Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Volume 47 Issue 12 Article 4

2022

Action Research as Evidence-based Practice: Enhancing Explicit

Teaching and Learning Through Critical Reflection and Collegial
Peer Observation
Renee Crawford
Monash University, Australia

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte

Part of the Educational Methods Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation
Crawford, R. (2022). Action Research as Evidence-based Practice: Enhancing Explicit Teaching and
Learning Through Critical Reflection and Collegial Peer Observation. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 47(12). https://doi.org/10.14221/1835-517X.6065

This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol47/iss12/4
Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Action Research as Evidence-based Practice: Enhancing Explicit

Teaching and Learning through Critical Reflection and Collegial
Peer Observation

Renée Crawford
Monash University

Abstract: In an era where teachers are increasingly being asked to

demonstrate evidence of their impact, action research is identified as
a practical and critically reflective research approach for enhancing
explicit teaching and learning. Using a historical perspective,
foundations for reflective practice and action research in educational
contexts are explored. A discussion of the processes and techniques
that may be employed, including how collegial peer observation is
embedded to strengthen application is provided. An action research
model, encapsulating the approach discussed, demonstrates its
practicality for teachers to engage in critically reflective practice and
provide an evidence-base for their work. As teacher-led research
becomes more accessible, it is suggested that this may have positive
implications for future teaching practice.

Keywords: Action research, critically reflective practice, evidence-based practice, explicit

teaching and learning, teacher’s professional learning, collegial peer observation

Introduction

Notions of quality teaching and learning are now underpinned by standardised

processes of measurement, comparison, reporting and accountability in many Western
countries (Lipman, 2010). Business driven models (Mahony & Hextall, 2000), have changed
the way a number of schools are run and the expectations of teachers. Policy makers,
government and education authorities, request demonstrable evidence and justification of
education outcomes, resulting in accountability measures including, professional standards
for teachers and learning benchmarks set through national high stakes student testing.
In Australia, this adoption of rigorous accountability measures in education has
impacted significantly on schools, teachers and students. In 2008, following the lead of
countries such as the U.S. and U.K. (Wiliam, 2010), the Education Council in Australia
introduced a national annual literacy and numeracy test for students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, the
National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2016). The National Assessment Program
also tests samples of years 6 and 10 students in science literacy, civics and citizenship and
communication technology (ICT) literacy on a rolling 3-year structure. Soon after the
implementation of the national assessment regime, the MySchool website was established,
which supports national transparency and accountability of Australia's schools, by publishing
nationally-consistent school-level data (ACARA, 2010). These performance indicators
changed the educational landscape for many schools as publicly available results had wider
implications, such as, the allocation of school funding and resources and overall perception of

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 53

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

schools due to rank and comparison. Despite protest from teachers and educational experts
about why such emphasis should be placed on these national standardised tests; pointing to
the fact that this is an unrealistic measure due to obvious limitations and bias as not all
students perform well under such conditions and that this is only one form of assessment; the
tests have remained. In addition, there has been the adoption of the Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers as the basis for a national approach to teacher registration and
promotion (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2011). These
standards include sets of expectations for 4 stages of a teacher’s career, graduate, proficient,
highly accomplished and lead teacher. Teachers are required to demonstrate appropriate
knowledge and understanding for their level of experience and provide evidence of having
met the relevant standards in order to be promoted.
Accountability measures have also impacted initial teacher education courses as the
Australian Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) provided
recommendations in 2014 on how courses could be improved to better prepare new teachers
with the practical skills needed for the classroom. Recommendation 27 of the policy states
that, “Pre-service teachers develop a Portfolio of Evidence to demonstrate their achievement
of the Graduate level of the Professional Standards” (TEMAG, 2014, p. xvi). This is further
supported by recommendation 28 of the policy, which requires higher education providers to
work with schools, “to assist pre-service teachers to develop and collect sophisticated
evidence of their teaching ability and their impact on student learning for their Portfolio of
Evidence” (TEMAG, 2014, p. xvi). As a result of these recommendations, 2 consortia of
Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers were granted funds by the Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership to design Teacher Performance Assessments (TPA)
(AITSL, 2017). Since 2018, the performance-based assessments have been implemented by
Australian universities within their ITE courses and in combination with the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers to provide a multi-tiered approach to accountability for
graduate teachers entering into the profession. This consistent and clear messaging about
accountability measures and the requirement of evidence-based practice used to demonstrate
achievement of teacher professional standards and the impact of student learning outcomes is
now an embedded expectation across educational contexts.
The notions of accountability and what might constitute as an evidence-base for
teacher practice are complex, multifaceted and highly contested (Crawford & Tan, 2019;
Gorur & Koyama 2013; Jerrim & de Vries 2017; van Ingen, McHatton & Vomvoridi-
Ivanovic 2016). This article does not attempt to problematise and philosophise the challenges
and considerations associated with what may or may not constitute appropriate evidence of
teacher practice or student learning. Rather, based on the current climate, this discussion
acknowledges the requirement for teachers both in Australia and abroad to establish an
evidence-base for their practice across diverse educational contexts. However, it has been
identified that teachers have largely been left to their own devices, with little guidance about
ways to develop evidence of their practice effectively and efficiently. As a result of my recent
work with schools in Australia, and as an experienced teacher-led researcher myself, I have
come to recognise this as a major challenge for teachers and schools. Government policy
documents are littered with expectations and requirements, but provide little practical advice
concerning the how, what and why. It is in this context that action research is proposed to be
a practical and critically reflective research approach for understanding, developing and
enhancing explicit teaching and learning. It is suggested that such a research approach can be
a powerful way to build an evidence-base for teachers professional learning and assessing the
impact of pedagogy on students’ learning. A historical overview of both reflective practice
and action research will be presented in turn to provide a foundation for the approach. This
will be accompanied by an explication of the action research design principles, processes and
techniques considered in this context, including how collegial peer observation is embedded

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 54

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

to strengthen application. The discussion will culminate in the presentation of an action

research model that is proposed that teachers can use to assist in engaging with critically
reflective practice and provide an evidence-base for their work.

Reflection and Critically Reflective Practice

‘Reflection’ or ‘critical reflection’ and ‘reflective practice’ are often used

interchangeably. While these terms all involve ongoing scrutiny of practice based on
identifying the assumptions that may be underlying the practice, they can be considered
somewhat distinct in their theoretical principles and application. It is useful to consider the
origins and premise of ‘reflection’ and ‘critically reflective practice’ in order to understand
how critically reflective practice might be used as a driver for action research and collegial
observation.
Reflection is considered as a process or activity that is fundamental to the
development of practices (Dewey, 1933, 1938; Loughran, 1996). Socrates’ exemplified the
notion of reflection as ‘the examined life’, a way of approaching and understanding one’s life
through ethical and compassionate engagement with the world and its moral dilemmas
(Nussbaum, 1997). Retaining connotations associated with cognition, thinking processes and
contemplative self-examination, ‘reflection’ is regarded as a metaphor for representing a
process of learning from experience and predominantly associated with acts of cognition that
are linked to asking questions about learning that focus on ‘how’ rather than learning ‘about’
or ‘what’ (see Arlin, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyers, 1995; Dewey,1933; Goodman,
1984; Loughran, 1996). Dewey (1933) defined reflective thinking as a number of phases that
considered not only a sequence of ideas, but a consequence that would result in an outcome
and in turn, an evolving sequence of new ideas would emerge. This has had a profound
impact on the way teachers can approach their professional learning. Drawing on both the
work of Dewey (1933) and Goodman (1984), Loughran (1996) considers reflection as an
approach to thinking that is both deliberate and purposeful that stem primarily from ways of
responding to problem situations, particularly in teaching and learning. In educational
contexts this idea has been extended and popularised by the notion of the ‘reflective
practitioner’.
Schön extended on Dewey’s (1933) principles of reflection through observing how
practitioners think in action and distinctly developed the professional artistry of the
‘reflective practitioner’. This was embedded within Schön’s (1983) ‘epistemology of
practice’ model, which consisted of two forms of reflective thinking: reflection-in-action and
reflection-on-action. The first acknowledges the tacit process of thinking that accompanies
the act of ‘doing’, which constantly evolve so that learning takes place as a result of
interaction and modification of ongoing practice. While it is recognised that much of this
thinking remains unconscious and tacit (Greenwood, 1993), reflection-in-action can include
addressing unanticipated problem situations that require reframing the problem or
improvisation so that the experience can be viewed through a different lens or perspective
(Gibbs, 1988; Loughran, 1996). Contrastingly, reflection-on-action is described as
deliberately and systematically thinking back over one’s actions (Munby & Russell, 1990)
and in the educational context, it is viewed as teachers’ thoughtful consideration and
retrospective analysis of their performance to construct knowledge from experience. Schön’s
epistemology of practice model was timely and well received within teacher education and
research, particularly for its reaction against an instrumental notion of teaching, the teacher as
technician implementing the knowledge of others in practice (Schön, 1983; 1987). The
thinking processes of the reflective practitioner remain an essential element of developing
teachers’ professional learning, shared knowledge and the understanding of practice that

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 55

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

should be fostered at all levels of the teaching profession.

The literature on reflection presents a strong problem finding and solving thread as a
means of learning from experience either in the moment or retrospectively. In this context,
cognitive psychologists place particular emphasis on ‘critical thinking’, defining reflective
practice as developing a critical stance or viewpoint towards one’s own practice or that of
their peers (Johnston & Badley, 1996; Klein, 2008; Moon, 1999). Critical theorists have
extended Schön’s two reflective thinking processes with the addition of ‘reflection about
action’ providing teachers with a lens to reflect on the social, economic and political purposes
and conditions of teaching and learning, as well as the classroom, school and other
educational contexts (Beauchamp, 2014; Zeichner, 1993; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
However, its primary purpose is the explication and articulation of teachers’ meaning
construction while engaging with teaching and learning across diverse contexts.
There appears to be two primary ways to engage with ‘critical reflection’. The first
proposes to impact change on ingrained or fundamental assumptions through the process of
examination or unearthing of new knowledge and perspectives (Mezirow, 1991). The second
involves reviewing practice with the intent of detecting hegemonic assumptions that result in
better awareness of “submerged and unacknowledged power dynamics that infuse all practice
settings” (Brookfield, 1998, p. 197). Both these approaches to critical reflection concern the
ability to be transformative, leading to a fundamental change in practice (Cranton, 1996;
Williams, 2001). Shulman and Shulman (2004) propose that critical reflection is a core
element of learning and that reflection is in turn the key to teacher learning and development.
The term ‘reflection’ is applied widely and is recognised as a fundamental element of
engaging with ‘reflective practice’, to understand and improve professional practice. The
distinction between ‘reflection’ and ‘critical reflection’ is also described by many researchers
(Fook, 1999; Fook & Askeland 2006; Moon, 1999), however, critical reflection appears
predominantly in the education field (Beauchamp, 2014; Brookfield, 1995, 1998; Cranton,
1996; Loughran, 2002; Mezirow, 1991). Part of the complexity in defining exactly what
reflective practice and critical reflection may be is due to its application across diverse
discipline areas and the resulting conceptual development of these ideas from vastly different
fields from both research and practice traditions. However, the terms ‘reflection’ and
‘critically reflective practice’ are not mutually exclusive, but as explained, can be based on
similar assumptions and processes of thinking. These ideas continue to form the basis of
much of the contemporary thinking about the nature of reflection, critical reflection and the
development of effective reflective practitioners in the teaching profession. Critically
reflective practice in this context involves making decisions that are deliberate and explicitly
articulating the dynamic interplay between thinking and action. Shulman (1987) terms this
‘the wisdom of teaching’, so that teachers may become thoughtful and learn from their work.

The Role of Critically Reflective Practice in Teachers’ Professional Development and its
Relationship with Action Research

‘Reflection’ and ‘critically reflective practice’ are considered central to the

professional development of teachers as teaching and learning involve complex processes
that occur in diverse multidimensional environments and contexts. There is a general
assumption that there is not necessarily one right approach to teaching and learning
(Crawford, 2019a; Loughran, 1996; Tripp, 2011). Evaluating teaching through deliberation,
articulation and reconstructing past understandings, experiences and practices can lead to
improvement (Glasswell & Ryan, 2017; Loughran, 1996; Newman, 2018) and avoid
perpetuating ineffective practice (Argyris & Schön, 1976). Critically reflective practice
provides a means from which to challenge personal assumptions and values about teaching

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 56

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

and the theories that are used to drive the approaches employed. In this respect, its
relationship to ‘action research’ becomes even more pronounced as being a critically
reflective practitioner is considered essential to the professional development and growth of
teachers who are regarded as inquirers engaging in both self-study and collaborative research
within or outside of their educational contexts, schools and classrooms.
Driven by the Aristotelian concept of praxis, Grundy’s (1995) participatory action
research sought to understand how external societal influences may underpin individual
practices. Central to this work is the concept of ‘criticality’, the turning points that provide
insight as to where the boundaries of knowledge and understanding begin and end, and the
degree of their permeability on developing practice. Critical praxis for educators is intended
to “move beyond the constraints of formal teaching, knowledge and curriculum and instead
encourages communities, teachers and students to work together in producing new
understandings and practices” (Arnold, et al., 2012, p. 281). Grundy (1987) advocated the
need for deliberate and deep reflection that required of practitioners that they make their
understandings of their work explicit, which required an examination of how those
understandings emerged and were shaped by the conditions and contexts of their work.
Accountability and standardisation continue to dictate the culture of positivism, which in turn
exerts a profound impact on the nature of educational research. If teachers are to be
researchers, provide evidence-based practice and create knowledge about teaching, then they
need to develop critical perspectives and understanding of the ontology of positivism
(Kincheloe, 2012; Kress, 2011; Smyth, 1989). “Only then will teachers understand
positivistic research and be empowered to act in opposition to the policy implications which
come from it” (Kincheloe, 2012, p. 79). This paradigm shift in the role of the teacher being
one that implements existing theory in practice to generating knowledge of practice is
consistent with contemporary expectations of the profession. It not only ensures that teaching
and learning is progressive, innovative and responsive to the needs and requirements of
society, but also that teachers can provide evidence for what they do, how and why. Factors
that influence the extent to which this may occur can be attributed to teacher experience and
career stage, the effects of organisational and cultural contexts that may impact on
opportunities for professional growth, and because teachers may have varying ways to
evaluate practice through reflection, if at all (Crawford, 2019b). Crawford’s (2019b) study
that explored teachers’ implementation of high impact teaching strategies exemplified the
importance of establishing a consistent and rigorous approach for engaging with critically
reflective practice. The principles and techniques that are embedded within action research,
provide both the systematic rigour and flexibility necessary to develop an evidence-base for
practice in a range of diverse and complex education contexts and settings such as that in the
study mentioned.
Lewin first coined the term ‘action research’ in his 1946 paper, Action Research and
Minority Problems where he described it as: “comparative research on the conditions and
effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” (p. 35). He
suggested a spiral of steps, where each cycle included planning, action and fact-finding to
investigate the result of an action. While Lewin’s social change efforts made him the pioneer
of action research, in education, some trace the conceptual roots back to the progressive
views of Dewey in the 1920s (Mertler, 2009; Pelton, 2010). It was not until Stenhouse’s
(1975) notion of the ‘teacher-as-researcher’ that ‘action research’ and ‘critical reflection’
became interrelated. The primary aim of action research in educational contexts is to change
and improve that which is being investigated (Ali, 2020; Atkin, 1993; Carr & Kemmis, 1986;
Elliott, 1991; Hendricks, 2009). The reflective inquiry processes embedded within action
research are framed and interpreted by the epistemology of the action research model being
used that are intended to result in teachers becoming more effective and empowered
practitioners. While action research has a long tradition in education, the contemporary

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 57

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

discourse around evidence-based practice has instigated a resurgence about the value of such
an approach for developing critically reflective practitioners (McTaggart, et al., 2017).
Providing educators with a way to understand, interpret and analyse the complex and
multifaceted issues presented in a localised or context-specific environment that uses a
systematic and rigorous research frame, may allow for the findings to be applied to a wider
context or other educational settings. This provides opportunities for such research to be
replicated and potentially make a greater contribution to the development of the profession.
Compared to other research methodologies, action research is based on the premise that local
conditions vary widely and that the solutions to such complex educational problems cannot
be found in generalised facts that take no account of local conditions, hence the issue with
standardised measures. There is a misconception that action research is associated primarily
with qualitative methods, which may be a result of the commonly-held view that “action-
oriented work cannot be scientific (precisely because it involves action) and the additional
assumption (erroneous in our view) that quantitative research must be more scientific than
qualitative research” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, pp. 6-7). Action research can use
qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. In fact, studies indicate that mixed methods in
education research has increased in the recent past, including within action research, due to
its flexibility, rigour and as it provides a range of data to demonstrate evidence for practice
(Ali, 2020; Crawford, 2019b; Crawford & Tan, 2019). Being a reflective practitioner is an
essential part of teaching and the development of teachers professional learning. Action
research can be used to demonstrate evidence-based practice through exploring the
techniques, strategies, behaviours and attitudes of professional actions and decisions of
teachers (Crawford, 2019b; Pelton, 2010). The next two sections detail the mechanics of how
action research has been used in the studies referred to and how its application has been
strengthened in practice to embed an important collegial peer observation component, which
is distinct from previous action research models.

The Mechanics of Action Research in Context

Action research provides a means to not only develop evidence-based practice, but
also to formally or informally determine the impact of pedagogy on student learning, develop
curriculum and program initiatives and respond to education policy and school reform.
Challenging and questioning one’s own practice is an expectation of the professional work of
a teacher and an embedded part of the wider systemic culture of the school or education
context. Many effective teachers will engage in a form of reflection as tool for self-
assessment and evaluation. However, reflection in action research is a deliberate process and
a key component of the methodology. It is characterised by a cyclical approach that is
planned, systematic, iterative and critical, alternating between action and reflection,
continuously refining methods and interpretations based on understandings developed in
earlier cycles (Mertler, 2009; Crawford, 2019b). While the focus of action research may be
about one’s own practice, it has the potential to significantly improve education outcomes
holistically by incorporating change in a collaborative capacity with the common goal of
improving practice. Educators have direct access to the research findings in order to
implement immediate change as a result of engaging in systematic critical reflection. The
research is situated in a localised context and focused on an identified local issue,
acknowledging the importance of unique educational contexts, which may not always be
resolved by findings that are generalisable. Finally, the research is conducted by and for the
educator as well as the learners and the findings result in an action or change implemented by
the educator that is justifiable, credible and authentic (Crawford, 2019b; Kennedy-Clark, et
al., 2018; Mills, 2003).

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 58

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

While the basis of the recommendations in this paper are derived from Crawford’s
work across Australian schools, one particular study is drawn on (2019b). This study was
particularly significant because the aim of the project was to develop teachers understanding
and implementation of high impact teaching strategies (HITS). This was a new government
initiative, part of the Framework for Improved Student Outcomes (FISO). The focus was to
work with schools to increase teachers’ professional efficacy in the explicit teaching and
learning of these HITS, but also to develop teachers’ research capacity to investigate the
impact of their practice on their students’ learning. Teachers had been left to their own
devices trying to decipher how to transition from the government’s previous Curiosity and
Powerful Learning model to FISO and then somehow demonstrate evidence of their practice.
The schools involved were considered high performing, regardless of demographics and had
teachers and leadership teams committed to developing pedagogy and sharing professional
knowledge. These schools became ‘model schools’ for demonstrating practice to other
schools in the districts and regions partaking in professional development opportunities
through the wider school network.
Hendricks (2009) describes four primary action research approaches, which can be
summarised as follows:
● Collaborative action research: Share expertise and foster dialogue among multiple
stakeholders, which may include school and university personnel or teachers and
school administrators.
● Critical action research: Evaluate social issues where the results are then used to drive
social change. This normally involves a wide collaboration including university
researchers, school administrators, teachers and community members.
● Classroom action research: Improve classroom/tutorial practice or in the wider
school/university context to change theory and practice. This involves teacher/s in
their classroom/tutorial, examining issues and problems to find innovative solutions.
● Participatory action research: Explore practices within social structures, to challenge
power differences and unproductive ways of working that lead to transformational
changes of theory and practice. This involves the collaboration of stakeholders in a
social process.
Classroom action research and participatory action research were identified in the
abovementioned study as highly valuable approaches to build an evidence-base for teacher
practice and as a tool for critical reflection. The benefits of using such approaches in
education have been identified by Crawford (2019a) as means to provide opportunities for
teachers and pre-service teachers to:
● Develop knowledge directly related to practice and focusing on improving practice,
such as, establishing links between the impact of pedagogy on student learning
outcomes.
● Engage with systematic critical reflection and informed decision making.
● Foster openness to new ideas and encourage creativity, critical thinking and
innovation.
● Encourage collaboration and the development of teaching teams or professional
learning communities/partnerships.
● Encourage rethinking about how teachers and students’ work is assessed and
evaluated.
● Challenge rhetoric and policy about what should and should not be considered
appropriate data for improving teacher practice and respond to educational issues in
unique and localised contexts.
● Provide rich sources of qualitative and quantitative data that can be used for policy,
curriculum and pedagogical development.
● Justify with authority the purpose for decisions made and methods used.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 59

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

● Raise the status of the teaching profession through increasing understanding and
mutual respect among educators, policymakers, students and the community about the
rigorous processes involved in teachers work.
There is a compelling argument to be made for the value of using classroom and or
participatory action research as a tool for critical reflection and to build an evidence-base in
teacher practice.
Action research is a non-linear and systematic process, involving stages that are
strategically repeated as a response to research findings. Four different action research
designs have been summarised in the following table to distinguish the number of processes
or stages in one cycle and what this might entail:

Table 1: Four action research designs

While action research designs may differ (see Table 1), the processes encompassed in
a cycle appear to have common elements, for example, they all indicate formulating and
implementing a plan on a specified issue or problem. It is these common elements coupled
with the ideas of Hendricks’ (2009) approaches that were used to provide the foundation for
Crawford’s 2016 action research model, considered an effective tool to engage with critically
reflective practice. The question of what is different to previous action research designs is
detailed in the following section, including an extension of the 2016 model that incorporates
a key peer observation element found to be critical when demonstrating and developing
explicit teaching and learning.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 60

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Action Research Model with Embedded Collegial Peer Observation

After working extensively in diverse educational contexts and with a range of

educators at all stages of their career, the author understood the importance of developing
effective techniques and processes for critical reflection and the direct impact that the
application of these skills and knowledge can have on practice and wider education
outcomes. As a teacher-led researcher and researcher practitioner, the author has always
valued evidence-based practice and strongly held the view that this can raise the status of the
profession and awareness of the critical work of educators. However, it has been difficult to
continually see government driven industry mandates and expectations applied with little
regard to the resources and guidance teachers may require or the impact that this will have on
teachers work and initial teacher education courses. These professional experiences, issues
and factors as well as the common mechanical elements found in previous action research
designs (Table 1) have all contributed to the development of the model illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Crawford’s 2016 ‘Action research design principles’ (cited in Crawford, 2019b).

The action research design principles in Figure 1 are represented by a spiral with two
cycles encompassing 8 phases or stages. There are 4 phases in each cycle with the process
starting from Phase 1 Reflect. For this to be considered action research, a teacher should have
at least two cycles intended in their design (Pelton, 2010; Stringer, 2008;) and why the second
cycle is represented by the continuation of the numbering sequence at Phase 5 rather than a
return to Phase 1. The reflections and actions implemented as a result of the findings in the
first cycle will inform the next and if more than two cycles are required, then the knowledge
and understandings developed in previous cycles will determine the focus of further
reflection and action. In Phase 1 a problem or issue is identified that ignites the development

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 61

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

of a plan, which is then implemented and acted upon. This includes the identification of what
data might be useful to collect, which can be in the form of qualitative, quantitative or mixed
methods. Some examples may include, but are not limited to, field notes (e.g. descriptions of
people, places, activities), lesson plans, classroom layouts, student work samples, journals,
observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, student results and learning outcomes data,
etc. The data collected are synthesised, analysed and interpreted. In the study mentioned, the
overall issue concerned ways to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of HITS on
student learning. Data collection involved lesson plans, student work samples, student
surveys, teacher journals and classroom observations. Teachers analysed the data using
content and thematic analysis techniques, which were demonstrated to them. The strategies
and techniques used for analysis are dependent on the research methods used and in turn will
mirror the practices associated with those. Findings are shared and disseminated, which then
leads to the beginning of the next cycle, which will be reflective of a new understanding of
the nature of the problem or issue, including the generation of new knowledge and theory
about practice. Figure 1 highlights the systematic and iterative nature of each cycle, which
builds on previous knowledge, insights and understandings. Figure 2 provides a detailed set
of steps and processes that should be considered in the first cycle, which encompass the first
4 phases before a return to the identified issue or problem in Phase 5.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 62

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Identify issue/problem

Develop research
question

Relevance of issue/
problem for teaching

Define key concepts/

ideas/theories

Review relevant
literature

Develop hypothesis

Determine the outcomes to

assess/measure (multiple)

Determine design & research

methods (qualitative/
quantitative/mixed)

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Interpretation

Implementation & action

to change practice

Figure 2. Detailed set of steps in the first action research cycle.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate layered elements of the action research model proposed in
Figure 3, which has been tested in a range of school and educational contexts across a
number of years. The overall outcomes and level of engagement with the critically reflective
processes required may differ as a result of teaching experience, education context,
willingness to conduct research and school culture. However, it has been found that the
design principles and processes are highly effective in improving practice, responding to
contemporary education issues and making research accessible to teachers and pre-service
teachers regardless of their career stage (Crawford, 2019b). This is based on the positive
outcomes of recent projects and feedback that indicated that teachers predominantly valued
using action research to develop critically reflective practice, perceiving it as a practical way

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 63

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

to provide authentic evidence and justification of what they do, how and why (Crawford,
2019b; 2020). These ideas are further supported by the findings of Kennedy-Clark et al.
(2018) who highlighted the importance of addressing pre-service data literacy and suggest
action research as a way to develop teacher research skills and authentic professional
knowledge.

Peer observation
(After 1 or 2 cycles switch AR teacher demonstrating
explicit teaching/content knowledge/technique with
colleague/s observing)

Peer observation
(Involving 1 or 2 colleagues)

Teacher Peer AR Teacher Peer

Observer Teacher Observer
Colleague 1 Colleague 2

Figure 3. Action research (AR) model with embedded peer observation.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 64

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

In a particular case study school (Crawford, 2019b), the task was not only to work
with the teachers to develop critically reflective practice using action research, but find ways
in which explicit teaching and learning can be demonstrated, replicated and modified based
on new understandings and learnings. After working with the school for one term (10 weeks),
and teachers had managed to work through two cycles of the action research model, the
collegial peer observation was introduced. This was embedded as an overlay to the action
research model presented in Figure 1. This entailed the action research teacher to be observed
teaching their class by one or two colleagues and in turn engaging in the demonstration of
practice. In the case study, the action research teacher was explicitly teaching a high impact
teaching strategy regarding creative and critical thinking, the development of student
metacognitive thinking processes. Time to discuss this peer observation should be provided
either directly after class or as close to this time as possible. In this discussion the action
research teacher should be given an opportunity to talk about what they did, how and why
from their perspective. Reference to the lesson plan with detailed links to the lesson sequence
and curriculum is important to aid in this analytical and constructive discussion, including a
consideration of any modification to the practice demonstrated. The action research teacher
should then observe their peer delivering the same lesson or where they engage with the same
high impact teaching strategy. Table 2 illustrates an outline of the observation protocol and
the reflective questions prompts.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 65

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Table 2 Observation protocol outline and reflective question prompts

The development of this model was significant for this school setting as it was
intended to be used as both a mentoring tool as well as a way to encourage a community of
practice for pedagogical development and critical reflection of self and others. This is
comparatively different to the designed based research process emanating from the
engineering science traditions commonly found in action designed research, which focus on
the intervention stage of the cycle, often as part of a co-created industry-based project
(Mullarkey & Hevner, 2019), The model posed in Figure 3 does not just focus on the high
impact teaching strategy or intervention, but the collegial development of critically reflective
practice as a way to build capacity and professional learning. Previous studies suggest that
peer observation can be used effectively to promote reflective learning for professional
development, whereby teachers become proactive in their learning from each other through
collegiality and dialogue based on authentic and real-world issues (Bell & Mladenovic, 2015;
Sandt, 2012). While there are studies in the past that indicate using an action research
approach to investigate peer observation (e.g. Sandt, 2012; Tezcan-Unal, 2018), the design
principles are not explicated. Further, they do not consider peer observation embedded within

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 66

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

action research, therefore the model developed in Figure 3 is an extension of some of this
work and the 2016 model (Figure 1). The cast study school referred to have adopted this
model as a way for teachers to engage in professional learning and provide an evidence-base
for their practice.

Ethical Considerations and Practical Challenges of Conducting Action Research

Objectivity and rigour of the methodology in action research are critical points for
consideration as credibility, reliability, trustworthiness and validity are a times prematurely
discredited and scrutinised on the basis that the researchers are educators directly involved
(McNiff & Whitehead, 2000). All research traditions require the acknowledgement of
researcher bias and ways to mitigate this. Like other methodologies, this can be overcome in
action research by the production of objective evidence (Greenwood & Levin, 1998; McNiff
& Whitehead, 2000) through the systematic and rigorous approach applied to methodology as
described in Figure 1. Objective data is achievable by having multiple sources of data
collection and can be balanced with more subjective forms of data (Sagor, 2000, 2004). The
use of multiple data sources to make informed decisions about practice is now an expectation
of teachers work and action research is consistent with this requirement (Crawford, 2019b).
The production of objective data must consider issues of credibility, reliability, dependability,
neutrality and confirmability. Revealing any potential bias and or discrepant data are an
important part of the critically reflective process, which leads to the implementation of
changing practice. If action is to be viewed as credible, the planned action must build
knowledge and understandings towards solving the problem or issue identified (Mills, 2003).
Credibility relies on the researcher’s ability to consider the complexities of particular settings
and to identify patterns not easily explained. Although the findings about changed practice
may contribute and apply to wider professional contexts, generalisability is not the aim of
action research, and data is not collected to validate existing practices. Rather, it is about
making improvements to develop educational practice that is context-specific and accounts
for localised conditions.
The nature of action research is more open ended and may change in focus depending
on the issue or problem being investigated. While this develops the processes involved with
critically reflective practice, it does present some unique challenges associated with
conducting the research itself. For example, there is very little distance between the
researcher and the subjects, which in many cases includes a teacher and their students.
Teacher-led researchers are “insiders responsible to...students whose learning [they]
document” (Zeni, 1998, p.10). The peer observation element in the study described helps to
mitigate this. It can also be technically argued that although in cases of classroom and
participatory action research that students are naturally living through the teacher researcher’s
instruction, informed consent should be applied where appropriate (Sagor, 2000).
Pseudonyms should be used for research participants and all data should be anonymised.
Where possible and depending on the issue being investigated, research tools and data that
would be considered as going beyond what would ordinarily be developed or collected in the
classroom context, such as a survey, should be administered by a person not involved with
the class directly. If using observational data, it can be useful to have colleagues conduct the
classroom and teaching observations with opportunities to debrief following a lesson or
activity. This provides an additional dimension to the critically reflective process and
establishes opportunities to develop practice collaboratively (Crawford, 2019b; Pine, 2009),
consistent with the model presented in Figure 3. Despite the challenges, the principles
applied to ethics in action research require the same consideration, rigour and systematic
approach as found in other research methodologies. If action research occurs within the

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 67

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

higher education context or is conducted in a school or education context in collaboration

with a tertiary institution, this is subject to governing ethics protocols. This requires an
application for the project to be submitted to the university ethics committee and for
researchers to thoroughly consider all aspects of their project as well as ethical considerations
prior to commencing. The principal, regional director or another body in charge of the school
may need to be provided with an application for approval to do the project, but this will be
dependent on each individual circumstance (Hendricks, 2009). Consent forms and
explanatory statements detailing project aims, time commitment, procedures, data collection
(type, frequency and how it is intended to be used), expected outcomes and ethical
considerations, may need to used. This will be dependent on whether the findings from the
research will be disseminated in a public forum, for example, a publication, a presentation at
a school event or a conference paper (Mertler, 2009: Hendricks, 2009).
Engaging with critical reflection through action research provides a set of clear
processes that supports beginning teachers with how to embed professional learning in their
work and experienced teachers with ways to pursue ongoing professional development (Kane
& Chimwayange, 2014). Despite the value of using action research to improve practice,
teacher-led researchers and researcher practitioners should be aware of some important
challenges that need to be factored in to their research. Although action research is commonly
used in small-scale studies, it does require time and commitment to work through the
considerations of each phase of the cycle and carefully handle data in order to use the
findings to inform practice and provide an evidence-based for decision making. Time
management is an important consideration, which can impact on the potential research scope,
quality of the data and overall project (Fraser, 2007). The teacher-led researcher is
completing this work on top of their normal teaching and administrative workload. Therefore,
the planning stage is imperative to ensure projects are structured efficiently and in turn work
commitments can be balanced appropriately (Drucker, 1994; Clift et al., 1988). This is
particularly important when collegial peer observation is embedded in action research.
Crawford (2019b) used the model in Figure 3 as a way for teachers to demonstrate and
develop explicit teaching and learning, requiring observing teachers to organise time for
teaching relief. A commitment from the school about such professional learning will be
required so that it is implemented and engaged with effectively as part of whole school
teacher practice.
For pre-service teachers in particular, teaching is perceived as something you ‘do’, but
do not necessarily reflect or think about in the moment or retrospectively (Wideen, Mayer-
Smith & Moon, 1998). Given the important role of critical reflection in understanding,
developing and enhancing explicit teaching and learning, it is suggested that action research
can be used as a practical way to build these important skills and knowledge, which have
become an expected part of teachers’ ongoing professional learning and development.
However, action research requires considerable thought and a broad-based understanding of
the project focus or aim. Formulating the reason why data collection is required can support
the implementation process and analysis of data (Lam, 2016). Finding time to engage with
reading literature on the topic being investigated and writing can be challenging, but schools
can assist by investing time in the teacher and the project (Lambirth & Cabral, 2017). This is
particularly important given that demonstration of evidence based-practice is an expectation
of teachers work. Therefore, action research should not detract from normal teaching work,
but rather be embedded within it, in turn avoiding teachers having to prioritise their teaching
over research (Elliott, 1991). As Loughran indicates, “the busyness of teaching creates an
environment in which the ‘doing of teaching’ becomes paramount in order to manage their
(ever increasing) expectations; especially in relation to improved student learning and the
Standards regimes of education and accreditation boards” (2019, p. 532). Given the
continuously increasing demands of teachers and educators, action research has been

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 68

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

identified as an effective and efficient way to develop a portfolio of evidence to demonstrate

informed decision making and practice development (Crawford, 2019b). Further, embedding
a collegial peer observation element can encourage a community of practice that raises
ethical standards and data objectivity.

Concluding Thoughts and Implications for Practice

Recently, educational systems across Western countries have seen a significant shift
in focus towards a business driven approach. This is having a profound impact on schools,
teachers and students who are now subject to an array of accountability measures designed to
drive change, inform policy, allocate funding and resource provisions and assess what
constitutes quality in education. Concurrently, in Australia the Professional Standards for
Teachers (AITSL, 2011), the TEMAG (2014) recommendations and TPA (AITSL, 2017)
require educators to regularly and efficiently implement methods in their teaching and
educational contexts that will demonstrate an evidence-base for achieving or exceeding
standards, benchmarks for employment commitments and targets for promotional
opportunities. If considering implications for practice beyond the increasing list of
competency checkboxes, there is an imperative for teachers to reflect on their work and to
evaluate their impact on their students.
The declaration of the growing crisis in the education profession was sparked by an
increased questioning of professional authority and infallibility. The shift to manage
professional practice through measurable systems of accountability has been responded to
with an acknowledgement that there is an increasing need for reflective practice (Gould,
1996; Schön, 1983) and given the complex and multidimensional nature of education that this
could be a more effective and authentic way to demonstrate evidence of practice (Crawford,
2019a). While it could be argued that processes involved in reflection could be regarded as
antithetical to the more quantifiable and technocratic systems of managerialism. It is
suggested that critical reflective practice can be seen as part of the same imperative, making
professional practice more accountable through a systematic and ongoing scrutiny of the
principles upon which it is based. Schön’s (1983, 1987) ‘epistemology of practice’ model
was discussed as the reflective practice theories were found to support why reflection is
central to the professional work of teachers and educators. Through a systematic process of
reflection teachers are able to develop an awareness of their impact in the classroom and
document moments of illumination and action to demonstrate changed and improved
practice. An evidence-base which supports notions of continuous professional development
through systematic reflection can be combined with other forms of data gathering to broaden
and deepen a teacher’s portfolio of evidence.
The role of critical reflection and its relationship to action research was established
through Stenhouse’s (1975) notion of the teacher-as-researcher. Hendrick’s (2009) classroom
and participatory action research approaches have been identified in particular, as a practical
tool for critical reflection and a way for teachers to approach problem resolutions about their
practice and educational issues. The complexities of action research have been deconstructed
and consider the benefits, challenges and ethical issues. It has been established through a
number of research projects and feedback from teachers that action research resonates well
with the overall reflective requirements of impactful teacher practice and ensures credibility
and reliability when questioning pedagogy. Evidence-based practice can have positive
implications for teachers and educators in raising the status of the profession and in
developing a voice of authority about complex educational issues. Action research is highly
recommended to teachers at all career stages and as part of an ongoing professional learning
and development program to be included and embedded as part of teachers work. Teacher-led

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 69

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

research provides opportunities to challenges one’s ideas and the theories that underpin these,
to develop new knowledge, question understandings and contribute to a wider perspective on
educational issues pertaining not only to individual classes, but whole school communities
and the profession. In the contemporary educational climate, the action research model
(Figure 1) and extended collegial peer observation (Figure 3) model proposed can facilitate
critical reflection in a systematic, rigorous and authentic way, providing a practical and
accessible approach for educators to assess, measure and provide evidence of practice.
Exemplar key improvements in teaching and learning from the case studies mentioned
(Crawford, 2019a; 2020) using the action research model (Figure 3) include: Increased
teacher efficacy, knowledge and understanding of the high impact teaching strategies leading
to improved change in pedagogy; collegial peer observation contributing to team building and
a collaborative school culture; increased efficacy in the skills and knowledge to build
evidence-based practice; enhanced student learning environment; and increased development
of student metacognitive thinking processes.
The opportunities for teachers and educators to consider the impact of their work in a
systematic and critically reflective way and explore more deeply what they do, how and why
is imperative. However, it is only with the appropriate support and resources that teachers
will be able to engage appropriately with this work. If this is possible, it will have positive
implications for future teaching practice and the development of the profession as teacher-led
research becomes more accessible.

References

Ali, A. D. (2020). Implementing Action Research in EFL/ESL Classrooms: a Systematic

Review of Literature 2010-2019. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 33(3), 341–
362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09523-y
Alber, S. M. (2011). A toolkit for action research. Rowan & Littlefield.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1976). Theory in Practice: increasing professional effectiveness.
John Wiley & Sons Inc (US).
Arlin, P. (1990). Wisdom: the art of problem-finding. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: its
nature, origins and development (pp. 230-243). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173704.012
Arnold, J., Edwards, T., Hooley, N., & Williams, J. (2012). Conceptualising teacher
education and research as 'critical praxis' Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 281–
295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012.703140
Atkin, J. M. (1993). Developments in the Philosophy/Sociology of Science and Action
Research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 187-188.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010111
Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). Media
release: My School website launched today.
http://www.acara .edu.au/_resources/ACARA press release_Final.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). National
Reports, national assessment program—Literacy and numeracy, 2008.
https://www.nap.edu.au/results-and-reports/national-reports
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 70

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2017). Teacher
Performance Assessment-AITSL grant program.
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/tpa-
announcement---30-june-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=c862e83c_0
Crawford, R. (2019a). Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in music education
research: an authentic analysis system for investigating authentic learning and
teaching practice. International Journal of Music Education, 37(3), 454-475.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419830151
Crawford, R. (2019b). Connected2Learning: Thinking Outside The Square – Final Project
Report: Curious About Learning? Why? Monash University.
Crawford, R. (2020). Critical and Creative Thinking: Developing Metacognition and
Collaborative Learning in the Curriculum: Critical and Creative Thinking
Curriculum - Final Project Report. Monash University.
Crawford, R., & Tan, H. (2019). Responding to evidence-based practice: An examination of
mixed methods research in teacher education. The Australian Educational
Researcher, 46(5), 775-797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00310-w
Beauchamp, C. (2014). Reflection in teacher education: issues emerging from a review of
current literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123-141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.982525
Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Situated Learning, Reflective Practice and Conceptual
Expansion: Effective Peer Observation for Tutor Development. Teaching in Higher
Education, 20(1), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945163
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. John Wiley & Sons Inc
(US).
Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions, 18(4), 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.1340180402
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action
research. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Clift, P., Golby, M., & Moon B. (1988). Educational Evaluation – Study Guide E811. Open
University Press.
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional Development as Transformative Learning. John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Sawyer, K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a
solitary moment. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp.
329-363). MIT Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Houghton Mifflin.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Collier Books.
Drucker, P.F. (1994). The Practice of Management. Butterworth Heinemann.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press.
Fook, J. (1999). Critical Reflectivity in Education and Practice. In B. Pease and J. Fook
(Eds.), Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives (pp.
195-208). Allen and Unwin (Sydney).
Fook, J., & Askeland, G. (2006). The “Critical” in Critical Reflection. In S. White, J. Fook
and F. Gardner (Eds). Critical Reflection in Health and Welfare (pp. 40-53). Open
University Press.
Fraser, D. (1997). Ethical dilemma and practical problems for the practitioner researcher.
Educational Action Research, 5(1), 161-171.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799700200014
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford
Further Education Unit.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 71

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Gould, N. (1996). Introduction: Social Work Education and the “Crisis” of the Professions. In
N. Gould & I. Taylor (Eds.). Reflective Learning for Social Work (pp. 1-10). Arena.
Glasswell, K., & Ryan, J. (2017). Reflective Practice in Teacher Professional Standards:
Reflection as Mandatory Practice. In Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher
Education (pp. 3-26). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3431-
2_1
Goodman, J. (1984). Reflection and Teacher Education: a case study and theoretical analysis,
Interchange, 15(3), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807939
Gorur, R., & Koyama, J. P. (2013). The struggle to technicise in education policy. Australian
Educational Researcher, 40(5), 633-648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0125-9
Greenwood, J. (1993). Reflective practice: a critique of the work of Argyris and Schön.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(8), 1183-1187. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2648.1993.18081183.x
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research. Social research for
social change. Sage Publications.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? Taylor & Francis Group.
http://doi.org/10.4324/97802030588
Grundy, S. (1995). Action research as professional development. Innovative Links Project.
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive guide for
educators. Pearson.
Jerrim, J., & de Vries, R. (2017). The limitations of quantitative social science for informing
public policy. Evidence and Policy, 13(1), 117-133.
https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14431000856662
Johnson, A.P. (2012). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Johnston, R., & Badley, G. (1996). The Competent Reflective Practitioner, Innovation and
Learning in Education, 2, 4–10.
Kane, R. G., & Chimwayange,C. (2014). Teacher action research and student voice: making
sense of learning in secondary school. Action Research, 12(1) 52-77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750313515282
Kennedy-Clark, S., Eddles-Hirsch, K., Francis, T., Cummins, G., Ferantino, L., Tichelaar,
M., & Ruz, L. (2018). Developing Pre-Service Teacher Professional Capabilities
through Action Research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(9).
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n9.3
Klein, S. R. (2008). Holistic reflection in teacher education: issues and strategies. Reflective
Practice, 9(2), 111-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802005384
Kincheloe, J. (2012). Teachers as Researchers (Classic Edition). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203801550
Kress, T. M. (2011). Critical Praxis Research: Breathing New Life into Research Methods
for Teachers. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1790-9
Lam, H. C. (2016). An investigation of preschool teachers’ ways of seeing action research
using phenomenography. Education Research for Policy and Practice, 15(2) 147-162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-015-9187-y
Lambirth, A., & Cabral, A. (2017). Issues of agency, discipline and criticality: an interplay of
challenges involved in teachers engaging in research in a performative school context,
Educational Action Research, 25(4), 650-666.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1218350
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4): 34-
46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 72

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Lipman, P. (2010). Politics by other means - Education, accountability and the surveillance
state. In T. Monahan & R. D. Torres (Eds.), Schools under surveillance - Cultures of
control in public education (pp. 159-174). Rutgers University Press.
https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813548265-010
Loughran, J. J. (1996). Developing Reflective Practice: learning about teaching and learning
through modelling. Falmer Press.
Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective Reflective Practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1),
33-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001004
Loughran, J. J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: the foundation of the professional knowledge
of teaching, Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523-535.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294
Mahony, P., & Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing Teaching: standards, performance and
accountability. Routledge Falmer.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2000). Action research in organisations. Routledge.
McTaggart, R., Nixon, R., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Critical Participatory Action Research. In
The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 21–35). Palgrave
Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_2
Mertler, C.A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd ed.).
Sage publications.
Mezirow, J. (1991). How Critical Reflection Triggers Learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.)
Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. Jossey-Bass.
Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed). Merrill
Prentice-Hall.
Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203822296
Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2019). An elaborated action design research process
model. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1451811
Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1990). Metaphor in the study of teachers’ professional knowledge.
Theory Into Practice, 29(2), 116-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543441
Newman, S. (2018). Teacher Education and Professional Development: Reflective Practice
Reconsidered. Philosophy and Teacher Education, 157-181.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429429583-9
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defence of Reform in Liberal
Education. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjghth8
Pelton, R.P. (2010). Action research for teacher candidates: Using classroom data to
enhance instruction. Rowman & Littlefield.
Pine, G. J. (2009). Conducting teacher action research. In Teacher action research: Building
knowledge democracies (pp. 234-263). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452275079.n11
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sagor, R. (2004). The action research guidebook: A four-step process for educators and
school teams. Sage Publications.
Sandt, F. O. (2012). Peer Observation Action Research Project. School Leadership &
Management, 32 (4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.712511
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic
Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for
teaching and learning in the profession. Jossey-Bass.

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 73

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000148298
Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and Sustaining Critical Reflection in Teacher Education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718904000202
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.
Heinemann.
Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: classroom ready
teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/action-now-classroom-
ready-teachers
Tripp, David. (2011). Critical Incidents in Teaching (Classic Edition). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802014
Tezcan-Unal, B. (2018). Action research on a collegial model of peer observations,
Educational Action Research, 26(4), 641-654.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1358199
van Ingen, S., McHatton, P. A., & Vomvoridi-Ivanovic, E. (2016). How do pre-service
teachers understand the use of research to inform practice? Foundational knowledge
for bridging the gap. Action in Teacher Education, 38(2), 175-189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2016.1155094.
Wideen, M, Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on
learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170752
Wildman, T., Magliaro, S., Niles, J., & McLaughlin, R. (1990). Promoting reflection among
beginning and experienced teachers. In R. Clift, R. Houston, & M. Pugach (Eds.),
Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 139-162). Teachers College Press.
Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized Testing and School Accountability. Educational
Psychologist, 45(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461521003703060
Williams, B. (2001). Developing critical reflection for professional practice through problem-
based learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(1), 27-34.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.3411737.x
Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Action Research: personal renewal and social reconstruction.
Educational Action Research, 1(2), 199-219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010202
Zeichner, K., & Liston, O. (1996). Reflective teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zeni, J. (1998). A guide to ethical issues and action research. Educational Action Research,
6(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799800200053

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 74

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Appendix A

Vol 47, 12, December 2022 75