ways prescriptive planning
models limit rather than liberate her students as artist-teachers.
Mills’ (2001) study of a music course for elementary education majors begins with an
autobiographical voice that often characterizes self-study. A past experience led her to
wonder how she might help her elementary education students begin to see themselves
198 janet robbins
as musicians. Students’ reflective writing led to the realization that “something was
missing in their backgrounds” (18).
. . . I focused my concern on the following question: How could I teach the basic
musical skills and concepts necessary for an elementary educator when students
rejected themselves as musicians? (19).
Her semester-long journey with elementary preservice teachers as she plotted a new
course brings to life the ways she adjusted course outcomes and source materials to
include world music repertoire (19), collaborating with students in ways that “forever
changed [her] perspective” (20).
Another project that moves in the direction of self-study is a collaborative investi-
gation by Cooper and Berger (2004). Theirs is a story of two graduate students study-
ing themselves as researchers and writers. They formed a learning community of two
in order to systematically and intentionally connect through a process they describe as
“negotiated thought.” Their collaboration included shared texts and time for “critical
conversations” that led to growth as researchers and writers. Their interest in “making
their own thinking public” (75) looked not only at their present practice but beyond to
the kind of graduate classes they aspire to in future teaching.
Barrett’s (2007) study of a graduate class makes explicit her “pedagogical moves” as
she redesigned a qualitative research methods course (QRME) to include more active
engagement with the research process.
After teaching QRME only once before, I resolved to tip the balance from my previ-
ous emphasis on learning about qualitative research to active engagement in qualita-
tive research (420).
Data for this “pedagogical action research” were drawn from in-class discussions, stu-
dents’ written assignments, final projects, and end-of-semester reflections. A dual focus
on her teaching and her students’ “resultant insights to analyze and interpret qualitative
data” (420) is instructional on multiple levels. The narrative account takes the reader
inside a sequence of assignments—what Barrett calls “five-movements”—to view grad-
uate students working collaboratively as Barrett witnesses the complexities of teaching
qualitative research.
11.3.3 Communities of Practice
Within music education, several studies are illustrative of practitioner inquiry taking
place in learning communities. A study by Montgomery, deFrece, and Robinson (2007)
involved an on-campus collaborative inquiry group made up of five mentor teachers “in
partnership with three elementary music education professor-researchers” (231). A pri-
mary purpose was to examine the student teaching practicum experience through the
eyes of the mentor teacher; university researchers also wanted to find an auxiliary model
for connecting to and honoring the work of mentor teachers. The collaborative inquiry
group became the context for examining the experiences of music mentor teachers as well
as the role of collaborative inquiry. Analysis of group conversations, interviews with men-
tor teachers, and e-mail exchanges revealed the benefits, goals, and tensions experienced
by the mentor teachers and also the potential for collaborative inquiry groups to level the
playing field for university and mentor teachers engaged in the student teaching process.
As the director of an early childhood program in a community music school, Gruenhagen
(2008; 2009) studied teachers’ “collaborative conversations” during monthly meetings that
took place over one academic year. The primary purpose was to understand the extent to
which teachers’ conversations might function as a form of “collaborative professional
development.” Gruenhagen’s research presents a “case” of eleven teachers who participated
in teacher-centered, collaborative professional development that led to “understanding,
articulating, and ultimately altering practice and social relationships” (2008, 281). What dis-
tinguishes this research as practitioner inquiry is its reliance on oral inquiry within a “com-
munity of practice” that involved all members (including the facilitator) as learners.
Stanley (2009) facilitated a collaborative teacher study group (CTSG) for the purpose
of creating a “different kind of professional development for teachers” (3). This social
constructivist inquiry looked at collaboration on two levels: in the teacher study group
and also in the elementary music classroom. Three teachers joined Stanley for weekly
meetings that involved looking in on and analyzing video of each other’s lessons in a
“non-hierarchical community.” Teachers took turns leading discussion using an analy-
sis protocol to support teachers’ conversations about challenges related to applying
student-initiated cooperative learning approaches. Stanley analyzed interviews, video
records, and artifacts from the CTSG meetings and her teacher log to “tease out” the ways
teachers were affected by the CTSG. Her research supports the democratic values associ-
ated with practitioner inquiry and supports teachers’ honest talk about teaching tensions.
Several studies of teacher inquiry groups involved supporting inservice teachers’
efforts to conduct research in their classrooms. The Orff SPIEL collaborative (Schulwerk
Project: Implementing Eastman’s Levels) was a group of teachers who volunteered to
participate in a three-year project designed to support the implementation of what they
were learning in the two-week summer Orff Schulwerk courses. Teachers met through-
out the school year and during the summer course to share ideas from their classrooms
and talk about challenges they faced as they explored new approaches with their stu-
dents. Teachers also read several texts related to conducting teacher research and sub-
sequently identified questions they wanted to pursue for systematic and intentional
inquiry in their own classrooms in year three. Eichenlaub’s research with her 4th grade
students (previously discussed) is one published example.
A study by Roulston et al. (2005) involved the development of a collaborative
teacher-research group made up of university educators and early-career elementary
music teachers. A question for the university-based researchers was “how, and in what
ways might a teacher-research community contribute to the professional development
of early-career elementary music teachers” (4). A unique aspect of this study involved
200 janet robbins
coaching early-career elementary music teachers in the use of action research over the
course of one year. Excerpts from interviews with teachers and transcriptions of the col-
laborative meetings bring early-career teachers’ voices into view as they reflect on the
benefits and challenges of conducting action research. The addition of university-based
researchers’ reflections on their interactions and roles as members of the teacher-research
group creates a polyvocal texture to the descriptions of learning taking place.
11.4 Contemporary Critiques
and Challenges
Although there are many shared values that unite the various genres of practitio-
ner inquiry, a number of issues and challenges continue to create a divide with tra-
ditional forms of research. Cochran-Smith and Donnell (2006) identify several
common critiques of practitioner inquiry. The knowledge critique argues that the kind of
personal-practical knowledge generated by researching teachers does not contribute to
the professional knowledge base on teaching and that the small, single-site samples that
characterize practitioner inquiry lack rigor and are not generalizable. The science cri-
tique relates to practitioners’ lack of requisite skills and background to conduct research
in any objective way in their own classrooms.
A counter to the science critique is that teachers bring a different way of knowing
to the knowledge base on teaching that “comes through closeness as well as distance,
through intuition as well as logic” (Bissex 1987, 3). Practitioner inquiry is not less than
but different from traditional research. Teacher inquiry can provide “insight into the
particulars of how and why something works and for whom it works within the context
of particular classrooms” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 15). Not intended to be gen-
eralizable, practitioner inquiry findings are often transferable in ways that can provide
an important lens on issues taking place at the ground level with a “potential to move
outside to influence schools, communities, and new policies of practice” (Schmidt and
Robbins 2011, 100).
Another critique claims that practitioner inquiry is more like professional develop-
ment than research and it challenges the idea of equating teachers’ beliefs and experi-
ences with knowledge. Of concern are forms of practitioner inquiry that are too personal
(Cochran-Smith and Donnell 2006, 514). One could argue that there is nothing wrong
with self-discovery, but practitioner inquiry can and should be much more than that.
What is missing from some of the reported studies is a close examination of the impact
of practitioner inquiry on personal belief structures and transformation of practices.
An examination of the distinct educational purposes of the many versions and variants
of practitioner inquiry in music education will be necessary in order to prevent it from
becoming “anything and everything” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 17).
Another critique relates to democratic validity—the extent to which the research is

done in collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investiga-
tion. Erikson (1994/1995) addresses the complexity of power relationships when “doing
collaborative action research” (11). In some instances, action research is directed and car-
ried out by a school-based teacher; in other cases, the university researcher is primarily in
charge of posing the questions and conducting the research. These two extremes repre-
sent very different relations among knowers and whose knowledge matters. Like Erikson,
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) point out that not all instances of “collaboration” serve
the same purposes or are “connected to the same larger social and political agendas” (59).
In addition to external critiques, internal obstacles such as school structures also create
challenges. Researching teachers need time to observe students, conduct interviews, and
gathering supporting artifacts. “Finding the requisite time for such work is of particular
relevance to music teachers who invariably work with large numbers of students, often in
back-to-back lessons, and commonly coordinate regular performances” (Roulston et al.
2005, 15). Finding time to collaborate is another problem. School schedules typically do not
provide time for teachers to meet, talk, and reflect. Too often, music teachers’ packed sched-
ules isolate them from colleagues and limit opportunities for professional interaction and
collaboration. Isolation perpetuates images of teaching as a solo enterprise and discourages
the kinds of conversations about teaching dilemmas that define teacher inquiry.
The work of researching teachers is also challenged when a school culture views
uncertainty and critical questions as a sign of weakness or worse, failing. “Going public
with questions, seeking help from colleagues, and opening up one’s classroom to oth-
ers go against the norms of appropriate teaching behavior” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle
1992, 303). Teachers’ intimate knowledge of the uncertainties about teaching are the
very thing that is missing from both our theories and our research (McDonald 1986).
Imagine the shift in conversation if teachers were to raise questions rather than grow
silent when they recognize uncertainty. “Knowledge about teaching might begin to rip-
ple out in ever widening circles, moving from inside to outside, and create a very differ-
ent dynamic between teaching and research” (Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle 2006, 68).
Finally, much of the work of P–12 practitioner researchers is only accessible through
district-wide networks, newsletters, or at regional conferences and presentations and
remains part of a “fugitive literature” (Zeichner and Noffke 2002, 304). To some extent
the science critique continues to be a silencing factor that has prevented practitioner
inquiry from being widely published or publicly presented in national and international
forums. Most of the reported practitioner inquiry in music education is presented or
published by university-based teachers, leaving many P–12 teachers’ voices on the fringe.
11.5 On the Move
How can practitioner inquiry move the profession forward and how can we move
forward in our thinking about research on, for, and of teaching? “The problem is not
202 janet robbins
research itself, but who owns it” (Reimer 2009, 261). Reimer discusses the imbal-
ance between research and practice, who conducts research, and whose questions are
posed. He also addresses issues of proximity created by researchers who are “close”
compared to those who are “removed” from the context of music teaching and learn-
ing. Although he warns against moving too far from current practice, he does suggest
that “we must move significantly toward redressing the present imbalance” (263).
11.5.1 Taking a New Stance
In order for practitioner inquiry to inform and transform practice in music education,
it needs to involve more than short-term projects. Inquiry as stance is a concept that
reflects the idea of “inquiry as perspectival and conceptual” and is distinct from the
“more common notion of inquiry as a time-bounded project or discrete activity within a
teacher education course or professional development workshop” (Cochran-Smith and
Lytle 1999a, 289). Because practitioner inquiry resides at the intersection of theory and
practice, teachers become “theorists” when they reconstruct practice as inquiry across
the professional life span. A move in this direction has greater potential to reposition
music teachers as learners and leaders in the profession.
11.5.2 Voices, Venues and Visibility

If knowledge about teaching is “fluid and socially constructed” (Cochran-Smith and
Lytle 1993), then we have a great deal to learn from teachers’ lived experiences. What
do teachers know? What challenges do they face? How do they puzzle over pedagogical
decisions? What can they tell us about why some children flounder and some flourish?
What might we learn from teachers’ knowledge, and how might we include their voices
in the conversations about music teaching and learning? “New ways to communicate
about research are still very much needed—ones that recognize and value multiple ways
of knowing and forms of theorizing and that assume all education work, whether in
P–12 classrooms or university research centers, is a form of practice with political impli-
cations” (Zeichner and Noffke 2002, 310).
New venues and networks in music education are needed to make public the work
of researching teachers. Regional and national conferences might include a teacher
research day similar to the one established by Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan
Lytle more than thirty years ago as part of the Ethnography and Education Forum at
the University of Pennsylvania. Published accounts of practitioner inquiry are another
way to increase the visibility of work taking place. The Practitioner Inquiry Series is one
model that includes “rich insider accounts of the complex, day-to-day work of educa-
tional practice as well as how practitioners theorize and understand their work from the
inside” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009, x).
11.5.3 New Roles and Partnerships

How might we recast the work of practitioner inquiry within a culture of collabora-
tion as opposed to one dominated by isolation and competition? When teachers learn
“in communities” they also recreate “inquiry communities” in their own classrooms.
Current initiatives in preservice music teacher education point to movement in this
direction already taking place, along with partnerships between mentor and pre-service
teachers. Such efforts need to continue in order to create and sustain greater ownership
and equity among all stakeholders.
Self-study is another dimension of practitioner inquiry worthy of further attention.
Teacher educators who study their own practice are in a sense “walking the walk” as
reflective practitioners, continually studying their teaching and students in an effort to
“create and recreate teacher education as a living educational theory” (Hamilton and
Pinnegar 2000, 239). When teacher educators model reflective practices for and with
their students they make visible the very uncertainties and complexities of teaching that
preservice teachers need to recognize in order to move beyond simple memorization
and “enacting” procedures.
Reimer (2009) calls for more research training at the undergraduate level, not only
involving students in thinking about research issues and techniques but also learn-
ing how to conduct research. What would this look like? In addition to final-semester
action research projects, preservice teachers could be introduced to inquiry approaches
in a number of ways throughout their programs. Possibilities might include working in
cohorts to study classrooms and document students’ learning, collaborating on design-
ing lessons and sharing analyses of repertoire, and joining host teachers for online
reflections about observations of music teaching and learning. Establishing early habits
of working collaboratively in inquiry communities would be one way to prepare teach-
ers for an inquiry stance across the professional life span.
11.5.4 Minding the Gap
Practitioner inquiry not only challenges traditional views about the relationship of
knowledge and practice and the roles of teachers in educational change, it also promises
to bridge the divides that have too long existed between teachers and researchers and
address the problem that knowledge about teaching resides “elsewhere” (Boomer 1987,
8). Cochran-Smith and Lytle call for a “renegotiation of the boundaries of research and
practice and reconfiguration of relationships inside and outside schools and universi-
ties, all in the interest of school and social change” (2009, vii). One way to move forward
is for university- and school-based teachers to continue working collaboratively toward
change. “The power to liberalize and reinvent notions of teaching, learning, and school-
ing is located in neither the university nor the school but in the collaborative work of the
two” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993, 284).
204 janet robbins
Practitioner inquiry has the potential to link teaching and curriculum to wider politi-
cal and social issues. “When this happens teacher research creates a dissonance, often
calling attention to the constraints of the hierarchical arrangements in schools and uni-
versities . . .” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 22). Such a dissonance can be energizing
and necessary for change. In music education we can listen for and look forward to more
dissonance created by researching teachers, and regard this as a signal of music educa-
tors who are “on the move” and more mindful of the gap between research and practice.
References
Ashburn, Elizabeth. 1995. “Teacher-Led Inquiry: A Compelling Direction for the Education of

Teachers.” Action in Teacher Education 17 (3): 79–86. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Adelman, Clem. 1993. “Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research.” Educational Action
Research 1 (1): 7–24.
Atwell, Nancie, ed. 1989. Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in the Intermediate Grades.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barrett, Janet. 2007. The Researcher as Instrument: Learning to Conduct Qualitative Research
through Analyzing and Interpreting a Choral Rehearsal. Music Education Research 9
(3): 417–33.
Berthoff, Ann. 1987. “The Teacher as Researcher.” In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research
as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman, 28–39. Upper
Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Bissex, Glenda. 1987. “What is a Teacher-Researcher?” In Seeing for Ourselves: Case-Study
Research by Teachers of Writing, edited by Glenda Bissex and Robert Bullock, 3–5.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bissex, Glenda and Robert Bullock, eds. 1987. Seeing for Ourselves: Case-Study Research by
Teachers of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Boomer, Garth. 1987. “Addressing the Problem of Elsewhereness: A Case for Action Research in
Schools.” In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change, edited by
Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Bresler, Liora. 1994/1995. “Teacher Knowledge: A Framework and Discussion.” Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education 123, 26–30.
Bresler, Liora. 1995. “Ethnography, Phenomenology and Action Research in Music Education.”
Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 4–16.
Britton, James. 1987. “A Quiet Form of Research.” In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research
as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman, 13–19. Upper
Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Bullough, Robert, and Andrew Gitlin. 1995. Becoming a Student of Teaching: Methodologies for
Exploring Self and School Context. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Bullough, Robert, and Stefinee Pinnegar. 2001. “Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical
Forms of Self-Study Research.” Educational Researcher 30 (3): 13–21.
Cain, Tim. 2008. “The Characteristics of Action Research in Music Education.” British Journal
of Music Education 25 (3): 283–313.
Carini, Patricia. 1986. Prospect’s Documentary Processes. Bennington, VT: Prospect Center and
School.
Carr, Wilfred, and Stephen Kemmis.1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action
Research. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Kelly Donnell. 2006. “Practitioner Inquiry: Blurring the
Boundaries of Research and Practice.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education
Research, edited by Judith Green, Gregory Camilli, and Patricia Elmore, 503–18. Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1993. Inside outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1999. “The Teacher Research Movement: A Decade
Later.” Educational Researcher 28 (7): 15–25.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1999a. “Relationships of Knowledge and
Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities.” Review of Research in Education 24: 249–305.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the
Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 2010. “Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for
the Next Generation.” Keynote Address for the 31st Ethnography and Education Forum.
University of Pennsylvania. Accessed via iTunes U Collections.
Conway, Colleen. 2000. “The Preparation of Teacher-Researchers in Pre-Service Teacher
Education.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 9 (2): 22–30.
Conway, Colleen, and James Borst. 2001. “Action Research in Music Education.”
Update: Application of Research in Music Education 19 (3): 3–8.
Costa, Arthur, and Bena Kallick. 1993. “Through the Lens of a Critical Friend.” Educational
Leadership 51 (2): 49–51.
Cooper, Shelly, and Audrey Berger. 2004. “Negotiated Thought: Joining Individual Voices in
Co-Authorship.” Mountain Lake Reader (3): 72–75.
Dinkelman, Todd. 2003. “Self-Study in Teacher Education: A Means and Ends Tool for
Promoting Reflective Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education. 54 (6): 6–18.
Eichenlaub, Rosemary. 1996. “Journaling in Music: A Different Kind of Assessment.” The Orff
Echo 28 (20): 36–41.
Elliott, John. 2006. “Educational Research as a Form of Democratic Rationality.” Journal of
Philosophy of Education 40 (2): 169–85.
Erikson, Frederick. 1994/1995. Where the Action Is: Collaborative Action Research in Education.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 10–25.
Goswami, Dixie, and Peter Stillman, eds. 1987. Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an
Agency for Change. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
Gruenhagen, Lisa Marie. "Investigating Professional Development: Early Childhood Music
Teacher Learning in a Community of Practice." Order No. 3295323, University of Rochester,
Eastman School of Music, 2008. http://search.proquest.com/docview/304314947?accoun
tid=2837.
Gruenhagen, Lisa. 2009. “Developing Professional Knowledge about Music Teaching and
Learning through Collaborative Conversations.” In Research Perspectives: Thought and
Practice in Music Education, edited by L. Thompson and M. Campbell, 125–51. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Haack, Paul. 1968. “Teachers Can Be Researchers Can Be Teachers.” Music Educators Journal
54 (7): 81–83.
206 janet robbins
Hamilton, Mary Lynn, and Stefinee Pinnegar. 2000. “On the Threshold of a New
Century: Trustworthiness, Integrity and Self-Study in Teacher Education.” Journal of
Teacher Education 5 (3): 234–40.
Hookey, Mary. 1994/1995. “Music Education as a Collaborative Project: Insights from Teacher
Research.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123: 39–46.
Hubbard, Ruth, and Brenda Power. 2003. The Art of Classroom Inquiry. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart, eds. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Victoria: Deakin
University Press.
Kincheloe, Joe. 1991. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment.
London: Falmer Press.
Leglar, Mary, and Michelle Collay. 2002. “Research by Teachers on Teacher Education.” In
The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and
C. Richardson, 855–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieberman, Ann, and Désirée Mace. 2010. “Making Practice Public: Teacher Learning in the
21st Century.” Journal of Teacher Education 61 (1): 77.
Lortie, Dan. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loughran, John, and Tom Russell. 2007. “Beginning to Understand Teaching as a Discipline.”
Studying Teacher Education 3 (2), 217–27.
McDonald, Joseph. 1986. “Raising the Teacher’s Voice and the Ironic Role of Theory.” Harvard
Educational Review 56 (4), 355–78.
Miller, Beth Ann. 1996. “Integrating Elementary General Music: A Collaborative Action
Research Study.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 130: 100–115.
Miller, Beth Ann. 2003. “Integrating Elementary General Music Instruction with a First
Grade Whole Language Classroom.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education
156: 43–62.
Miller, Beth Ann. 2004. “Designing Compositional Tasks for Elementary Music Classrooms.”
Research Studies in Music Education 22: 59–71.
Mills, Susan. 2001. “The World Music Ensemble: My Journey with Elementary Preservice
Educators.” The Mountain Lake Reader 2: 18–21.
Montgomery, Amanda, Robert deFrece, and Kathy Robinson. 2010. “Supporting
Elementary Music Mentor Teachers: Learning Through a Collaborative Inquiry Group.”
In Collaborative Action for Change: Selected Proceedings from the 2007 Symposium on
Music Teacher Education, edited by Margaret Schmidt, 231–50. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Nelson, Tamara, Angie Deuel, David Slavit, and Anne Kennedy. 2010. “Leading Deep
Conversations in Collaborative Inquiry Groups.” The Clearing House 83 (5): 175–79.
Noffke, Susan. 1994: “Action Research: Towards the Next Generation.” Educational Action
Research 2 (1): 9–21.
Noffke, Susan. 2009. “Revisiting the Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action
Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Educational Action Research, edited by Susan Noffke and
Bridget Somekh, 6–23. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Odell, Lee. 1987. Planning Classroom Research. In Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research
as an Agency for Change, edited by Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman, 128–60. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Paley, Vivian. 1997. The Girl with the Brown Crayon: How Children Use Stories to Shape Their
Lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Parker, Elizabeth. 2010. “Exploring Student Experiences of Belonging within an Urban

High School Choral Ensemble: An Action Research Study.” Music Education Research, 12
(4): 339–52.
Perl, Sondra, and Nancy Wilson. 1988. Through Teachers’ Eyes: Portraits of Writing Teachers at
Work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pernecky, Jack. 1963. “Action Research Methodology.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education 1: 33–37.
Reimer, Bennett. 1992. “An Agenda for Music Teacher Education: Part II.” Journal of Music
Teacher Education 1: 5–11.
Reimer, Bennett. 2009. Seeking the Significance of Music Education: Essays and Reflections.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Reynolds, Alison, and Nancy Beitler. 2007. “Reflective Practice in a Middle-School Instrumental
Setting.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 174: 55–69.
Robbins, Janet. 1994/1995. “Levels of Learning in Orff SPIEL.” Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education 123: 47–53.
Robbins, Janet. 1999. “Getting Set and Letting Go: Pre-service Teachers’ In-Flight Decision
Making.” The Mountain Lake Reader 1: 26–32.
Robbins, Janet, Mary Kathryn Burbank, and Heidi Dunkle. 2006. “Teacher Research: Tales
from the Field.” The Mountain Lake Reader 4: 60–68.
Rosiek, Jerry, and Becky Atkinson. 2005. “Bridging the Divides: The Need for a Pragmatic
Semiotics of Teaching Knowledge Research.” Educational Theory 55 (4): 421–42.
Roulston, Kathryn, Roy Legette, Monica DeLoach, Celeste Buckhalter-Pittman, Lynne Cory,
and Robin Grenier. 2005. “Education: Mentoring and Community through Research.”
Research Studies in Music Education 25: 1–22.
Samaras, Anastasia, and Anne Freese. 2009. “Looking Back and Looking Forward.” In Self-Study
Research Methodologies for Teacher Educators, edited by Cynthia Lassonde, Sally Galman,
and Claire Kosnik, 3–19. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Schmidt, Patrick, and Janet Robbins. 2011. “Looking Backwards to Reach Forward: A Strategic
Architecture for Professional Development in Music Education.” Arts Education Policy
Review, 112: 95–103.
Shulman, Lee. 2011. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Personal Account and
Reflection.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5 (1): 1–7.
http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v5n1.html.
Somekh, Bridgette, and Ken Zeichner. 2009: “Action Research for Educational
Reform: Remodeling Action Research Theories and Practices in Local Contexts.” Educational
Action Research 17 (1): 5–21.
Stanley, Ann Marie. "The Experiences of Elementary Music Teachers in a Collaborative Teacher
Study Group." Order No. 3354182, University of Michigan, 2009. http://search.proquest.
com/docview/304929031?accountid=2837.
Strand, Katherine. 2003. “Nurturing Young Composers: Exploring the Relationship Between
Instruction and Transfer in 9-to 12-year Old Students.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
(PQDT).
Strand, Katherine. 2005. “Nurturing Young Composers: Exploring the Relationship Between
Instruction and Transfer in 9-12 Year-Old Students.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education 165: 17–36.
Strand, Katherine. 2006. Learning to Inquire: Teacher Research in Undergraduate Teacher
Training. Journal of Music Teacher Education 15 (2), 29–42.
208 janet robbins
Strand, Katherine. 2009. A narrative analysis of action research on teaching composition.

Music Education Research 11(3), 349–363.
Thompson, Anne. 1989. “Letters to a Math Teacher.” In Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in the
Intermediate Grades, edited by Nancie Atwell, 87–93. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Walls, Kimberly, and Sue Samuels. 2011. “Collaborative Design in Processes for Authentic
Preservice Music Teacher Observations.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 20
(2): 24–39.
Warner, Sylvia Ashton. 1963. Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and Williams Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of
Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wiggins, Jacqueline. 1993. “The Nature of Children’s Musical Learning in the Context of a Music
Classroom.” Dissertation Abstracts International 53/11, 3838.
Wiggins, Jacqueline H. 1994. “Children’s Strategies for Solving Compositional Problems with
Peers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 42 (3): 232–52.
Wiggins, Jacqueline. Winter, 1994/1995, “Teacher-Research in a General Music
Classroom: Effects on the Teacher.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education
123: 31–35.
Wiggins, Jacqueline. 1995. “Building Structural Understanding: Sam’s Story.” Quarterly Journal
of Music Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 57–75.
Wiggins, Jacqueline. 1999/2000. “The Nature of Shared Musical Understanding and Its Role in
Empowering Independent Musical Thinking.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education 143: 65–90.
Zeichner, Ken, and Susan Noffke. 2001. “Practitioner Research.” In Handbook of Research
on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 298–330. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.

ColleenMConway 2014 Chapter11Practitioner TheOxfordHandbookOfQu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ColleenMConway 2014 Chapter11Practitioner TheOxfordHandbookOfQu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter

As more teachers become researchers in their schools and classrooms,

11.2 Connecting to the Roots of

Despite variations in methodologies across the various iterations of action research,

11.3 A View of Practitioner Inquiry in

11.3.1 Focusing Questions

involved introduction to action research during a general methods course, followed by

11.3.2 Self-Study in Music Teacher Education

A small change of plan to encourage “in-flight” decision-making led to new insights

Another critique relates to democratic validity—the extent to which the research is

11.5.2 Voices, Venues and Visibility

11.5.3 New Roles and Partnerships

Ashburn, Elizabeth. 1995. “Teacher-Led Inquiry: A Compelling Direction for the Education of

Parker, Elizabeth. 2010. “Exploring Student Experiences of Belonging within an Urban

Strand, Katherine. 2009. A narrative analysis of action research on teaching composition.

You might also like