Dissertation final lr 6 17 21

The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School A CASE STUDY OF INQUIRY AS STANCE AMONG TEACHER CANDIDATES CONDUCTING PRACTITIONER INQUIRY IN A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL A Dissertation in Curriculum & Instruction by Logan Rutten © 2021 Logan Rutten Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2021 ii The dissertation of Logan Rutten was reviewed and approved by the following: Rachel Wolkenhauer Assistant Professor of Education (Curriculum & Instruction) Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Bernard Badiali Associate Professor of Education (Curriculum & Instruction) Amy Crosson Assistant Professor of Education (Curriculum & Instruction) Dana Mitra Professor of Education (Education Policy Studies) Kimberly Powell Professor of Education (Curriculum & Instruction), Art Education, Music Education, and Asian Studies Director of Graduate Studies in Curriculum & Instruction iii ABSTRACT Teacher educators broadly agree upon the need to prepare teachers who, as lifelong learners, are poised to meet the perpetually changing demands of teaching. One widely cited approach to addressing this need is to promote the development of an inquiry stance among teacher candidates by engaging them in the cyclical process of practitioner inquiry—the systematic, intentional study of their own professional practices. Although practitioner inquiry has become a common pedagogy within preservice teacher education programs, little is known about how the empirical dimensions of the construct, inquiry as stance, actually play out among teacher candidates as they inquire. In response, this case study was conducted in order to characterize inquiry stance among teacher candidates who were engaged in practitioner inquiry during clinical internships in the context of a professional development school (PDS).

This study features a case analysis of inquiry as stance within a PDS in which practitioner inquiry served as a signature pedagogy. Six teacher candidates each participated in a series of five semi-structured interviews as the study’s primary data source; documents and field notes from participant-observations served as secondary data sources. Interpreting these sources through a four-dimensional framework for inquiry as stance, the data were analyzed in a four-cycle, theory-led thematic analysis. This analysis led to the generation of themes and frameworks to describe the characteristics of each dimension of inquiry as stance as it played out in the study’s context.

The study’s findings indicate the diversity, complexity, and richness within the inquiry stance construct. The findings suggest the need for teacher educators, particularly those working within PDS contexts, to engage in ongoing professional learning in which iv the purposes of practitioner inquiry and inquiry as stance are continually questioned and deliberated. In addition to suggesting avenues for future research about inquiry stance, the study provides a warrant for expanded research on the learning of teacher educators, supervisors, and professional developers as well as the contributions of PDSs to the characteristics of teacher candidates’ inquiry stances. The study affirms the perennial relevance of promoting an inquiry stance as a worthy aim of teacher education.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES. viii LIST OF TABLES. 1 Background and Statement of the Research Problem. 2 Statement of Purposes and Research Question.

9 Overview of the Research Design. 10 Significance of the Study. 12 A REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 14 The Practitioner Inquiry Movement.

15 Demarcating the Movement: Definitions and Terminology. 15 Underpinnings of the Movement. 20 Research on Practitioner Inquiry in Preservice Teacher Education. 25 Practitioner Inquiry and Inquiry as Stance.

31 A Conceptual Framework for Inquiry as Stance. 31 Empirical Research on Inquiry Stance. 37 Toward an Analytic Framework for Studying Inquiry as Stance. 64 Linking Moderate Constructivism and Pragmatism to Qualitative Case Study.

66 Research Design and Methods. 71 Case Definition and Boundaries. 72 Identification of Case and Study Context. 74 Identification of Participants.

94 Issues of Research Ethics. 103 A Useful Framework for Describing a PDS as a Teacher Education Context. 108 The Historical Legacy of the PDS. 108 Roles and Relationships in the PDS.

114 vi Guiding Beliefs and Principles of the RVSU-RVSD PDS: The NAPDS Nine Essentials. 114 Support Structures in the PDS. 118 The Curriculum for Preservice Teacher Education in the PDS. 135 The Knowledge Dimension of Inquiry as Stance.

135 Perceiving Inquiry as a Requirement. 138 Perceiving Inquiry as a Community Expectation. 143 Becoming Curious About One’s Own and Others’ Knowing. 144 Claiming a Direction for Worthy Inquiry.

150 Valuing Inquiry as an Activity that Generates Worthy Knowledge. 155 Asserting Ownership Over the Generation of Worthy Knowledge. 156 The Community Dimension of Inquiry as Stance. 158 The Collaboration Continuum.

159 Seeking Input for Independent Inquiry. 161 Cultivating Inquiry Relationships. 168 The Structure Continuum. 171 Unstructured Inquiry Activities.

172 Loosely Structured Inquiry Talk. 174 Purposefully Structured Inquiry Talk. 178 Structured Inquiry Activities. 179 The Collaboration-Structure Compass: Teacher Candidates Inquiring in Community.

182 The Practice Dimension of Inquiry as Stance. 185 Problematizing and Reinventing Practice Through Inquiry. 187 Anywhere, Anytime, Anyone: Stretching the Legitimate Contexts for Inquiry. 188 The Purpose Dimension of Inquiry as Stance.

191 Process Completion Purpose. 197 Instrumental/Efficiency Purpose. 199 Social Change Purpose. 208 Conclusion and Chapter Summary.

210 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS. 218 For Local Practice. 219 For Teacher Education Programs. 227 vii Limitations, Opportunities for Future Research, and Conclusions.

239 APPENDIX A: CODE BOOK WITH A PRIORI CODES AND DEFINITIONS. 259 APPENDIX B: INQUIRY STANCE REFLECTION CHECKLIST. 261 APPENDIX C: MONTHLY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL. 262 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Cycle of inquiry, adapted from Dana et al.

17 Figure 2-2: Conceptual framework for inquiry as stance (Adapted from Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 34 Figure 2-3: Analytic framework for inquiry as stance (Adapted from Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 54 Figure 3-1: Crotty’s (1998) four-element framework for social research, synthesized with Yin’s (2018) five elements of case study research design. 61 Figure 3-2: Holistic, single-case study design, adapted from Yin (2018, p.

73 Figure 3-3: Systematic transcription process. 84 Figure 3-4: Process of four-cycle, theory-led thematic analysis. 105 Figure 4-2: Burns’s (2012) magnification of the connecting link in Zeichner’s (2006) framework. 106 Figure 4-3: Modification of Burns’s (2012) connecting link.

107 Figure 5-1: The project-stance continuum within the Knowledge dimension. 137 Figure 5-2: May’s annotations of the inquiry cycle (May, Interview 2/5, 2. 154 Figure 5-3: The collaboration continuum. 159 Figure 5-4: The structure continuum.

172 Figure 5-5: The collaboration-structure compass within the Community dimension. 182 Figure 5-6: Themes within the Practice dimension. 186 ix Figure 5-7: Overlapping, interconnected inquiry purposes within the Purpose dimension. 192 x LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Terminology for practitioner inquiry.

20 Table 3-1: Relevant documents by source and type. 87 Table 5-1: Project-stance continuum themes and illustrative quotations. 138 Table 5-2: Inquiry purposes, definitions, and illustrative quotations. 193 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would never have been possible without the support of many people, those named and those unnamed, whose generosity and kindness shaped these pages.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Rachel Wolkenhauer, my advisor and committee chair, for sparking my interest in practitioner inquiry, for continually challenging me as a scholar and teacher educator, and for her unwavering support. It has been the privilege of a lifetime to inquire alongside Dr. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to each of my committee members—Dr.

Bernard Badiali, Dr. Amy Crosson, Dr. Dana Mitra, and, prior to her retirement, Dr. I am particularly grateful to Dr.

Badiali for introducing me to the power of metaphor in supervision, for encouraging my persistent questions about methodology, and for his untold hours of steady mentorship. Crosson introduced me to the generative and joyful potential of integrative scholarship. She pushed me as a scholar and a writer, and she taught me the value of looking for inspiration in fields of study beyond my own. Mitra showed me how to challenge ideas firmly but with kindness.

She championed some of my earliest efforts at scholarly writing, and she taught me how to persevere through even the most daunting writing challenges. Kornhaber deepened my understanding of the power of a good question, and she encouraged my interest in qualitative research at a key juncture in my doctoral program. I am profoundly indebted to the six teacher candidates who participated in this study. They have taught me so much about how to teach teachers.

They cheerfully answered my endless questions and innumerable follow-ups. They dug through their xii papers and computer files to help with my inquiry, and they welcomed me into their own inquiries with open arms. They amazed me with their dedication to becoming students of their students, and they showed me how to become a better student of mine. I would like to thank all of the teachers in my life, especially those from the Bismarck Public Schools in Bismarck, North Dakota and from Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota.

In particular, I wish to acknowledge Mrs. Jo Lynde, Mrs. Debra Emerson, Ms. Linda Brandt, Mrs.

Ann Pearce, Dr. Edward Schmoll, Dr. Heather Waddell, Dr. Chabora, and Dr.

In the company of these, some of the greatest of my teachers, I include all of my students. If any of my students from the past, present, or future should happen to read these words, know that you are a constant source of wonder and inspiration. This work is for you. Many members of my family have been with me every step of the way.

My maternal grandmother, Mrs. Betty Bloomquist, cheered me on through the move to Pennsylvania and into graduate school. Her precious memory is a daily reminder of what it means to be a reader, a wonderer, and a lifelong learner. My aunt and uncle, Patricia and Gary Helfenstein, provided encouragement and the “toads of Irish love” that were needed both to start this degree and to see it through to the end.

As I pushed onward, my parents, Robert and Caryl Rutten, kept me grounded through long phone calls, stories from my home soil, and boundless love. My brother, Lucas Rutten, helped me keep a sense of humor and stay connected to the arts during graduate school. I reserve my final thanks for my duet partner, my best friend, and my wife, Heather Rutten, without whom I cannot imagine this journey. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This dissertation study investigated how the construct of inquiry as stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, 2009) played out among teacher candidates who were engaged in practitioner inquiry during clinical internships within the context of a professional development school (PDS).

The study sought to expand the literature on practitioner inquiry in preservice teacher education programs through an empirical analysis of one manifestation of inquiry as stance. The study also sought to create some useful and potentially transferrable tools that could inform the work of teacher educators, supervisors, and other people who are responsible for supporting the development of teacher candidates. To achieve these aims, the researcher adopted a case study methodology and developed a case analysis that was synthesized from the perspectives of the study’s participants as revealed through interviews, documents, and participant- observations. Six teacher candidates who were conducting practitioner inquiry—the systematic, intentional study by educators of their own professional practices (Cochran- Smith & Lytle, 1993, 2009)—participated in this study during their clinical internships in a PDS in which teacher educators widely regarded practitioner inquiry as a signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) for developing teacher candidates’ inquiry stances.

Chapter 1 opens the dissertation with an explanation and justification of the research problem that was addressed by this study. Next, the study’s purposes and research question are presented, followed by an overview of the research design. Then, the study’s significance is situated within the fields of teacher education and PDS 2 scholarship. The chapter concludes with a brief summary and an overview of the dissertation’s subsequent chapters.