setting
Platteel, T.L.
Citation
Platteel, T. L. (2010, February 11). Knowledge development of secondary school L1 teachers on concept-context rich education in an action-research setting. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14738
Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version
License: Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden
Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14738
Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
General conclusions and discussion
6.1 Introduction
This thesis reports on a study that examined the development of L1 teachers’
practical knowledge when they researched and implemented concept-context rich education in an action-research setting. Chapters 2 to 5 of this thesis explored several aspects of the knowledge development process by describing how the collaborative action-research partnership developed, what interpretations of concept-context rich L1 education teachers formulated, what teachers described as benefits of concept-context rich education, and how they learned to use this approach to L1 teaching in order to increase student understanding of and engagement in learning.
This research originates from a report by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (RNAAS, 2003). In the last decade a general policy and curriculum change in Dutch secondary education reinforced an instrumental view on L1
education. To stimulate a life-long learning attitude in students the policy focused on developing greater student responsibility and initiative, and helping them to develop skills that would allow them to handle and consume large amounts of information.
During the years immediately following the new policy, teachers and students reported problems regarding the new approach to secondary education. Therefore, the RNAAS issued a report (2003) suggesting two key possibilities for educational improvement: concept-context rich education, and the teacher as developer.
In the study described in this thesis, L1 teachers developed curriculum materials for secondary L1 education, which allowed them to explore the notions of concept- context rich education in L1 teaching and the teacher as developer. Eleven L1
teachers developed concept-context rich materials by conducting collaborative action research in three research groups from January 2006 until June 2007. They were accompanied by an action-research facilitator and an academic researcher. Together, these teachers researched what concept-context rich L1 education could entail, and what its advantages and disadvantages were. They included students in their
research, implemented concept-context rich education in their classes, and analyzed and discussed their findings with each other in the research groups, allowing them to develop practical knowledge of how to implement concept-context rich L1 education, how to increase student understanding of and engagement in the L1 curriculum, and how to conduct collaborative action research.
6.2 Aims of the study
This study had different aims in practice and in theory. By letting teachers develop and implement their own concept-context rich materials, it was anticipated that a realistic view on the advantages and the disadvantages of the concept-context rich
approach for teachers' classroom practices could be developed. The teachers would assess the strengths and weaknesses of the approach and adapt it to their own needs, thus allowing concept-context rich L1 education to be approached empirically, rather than (only) theoretically.
A collaborative action-research approach was chosen for the development of concept-context rich education because the research literature shows many examples of successful collaborative action-research projects (see for instance the Journal of Educational Action Research and the Sage Handbook of Action Research, 2008). This approach allows teachers to research and implement ideas, test their effectiveness and efficiency in practice, and let students profit directly from improvements and teacher reflection. Teachers in this study learned how to conduct collaborative action research and develop their research skills and practical knowledge. On several occasions, they expressed a desire to establish the action-research methodology in their schools, helping their colleagues to develop a more research-like approach to their teaching and curriculum development. This study aspired to inform other collaborative action-research partnerships of these experiences.
Another aim of this research was to develop knowledge of concept-context rich L1 education. Empirical research into this approach to L1 education has not been conducted before. Ten Brinke (1976), the brothers Van Calcar (1974), and followers of the theoretical notion of “normal functional L1 education” (LWM, 1980) have proposed lessons in which links to students' daily lives and the issues they are interested in are included by involving context. Research on the implementation and the effects of this approach, which has similarities with concept-context rich education, has not yet been performed. The research described in this thesis, in which L1 teachers develop, research, and implement concept-context rich education, aims to fill this gap. The findings of this research can also serve as a means of
reflection for teachers who will be working with this approach in L1 education or even in other school subjects.
The practical knowledge of concept-context rich education and collaborative action research that these teachers developed complements the research literature.
Teachers’ interpretations of concept-context rich education and their experiences with the implementation of their developed materials offer a view on what concept- context rich L1 education entails and what its benefits can be. By choosing an inductive approach to designate the concepts of L1 education (starting with the L1 curriculum the teachers work with), teachers were given the opportunity to work in a familiar and natural way while developing concept-context rich lessons. This showed how much the teachers were focused on the L1 concepts and curriculum, and it allowed the teachers' voices to be heard in the research literature on curriculum development and practical knowledge. This inductive approach also allowed for certain L1 concepts to be revealed that might not have been visible when begun with an exhaustive list. Concept-context rich education is being promoted as a new and
General conclusions and discussion
promising way of offering concepts to students. The study described in this thesis focused on thoroughly researching the possibilities of and challenges to this approach before implementing it on a larger scale.
Collaborative action research is claimed to be a promising approach when one regards a teacher as developer. This study investigates this methodology. Teachers in the Netherlands, as do those in other countries, experience pressure due to time constraints, and this study aims to investigate whether teachers could be assisted in developing curriculum materials, and, in doing so, develop their practical knowledge, or whether the idea of the teacher as developer is a concept that is too time
consuming and ambitious for these teachers to entertain at present.
6.3 Main conclusions of the four chapters
In this section a summary of the main conclusions from each of the four chapters (2 to 5) is provided. Subsequently, the general conclusions that follow from this study are described.
6.3.1 Chapter 2: L1 teachers in action
The second chapter describes how the first year of a collaborative action-research project evolves by answering the following research question How does a research project such as this develop, and what may be learned with respect to the process of and products resulting from the first year of an action-research project in which teachers develop concept-context rich materials? Two things were focused on: 1. the process the participants went through, and 2. the L1 concepts and contexts that were used by the teachers to develop concept-context rich materials. Because the study describes the first year of a two-year project, no final conclusions were drawn, but themes concerning the action-research process and development of concept-context rich products appeared in the data.
Relating to the process, the first year of the collaborative action-research project proved to be rather chaotic. All the participants, including the facilitators and the academic researcher, had to find their way in their roles and responsibilities.
Some teachers quickly felt comfortable with the action-research approach while others found it difficult to get used to. It became very clear that the presence of a guiding facilitator is an important factor when teachers are familiarizing themselves with action research. Strong facilitation, focusing on explaining and showing the relevance of certain steps, will help participants achieve results and make them see the benefits of the approach. In order to give teachers a sense of success and progress it is recommended to start with small projects. Small steps of improvement had a big effect on the teachers and on the students. The role of the academic researcher is yet to be defined. Because of the inductive approach of the research project she would not provide the teachers with answers but rather with more questions, which at times confused the teachers. Fortunately, at other times the
academic researcher's dialogue with the participants about the subject and their teaching practice was also regarded as inspiring.
Relating to the products of concept-context rich L1 education, these teachers participated in the project because they were in search of ways to increase student motivation. They were drawn to the project because student motivation and engagement are an important aim of concept-context rich education, and the collaborative action-research approach gave them the opportunity to improve their teaching practice based on their own concerns. They focused on learning goals and general curriculum components such as learning “literary history” or “spelling”, rather than individual concepts of L1 education. We offered the teachers a circle model of meaningful contexts preceding the project. This model describes meaningful contexts meant to correspond with student interests, be socially or academically challenging, and invite students to expand their interests (described further in chapter 2.2.2 of this thesis). Data show that this model was used in the teachers' discussions and their written products, as they searched for ways to express their views on concept-context rich education. Furthermore, teachers were very much aware of the importance of language skills in other school subjects and were open to the idea of using these other school subjects as contexts. After one year of developing concept-context rich materials, several lessons could be described in which different L1 concepts were mostly linked to a functional or social context.
6.3.2 Chapter 3: Forming a collaborative action-research partnership This chapter demonstrates how the participants of a collaborative action-research partnership collaborated to create a communicative space in which open dialogue and collaborative learning became possible. The following research questions were answered: 1) How do participants in a research partnership collaborate to create a communicative space? 2) What are the challenges and possibilities in partnerships between teachers, college instructors (facilitators), and academic researchers?
The participants shifted in their roles and interactions; all started off thinking they had a clear view of what was expected but realized the roles were fluid and interdependent. When one of the participants required more space others were affected. The partnership consisted of three kinds of stakeholders (facilitator, teacher, and academic researcher), and this complicated matters further because some roles and responsibilities overlapped. A balance between the interplay of roles and communication had to be struck, and the participants became aware of the communicative space they were trying to establish. The participants contributed to the collaboration by investing time and effort (contextual conditions) and by
remaining open, taking each others' opinions seriously and learning how to be critical without passing judgment (communicative conditions). The academic researcher (author of this thesis) learned that in order to be a positive force in the project she had to collaborate actively in the project while at the same time being careful not to
General conclusions and discussion
force her views on the participants and mainly let their action-research experiences shape their practical knowledge of the subject. Open dialogue with the facilitators and the participants in the research helped her define her role and responsibilities.
The project supported McLaughlin’s findings (2007) that teachers and facilitators generally highly value the involvement of the other participants and that of academic researchers in particular. The latter may act as a bridge between the collaborative research groups, and contribute to and stimulate the project. The facilitators contributed to the creation of a communicative space by initiating meetings and facilitating these by taking responsibility for the procedure. The facilitators' expertise was not in the field of secondary L1 education; this could have been a problem, but the findings indicate that this was, in fact, an asset. The process required the facilitators to reassess their role and responsibilities and think about how they could be most useful to the knowledge development of the participants. The teachers contributed to the formation and preservation of the communicative space by investing their time and effort, and by talking about their plans and experiences in their research group. This required them to take risks and show vulnerability in expressing their views and plans. Even though, or maybe because, many teachers belonged to the same school and knew each other and were familiar with each others’ teaching practice, they experienced difficulty in putting everyday issues on the backburner and focusing instead on the action research as critical friends. This led to the conclusion that conducting action research with colleagues of the same school might be more difficult when participants know each other. Strong facilitation is of great importance to urge these participants to act less as familiar colleagues and more as action-research critical friends.
Metaphors of facilitation: compass, mirror, map, and magnifying glass (further described in section 3.4.5 of this thesis) were used to describe the collaboration in this partnership, first formulated by Wadsworth (2001), and proved particularly suited for this study because each stakeholder could be reflected in each of the four metaphors. All the participants displayed acts of the compass, mirror, map and magnifying glass. The metaphors provided a useful analytical tool to describe and analyze the participants’ collaboration, and they may be helpful as a framework for analyzing the contributions of different participants. For practitioners these metaphors can be helpful as a tool for reflection on the collaboration and
responsibilities of the participants in a collaborative action-research partnership.
6.3.3 Chapter 4: Teachers’ interpretations of the concept-context approach for L1 education
In this chapter conclusions about teachers’ interpretations of concept-context rich education and their views on advantages of the approach were drawn. The following research questions were answered: 1) How do L1 teachers interpret concept-context
rich education? 2) What do they perceive as the benefits of this approach after they experiment with it in their own teaching practice?
The teachers expressed many different interpretations of concept-context rich education. The circle model’s terminology (further discussed in section 2.2.2 of this thesis) was used the most by the teachers and proved to be a useful analytical tool for both researchers and teachers, but many other different interpretations, for instance regarding context as activity, surfaced also. This displays the variations and complexities in teachers’ ideas. Teachers discovered some contexts to be more appropriate for the teaching of certain concepts than others. For the different subject domains and concepts different approaches to concept-context rich
education seem appropriate. These teachers perceived the interpretation of concept- context rich education to be something very personal and individual, for students as well as for teachers. Student activity and contextualization by teachers and students are mentioned as a way to obtain a more individual approach to concept-context rich education. This requires teachers to be conscious of the contexts their students are concerned with and to enter into a dialogue with them. Teachers and researchers who wish to implement concept-context rich education themselves might use the different interpretations of concept-context rich education described in this thesis as a tool for reflection, helping them decide what they want to accomplish with their curriculum.
For some of the experienced teachers in this study the introduction of concept- context rich education as a completely new approach to L1 education seemed a bit artificial. They experienced it as something they already practice as L1 teachers every day. They reported advantages to concept-context rich education, for instance the possibilities to increase motivation in students, show the relevance of the subject, increase transfer of knowledge, differentiate between students, and inspire other teachers. By combining different concepts and consciously linking their concepts to the different contexts they mentioned, the process of implementing concept-context rich education became more challenging for them as well as for their students.
Student motivation, teacher motivation, and student participation were the most important benefits the teachers experienced from working with concept-
context rich education. According to them, student motivation can be increased by a) showing the students the relevance of the concepts of L1 education, and b) making the subject itself more interesting. This distinction is important for teachers because, on the one hand, it helps them to explain to students that learning L1 concepts might not always be fun for every student, but these L1 concepts are relevant and useful for them, both now and in the future. Concept-context rich education can, on the other hand, aid teachers in showing students that L1 education, for instance linguistics, can be interesting and even fun without there being an explicit link and relevance to students' daily lives at that moment.
General conclusions and discussion
This study shows that the notions of concept-context rich education and the teacher as developer, as formulated by the RNAAS (2003), had a positive impact on these teachers of secondary L1 education. The teachers mentioned that explaining the relevance and the importance of learning concepts to students could, and should, be done for every concept of L1 education. They also reported that some concepts might be offered without context to focus on the abstract elements of L1 concepts. Through experimentation in the curriculum and dialogue with students, teachers can develop knowledge of which context can aid in the learning of what concept.
6.3.4 Chapter 5: Partners in learning through dialogue
Chapter 5 describes how the research process developed teachers’ practical knowledge of student understanding of and engagement in concept-context rich L1 education by answering the following research questions: 1) How does critical dialogue with each other and with their students foster teachers’ practical
knowledge development of student understanding and engagement in L1 teachers? 2) What practical knowledge of student understanding and student engagement do these L1 teachers develop?
While conducting action research, teachers developed knowledge of student understanding and engagement by surveying students and critically discussing the findings of these surveys in collaborative action-research group meetings. In the student surveys, teachers asked for students’ opinions on diverse issues concerning L1 education and in various ways, for instance through questionnaires, writing
assignments, and group dialogue. After collecting their data, the teachers analyzed and hypothesized what it could mean in light of the individual research questions they had formulated. To develop knowledge of student understanding, their findings, ideas, and possible factors of student engagement were discussed by the participants in the research groups. They asked critical but open questions to help each other notice possible blind spots in their reasoning. They exchanged experiences and knowledge to assist each other in reflection on their practical knowledge of student understanding and engagement.
Through data analysis of the teachers’ discussions three themes in teacher knowledge of how to increase student engagement and foster student understanding were discerned. Teachers found that students actively participate in class when curriculum aims, objectives, and content are clearly stated (theme A). Through the research process, the teachers learned that students are able to express thoughtful views on the L1 curriculum content (theme B) and can even be challenged to participate in the development of certain aspects of that curriculum (theme C).
These themes appeared to be interdependent. For students to formulate an opinion on L1 education (theme B), and especially to take part in the development of L1 curriculum (theme C), knowledge of aims, purposes, and curriculum content (theme A) is vital. Not only is student understanding of the L1 goals and curriculum content
important to help them see the “bigger picture” behind the individual lessons, knowing why this content is vital and how it is linked to other content helps students become aware of their own learning process.
Teachers are responsible for the curriculum and should provide students with guidance and structure. However, the research literature indicates that learning is a constructive and personal process that requires engagement, feelings of autonomy, and participation (Vygotsky in Berk & Winsler, 1995; Skinner et al., 2008). Giving students a role in the development of assignments and incorporating their ideas can provide students with a feeling of involvement in the lessons. The data show that they can take more responsibility for their own learning, making the teacher a partner in their learning process instead of viewing the teacher as being mainly responsible for the learning process.
6.4 General conclusion
Chapters 2 to 5 focused on separate components of the general research question.
These conclusions will now be combined in order to answer the general research question:
What knowledge of concept-context rich education do L1 teachers develop in an action-research setting?
The teachers who participated in the study experienced that concept-context rich education can be utilized to improve their teaching practice, especially since it can help them focus on their main concern: increasing student engagement, and that the development of concept-context rich education can increase teacher motivation as well.
The collaborative action-research approach allowed them to focus on their concern and use the development of concept-context rich L1 materials as a tool to achieve increased student understanding of and engagement in L1 education. They developed a critical and research-like attitude towards their practice and found the cyclic process of improving their practice both inspiring and challenging. Even though they were aware of the time and effort (contextual and communicative conditions) the creation of a communicative space in a collaborative research process requires, they reported that their experiences stimulated them to extend the approach to their school and colleagues. Formation of the necessary communicative space is a complex process, and can be described by using four metaphors of facilitation – mirror, map, compass, and magnifying glass (see section 3.4.5 of this thesis). These metaphors can enrich the research literature on facilitation, collaboration, and collaborative action research.
For these teachers, concept-context rich education was a tool to increase engagement. Therefore, concept-context rich education was not a purpose on its own. These teachers’ interpretations of the approach provided a varied view on
General conclusions and discussion
teachers’ practical knowledge and opinions. Teachers combined the research literature's views on concept-context rich education with their own views and experiences, forming complex and diverse interpretations of this approach to L1 teaching. They used the interpretations from the research literature on concept- context rich education but formulated other interpretations as well, focusing on student participation and engagement. This, in hindsight, is a very logical approach for the teachers because of the connection to their main concern: student
engagement. These teachers learned how they could utilize concept-context rich education and the development of this approach to L1 education to work in favor of their main concern. By deliberately surveying students on diverse aspects of L1 education, they found that students were willing to express serious views on the importance of L1 education. They also found that, in order to form thoughtful opinions, students needed information and understanding of the subject of L1 education, its goals, purposes, and how these were expressed in the curriculum.
When given this information, students were even willing to develop assignments for L1 lessons, and they enjoyed these assignments more because of their own input.
Through surveying their students, developing concept-context rich materials, exchanging views and experiences with others, these teachers realized that concept- context rich education entails many different components, goals, and purposes.
Different types of concept-context rich education can be applied to different students and domains. Interestingly, these teachers expressed that concept-context rich education for the subject of L1 education did not feel as something very
innovative. The inductive approach of this study might have had something to do with that. Offering teachers a list of L1 concepts and asking them to link these to contexts might have felt more innovative to the teachers. Language skills and concepts are applied by students in every aspect of their lives – school, work, and leisure.
Therefore, these teachers did not find it hard to think of contextrich applications of L1 concepts. They claimed that one of the advantages of concept-context rich education and the development of this approach could be found in the renewed attention they were asked to give to their goals and ideas as L1 teachers. The discussions about what interpretations of concept-context rich education could be the most engaging for which students and for themselves challenged them to make their goals and purposes explicit. The action-research methodology that focused on students’ opinions and understanding offered a way to keep renewing and improving their teaching practice.
6.5 Limitations and strengths of the study
This study relied on the self-reporting of teachers, and, although they surveyed their students and regularly discussed their findings with the other participants, structured reflection on collected data and participation in analysis of the data were difficult for these teachers. Facilitation in the form of encouraging teachers to contribute
their data to the research meetings and discuss their conclusions with colleagues (triangulation and validation) proved to be important in helping the teachers surpass their preconceptions and possible blind spots. Even though teachers volunteer to participate, they cannot be expected to initiate the validation and triangulation processes themselves. Explicit facilitation is required to provide structure and guidance. Furthermore, no observational data on how the teachers implemented the developed concept-context rich lessons in their classes were collected. The written plans and reports on the process provide a limited view on how the teachers worked with their interpretation of concept-context rich education. Also, the teachers’
reports consisted of descriptions of how their practical knowledge was influenced through the research process. The focus was on the reported knowledge development through critical dialogue with students and other teachers, ensuring that teachers explicated how they developed their ideas by asking them critical questions about this process. Further research on the influence of practical knowledge of L1 teachers, using different research methods such as class observation, could shed more light on this aspect of the development and implementation of concept-context rich L1 education and teachers’ practical knowledge development.
Another aspect of this study that needs to be taken into account to realistically view the conclusions is that the teachers that volunteered for this study were experienced teachers (possessing three to thirty years experience). They were drawn to the project and participated because they wanted to. The conclusions based on their process may not apply to, for instance, novice teachers that do not have the same experience with the L1 curriculum. Having said this, novice teachers might be more aware of the concepts of their curriculum, not possessing the years of
experience of already having applied these concepts in their lessons. This may help them to develop other interpretations of concept-context rich education than those of their more experienced colleagues. Research on concept-context rich education with novice teachers might prove interesting in that light. Adding to this, thinking about curriculum goals, surveying students, and linking to some of the contexts mentioned by the teachers in this study might be possible and interesting for all teachers, whether novice or experienced.
Furthermore, many other L1 teachers received an invitation but did not
volunteer for this project. Workload and bureaucracy are concerns of many teachers, and the lure of sticking to the textbook is very much alive. The question therefore is whether researching their teaching and improving their practice, like these eleven teachers did, is actually an attainable process in schools. Adding to that, will the teachers in this study proceed with the research-based practice they experienced in this study? Research literature and the data in this study show that when facilitation of the process is provided teachers can learn to conduct efficient and effective research and improve their teaching practice. Without facilitation, which promotes critical dialogue, reflection on findings, and collective data analyses, this proves to
General conclusions and discussion
be difficult. The question remains to be answered whether or not teachers will now continue to use critical dialogue to efficiently improve their practice on their own.
Learning to conduct action research was not the goal and should not be the primary goal of an action-research project. Action research is a way to research and improve one's teaching practice, and it aims to help teachers develop a critical and reflective stance towards their practice. By asking critical questions about the goals of the curriculum, students’ views and understanding, teachers can become familiar with their role as developer of their curriculum and their school, and by engaging in critical dialogue with themselves, their students, and their colleagues they can learn to validate their conclusions. The findings of this thesis show that teachers can learn how to do this in a period of eighteen months. Providing teachers with facilitation will make the process more efficient, yet claiming that action research cannot take place without facilitation might be an overestimation of its importance. The critical and reflective stance towards their teaching practice that the participants in this study developed with the help of facilitation, hopefully will remain anchored in their practice and will help them to continue improving their practice in a reflective and critical way, keeping it interesting and challenging for themselves as well as for their students.
The choice for an inductive approach had a big influence on the research process itself as well as its outcomes. If a more deductive approach, focusing on several L1 concepts (formulated by the academic researchers) and asking the teachers to develop concept-context rich materials from these, had been
implemented, other interpretations of concept-context rich L1 education might have been found. Because an action-research approach was chosen, the inductive
approach, based on the teachers' knowledge and concerns, was a more logical one.
This approach allowed participants to start from their own teaching practice in order to improve it by implementing forms of concept-context rich education that focused on their concern, making the process ultimately more rewarding. Fortunately, the teachers' interpretations and opinions provided rich data in which various L1 concepts and contexts could be discerned and through which the research literature could be enriched.
Fourteen teachers volunteered to participate; only eleven remained in the project until its completion. One of the three teachers that ended their participation had to do so for reasons that did not concern the project. Two of the teachers ended their participation because, for them, the project fell short of their expectations.
The research literature on collaborative action research mentions the pull out of participants as a normal and familiar phenomenon. Even so, the fact that these two participants did not see the project through needs to be taken into account when we draw conclusions about the teachers in this study. Looking back, things might have been done differently to make the experience more worthwhile for these two teachers, for instance by providing them with more guidance, but whether this would
have changed the outcome of the events is uncertain. Before officially ending their participation, these teachers started to withdraw from dialogue and collaboration.
This is an important indicator of their lack of involvement. Time constraints and competing priorities are familiar challenges for participants of collaborative action research projects, so keeping the dialogue open and prioritizing the collaboration is vital for the continuation of the process, and to this end the importance of
explicating responsibilities cannot be overestimated.
6.6 Implications and suggestions for future research
The research described in this thesis was initiated in reaction to a report written by the RNAAS (2003), in which two ideas, those of “concept-context rich education” and
“the teacher as developer”, were proposed to solve some of the problems in secondary education in the Netherlands. L1 teachers researched and developed concept-context rich education over a period of eighteen months, and this thesis describes their interpretations of concept-context rich education and their opinions of this approach. Because of an inductive approach to the research, these teachers were given the opportunity to formulate their own interpretation of the concept- context approach to L1 teaching. This enabled them to conclude that concept- context rich L1 education is something that can and needs to be shaped by the teacher him or herself, since every class and every student is different. Having said this, a book focused on concepts of L1 education with ideas from and for teachers regarding which contexts might be appropriate for which concepts, could be an inspiring tool for reflection. The RNAAS indicated in 2003 that contexts will differ per teacher and student. Therefore, a textbook with ideas could probably serve as starting point, helping teachers to interpret the approach themselves, using the concepts of the L1 curriculum, talking to students, and experimenting with different interpretations of concept-context rich education. Further research can show whether concept-context rich education will be valuable to other L1 teachers or to teachers of other school subjects in which concept-context rich education is not embedded in the curriculum yet. According to the teachers who participated in this study, reflection on concepts, goals, and purposes of the curriculum is valuable to every teacher, also without an immediate purpose such as innovation (for instance the innovation of concept-context rich education).
As the findings of this study have shown, the “teacher as developer” approach can be of great significance to the revitalization of Dutch education, under specific circumstances (to be established by schools, teachers, and facilitators). Engaging teachers in curriculum development and allowing them to experiment with and include students' voices is a promising strategy for the improvement of education, but investments are needed. Time needs to be devoted to experimentation and
collaboration, only then will teachers be able to research and improve their practice.
This may add to a positive view on the teaching profession, making it more attractive
General conclusions and discussion
for prospective teachers. Teachers can and need to be able to professionalize themselves, gaining appreciation and recognition when they do so. The teachers in the study described in this thesis have shown that it can be done, and fortunately their supervisors and colleagues appreciated what they had accomplished in the project.
The conclusions of this thesis also have implications for teacher education programs where teachers are educated to acquire and employ a critical and research- like stance towards their practice, while remaining open to curriculum development and school improvement. The data in this thesis show that teachers can develop a reflective and critical stance towards their practice, provided they receive the proper facilitation to do so. Collaborative action research can aid in educating novice teachers in training to become developers as well. The necessary facilitation of this process can be provided by the teacher education program. To support teachers in their first and subsequent years of teaching, collaborative action-research groups can be organized by the teacher education programs, providing both novice and
experienced teachers with facilitation and support to develop and maintain their reflective and critical stance towards their own teaching practice. This in turn can provide teachers with challenging and inspiring collaboration, which, as shown by the research literature and the findings of this thesis, the teachers value greatly.
Possible ways to engage students in L1 education through collaborative action research consist of increasing student understanding, surveying students, and
generating student involvement in curriculum development. Participants in this study found ways to involve students in the development of the L1 curriculum, and by doing so increased the students' engagement in their learning. When provided with
information regarding the goals and content of the curriculum students can share their opinion on the curriculum and even add to it with assignments they develop. A next step might be to involve students in conducting action research themselves; this would familiarize them with the process of conducting research, encouraging them to acquire research skills and a critical attitude by participating in structured research projects. Action research by students might provide insight into how students can become engaged in their learning process and shed light on how this engagement can be extended to other parts of the curriculum. This type of action research differs from action research by teachers and other professionals who volunteer to participate in collaborative action research. Further research into student action research should therefore be handled with care, but the lessons learned in this study could provide the stepping stone for such a project.
