Today is the second and final post in a series on teacher “action research.” Part One viewed it through how the concept has typically been viewed over the years. Today’s post seeks to broaden what it might look like in practice.

‘Lab Classrooms’

Melanie Desmuke-Battles is the founder of Scholars for the Soul: An Educational Solutions Firm. She is an educational consultant, keynote speaker, and leadership coach specializing in culturally responsive teaching, instructional equity, and building systems that support the wellness and growth of both students and educators:

Perfectionism harms both teachers and students. Culturally responsive lab classrooms help educators normalize errors, grow together, and strengthen instructional equity.

Perfectionism: A Silent Barrier

The art of teaching and learning is grounded in our ability to see a need and meet a need. Yet, one of the most damaging concepts in the teaching profession is the fallacy of perfectionism. It convinces teachers that if students don’t quickly demonstrate understanding and proficiency of a standard, something must be inherently wrong with them as educators. This deficit-based thinking erodes confidence and competence, while also negatively affecting students.

Lab Classrooms as Teacher Action Research

To address this, I work with school leadership teams to incorporate culturally responsive lab classrooms that center teacher action research as a pathway for growth and development. These teams typically include the school principal, academic-centered administrators, instructional coaches, and a core group of teacher leaders.

The goal is to build schoolwide capacity by empowering teachers to lead one another through modeling, observing, and providing feedback. This process helps normalize the errors and emotions that naturally come with teaching humans and positions teachers to merge their intentions with impact.

How Lab Classrooms Work

Lab classrooms are designed as collaborative spaces where teachers learn from each other through observation and reflection. The process can be broken down into three core steps:

Step 1: Observation with Purpose: Teachers observe a colleague in action with a focused lens on a specific instructional strategy or practice. They not only watch for the targeted strategy but also notice the small moves and nuances their peers are making that bring clarity to areas where they may have struggled.

Step 2: Debrief and Dialogue: Afterward, the observing teachers engage in a debriefing session. They ask questions about preparation, mindset, emotions, and even the errors the model teacher experienced. This conversation normalizes the emotional side of teaching while highlighting the intentional decisionmaking behind practice.

Step 3: Reflection and Application: Teachers reflect on what they observed and discussed, then consider how to apply new insights in their own classrooms. This step emphasizes resilience and helps teachers turn shared learning into actionable growth.

Building Collective Teacher Resilience

The lab classroom model supports professional growth by making teacher learning visible and collaborative. Teachers move beyond surface-level techniques into deeper discussions about practice, decisionmaking, and emotional realities. Normalizing errors and emotions in this way strengthens both individual resilience and team cohesion.

This approach also helps align teaching practices with a shared vision for instructional equity and excellence. Teachers learn to merge their intentions with actual impact, ensuring that strategies not only meet content goals but also serve the holistic needs of students.

Data, Vision, and Cohesion

Lab classrooms function as a form of teacher action research that provides clarity and cohesion to the school’s vision. The insights gained from observing, debriefing, and reflecting can be paired with numerical data to create a fuller picture of student achievement and behavior. Instructional teams can then test the effectiveness of strategies by combining teacher input with student outcomes.

The ultimate goal of teacher action research is to maximize teacher potential and optimize the learning experience for students. As teachers gain confidence and competence in their capacity, students mirror this growth—developing resilience, agency, and a stronger belief in their ability to learn.

Creating ‘Two-Way Conversations’

Kate Roberts is a literacy consultant, author, and speaker, beginning her career teaching in Brooklyn, N.Y., before fully dedicating her time to supporting educators across the country. She has written four books on teaching and focuses on making high ideals feel effective and sustainable within the reality of schools.

Rachael Gabriel is an assistant professor of literacy education at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education.  Rachael began her career in education as a middle school teacher in the District of Columbia. Since then, she has worked as a literacy specialist, new-teacher adviser and intervention provider:

The beginning of the year is marked by a set of professional development sessions and learning community meetings where people often share “what the research says” to direct what teachers should do.  One thing we have noticed about the research-teaching relationship in these settings is that it is often a one-way street. 

Research says, teachers listen, and the assumption is that they then turn around and do something that matches what was said.  This one-way, linear relationship doesn’t leave much room for the knowledge and questions that teachers come to the table with, so we have been thinking a lot about what happens when leaders, researchers, and others listen as much as they talk. 

For example, research points to teaching students to control grammar conventions in the context of authentic writing, as opposed to teaching drill-and-grill workbook-style lessons most of the time. At the same time, when we listen to teachers, we see that the picture is actually more complex than “teach grammar in context.” One colleague asserts that doing those workbook quick tries really helps her to see potential small groups.

Another says that he needs the structure and clarity of the worksheets sometimes with his class because they thrive with direction and are working on their ability to be independent. Another colleague reminds the group of the professional development person who said that research also strongly supports direct instruction, explicit practice, and repetition, which can contrast the research surrounding grammar being taught in context. 

When we pair the context of our particular school or classroom with what the research says, the conversation gets both more complex and more useful. We can start to see how the research can fit within the reality of our experience, within the confines of our restrictions, within the nuances and needs of our community. But this requires leaders, coaches, and admin to learn to listen deeply to classroom practitioners. 

There are, of course, many ways to listen to teachers. One channel that is almost always available is that we can listen to teachers by listening to their complaints. We all know that one colleague—or maybe you are that one colleague—who never hesitates to raise their hand and let the room know what they are thinking. The one who insists on naming the trouble, the things that aren’t working.  Hopefully, they/you/we are professional about it all (although we have all had our moments), but even if the delivery is harsh, or hyperbolic, or unfair, there is often gold underneath the griping. 

So leaders: The next time someone in the room grouses about how that will never work, or what about the other initiative that contradicts this, or we don’t have time … stop.  Click into what they are saying. Try to look past any issues you have with their delivery and see if you can hear what is underneath.

What are they really saying? Are they saying that they are overwhelmed and need something off their plate? Are they saying that they prefer and see as more valuable a different approach from the one the “research says” will work? This allows you to put the research into conversation about the troubles that arise in practice.

In that grammar PD, when the facilitator says that research points to authentic writing as the basis for grammar instruction, and a colleague raises their hand to say yeah but, and says this approach doesn’t work, we can use these guides to help us create a two-way conversation.

1. What is underneath the complaint?

X is complaining because direct grammar instruction feels easier and worked better for some kids. 

2. What matters about what the research says?

That ALL grammar instruction isn’t a workbook, to take what we’ve practiced to the page.

3. How can we meet in the middle? 

Create sample units/schedules that reflect different balancing of authentic versus constructed learning experiences and allow teachers to try.

When practitioners complain, it’s wise to listen, if we want what the research “says” to find its ways into the teaching and learning of school. 

Thanks to Melanie, Kate, and Rachael for contributing their thoughts.

Responses today answered this question:

How would you define teacher “action research,” what are some examples of it, and how would an educator do it?

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at lferlazzo@epe.org. When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on X at @Larryferlazzo or on Bluesky at @larryferlazzo.bsky.social

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email. And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 13 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here.